American Canyon City Council
February 21, 2023

Table 3.2-14: Summary of Construction Health Risks at the Maximum Impacted Receptor Impact Scenario
Cancer Risk1
(risk per million)
Chronic Non-Cancer
Hazard Index2
TAC Concentration3
(µg/m3)
Residential MIR Impact (Cold Storage Scenario)
Scenario 1
(Phase 1 Construction) 0.44 <0.01 <0.01
Scenario 2
(Phase 2 Construction, Phase 1 Operation) 1.44 <0.01 0.01 Scenario 3
(Phase 1, Phase 2 Operation) 0.22 0.01 0.04
32 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2016. BAAQMD Air Toxics NSR Program Health Risk Assessment Guidelines.

December. Website: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/permitmodeling/hra_guidelines_12_7_2016_clean-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed September 16, 2021. 249
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Air Quality
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-61
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec03-02 Air Quality.docx Impact Scenario
Cancer Risk1
(risk per million)
Chronic Non-Cancer
Hazard Index2
TAC Concentration3
(µg/m3)
Total (30 Year Duration) 2.10 0.01 0.05
Thresholds of Significance 10 1 0.3
Exceeds Individual Source Threshold? No No No
School MIR Impact (Cold Storage Scenario)
Scenario 1
(Phase 1 Construction) 0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Scenario 2
(Phase 2 Construction, Phase 1 Operation) 0.03 <0.01 <0.01 Scenario 3
(Phase 1, Phase 2 Operation) <0.20 <0.01 <0.01
Total (30 Year Duration) 0.24 <0.01 <0.01
Thresholds of Significance 10 1 0.3
Exceeds Individual Source Threshold? No No No
Notes:

PM2.5 = particulate matter, including dust, 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter REL = reference exposure level DPM = diesel particulate matter TAC = toxic air contaminants MIR = Maximally Impacted Sensitive Receptor µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter 1 Cancer risk is identified by multiplying the risk sum from HARP2 by 1,000,000. 2 Chronic non-cancer hazard index was estimated by dividing the annual DPM concentration (as PM2.5 exhaust) by the DPM REL of 5 µg/m3. 3 TAC concentration taken from AERMOD is always at the MIR identified from the project air dispersion models. The residential MIR was located at 38.20613°N -122.25739°E and the school MIR was identified as the Calvary Baptist Christian Academy.

Emissions Source: Appendix B.

Thresholds Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2017. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. May. Website: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-andresearch/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed April 15, 2021.

As shown in Table 3.2-14, the proposed project would not result in significant health impacts to the maximally impacted residential or school receptors under the cold storage scenario. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant health risk impacts.

Community Health Risk Assessment
A community HRA was conducted in accordance with BAAQMD recommendations. The cumulative health risk values were determined by adding the health risk values from refined modeling of the proposed project to the screening-level health risk values from each individual stationary and mobile source within a 1,000-foot radius of the site. The HRA concluded that the main source of a cumulative community health risk within 1,000 of the project site are the existing sources. The analysis results presented in the HRA, contained in Appendix B, are shown in Table 3.2-15. As shown therein, health risks to nearby sensitive receptors would not exceed the BAAQMD community health risk significance thresholds. As the proposed project did not result in an exceedance of project-level BAAQMD significance thresholds, the proposed project would not result in a potentially significant impact and the proposed project’s impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
250
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Air Quality Draft EIR

3.2-62 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec03-02 Air Quality.docx Table 3.2-15: Summary of Construction Health Risks at the Maximum Impacted Receptor Source Source Type
Distance
from MIR1
(feet)
Cancer Risk
(per million)
Chronic
HI
PM2.5
Concentration
(µg/m3)
Project
Residential MIR Diesel Construction
Equipment, Trucking
Fleets, and Passenger
Vehicles
1,860 2.10 0.01 0.05
Existing Stationary Sources (BAAQMD Facility Number)2
California Stonecraft
Facility ID 24284
Polyester Resin
Operation 1,455 ND <0.01 ND
William Kreysler and Assoc Inc
Facility ID 12852
Polyester Resin
Operation, Solvent
Cleaning
1,440 ND <0.01 ND
City of American
Canyon/Accounts Payable
Facility ID 14432
Generators 450 0.12 0.00 0.00
All Bay Mill and Lumber Co
Facility ID 4793 Woodworking 2,085 ND ND 0.11
Ikea
Facility ID 200845 Generators 1,750 61.11 0.02 0.08
Roadways
Existing Local Roadway Network – 0.11 ND <0.01
Rail
Existing Rail Lines (California Northern Railroad) 140 4.87 ND 0.01 Freeways
Existing Freeways (Highway 29) 225 5.58 ND 0.10
Cumulative Health Risks
Cumulative Maximum with Project DPM Emissions 73.89 0.03 0.35 BAAQMD’s Cumulative Thresholds of Significance 100 10 0.8 Threshold Exceedance? No No No
Notes:

MIR = Maximally Impacted Sensitive Receptor BAAQMD = Bay Area Air Quality Management District µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter HI = health index
DPM = diesel particulate matter PM2.5 = particulate matter, including dust, 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter ND = No Data
1 The residential MIR located at 38.20613°N -122.25739°E was identified as the primary MIR here as it would experience the greatest health impact between residential and school receptors. 2 Assumes emissions remain constant with time. Values represent the greatest identified among all MIRs presented in this analysis, including the two previously identified residences and the previously identified school.

Source: Appendix B.
251
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Air Quality
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-63
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec03-02 Air Quality.docx Carbon Monoxide Hotspot
As discussed in Impact AIR-2, the proposed project would not generate sufficient vehicle traffic during project operation to substantiate creating a CO hotspot. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant with regard to exposing sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of CO emissions. As such, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to exposing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
None Required.

Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact.

Objectionable Odors Exposure
Impact AIR-4: The proposed project would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.

Impact Analysis
Construction
During construction activities, construction equipment exhaust and application of asphalt and architectural coatings would temporarily generate odors. Any construction-related odor emissions would be temporary and intermittent. Additionally, noxious odors would be confined to the immediate vicinity of the construction equipment. It is anticipated that by the time such emissions reach any sensitive receptor sites, they would be diluted to well below any air quality or odor concern level. Therefore, construction odor impacts would be less than significant.

Operation
The proposed project would construct and operate a logistics center including at least three warehouse buildings intended for distribution centers. Operation of this type of project would likely not generate objectionable odors that may affect a substantial number of nearby receptors. The types of uses that are considered to have objectionable odors include wastewater treatments plants, compost facilities, landfills, solid waste transfer stations, fiberglass manufacturing facilities, paint/coating operations (e.g., auto body shops), dairy farms, petroleum refineries, asphalt batch plants, chemical manufacturing, and food manufacturing facilities. Though the specific uses of the buildings have not been determined, it is not anticipated that a wastewater treatment plant or solid waste transfer station would be accommodated at the project site.

As shown previously in Table 3.2-8, food manufacturing plants and chemical manufacturing have odor screening distances of one mile and two miles, respectively, from the facility to sensitive receptors. Sensitive receptors surrounding the project site within these screening distances are generally to the south and consist of school and residential land uses. Thus, as the future tenants 252
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Air Quality Draft EIR

3.2-64 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec03-02 Air Quality.docx propose the land use for distribution and/or sortation facilities, implementation of the proposed project would not create or expose a substantial number of people to objectionable odors, a potentially significant impact. As such, this impact would be less than significant.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact.
253
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Biological Resources
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.3-1
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-03 Bio Resources.docx

3.3 - Biological Resources

3.3.1 - Introduction
This section describes the existing biological setting and potential effects from project implementation on the project site and the surrounding area. This section also identifies mitigation measures to reduce these potential effects to less than significant levels. Descriptions and analysis in this section are based in part on a Biological Resources Report performed by Huffman-Broadway Group, Inc. (HBG) in May 2021, provided in Appendix C.

3.3.2 - Environmental Setting
Climate
The project site is located in the City of American Canyon, which is part of the greater north San Francisco Bay Area. Like other portions of Northern California, American Canyon experiences a Mediterranean climate characterized by warm, dry summers and cool, wet winters. The project area typically exhibits annual low/high temperatures between 40-80°F (degrees Fahrenheit) and an annual average rainfall of approximately 20 inches.

Hydrology
The 208-acre project site is currently undeveloped land. The headwaters of No Name Creek occur within the northwestern portion of the project site. No Name Creek flows off the site at the northwestern corner of the property into the Napa Logistics Park Wetland Preserve. The drainage is hydrologically connected to Fagan Slough, which flows into the Napa River. The majority of wetlands that occur throughout the site and are supported by direct precipitation.

Topography and Soils
The majority of the project site is relatively flat at approximately 40 feet mean sea level and a total elevation variance of 30 feet. The project site generally slopes at about 0 to 2 percent with two highpoints to the southeast and southwest of the gradually sloping north toward No Name Creek.

Although the remaining portions of the project site are relatively flat, grazing and inundation in topographic low areas has created a hummocky landscape with depressional microrelief. As a result, there are small seasonal wetlands and swales scattered throughout the site. Other large, and deep wetlands occur on the eastern and southern portions of the site. In the southeastern portion of the project site a berm confines surface water sheet flows creating several inundated depressional features.

Soil survey information for the project site was obtained from the National Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey.1 Three different soil types were mapped by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) within the project site. The mapped soil units include Clear Lake clay 1 Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2021. Official Soil Series Descriptions. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Website: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/. Accessed May 2021. 254
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Biological Resources Draft EIR

3.3-2 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-03 Bio Resources.docx drained (116), 0 to 2 percent slopes, Haire loam (146), 2 to 9 percent slopes, and Haire clay loam (148), 2 to 9 percent slopes. Exhibit 3.3-1 provides a soils map.

Plant Communities
Plant communities are assemblages of plant species growing in an area of similar biological and environmental factors. The project site contains three plant communities, as shown in Exhibit 3.3-2:

Annual Grassland, Seasonal Wetlands (also referred to as palustrine emergent wetlands according to Cowardin classification) and Vernal Pool. This identification of habitat types on the property matches the findings of Monk & Associates as stated in their wetland delineation technical letter report submitted to the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 2 and Helm Biological Consulting as
described in their rare plant survey. An inventory of plant species found on the project site during biological studies conducted by Monk & Associates is provided in the HBG report (Appendix C).

Annual Grassland
The Annual Grassland on the project site consist of naturalized annual grasslands, dominated by introduced annual grasses and forbs,. Dominant non-native annual grass species on the project site include Italian ryegrass (Festuca perennis), Mediterranean barely (Hordeum marinum ssp. gussoneanum), medusa head (Elymus caput-medusae), and soft chess (Bromus hordeaceus).

Common non-native forbs found on the project site include bird’s foot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus), subterranean clover (Trifolium subterranean), broadleaf filaree (Erodium botrys), English plantain (Plantago lanceolata), yellow glandweed (Parentucellia viscosa), Mediterranean linseed (Bellardia trixago), spring vetch (Vicia sativa), and bristly ox-tongue (Helminthotheca echioides). Native forbs and wildflowers were also present and include yellow owl’s clover (Triphysaria versicolor ssp. faucibarbata), hayfield tarplant (Hemizonia congesta ssp. luzulifolia), and coastal tarweed (Deinandra corymbosa). Other common species noted by HBG Biologists during winter surveys in 2020 included species such as Harding grass (Phalaris aquatica), rip-gut brome (Bromus diandrus), field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), and sweet fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), and scattered coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis) and Himalaya berry (Rubus armeniacus) around the edges of the property.

Seasonal Wetland
The seasonal wetland habitat is referenced throughout this document and the supporting studies as palustrine emergent wetlands or seasonal wetlands. The seasonal wetlands on the property are vegetated with a variety of native and non-native species adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Monk & Associates and Helm Biological Consulting noted the vegetation in the seasonal wetlands as being dominated by mix of native and non-native species such as Italian ryegrass, rabbit's foot grass (Polypogon monspeliensis), ditch beard grass (Polypogon interruptus), Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), curly dock (Rumex crispus), Baltic rush (Juncus balticus ssp. ater), Mediterranean barley (Hordeum marinum ssp. gussoneanum), saltgrass (Distichlis spicata), pennyroyal (Mentha pulegium), rough cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium), tall flat-sedge (Cyperus eragrostis), and swamp timothy (Crypsis schoenoides), and in some areas of deeper inundation, 2 Monk & Associates. 2016. Request for a Confirmed/Approved Jurisdictional Determination Aquatic Resources Delineation Report, Giovannoni Property, City of American Canyon, Napa County, California. Letter from Hope Kingma of Monk & Associates to Holly Costa of the San Francisco Regulatory Division of the United States Army Corps of Engineers August 29, 2016. 255
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Biological Resources
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.3-3
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-03 Bio Resources.docx broadleaf cattail (Typha latifolia). Plants noted in the seasonal wetlands during winter surveys conducted by HBG included species such as annual hairgrass (Descampsia danthanoides), Mediterranean barley, saltgrass, pennyroyal, rough cocklebur, tall flat-sedge, and swamp timothy, and in some areas of deeper inundation, broadleaf cattail.3 Vernal Pool
Vernal pools on the property are dominated with a variety of native species adapted for life in seasonally flooded depressions. Monk and Associates and Helm Biological Consulting4 noted the vegetation in the vernal pool wetlands as being dominated by primarily native species such as annual semaphore grass (Pleuropogon californicus var. californicus), and creeping spikerush (Eleocharis macrostachya). Other subdominant species included: water pygmy weed (Crassula aquatica), common spike rush (Eleocharis macrostachya), smooth goldfields (Lasthenia glaberrima), Jepson’s button celery (Eryngium aristulatum var. aristulatum), and hyssop loosestrife (Lythrum hyssopifolia), along with a few non-native wetland species such as rabbit’s foot grass and brass buttons (Cotula coronopifolia).

Wildlife
The project site provides limited habitat for wildlife species, mostly those adapted to open areas and farm fields and disturbed environments. Grasses and herbaceous plants within the project site provide limited nesting and roosting sites for birds, and cover and foraging habitat for species of birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians. Seasonal wetlands provide wildlife with a seasonal water source that supports various animal species during the winter and spring months and sometimes into the early summer. Amphibians will lay their eggs in seasonal wetland habitats and complete much of their life cycle in the wetlands. No Name Creek would be considered a wildlife corridor, but the property is nearly entirely surrounded by development so the extent of wildlife corridors on the property is limited.

A number of wildlife species were documented during a winter season survey conducted at the project site by HBG on December 10, 2020. All species documented at the site are common to abundant in the region and would be expected in the non-native grasslands and seasonal wetlands present at the site. Bird species documented included various species adapted to grasslands and open areas including Canada goose (Branta canadensis), California gull (Larus californicus), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), Eurasian collared-dove (Streptopelia decaocto), rock pigeon (Columba livia), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), common raven (Corvus corax), black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), Say’s phoebe (Sayornis saya), savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis), red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus), and western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta). Other species in taller vegetation and landscaping around the edges of the site and just off-site included California scrub-jay (Aphelocoma californica), bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), European starling (Sturnis vulgaris), white-crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia 3 Monk & Associates. 2016. Request for a Confirmed/Approved Jurisdictional Determination Aquatic Resources Delineation Report, Giovannoni Property, City of American Canyon, Napa County, California. Letter from Hope Kingma of Monk & Associates to Holly Costa of the San Francisco Regulatory Division of the United States Army Corps of Engineers August 29, 2016. 4 Helm Biological Consulting. 2021. Protocol-Level Special-Status Plant Survey at the Giovannoni Logistics Center Project, Napa County, California. August 2021.
256
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Biological Resources Draft EIR

3.3-4 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-03 Bio Resources.docx leucophrys), California towhee (Melozone crissalis), house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus), and lesser goldfinch (Spinus psaltria). Raptors (birds of prey) observed foraging over the grasslands and wetlands of the project site were fairly common during the winter survey and included American kestrel (Falco sparverius), white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), northern harrier (Circus hudsonius), and turkey vulture (Cathartes aura).5 HBG conducted a spring season site reconnaissance surveys on April 16 and May 24, 2021, on the project site. Many of the bird species observed included species observed during the winter, but additional resident species observed during the April and May visits included ring-necked pheasant (Phasianus colchicus), wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo), great blue heron (Ardea herodia), great egret (Ardea alba), and killdeer (Charadrius vociferus). Additional species added during the spring survey included spring arrivals of migrant species. Breeding season raptor observations included foraging northern harrier (a State designated Species of Special Concern for nesting habitat that was also observed foraging over the site in winter), as well as foraging by State listed threatened Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni). A California Fully Protected golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) was also observed over the project site being harassed by the Swainson’s hawk and flying low exhibiting foraging behavior. These three special-status raptor species have nested in this part of Napa County in the past, and it is entirely possible these individuals could be nesting somewhere in the vicinity of the project site. HBG drove about 10 miles of local roads surrounding the project site during both the April and May 2021 field reviews to inspect trees for raptor nest structures. No Swainson’s hawk nest structures were observed. Additional species observed in the spring survey included cliff swallow (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota) and barn swallow (Hirundo rustica).

During their biological studies related to the Green Island Road Widening and Devlin Road Extension projects in 2018 and 2019, Monk & Associates observed several species of waterfowl and shorebirds in the on-site seasonal wetlands. These species were not observed during the December 10, 2020, or April 16, 2021, surveys by HBG as surface ponding was lacking on the site then due to the paucity of rain. These species included mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), American wigeon (Anas americana), greater yellowlegs (Tringa melanoleuca), long-billed curlew (Numenius americanus), marbled godwit (Limosa fedoa), western sandpiper (Calidris mauri), and Wilson’s snipe (Gallinago delicata).

No amphibians were documented on the property by HBG, but Pacific treefrog (Pseudacris regilla) was noted by Monk & Associates Biologists while studying the Green Island Road Extension. Reptile sightings at the site by HBG included western fence lizard (Sceloperus occidentalis); other reptiles likely include Pacific gopher snake (Pituophis catenifer) and common garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis elegans). Observed evidence of mammals on the site by HBG were black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus), dens of Botta’s pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae) and California vole (Microtus californicus), several California ground squirrels (Otospermophilus beecheyi) in a rubble pile in the southwestern portion of the site, and three mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) in the southeastern portion of the property. Monk & Associates apparently observed raccoon (Procyon lotor) while conducting studies for the Devlin Road Extension project. 6 Other expected mammals would be those
5 Huffman-Broadway Group, Inc. 2021. Biological Resources Report, Giovannoni Logistics Center, American Canyon, California. San Rafael, California. 52 pp. plus attachments. Prepared for Buzz Oates Construction, Inc., Sacramento, California. May 2021. 6 Monk & Associates. 2018. Biological Resource Analysis, Devlin Road/Vine Trail Extension project, City of American Canyon, California. Prepared for GHD Inc., Santa Rosa, California. October 15, 2018 257
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Biological Resources
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.3-5
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-03 Bio Resources.docx adapted to disturbed, urban environments such as Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus), and striped skunk, (Mephitis mephitis).

Special-Status Species
Special-status species include those species listed by the federal and state governments as endangered, threatened, or rare or candidate species for these lists. Endangered or threatened species are protected by the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 as amended, the California Native Plant Protection Act of 1977, and the California Endangered Species Act of 1970. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) provides additional protection for unlisted species that meet the “rare” or “endangered” criteria defined in Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15380. Special-status species also include those species listed by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) as Species of Concern which face extirpation in California if current population and habitat trends continue, those identified as Fully Protected in the California Fish and Game Code (a designation that provides additional protection to those animals that are rare or face possible extinction), and bird species designated as Bird Species of Conservation Concern by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). These State and federal Species of Concern must be evaluated in the context of evaluation under CEQA. Under Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15380, mentioned above, many Biologists and the lead agencies for whom they work evaluate impacts to plant species on California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Lists 1 and 2. Specialstatus species included in CEQA review also include bat species that have been designated with conservation priority by the Western Bat Working Group.

The CDFW maintains records for the distribution and known occurrences of special-status species and sensitive habitats in the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). The CNDDB is organized into map areas based on 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle maps produced by the United States Geologic Survey (USGS). All known occurrences of special-status species are mapped onto quadrangle maps maintained by the CNDDB. The database gives further detailed information on each occurrence, including specific location of the individual, population, or habitat (if possible) and the presumed current state of the population or habitat. The project site is within the Cuttings Wharf 7.5-minute Topographic Quadrangle Map.

Special-Status Plant Species
A list of special-status plants with potential to occur on the project site was developed from the CNDDB. A complete list of special-status plant species occurring in the vicinity of the property is included in the HBG report (Appendix C). The table includes all species of flora mentioned in the CNDDB within approximately 10 miles of the site.

No special-status plants have been mapped on or adjacent the project site. However, according to the CNPS Inventory and the CDFW CNDDB, a number of special-status plant species are known to occur in the project site vicinity. No special-status plants were identified on the project site by Monk & Associates while conducting various studies on the property in 2016, including an aquatic resources delineation and other evaluations conducted during the March to July flowering season of 258
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Biological Resources Draft EIR

3.3-6 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-03 Bio Resources.docx 2016.7 No special-status plants or milkweed species (Asclepias ssp.) were identified on the project site by Helm Biological Consulting while conducting the protocol-level special-status plant survey conducted on April 7, 2021, May 4, 2021, and May 17, 2021.

Special-Status Wildlife
Animal species noted in the CNDDB as occurring within a 10-mile radius of the site, or that are known to occur in the general vicinity based on the knowledge of HBG Biologists, are discussed in in the HBG report (Appendix C). A number of special-status animal species are noted in the CNDDB as occurring in the general vicinity of the project site with habitat requirements similar to the habitats present on the project site. These species include vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi), California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii), western pond turtle (Emmys marmorata), Swainson’s hawk, golden eagle, northern harrier, burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) and tricolored blackbird (Aegelaius tricolor). The CDFW is also concerned over rapid declines in populations of monarch butterflies (Danuas plexippus) and a discussion of this species in relation to the proposed project is also discussed in the 2021 HBG report.
8 None of the other animal species discussed in the table have the potential to occur on the site. This finding is made based on the habitat requirements of species listed in the table and is based on field review of habitats present at the site and the immediate vicinity and an evaluation of the suitability of on-site habitats to support these species.

Wetlands
Recovery Plan for Vernal Pool Ecosystems of California and Southern Oregon Region 1 of the USFWS developed the “Recovery Plan for Vernal Pool Ecosystems of California and Southern Oregon” dated December 15, 2005. The recovery plan covers 33 species of plants and animals that occur exclusively or primarily within a vernal pool ecosystem in California and southern Oregon. The recovery plan goals include protecting and conserving intact vernal pools and vernal pool complexes within the recovery planning area to maintain viable populations of listed species and species of concern and prevent additional threats from emerging over time. The recovery plan includes designated “core” areas that are specific sites necessary to recover these endangered or threatened species or to conserve the species of concern addressed in this recovery plan.

The project site is near two core areas referred to as the “Napa River Core Area.” One core area is located approximately 2.5 miles northeast of the project site at the Highway 12 and 121 interchange.

The second Napa River Core Area is adjacent to the project site near the northwest boundary of the Wetland Preserve area. The project site itself is not within a core area.

The project site does support 0.13-acre of vernal pool habitat located within the 45-acre Wetland Preserve area and 1.13-acres of vernal pool habitat within the Phase 2 project footprint. 7 Monk & Associates. 2016. Request for a Confirmed/Approved Jurisdictional Determination Aquatic Resources Delineation Report, Giovannoni Property, City of American Canyon, Napa County, California. Letter from Hope Kingma of Monk & Associates to Holly Costa of the San Francisco Regulatory Division of the United States Army Corps of Engineers August 29, 2016. 8 Huffman-Broadway Group, Inc. 2021. Biological Resources Report, Giovannoni Logistics Center, American Canyon, California. San Rafael, California. 52 pp. plus attachments. Prepared for Buzz Oates Construction, Inc., Sacramento, California. May 2021. 259
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Biological Resources
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.3-7
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-03 Bio Resources.docx Aquatic Resources Delineation Results
The Aquatic Resources Delineation Map prepared by Monk & Associates was submitted to the San Francisco District of the USACE on August 29, 2016, and was confirmed by letter from the USACE dated November 8, 2016. The wetlands found on the project site as mapped by Monk & Associates and verified by the USACE are provided in Attachment 4 of the HBG report. The mapped areas classified as wetlands exhibited a dominance of hydrophytic vegetation, as well as hydric soils and wetland hydrology. Hydrological indicators in mapped wetlands included the presence of oxidized rhizospheres along living roots (C3), surface soil cracks (B6), algal matting (Biotic Crust B12), aquatic invertebrates (B13), and vegetation suppression (indicating long-term inundation) within these wetland areas. Evidence of hydric soils included Redox Dark Surface F6 and Depleted Matrix F3 as defined in the approved regional supplement for the Arid West Region and the Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States.

The majority of the seasonal wetlands on the project site gradually drain north toward No Name Creek. No Name Creek, within the project site, does not exhibit an ordinary high water mark (OHWM), and is therefore categorized as a seasonal wetland. No Name Creek flows off the project site to the west and enters the adjacent Napa River Core Area before draining into Fagan Slough, a tidal water of the United States. Fagan Slough is tributary to the Napa River, a traditional navigable water that flows to San Pablo Bay. Therefore, the 11.93 acres of seasonal wetlands in the north and southwest corner of the site are regulated as “waters of the United States” pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and are subject to USACE jurisdiction (see Attachment 4 of the HBG report). Several features in the southeastern portion of the project site are mapped as “isolated” seasonal wetlands since they do not have hydrologic connectivity to any water of the United States.

The “isolated” features are contained within discrete topographic depressions, surrounded by uplands and berms that are higher in elevation, thereby isolating these features from any water of the United States. A total of 0.84 acre of “isolated” features that are mapped on the project site are not subject to USACE jurisdiction as shown on Exhibit 6.

The total area of USACE jurisdictional wetlands mapped on the project site is 11.93 acres. The total area of “isolated” wetlands mapped on the project site is 0.84 acre. HBG has determined that the areas mapped as isolated wetlands and not subject to jurisdiction of the USACE under the federal CWA would be subject to the wetland criteria of the State Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act and the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (San Francisco Bay RWQCB) as a water of the State. A total of 12.77 acres of wetlands would be subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay RWQCB as waters of the State. The portion of the project site along the northern boundary of the site contained within the confines of No Name Creek would be subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the CDFW under Fish and Game Code Section 1602.
260
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Biological Resources Draft EIR

3.3-8 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-03 Bio Resources.docx

3.3.3 - Regulatory Framework
Federal
Clean Water Act–Section 404
The USACE regulates discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States under Section 404 of the CWA. “Discharge of fill material” is defined as the addition of fill material into waters of the United States, including but not limited to the following: placement of fill that is necessary for the construction of any structure, or impoundment requiring rock, sand, dirt, or other material for its construction; site-development fills for recreational, industrial, commercial, residential, and other uses; causeways or road fills; and fill for intake and outfall pipes and subaqueous utility lines (33 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] § 328.2(f)). In addition, Section 401 of the CWA (33 United States Code [USC] 1341) requires any applicant for a federal license or permit to conduct any activity that may result in a discharge of a pollutant into waters of the United States to obtain a certification that the discharge will comply with the applicable effluent limitations and water quality standards.

The USACE and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are responsible for implementing the Section 404 program. Section 404(a) authorizes the USACE to issue permits, after notice and opportunity for comment, for discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of United States. Section 404(b) requires that the USACE issue permits in compliance with EPA guidelines, which are known as the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. Specifically, the Section 404(b)(1) guidelines require that the USACE only authorize the “least environmentally damaging practicable alternative” and include all practicable measures to avoid and minimize impacts to the aquatic ecosystem. The guidelines also prohibit discharges that would cause significant degradation of the aquatic environment or violate State water quality standards.

Waters of the United States include both wetlands and “other waters of the United States.” Wetlands and other waters of the United States are described by the EPA and USACE regulations (40 CFR § 230.3(s) and 33 CFR § 328.3(a), respectively). The EPA and USACE define wetlands as “ . . . those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions” (EPA regulations at 40 CFR § 230.3(t); USACE regulations at 33 CFR § 328.3(b)). Both natural and man-made wetlands and other waters (not vegetated by a dominance of rooted emergent vegetation) are subject to regulation. Waters of the United States include a range of wet environments such as lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, and wet meadows.

The geographic extent of wetlands is defined by the collective presence of a dominance of wetland vegetation, wetland hydrology conditions, and wetland soil conditions as determined following the USACE 1987 Wetlands Delineation Manual (1987 Manual); the USACE 2008 Regional Supplement to Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West, Version 2.0 (Arid West Regional Supplement); and supporting guidance documents. The geographic extent of other waters of the United States is defined by an OHWM in non-tidal waters (33 CFR § 328.3€) and by the high tide line within tidal waters (33 CFR § 328.3(d)). The OHWM is defined by the USACE as “that line on shore 261
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Biological Resources
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.3-9
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-03 Bio Resources.docx established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical character of the soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas” (33 CFR § 328.3(e)). Tidal waters are also under the jurisdiction of the USACE. The landward limits of jurisdiction in tidal waters extend to the high tide line or “ . . . when adjacent non-tidal waters of the United States are present, to the limits of jurisdiction for such non-tidal waters” (33 CFR § 328.4(b)). High tide is further defined to include the line reached by spring high tides and other high tides that occur with periodic frequency (33 CFR § 328.3(d)).

Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County and Rapanos
In the U.S. Supreme Court decision Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. United States Army Corps of Engineers (SWANCC), No. 99-1178 (2001), some isolated wetlands may be excluded from the USACE Section 404 jurisdiction because they are (1) non-tidal, (2) non-navigable, (3) not hydrologically connected to navigable waters or adjacent to such waters, and (4) not subject to foreign or interstate commerce. Subsequent to SWANCC, the U.S. Supreme Court decided on Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. United States, 126 U.S. 2208 (2006) (herein referred to as Rapanos). In 2007, guidance was given to EPA regions and USACE districts to implement the Supreme Court’s decision that addresses the jurisdiction over waters of the United States under the CWA. The Rapanos guidance requires the USACE to conduct detailed analysis of the functions and values of wetlands and other waters of the United States potentially on-site and in some cases offsite, to determine whether there is a nexus to traditional navigable waters and to evaluate the significance of the nexus to the traditional navigable water. Neither the Court nor the recently issued guidance draw a clear line with respect to the geographic reach of jurisdiction, particularly in drainages where flows are ephemeral and where wetlands are adjacent to but not directly abutting relatively permanent water.

Navigable Waters Protection Rule
In 2020, the Trump administration obtained approval of the Navigable Waters Protection Rule (NWPR) that altered the reach of the regulations interpreting the scope of nation’s CWA. The NWPR has four categories of jurisdictional waters and 12 categories of excluded waters/features. There is no stand-alone interstate waters category and no case-specific significant nexus analysis. Key changes were made for defining tributary, adjacent wetland, ditches, lakes, ponds, and impoundments. New definitions for defining typical year versus normal, perennial, intermittent, ephemeral, snowpack, and ditches. No change was made to the definition of wetlands or the methodology for defining wetlands. Under the NWPR, waters of the United States includes (1) territorial seas and traditional navigable waters; (2) tributaries; (3) lakes and ponds, and impoundments of jurisdictional waters; and (4) adjacent wetlands.

A ruling in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona on August 30, 2021, in the case of Pascua Yaqui Tribe v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, may result in the Final NWPR being overturned permanently. The EPA and USACE are reviewing the U.S. District Court’s order vacating and remanding the NWPR, have halted implementation of the NWPR, and are currently interpreting “waters of the United States” consistent with the pre-2015 waters of the United States definition and EPA and USACE regulatory policies and guidance regime until further notice. 262
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Biological Resources Draft EIR

3.3-10 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-03 Bio Resources.docx Clean Water Act–National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Requirements In 1972, the CWA was amended to provide that the discharge of pollutants to waters of the United States from any point source is unlawful unless the discharge is in compliance with a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The 1987 amendments established a framework for regulating municipal, industrial, and construction-related stormwater discharges under the NPDES Program. On November 16, 1990, the EPA published final regulations that establish stormwater permit application requirements for specified categories of industries. The regulations provide that discharges of stormwater from construction projects that encompass one or more acres of soil disturbance are effectively prohibited unless the discharge is in compliance with an NPDES permit.

The State Water Board has developed a general construction stormwater permit to implement the requirements for the federal NPDES permit. The permit requires submittal of a Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply, fees, and the implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that specifies Best Management Practices (BMPs) that would prevent construction pollutants from entering stormwater and keep products of erosion from migrating off-site into downstream receiving waters. The Construction General Permit includes post-construction requirements that include no increase in overall site runoff or the concentration of drainage pollutants and requires implementation of Low Impact Development (LID) design features. The Construction General Permit is implemented and enforced by California’s nine RWQCBs.

The RWQCBs have also adopted requirements for NPDES stormwater permits for medium and large municipalities, and the State Water Board has adopted a General Permit for the discharge of stormwater from small municipal storm sewer systems. This General Permit requires projects to develop and implement a post-construction Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable.

Federal Endangered Species Act
The United States Congress passed the Endangered Species Act in 1973 to protect those species that are endangered or threatened with extinction. The Endangered Species Act is intended to operate in conjunction with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to help protect the ecosystems upon which endangered and threatened species depend. The Endangered Species Act establishes an official listing process for plants and animals considered in danger of extinction, requires development of specific plans of action for the recovery of listed species, and restricts activities perceived to harm or kill listed species or affect critical habitat (16 USC 1532 and 1536).

The Endangered Species Act prohibits the “take” of endangered or threatened wildlife species. “Take” is defined as harassing, harming, pursuing, hunting, shooting, wounding, killing, trapping, capturing, or collecting wildlife species, or any attempt to engage in such conduct (16 USC 1532).

Taking can result in civil or criminal penalties. Federal regulation 50 Code of Federal Regulations 17.3 further defines the term “harm” in the take definition to mean any act that actually kills or injures a federally listed species, including significant habitat modification or degradation. Therefore, the Endangered Species Act is invoked when the property contains a federally listed threatened or endangered species that may be affected by a permit decision. 263
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Biological Resources
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.3-11
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-03 Bio Resources.docx In the event that listed species are involved and a USACE permit is required for impacts to jurisdictional waters, the USACE must initiate consultation with the USFWS or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (16 USC 1536; 40 CFR § 402). Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires federal agencies to ensure that their actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or adversely modify critical habitat (16 USC 1536). In the regulations found at 50 Code of Federal Regulations 402.2, destruction or adverse modification is defined as a “direct or indirect alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat for both the survival and recovery of a listed species.” Critical habitat is defined in Endangered Species Act Section 3(5)(A) as specific areas within the geographical range occupied by a species where physical or biological features “essential to the conservation of the species” are found and that “may require special management considerations or protection.” Critical habitat may also include areas outside the current geographical area occupied by the species that are nonetheless “essential for the conservation of the species.” Critical habitat designations identify, with the best available knowledge, those biological and physical features (primary constituent elements) which provide for the life history processes essential to the conservation of the species.

If formal consultation is required, USFWS or NOAA Fisheries will issue a Biological Opinion stating whether the permit action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the listed species, recommending reasonable and prudent measures to ensure the continued existence of the species, establishing terms and conditions under which the proposed project may proceed, and authorizing incidental take of the species.

For discretionary permit actions by non-federal entities, Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act provides a mechanism for obtaining take authorization through submittal and approval of a Habitat Conservation Plan that details species impacts, measures to minimize or mitigate such impacts, and funding mechanisms to implement mitigation requirements.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) implements international treaties devised to protect migratory birds and any of their parts, eggs, and nests from activities such as hunting, pursuing, capturing, killing, selling, and shipping, unless expressly authorized in the regulations or by permit. The regulations governing migratory bird permits are in 50 Code of Federal Regulations Part 13 General Permit Procedures and 50 Code of Federal Regulations Part 21 Migratory Bird Permits. Most bird species within California fall under the provisions of the MBTA. Excluded species include non-native species such as house sparrow, starling, and ring-necked pheasant and native game species such as quail.

On December 22, 2017, the United States Department of Interior’s Office of the Solicitor issued Memorandum M-37050, which states an interpretation that the MBTA does not prohibit the accidental or “incidental” taking or killing of migratory birds. In response to the Trump administration’s attempted changes to the MBTA, eight states, including California, filed suit in September of 2018, arguing that the new interpretation inappropriately narrows the MBTA and should be vacated. On August 11, 2020, the Southern District of New York ruled in favor of the longstanding interpretation of the MBTA to protect migratory birds, reinstating the historical ban on 264
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Biological Resources Draft EIR

3.3-12 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-03 Bio Resources.docx incidental take. Just days before leaving office, the Trump administration finalized its pullback of MBTA regulations, despite the ruling of the federal court. On his first day in office, President Biden placed Trump’s changes to the MBTA on hold, pending further review.

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
The USFWS also has responsibility for project review under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act.

This statute requires that all federal agencies consult with USFWS, NOAA Fisheries, and the State’s wildlife agency (CDFW) for activities that affect, control, or modify streams and other water bodies.

Under the authority of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, USFWS, NOAA Fisheries, and the CDFW review applications for permits issued under Section 404 and provide comments to the USACE about potential environmental impacts.

USFW–S-Survey Guidelines for the Listed Large Branchiopods The USFWS has published recovery plans for vernal pool species in Southern California and in Northern California and southern Oregon. These recovery plans list actions that will assist in the recovery of the vernal pool species, which include separate actions to develop survey guidelines and to conduct directed species status surveys or monitoring surveys.

The USFWS issued Survey Guidelines for the Listed Large Branchiopods dated May 31, 2021. These guidelines were created to provide a method to best detect the presence of the listed large branchiopods in a vernal pool or similar wetland feature. The guidelines are issued as guidance to Section 10(a)(1)(A) permittees. Because taking (killing, injuring, harming, or harassing) endangered or threatened species is strictly prohibited under the Endangered Species Act, a Section 10(a)(1)(A) recovery permit must be obtained prior to initiating any surveys or studies that might result in the take of endangered or threatened large branchiopods. These guidelines provide a survey method for wet season and dry season surveys.

State
Section 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act/Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act Pursuant to Section 401 of the federal CWA, projects that require a USACE permit for the discharge of dredge or fill material must obtain water quality certification that confirms a project complies with State water quality standards before the USACE permit is valid. State water quality is regulated/administered by the California State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) and its nine RWQCBs. A water quality certification from a RWQCB must be consistent with not only the CWA, but with CEQA, the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), and the State Water Board requirement to protect beneficial uses of waters of the State.

The State also maintains independent regulatory authority over the placement of waste, including fill, into waters of the State under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Waters of the State are defined more broadly than “waters of the United States” to mean “any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state” (Water Code § 13050(e)).

Examples include, but are not limited to, rivers, streams, lakes, bays, marshes, mudflats, unvegetated seasonally ponded areas, drainage swales, sloughs, wet meadows, natural ponds, vernal pools, diked baylands, seasonal wetlands, and riparian woodlands. Waters of the State include all waters within 265
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Biological Resources
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.3-13
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-03 Bio Resources.docx the State’s boundaries, whether private or public, including waters in both natural and artificial channels. They include all “waters of the United States” and all surface waters that are not “waters of the United States” (e.g., non-jurisdictional wetlands; groundwater; and the territorial seas).

The State Water Boards State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredge of Fill Material to Waters of the State adopted April 2, 2019 (the Procedures) along with the Implementation Guidance for the Procedures dated April 2020 (the Implementation Guidance) defines a wetland as an area that under normal circumstances, (1) has continuous or recurrent saturation of the upper substrate caused by groundwater, or shallow surface water, or both; (2) the duration of such saturation is sufficient to cause anaerobic conditions in the upper substrate; and (3) the area’s vegetation is dominated by hydrophytes or the area lacks vegetation. The Procedures, along with the Implementation Guidance, state that the permitting authority (e.g., RWQCB) shall rely on any wetland area delineation from a final aquatic resource report verified by the USACE. If the USACE does not require an aquatic resource delineation report, an applicant must submit a delineation of all waters, but these delineations shall be verified by RWQCB’s staff during application review. Similarly, if the USACE does not require a delineation, but similar information is prepared for the CDFW, the applicant can submit that information to the RWQCB, which shall determine if it is sufficient for the RWQCB’s purposes. In addition, as a matter of policy, the State Water Board/RWQCBs consider wetlands and waters determined to be non-jurisdictional by the USACE/EPA under SWANCC or Rapanos guidance or the NWPR to remain jurisdictional as waters of the State subject to State Water Board/RWQCB jurisdiction.

The Procedures along with the Interim Guidance also include procedures for the submission, review, and approval of applications for activities that could result in the discharge of dredged or fill material to any waters of the State and include elements of the CWA Section 404(b)(1) Alternatives Analysis Guidelines, thereby bringing uniformity to the State Water Board regulation of discharges of dredged or fill material to all waters of the State. Typically, the USACE requires a CWA 404(b)(1) Alternatives Analysis for wetland impacts greater than 0.50 acre. The Procedures require an alternatives analyses to be completed in accordance with a three-tier system. The level of effort required for an alternatives analysis within each of the three tiers shall be commensurate with the significance of the impacts resulting from the discharge.

The State Water Board has also developed a general construction stormwater permit to implement the requirements of the federal NPDES permit. Projects approved by a RWQCB must, therefore, include the pre-construction requirement for a SWPPP and the post-construction requirement for a SWMP.

California Endangered Species Act
The State of California enacted CESA in 1984. The CESA is similar to the Endangered Species Act but pertains to State listed endangered and threatened species. CESA requires State agencies to consult with the CDFW when preparing CEQA documents. CESA generally prohibits the taking of State listed endangered or threatened plant and wildlife species; however, for projects resulting in impacts to State listed species, the CDFW may authorize take through issuance of an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) pursuant to Section 2081 of the California Fish and Game Code. Section 2081 requires preparation of mitigation plans in accordance with published guidelines that require, among other things, measures 266
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Biological Resources Draft EIR

3.3-14 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-03 Bio Resources.docx to fully mitigate impacts to State listed species. The CDFW exercises authority over mitigation projects involving State listed species, including those resulting from CEQA mitigation requirements.

No authorization of take under Section 2081 is permitted for species listed in State statutes as Fully Protected Species. Where Fully Protected Species are involved, projects must be designed to avoid all take of the species. The CDFW cannot issue an ITP until the CEQA Lead Agency has provided documentation in the form of a Notice of Determination that the proposed project has complied with CEQA.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife–Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code requires any person, governmental agency, or public utility proposing any activity that will divert or obstruct the natural flow or change the bed, channel or bank of any river, stream, or lake, or proposing to use any material from a streambed, to first notify the CDFW of such proposed activity. Based on the information contained in the notification form and a possible field inspection, the CDFW may propose reasonable modifications in the proposed construction as would allow for the protection of fish and wildlife resources. Upon request, the parties may meet to discuss the modifications. If the parties cannot agree and execute a Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement, then the matter may be referred to arbitration. The CDFW cannot issue a Streambed Alteration Agreement until CEQA compliance has been achieved, usually through the CEQA Lead Agency providing documentation in the form of a Notice of Determination that the Lead Agency has complied with CEQA by preparing a negative declaration or Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

CDFW’s regulations implementing the Fish and Game Code define the relevant rivers, streams, and lakes over which the agency has jurisdiction to constitute “all rivers, streams, lakes, and streambeds in the State of California, including all rivers, streams and streambeds which have intermittent flows of water” (Title 14 California Code of Regulations [CCR] § 720). The CDFW takes jurisdiction under its Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement Program for any work undertaken in or near a river, stream, or lake that flows at least intermittently through a bed or channel. The CDFW does not have a methodology for the identification and delineation of the jurisdictional limits of streams except for the general guidance provided in A Field Guide to Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreements, Section 1600-1607 California Fish and Game Code.
9 In making jurisdictional determinations, the
CDFW staff typically rely on field observation of physical features that provide evidence of water flow through a bed and channel such as observed flowing water, sediment deposits and drift deposits and that the stream supports fish or other aquatic life. Riparian habitat is not specifically mentioned in the Fish and Game Code provisions governing Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement, but the CDFW often asserts jurisdiction over areas within the flood plain of a body of water where the vegetation (grass, sedges, rushes, forbs, shrubs, and trees) is supported by the surface or subsurface flow.
9 California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 1994. A Field Guide to Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreements. Sacramento, California. November 1, 1994.
267
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Biological Resources
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.3-15
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-03 Bio Resources.docx California Department of Fish and Wildlife–Fish and Game Code Section 3503, 3503.5, and 3513.

The State of California also incorporates the protection of nongame birds and birds of prey, including their nests, in Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code. Under Fish and Game Code Section 3503.5, it is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nests or eggs of any bird. Fish and Game Code Section 3503.5 makes it unlawful to take or possess birds of prey (hawks, eagles, vultures, owls) or destroy their nests or eggs. In December of 2018, California issued new guidance specifying that State law includes “a prohibition on incidental take of migratory birds, notwithstanding any federal reinterpretation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act” by the Department of Interior.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife–Sensitive Plant Communities The CDFW has designated special-status natural communities which are considered rare in the region, rank as threatened or very threatened, support special-status species, or otherwise receive some form of regulatory protection. Sensitive plant communities are those natural plant communities identified in local or regional plans, policies, ordinances, regulations, or by the CDFW that provide special functions or values. Documentation pertaining to these communities, as well as special-status species (including Species of Special Concern), is kept by the CDFW as part of the CNDDB. All known occurrences of sensitive habitats are mapped onto 7.5-minute USGS topographic quadrangle maps maintained by the CNDDB. Sensitive plant communities are also identified by the CDFW on their List of California Natural Communities Recognized by the CNDDB. Impacts to sensitive natural communities must be considered and evaluated under CEQA.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife–Species of Special Concern The CDFW tracks species in California whose numbers, reproductive success, or habitat may be threatened. Species that may be considered for review are included on a list of “Species of Special Concern” developed by the CDFW. Even though these species may not be formally listed under the Endangered Species Act or CESA, such plant and wildlife species must be evaluated during the CEQA review of development projects, and mitigation should be developed to prevent significant impacts to such species.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife–Fully Protected Animal Species The classification of Fully Protected was an effort by California Legislature in the 1960s to identify and provide additional protection to those animals that were rare or faced possible extinction.

Protection of Fully Protected Species is described in four sections of the Fish and Game Code (Fish and Game Code [FGC] §§ 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515). These statutes prohibit take or possession of Fully Protected Species at any time. The CDFW is unable to authorize incidental take of Fully Protected Species when activities are proposed in areas inhabited by these species, except pursuant to an approved Natural Community Conservation Plan. Most Fully Protected Species have also been listed as threatened or endangered species under State endangered species laws and regulations.

Permits may be issued for the take of Fully Protected Bird species for necessary scientific research and relocation of the species for the protection of livestock (as per California FGC § 3511(a)(1)). 268
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Biological Resources Draft EIR

3.3-16 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-03 Bio Resources.docx California Department of Fish and Wildlife–Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Survey Guidelines For locating nesting Swainson’s hawk, the CDFW recommends using the “Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s Central Valley” dated May 31, 2000. This set of survey recommendations was developed by the Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee to maximize the potential for locating nesting Swainson’s hawk, and thus, reducing the potential for nest failures as a result of project activities/disturbances. In summary, surveys should be conducted in a manner that maximizes the potential to observe the adult Swainson’s hawk, as well as the nest/chicks. To meet the CDFW recommendations for mitigation and protection of Swainson’s hawk, surveys should be conducted for a 0.5-mile radius around all project activities, and if active nesting is identified within the 0.5-mile radius, consultation with the CDFW to determine nesting buffers is required under these guidelines. The guidelines provide specific recommendations regarding the number of surveys based on when the proposed project is scheduled to begin and the time of year the surveys are conducted.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife–Special-status Native Plant Survey Protocol For conducting botanical surveys to detect special-status plant species, the CDFW developed survey protocols identified in “Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities” dated March 20, 2018. Botanical field surveys provide information used to determine the potential environmental effects of proposed projects on special-status plants as required by law (e.g., CEQA, CESA, and the Endangered Species Act).

According to the protocol, botanical field surveys should be conducted in a manner which maximizes the likelihood of locating special-status plants and sensitive natural communities that may be present. Botanical field surveys should be floristic in nature, meaning that every plant taxon that occurs in the project area is identified to the taxonomic level necessary to determine rarity and listing status. “Focused surveys” that are limited to habitats known to support special-status plants or that are restricted to lists of likely potential special-status plants are not considered floristic in nature and are not adequate to identify all plants in a project area to the level necessary to determine whether they are special-status plants.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife–Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation The CDFW issued survey protocols for conducting burrowing owl breeding and nonbreeding season surveys and pre-construction surveys in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation dated March 7, 2012.

In summary, for breeding season surveys a minimum of four survey visits shall be conducted: (1) at least one site visit between February 15 and April 15, and (2) a minimum of three survey visits, at least 3 weeks apart, between April 15 and July 15, with at least one visit after June 15. The survey shall be conducted in all portions of the project site that fit the description of habitat in Appendix A of the staff report. Surveys shall be walked in straight-line transects spaced 7 meters to 20 meters apart, adjusting for vegetation height and density. At the start of each transect and, at least, every 100 meters, the surveyor shall scan the entire visible project area for burrowing owl using binoculars and record all potential burrows used by burrowing owl as determined by the presence of one or more burrowing owl, pellets, prey remains, whitewash, or decoration. For nonbreeding season 269
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Biological Resources
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.3-17
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-03 Bio Resources.docx surveys, the methods described above for breeding season surveys shall be followed, but at least four visits shall be spread evenly and conducted throughout the nonbreeding season.

Pre-construction surveys, referred to as “take avoidance surveys” in the staff report, are intended to detect the presence of burrowing owl on a project site at a fixed period in time and inform necessary take avoidance actions. Take avoidance surveys may detect changes in owl presence such as colonizing burrowing owl that have recently moved onto the site, migrating owl, resident burrowing owl changing burrow use, or young of the year that are still present and have not dispersed. In summary, survey methodology for pre-construction surveys should be conducted no less than 14 days prior to initiating ground disturbance activities.

California Native Plant Society
The CNPS, a nongovernmental organization, has no regulatory authority but provides information that is often used by regulatory bodies. The CNPS maintains a list of plant species native to California that have low numbers, limited distribution, or are otherwise threatened with extinction. This information is published in the Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California. Potential impacts to populations of CNPS-listed plants receive consideration under CEQA review, especially for those plant species including in Lists 1 and 2. The following identifies the definitions of the CNPS listings:
• Rank 1A: Plants presumed extirpated in California and either rare or extinct elsewhere. • Rank 1B: Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and elsewhere. • Rank 2A: Plants presumed extirpated in California but more common elsewhere. • Rank 2B: Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California, but more common elsewhere. • Rank 3: Plants about which more information is needed. • Rank 4: Watch List: Plants of limited distribution.

Local
City of American Canyon
General Plan
The City of American Canyon General Plan sets forth the following goals, objectives, and policies relevant to biological resources on the project site:

Goal 8 Protect and preserve the significant habitats, plants and wildlife that exist in the City and its Planning Area.

Objective 8.1 Maintain data and information regarding areas of significant biological value within the Planning Area to facilitate resource conservation and the appropriate management of development.

Policy 8.1.1 Acquire and maintain the most current information available regarding the status and location of sensitive biological elements (species and natural communities) within the City and, as appropriate, within the Sphere of Influence and Urban Limit Line.
270
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Biological Resources Draft EIR

3.3-18 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-03 Bio Resources.docx Policy 8.1.4 Regularly monitor and review developments proposed within the City’s Planning Area to assess their impacts on local biological resources and to recommend appropriate mitigation measures that the developer and/or government agency can implement.

Objective 8.2 Balance the preservation of natural habitat areas, including coastal saltmarsh, mixed hardwood forest, oak savanna, and wetland and riparian habitats, with new development in the City.

Policy 8.2.1 Land use applications for developments located within sensitive habitats, including coastal saltmarsh, mixed hardwood forest, oak savanna, and riparian habitats (see Figure 8-1) [General Plan], or with areas potentially occupied by vernal pools (see Figure 8-2) [General Plan] shall be accompanied by sufficient technical background data to enable an adequate assessment of the potential for impacts on these resources, and possible measures to reduce any identifiable impacts. In addition to examining Figure 8-1 [General Plan] for information on these sensitive habitats, an on-site assessment shall be conducted by a City approved qualified Biologist to determine whether sensitive habitats exist on-site, in instances where the potential for significant impacts exists, the applicant must submit a Biological Assessment Report prepared by a qualified professional.

Objective 8.3 Protect natural drainages and riparian corridors within the American Canyon Planning Area.

Policy 8.3.1 Review proposed developments in wetlands and riparian habitats to evaluate their conformance with the following policies and standards:
a. The development plan shall fully consider the nature of existing biological resources and all reasonable measures shall be taken to avoid significant impacts, including retention of sufficient natural open space and undeveloped buffer zones.
b. Development shall be designed and sited to preserve watercourses, riparian habitat, vernal pools, and wetlands in their natural condition, unless these actions result in an unfeasible project, in which case habitat shall be replaced in accord with subsection “g” (below).
c. Where riparian corridors are retained, they shall be protected by an adequate buffer with a minimum 100-foot protection zone from the edge of the tree, shrub, or herb canopy (see Policy 8.3.2).
d. Development shall incorporate habitat linkages (wildlife corridors) to adjacent open spaces, where appropriate and feasible.
e. Development shall incorporate fences, walls, vegetative cover, or other measures to adequately buffer habitat areas, linkages, or corridors from built environment. 271
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Biological Resources
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.3-19
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-03 Bio Resources.docx f. Roads and utilities shall be located and designed such that conflicts with biological resources, habitat areas, linkages or corridors are avoided where feasible.
g. Future development shall utilize appropriate open space or conservation easements in order to protect sensitive species or their habitats. h. Future development shall mitigate unavoidable adverse impacts to waters of the United States, wetlands, and riparian habitats (pursuant to the federal Clean Water Act and the California Fish and Game Code, Section 1600 et seq.) by replacement on an in-kind basis. Furthermore, replacement shall be based on a ratio determined by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and/or United States Army Corps of Engineers in order to account for the potentially diminished habitat values of replacement habitat. Such replacement should occur on the original development site, whenever possible. Alternatively, replacement can be affected, subject to State and federal regulatory approval, by creation or restoration of replacement habitats elsewhere (off-site but preferably within the City’s Planning Area), protected in perpetuity by provision for an appropriate conservation easement or dedication.

Policy 8.3.5 Establish a network of open spaces along the City’s natural drainages and riparian corridors and link significant biological habitats. Any recreational use of these areas shall be designed to avoid damaging sensitive habitat areas.

Policy 8.3.6 Preserve and integrate the City’s natural drainages in new development, as opposed to their channelization or undergrounding, emphasizing opportunities for the development of pedestrian paths and greenbelts along their lengths throughout the City.

Objective 8.4 Protect local vernal pools as well as the habitats of endangered species living within American Canyon’s Planning Area.

Policy 8.4.1 Require that development plans incorporate all reasonable mitigation measures to avoid significantly impacting vernal pools for projects located within American Canyon’s Planning Area.

Policy 8.4.2 Preserve, where possible, the habitat of several in-fact endangered species, including those shown on Figure 8-2 and listed in Table 8-1, as well as those that may be considered by the City in the future.

Policy 8.4.3 Encourage activities that improve the biological value and integrity of the City’s natural resources through vegetation restoration, control of alien plants and animals, and landscape buffering.
272
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Biological Resources Draft EIR

3.3-20 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-03 Bio Resources.docx

3.3.4 - Methodology
Biological Resources Report
The description of the biological setting for the property is based on field visits to the site by HBG Senior Environmental Scientist, Gary Deghi, Senior Wetland Scientist, Robert Perrera, and Wildlife Biologist, Emilie Strauss, between December of 2020 and April of 2021. In addition, HBG independently reviewed and incorporated a number of studies previously prepared for the proposed project by other consultants and conducted additional specialized studies using species experts as part of work in preparing this document.

Previously prepared biological studies pertaining to the site included an aquatic resources delineation prepared by Monk & Associates and surveys for federally listed vernal pool brachiopods conducted by both LSA Associates and Monk & Associates.10,11,12 HBG included a habitat assessment for the federally listed threatened California red-legged frog prepared by Dr. Mark Jennings and a botanical field surveys, floristic in nature, were conducted by Dr. Brent Helm during the 2021 flowering season. These floristic surveys were conducted when the plants of interest were in bloom or otherwise visible.
13,14 Also relevant to the biological evaluation were Biological Resource Reports prepared by Monk & Associates for two separate Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declarations (IS/MNDs) prepared by the City of American Canyon for projects with project boundaries either shared with or adjacent to the project site. These include Biological Resource Reports for the Devlin Road Extension project and the Green Island Road Reconstruction and Widening project. 15,16
Aquatic Resources Delineation
Monk & Associates conducted an aquatic resources delineation on the project site in 2016. Field work for the delineation was conducted during the period of April 15 to May 26, 2016. Monk & Associates Biologists used the USACE 1987 Wetlands Delineation Manual in conjunction with the regional supplement for the Arid West Region to prepare this wetland delineation. A jurisdictional determination request and the Aquatic Resources Delineation Map were prepared in compliance with the USACE 2016 Minimum Standards for Acceptance of Aquatic Resources Delineation Reports and the 2016 Updated Map and Drawing Standards for the South Pacific Division Regulatory Program.17
10 Monk & Associates. 2016. Request for a Confirmed/Approved Jurisdictional Determination Aquatic Resources Delineation Report, Giovannoni Property, City of American Canyon, Napa County, California. Letter from Hope Kingma of Monk & Associates to Holly Costa of the San Francisco Regulatory Division of the United States Army Corps of Engineers August 29, 2016. 11 LSA Associates. 2016. Results of 2016 Dry Season Listed Branchiopod Surveys for the Giovannoni Property and Devlin Road/Vine Trail Extension, Napa County, California, (USFWS Reference No. 2012-TA-0388). November 23, 2016. 12 Monk & Associates. 2017. Vernal Pool Branchiopod Surveys on the Giovannoni Property and the Devlin Road and Vine Trail Extension project site, City of American Canyon, Napa County, California. United States Fish and Wildlife Service File No. 2012-TA0388. Prepared for United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Field Office. March 31, 2017. 13 Jennings, Mark. 2021. Habitat Assessment for the California Red-legged Frog at the Proposed Giovannoni Logistics project site, American Canyon, California. Prepared by Rana Resources for Huffman-Broadway Group, Inc. March 11, 2021. 14 Helm, Brent. 2021. Protocol Level Special Status Native Plant Surveys at the Giovannoni Logistic Center Project, Napa County, California. Prepared by Helm Biological Consulting. August 9, 2021. 15 Monk & Associates. 2018. Biological Resource Analysis, Devlin Road/Vine Trail Extension project, City of American Canyon, California. Prepared for GHD Inc., Santa Rosa, California. October 15, 2018. 16 Monk & Associates. 2019. Biological Resources Analysis, Green Island Road Reconstruction and Widening project, City of American Canyon, California. Prepared for City of American Canyon, California. 17 Monk & Associates. 2016. Request for a Confirmed/Approved Jurisdictional Determination Aquatic Resources Delineation Report, Giovannoni Property, City of American Canyon, Napa County, California. Letter from Hope Kingma of Monk & Associates to Holly Costa of the San Francisco Regulatory Division of the United States Army Corps of Engineers August 29, 2016. 273
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Biological Resources
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.3-21
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-03 Bio Resources.docx Vegetation, hydrology, and soils information were taken at 142 data points. Data points were mapped using a Trimble Pro-XR Global Positioning System (GPS) having sub-meter accuracy. The delineation map was made from the GPS files using ArcMap 10.2. All spatial data were projected into the California State Plane, NAD 83 coordinate system, Zone 2. Using GPS technology, the boundaries (within 30 inches) of each delineated wetland was transferred to an aerial photograph of the project site.

3.3.5 - Thresholds of Significance
Appendix G to the CEQA Guidelines is a sample Initial Study checklist that includes questions for determining whether impacts to biological resources are significant. These questions reflect the input of planning and environmental professionals at the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) and the California Natural Resources Agency, based on input from stakeholder groups and experts in various other governmental agencies, nonprofits, and leading environmental consulting firms. They also reflect the requirements of laws other than CEQA that protect biological resources (e.g., the federal CWA, the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the Endangered Species Act and CESA, and the Natural Community Conservation Planning Act). As a result, many lead agencies derive their significance criteria from the questions posed in Appendix G. The City has chosen to do so for this project.

Additional guidance on the significance of biological resource impacts is found in CEQA Guidelines Section 15065, subdivision (a)(1), which provides that a lead agency shall find that a project may have a significant effect on the environment if “[t]he project has the potential to: . . . substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels; threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; [or]substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare or threatened species[.]” The “mandatory findings of significance” are also found in the Appendix G sample Initial Study checklist, though near the end.

In light of the foregoing, the proposed project would have a significant effect related to biological resources if the proposed project would:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or United States Fish and Wildlife Service. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites.
274
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Biological Resources Draft EIR

3.3-22 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-03 Bio Resources.docx e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State Habitat Conservation Plan. g) Substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species. h) Cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels. i) Threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community.
j) Substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare or threatened species.

3.3.6 - Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This section discusses potential impacts associated with the development of the proposed project and provides mitigation measures where appropriate.

Special-Status Species
Impact BIO-1: The proposed project could have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or United States Fish and Wildlife Service.

Impact Analysis
Phases 1 and 2
Special-status Plants
A determination regarding whether special-status plant species are present in proposed development areas can only be made based on systematic rare plant surveys conducted during the flowering period of target plant species. HBG retained Dr. Brent Helm of Helm Biological Consulting, a division Tansley Team, Inc., to conduct botanical surveys for the presence of special-status plant species with the potential to occur at the site. These botanical surveys utilized CDFW protocols identified in “Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities” dated March 20, 2018.

A 10-mile radius search using the CNDDB was generated to determine special-status plant species that may be near the project site. Helm Biological Consulting determined 23 special-status plant species were associated with habitats that are known to occur the project site. Helm Biological Consulting conducted botanical surveys during the spring of 2021 and survey dates were chosen based on when the special-status plants would be in bloom or otherwise visible. Field surveys for special-status plants incorporated floristic survey methods, as recommended by CDFW protocols.

Floristic survey methods require identification of all plant species located on-site. Each species encountered was identified to the extent necessary to determine whether it had any legally 275
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Biological Resources
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.3-23
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-03 Bio Resources.docx protected status. Floristic surveys were conducted to ensure that special-status plant species were not inadvertently overlooked because they were not targeted for surveys.

Based on the Helm Biological Consulting botanical survey results, no special-status plant species occur on the project site. Therefore, no impacts to special-status species would occur from construction of the proposed project. No mitigation is warranted for special-status plants.

Special-status Animals
Monarch Butterfly
No trees are present on the project site so there is no possibility for the presence of a monarch butterfly overwintering site at the project site. Several Biologists, including most recently Helm Biological Consulting, have studied the site or portions of the site, and none have reported the presence of milkweed plants of the genus Asclepias18 that serve as the larval host plant for monarchs. No suitable habitat for monarch butterflies is found on the site, therefore, no potentially significant impacts to monarch butterflies would result from construction of the proposed project.

Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp
LSA Inc. conducted dry season vernal pool fairy shrimp surveys in summer of 2016, and Monk & Associates, Inc. conducted wet season vernal pool fairy shrimp surveys in winter of 2016-2017.

Survey methods were conducted in accordance with the USFWS revised Survey Guidelines for the Listed Large Branchiopods (May 31, 2015). No vernal pool fairy shrimp were observed during the dry or wet season surveys. Based upon completed surveys using these guidelines for vernal pool fairy shrimp, it is clear that the federally listed threatened vernal pool fairy shrimp does not occur on the project site. Therefore, no impacts to vernal pool fairy shrimp would result from construction of the proposed project. No mitigation is warranted for vernal pool fairy shrimp for the proposed project.

California Red-legged Frog
A habitat assessment prepared for the project site by Rana Resources found that the project site lacks habitat necessary to support the California red-legged frog. All records of the California redlegged frog from the CNDDB in the project area are from areas east of State Route (SR) 29, which forms a barrier to potential movements of the California red-legged frog onto the site. Additionally, the project site is completely isolated from all areas to the east by SR-29 by urban infrastructure, and there are no hydrologic connections with any stream channels off-site to the east of SR-29. Finally, there is no suitable breeding or rearing habitat for California red-legged frog on-site due to the shallow and ephemeral nature of the seasonal wetlands and the lack of any suitable riparian vegetation for cover. California red-legged frog do not occupy the project site, and the proposed project would have no significant impacts on California red-legged frogs. No mitigation is warranted for this species for the proposed project.

Western Pond Turtle
Suitable habitat for western pond turtle does not occur on the site due to the shallow and ephemeral nature of the seasonal wetlands, which are inundated for only about 3 to 4 months out of the year and even less in drought years. Surrounding uplands of suitable shrub/woodlands and 18 Helm Biological Consulting. 2021. Protocol-Level Special-Status Plant Survey at the Giovannoni Logistics Center Project, Napa County, California. August 2021.
276
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Biological Resources Draft EIR

3.3-24 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-03 Bio Resources.docx appropriate basking sites are also lacking. Western pond turtle does not occupy the project site. No impacts to western pond turtle would result from development of the proposed project. Mitigation measures for western pond turtle are not warranted for the proposed project.

Swainson’s Hawk
There are no trees located on the project site, and no large trees capable of supporting nesting by Swainson’s hawk in the immediate project vicinity. The non-native grasslands and seasonal wetlands and swales found on the property provide suitable foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk that may nest away from the project site. Swainson’s hawk was observed foraging on the site during surveys conducted in April and May 2021. Development of the proposed project would remove some foraging area for this species. Development of the proposed project would also provide and preserve in perpetuity approximately 45 acres of open space that would include habitat currently suitable for foraging by the Swainson’s hawk as indicated by the observation of a Swainson’s hawk foraging in the site in spring 2021. The adjacent Napa Logistics Park Project has preserved 37 acres of grassland and wetlands in perpetuity that provides foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk. Between these two preservation areas abutting and directly adjacent to the project site approximately 82 acres of suitable habitat would be available for the Swainson’s hawk. In addition there are several large open space preserves within 2 and 5 miles of the project site that combined provide approximately 2,000 acres of suitable foraging habitat. Based upon the limited number of Swainson’s hawk records within a 10-mile radius of the project site, there is sufficient foraging habitat in and within the vicinity of the project site. Based upon the limited number of known Swainson’s hawk to occur within a 10 mile radius of the project site and the acreage of existing foraging habitat currently protected, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to foraging habitat directly, indirectly, or cumulatively, therefore no mitigation is warranted for Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat.

Although eucalyptus and other large trees located within about 0.25 mile from the project site provide potential nesting habitat, no nesting by Swainson’s hawk (or any raptor species) was noted during surveys for nesting Swainson’s hawk conducted by Helm Biological Consulting in April and May 2021. If an active Swainson’s hawk nest is found on or adjacent to the project site or within the area of influence of the project site (which is generally considered within 1,000 feet), the CDFW could require that project-related disturbance at active nest sites be reduced or eliminated during the period from March 1—September 15.19 If Swainson’s hawk was found to be nesting within a zone of influence during the construction period, potential impacts to this species could occur, including disturbance to nesting birds and possible mortality of adults and/or young. If the qualified Raptor Biologist20 determines nest disturbances are anticipated to occur that could result in mortality of adults and/or young, a Fish and Game Section 2081 ITP authorization would be required. Pre-construction nesting surveys, as described in MM BIO-1a, are warranted to ensure that the proposed project will not impact Swainson’s hawk. With the implementation of this mitigation 19 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2000. Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s Central Valley. May 31, 2000. 4 pages. 20 A qualified Raptor Biologist is an individual who shall have a minimum of 5 years of academic and professional experience in biological sciences and be able to recognize raptor species that may be present at and near the project site and be familiar with the foraging and nesting habits and behaviors of these species. 277
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Biological Resources
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.3-25
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-03 Bio Resources.docx measure any potential impacts to nesting Swainson’s hawk would be reduced to less than significant levels.

Golden Eagle
There are no trees located on the project site, and no large trees capable of supporting nesting by golden eagle in the immediate vicinity of the project site; however, the non-native grasslands and seasonal wetlands and swales found on the property provide suitable foraging habitat for golden eagle that may nest away from the project site. A single golden eagle was observed exhibiting foraging behavior on the site in spring 2021. Although eucalyptus and other large trees located within about 0.25 mile from the project site provide potential nesting habitat, no nesting by golden eagle (or any raptor species) was noted during surveys for nesting Swainson’s hawk conducted by Helm Biological Consulting in April and May 2021.

As golden eagle has been known to nest in the general area of the City of American Canyon, future nesting in suitable nest trees as close as about 0.25 mile from the project site cannot be ruled out. If a golden eagle were found to be nesting within a zone of influence of the project site during the construction period, potential impacts to this species from the proposed project could occur, including disturbance to nesting birds and possible mortality of adults and/or young. Preconstruction surveys for golden eagle, as described in Mitigation Measure (MM) BIO-1b, are warranted to ensure that construction activities do not result in impacts to nesting individuals of this species. With the implementation of this mitigation measure any potential impacts to nesting golden eagle would be reduced to less than significant levels.

Northern Harrier
Suitable nesting habitat for the northern harrier (a State Designated Species of Special Concern) occurs within the non-native grasslands and seasonal wetlands and swales found within the project site.

Northern harrier individuals were observed foraging over the project site during both winter and spring (breeding) seasons during surveys conducted by Helm Biological Consulting. If a northern harrier were found to be nesting on the project site during the construction period, potential impacts to this species from the proposed project could occur, including disturbance to nesting birds and possible mortality of adults and/or young. Nesting by northern harrier has not been documented on the project site, but nesting by this species at the site is possible. Pre-construction surveys for northern harrier, as described in MM BIO-1c, are warranted to ensure that construction activities do not result in impacts to nesting harriers. With the implementation of this mitigation measure any potential impacts to nesting northern harriers would be reduced to less than significant levels.

Burrowing Owl
A small number of burrowing owl have been recorded in the CNDDB within the general project vicinity, with the nearest reports from as close as about 1.7 miles north of the project site and about

2.5 miles south.21 No burrowing owl or occupied California ground squirrel burrows were observed on the project site during a field reviews conducted by Helm Biological Consulting in December 2020 and April and May 2021 or during previous biological studies conducted by Monk & Associates, LSA 21 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2020. Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS 5). Website:
https://map.dfg.ca.gov/bios/. Accessed May 2021.
278
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Biological Resources Draft EIR

3.3-26 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-03 Bio Resources.docx Associates, or Rana Resources. The only observed ground squirrel were from the area around the perimeter of Clark’s Rocks. It remains possible that ground squirrel could establish colonies on the site in the future prior to project construction, providing new occupiable habitats for burrowing owl.

As a result, future use of the site by burrowing owl cannot be ruled out. Therefore, the proposed project shall implement MM BIO-1d to ensure that no burrowing owl would be impacted by construction activities.

Tricolored Blackbird
No impact to tricolored blackbird nesting colonies would occur as a result of the development of the project site. Although tricolored nesting colonies have been documented about 0.25 mile from the project site as recently as 1993, Helm Biological Consulting has concluded that vegetative characteristics of preferred nesting habitat for tricolored blackbird does not occur at the project site.

Suitable nesting habitat for tricolored blackbird does not occur within the project site, therefore, no impacts to tricolored blackbird nesting colonies would result from implementation of the proposed project.

Conclusion
Implementation of these mitigation measures would avoid the “take” of Swainson’s hawk and golden eagle defined by CESA; avoid disturbing a northern harrier or burrowing owl active nest, and avoid harming a burrowing owl during the nonbreeding season if it is occupying a burrow within the project site, thus reducing potential impacts to a level considered less then significant.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
MM BIO-1a Pre-construction surveys for Swainson’s hawk shall be conducted in the project site vicinity prior to initiation of project construction activities. These pre-construction surveys shall include investigation of all potential nesting trees within a half-mile radius around all project activities and shall be completed for at least two survey periods immediately prior to commencement of project construction. Surveys shall follow California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) guidelines for conducting surveys for Swainson’s hawk that were developed by the Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee to maximize the potential for locating nesting Swainson’s hawk and reduce the potential for nest failures due to project activities and/or disturbances.

If no nesting Swainson’s hawk are found during the first non-optional survey period starting March 20, then project construction may commence. If during the third surveys (April 5–April 20) Swainson’s hawk are found to be nesting in the project vicinity and construction has commenced, it shall be assumed the Swainson’s hawk commenced nesting and thus the Swainson’s hawk are habituated to the ambient level of noise and disturbance emanating from the project site. 279
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Biological Resources
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.3-27
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-03 Bio Resources.docx If Swainson’s hawk are found to be nesting within 1,000 feet of the project site, a non-disturbance buffer shall be established to keep all construction activities a minimum of 1,000 feet from the nest site. The CDFW shall be consulted regarding the adequacy of the buffer established by the qualified Raptor Biologist. At that time the necessity for acquiring a Fish and Game Section 2081 Incidental Take Permit (ITP) authorization would be determined. An ITP authorization shall be required if there is a valid concern the project activities would result in the “take” of an adult Swainson’s hawk, eggs, or nestlings.

No disturbance such as construction or earthmoving activity shall occur within the established buffer zone until it is determined by a qualified Raptor Biologist that the young have fledged or that the nesting cycle is complete based on monitoring of the active nest by a qualified Biologist.

MM BIO-1b No more than 30 days prior to the first ground disturbance activity, pre-construction golden eagle nesting surveys shall be conducted in the project site vicinity. Preconstruction surveys shall include investigation of all potential nesting trees within a

0.5-mile radius around all project activities. If active golden eagle nests are identified within any trees within a 0.5-mile radius of the project site, a qualified Raptor Biologist shall establish a protection buffer at a minimum of 1,000 feet that is adequate to ensure noise or activity from the proposed project would not cause nest disturbance or young or adult bird mortality. Buffer zones may vary in size as some golden eagles are more acclimated to disturbance than others. Size of buffer zone may be modified by the qualified Raptor Biologist considering the type of construction activity that may occur and the behavioral factors and extent that golden eagle may have acclimated to disturbance. No construction or earthmoving activity shall occur within the established buffer zone until it is determined by a qualified Raptor Biologist that the young golden eagles have fledged or that the nesting cycle is complete based on monitoring of the active nest by a qualified Biologist.

MM BIO-1c Prior to ground disturbance, a pre-construction nesting survey shall be conducted for northern harrier if construction is scheduled during the nesting season (February 1 through September 1). To determine whether northern harrier is nesting on-site, a qualified Raptor Biologist(s) shall conduct walking transects through the project site grassland habitat searching for nests. An active northern harrier nest must be protected by implementing a minimum 500-foot radius buffer zone around the nest marked with orange construction fencing. If an active nest is located outside of the project site, the buffer shall be extended onto the project site and demarcated where it intersects the project site. Size of buffer zone could be modified considering the type of construction activity that may occur, physical barriers between the construction site and active nest, and the behavioral factors and extent that northern harrier may have acclimated to disturbance. No construction or earthmoving activity shall occur within the established buffer zone until it is determined by a qualified Raptor Biologist that the young have fledged or that the 280
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Biological Resources Draft EIR

3.3-28 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-03 Bio Resources.docx nesting cycle is otherwise determined to be complete based on monitoring of the active nest by a qualified Biologist.

MM BIO-1d Prior to any ground disturbance, pre-construction surveys for burrowing owl shall be conducted. The pre-construction surveys shall be conducted within 2 weeks prior to the onset of any ground-disturbing activities. Surveys shall be conducted by a qualified Biologist following California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) 2012 staff report survey methods and Biologist qualifications to establish the status of burrowing owl on the project site.
• If burrowing owl are found to occupy the project site during the nonbreeding season (September 1 to January 31), occupied burrows shall be avoided by establishing a no-disturbance buffer zone a minimum of 100 feet around the burrow. Buffers may be adjusted to address site-specific conditions using the impact assessment approach described in the CDFW 2012 staff report. If a qualified Raptor Biologist determines the location of an occupied burrow/s may be impacted even with a 100-foot buffer, or the burrow(s) are in a location(s) on the project site where a buffer cannot be established without preventing the proposed project from moving forward, then a passive relocation effort may be instituted to relocate the individual(s) out of harm’s way pursuant to a Burrowing Owl Exclusion Plan prepared in accordance with the CDFW 2012 staff report. • If burrowing owl are found to be present during the breeding season (February 1 to August 31), the proposed project ground-disturbing activities shall follow the CDFW 2012 staff report recommended avoidance protocol whereby occupied burrows shall be avoided with a no-disturbance buffer.

Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact.

Sensitive Natural Communities or Riparian Habitat
Impact BIO-2: The proposed project could have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or United States Fish and Wildlife Service.

Impact Analysis
Phases 1 and 2
The proposed project development east of Devlin Road would impact approximately 0.496 acre of palustrine emergent wetlands and the proposed Phase 2 project west of Devlin Road would impact approximately 2.57 acres of seasonal wetlands and 1.13 acres of vernal pools for a total of 3.70 acres of wetland impacts. Plans for wetland mitigation, including the preservation of an approximately 45- acre Wetland Preserve to include existing 7.58 acres of seasonal wetlands and 0.13 acre of vernal pools as well as established/created seasonal wetlands and vernal pools intended to offset wetland impacts of buildout development of the project site. To offset the loss of the 0.496 acre of seasonal 281
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Biological Resources
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.3-29
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-03 Bio Resources.docx wetland impacts from Phase 1, and 2.57 acres of seasonal wetlands and 1.13 acres of vernal pools from Phase 2, and to ensure there is no-net loss of wetland or vernal pool area, the applicant shall establish/create 0.992 acre of seasonal wetlands (2:1 ratio) for Phase 1 concurrent with project construction, and 2.57 acres of seasonal wetlands (1:1 ratio) and of 1.13 acres of vernal pool wetlands (1:1 ratio) for Phase 2 at least 1 year prior to the start of Phase 2 construction, on the 45- acre Wetland Preserve. The established/created wetlands shall be monitored for a minimum of 5 years to ensure the wetlands meet the USACE’s and RWQCB’s definition of a wetland.

The portion of the project site along the northern boundary contained within the confines of No Name Creek would be subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the CDFW under Fish and Game Code Section 1602. As the area of No Name Creek is contained within the approximately 45-acre Wetland Preserve, no impacts to the palustrine emergent wetland swale/seasonal wetland associated with No Name Creek would occur from either Phase 1 proposed project in the area east of Devlin Road or Phase 2 project west of Devlin Road. No impacts would occur to areas that would be subject to CDFW jurisdiction under Fish and Game Code Section 1602, therefore, there would be no requirement to obtain a Streambed Alteration Agreement from the CDFW.

Conclusion
Implementation of these mitigation measures would offset permanent impacts to the palustrine emergent wetlands and vernal pools and ensure there is no-net loss of wetland area, thus reducing potential impacts to a level considered less than significant.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
MM BIO-2 To offset the loss of the 0.496 acre of seasonal wetland impacts from Phase 1, and

2.57 acres of seasonal wetlands and 1.13 acres of vernal pools from Phase 2, and to ensure there is no-net loss of wetland area, the applicant shall establish/create

0.992 acre of palustrine emergent wetlands (2:1 ratio) for Phase 1 concurrent with project construction, and 2.57 acres of seasonal wetlands (1:1 ratio) and 1.13 acres of vernal pool wetlands (1:1 ratio) for Phase 2 at least 1 year prior to the start of Phase 2 construction, on the 45-acre Wetland Preserve. The established/created wetlands shall be monitored for a minimum of 5 years to ensure the wetlands meet the USACE’s and RWQCB’s definition of a wetland.

Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact.

Wetlands and Jurisdictional Features
Impact BIO-3: The proposed project could have a substantial adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. 282
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Biological Resources Draft EIR

3.3-30 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-03 Bio Resources.docx Impact Analysis
Phases 1 and 2
Region 1 of the USFWS developed the “Recovery Plan for Vernal Pool Ecosystems of California and Southern Oregon” dated December 15, 2005. The recovery plan covers 33 species of plants and animals that occur exclusively or primarily within a vernal pool ecosystem in California and southern Oregon. The recovery plan goals include protecting and conserving intact vernal pools and vernal pool complexes within the recovery planning area to maintain viable populations of listed species and species of concern and prevent additional threats from emerging over time. The recovery plan includes designated “core” areas that are specific sites necessary to recover these endangered or threatened species or to conserve the species of concern addressed in this recovery plan.

The project site is near two core areas referred to as the “Napa River Core Area.” One core area is located approximately 2.5 miles northeast of the project site at the Highway 12 and 121 interchange.

The second Napa River Core Area is adjacent to the project site near the northwest boundary of the Wetland Preserve area.

The project site itself is not within a core area and does not support vernal pool complexes that support plants and animals targeted in the USFWS recovery plan, therefore no direct adverse impacts to the Napa River Core Area would occur as a result of implementation of Phases 1 and 2.

Phase 1 of the proposed project would preserve, in perpetuity, approximately 45 acres along the northern boundary. The 45-acre Wetland Preserve supports 7.58 acres of seasonal wetlands and

0.13 acre of vernal pools but would also include establishment/creation of approximately 3.56 acres of seasonal wetlands and 1.13 acres of vernal pools. Once the 45-acre Wetland Preserve is placed under a conservation easement, the additional wetlands are established/created, and an endowment to manage the land is funded, this 45-acre Wetland Preserve may provide beneficial impacts, long-term in duration, to the adjacent Napa River Core Area and recovery plan by providing protected wetland and vernal pool habitat within close proximity to the Napa River Core Area that may be suitable, once wetlands are established/created for the listed species and species of concern addressed in the recovery plan.

Based on the project site being located outside of the Napa River Core Area, the absence of listed species targeted in the recovery plan, and the proposed preservation of the Wetland Preserve, no adverse impacts to the Napa River Core Area would occur from construction of the proposed project. No mitigation is warranted for the Napa River Core Area.

Phase 1
Development of Phase 1 of the proposed project within the area east of Devlin Road would result in impacts to wetlands subject to USACE jurisdiction as a water of the United States and subject to San Francisco Bay RWQCB jurisdiction as a water of the State. Grading activities associated with the proposed project would result in the permanent placement of fill material (soil) into 0.496 acre of palustrine emergent wetlands considered waters of the State; refer to Exhibit 3.3-3. Of this 0.496 acre of impacts to waters of the State, the USACE has determined 0.492 acre are isolated and not considered waters of the United States. Therefore, the proposed project would also impact 0.004 acre of palustrine emergent wetlands considered waters of the United States. The City of American Canyon processed a separate Nationwide Permit for impacts to 0.21 acre on the 8.3-acre project site for the Devlin Road/Vine Trail Extension project.
283
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Biological Resources
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.3-31
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-03 Bio Resources.docx An enumeration of the wetland impacts within the proposed project development is detailed in Table 3.3-1.

Table 3.3-1 Wetland Impacts
Isolated Wetland (IW) Square Feet/Acres
IW-2 97/0.002
IW-3 229/0.005
IW-4 3117/0.072
IW-5 17019/0.391
IW-6 935/0.022
USACE Jurisdictional Wetlands
W-89 189/0.004
Total 21,586/0.496
Source: Huffman-Broadway Group, Inc. 2021.

Grading activities would result in the permanent placement of fill material (soil) into 0.496 acre of palustrine emergent wetlands considered waters of the State under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Of the 0.496 acre of waters of the State, the USACE has determined 0.492 acre are isolated and not considered waters of the United States under the federal CWA, so the proposed project would also impact the remaining 0.004 acre of palustrine emergent wetlands considered waters of the United States. These impacts would require that the applicant apply for and obtain a Nationwide Permit from the USACE for discharge within 0.004 acre of wetlands under CWA Section 404 jurisdiction along with an accompanying Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the San Francisco Bay RWQCB. The applicant would also need to apply for and obtain a separate Waiver of Waste Discharge from the San Francisco Bay RWQCB for impacts to 0.496 acre of waters of the State, as described in MM BIO-3a. Exhibit 3.3-4 depicts the Wetlands Mitigation Plan.

Phase 2
The development of the remaining 85.9-acre area on the west side of the Devlin Road Extension, which consists of Phase 2 of the proposed project, would impact approximately 2.57 acres of seasonal wetlands and 1.13 acres of vernal pool wetlands considered both waters of the State and waters of the United States, assuming buildout of Phase 2; refer to Exhibit 3.3-5. Impacts to approximately 3.7 acres of wetlands for a possible Phase 2 project would require that the applicant submit a separate application for an Individual Permit from the USACE to include a plan to compensate for wetland losses as well as a detailed alternatives analysis under the Section 404(b)(1) guidelines to include a detailed evaluation of both on-site and off-site alternatives for the proposed project. Such a development on the Phase 2 portion of the project site would also require a CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the San Francisco Bay RWQCB for the USACE permit to be valid and would also require a Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for San Francisco Bay RWQCB pursuant to the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, as described in MM BIO-3b. 284
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Biological Resources Draft EIR

3.3-32 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-03 Bio Resources.docx As described in MM BIO-3d, a detailed Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall be prepared and submitted to the San Francisco Bay RWQCB for review as part of the process for obtaining a permit from the agency. The Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan includes the preservation of the approximately 45-acre Wetland Preserve as well as the creation of approximately 3.56 acres of palustrine emergent wetlands and 1.13 acres of vernal pools within the Wetland Preserve.

Conclusion
Implementation of these mitigation measures would offset permanent impacts in-kind to the palustrine emergent wetland and in-kind to the vernal pools and ensure there is no-net loss of wetland area, thus reducing potential impacts to a level considered less than significant.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
MM BIO-3a Prior to issuance of the Phase 1 grading permit, the project applicant shall apply for and obtain a Nationwide Permit from the San Francisco District of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for discharge within 0.004 acre of wetlands/waters of the United States under Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 jurisdiction. For the USACE permit to be valid, the applicant shall apply for and obtain the accompanying Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (San Francisco Bay RWQCB). The applicant shall apply for and obtain a separate Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements from the San Francisco Bay RWQCB for impacts to 0.496 acre of wetlands/waters of the State. To offset the loss of 0.496 acre of permanent wetland impacts and to ensure there is no-net loss of wetland area, the applicant shall establish/create 0.992 acre of wetlands (2:1 ratio), prior to or concurrent with the start of construction, on the 45-acre Wetland Preserve. The established/created wetlands shall be monitored for a minimum of 5 years to ensure the wetlands meet the USACE’s and RWQCB’s definition of a wetland. The applicant shall implement the terms of the approved permit(s).

MM BIO-3b Prior to issuance of the Phase 2 grading permit, the project applicant shall apply for and obtain an Individual Permit from the San Francisco District of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for the placement of fill material within approximately

3.7 acres of wetlands/waters of the United States under Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 jurisdiction. For the USACE permit to be valid, the applicant shall apply for and obtain the accompanying Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (San Francisco Bay RWQCB). The applicant shall apply for and obtain a separate Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements from the San Francisco Bay RWQCB for the discharge of fill material within approximately 3.7 acres of waters of the State. To offset the loss of 3.7 acres of permanent wetland impacts and to ensure there is no-net loss of wetland area or permanent loss of functions and values, the applicant shall establish/create 2.57 acres of seasonal wetlands (1:1 ratio) and 1.13 acres of vernal pools (1:1 ratio), at a minimum of 1 year prior to the start of construction, on the 45-acre Wetland Preserve. The 285
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Biological Resources
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.3-33
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-03 Bio Resources.docx established/created wetlands and vernal pools shall be monitored for a minimum of 5 years to ensure the wetlands meet the USACE’s and RWQCB’s definition of a wetland. The applicant shall implement the terms of the approved permit(s).

MM BIO-3c Prior to issuance of the Phase 1 grading permit, a Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall be prepared and submitted to the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (San Francisco Bay RWQCB) for review as part of the process for obtaining a permit from the agency. The Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall address the loss of 0.496 acre of wetlands impact due to Phase 1 of the proposed project as well as the potential loss of approximately 3.7 acres of wetlands that as part of Phase 2. The Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall include in irrevocable instrument (e.g., deed restriction or conservation easements) that shall restrict use of both the 0.992 acre of created wetlands for Phase 1 as well as approximately 3.7 acres of additional wetlands created for Phase 2. The Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall also include a long-term endowment that would be fully funded by the proposed project to manage approximately 45-acre open space preserve and created wetlands in perpetuity. If additional wetland mitigation lands are required to compensate for wetland impacts associated with Phase 2, wetlands shall be established/created at a minimum 1:1 ratio (1 acre established/created for every acre permanently impacted) on appropriate mitigation land, approved by the RWQCB and United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), within the Phase 2 project site’s Hydraulic Unit Code (HUC) 10 watershed. The established/created wetlands shall be monitored for a minimum of 5 years to ensure the wetlands meet the USACE’s and RWQCB’s definition of a wetland. The applicant shall implement the terms of the approved permit(s).

MM BIO-3d Prior to issuance of the Phase 1 and Phase 2 grading permit, a Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall be submitted to the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (San Francisco Bay RWQCB) for review as part of the process for obtaining a permit from the agency. The Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall be prepared in accordance with the Subpart J–Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources outlined in the California State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) Procedures, and in accordance with the State Water Board Implementation Guidance dated April 2020, and in accordance with the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Compensatory Mitigation Rule (33 Code of Federal Regulations Part 332)
The basic objective of the Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan is to ensure that project wetland impacts, and compensatory mitigation proposed to offset the wetland impacts, shall provide a no-net-loss of area of wetlands, and wetlands established/created shall be in-kind to the wetlands impacted. In summary, the Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall at a minimum:

1. Preserve 7.58 acres of existing seasonal wetlands and 0.13 acre of vernal pools within the 45-acre Wetland Preserve.
286
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Biological Resources Draft EIR

3.3-34 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-03 Bio Resources.docx

2. Establish within the Wetland Preserve approximately 0.992 acre of seasonal wetlands in advance of or concurrent with implementation of Phase 1 impacts to

0.496 acre of palustrine emergent wetlands at a 2:1 ratio.

3. Establish within the Wetland Preserve approximately 2.57 acres of seasonal wetlands and 1.13 acres of vernal pools in advance of implementation of future Phase 2, assuming Phase 2 is built out, to address the potential maximum losses of approximately 3.7 acres of wetlands that may occur.

4. Provide financial assurances to ensure a high level of confidence that the compensatory mitigation shall be successfully completed, in accordance with applicable performance standards.

5. Design ecological performance standards to assess whether the Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan is achieving the overall objectives, so that it can be objectively evaluated to determine whether it is developing into the desired resource type (vernal pool, seasonal wetland e.g.), and attaining any other applicable metrics such as acres, number of native plant species, water saturation and/or ponding depth etc.

6. Monitor the site for a duration necessary to determine whether the Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan is meeting the performance standards.

Established palustrine emergent wetlands and vernal pools typically develop quickly on soils with clay restrictive horizon. The 45-acre Wetland Preserve does have a clay restrictive layer approximately 8–18 inches below the surface therefore a 5-year monitoring period would be sufficient to determine whether performance standards are met. This monitoring period may be extended if performance standards are not met due to how the wetlands were constructed or natural events such as severe droughts.

7. Protect the approximately 45-acre Wetland Preserve in perpetuity using a conservation easement, and provide an endowment sufficient to fund the LongTerm Management Plan.

8. An overall assessment of the condition of the wetlands that shall be permanently impacted by the proposed project shall be conducted using the California Rapid Assessment Method (CRAM) for depressional wetlands, or a hybrid approach based on CRAM. Each similar wetland type that may be impacted shall be assessed to describe the floristic community and record the native and nonnative dominant plants within the vernal pool and palustrine emergent wetlands.

Physical structure such as topographic complexity and physical features that may provide habitat for aquatic species (e.g., boulders, woody debris etc.) shall be recorded and used to design the created/established wetlands. The purpose of this assessment is to ensure the design of the wetlands shall provide habitat that is similar to the wetlands being impacted to ensure the impacted wetlands are mitigated in-kind.

Performance Standards
Performance Standards shall include at a minimum the following:
287
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Biological Resources
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.3-35
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-03 Bio Resources.docx Years 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 Performance Standards for Wetland Hydrology Each year wetland hydrology shall be measured during the winter when surface and/or subsurface hydrology would be observable. A minimum of 1 data point shall be taken in each of the established/created wetlands. In addition, wetland hydrologic indicators shall be recorded each spring during the vegetation monitoring period.

Year 1:

Performance standard would be met for Year 1-5 if:
• The created wetlands remain inundated to a minimum depth of 0.5 inch or greater for at least 7 days and/or saturated for at least 14 days and/or at least one primary or two secondary wetland hydrology indicators listed in the Arid West Region Wetland Determination Data Forms are recorded.

Contingency Measures:

If the annual performance standard is not being met for any given monitoring year the Permittee shall prepare an analysis of the cause(s) of failure and, if determined necessary, implement remedial action. If the Plan Area has not met the performance standard, the Permittee’s maintenance and monitoring obligations shall continue until the RWQCB and CDFW give final project confirmation.

Remedial action may include re-grading to achieve wetland hydrology, which would improve hydric soil formation.

Years 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 Performance Standards for Increase in Colonization of Wetland Vegetation
Each year during the spring or early summer wetland vegetation cover shall be measured by conducting a site visit and recording absolute cover and dominant plant species observed within the wetland buffer area. A minimum of 1 data point shall be taken in each of the established/created wetlands. The colonization of wetland vegetation shall be measured by determining overall absolute plant cover values each year. This shall be accomplished by measuring absolute cover values within a 5-foot radius sample plot at each data point. Performance Standards for each monitoring year are listed below.

Year 1:

Performance standard would be met for Year 1 if:
• At least one hydrophytic plant species colonizes the established/created seasonal wetlands and vernal pools; and
• The average absolute cover of wetland vegetation within an established/created seasonal wetlands and vernal pools is 5 percent or greater.

Year 2:

Performance standard would be met for Year 2 if:
288
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Biological Resources Draft EIR

3.3-36 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-03 Bio Resources.docx • At least one hydrophytic plant species colonizes the established/created seasonal wetlands and vernal pools; and
• The average absolute cover of wetland vegetation within an established/created seasonal wetlands and vernal pools is 10 percent or greater.

Year 3:

Performance standard would be met for Year 3 if:
• At least two hydrophytic plant species colonizes the established/created seasonal wetlands; • At least two native hydrophytic plant species colonizes the established/created vernal pools and at least one is a vernal pool habitat indicator species; and • The average absolute cover of wetland vegetation within an established/created seasonal wetlands and vernal pools is 20 percent or greater and comprised of native and naturalized species.

Year 4:

Performance standard would be met for Year 4 if:
• At least two hydrophytic plant species colonize the established/created seasonal wetlands. • At least two native hydrophytic plant species colonizes the established/created vernal pools and at least one is a vernal pool habitat indicator species. • The average absolute cover of wetland vegetation within an established/created seasonal wetland and vernal pool is 30 percent or greater.
• Invasive wetland plant species do not comprise greater than 5 percent of the total absolute cover. Invasive plants shall be defined as species rated as “high” by California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC).

Year 5:

Performance standard would be met for Year 5 if:
• At least two hydrophytic plant species documented during the CRAM assessment for the palustrine emergent wetlands impacted on the Phase 1 project site colonize the established/created seasonal wetlands.
• At least two native vernal pool habitat indicator species documented during the CRAM assessment for the vernal pool on the Phase 2 project site colonizes the established/created vernal pools.
• The average absolute cover of wetland vegetation within the established/created seasonal wetland (non-vernal pool wetlands) is 40 percent or greater; and the average absolute cover of wetland vegetation within the established/created vernal pools is 40 percent or greater of which greater than 50 percent of the vegetation cover consists of two or more dominate native vernal pool habitat indicator plants.
289
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Biological Resources
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.3-37
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-03 Bio Resources.docx • Invasive wetland plant species do not comprise greater than 5 percent of the total absolute cover. Invasive plants shall be defined as species rated as “high” by Cal-IPC.

Contingency Measures:

If the annual performance standard is not being met for any given monitoring year the Permittee shall prepare an analysis of the cause(s) of failure and, if determined necessary, implement remedial action. Remedial action may include hydroseeding with native species, or addition of supplemental topsoil or mulch to promote growth.

Year 5 No-Net-Loss Performance Standard for Phase 1 Impacts Performance standard would be met for Year 5 when;
• A wetland delineation is performed and verified by the USACE and confirms a minimum of

0.992 acre of wetlands have been established/created within the Wetland Preserve.

Year 5 No-Net-Loss Performance Standard for Phase 2 Impacts The Phase 2 no-net-loss performance standard would be measured when an application for the Phase 2 project is submitted to the RWQCB and USACE, and the Phase 2 project is approved. Once Phase 2 has been approved by the RWQCB and USACE, this performance standard may be modified depending on the level of wetland impacts authorized by the RWQCB and USACE, meaning this performance standard may decrease if the wetlands impacted for Phase 1 are less than 3.7 acres.

Performance standard would be met for Year 5 when;
• A wetland delineation is performed and verified by the USACE and confirms a minimum of

2.57 acres of seasonal wetland and 1.13 acres of vernal pools have been established/created within the Wetland Preserve.

Year 5 Long-Term Protection and Long-Term Funding
Performance standard would be met for Year 5 once:
• The Wetland Preserve has been placed under a conservation easement; and • A long-term financing mechanism (e.g., non-wasting endowment, trusts, contractual arrangement etc.) to fund implementation of the long-term management of the Wetland Preserve has been secured.

Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact.

Fish and Wildlife Movement Corridors
Impact BIO-4: The proposed project could interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites. 290
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Biological Resources Draft EIR

3.3-38 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-03 Bio Resources.docx Impact Analysis
Phases 1 and 2
Although a number of wildlife species, including a variety of bird species that potentially include special-status species, were observed on the property during field surveys, neither the development of the proposed project would result in significant impacts to movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, migratory wildlife corridors or use of wildlife nursery sites on the site. Mitigation measures to address impacts to sensitive habitats, most notably seasonal wetlands and vernal pools, are included herein that include the preparation and implementation of a detailed Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Plan. The site design includes the preservation of the approximately 45-acre Wetland Preserve that will preserve 7.58 acres of existing seasonal wetlands and 0.13 acre of existing vernal pools but would also include creation of approximately 3.56 acres of additional seasonal wetlands and 1.13 acres of vernal pools.

Any species of fauna that may be displaced during preparation of the site for development of the proposed project should find nearby available habitats, including habitats within the approximately 45-acre Wetland Preserve or adjacent and adjacent 37-acre preserve for the Napa Logistics project on the adjacent property. The major wildlife corridor along No Name Creek will remain unaffected as the entirety of No Name Creek shall be incorporated into the Wetland Preserve. The proposed project would not result in substantial change in animal populations at the site, nor would it cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels.

Nesting Birds
Nesting bird species protected by the federal MBTA or California Fish and Game Code could be impacted during project construction. Work related to construction involving the removal of vegetation during the February 1 to August 1 breeding season of birds could result in mortality of nesting avian species if they are present. Many species of raptors (birds of prey) and non-raptors are sensitive to human incursion and construction activities, and it is necessary to ensure that nesting bird species are not present in the vicinity of construction sites. Therefore, the proposed project shall implement MM BIO-4 in order to reduce any potential impacts to nesting birds to less than significant levels.

Water Quality
Construction activities for Phase 1 of the proposed project will occur in within 0.496 acre of wetlands subject to State jurisdiction and in close proximity to areas within the upper reaches of No Name Creek. Construction of Phase 2 may affect 3.7 acres of wetlands, including vernal pools, near No Name Creek. However, water quality impacts with implications to use of No Name Creek as a wildlife movement corridor would not be significant for several reasons. The requirement for the implementation of a SWPPP, with identification of proper construction techniques and BMPs, would be required and would provide assurance that water quality of nearby waterways is not affected by on-site construction activities. In particular, silt fence and straw wattles would be installed along portions of the project site to maintain levels of water pollutants migrating off-site. In addition, vegetation would only be cleared from the permitted construction footprint. Areas cleared of vegetation, pavement, or other substrates should be stabilized as quickly as possible to prevent erosion and runoff.
291
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Biological Resources
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.3-39
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-03 Bio Resources.docx Grading, excavation, placement of fill material, and other ground-disturbing activities associated with construction activities within the project site would not promote erosion that would allow elevated levels of sediment to wash into aquatic areas downstream, including No Name Creek, where such pollutants could result in potential impacts to fish and wildlife resources. Indirect impacts to resident animal populations in downstream areas would not result from the proposed project due to elevated turbidity levels from increased sedimentation or increases in other contaminants in stormwater runoff.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
MM BIO-4 If construction occurs during the breeding season of migratory and resident birds (February 1 to August 31), a qualified Biologist shall conduct a pre-construction breeding bird survey in areas of suitable habitat within 15 days prior to the onset of construction activity. Nesting bird surveys shall cover the proposed project footprint and adjacent areas. If bird nests are found, appropriate buffer zones shall be established around all active nests to protect nesting adults and their young from direct or indirect impacts related to project construction disturbance. Size of buffer zones shall be determined per recommendations of the qualified Biologist based onsite conditions and species involved. At a minimum a 1,000-foot buffer shall be established for nesting Swainson’s hawk and golden eagle; 500-foot buffer for nesting northern harriers; 250-foot buffer for nesting accipiters; and minimum 50- foot buffers shall be established for nesting passerines and all other non-raptor or passerine nesting birds. Buffer zones shall be maintained until it can be documented that either the nest has failed, or the young have fledged.

Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact.

Local Policies or Ordinances
Impact BIO-5: The proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.

Impact Analysis
Phases 1 and 2
No trees are present on the project site and, therefore, no tree removal would occur. The proposed project would not conflict with any local policies related to protection of natural resources.

All work for the proposed project would take place consistent with biological requirements of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance of the City of American Canyon. The Biological Resources Report provides the detailed assessment of biological resources required by General Plan Policies 8.1.1 and

8.1.4. Studies of sensitive biological resources have been either conducted by HBG as part of the attached Biological Resources Report or were conducted by other consultants and independently 292
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Biological Resources Draft EIR

3.3-40 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-03 Bio Resources.docx reviewed and incorporated into the Biological Resources Report, consistent with General Plan Policy

8.2.1. Studies conducted by HBG include a protocol Phase 1 Habitat Assessment for the federally listed threatened California red-legged frog, surveys for State listed threatened Swainson’s hawk and rare plant surveys conducted by Dr. Brent Helm during the 2021 flowering season. Studies conducted by others include wet and dry season protocol surveys for the federally listed threatened vernal pool fairy shrimp and rare plant surveys. The proposed project results in impacts to palustrine emergent wetlands and vernal pool wetlands and the applicant has prepared a conceptual plan to mitigate for these wetlands consistent with General Plan Policy 8.3.1.a, which requires the development plan to consider the nature of existing biological resources and all reasonable measures to avoid significant impacts, including retention of sufficient natural open space and undeveloped buffer zones; General Plan Policy 8.3.1.h, which requires in summary developments shall mitigate unavoidable adverse impacts to waters of the United States, wetlands, and riparian habitats by replacement on an in-kind basis and such replacement should occur on the original development site, whenever possible, and; General Plan Policy 8.4.3, which encourages activities that improve the biological value and integrity of the City’s natural resources through vegetation restoration, control of alien plants and animals, and landscape buffering. The wetland mitigation would be accomplished through establishment of an approximately 45-acre Wetland Preserve within the project site to include preserving 7.58 acres of existing seasonal wetlands and 0.13 acres of vernal pools and establishment/creation of an additional approximately 3.56 acres of seasonal wetlands and 1.13 acres of vernal pools to compensate in-kind for permanent impacts to seasonal wetlands from the proposed project.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.

Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact.
293
I
54600001 • 09/2021 | 3.3-1_soils_map.cdr
Source: Huffman-Broadway Group, Inc., Environmental Regulatory Consultants (May 2021). Imagery Source: County of Napa 6/19/2018.

CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON

GIOVANNONI LOGISTICS CENTER PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Exhibit 3.3-1
Soils Map
294

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
295
I
54600001 • 03/2022 | 3.3-2_plant_communities.cdr
Source: Huffman-Broadway Group, Inc., Environmental Regulatory Consultants. Imagery Source: Maxar.

CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON

GIOVANNONI LOGISTICS CENTER PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Exhibit 3.3-2
Plant Communities
296

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
297
I
54600001 • 09/2021 | 3.3-3_phase_1_wetland_impacts.cdr
Source: Huffman-Broadway Group, Inc., Environmental Regulatory Consultants (May 2021). Imagery Source: County of Napa 6/19/2018.

CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON

GIOVANNONI LOGISTICS CENTER PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Exhibit 3.3-3
Phase 1 Wetland Impacts
298

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
299
I
54600001 • 09/2021 | 3.3-4_wetland_mitigation_plan.cdr
Source: Huffman-Broadway Group, Inc., Environmental Regulatory Consultants (May 2021). Imagery Source: County of Napa 6/19/2018.

CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON

GIOVANNONI LOGISTICS CENTER PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Exhibit 3.3-4
Wetland Mitigation Plan
300

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
301
I
54600001 • 09/2021 | 3.3-5_phase_2_wetland_impacts.cdr
Source: Huffman-Broadway Group, Inc., Environmental Regulatory Consultants (May 2021). Imagery Source: County of Napa 6/19/2018.

CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON

GIOVANNONI LOGISTICS CENTER PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Exhibit 3.3-5
Phase 2 Wetland Impacts
302

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
303
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources FirstCarbon Solutions 3.4-1
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-04 Cultural-Tribal Cultural Resources.docx

3.4 - Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources

3.4.1 - Introduction
This section describes the existing cultural and tribal cultural resources setting and potential effects that may result from project implementation on the site and its surrounding area. The descriptions and analysis in this section are based on information provided by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), a records search conducted at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC), archival research, and a pedestrian survey, as presented in the Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment (Phase I CRA) prepared for the proposed project are included in confidential Appendix D.

Recommendations provided in the Phase I CRA pertaining to mitigation of potential impacts to cultural resources are also addressed in this section.

3.4.2 - Environmental Setting
Overview
The term “cultural resources” encompasses historic, archaeological, tribal cultural resources, and burial sites containing human remains. Below is a brief summary of each component:
• Historic Resources: Historic resources are associated with the recent past. In California, historic resources are typically associated with the Spanish, Mexican, and American periods in the State’s history and are generally less than 200 years old. • Archaeological Resources: Archaeology is the study of artifacts and material culture with the aim of understanding human activities and cultures in the past. Archaeological resources may be associated with prehistoric indigenous cultures as well as historic periods. • Tribal Cultural Resources: Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs) include sites, features, places, or objects that are of cultural value to one or more California Native American Tribes. • Burial Sites and Cemeteries: Burial sites and cemeteries are formal or informal locations where human remains have been interred. Native American burial sites are also considered TCRs of cultural value to one or more California Native American Tribe.

Cultural Setting
Following is a brief overview of the prehistory, ethnography, and historic background, providing a context in which to understand the background and relevance of sites found in the general project area. This section is not intended to be a comprehensive review of the current resources available; rather, it serves as a general overview. Further details can be found in ethnographic studies, mission records, and major published sources.
1,2,3,4,5
1 Beardsley, R.K. 1948. Cultural Sequences in Central California Archaeology. American Antiquity 14:1–28. 2 Bennyhoff, J. 1950. Californian Fish Spears and Harpoons. University of California Anthropological Records 9(4):295–338. 3 Chartkoff J.L. and K.K. Chartkoff. 1984. The Archaeology of California. Menlo Park. Stanford University Press. 4 Kroeber, A.L. 1925. Handbook of the Indians of California. Bulletin 78. Bureau of American Ethnology. Washington, DC. Smithsonian Institution. 5 Moratto, M.J. 1984. California Archaeology. San Diego. Academic Press. 304
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Draft EIR

3.4-2 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-04 Cultural-Tribal Cultural Resources.docx Prehistoric Background
In general, archaeological research in the greater San Francisco Bay Area has focused on coastal areas, where large shellmounds were relatively easily identified on the landscape. This research and its chronological framework, however, is relevant to and has a bearing on our understanding of prehistory in areas north of the San Francisco Bay, including modern American Canyon, Napa County.

Like many California cultural chronologies, the greater San Francisco Bay Area has a complex history.

As synthesized by Milliken et al., three major chronologic frameworks exist for the Bay Area: an Archaic-Emergent temporal structure; the Central California Taxonomic System (CCTS) and a “hybrid system” that is utilized using the overarching CCTS scheme, while further demarcating time depth/period changes regionally, as used in the Archaic-Emergent temporal structure. 6 Specifically,
regional cultural patterns and phases are further defined within the San Francisco Bay Area by Dating Scheme D, which utilizes dated Olivella shell bead horizons. Milliken et al. used the term “bead horizons” to define the passage of short periods of time by the shifts in the trade of specific bead types throughout the Bay Area. This builds on Fredrickson, who proposed a chronology for the broader San Francisco Bay Area region. Fredrickson’s chronology is based on material patterns and includes the Windmiller Pattern (2500 before Common Era [BCE]–1,000 BCE), Berkeley Pattern (2000 BCE–500 Common Era [CE]) and the Augustine Pattern (500 CE–1880 CE).7 The Windmiller Pattern is typified by a hunter-gatherer subsistence pattern, which included the exploitation of wild plants, game, and fish. Typical artifacts include clay balls, fishing hooks, fishing spears and ground stone tools. Artifacts from the Berkeley Pattern era reflect an increasing reliance on acorns, as mortars and pestles become more prolific. The Augustine Period was a period of increasing social complexity.

Acorns continued to be the dominant food source and settlement patterns reflected an increasing sedentary lifestyle.8
Following the hybrid system proposed by Milliken et al., The Lower Archaic, 8000–3500 BCE, is typified in the Bay Area by a forager and gatherer lifestyle, as evidenced by the prevalence of milling slabs, hand stones, and large, wide-stemmed and leaf-shaped projectile points. The Middle Archaic, 3500-500 BCE, saw an increase in the presence of ground stone and cut shell beads, indicating that groups in the Bay Area were transitioning to a more sedentary lifestyle; interregional trade was increasing, and as the beads were found in mortuary contexts, that symbolism was becoming a regional identifier. The Early Upper Archaic, 500 BCE to 430 CE, saw a shift away from cut beads to Olivella beads, and along the Bay, a new emphasis on Haliotis ornaments and bone tools, with net sinkers largely disappearing from assemblages. The Late Upper Archaic, 430 to 1050 CE, further defined by the bead phases M1–M4, is another time of transition, as saucer-shaped Olivella beads disappear from the record and Olivella saddle beads became dominant. The appearance of the saddle shaped Olivella beads coincides with the appearance and increase in Meganos complex dorsal extended burials. The Lower Emergent Period, 1050 to 1550 CE, is characterized by increasing complexity as beads were being produced for collectors as opposed to being produced primarily as mortuary items. Sedentism and increasing social stratification is evidenced by settlement patterns 6 Milliken, Randall, et.al. 2007. Punctuated Culture Change in the San Francisco Bay Area, In Prehistoric California: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, edited by T.L. Jones and K.A. Klar, 99–124. AltaMira Press. 7 Frederickson, D.A. 1973. Early Cultures of the North Coast Ranges, California. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis. 8 Moratto, M.J. 1984. California Archaeology. San Diego. Academic Press. 305
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources FirstCarbon Solutions 3.4-3
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-04 Cultural-Tribal Cultural Resources.docx and mortuary practices. The Terminal Late Period saw change in the North Bay, as clamshell disk beads became prevalent, along with the toggle harpoon, hopper mortar, plain corner-notched arrow-sized projectile points, and magnesite tube beads; however, this was not the case in the South Bay. By 1650 CE, only Olivella-lipped and spire-lopped beads were present.9 Settlement patterns north of San Francisco Bay have varied over time. The currently accepted understanding of settlement patterns in this area is that a foraging and hunter-gatherer lifestyle centering on lacustrine resources remained dominant in the region until the Lower to Middle Archaic. At this point, there was a shift from foraging lacustrine resources to developing semipermanent villages near marshes and grasslands, in order to gather those specific resources. This was followed by a shift to foragers residing in residential camps, with more consistent settlement occurring in “collector villages” during the Upper Archaic. By the Emergent Period, collectors were living in semi-permanent villages in oak woodlands, which residential camps were now located along marshes.

Ethnographic Background
The Patwin
At the time of European contact, the project vicinity was primarily occupied by the Patwin Tribe of California Native Americans. The Patwin occupied the southwest Sacramento Valley from the town of Princeton, north of Colusa, south to San Pablo and Suisun bays, and from the lower hills of the eastern North Coast Ranges to the Sacramento River. Patwin territory extended approximately 40 miles east to west and 90 miles north to south. Based primarily on linguistic variation, the Patwin are the most southern division of the Wintuan population, who are members of the Penutian linguistic stock. Distinction is made between the Hill and River Patwin. Hill Patwin had villages located in valleys along the hills of the Vaca Mountains and Coast Ranges with populations concentrated in Indian, Bear, Capay, Cortina, Long, and Napa valleys. In general, the River Patwin occupied the west banks of the lower Sacramento River below the Feather River as well as the lower reaches of Cache and Putah creeks in the Sacramento Valley.
10 The Hill Patwin villages of Napato and Tulukai lie in close proximity to the project area, and their place names remain part of the regional landscape to this day.

Patwin political organization was centered on the tribelet, which consisted of a primary village with smaller satellite villages governed by a head chief. Tribelets were autonomous and differed from each other with minor cultural variations. The economic and ceremonial activities of each village were administered by a chief whose position was typically passed on patrilineally although some chiefs were chosen by village elders. The chief administered subsistence ventures, such as hunting and gathering expeditions, and served as the primary resource distributor. 11 The Patwin subsistence base varied with the seasons and included gathering seeds and plant resources on the plains, netting migratory waterfowl in the tule marshes, and netting salmon and other fish in the rivers and streams. Acorns were a staple in the Patwin diet and were obtained from 9 Milliken, Randall, et.al. 2007. Punctuated Culture Change in the San Francisco Bay Area, In Prehistoric California: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, edited by T.L. Jones and K.A. Klar, 99–124. AltaMira Press. 10 Cook, S.F. 1976. The Population of the California Indians 1769–1970. University of California Press. Berkeley, California. 11 McKern, W.K. 1922. Functional Families of the Patwin. American Archaeology and Ethnology 13(7)235–258. Berkeley, California. 306
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Draft EIR

3.4-4 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-04 Cultural-Tribal Cultural Resources.docx communally owned hill and valley oak groves. The Patwin stored acorns in granaries as insurance against famine in poor harvest years. Ethnographic reports indicate the Patwin obtained large game such as deer, tule elk, and antelope by using nets or shooting with bows and arrows. Fish resources were of particular importance to the River Patwin and included perch, sturgeon, salmon, sucker, trout, pike, and other riverine species such as mussels and turtles, which were caught with bone fishhooks, nets, weirs, and seines.
12 The Patwin trade system included various resources that were exchanged with the Wappo, Nomlake, Southeastern Pomo, and Hill Patwin. The River Patwin obtained obsidian from sources to the west and east. Initially, finished shell beads were obtained from coastal tribes, but later, the River Patwin traded for whole shells from the Pacific Coast and produced the beads themselves. Relationships with nearby tribes and other Patwin tribelets were not always friendly. Patwin relations with Napa Valley groups were strained by provocations primarily incited by poaching; subsequent retaliations resulted in organized battles between individuals or groups or surprise attacks on villages. 13 Patwin dwellings, sweathouses and dance houses were all semi-subterranean, earth-covered structures. Mortuary practices included burials in cemeteries located at one end of the village, in which the possessions of the deceased were buried with them; at some locations, property was burned near the grave. Typically, only people who died or were killed away from the village were cremated. According to a Hill Patwin informant, “the River people [Patwin] set a corpse upright, then pushed the head down, broke the back, wrapped the body in a skin, and put it in the grave.” In addition, long burial ropes constructed of hemp were wrapped around the deceased, and the River Patwin utilized temporary containers made of tule reeds. 14 The Southern Wappo
The project site is also in close proximity to the ethnographic territory of the Southern Wappo. The Wappo language belongs to a small family of four languages, including Yuki, Coastal Yuki, and Huchnom. It is divided into five dialects distributed across two major territorial divisions. The smaller area included lands along the southern edge of Clear Lake; the larger ranged from just north of Napa, south to Geyserville and Middletown in the north. The Wappo were known to adopt words from other languages spoken in their vicinity, including Spanish names of objects with which they came into contact as a result of missionization. Of the 100 or known Wappo place names, at least one, cho*nóma, (meaning “abandoned camp”), remains in use as the probable Wappo name for the town of Sonoma.15 Like their Pomo neighbors, the basic sociopolitical unit was the village, which was usually located on a creek or other water source. Villages included one or two sweathouses as well as houses of varying size. One of the last remaining traditional Wappo villages observed in 1870 consisted of 11 grass houses serving 21 families totaling 92 people. Each house was made of grass thatch over a framework of bent poles and had a separate entrance and smoke-hole for each family inhabiting it.
12 Johnson, Patti, J., 1978. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8: California. Washington, DC. Smithsonian Institution. 13 Leitch, B. A. (1979). A concise dictionary of Indian tribes of North America (First Edition). N. P.: Reference Publications, Inc. 14 McKern, W.K. 1922. Functional Families of the Patwin. American Archaeology and Ethnology 13(7)235–258. Berkeley, California. 15 Sawyer, J.O. 1978. Wappo. Handbook of North American Indians California Volume 8. Robert F. Heizer, Editor, pp. 256–264.

Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.
307
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources FirstCarbon Solutions 3.4-5
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-04 Cultural-Tribal Cultural Resources.docx Basic tools consisted of wedges, axes, and fire-drills made from stones, sticks, shells, and plants. Like the Pomo, the Wappo had a tradition of creating intricately woven baskets that were both functional and decorative. This tradition, along with several surviving songs and dances attributed to the Wappo, were primary forms of artistic expression. Imported clamshell beads and magnesite cylinders served as units of exchange and items of personal adornment. Food sources included a variety of plants and creatures, including acorns, buckeye, clover, abalone, clams, turtles, salmon, ducks, rabbits, and deer.
16 The Wappo had at least seven villages in the Geyserville area alone and estimates of their total population range from 5,000 to 8,000. Village chiefs might be elected or appointed, based on the organization of the individual village. Both men and women could occupy the role of chief, and some villages even had multiple chiefs, each with different spheres of influence, including trade, ceremonial roles, and warfare. The Wappo were generally regarded as a peaceful people, except during the Wappo-Pomo War in the early 19th Century. The Wappo apparently attacked and killed members of the Alexander Valley Pomo who had carried away some Wappo supplies of acorns. The Pomo sought peace, which was granted immediately; however, the Pomo never returned to their Alexander Valley villages north of Healdsburg. The Wappo also tried to resist Spanish incursions and colonial expansion into their territories, but like the Pomo, their numbers were decimated by smallpox, hostility from the Mexican Army, and later by Euro-American settlements in the 1850s.

Historic Background
The Spanish Period (1769-1821)
Spanish exploration into Suisun Bay and into the Central Valley dates back to the late 1700s. Spanish mission records indicate that by 1800, Patwin inhabitants at Aguastos, the south-central area, and other villages were being taken to Mission Dolores (San Francisco de Asis), and that Mission Sonoma (San Francisco Solano), built in 1823, was baptizing Patwin tribal members until secularization of the missions in 1832-1836. Many Native Americans were not willing convert. There are numerous accounts of neophytes fleeing the missions, and a series of “Indian Wars” broke out when the Spanish tried to return them to the missions.
17 The Mexican Period (1821-1848)
With the declaration of Mexican independence in 1821, Spanish control of Alta California ended, although little change actually occurred. Political change did not take place until mission secularization in 1834, when Native Americans were released from missionary control and the mission lands were granted to private individuals. Mission secularization removed the social protection and support on which Native Americans had come to rely. It exposed them to further exploitation by outside interests, often forcing them into a marginal existence as laborers for large ranchos. Following mission secularization, the Mexican population grew as the native population continued to decline. Anglo-American settlers began to arrive in Alta California during this period and often married into Mexican families, becoming Mexican citizens, which made them eligible to 16 Sawyer, J.O. 1978. Wappo. Handbook of North American Indians California Volume 8. Robert F. Heizer, Editor, pp. 256–264.

Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution. 17 Johnson, J.J. 1976. Archaeological Investigations at the Blodgett Site (CA-SAC-267), Sloughhouse Locality, California. Report to the U.S. National Parks Service, Western Regional Office, Tucson, Arizona. 308
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Draft EIR

3.4-6 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-04 Cultural-Tribal Cultural Resources.docx receive land grants. In 1846, on the eve of the U.S.-Mexican War (1846 to 1848), the estimated population of Alta California was 8,000 non-natives and 10,000 natives. However, these estimates have been debated. Cook suggests the Native American population was 100,000 in 1850; the U.S.

Census of 1880 reports the Native American population as 20,385.18 During this period, General Mariano Guadalupe Vallejo assumed authority of Sonoma Mission and established a friendly relationship with the Native Americans who were living there. In particular, Vallejo worked closely with Chief Solano, a Patwin who served as Vallejo’s spokesperson when problems with Native American tribes arose. In 1843, Governor Manuel Micheltorena gave General Vallejo the 84,000-acre Soscoe land grant of Rancho Suscolto, which included the present-day Vallejo.

The American Period (1848–Contemporary)
During this period, and prior, Native American populations were declining rapidly because of an influx of Euro-American diseases. In 1832, a party of trappers from the Hudson’s Bay Company, led by John Work, traveled down the Sacramento River, unintentionally spreading a malaria epidemic to Native Californians. Four years later, a smallpox epidemic decimated local populations, and it is estimated that up to 75 percent of the native population died.19 After the upheaval of the Bear Flag Revolt in 1846, and the result of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, California became a United States territory. In 1848, James W. Marshall discovered gold at Coloma in modern-day El Dorado County, which started the California Gold Rush into the region that forever altered the course of California’s history. The arrival of thousands of gold seekers in the territory contributed to the exploration and settlement of the entire State. By late 1848, approximately 4 out of 5 men in California were gold miners.

By 1864, California’s Gold Rush had essentially ended. The rich surface and river placers were largely exhausted and the miners either returned to their homelands or stayed to start new lives in California. After the gold rush, people in towns such as Jackson, Placerville, and Sonora turned to other means of commerce, such as ranching, agriculture, and timber production. With the decline of gold mining, agriculture and ranching came to the forefront in the State’s economy. California’s natural resources and moderate climate proved well suited for cultivation of a variety of fruits, nuts, vegetables, and grains.

Local History Napa County
European settlement in the Napa area began with the 1820 establishment of the Sonoma Mission and General Mariano Vallejo’s 1838 reception of a land grant that included the Napa and Sonoma valleys. By 1848, the American population in the area had grown, and farmer Nathan Coombs laid out a town plat for Nappa City (the spelling changed to Napa by the 1870s), which served as the County seat when Napa became one of the original 27 counties of California in 1850.20 18 Cook, S.F. 1976. The Population of the California Indians 1769–1970. University of California Press. Berkeley, California. 19 Cook, S.F. 1955. The Epidemic of 1830–1833 in California and Oregon. American Archaeology and Ethnology, 43(3): 303–326. 20 Menefee, C.A. 1873. Historical and Descriptive Sketchbook of Napa, Sonoma, Lake, and Mendocino: Comprising Sketches of their Topography, Productions, History, Scenery, and Peculiar Attractions. Napa: Reporter Publishing House. 309
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources FirstCarbon Solutions 3.4-7
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-04 Cultural-Tribal Cultural Resources.docx During the mid-1850s, Napa County began to grow. While gold was being prospected in other areas of the State, Napa County became a center for silver and quicksilver mining. The County’s population began to swell as pioneers, prospectors, and entrepreneurs moved in and set up residence. Two of those entrepreneurs were Edward Turner Bale and Samuel Brannan. Bale completed building the Bale Grist Mill a few miles north of Saint Helena in 1846. Brannan purchased land in the northern end of the valley at the foot of Mount Saint Helena and founded Calistoga. He began developing it as a resort town, taking advantage of the area’s numerous mineral hot springs. He also founded the Napa Valley Railroad Company in 1864 to bring tourists to Calistoga from the San Francisco ferryboats that docked in Vallejo. Other settlers turned to agriculture for their livelihood, primarily raising cattle, grain, and fruit crops.21
Orchards and wheat gradually displaced cattle ranching as settlers’ primary source of income, and the first Downtown Napa winery opened in the 1870s. While settlers initially relied on Native labor, Chinese immigrants became a more important source of labor as the Native populations declined in the later decades of the nineteenth century. Napa had a substantial Chinatown by 1886. In 1875, the State of California built the Napa State Hospital for the Insane at the southern edge of town; the City had completed with others around the State for the privilege of hosting the asylum, which brought considerable economic benefit with it in terms of public funding.

The Phylloxera louse infested Napa Valley and killed thousands of grapevines, seriously threatening the local wine industry. Many farmers replaced their grapevines with fruit trees. As discrimination against Chinese immigration climbed throughout the country in the late nineteenth century, Napa’s Chinese population shrank, and farmers began to turn to Italian immigrants as a labor source.22 The pattern of economic and population growth established during the war continued through the end of the 1950s. Blue-collar union jobs supported the local economy; by 1960, nearly 2,600 people were employed at Basalt Rock/Kaiser Steel and Napa’s smaller manufacturing plants. Residential construction remained strong; between 1950 and 1957, nearly 5,000 dwelling units were constructed in Napa County, most of which were single-family houses in or near the Napa city limits.

The downtown area remained the seat of County/City government and the commercial center of Napa during the postwar period through the mid-1960s.

The City’s gradual development of a new City Hall, Police Station, and Fire Station at the Downtown Civic Center represented the most significant change to Downtown Napa’s built environment during this era. By 1946, the City was discussing creation of a civic center, initially identifying the former Chinatown at First Street and the Napa River as a potential site. In 1948, the City Council began planning the new City Hall and selected the location along School Street between First Street and Second Street. Between 1951 and 1962, City Hall, the Police Station, and Fire Station No. 1 were constructed at their current locations.
21 Menefee, C.A. 1873. Historical and Descriptive Sketchbook of Napa, Sonoma, Lake, and Mendocino: Comprising Sketches of their Topography, Productions, History, Scenery, and Peculiar Attractions. Napa: Reporter Publishing House. 22 King, N.L. 1967. Napa County, A historical Overview. Napa: Office of Napa County Superintendent of Schools. 310
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Draft EIR

3.4-8 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-04 Cultural-Tribal Cultural Resources.docx The City of American Canyon
Located in southern Napa County, the City of American Canyon was incorporated as a city in 1992.

The history of the City of American Canyon and its economy, growth, and development has been tied to the larger Napa region as a whole. The California Gold Rush brought many settlers to the region but American Canyon itself was largely devoid of gold deposits. Instead, the area was both rich in limestone and ideally suited for farming. In 1852, Simpson Thompson and his two sons established a large farm consisting of 475 acres of orchards and farmland as well as 300 acres of meadowlands for cattle grazing. In the early 1900s, the discovery of rich deposits of limestone led to the development of quarries that could produce over 2000 barrels of cement per day. However, the exploitation of usable limestone and clay meant that by 1930s, mining became economically untenable in the region. The economy of the region pivoted toward agriculture, particularly fruit orchards and the farming of wheat.23
However, the City’s economy would shift following the Paris Wine Tasting of 1976, better known as the Judgement of Paris. In a blind tasting, a panel of expert sommeliers scored wines from Napa estates such as Heitz Cellars or Stag’s Leap higher than estates that produced First Growth Bordeaux wines. Their judgement sent shockwaves around the wine industry and established Napa as a worldclass wine-growing region. 24 While the region of Calistoga and St. Helena in Napa has been focused on producing top-tier wines and attracting high-end clientele, their success could not exist without the logistic support of the warehouses and distribution centers that grew up in American Canyon.

These centers developed in subsequent years following the 1976 Judgement of Paris and provide the backbone for the distribution of domestic and imported wines both in the Bay Area and overseas today.
25 3.4.3 - Regulatory Framework
Federal
National Historic Preservation Act
The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), as amended, established the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), which contains an inventory of the nation’s significant prehistoric and historic properties. Under 36 Code of Federal Regulations 60, a property is recommended for possible inclusion on the NRHP if it is at least 50 years old, has integrity, and meets one of the following criteria:
• It is associated with significant events in history, or broad patterns of events. • It is associated with significant people in the past. • It embodies the distinctive characteristics of an architectural type, period, or method of construction; or it is the work of a master or possesses high artistic value; or it represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. • It has yielded, or may yield, information important in history or prehistory. 23 American Canyon Historical Society Volume 1 and 2. 2010. Napa County Historical Society. 24 Taber, George. 2006. Judgement of Paris. Scribner Press. 25 Ibid. 311
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources FirstCarbon Solutions 3.4-9
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-04 Cultural-Tribal Cultural Resources.docx Certain types of properties are usually excluded from consideration for listing in the NRHP, but they can be considered if they meet special requirements in addition to meeting the criteria listed above.

Such properties include religious sites, relocated properties, graves and cemeteries, reconstructed properties, commemorative properties, and properties that have achieved significance within the past 50 years.

Archaeological Resources Protection Act
The Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) amended the Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 United States Code [USC] 431–433) and set a broad policy that archaeological resources are important to the nation and should be protected, and required special permits before the excavation or removal of archaeological resources from public or Indian lands. The purpose of the ARPA was to secure, for the present and future benefit of the American people, the protection of archaeological resources and sites that are on public lands and Indian lands, and to foster increased cooperation and exchange of information between governmental authorities, the professional archaeological community, and private individuals having collections of archaeological resources and data that were obtained before October 31, 1979.

American Indian Religious Freedom Act
The American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA) established federal policy to protect and preserve the inherent rights of freedom for Native groups to believe, express, and exercise their traditional religions. These rights include but are not limited to access to sites, use and possession of sacred objects, and freedom to worship through ceremonials and traditional rites.

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 sets provisions for the intentional removal and inadvertent discovery of human remains and other cultural items from federal and tribal lands. It clarifies the ownership of human remains and sets forth a process for repatriation of human remains and associated funerary objects and sacred religious objects to the Native American groups claiming to be lineal descendants or culturally affiliated with the remains or objects. It requires any federally-funded institution housing Native American remains or artifacts to compile an inventory of all cultural items within the museum or with its agency and to provide a summary to any Native American tribe claiming affiliation.

State
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)—CEQA Definition of Historical Resources California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15064.5(a), in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, defines a “historical resource” as:
(1) A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission, for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources. (2) A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, shall be 312
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Draft EIR

3.4-10 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-04 Cultural-Tribal Cultural Resources.docx presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant.
(3) Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California may be considered a historical resource, provided the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources. (4) The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, not included in a local register of historical resources (pursuant to Section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code), or identified in a historical resources survey (meeting the criteria in Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be a historical resource as defined in Public Resources Code Sections 5020.1(j) or 5024.1.

Therefore, under the CEQA Guidelines, even if a resource is not included on any local, State, or federal register, or identified in a qualifying historical resources survey, a lead agency may still determine that any resource is a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA if there is substantial evidence supporting such a determination. A lead agency must consider a resource to be historically significant if it finds that the resource meets the criteria for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR).

Archaeological and historical sites are protected pursuant to a wide variety of State policies and regulations, as enumerated in the Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. Cultural resources are recognized as nonrenewable resources and receive additional protection under the Public Resources Code and CEQA.

Public Resources Code 5024.1(c)—Definition of a Historic Resource CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a), in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, defines a “historical resource” as a resource that:

1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage.

2. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past.

3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values.

4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. 313
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources FirstCarbon Solutions 3.4-11
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-04 Cultural-Tribal Cultural Resources.docx CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)(3)—California Register of Historical Resources Criteria As defined by CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5(a)(3)(A-D), a resource shall be considered historically significant if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the CRHR. The CRHR and many local preservation ordinances have employed the criteria for eligibility to the NRHP as a model (see criteria described above under the description of the NHPA), since the NHPA provides the highest standard for evaluating the significance of historic resources. A resource that meets NRHP criteria is clearly significant. In addition, a resource that does not meet NRHP standards may still be considered historically significant at a local or State level.

CEQA Guidelines 15064.5(c)—Effects on Archaeological Resources CEQA Guidelines state that a resource need not be listed on any register to be found historically significant. CEQA Guidelines direct lead agencies to evaluate archaeological sites to determine whether they meet the criteria for listing in the CRHR. If an archaeological site is a historical resource, in that it is listed or eligible for listing in the CRHR, potential adverse impacts to it must be considered. If an archaeological site is considered not to be a historical resource but meets the definition of a “unique archaeological resource” as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21083.2, then it would be treated in accordance with the provisions of that section.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(d)—Effects on Human Remains Native American human remains and associated burial items may be significant to descendant communities and/or may be scientifically important for their informational value. They may be significant to descendant communities for patrimonial, cultural, lineage, and religious reasons.

Human remains may also be important to the scientific community, such as prehistorians, epidemiologists, and physical anthropologists. The specific stake of some descendant groups in ancestral burials is a matter of law for some groups, such as Native Americans (CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5(d); PRC § 5097.98). CEQA and other State regulations regarding Native American human remains provide the following procedural requirements to assist in avoiding potential adverse effects on human remains within the contexts of their value to both descendant communities and the scientific community:
• When an initial study identifies the existence or probable likelihood that a project would affect Native American human remains, the lead agency is to contact and work with the appropriate Native American representatives identified through the NAHC to develop an agreement for the treatment and disposal of the human remains and any associated burial items (CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5(d); PRC § 5097.98).
• If human remains are accidentally discovered, the County Coroner must be contacted. If the County Coroner determines that the human remains are Native American, the Coroner must contact the NAHC within 24 hours. The NAHC must identify the Most Likely Descendant (MLD) to provide for the opportunity to make recommendations for the treatment and disposal of the human remains and associated burial items.
• If the MLD fails to make recommendations within 24 hours of notification or the project applicant rejects the recommendations of the MLD, the Native American human remains and associated burial items must be reburied in a location not subject to future disturbance within the project site (PRC § 5097.98).
314
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Draft EIR

3.4-12 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-04 Cultural-Tribal Cultural Resources.docx • If potentially affected human remains or a burial site may have scientific significance, whether or not it has significance to Native Americans or other descendant communities, then under CEQA, the appropriate mitigation of effect may require the recovery of the scientific information of the remains/burial through identification, evaluation, data recovery, analysis, and interpretation (CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5(c)(2)).

Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5
Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety code sets forth provisions related to the treatment of human remains. As the code states, “every person who knowingly mutilates or disinters, wantonly disturbs, or willfully removes any human remains in or from any location other than a dedicated cemetery without authority of law is guilty of a misdemeanor” except under circumstances as provided in Section 5097.99 of the Public Resource Code. The regulations also provide guidelines for the treatment of human remains found in locations other than a dedicated cemetery including responsibilities of the Coroner.

Public Resources Code Section 5097.98
Section 5097.98 provides protocol for the discovery of human remains. It states that “when the commission receives notification of a discovery of Native American human remains from a County Coroner pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, it shall immediately notify persons believed to be most likely descended from the deceased Native American.” It also sets forth provisions for descendants’ preferences for treatment of the human remains and what should be done if the commission is unable to identify a descendant.

California Public Resources Code Section 5097.91—Native American Heritage Commission Section 5097.91 of the Public Resources Code established the NAHC, whose duties include the inventory of places of religious or social significance to Native Americans and the identification of known graves and cemeteries of Native Americans on private lands. Under Section 5097.91 of the Public Resources Code, a State policy of noninterference with the free expression or exercise of Native American religion was articulated along with a prohibition of severe or irreparable damage to Native American sanctified cemeteries, places of worship, religious or ceremonial sites or sacred shrines located on public property. Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code specifies a protocol to be followed when the NAHC receives notification of a discovery of Native American human remains from a County Coroner. Section 5097.5 defines the unauthorized disturbance or removal of archaeological, historic, or paleontological resources located on public lands as a misdemeanor.

California Senate Bill 18—Protection of Tribal Cultural Places California Senate Bill (SB) 18 (California Government Code § 65352.3) incorporates the protection of California traditional tribal cultural places into land use planning for cities, counties, and agencies by establishing responsibilities for local governments to contact, refer plans to, and consult with California Native American tribes as part of the adoption or amendment of any general or specific plan proposed on or after March 1, 2005. SB 18 requires public notice to be sent to tribes listed on the NAHC SB 18 Tribal Consultation list within the geographical areas affected by the proposed changes. Tribes must respond to a local government notice within 90 days (unless a shorter time frame has been agreed upon by the tribe), indicating whether or not they want to consult with the 315
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources FirstCarbon Solutions 3.4-13
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-04 Cultural-Tribal Cultural Resources.docx local government. Consultations are for the purpose of preserving or mitigating impacts to places, features, and objects described in Sections 5097.9 and 5097.993 of the Public Resources Code that may be affected by the proposed adoption or amendment to a general or specific plan.

California Assembly Bill 52—Effects on Tribal Cultural Resources California Assembly Bill (AB) 52 was signed into law on September 25, 2014, and provides that any public or private “project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a Tribal Cultural Resource (TCR) is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.” TCRs include “[s]ites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are eligible for inclusion in the CRHR or included in a local register of historical resources.” Under prior law, TCRs were typically addressed under the umbrella of “cultural resources,” as discussed above. AB 52 formally added the category of “tribal cultural resources” to CEQA and extends the consultation and confidentiality requirements to all projects, rather than just projects subject to SB 18 as previously discussed.

The parties must consult in good faith, and consultation is deemed concluded when either: (1) the parties agree to measures to mitigate or avoid a significant effect on a TCR (if such a significant effect exists); or (2) when a party concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached. Mitigation measures agreed upon during consultation must be recommended for inclusion in the environmental document.

AB 52 also identifies mitigation measures that may be considered to avoid significant impacts if there is no agreement on appropriate mitigation. Recommended measures include:
• Preservation in place.
• Protecting the cultural character and integrity of the resource. • Protecting the traditional use of the resource.
• Protecting the confidentiality of the resource.
• Permanent conservation easements with culturally appropriate management criteria.

California Public Resources Code Section 21074—Effects on Tribal Cultural Resources AB 52 amended the CEQA statute to identify an additional category of resource to be considered under CEQA, called “tribal cultural resources.” It added Public Resources Code Section 21074, which defines “tribal cultural resources” as follows:
(a) “Tribal cultural resources” are either of the following:
(1) Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either of the following:

A) Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the CRHR.

B) Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1.
(2) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1 for the purposes of this paragraph, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
316
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Draft EIR

3.4-14 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-04 Cultural-Tribal Cultural Resources.docx Local
City of American Canyon
General Plan
To promote the preservation and restoration of the sites, structures and districts that have architectural, historical, archaeological and/or cultural significance to the City of American Canyon.

Objective 8.19 Ensure that the City's historically and archaeologically significant resources are protected in a manner that preserves and/or enhances the resources' inherent historic value.

Policies

8.19.1 Conduct a comprehensive survey of archaeological and cultural resources and historic vegetation that is based on established criteria and encompasses the entire City and its Sphere of Influence.

8.19.2 Adopt a Preservation Ordinance that will authorize the City to designate appropriate vegetation or archaeological sites deemed to be of historic, archaeological, or cultural significance an American Canyon City Historic Point, Site or District. Such an ordinance shall conform to State and federal criteria for establishing a preservation ordinance.

8.19.3 Explore various methods for the future preservation of historic vegetation and archaeological and cultural resources. For example, consider establishing " receiver site" and "adopt a building" programs to preserve historic structures that must be removed from their sites. Additionally, consider utilizing the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Historic Rehabilitation and standards and guidelines prescribed by the State Office of Historic Preservation as the architectural and landscape design standards for rehabilitation, alteration, or additions to sites containing historic resources in order to preserve these structures in a manner consistent with the sites' architectural and historic integrity.

3.4.4 - Methodology
Records Searches and Pedestrian Survey to Identify Existing Cultural Resources The information in this section is based on the Phase I CRA prepared for this project by FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS) in February 2021. The Phase I CRA used the following methods to analyze the potential impacts of project implementation:

Northwest Information Center
On February 10, 2021, a records search for the project site and a 0.50-mile radius beyond the project boundaries was conducted at the NWIC located at Sonoma State University in Rohnert Park, California. To identify any historic properties or resources, the current inventories of the NRHP, the CRHR, the California Historic Landmarks list, the California Points of Historical Interest list, and the 317
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources FirstCarbon Solutions 3.4-15
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-04 Cultural-Tribal Cultural Resources.docx California Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD) for Napa County were reviewed to determine the existence of previously documented local historical resources.

Results from the NWIC indicate that six known cultural resources have been recorded within a 0.5- mile radius of the project site, and two cultural resources have been recorded within the project site (Table 3.4-1). In addition, 30 area-specific survey reports are on file with the NWIC for the project site and its 0.50-mile search radius (Table 3.4-2.). Of the 30 reports, 10 address sections of the project site itself, indicating that the site has been previously surveyed for cultural resources.

Table 3.4-1: Cultural Resources within 0.5-mile of the Project Site Resource No. Resource Description Date Recorded
P-28-001439 Corral Complex; HP33 Farm/Ranch 2007
483A-001 Informal Archaeological Resource 1980
P-28-000384 CA-NAP-000498H: Historic Era Building Foundations 1977 P-28-000643 CA-NAP-000770: Prehistoric Archaeological site 1991 P-28-001156 ARS 99-17-01: Prehistoric Archaeological Site 2001 P-28-002458 AP16: Prehistoric Archaeological Isolate 2016 P-28-002466 876 Green Island Road, American Canyon; HP02 Single-family property 2015 NAP-HRI-001 Goncalves Ranch; HP33. Farm/Ranch 1993
Source: NWIC Records Search. February 10, 2021. Resources listed in Bold are located within project boundaries.

Table 3.4-2: Previous Investigations within 0.5-mile of the Project Site Report No. Report Title/Project Focus Author Date
S-000153 Archaeological Impact Evaluation: Proposed Sewage Pipeline, Napa to American Canyon, Napa County,
California
Thomas F. King 1975
S-001200 Cultural Resource Assessment of the Napa American Canyon Wastewater Reuse Program
Robert A. Gerry 1978
S-014137 An Archaeological Survey of Two Sites for a Proposed Solid Waste Transfer Station, Napa County, California
Janine M. Loyd 1992
S-022036 A Cultural Resources Evaluation of the "Napa 218" Parcel, APN 057-090-59, in the Napa County Airport
Industrial Area, Napa, Napa County
Eric Strother and
Katherine Flynn
1999
S-022041 A Cultural Resource Inventory of the Napa Airport Master Environmental Assessment Area, Napa
County, California
Katherine Flynn, William
Roop, and Ronald
Melander
1983
S-024768 Archaeological evaluation of the proposed Devlin Road Extension Project, Napa, Napa County
Katherine Flynn 1999
318
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Draft EIR

3.4-16 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-04 Cultural-Tribal Cultural Resources.docx Report No. Report Title/Project Focus Author Date
S-033061 Cultural Resources Final Report of Monitoring and Findings for the Qwest Network Construction
Project, State of California
Nancy Sikes, Cindy
Arrington, Bryon Bass,
Chris Corey, Kevin Hunt,
Steve O'Neil, Catherine
Pruett, Tony Sawyer,
Michael Tuma, Leslie
Wagner, and Alex
Wesson
2006
S-034422 Archaeological Assessment Report, Biagi Brothers Wine Distribution Facility, City of American Canyon,
Napa County, California
James M. Allan and Leigh
Martin
2007
S-048153 Archaeological Resources Study of Devlin Road
(Segment H) and Vine Trail Extension Project,
American Canyon, Napa County
Samantha Dollinger 2016
S-049803 Cultural Resources Assessment, Green Island
Industrial District Roads Project, City of American
Canyon, Napa County, California
Kara Brunzell and David
Brunzell
2016
S-000589 An Archaeological Survey of a Proposed Borrow Site in American Canyon near Napa, California
Richard A. Stradford and
David A. Fredrickson
1977
S-000647 Lombard Street Overcrossing, Archaeological
Historical Field Survey
Richard B. Hastings 1975
S-002372 Green Island Industrial Park, Napa County David Chavez 1980 S-009908 Archaeological evaluation of an 8-acre parcel at 1300 Green Island Rd., APN 58-070-24, Napa County,
California
Katherine Flynn 1987
S-009912 Archaeological survey of a parcel located at 650 Green Island Road, American Canyon, Napa County
Katherine Flynn 1988
S-010780 Negative Archaeological Survey Report, proposed sale of an excess parcel west of Highway
Mick Hayes 1989
S-011526 Archaeological reconnaissance of the Lands of Struble, Green Island Road, Napa County
Katherine Flynn 1989
S-012429 Archaeological Survey and Evaluation for the Napa Sanitation District Master Plan Update, Napa County,
California
Pat Mikkelsen, John Berg,
and Paul Bouey
1991
S-012439 Cultural Resources Investigations for the Port of Oakland Phase I Dredging, Cultural Resources
Evaluation
David Chavez 1990
S-014281 An Archaeological Survey of a Site for a Proposed Solid Waste Transfer Station, South of Tower Road, Napa
County, California
Janine M. Loyd 1992
S-016739 Negative Archaeological Survey Report, proposed Caltrans maintenance station on excess land parcels
27902-1, 2-7878-4, and 2783-1
Katherine M. Dowdall 1994
S-019171 A Cultural Resources Study of the Hess Collection Winery-American Canyon Property, Napa County,
California
Vicki R. Beard 1997
319
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources FirstCarbon Solutions 3.4-17
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-04 Cultural-Tribal Cultural Resources.docx Report No. Report Title/Project Focus Author Date
S-021260 Rock Fences of Napa County: A Pilot Study Kim J. Tremaine and John A. Lopez
1998
S-024769 Archaeological Reconnaissance of a ten-acre parcel located at 1500 Green Island Road, Napa Co
Katherine Flynn 1988
S-030746 A Cultural Resources Study for the Hanna Bridge Project, Project #0253605003-32001, City of American
Canyon, Napa County, California
Heidi Koenig 2005
S-034252 An Archaeological Survey of the Green Island
Assessment and Reimbursement District, Napa
County, California
Thomas Origer 1988
S-034253 Cultural Resources Inspection of the Hanna Court Project Area, American Canyon, Napa County,
California
Miley Paul Holman 2006
S-043823 Cultural Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report for Napa River Salt Marsh Restoration Project, Napa
and Sonoma Counties, California
No Author 2003
S-048522 A Historical Resources Study for the Jim Oswalt Warehouse IS/MND American Canyon, Napa County,
California
Taylor Alshuth and Tom
Orige
2016
S-049494 A Historical Resources Study for the Napa Logistics Business Park-Phase II, American Canyon, Napa
County, California
Taylor Alshuth and Tom
Origer
2016
Source: NWIC Records Search. February 10, 2021. Reports listed in Bold address locations within the project boundaries.

Historic Aerials
A review of 15 historic aerials depicting the project site from 1948 to 2018 indicate that from the earliest aerial, the site was undeveloped, with a single homestead directly outside of its southern border. From 1958 to 2018, the site remained undeveloped, with gradual industrial development occurring to the west, south, east and northeast of the site. The site remains undeveloped to the present day.26
Native American Heritage Commission
On January 25, 2021, FCS sent a letter to the NAHC in an effort to determine whether any sacred sites are listed on its Sacred Lands File for the Area of Potential Effect (APE). A response was received on February 4, 2021, indicating that the Sacred Lands File was positive for TRCs in the APE. The NAHC included a list of 10 tribal representatives available for consultation. To ensure that all Native American knowledge and concerns over potential TCRs that may be affected by the proposed project are addressed, a letter containing project information and requesting any additional information was sent to each tribal representative on February 8, 2021. A second follow up letter and/or email was was sent on May 13, 2021. On May 21, 2021, a third and final attempt was made via phone call. 26 Historic Aerials. 2020. Website: https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer. Accessed June 3, 2021. 320
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Draft EIR

3.4-18 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-04 Cultural-Tribal Cultural Resources.docx On Feburary 9, 2021, a response was received from the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation stating that the project site falls within the Tribe’s traditional use area and could impact known cultural resources important to the Tribe. The Tribe provided recommended mitigation measures and protocols including construction monitoring of all ground disturbance and cultural sensitivity training for all staff on-site. On May 21, 2021, a representative of the Guidiville Indian Rancheria stated that the original letter was forwarded to their historian and a lack of response would mean there are no further comments. No additional responses or requests from tribal representatives have been received to date.

Tribal consultation pursuant to AB 52 has been initiated by the City of American Canyon and is ongoing. Table 3.4-3 summarizes the tribal consultation milestones.

Table 3.4-3: Tribal Consultation Matrix
Tribal Contact Letter Sent
First Follow Up
Attempt
Second Follow
Up Attempt
Comments from the
Tribe
Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun Indians
of the Colusa Indian Community
Daniel Gomez, Chairman
2/8/21 5/13/21 5/21/21 No response has been
received to date.

Cortina Rancheria – Kletsel Dehe
Band of Wintun Indians
Charlie Wright, Chairperson
2/8/21 5/13/21 5/21/21 No response has been
received to date.

Guidiville Indian Rancheria Donald
Duncan, Chairperson
2/8/21 5/13/21 5/21/21 May 21, 2021: FCS
spoke with the
representative, who
stated that the original
letter was forwarded
to their historian and
if no response is
received, this means
there are no
comments. No
additional response
has been received to
date.

Middletown Rancheria of Pomo
Indians
Jose Simon, Chairperson
2/8/21 5/13/21 5/21/21 No response has been
received to date.

Mishewal-Wappo Tribe of Alexander
Valley
Scott Gabaldon, Chairperson
2/8/21 5/13/21 5/21/21 No response has been
received to date.

Pinoleville Pomo Nation Leona
Williams, Chairperson
2/8/21 5/13/21 5/21/21 No response has been
received to date.

Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation Leland
Kinter, THPO
2/8/21 5/13/21 5/21/21 No response has been
received to date.
321
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources FirstCarbon Solutions 3.4-19
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-04 Cultural-Tribal Cultural Resources.docx Tribal Contact Letter Sent
First Follow Up
Attempt
Second Follow
Up Attempt
Comments from the
Tribe
Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation Laverne
Bill, Site Protection
2/8/21 5/13/21 5/21/21 Email response:

February 9, 2021.

Laverne Bill stated
that the project site
could impact known
cultural resources
important to the Tribe.

The Tribe requests
cultural monitors and
cultural sensitivity
training for all staff onsite. Additional
mitigation measures
from Yocha Dehe
Wintun Nation’s
Treatment Protocol
should be
incorporated.

Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation Anthony
Roberts, Chairperson
2/8/21 5/13/21 5/21/21 No response has been
received to date.

Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation Isaac
Bojorquez, Director of Cultural
Resources
2/8/21 5/13/21 5/21/21 No response has been
received to date.

Cultural Resources Pedestrian Survey
On April 29, 2021, FCS Senior Archaeologist, Dana DePietro, PhD, RPA, and FCS Historian, Ti Ngo conducted a pedestrian survey for unrecorded cultural resources in the APE. The survey began in the southeast corner of the APE and moved west, using north–south transects spaced at 15-meter intervals. All areas of proposed development were closely inspected for culturally modified soils or other indicators of potential historic or prehistoric resources. Due to the high level of vegetation growth in the APE, visibility of native soils was extremely poor, ranging between 1 to 5 percent.

Native soils were most clearly visible in cuts and drainages along the edges of the APE, and in areas where bioturbation had exposed subsurface soils. Other sections of poor visibility were intermittently inspected using a hand trowel. Visible soils were largely composed of medium brown (10YR 6/1) silt with moderate clay content, interspersed with small (2-3 cm) stones primarily composed of chalk and schist.

Dr. De Pietro and Mr. Ngo attempted to relocate informal archaeological resource 483A-001 and historic era resource P-28-001439, the historic corral complex. Details regarding these resources can be found in Appendix D. The corral complex was evaluated in 2007, found ineligible for listing as a historic resource, and was subsequently removed from the site. No elements of the corral complex or resource 483A-001 were observed. Both resources are located within 44.8-acres of the project site that will remain undeveloped for the purposes of environmental conservation. Neither are within the proposed construction plan footprint, nor will they be subjected to any ground-disturbing activities.
322
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Draft EIR

3.4-20 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-04 Cultural-Tribal Cultural Resources.docx

3.4.5 - Thresholds of Significance
According to Appendix G, Environmental Checklist, of the CEQA Guidelines, cultural resources impacts resulting from the implementation of the proposed project would be considered significant if the project would:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as pursuant to Section 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? d) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)? e) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1?
f) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k), or ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1.

3.4.6 - Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This section discusses potential impacts associated with the development of the proposed project and provides mitigation measures where appropriate.

Historic Resources
Impact CUL-1: The proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5. 323
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources FirstCarbon Solutions 3.4-21
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-04 Cultural-Tribal Cultural Resources.docx Impact Analysis
Historic resources in this context refer to the built environment, mainly buildings and structures over 45 years in age that may be eligible for inclusion on the CRHR or NRHP. Records search results, conducted at the NWIC, identified one historic resource (P-28-001439) located within the project site and three historic resources (P-28-000384, P-28-002466 and NAP-HRI-001) located within the 0.5- mile records search radius. As discussed above, P-28-001439 consists of a corral complex that was used for cattle grazing. The historic resource was evaluated relative to the four CRHR eligibility criteria and found to be ineligible to meet any of the criteria for historic and/or architectural significance required for listing on the NRHP, CRHR, or at the local level. No additional historic resources were encountered during the pedestrian field survey and evaluation. Accordingly, the project will not have an adverse impact on historic era built environment resources.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation
No impact.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

Level of Significance After Mitigation
No impact.

Archaeological Resources
Impact CUL-2: The proposed project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5.

Impact Analysis
Records search results from the NWIC identified one informal archaeological resource (483A-001) within the project site and three prehistoric archaeological resources (P-28-000643, P-28-001156 and P-28-002458) located within the 0.5-mile records search radius. Additionally, the Sacred Lands Files search conducted by the NAHC came back positive for TRCs within the project site. During the pedestrian field survey, Dr. DePietro and Mr. Ngo attempted to relocate the informal resource 483A001, but were unable to find any remaining indication of it. 483A-001 is located within 44.8-acres of the project site that will remain undeveloped for the purposes of environmental conservation, and will not be subjected to any ground-disturbing activities.

No additional archaeological resources were encountered during the pedestrian field survey, however, poor soil visibility and the presence of several archaeological resources in the immediate vicinity increases the possibility of resources being encountered during project construction.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure (MM) CUL-2, which requires a qualified Archaeologist to be present on-site during all earth disturbing activities, would reduce potential impacts to archaeological resources that may be discovered during project construction. If a potential resource is identified, construction would be required to stop until appropriate identification and treatment measures are implemented.
324
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Draft EIR

3.4-22 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-04 Cultural-Tribal Cultural Resources.docx Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
MM CUL-2a No ground disturbance shall take place within 100 feet of informal archaeological resource 483A-001. The resource shall be preserved in place.

MM CUL-2b An Archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology shall be present on-site during all earth disturbing activities. If prehistoric or historic-period archaeological resources are encountered, all construction activities within 100 feet of the find shall halt and the City of American Canyon shall be notified. Prehistoric archaeological materials may include obsidian and chert flaked stone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, scrapers) or toolmaking debris; culturally darkened soil (“midden”) containing heat-affected rocks, artifacts, or shellfish remains; and stone milling equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, hand stones, or milling slabs); and battered stone tools, such as hammerstones and pitted stones. Historic-period materials might include stone, concrete, or adobe footings and walls; filled wells or privies; and deposits of metal, glass, and/or ceramic refuse.

The Archaeologist shall inspect the findings within 24 hours of discovery. If it is determined the project could damage a historical resource or a unique archaeological resource (as defined pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines), mitigation shall be implemented in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21083.2 and Section 15126.4 of the CEQA Guidelines, with a preference for preservation in place. Consistent with Section 15126.4(b)(3), this may be accomplished through planning construction to avoid the resource; incorporating the resource within open space; capping and covering the resource; or deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. If avoidance is not feasible, a qualified Archaeologist shall prepare and implement a detailed treatment plan in consultation with the City of American Canyon. Treatment of unique archaeological resources shall follow the applicable requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21083.2. Treatment for most resources would consist of (but would not be limited to) sample excavation, artifact collection, site documentation, and historical research, with the aim to target the recovery of important scientific data contained in the portion(s) of the significant resource to be impacted by the proposed project. The treatment plan shall include provisions for analysis of data in a regional context, reporting of results within a timely manner, curation of artifacts and data at an approved facility, and dissemination of reports to local and State repositories, libraries, and interested professionals.

Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact.
325
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources FirstCarbon Solutions 3.4-23
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-04 Cultural-Tribal Cultural Resources.docx Human Remains
Impact CUL-3: The proposed project could disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.

Impact Analysis
While no formal cemeteries or areas containing human remains are known to be in the project vicinity, the possibility always exists that construction-related ground disturbance may uncover previously undiscovered human remains. In the unlikely event such a discovery is made, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, and Public Resources Code Sections 5097.94 and Section 5097.98 must be followed. Implementation of MM CUL-3, which details inadvertent discovery procedures, would reduce potential impacts to previously undiscovered human remains to a less than significant level.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
MM CUL-3 In the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, and Public Resources Code Sections 5097.94 and Section 5097.98 shall be followed. If during project construction, there is accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, the following steps shall be taken:

1. There shall be no further excavation or disturbance within 100 feet of the remains until the County Coroner is contacted to determine whether the remains are Native American and if an investigation of the cause of death is required. If the Coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the Coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours, and the NAHC shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the Most Likely Descendant (MLD) of the deceased Native American. The MLD may make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work within 48 hours, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains, and any associated grave goods as provided in Public Resource Code Section 5097.98.

2. Where the following conditions occur, the landowner or authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity either in accordance with the recommendations of the MLD or on the project site in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance:
• The NAHC is unable to identify an MLD or the MLD failed to make a recommendation within 48 hours after being notified by the commission. • The descendant identified fails to make a recommendation. • The landowner or authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendant, and mediation by the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.
326
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Draft EIR

3.4-24 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-04 Cultural-Tribal Cultural Resources.docx Additionally, California Public Resources Code Section 15064.5 requires the following relative to Native American Remains:
• When an initial study identifies the existence of, or the probable likelihood of, Native American Remains within a project, a lead agency shall work with the appropriate Native Americans as identified by the NAHC as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The applicant may develop a plan with respect to their respective individual development proposals for treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains, and any items associated with Native American Burials with the appropriate Native Americans as identified by the NAHC.

Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant.

Listed or Eligible Tribal Cultural Resources
Impact CUL-4: The proposed project may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a Tribal Cultural Resource.

Impact Analysis
Records search results from the NWIC indicate several prehistoric sites are located within the project vicinity, and a review of the NAHC Sacred Lands File was positive for recorded TCRs being located within the project site. On February 9, 2021, a response was received from the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation stating that the project site falls within the Tribe’s traditional use area and could impact known cultural resources important to the Tribe. This would constitute a significant impact. The Tribe provided recommended mitigation measures and protocols including construction monitoring of all ground disturbance. Implementation of these protocols, included here as MM CUL-4, would reduce potential impacts to TCRs to a less than significant level.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
MM CUL-4 A Tribal Monitor representing the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation shall be present during all project-related ground disturbance. Additionally, the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation’s Treatment Protocol (Protocol) shall be followed with respect to Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs). The purpose of the protocol is to formalize procedures for the treatment of Native American human remains, grave goods, ceremonial items, and items of cultural patrimony, if any are found in conjunction with development, including archaeological studies, excavation, geotechnical investigations, grading, and any ground-disturbing activity. This Protocol also formalizes procedures for Tribal Monitoring during archaeological studies, grading, and ground-disturbing activities.
327
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources FirstCarbon Solutions 3.4-25
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-04 Cultural-Tribal Cultural Resources.docx

1. Cultural Affiliation: The Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation (Tribe) traditionally occupied lands in Yolo, Solano, Lake, Colusa, and Napa Counties. The Tribe has designated its Cultural Resources Committee (Committee) to act on the Tribe's behalf with respect to the provisions of this Protocol. Any human remains which are found in conjunction with projects on lands culturally affiliated with the Tribe shall be treated in accordance with Section III of this Protocol. Any other cultural resources shall be treated in accordance with Section IV of this Protocol.

2. Inadvertent Discovery of Native American Human Remains: Whenever Native American human remains are found during the course of a project, the determination of Most Likely Descendant (MLD) under California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 will be made by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) upon notification to the NAHC of the discovery of said remains at a project site. If the location of the site and the history and prehistory of the area is culturally affiliated with the Tribe, the NAHC contacts the Tribe; a Tribal member will be designated by the Tribe to consult with the landowner and/or project proponents. Should the NAHC determine that a member of an Indian tribe other than Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation is the MLD, and the Tribe agrees with this determination, the terms of this Protocol relating to the treatment of such Native American human remains shall not be applicable; however, that situation is very unlikely.

3. Treatment of Native American Remains: In the event that Native American human remains are found during development of a project and the Tribe or a member of the Tribe is determined to be MLD pursuant to Section II of this Protocol, the following provisions shall apply. The Medical Examiner shall immediately be notified, ground-disturbing activities in that location shall cease and the Tribe shall be allowed, pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98(a), to (1) inspect the site of the discovery and (2) make determinations as to how the human remains and grave goods shall be treated and disposed of with appropriate dignity. The Tribe shall complete its inspection and make its MLD recommendation within 48 hours of getting access to the site.

The Tribe shall have the final determination as to the disposition and treatment of human remains and grave goods. Said determination may include avoidance of the human remains, reburial on-site, or reburial on tribal or other lands that will not be disturbed in the future. The Tribe may wish to rebury said human remains and grave goods or ceremonial and cultural items on or near the site of their discovery, in an area which will not be subject to future disturbances over a prolonged period of time. Reburial of human remains shall be accomplished in compliance with the California Public Resources Code Sections 5097.98(a) and (b). The term "human remains" encompasses more than human bones because the Tribe’s traditions call for the burial of associated cultural items with the deceased (funerary objects), and/or the ceremonial burning of Native American human remains, funerary objects, grave goods, and animals. Ashes, soils, and other remnants of these burning ceremonies, as well as associated funerary objects and unassociated funerary objects buried with or found near the Native 328
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Draft EIR

3.4-26 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-04 Cultural-Tribal Cultural Resources.docx American remains are to be treated in the same manner as bones or bone fragments that remain intact.

4. Non-Disclosure of Location of Reburials: Unless otherwise required by law, the site of any reburial of Native American human remains shall not be disclosed and will not be governed by public disclosure requirements of the California Public Records Act, California Government Code Section 6250 et seq. The Medical Examiner shall withhold public disclosure of information related to such reburial pursuant to the specific exemption set forth in California Government Code Section 6254(r). The Tribe will require that the location for reburial is recorded with the California Historic Resources Inventory System (CHRIS) on a form acceptable to the CHRIS center. The Tribe may also suggest that the landowner enter into an agreement regarding the confidentiality of site information that will run with title on the property.

5. Treatment of Cultural Resources: Treatment of all cultural items, including ceremonial items and archaeological items will reflect the religious beliefs, customs, and practices of the Tribe. All cultural items, including ceremonial items and archaeological items, which may be found at a project site shall be turned over to the Tribe for appropriate treatment, unless ordered by a court or agency of competent jurisdiction. The project proponent shall waive any and all claims to ownership of Tribal ceremonial and cultural items, including archaeological items, which may be found on a project site in favor of the Tribe.

If any intermediary, (for example, an Archaeologist retained by the project proponent) is necessary, said entity or individual shall not possess those items for longer than is reasonably necessary, as determined solely by the Tribe.

6. Inadvertent Discoveries: If additional significant sites or sites not identified as significant in a project environmental review process, but later determined to be significant, are located within a project impact area, such sites will be subjected to further archaeological and cultural significance evaluation by the project proponent, the Lead Agency, and the Tribe to determine whether additional mitigation measures are necessary to treat sites in a culturally appropriate manner consistent with CEQA requirements for mitigation of impacts to cultural resources. If there are human remains present that have been identified as Native American, all work will cease for a period of up to 30 days in accordance with Federal Law.

Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact.

Lead Agency Determined Tribal Cultural Resources
Impact CUL-5: The proposed project may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource.
329
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources FirstCarbon Solutions 3.4-27
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-04 Cultural-Tribal Cultural Resources.docx Impact Analysis
FCS sent letters containing project information and requesting any additional information to each tribal representative identified by the NAHC on February 8, 2021. A second follow up letter and/or email was sent on May 13, 2021. On May 21, 2021, a third and final attempt was made via phone call. On February 9, 2021, a response was received from the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation stating that the project site falls within the Tribe’s traditional use area and could impact known cultural resources important to the Tribe. The Tribe provided recommended mitigation measures and protocols including construction monitoring of all ground disturbance and cultural sensitivity training for all staff on-site.

Tribal consultation pursuant to AB 52 has been initiated by the City of American Canyon and is ongoing. The City of American Canyon, in its capacity as lead agency, has not identified any TCRs within the project site that are significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. However, the possibility remains that TCRs in the form of subsurface archaeological resources or human remains may be encountered during project construction.

Implementation of MM CUL-2a, MM CUL-2b, MM CUL-3 and MM CUL-4 would require construction monitoring by a qualified Archaeologist and Native American Monitor. These measures include protocols provided by the Yoche Dehe Wintun Nation and would reduce potential impacts to TCRs to a less than significant level.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
Implement Mitigation Measures CUL-2a, CUL-2b, CUL-3 and CUL-4.

Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact.
330

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
331
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.5-1
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-05 Geology.docx

3.5 - Geology, Soils, and Seismicity

3.5.1 - Introduction
This section describes the existing geology, soils, and seismicity setting and potential effects from project implementation on the site and its surrounding area. Descriptions and analysis in this section are based on information provided by the Geotechnical Engineering Report prepared by Wallace Kuhl & Associates and the Geological Fault Investigation prepared by Cornerstone Earth Group. Both reports are provided in Appendix E.

3.5.2 - Environmental Setting
Regional Geology
The site is located in the southern portion of the Napa Valley, which is characterized as a relatively large northwest-trending alluvial valley within the Northern California Coast Range geomorphic province. The valley is at the southernmost end of the Mayacmas Mountains. South of the City of Napa, the hills on the western side of the valley terminate at the marshes bordering the northern end of San Pablo Bay; the hills on the northeast continue to near Sulphur Springs Mountain near the City of Vallejo. The bedrock ridges on each side of the Napa Valley trend northwest, parallel to the general north-northwest structural trend of the North Coast Ranges. Pre-Quaternary bedrock is generally restricted to the foothills, but locally there are low knolls or hills of Tertiary-age bedrock in the central and western parts of the valley. Quaternary alluvial fan deposits shed from the hills on the east, and fluvial deposits associated with the Napa River and its tributary valleys comprise the youngest deposits within the Napa Valley. Late Pleistocene estuarine deposits formed during the last interglacial stage are postulated to underlie a broad geomorphic surface in the southern end of the valley where the subject site is situated.

Within the region, the San Andreas Fault system distributes shearing across a complex assemblage of primarily right-lateral, strike-slip, parallel, and sub-parallel faults that include the Hayward and Calaveras Faults and others (see the “Faulting” section of this report). The mountainous topography west of Napa Valley resulted from latest Pliocene and Quaternary uplift associated with the younger structures.

Local Geology
The site is in an area adjacent to the San Francisco Bay where Quaternary alluvial deposits dominate the local geology. The majority of the site and adjacent areas is underlain by Late Pleistocene to Holocene alluvial fan deposits (“Qf”), which are bound to the north and on the west by older geologic units, including Late Pleistocene fan deposits (“Qpf”) and Early to Middle Pleistocene alluvial fan or terrace deposits (“Qoa”). Specifically, the Qf unit is relatively younger than and was deposited over the Qpf and the Qoa units. The Qf unit is described as gently sloping, fan-shaped, relatively undissected alluvial surfaces where Late Pleistocene or Holocene age was uncertain or where the deposits of different age interfinger such that they could not be delineated at the map scale. Sediments include sand, gravel, silt, and clay, moderately to poorly sorted and moderately to poorly bedded. The Qpf unit is described as Late Pleistocene fan deposits. Gently sloping, fan-shaped 332
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Draft EIR

3.5-2 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-05 Geology.docx alluvial surfaces where Late Pleistocene age is indicated by slight dissection and/or the development of alfisols. The Qoa unit is described as moderately to deeply dissected alluvial deposits capped by alfisols, ultisols, or soils containing a silica or calcic hardpan.

The Huichica Formation (Pliocene) is mapped on the western edge of the site. The formation is described as fluvial gravel, sand, silt, and clay. Holocene alluvium is mapped within the meandering, channelized path of the unnamed creek that extends into the site.

Seismicity
The term seismicity describes the effects of seismic waves that are radiated from an earthquake as it ruptures. While most of the energy released during an earthquake results in the permanent displacement of the ground, as much as 10 percent of the energy may dissipate immediately in the form of seismic waves. The probability of one or more earthquakes of magnitude 6.7 (Richter scale) or higher occurring in the project area has been evaluated by the United States Geological Survey (USGS). Based on the results of the USGS evaluation, there is a 63 percent likelihood that such an earthquake event will occur in the Bay Area between 2007 and 2036. The faults with the greater probability of movement with a magnitude of 6.7 or higher earthquake are the Hayward Fault at 27 percent, the San Andreas Fault at 21 percent, and the Calaveras Fault at 11 percent. To understand the implications of seismic events, a discussion of faulting and seismic hazards follows.

Faulting
Faults form in rocks when stresses overcome the internal strength of the rock, resulting in a fracture.

Large faults develop in response to large, regional stresses operating over a long time, such as those stresses caused by the relative displacement between tectonic plates. According to the elastic rebound theory, these stresses cause strain to build up in the earth’s crust until enough strain has built up to exceed the strength along a fault and cause a brittle failure. The slip between the two stuck plates or coherent blocks generates an earthquake. Following an earthquake, strain will build once again until the occurrence of another earthquake. The magnitude of slip is related to the maximum allowable strain that can be built up along a particular fault segment. The greatest build up in strain that is due to the largest relative motion between tectonic plates or fault blocks over the longest period of time will generally produce the largest earthquakes. The distribution of these earthquakes is a study of much interest for both hazard prediction and analysis of active deformation of the earth’s crust. Deformation is a complex process, and strain caused by tectonic forces is not only accommodated through faulting but also by folding, uplift, and subsidence, which can be gradual or in direct response to earthquakes.

Faults are mapped to determine earthquake hazards since they occur where earthquakes tend to recur. A historic plane of weakness is more likely to fail under stress and strain than a previously unbroken block of crust. Faults are, therefore, a prime indicator of past seismic activity, and faults with recent activity are presumed to be the best candidates for future earthquakes. However, since slip is not always accommodated by faults that intersect the surface along traces, and since the orientation of stresses and strain in the crust can shift, predicting the location of future earthquakes is complicated. Earthquakes sometimes occur in areas with previously undetected faults or along faults previously thought inactive.
333
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.5-3
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-05 Geology.docx The West Napa, Green Valley, and Rogers Creek are the three faults closest to American Canyon.

These faults and their characteristics are summarized in Table 3.5-1 and shown on Exhibit 3.5-1.

Table 3.5-1: Fault Summary
Fault Type
Relationship to Project Site Maximum Credible
Direction Distance (miles) Earthquake (magnitude)
West Napa Normal-Oblique — <0.1 6.50
Green Valley Right-Lateral Strike-Slip East 7.4 6.50
Rogers Creek Right-Lateral Strike-Slip Southwest 8.1 7.00 Source: Cornerstone Earth Group 2017.

West Napa Fault
The West Napa Fault begins under San Pablo Bay and travels north through American Canyon and up the west side of the Napa Valley to the vicinity of Saint Helena. The West Napa Fault is designated an Alquist-Priolo Special Study Area. On August 24, 2014, a magnitude 6.0 earthquake (known as the South Napa Earthquake) occurred on the West Napa Fault, the epicenter of which was approximately 1 mile from the project site. Prior to the 2014 South Napa Earthquake, the last major seismic event on the West Napa Fault was a magnitude 5.2 temblor whose epicenter was near Yountville in September 2000.

Exhibit 3.5-2 depicts the location of the West Napa Fault in relation to the project site. As shown in the exhibit, the fault and Special Study Area overlap with the western portion (Phase 2) of the project site.

Seismic Hazards
Seismicity describes the effects of seismic waves that are radiated from an earthquake as it ruptures.

While most of the energy released during an earthquake results in the permanent displacement of the ground, as much as 10 percent of the energy may dissipate immediately in the form of seismic waves. To understand the implications of seismic events, a discussion of faulting and seismic hazards is provided below.

Seismic hazards pose a substantial danger to property and human safety and are present because of the risk of naturally occurring geologic events and processes impacting human development.

Therefore, the hazard is influenced as much by the conditions of human development as by the frequency and distribution of major geologic events. Seismic hazards present in California include ground rupture along faults, strong seismic shaking, liquefaction, ground failure, landsliding, and slope failure.

Fault Rupture
Fault rupture is a seismic hazard that affects structures sited above an active fault. The hazard from fault rupture is the movement of the ground surface along a fault during an earthquake. Typically, 334
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Draft EIR

3.5-4 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-05 Geology.docx this movement takes place during the short time of an earthquake, but it also can occur slowly over many years in a process known as creep. Most structures and underground utilities cannot accommodate the surface displacements of several inches to several feet commonly associated with fault rupture or creep.

Following the August 24, 2014, seismic event on the West Napa Fault, fault rupture was observed on two Napa County Airport taxiways and various roadways in Napa County, including State Route 121 and Old Sonoma Road.

Ground Shaking
The severity of ground shaking depends on several variables, such as earthquake magnitude, epicenter distance, local geology, thickness, seismic wave-propagation properties of unconsolidated materials, groundwater conditions, and topographic setting. Ground shaking hazards are most pronounced in areas near faults or with unconsolidated alluvium.

Based on observations of damage from recent earthquakes in California (e.g., San Fernando 1971, Whittier-Narrows 1987, Landers 1992, Northridge 1994), ground shaking is responsible for 70 to 100 percent of all earthquake damage. The most common type of damage from ground shaking is structural damage to buildings, which can range from cosmetic stucco cracks to total collapse. The overall level of structural damage from a nearby large earthquake would likely be moderate to heavy, depending on the characteristics of the earthquake, the type of ground, and the condition of the building. Besides damage to buildings, strong ground shaking can cause severe damage from falling objects or broken utility lines. Fire and explosions are also hazards associated with strong ground shaking.

During the 2014 South Napa Earthquake, the USGS instrument readings at monitoring sites in Napa and Vallejo reported peak ground acceleration values ranging from 19.8 to 40.7 percent of gravity, which corresponds to “strong” and “very strong” ground shaking. Following the earthquake, more than 200 persons sought treatment at local hospitals, more than 150 buildings were “red tagged,”1 and numerous utility lines experienced ruptures or leaks that disrupted service.

Ground Failure
Ground failure includes liquefaction, the liquefaction-induced phenomena of lateral spreading, and lurching.

Liquefaction is a process by which sediments below the water table temporarily lose strength during an earthquake and behave as a viscous liquid rather than a solid. Liquefaction is restricted to certain geologic and hydrologic environments, primarily recently deposited sand and silt in areas with high groundwater levels. The process of liquefaction involves seismic waves passing through saturated granular layers, distorting the granular structure, and causing the particles to collapse. This causes the granular layer to behave temporarily as a viscous liquid, resulting in liquefaction. 1 A red-tagged building is considered uninhabitable without further assessment or repair under the California Building Standards Code.
335
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.5-5
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-05 Geology.docx Liquefaction can cause the soil beneath a structure to lose strength, which may result in the loss of foundation-bearing capacity. This loss of strength commonly causes the structure to settle or tip.

Loss of bearing strength can also cause light buildings with basements, buried tanks, and foundation piles to rise buoyantly through the liquefied soil.

Lateral spreading is lateral ground movement, with some vertical component, caused by liquefaction. In effect, the soil rides on top of the liquefied layer. Lateral spreading can occur on relatively flat sites with slopes less than 2 percent, under certain circumstances, and can cause ground cracking and settlement.

Lurching is the movement of the ground surface toward an open face when the soil liquefies. An open face could be a graded slope, stream bank, canal face, gully, or other similar feature.

Landslides and Slope Failure
Landslides and other forms of slope failure form in response to the long-term geologic cycle of uplift, mass wasting, and disturbance of slopes. Mass wasting refers to a variety of erosional processes from gradual downhill soil creep to mudslides, debris flows, landslides, and rock fall—processes that are commonly triggered by intense precipitation, which varies according to climactic shifts.

Often, various forms of mass wasting are grouped together as landslides, which are generally used to describe the downhill movement of rock and soil.

Geologists classify landslides into several different types that reflect differences in the type of material and type of movement. The four most common types of landslides are translational, rotational, earth flow, and rock fall. Debris flows are another common type of landslide similar to earth flows, except that the soil and rock particles are coarser. Mudslide is a term that appears in non-technical literature to describe a variety of shallow, rapidly moving earth flows.

Surface Profile/Geomorphology
The project site contains flat topography and ground cover vegetation. There are few exposures of natural earth materials at the subject site except for local erosion scars on sloping ground within the central trough and stream banks of the unnamed creek near the northern edge of the site. At the time of the reconnaissance the site was undeveloped and being used for livestock pasture. Grasses and weeds exist across the ground surface. The central portion of the site is crossed north to south by a seasonal creek that has resulted in subtle depressions accented by wetland vegetation. A topographic rise on the southwest corner of the site corresponds to area where the published maps show the Huichita Formation forming an oblong outcrop at the ground surface.

Site reconnaissance revealed geomorphic features suggesting the presence of fault surface traces, including subtle linear topographic depressions along the northerly trending creek adjacent to the north property line, a dextrally offset drainage, and linear edge along the west edge of wetlands. 336
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Draft EIR

3.5-6 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-05 Geology.docx Subsurface Profile
Geologic Units
The project site, the property to the south through which the utility lines would be extended, and the pump station site are underlain by Late Pleistocene fan deposits bordered by two younger geologic units: Holocene alluvium and Holocene alluvial fan sentiments.

Native Soils
Soil mapping by the United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service indicates that the project site consists mostly of Haire loam, 2-9 percent slopes; smaller areas of Clear Lake clay drained, 0-2 percent slopes; and Haire clay loam, 2-9 percent slopes. The characteristics of the three native soils are summarized in Table 3.5-2. Note that fill has been placed on-site and is not reflected in Table 3.5-2.

Table 3.5-2: Native Soils Summary
Soil Parent Material Landform Constituents Drainage Class Haire loam, 2-9
percent slopes
Alluvium derived from
sedimentary rock Alluvial fans Loam; sandy clay loam; clay; sandy clay Moderately
well
Clear Lake clay,
drained, 0-2 percent
slopes
Basin alluvium derived
from igneous,
metamorphic, and
sedimentary rock
Basin floors Clay Poor
Haire clay loam, 2-9
percent slopes
Alluvium derived from
sedimentary rock Alluvial fans Loam; sandy clay loam; clay; sandy clay Moderately
well
Source: Natural Resources Conservation Service 2021.

Soil Borings
Wallace Kuhl conducted 52 soil borings in 2020 to evaluate the subsurface profile. The borings indicated that the project site is underlain by moderate-to-high plasticity, stiff-to-hard lean clay to depths of 5 to 10 feet below ground surface. Groundwater was encountered in six borings at depths ranging from 12 to 20 feet below ground surface. Wallace Kuhl’s 2020 findings were consistent with Cornerstone Earth Group’s 2017 investigation.

Paleontological Resources
The surface of the project site consists of Holocene fan deposits (Qf), Holocene–Pleistocene fan deposits (Qpf), early to middle Pleistocenefan or terrace deposits (Qoa), and the Pliocene Huichica Formation (Th). Also in the surrounding 0.5-mile radius (dashed outline) are modern artificial fill (af, afbm), Holocene–Pleistocene landslide deposits (Qls), the Plio-Pleistocene Petaluma Formation (Tsp), the Pliocene Sonoma Volcanics andesite (Tsv), and the Cretaceous Great Valley Sequence (Kgv).

Modern and Holocene deposits are too young to be fossiliferous, whereas andesite is a nonfossiliferous volcanic rock. All of the other units have the potential to yield significant paleontological resources.
337
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.5-7
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-05 Geology.docx

3.5.3 - Regulatory Framework
Federal
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program
The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) was established by the United States Congress when it passed the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977, Public Law 95–124. In establishing the NEHRP, Congress recognized that earthquake-related losses could be reduced through improved design and construction methods and practices, land use controls and redevelopment, prediction techniques and early warning systems, coordinated emergency preparedness plans, and public education and involvement programs. The four basic goals remain unchanged:
• Develop effective practices and policies for earthquake loss reduction and accelerate their implementation.
• Improve techniques for reducing earthquake vulnerabilities of facilities and systems. • Improve earthquake hazards identification and risk assessment methods and their use. • Improve the understanding of earthquakes and their effects.

Several key federal agencies contribute to earthquake mitigation efforts. There are four primary NEHRP agencies:
• National Institute of Standards and Technology of the Department of Commerce • National Science Foundation
• USGS of the Department of the Interior
• Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) of the Department of Homeland Security Implementation of NEHRP priorities is accomplished primarily through original research, publications, and recommendations to assist and guide state, regional, and local agencies in the development of plans and policies to promote safety and emergency planning.

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program, authorized by Section 402(p) of the federal Clean Water Act, controls water pollution by regulating point sources, such as construction sites and industrial operations that discharge pollutants into waters of the United States. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required to control discharges from a project site, including soil erosion, to protect waterways. A SWPPP describes the measures or practices to control discharges during both the construction and operational phases of the project. A SWPPP identifies project design features and structural and nonstructural Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used to control, prevent, remove, or reduce stormwater pollution from the site, including sediment from erosion.
338
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Draft EIR

3.5-8 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-05 Geology.docx State Regulations
California Building Standards Code
The 2019 California Building Code is another name for the body of regulations known as the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, which is a portion of the California Building Standards Code. The California Building Code incorporates by reference the International Building Code requirements with necessary California amendments. Title 24 is assigned to the California Building Standards Commission, which, by law, is responsible for coordinating all building standards.

Compliance with the California Building Code requires (with very limited exceptions) that structures for human occupancy be designed and constructed to resist the effects of earthquake motions. The Seismic Design Category for a structure is determined in accordance with either California Building Code Section 1613–Earthquake Loads or the American Society of Civil Engineers Standard No. 7-05, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. In brief, based on the engineering properties and soil-type of soils at a proposed site, the site is assigned a Site Class ranging from A to F.

The Site Class is then combined with Spectral Response (ground acceleration induced by earthquake) information for the location to arrive at a Seismic Design Category ranging from A to D, of which D represents the most severe conditions. The classification of a specific site and related calculations must be determined by a qualified Geotechnical Engineer and are site-specific.

Finally, the California Building Code requires that a geotechnical investigation be prepared for all new buildings that are 4,000 square feet or larger, as well as for smaller buildings if they meet certain criteria. The geotechnical investigation must be prepared by a California registered Geotechnical Engineer and address the classification and investigation of the soil, including requirements for geotechnical designs necessary to meet standards for reducing exposure to geological hazards.

Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (Public Resources Code [PRC] Sections 2621 to 2630) was passed in 1972 to provide a statewide mechanism for reducing the hazard of surface fault rupture to structures used for human occupancy. The main purpose of the Act is to prevent the siting of buildings used for human occupancy across the traces of active faults. It should be noted that the Act addresses the potential hazard of surface fault rupture and is not directed toward other earthquake hazards, such as seismically induced ground shaking or landslides.

The law requires the State Geologist to identify regulatory zones (known as Earthquake Fault Zones or Alquist-Priolo Zones) around the surface traces of active faults and to depict these zones on topographic base maps, typically at a scale of 1 inch to 2,000 feet. Earthquake Fault Zones vary in width, although they are often 0.75-mile wide. Once published, the maps are distributed to the affected cities, counties, and state agencies for their use in planning and controlling new or renewed construction. With the exception of single-family wood-frame and steel-frame dwellings that are not part of a larger development (i.e., four units or more), local agencies are required to regulate development within the mapped zones. In general, construction within 50 feet of an active fault zone is prohibited.
339
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.5-9
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-05 Geology.docx Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act (PRC §§ 2690–2699.6), which was passed in 1990, addresses earthquake hazards other than surface fault rupture. These hazards include strong ground shaking, earthquake-induced landslides, liquefaction, or other ground failures. Much like the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act discussed above, these seismic hazard zones are mapped by the State Geologist to assist local government in the land use planning process. The Act states, “It is necessary to identify and map seismic hazard zones in order for cities and counties to adequately prepare the safety element of their general plans and to encourage land use management policies and regulations to reduce and mitigate those hazards to protect public health and safety.” The Act also states, “Cities and counties shall require, prior to the approval of a project located in a seismic hazard zone, a geotechnical report defining and delineating any seismic hazard.” City of American Canyon
General Plan
The City of American Canyon General Plan sets forth the following guiding and implementing policies relevant to geology, soils, and seismicity:

Goal 9 Reduce the potential level of death, injury, property damage, economic and social dislocation (i.e., business closures and homelessness due to structural damage) and disruption of vital services that could result from earthquake damage.

Goal 9C Ensure that seismic, geologic, and soils hazards that might affect areas designated for human use or habitation are properly mitigated or avoided entirely prior to development.

Objective 9.1 Protect life, ensure public safety, substantially reduce the damage to and ensure the orderly evacuation of building occupants following a seismic event.

Policy 9.1.1 Promote the collection of relevant data on fault location and the history of fault displacement as a basis for future refinement of fault zone policies and development standards. Particular attention should be paid to the West Napa Fault that is generally depicted in Figure 9-1 and should be evaluated in conjunction with proposed development. Based on predevelopment studies, limitations on new development shall be imposed if necessary in the identified fault areas.

Policy 9.1.2 Implement mandatory development restrictions and investigation requirements (by the state, under the Alquist-Priolo Act, or by the City) on that portion of the West Napa Fault zone located within American Canyon and its Planning Area.

Policy 9.1.3 Require that any building intended to have occupancy be located at least 50 feet from either side of an active or potentially active fault.

Objective 9.2 Protect health and life safety, and reduce the level of potential property damage from the adverse effects of strong seismic ground shaking by implementing effective, state-of-the-art standards for seismic design of structures in the City. 340
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Draft EIR

3.5-10 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-05 Geology.docx Policy 9.2.1 Require that development be designed in accordance with seismic requirements of the Uniform Building Code.

Objective 9.3 Protect life and essential lifelines (e.g., gas, electricity, water), reduce the risk of property damage due to liquefaction, and promote the collection of more complete information on liquefaction susceptibility throughout the Planning Area.

Policy 9.3.1 A void development in areas with known liquefaction risk. If these areas cannot be avoided, require a qualified geologist, hydrologist, or civil engineer to determine the liquefaction potential at proposed development sites.

Policy 9.3.2 Require the submittal of liquefaction mitigation plans for proposed developments located in areas determined to have a high level of liquefaction risk.

Objective 9.4 Protect life, ensure safety, and substantially reduce the potential level of property damage from landslides, mudflows, slope failures and soil hazards. Promote the collection and utilization of more complete information on slope instability potential throughout the City and Planning Area.

Policy 9.4.5 Review proposals for new development and’ expansion of existing development in areas that are susceptible to collapsible or expansive soils and require adequate mitigation of these hazards.

Municipal Code
American Canyon Municipal Code, Chapter 16.02 adopts the California Building Code; as such, all new construction within the city limits is required to adhere to its seismic safety standards. The City of American Canyon Community Development Department is responsible for the administration and enforcement of the Building Code.

3.5.4 - Methodology
This analysis in this section is based on the Geotechnical Engineering Report prepared by Wallace Kuhl & Associates in November 2020 and the Geological Fault Investigation prepared by Cornerstone Earth Group in November 2017. Both reports are provided in Appendix E.

Wallace Kuhl drilled 52 borings on the project site in September and October 2020. The soil attributes of the borings were recorded, including moisture, density, and unconfined compressive strength. Wallace Kuhl subsequently laboratory tested five of the boring samples to determine additional attributes, including plasticity index and R-value. The Geotechnical Engineering Report provided recommendations for grading, soil engineering, and construction practices.

Cornerstone Earth Group prepared a fault investigation for proposed utility pipelines that would cross the western portion of project site where the West Napa Fault is present. Cornerstone excavated three trenches ranging from 215 to 394 feet in length to depths of 7.5 to 9.5 feet below ground surface. Exhibit 3.5-3 depicts the locations of the trenches. A certified engineering geologist assessed each trench documented the geologic conditions of each trench to identify the location of 341
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.5-11
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-05 Geology.docx the West Napa Fault. The Geological Fault Investigation provided recommendations for pipeline construction practices.

FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS) also obtained information about faults and seismic hazards from sources including the USGS, the United States Department of Agriculture, and the City of American Canyon General Plan.

At the request of FCS, Dr. Kenneth Finger, Consulting Paleontologist, conducted a records search of the University of California Museum of Paleontology database in January 2021. The query yielded no records of vertebrate or plant localities in Napa County.

3.5.5 - Thresholds of Significance
Appendix G to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines is a sample Initial Study Checklist that includes questions for determining whether impacts related to geology, soils, and seismicity are significant. These questions reflect the input of planning and environmental professionals at the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) and the California Natural Resources Agency, based on input from stakeholder groups and experts in various other governmental agencies, nonprofits, and leading environmental consulting firms. As a result, many lead agencies derive their significance criteria from the questions posed in Appendix G. The City has chosen to do so for this project. Thus, the proposed project would have a significant effect if it would:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault (refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42);
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking;
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; iv. Landslides;
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil; c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse;
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property; e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater (refer to Section 7, Effects Found not to be Significant); or f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.
342
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Draft EIR

3.5-12 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-05 Geology.docx

3.5.6 - Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This section discusses potential impacts associated with the proposed project and provides mitigation measures where necessary. The analysis below has been written against the backdrop of CEQA case law addressing the scope of analysis required in Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) for potential impacts resulting from existing environmental hazards found at the site or in the vicinity of a site for a proposed project. In California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 377, the California Supreme Court held that “agencies subject to CEQA generally are not required to analyze the impact of existing environmental conditions on a project’s future users or residents.” (Italics added.) The court reasoned that “ordinary CEQA analysis is concerned with a project’s impact on the environment, rather than with the environment’s impact on a project and its users or residents.” (Id. at p. 378.) The court did not hold, however, that CEQA never requires consideration of the effects of existing environmental conditions on the future occupants or users of a proposed project. The circumstances in which such conditions may be considered are narrow: “when a proposed project risks exacerbating those environmental hazards or conditions that already exist, an agency must analyze the potential impact of such hazards on future residents or users. In those specific instances, it is the project’s impact on the environment—and not the environment’s impact on the project—that compels an evaluation of how future residents or users could be affected by exacerbated conditions.” (Id. at pp. 377-378, italics added.)
To help readers understand how to conduct impact analysis in light of these general principles, the court provided an example, which, it said, “may be illuminating. Suppose that an agency wants to locate a project next to the site of a long-abandoned gas station. For years, that station pumped gasoline containing methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE), an additive—now banned by California—that can seep into soil and groundwater. [Citations.] Without any additional development in the area, the MTBE might well remain locked in place, an existing condition whose risks—most notably the contamination of the drinking water supply—are limited to the gas station site and its immediate environs. But by virtue of its proposed location, the project threatens to disperse the settled MTBE and thus exacerbate the existing contamination. The agency would have to evaluate the existing condition—here, the presence of MTBE in the soil—as part of its environmental review. Because this type of inquiry still focuses on the project’s impacts on the environment—how a project might worsen existing conditions—directing an agency to evaluate how such worsened conditions could affect a project’s future users or residents is entirely consistent with this focus and with CEQA as a whole.” (Id. at p. 389.)
Seismic Hazards
Impact GEO-1: The proposed project may expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects associated with seismic hazards.

Impact Analysis
This impact evaluates potential exposure to seismic hazards, including fault rupture, strong ground shaking, ground failure and liquefaction, and landslides, and addresses whether the project could exacerbate any such hazards. Each issue is discussed separately. 343
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.5-13
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-05 Geology.docx Fault Rupture
Phase 1
There are no active earthquake faults within Phase 1. For these reasons, Phase 1 of the proposed project would not be subject to fault rupture during a seismic event nor would it exacerbate exposure to fault rupture hazards. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

Phase 2
The West Napa Fault crosses through the western portion of Phase 2. Cornerstone Earth Group conducted a Geological Fault Investigation in 2017 that identified the precise location of the West Napa Fault within Phase 2 of the project site. Pursuant to State law, a 50-foot setback must be established from the fault to the nearest building. Mitigation Measure (MM) GEO-1a requires the applicant to prepare and submit plans for Phase 2, when building permits are sought, demonstrating the required setbacks. The establishment of the setbacks would ensure that the proposed project does not exacerbate exposure to fault rupture hazards. The implementation of this mitigation measure would ensure that the proposed project is not exposed to fault rupture. Impacts would be less than significant.

Strong Ground Shaking
Phases 1 and 2
Phase 1 is located in a seismically active region of California and is susceptible to strong ground shaking during a seismic event.

A design-level geotechnical report for the proposed project would be prepared by the time building permits are sought. Such a report would provide recommendations on the appropriate level of soil engineering and building design necessary to minimize ground shaking hazards. Accordingly, MM GEO-1b is proposed, requiring the applicant to submit such a study to the City of American Canyon for review and approval. Standard soil engineering and building design practices would include standards for foundations and structural support of buildings to ensure that they withstand strong ground shaking during a seismic event and avoid the exacerbation of exposure to such hazards. The implementation of this mitigation measure would ensure that the proposed project is not exposed to strong ground shaking hazards. Impacts would be less than significant.

Ground Failure and Liquefaction
Phases 1 and 2
The Geotechnical Engineering Report determined that the project site is underlain by high plasticity soils, which are considered too stiff and dense to be susceptible to liquefaction. Thus, the proposed project would not be susceptible to ground failure, liquefaction, or liquefaction-related phenomena.

Thus, the proposed project would not exacerbate exposure to such hazards. Impacts would be less than significant.

Landslides
Phases 1 and 2
The project site contains relatively flat relief, with an approximately 15-foot difference in elevation across the site. There are no slopes near the project site that may be susceptible to landsliding during a seismic event. This precludes the possibility of the proposed project being susceptible to 344
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Draft EIR

3.5-14 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-05 Geology.docx landsliding. Thus, the proposed project would not exacerbate exposure to such hazards. Impacts would be less than significant.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
MM GEO-1a Prior to the issuance of building permits for each Phase 2 structure, the project applicant shall submit plans to the City of American Canyon for review and approval that demonstrate a minimum 50-foot setback between the West Napa Fault and each building. The approved plans shall be incorporated into the proposed project.

MM GEO-1b Prior to the issuance of building permits for each Phase 1 and 2 structure, the project applicant shall submit a design-level Geotechnical Investigation to the City of American Canyon for review and approval. The investigation shall be prepared by a qualified engineer and identify grading and building practices necessary to achieve compliance with the latest adopted edition of the California Building Standards Code (CBC) geologic, soils, and seismic requirements, including abatement of expansive soil conditions. The report shall also determine the final design parameters for walls, foundations, foundation slabs, and surrounding related improvements (e.g., utilities roadways, parking lots, and sidewalks). The measures identified in the approved report shall be incorporated into the project plans and all applicable constructionrelated permits.

Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact.

Erosion
Impact GEO-2: The proposed project may result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.

Impact Analysis
Phases 1 and 2
The proposed project would involve grading, building construction, paving, and utility installation activities that may cause erosion and sedimentation. This includes construction activities associated with the proposed project. Left unabated, the accumulation of sediment in downstream waterways could result in the blockage of flows, potentially causing increased localized ponding or flooding. As such, MM HYD-1a in Section 3.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, would require the implementation of stormwater quality control measures during construction activities to prevent pollutants from entering downstream waterways. Standard stormwater pollution prevention measures would include implementing structural and nonstructural control measures within and around disturbed areas to prevent soil and pollutants from leaving the project site. Impacts would be less than significant.
345
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.5-15
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-05 Geology.docx Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
MM HYD-1a Prior to issuance of grading permits for the proposed project, the applicant shall submit to the City of American Canyon for review and approval a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in accordance with the requirements of the statewide Construction General Permit. The SWPPP shall be designed to address the following objectives: (1) all pollutants and their sources (e.g., runoff), including sources of sediment associated with construction, construction site erosion, and all other activities associated with construction activity, are controlled; (2) where not otherwise required to be under a Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) permit, all non-stormwater discharges are identified and either eliminated, controlled, or treated; (3) site Best Management Practices (BMPs) (e.g., silt fencing, street sweeping, routine inspection, etc.) are effective and result in the reduction or elimination of pollutants in stormwater discharges and authorized non-stormwater discharges from construction activity; and (4) stabilization BMPs are installed to reduce or eliminate pollutants after construction are completed. The SWPPP shall be prepared by a qualified SWPPP developer. The SWPPP shall include the minimum BMPs required for the identified Risk Level. BMP implementation shall be consistent with the BMP requirements in the most recent version of the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) Stormwater Best Management Handbook–Construction or the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Stormwater Quality Handbook Construction Site BMPs Manual. The SWPPP shall be implemented during construction.

Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact.

Unstable Geologic Location
Impact GEO-3: The proposed project would not be located on an unstable geologic unit or soil.

Impact Analysis
Phases 1 and 2
The stability of the underlying geologic units and soils are functions of their constituents. For example, soils with high organic or fill content would generally be considered unsuitable to support urban development. Likewise, soils that are composed of well-compacted alluvium would generally be considered suitable to support urban development.

The project site is underlain by high plasticity soils. The Geotechnical Engineering Report determined that these soils are too stiff and dense to be susceptible to liquefaction. As such, the proposed project would not be susceptible to or cause landslides, lateral spreading, collapse, ground failure, liquefaction, or liquefaction-related phenomena nor would it exacerbate these existing conditions to the extent they exist in the project vicinity. Impacts would be less than significant. 346
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Draft EIR

3.5-16 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-05 Geology.docx Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.

Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact.

Expansive Soil
Impact GEO-4: The proposed project may create substantial risks to life or property as a result of expansive soil conditions on the project site.

Impact Analysis
Phases 1 and 2
The Geotechnical Engineering Report found that the project site is underlain by soils with high clay content and are therefore capable of being expansive. The design-level Geotechnical Investigation required by MM GEO-1b would outline standard grading and soil engineering practices would abate these potential hazards. Standard grading and soil engineering practices would include replacing native soils with engineered fill that would not possess expansive characteristics. These grading and soil engineering practices would ensure that the proposed project does not exacerbate the existing expansive soil conditions. Thus, the implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce impacts to a level of less than significant.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
Implement Mitigation Measure GEO-1b.

Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact.

Paleontological Resources or Unique Geologic Features
Impact GEO-5: The proposed project may directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.

Impact Analysis
Phases 1 and 2
The surface of the project site consists of Holocene fan deposits (Qf), Holocene–Pleistocene fan deposits (Qpf), early to middle Pleistocenefan or terrace deposits (Qoa), and the Pliocene Huichica Formation (Th). Also in the surrounding 0.5-mile radius (dashed outline) are modern artificial fill (af, afbm), Holocene–Pleistocene landslide deposits (Qls), the Plio-Pleistocene Petaluma Formation (Tsp), the Pliocene Sonoma Volcanics andesite (Tsv), and the Cretaceous Great Valley Sequence (Kgv). 347
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.5-17
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-05 Geology.docx Modern and Holocene deposits are too young to be fossiliferous, whereas andesite is a nonfossiliferous volcanic rock. Additionally, there are no recorded vertebrate or plant localities within Napa County.

For these reasons, the project site is not located in an area that is considered likely to have paleontological resources present. The type of depositional environment at the project site typically does not present favorable conditions for the discovery of paleontological resources. In this context, the project would not result in impacts to paleontological resources. However, if significant paleontological resources are discovered, implementation of MM GEO-5 will reduce this potential impact to a less than significant level. The mitigation measure requires treatment and salvage of resources in accordance Society of Vertebrate Paleontology guidelines. The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology is widely recognized as an authoritative information source for paleontological resources. There are no unique geologic features present on the project site or off-site development areas. Therefore, the proposed project would have less than significant impacts on a unique geologic feature.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
MM GEO-5 If potential fossils are discovered during project implementation, all earthwork or other types of ground disturbance within 100 feet of the find shall stop immediately until a qualified professional Paleontologist can assess the nature and importance of the find. Based on the scientific value or uniqueness of the find, the Paleontologist shall either record the find and recommend that the City of American Canyon allow work to continue or recommend salvage and recovery of the fossil. The Paleontologist shall, if required, propose modifications to the stop-work radius based on the nature of the find, site geology, and the activities occurring on the site.

If treatment and salvage is required, recommendations will be consistent with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology guidelines and currently accepted scientific practice. If required, treatment for fossil remains shall include preparation and recovery of fossil materials so that they can be housed in an appropriate museum or university collection, and, if required, shall also include preparation of a report for publication describing the finds.

Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact.
348

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
349
54600001
• 03/2021 | 3.5-1_Regional_Fault_Map.cdr
Source: Cornerstone Earth Group, October 2017.

CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON

GIOVANNONI LOGISTICS CENTER PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Exhibit 3.5-1
Regional Fault Map
350

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
351
54600001
• 03/2021 | 3.5-2_west_napa_fault_map.cdr CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON

GIOVANNONI LOGISTICS CENTER PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Exhibit 3.5-2
West Napa Fault Map
Source: Cornerstone Earth Group, October 2017.
352

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
353
54600001
• 03/2021 | 3.5-3_Trench_Location_Map.cdr
Source: Cornerstone Earth Group, October 2017.

CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON

GIOVANNONI LOGISTICS CENTER PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Exhibit 3.5-3
Trench Location Map
354

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
355
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-1
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-06 GHG-Energy.docx

3.6 - Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy

3.6.1 - Introduction
This section describes the existing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions setting and potential effects from project implementation on the project site and its surrounding area. Descriptions and analysis in this section are based on modeling information and assumptions presented in Section 3.2, Air Quality. The modeling outputs and calculations specific to this Greenhouse Gas Analysis are included in Appendix B of this Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR). The following comments were received in response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP) related to GHG emissions:
• The EIR should assess and mitigate the impacts of the project on climate change causing GHG emissions.

3.6.2 - Environmental Setting
Greenhouse Effect, Global Warming, and Climate Change
Most of the energy that affects the Earth’s climate comes from the sun. Some solar radiation is absorbed by the Earth’s surface, and a smaller portion of this radiation is reflected by the atmosphere back toward space. As the Earth absorbs high-frequency solar radiation, its surface gains heat and then re-radiates lower frequency infrared radiation back into the atmosphere.1 Most solar radiation passes through gases in the atmosphere classified as GHGs; however, infrared radiation is selectively absorbed by GHGs. GHGs in the atmosphere play a critical role in maintaining the balance between the Earth’s absorbed and radiated energy, the Earth’s radiation budget,2 by trapping some of the infrared radiation emitted from the Earth’s surface that otherwise would have escaped to space (Figure 3.6-1). Radiative forcing is the difference between the incoming energy and outgoing energy.3 Specifically, GHGs affect the atmosphere's radiative forcing, 4 which in turn affects
the Earth’s average surface temperature. This phenomenon, the greenhouse effect, keeps the Earth’s atmosphere near the surface warmer than it would be otherwise and allows successful habitation by humans and other forms of life.

Combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation release carbon into the atmosphere that historically has been stored underground in sediments or in surface vegetation, thus exchanging carbon from the geosphere and biosphere to the atmosphere in the carbon cycle. With the accelerated increase in fossil fuel combustion and deforestation since the Industrial Revolution of the 19th Century, concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere have increased exponentially. Such emissions of GHGs in excess of natural ambient concentrations contribute to the enhancement of the natural greenhouse effect. This enhanced greenhouse effect has contributed to global warming, an increased rate of 1 Frequencies at which bodies emit radiation are proportional to temperature. The Earth has a much lower temperature than the sun and emits radiation at a lower frequency (longer wavelength) than the high-frequency (short-wavelength) solar radiation emitted by the sun. 2 This includes all gains of incoming energy and all losses of outgoing energy; the planet is always striving to be in equilibrium. 3 Positive forcing tends to warm the surface while negative forcing tends to cool it. 4 This is the change in net irradiance at the tropopause after allowing stratospheric temperatures to readjust to radiative equilibrium, but with surface and tropospheric temperatures and state held fixed at the unperturbed values. 356
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Draft EIR

3.6-2 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-06 GHG-Energy.docx warming of the Earth’s average surface temperature.5 Specifically, increases in GHGs lead to increased absorption of infrared radiation by the Earth’s atmosphere and warm the lower atmosphere further, thereby increasing temperatures and evaporation rates near the surface.

Variations in natural phenomena such as volcanoes and solar activity produced most of the global temperature increase that occurred during preindustrial times; more recently, however, increasing atmospheric GHG concentrations resulting from human activity have been responsible for most of the observed global temperature increase.6
Source: Philippe Rekacewicz, UNEP/GRID-Arendal. Website: https://www.grida.no/resources/6467. Accessed on April 26, 2019.

Figure 3.6-1: The Greenhouse Effect
Global warming affects global atmospheric circulation and temperatures; oceanic circulation and temperatures; wind and weather patterns; average sea level; ocean acidification; chemical reaction rates; precipitation rates, timing, and form; snowmelt timing and runoff flow; water supply; wildfire risks; and other phenomena, in a manner commonly referred to as climate change. Climate change is a change in the average weather of the Earth that is measured by alterations in wind patterns, storms, precipitation, and temperature. These changes are assessed using historical records of 5 This condition results when the Earth has to work harder to maintain its radiation budget, because when more GHGs are present in the atmosphere, the Earth must force emissions of additional infrared radiation out into the atmosphere. 6 These basic conclusions have been endorsed by more than 45 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion.
357
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-3
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-06 GHG-Energy.docx temperature changes occurring in the past, such as during previous ice ages. Many of the concerns regarding climate change use this data to extrapolate a level of statistical significance specifically focusing on temperature records from the last 150 years (the Industrial Age) that differ from previous climate changes in rate and magnitude.

Temperature Predictions by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established by the World Meteorological Organization and United Nations Environment Programme to assess scientific, technical, and socioeconomic information relevant to understanding climate change, its potential impacts, and options for adaptation and mitigation. The IPCC constructed several emission trajectories of GHGs needed to stabilize global temperatures and climate change impacts. In its Sixth Assessment Report, the IPCC predicted that the global mean temperature change from 2015 to 2100, given five scenarios, could range from 1.4°C (degrees Celsius) to 4.4°C. Regardless of analytical methodology, global average temperatures and sea levels are expected to rise under all scenarios. 7 The report also concluded that “[i]t is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land. Widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere have occurred.” Warming of the climate system is now considered to be unequivocal,8 with the likely range of total human-caused global surface temperature increases from approximately 0.8°C to 1.3°C since 1850.
9 Greenhouse Gases and Global Emission Sources
Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are referred to as GHGs. The effect is analogous to the way a greenhouse retains heat. Prominent GHGs that naturally occur in the Earth’s atmosphere are water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), oxides of nitrogen (NOX), and ozone. Anthropogenic (human-caused) GHG emissions include releases of these GHGs plus release of human-made gases with high global warming potential (GWP) (ozone-depleting substances such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)
10 and aerosols, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). The GHGs listed by the IPCC (CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, HFCs, PFCs, and sulfur hexafluoride) are discussed below, in order of abundance in the atmosphere. Water vapor, despite being the most abundant GHG, is not discussed below because natural concentrations and fluctuations far outweigh anthropogenic influences, making it impossible to predict. Ozone is not included because it does not directly affect radiative forcing. Ozone-depleting substances, which include chlorofluorocarbons, halons, carbon tetrachloride, methyl chloroform, and hydrochlorofluorocarbons, are not included because they have been primarily replaced by HFCs and PFCs.

The GWP is the potential of a gas or aerosol to trap heat in the atmosphere. The GWP of a gas is essentially a measurement of the radiative forcing of a GHG compared with the reference gas, carbon dioxide (CO2).
7 United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2021. Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis Summary for Policymakers. Website: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM_final.pdf. Accessed December 15, 2021. 8 Ibid. 9 Ibid. 10 CFCs destroy stratospheric ozone. The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer prohibited CFCs production in 1987. 358
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Draft EIR

3.6-4 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-06 GHG-Energy.docx Individual GHG compounds have varying potential for contributing to global warming. For example, methane is 25 times as potent as CO2, while sulfur hexafluoride is 22,200 times more potent than CO2 on a molecule-per-molecule basis. To simplify reporting and analysis, methods have been set forth to describe emissions of GHGs in terms of a single gas. The most commonly accepted method for comparing GHG emissions is the GWP methodology defined in the IPCC reference documents (IPCC, 2001a). The IPCC defines the GWP of various GHG emissions on a normalized scale that recasts all GHG emissions in terms of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e), which compares the gas in question to that of the same mass of CO2 (by definition, CO2 has a GWP of 1). The GWP of a GHG is a measure of how much a given mass of a GHG is estimated to contribute to global warming. Thus, to describe how much global warming a given type and amount of GHG may cause, the CO2e is used. A CO2e is the mass emissions of an individual GHG multiplied by its GWP. As such, a high GWP represents high absorption of infrared radiation and a long atmospheric lifetime compared to CO2.

One must also select a time horizon to convert GHG emissions to equivalent CO2 emissions to account for chemical reactivity and lifetime differences among various GHG species. The standard time horizon for climate change analysis is 100 years. Generally, GHG emissions are quantified in terms of metric tons (MT) of CO2e (MT CO2e) emitted per year.

The atmospheric residence time of a gas is equal to the total atmospheric abundance of the gas divided by its rate of removal.11 The atmospheric residence time of a gas is, in effect, a half-life measurement of the length of time a gas is expected to persist in the atmosphere when accounting for removal mechanisms such as chemical transformation and deposition.

Table 3.6-1 lists the GWP of each GHG and its lifetime. Units commonly used to describe the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere are parts per million (ppm), parts per billion (ppb), and parts per trillion (ppt), referring to the number of molecules of the GHG in a sampling of 1 million, 1 billion, or 1 trillion molecules of air. Collectively, HFCs, PFCs, and sulfur hexafluoride are referred to as high GWP gases. CO2 is by far the largest component of worldwide CO2e emissions, followed by methane, nitrous oxide, and high GWP gases, in order of decreasing contribution to CO2e.

The primary human processes that release GHGs include the burning of fossil fuels for transportation, heating, and electricity generation; agricultural practices that release methane, such as livestock grazing and crop residue decomposition; and industrial processes that release smaller amounts of high GWP gases. Deforestation and land cover conversion have also been identified as contributing to global warming by reducing the Earth’s capacity to remove CO2 from the air and altering the Earth’s albedo or surface reflectance, thus allowing more solar radiation to be absorbed.

Specifically, CO2 emissions associated with fossil fuel combustion are the primary contributors to human-induced climate change. CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide emissions associated with human activities are the next largest contributors to climate change.

GHGs of California concern are defined by California Assembly Bill (AB) 32 (see the Regulatory Environment subsection below for a description) and include CO2, CH4, NOX, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6. A seventh GHG, nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), was also added under the California Health and Safety Code 11 Seinfeld, J.H. and S.N. Pandis. 2006. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics: From Air Pollution to Climate Change, 2nd Edition. New York. John Wiley & Sons.
359
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-5
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-06 GHG-Energy.docx Section 38505(g)(7) as a GHG of concern. These GHGs are described in Table 3.6-1 in terms of their physical description and properties, GWP, atmospheric residence lifetime, sources, and atmospheric concentration in 2005.

Table 3.6-1: Description of Greenhouse Gases of California Concern Greenhouse Gas
Physical Description and
Properties
Global Warming
Potential (100 years)
Atmospheric Residence
Lifetime (years) Sources
Carbon dioxide
(CO2)
Odorless, colorless,
natural gas.
1 50-200 burning coal, oil,
natural gas, and
wood;
decomposition of
dead organic matter;
respiration of
bacteria, plants,
animals, and fungus;
oceanic evaporation;
volcanic outgassing;
cement production;
land use changes
Methane
(CH4)
Flammable gas and is the
main component of
natural gas.
25 12 geological deposits
(natural gas fields)
extraction; landfills;
fermentation of
manure; and decay
of organic matter
Nitrous oxide
(N2O)
Nitrous oxide (laughing
gas) is a colorless GHG.
298 114 microbial processes
in soil and water;
fuel combustion;
industrial processes
Chloro-fluorocarbons
(CFCs)
Nontoxic, nonflammable,
insoluble, and chemically
unreactive in the
troposphere (level of air
at the Earth’s surface);
formed synthetically by
replacing all hydrogen
atoms in methane or
ethane with chlorine
and/or fluorine atoms.
3,800-8,100 45-640 refrigerants aerosol
propellants; cleaning
solvents
Hydro-fluorocarbons
(HFCs)
Synthetic human-made
chemicals used as a
substitute for CFCs and
contain carbon, chlorine,
and at least one
hydrogen atom.
140 to 11,700 1-50,000 automobile air
conditioners;
refrigerants
Per-fluorocarbons
(PFCs)
Stable molecular
structures and only break
down by ultraviolet rays
about 60 kilometers
above Earth’s surface.
6,500 to 9,200 10,000-50,000 primary aluminum
production;
semiconductor
manufacturing
360
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Draft EIR

3.6-6 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-06 GHG-Energy.docx Greenhouse Gas
Physical Description and
Properties
Global Warming
Potential (100 years)
Atmospheric Residence
Lifetime (years) Sources
Sulfur
hexafluoride
(SF6)
Human-made, inorganic,
odorless, colorless, and
nontoxic, nonflammable
gas.
22,800 3,200 electrical power
transmission
equipment
insulation;
magnesium industry,
semiconductor
manufacturing; a
tracer gas
Nitrogen
trifluoride
(NF3)
Inorganic, is used as a
replacement for PFCs,
and is a powerful
oxidizing agent.
17,200 740 electronics
manufacture for
semiconductors and
liquid crystal displays
Sources:

United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis.

Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller [eds.]). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, Website: www.ipcc.ch /publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html. Accessed July 20, 2021.

United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2014. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report.

Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R.K. and Reisinger, A. [eds.]). IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland. Website:
www.ipcc.ch/publications_ and_data/ar4/syr/en/contents.html. Accessed July 20, 2021.

The State has begun the process of addressing pollutants referred to as short-lived climate pollutants. Senate Bill (SB) 605, approved by the Governor on September 14, 2014, required the California Air Resources Board (ARB) to complete a comprehensive strategy to reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants by January 1, 2016. The ARB released the Proposed Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy in April 2016. The ARB has completed an emission inventory of these pollutants, identified research needs, identified existing and potential new control measures that offer co-benefits, and coordinated with other State agencies and districts to develop measures.

The short-lived climate pollutants include three main components: black carbon, fluorinated gases, and methane. Fluorinated gases and methane are described in Table 3.6-1 and are already included in the California GHG inventory. Black carbon has not been included in past GHG inventories; however, the ARB will include it in its comprehensive strategy.12 Black carbon is a component of fine particulate matter. Black carbon is formed by incomplete combustion of fossil fuels, biofuels, and biomass. Sources of black carbon within a jurisdiction may include exhaust from diesel trucks, vehicles, and equipment, as well as smoke from biogenic combustion. Biogenic combustion sources of black carbon include the burning of biofuels used for transportation, the burning of biomass for electricity generation and heating, prescribed burning of agricultural residue, and natural and unnatural wildfires. Black carbon is not a gas but an aerosol— particles or liquid droplets suspended in air. Black carbon only remains in the atmosphere for days to 12 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2015. Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy, Concept Paper. May. Website:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/slcp-strategy-draft-may2015. Accessed May 19, 2021 361
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-7
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-06 GHG-Energy.docx weeks, whereas other GHGs can remain in the atmosphere for years. Black carbon can be deposited on snow, where it absorbs sunlight, reduces sunlight reflectivity, and hastens snowmelt. Direct effects include absorbing incoming and outgoing radiation; indirectly, black carbon can also affect cloud reflectivity, precipitation, and surface dimming (cooling).

GWPs for black carbon were not defined by the IPCC in its Fourth Assessment Report. The ARB has identified a GWP of 3,200 using a 20-year time horizon and 900 using a 100-year time horizon from the IPCC Fifth Assessment. Sources of black carbon are already regulated by the ARB, and air district criteria pollutant and toxic regulations that control fine particulate emissions from diesel engines and other combustion sources.13 Additional controls on the sources of black carbon specifically for their GHG impacts beyond those required for toxic and fine particulates are not likely to be needed.

Ozone is another short-lived climate pollutant that will be part of the strategy. Ozone affects evaporation rates, cloud formation, and precipitation levels. Ozone is not directly emitted, so its precursor emissions, volatile organic compounds (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX) on a regional scale and CH4 on a hemispheric scale will be subject of the strategy.14 Water vapor is also considered a GHG. Water vapor is an important component of our climate system and is not regulated. Increasing water vapor leads to warmer temperatures, which causes more water vapor to be absorbed into the air. Warming and water absorption increase in a spiraling cycle. Water vapor feedback can also amplify the warming effect of other GHGs, such that the warming brought about by increased carbon dioxide allows more water vapor to enter the atmosphere.15
Global Climate Change Issue
Climate change is a global problem because GHGs are global pollutants, unlike criteria air pollutants and hazardous air pollutants (also called toxic air contaminants), which are pollutants of regional and local concern. Pollutants with localized air quality effects have relatively short atmospheric lifetimes, approximately 1 day; by contrast, GHGs have long atmospheric lifetimes, several years to several thousand years. GHGs persist in the atmosphere for a long enough time to be dispersed around the globe.

Although the exact lifetime of any particular GHG molecule depends on multiple variables and cannot be pinpointed, more CO2 is currently emitted into the atmosphere than is sequestered. CO2 sinks, or reservoirs, include vegetation and the ocean, which absorb CO2 through photosynthesis and dissolution, respectively. These are two of the most common processes of CO2 sequestration. Of the total annual human-caused CO2 emissions, approximately 54 percent is sequestered through ocean 13 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2015. Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy, Concept Paper. May. Website:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/slcp-strategy-draft-may2015. Accessed May 19, 2021. 14 Ibid. 15 National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). 2015. NASA—Global Climate Change, Vital Signs of a Planet. Website:
http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/. Accessed May 19, 2021. 362
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Draft EIR

3.6-8 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-06 GHG-Energy.docx uptake, Northern Hemisphere forest regrowth, and other terrestrial sinks within a year, whereas the remaining 46 percent of human-caused CO2 emissions is stored in the atmosphere.16 Similarly, effects of GHGs are borne globally, as opposed to the localized air quality effects of criteria air pollutants and hazardous air pollutants. The quantity of GHGs that it takes to ultimately result in climate change is not precisely known and cannot be quantified, and no single project would be expected to measurably contribute to a noticeable incremental change in the global average temperature, or to global or local climates or microclimate.

Emissions of GHGs have the potential to adversely affect the environment because such emissions contribute, on a cumulative basis, to global climate change. A cumulative discussion and analysis of project impacts on global climate change is presented in this EIR because, although it is unlikely that a single project will contribute significantly to climate change, cumulative emissions from many projects affect global GHG concentrations and the climate system.

Global climate change has the potential to result in sea level rise (resulting in flooding of low-lying areas), to affect rainfall and snowfall (leading to changes in water supply), to affect temperatures and habitats (affecting biological resources and public health), and to result in many other adverse environmental consequences.

Although the international, national, State, and regional communities are beginning to address GHGs and the potential effects of climate change, worldwide GHG emissions will likely continue to rise over the next decades.

Climate and Topography
Climate is the accumulation of daily and seasonal weather events over a long period of time, whereas weather is defined as the condition of the atmosphere at any particular time and place. For a detailed discussion of existing regional and project site climate and topography, see Section 3.2, Air Quality.

Existing GHG Emissions
United States GHG Inventory
Total U.S. GHG emissions have increased by 1.8 percent from 1990 to 2019.17 Figure 3.6-2 presents the trend in U.S. GHG emissions by economic sector from 1990 to 2019. Total U.S. GHG emissions increased by 2.8 percent from 1990 to 2019 (an increase of 142.4 million metric tons [MMT] CO2e).

Since 1990, U.S. emissions have increased at an average annual rate of 0.3 percent. Transportation emissions also increased because of an increase in Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). Within the United States, fossil fuel combustion accounted for 92.4 percent of CO2 emissions in 2019. Transportation was the largest emitter of CO2 in 2019, accounting for 28.6 percent of emissions, followed by electric power generation, accounting for 25.1 percent.
16 Seinfeld, J. H. and S.N. Pandis. 1998. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics from Air Pollution to Climate Change. New York. John Wiley & Sons. 17 United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2021. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2019 – Executive Summary. Website: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-04/documents/us-ghg-inventory-2021-chapterexecutive-summary.pdf. Accessed September 13, 2021. 363
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-9
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-06 GHG-Energy.docx Note: Emissions shown do not include carbon sinks such as change in land uses and forestry.

Source: United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2021. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks:
1990-2019 – Executive Summary. Website: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-04/documents/us-ghg-inventory2021-chapter-executive-summary.pdf. Accessed September 13, 2021.

Figure 3.6-2: U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Allocated to Economic Sectors (1990-2019) California GHG Inventory
As the second largest emitter of GHG emissions in the United States., California contributes a large quantity (418.2 MMT CO2e in 2019) of GHG emissions to the atmosphere.18,19 Human-related emissions of CO2 are largely byproducts of fossil fuel combustion and are attributable to transportation, industry/ manufacturing, electricity generation, natural gas consumption, and agriculture processes. In California, the transportation sector is the largest emitter at 41 percent of GHG emissions, followed by industrial at 24 percent of GHG emissions. 20 Bay Area Air Quality Management District GHG Inventory The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) prepared a GHG inventory for the San Francisco Bay Area (Bay Area), which provides an estimate of GHG emissions in the base year 2011 for all counties located in the jurisdiction of BAAQMD: Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Napa, and the southern portions of Solano and Sonoma. 21 This GHG
inventory is based on the standards for criteria pollutant inventories and is intended to support BAAQMD’s climate protection activities.

Table 3.6-2 shows the 2011 breakdown of emissions by end-use sector for each county within the BAAQMD’s jurisdiction. The estimated GHG emissions are presented in CO2e, which weights each GHG by its GWP. The GWPs used in the BAAQMD inventory are from the Second Assessment Report of the IPCC.
18 World Resources Institute (WRI). 2017. 8 Charts to Understand US State Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Website:
https://www.wri.org/insights/8-charts-understand-us-state-greenhouse-gas-emissions. Accessed September 10, 2021. 19 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2021. Current California GHG Emission Inventory Data, 2000-2019 Trends Figure Data.

Website: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg-inventory-data. Accessed September 10, 2021. 20 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2018. California Greenhouse Inventory—Graphs. Website:
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/reports/2000_2019/ghg_inventory_trends_00-19.pdf. Accessed September 13, 2021. 21 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. (BAAQMD). 2015. Bay Area Emissions Inventory Summary Report: Greenhouse Gases - Base Year 2011. May 14, 2021.
364
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Draft EIR

3.6-10 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-06 GHG-Energy.docx In 2011, GHG emissions from the Napa County accounted for approximately 1.7 percent of the Bay Area’s total GHG emissions with 0.2 percent of the Bay Area’s total GHG emissions coming from the industrial/commercial land uses in Napa County.
22 Transportation is the largest GHG emissions sector
in the Bay Area, followed by industrial/commercial, electricity generation and cogeneration, and residential fuel usage. In Napa County, the transportation also generates the largest amount of GHG emissions, followed by the industrial/commercial sector.

Table 3.6-2: 2011 GHG Emissions by Sector and County (MMT CO2e/Year) Sector Alameda
Contra
Costa Marin Napa
San
Francisco
San
Mateo
Santa
Clara Solano* Sonoma*
Industrial/Commercial 2.7 17.8 0.4 0.2 1.2 1.4 4.1 2.7 0.5 Residential Fuel 1.3 1.0 0.3 0.1 0.9 0.8 1.5 0.3 0.4
Electricity/Co-gen 0.9 7.2 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.4 2.2 0.4 0.2
Off-road Equipment 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.

Transportation 7.9 5.0 1.3 0.9 3.0 5.0 7.6 1.6 2.0
Agriculture/Farming 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.2 Total 13.2 31.4 2.4 1.5 5.7 7.7 16.0 5.1 3.5
Notes:
* Portion within BAAQMD jurisdiction
BAAQMD = Bay Area Air Quality Management District
CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent
co-gen = cogeneration
MMT = million metric tons
Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District. (BAAQMD). 2015. Bay Area Emissions Inventory Summary Report:

Greenhouse Gases–Base Year 2011. Website: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/emissioninventory/by2011_ghgsummary.pdf. January. Accessed July 20, 2021.

Climate Change Trends and Effects
CO2 accounts for more than 75 percent of all anthropogenic GHG emissions, the atmospheric residence time of CO2 is decades to centuries, and global atmospheric concentrations of CO2 continue to increase at a faster rate than ever previously recorded. Thus, the warming impacts of CO2 will persist for hundreds of years after mitigation is implemented to reduce GHG concentrations.

California
Substantially higher temperatures, more extreme wildfires, and rising sea levels are just some of the direct effects experienced in California.23,24 As reported by the California Natural Resources Agency in 2009, despite annual variations in weather patterns, California has seen a trend of increased 22 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. (BAAQMD). 2015. Bay Area Emissions Inventory Summary Report: Greenhouse Gases - Base Year 2011. May 14, 2021. 23 California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA). 2009. 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy: A Report to the Governor of the State of California in Response to Executive Order S-13-2008. Website:
http://resources.ca.gov/docs/climate/Statewide_Adaptation_Strategy.pdf. Accessed May 19, 2021. 24 California Energy Commission (CEC). 2012. Our Changing Climate 2012: Vulnerability & Adaptation to the Increasing Risks from Climate Change in California. Website: https://ucanr.edu/sites/Jackson_Lab/files/155618.pdf. Accessed May 19, 2021. 365
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-11
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-06 GHG-Energy.docx average temperatures, more extreme hot days, fewer cold nights, longer growing seasons, less winter snow, and earlier snowmelt and rainwater runoff. Statewide average temperatures increased by about 1.7°F from 1895 to 2011, and a larger proportion of total precipitation is falling as rain instead of snow.25 Sea level rose by as much as 7 inches along the California coast over the last century, leading to increased erosion and adding pressure to the State’s infrastructure, water supplies, and natural resources.

These observed trends in California’s climate are projected to continue in the future. Research indicates that California will experience overall hotter and drier conditions with a continued reduction in winter snow (with concurrent increases in winter rains), as well as increased average temperatures and accelerating sea level rise. The frequency, intensity, and duration of extreme weather events such as heat waves, wildfires, droughts, and floods will also change.26 In addition, increased air pollution and spread of insects potentially carrying infectious diseases will also occur as the climate-associated temperature and associated species clines shift in latitude.

In California, climate change may result in consequences such as the following.27,28 • A reduction in the quality and supply of water from the Sierra snowpack. If heat-trapping emissions continue unabated, more precipitation will fall as rain instead of snow, and the snow that does fall will melt earlier, reducing the Sierra Nevada spring snowpack by as much as 70 to 90 percent. This can lead to challenges in securing adequate water supplies. It can also lead to a potential reduction in hydropower.
• Increased risk of large wildfires. If rain increases as temperatures rise, wildfires in the grasslands and chaparral ecosystems of Southern California are estimated to increase by approximately 30 percent toward the end of the 21st Century because more winter rain will stimulate the growth of more plant “fuel” available to burn in the fall. In contrast, a hotter, drier climate could promote up to 90 percent more Northern California fires by the end of the century by drying out and increasing the flammability of forest vegetation. • Reductions in the quality and quantity of certain agricultural products. The crops and products likely to be adversely affected include wine grapes, fruit, nuts, and milk. • Exacerbation of air quality problems. If temperatures rise to the medium warming range, there could be 75 to 85 percent more days with weather conducive to ozone formation in Los Angeles and the San Joaquin Valley, relative to today’s conditions. This is more than twice the 25 California Energy Commission (CEC). 2006. Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 to 2004. Draft Final Report. CEC-600-2006-013-D. Website: http://www.energy.ca.gov/2006publications/CEC-600-2006-013/CEC-600-2006-013-D.PDF.

Accessed May 19, 2021. 26 California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA). 2009. 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy: A Report to the Governor of the State of California in Response to Executive Order S-13-2008. Website:
https://resources.ca.gov/CNRALegacyFiles/docs/climate/Statewide_Adaptation_Strategy.pdf. Accessed May 19, 2021. 27 California Climate Change Center. (CCCC). 2006. Our Changing Climate, Assessing the Risks to California: A Summary Report from the California Climate Change Center. July 2006. CEC-500-2006-077. Website: http://climate.calcommons.org/bib/our-changing-climateassessing-risks-california-summary-report-california-climate-change-center. Accessed May 19, 2021. 28 Moser et al. 2009. Moser, Susie, Guido Franco, Sarah Pittiglio, Wendy Chou, Dan Cayan. 2009. The Future Is Now: An Update on Climate Change Science Impacts and Response Options for California. California Energy Commission, PIER Energy-Related Environmental Research Program. CEC-500-2008-071. Website:
https://resources.ca.gov/CNRALegacyFiles/docs/climate/Statewide_Adaptation_Strategy.pdf. Accessed May 19, 2021. 366
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Draft EIR

3.6-12 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-06 GHG-Energy.docx increase expected if rising temperatures remain in the lower warming range. This increase in air quality problems could result in an increase in asthma and other health-related problems. • A rise in sea levels resulting in the displacement of coastal businesses and residences. During the past century, sea levels along California’s coast have risen about seven inches. If emissions continue unabated and temperatures rise into the higher anticipated warming range, sea level is expected to rise an additional 22 to 35 inches by the end of the century. Elevations of this magnitude would inundate coastal areas with salt water, accelerate coastal erosion, threaten vital levees and inland water systems, and disrupt wetlands and natural habitats. • An increase temperature and extreme weather events. Climate change is expected to lead to increases in the frequency, intensity, and duration of extreme heat events and heat waves in California. More heat waves can exacerbate chronic disease or heat-related illness. • A decrease in the health and productivity of California’s forests. Climate change can cause an increase in wildfires, an enhanced insect population, and establishment of non-native species.

Bay Area
The following is a summary of climate change factors and predicted trends specific to the Bay Area.

Temperature, Heat, Drought, and Wildfire Events
The Bay Area is expected to experience warming over the rest of the 21st Century. Consistent with Statewide projections, the annual average temperature in the Bay Area will likely increase by 2.7°F between 2000 and 2050, based on GHGs that have already been emitted into the atmosphere. By the end of the century, the increase in the Bay Area’s annual average temperature may range from approximately 3.5°F to 11°F relative to the average annual temperature simulated for the 1961–1990 baseline period used for the study, depending on the GHG emissions scenarios.29 The projected rate of warming, especially in the latter half of the 21st Century is considerably greater than warming rates derived from historical observed data.

Specific predictions related to temperature/heat are summarized below. • The annual average temperature in the Bay Area has been increasing over the last several decades.
• The Bay Area is expected to see an increase in average annual temperature of 2.7°F by 2050, and

3.5°F to 11°F by 2100. Projections show a greater warming trend during the summer season.

The coastal parts of the Bay Area will experience the most moderate warming trends.30 • Extreme heat events are expected to increase in duration, frequency, and severity by 2050.

Extreme freeze events are expected to decrease in frequency and severity by 2100, but occasional colder-than-historical events may occur by 2050.31 29 California Climate Change Center (CCCC). 2009. Climate Change Scenarios and Sea Level Rise Estimates for the California 2009 Climate Change Scenarios Assessment. Website:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/231181370_Climate_change_scenarios_and_sea_level_rise_estimates_for_the_Californi a_2009_climate_change_scenarios_assessment. Accessed August 3, 2021. 30 Cal-Adapt. 2021. Climate Tools. Website: http://cal-adapt.org/tools/. Accessed May 14, 2021. 31 Ibid. 367
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-13
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-06 GHG-Energy.docx Precipitation, Rainfall, and Flooding Events
Studies of the effect of climate change on the long-term average precipitation for California show some variance.
32 Considerable variability exists across individual models and examining the average changes can mask more extreme scenarios that project much wetter or drier conditions. California is expected to maintain a Mediterranean climate through the next century, with dry summers and wet winters that vary between seasons, years, and decades. Wetter winters and drier springs are also expected, but overall annual precipitation is not projected to change substantially. By midcentury, more precipitation is projected to occur in winter in the form of less frequent but larger events. The majority of global climate models predict drying trends across the State by 2100.33 Specific factors related to precipitation/rainfall/extreme events are summarized below. • The Bay Area has not experienced substantial changes in rainfall depth or intensities over the past 30 years.
• The Bay Area will continue to experience a Mediterranean climate, with little change in annual precipitation projected by 2050, although a high degree of variability may persist. • An annual drying trend is projected to occur by 2100. The greatest decline in precipitation is expected to occur during the spring months, while minimal change is expected during the winter months.
• Increases in drought duration and frequency coupled with higher temperatures, as experienced in 2012, 2013, and 2014, will increase the likelihood of wildfires. • California is expected to see increases in the magnitude of extreme events, including increased precipitation delivered from atmospheric river events, which would bring high levels of rainfall during short time periods and increase the chance of flash floods. The Bay Area is also expected to see an increase in precipitation intensities, but possibly through less frequent events.34 Reduced Sierra Nevada Snowpack and Water Supply Shortages If heat-trapping emissions continue unabated, more precipitation will fall as rain instead of snow, and the snow that does fall will melt earlier, reducing the Sierra Nevada spring snowpack by as much as 70 to 90 percent. This can lead to challenges in securing adequate surface water supplies.

Vectors and Disease Events
Climate change will likely increase vector insect populations and, in turn, may increase the risk of some infectious diseases, particularly those diseases that appear in warm areas, such as malaria, dengue fever, yellow fever, and encephalitis.
32 California Climate Change Center (CCCC). 2009. Climate Change Scenarios and Sea Level Rise Estimates for the California 2009 Climate Change Scenarios Assessment. CEC-500-2009-014-F. Website:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/231181370_Climate_change_scenarios_and_sea_level_rise_estimates_for_the_Californi a_2009_climate_change_scenarios_assessment. Accessed August 3, 2021. 33 California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA). 2009. 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy: A Report to the Governor of the State of California in Response to Executive Order S-13-2008. 34 California Climate Change Center (CCCC) 2009. Climate Change Scenarios and Sea Level Rise Estimates for the California 2009 Climate Change Scenarios Assessment. CEC-500-2009-014-F. August. 368
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Draft EIR

3.6-14 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-06 GHG-Energy.docx Air Quality and Pollution Events
Warming-induced increases in the frequency of smog (ground-level ozone) events and particulate air pollution will exacerbate respiratory disorders.
35 Although there could be health effects resulting
from changes in the climate and the consequences that can occur, inhalation of GHGs at levels currently in the atmosphere would not result in adverse health effects, with the exception of ozone and aerosols (particulate matter). The potential health effects of ozone and particulate matter are discussed in criteria pollutant analyses. At very high indoor concentrations (not at levels existing outside), carbon dioxide, methane, SF6, and some chlorofluorocarbons can cause suffocation as the gases can displace oxygen.36,37
Napa County
Temperature, Heat, Drought, and Wildfire Events
The County of Napa is expected to experience warming over the rest of the 21st Century. Consistent with Statewide projections, the annual average temperature in the County will likely increase by

2.7°F above 2000 averages by 2050 and, depending on emission levels, 4.1-8.6°F by 2100.38 Changes in precipitation patterns and increased temperatures associated with climate change will alter plants and soils distribution and character or natural vegetation and associated moisture content. Increased temperature is expected to lead to secondary climate change impacts including increases in frequency, intensity, and duration of extreme events and heat waves in California.

The County has a historical average of four extreme heat days a year and is projected to increase to an annual average of 23-26 extreme heat days per year in 2050. Events in which these extreme temperatures are experienced over a period of several days are known as heat waves. The County has a heat threshold of 92°F and when exceeded for a period of five days, qualifies as a heat wave.

Heat waves in the County are infrequent, with no more than two heat waves occurring in one year between 1950 and 2016, but are projected to increase in frequency toward the middle of the century. Along with an increased frequency of heat events, heat waves are also projected to occur both earlier and later in the season, which historically started in late May to early June and ended in mid-September.

Precipitation, Rainfall, and Flooding Events
Reduced precipitation in the County of Napa could lead to higher risks of drought, while increased precipitation could cause flooding or soil erosion.

The County is not located in an area where snow typically accumulates, major water districts and utilities in the County receive a significant amount of water from the State Water Project, which depends on spring and early-summer snowmelt in the Sierra Nevada for water supply. Additionally, agricultural water users in the unincorporated areas of the County are the primary users of groundwater. Increased average temperatures and changes in the timing and amounts of 35 United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2009. Ozone and your Health. EPA-456/F-09-001. February. 36 National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) 2018. Carbon Dioxide. November 29. Website:
www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/npgd0103.html. Accessed May 19, 2021. 37 Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) 2003. United States Department of Labor. Safety and Health Topics: Methane.

Website: www.osha.gov/dts/chemicalsampling/data/CH_250700.html. Accessed May 19, 2021. 38 County of Napa. 2012. Napa County Revised Draft Climate Action Plan. Website:
https://www.countyofnapa.org/DocumentCenter/View/9247/Revised-Draft-CAP-PDF?bidId=. Accessed July 28, 2021. 369
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-15
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-06 GHG-Energy.docx precipitation could affect local aquifer recharge for groundwater supplies, and thus the County could face increasing challenges of providing adequate water supplies because of increased uncertainty in the amount and timing of water availability to meet future demand. If demand exceeds supply, water users could face shortages in normal or dry years.

According to Napa County’s Operational Area Hazard Mitigation Plan, the County is already considerably vulnerable to flooding. Flooding has caused the most disaster declarations and the most damage and loss of life historically in the County, with floods usually occurring during the highest precipitation season or heavy rainfall after prolonged dry periods. Almost all of the land adjacent to the Napa River is subject to flooding that has a 1 percent probability of occurring in any given year, or a 100-year flood event. While it is uncertain exactly how and to what extent climate change will affect flooding events in the County, it is reasonable to assume that any increase in flooding could have serious ramifications as the area is already considerably vulnerable. Additional information on increased risk of flooding, which could be exacerbated by sea level rise in the southern portion of the County, is included below.

The southwestern portion of the County includes the mouth of the Napa River, which forms a tidal estuary that drains into San Pablo Bay. Less than 1 percent of the County’s population is considered at risk and vulnerable to sea level rise. Because several physical structures (i.e., levees) are currently in place to protect against a 100-year flood event, approximately 36 acres in the County are currently at risk for flooding. The American Canyon Power Plant and the Napa Sanitation District Water Treatment Plant could become vulnerable to a 100-year flood event with 1.4 meters (m) of sea level rise. The majority of area that is at risk is currently undeveloped or used for agricultural purposes.

Specific areas along the Napa River that could become vulnerable include Buchli, Cuttings Wharf, Thompson, and Imola, along with areas further north along the Napa River, including some industrial uses, wineries, and parts of Downtown Napa (i.e., up to 3rd Street and portions east of State Route 29).

Vectors and Disease Events
A changing climate is expected to subject forests to increased stress due to drought, disease, invasive species, and insect pests. These stressors are likely to make forests more vulnerable to catastrophic fire.

Air Quality and Pollution Events
According to Napa County’s Operational Area Hazard Mitigation Plan, the County has a history of wildfires. Before the 2017 wildfires, more than 200,000 acres of the County’s 482,000 acres burned in the last 30 years, most of which occurred in the unincorporated areas. The County is already considered to be an area that is at high risk for wildfires, which is only expected to increase by the end of the century. This increase could cause additional threats to the County and has the potential to affect emergency services, roads, water supplies to residents, housing access, and quality of life.

Heavy winter rainfall resulted in an abundance of vegetation, which dried out in the summer, creating hazardous fuel conditions. Under the low-emissions scenario, when compared with a baseline year of 2010 wildfires are 11 percent more likely to occur in 2020, 15 percent more likely to occur in 2050, and 12 percent more likely to occur in 2085. Under the high-emissions scenario, compared to the 2010 baseline year wildfires are 14 percent more likely to occur in 2020, 13 percent 370
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Draft EIR

3.6-16 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-06 GHG-Energy.docx more likely in 2050, and 22 percent more likely to occur in 2085. Given that the County is currently at risk for wildfire, these increases of between 10 and 20 percent under both emissions scenarios is significant and could result in additional threats and increased vulnerability.

Energy Basics
Energy is generally transmitted either in the form of electricity, measured in kilowatt-hours (kWh) 39 or megawatt-hours (MWh),
40 or natural gas measured in therms.41
Electricity
Electricity is used primarily for lighting, appliances, and other uses associated with operation of the proposed project.

Natural Gas
Natural gas is used primarily for heating and water heating associated with operation of the proposed project.

Fuel
Fuel is used primarily for powering off-road equipment, trucks, and worker vehicles. The typical fuel types used are diesel and gasoline.

Electricity Generation, Distribution, and Use
State of California
In 2019, the State of California generated approximately 277,704 gigawatt-hours (GWh) of electricity which decreased by 2.7 percent from 2018.42 Approximately 68 percent of the energy generation is sourced from natural gas, coal, and non-renewables and 32 percent from renewable sources (i.e., solar, wind, and geothermal.43
In 2019, California ranked second in the nation in conventional hydroelectric generation, fourth in electricity production, and first as a producer of electricity from solar, geothermal, and biomass resources. California leads the nation in solar thermal electricity capacity and generation.

Electricity and natural gas is distributed through the various electric load-serving entities (LSEs) in California. These entities include investor-owned utilities (IOUs), publicly owned LSEs, rural electric cooperatives, community choice aggregators, and electric service providers.44 39 1 kW = 1.000 watts; A watt is a derived unit of power that measures rate of energy conversion. 1 watt is equivalent to work being done at a rate of 1 joule of energy per second. In electrical terms, 1 watt is the power dissipated by a current of 1 ampere flowing across a resistance of 1 volt. 40 1 MW = 1 million watts 41 A unit for quantity of heat that equals 100,000 British thermal units. A British thermal unit is the quantity of heat required to raise the temperature of 1 pound of liquid water 1 degree Fahrenheit at a constant pressure of 1 atmosphere. 42 California Energy Commission (CEC). 2020. 2019 Total System Electric Generation. Website: https://www.energy.ca.gov/datareports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/2020-total-system-electric-generation/2019. Accessed September 13, 2021. 43 California Energy Commission (CEC). 2020. 2019 Total System Electric Generation. Website: https://www.energy.ca.gov/datareports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/2020-total-system-electric-generation/2019. Accessed September 13, 2021. 44 California Energy Commission (CEC). Electric Load-Serving Entities (LSEs) in California Website:
https://www.energy.ca.gov/almanac/electricity_data/utilities.html. Accessed August 20, 2021. 371
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-17
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-06 GHG-Energy.docx County of Napa
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) provides electricity to many of the cities throughout Napa County. Local community choice aggregations (CCAs) can also provide electricity services alternative to the region’s traditional utility supplier, PG&E. The local CCA for American Canyon is Marin Clean Energy (MCE). With the passing of SB 790 in 2011, residential and commercial customers within a local CCA jurisdiction are automatically enrolled in that CCA’s electricity service but retain the ability to opt-out and return to their traditional utility supplier.

According to the California Energy Commission (CEC), Napa County’s energy consumption was approximately 1,043 GWh in 2019.
45 As Napa County’s population in 2019 was an estimated 139,608 people,46 the County experienced a per capita electricity consumption of an estimated 7,471 kWh per year.

Project Site
The project site is currently vacant and does not consume electricity. PG&E provides electricity to the project site.

Natural Gas Generation, Distribution, and Use
State of California
Natural gas is used for everything from generating electricity to cooking and space heating to an alternative transportation fuel. Natural gas generation (in kWh) represented 11 percent of electric power generation in 1990 and increased over the 30-year period to represent 34 percent of electric power generation in 2019.
47 In 2019, the State ranked 14 in natural gas marketed production, producing 196,823 million cubic feet of natural gas.48
Natural gas-fired generation has become the dominant source of electricity in California, as it currently fuels approximately 45 percent of electricity consumption. 49 Because natural gas is a
dispatchable resource that provides load when the availability of hydroelectric power generation and/or other sources decrease, use varies greatly from year to year. The availability of hydroelectric resources, the emergence of renewable resources for electricity generation, and overall consumer demand are the variables that shape natural gas use in electric generation. 45 California Energy Commission (CEC). 2020. Electricity Generation by County. Website:
https://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx. Accessed September 22, 2021. 46 California Department of Finance (CDF). 2021. E-4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011-2021 with 2010 Census Benchmark. Website: https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/Demographics/estimates/estimates-e4-2010-2021/. Accessed April 11, 2022. 47 United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2016. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2019.

Website: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-04/documents/us-ghg-inventory-2021-maintext.pdf?VersionId=wEy8wQuGrWS8Ef_hSLXHy1kYwKs4.ZaU. Accessed September 13, 2021 48 United States Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2020. Rankings: Natural Gas Marketed Production, 2019. Website:
https://www.eia.gov/state/rankings/?sid=CA#series/47. Accessed September 13, 2021. 49 California Energy Commission (CEC). 2021. Supply and Demand of Natural Gas in California. Website:
https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/californias-natural-gas-market/supply-and-demand-natural-gas-california.

Accessed September 20, 2021.
372
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Draft EIR

3.6-18 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-06 GHG-Energy.docx County of Napa
As mentioned prior, PG&E provides natural gas to the unincorporated portions of Napa County. In 2019, Napa County’s natural gas consumption was approximately 40 million US Therms, or approximately 3,971,812 million British thermal units (MMBtu).50 As Napa County’s population in 2019 was an estimated 139,608 people,51 the County experienced a per capita natural gas consumption of an estimated 28.45 MMBtu per year.

Fuel Use
State of California
California is one of the top producers of petroleum in the nation, with drilling operations occurring throughout the State. A network of crude oil pipelines connects production areas to oil refineries in the Los Angeles area, the San Francisco Bay Area, and the Central Valley. California oil refineries also process Alaskan and foreign crude oil received in ports in Los Angeles, Long Beach, and the San Francisco Bay Area. Crude oil production in California and Alaska is in decline, and California refineries have become increasingly dependent on foreign imports. 52 Since 2012, foreign suppliers,
led by Saudi Arabia, provide over half of the crude oil refined in California. 53,54 According to the
United States Energy Information Administration (EIA), California’s field production of crude oil has steadily declined since the mid-1980s, totaling approximately 161.5 million barrels in 2019.55 According to the EIA, transportation accounted for nearly 40 percent of California’s total energy demand, amounting to approximately 3,170 trillion British Thermal Unit (BTU) in 2018. 56 California’s
transportation sector, including rail and aviation, consumed roughly 584 million barrels of petroleum fuels in 2018.57 In 2018, petroleum-based fuels were used for approximately 86 percent of the State’s total transportation activity.
58 The CEC produces the California Annual Retail Fuel Outlet Report, which is a compilation of gasoline and diesel fuel sales data from across the State available at the county level. According to the CEC, California’s 2019 fuel sales totaled 15,365 million gallons of gasoline and 3,720 million gallons of diesel.59
50 California Energy Commission (CEC). 2020. Electricity Generation by County. Website:
https://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx. Accessed September 22, 2021. 51 California Department of Finance (CDF). 2021. E-4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011-2021 with 2010 Census Benchmark. Website: https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/Demographics/estimates/estimates-e4-2010-2021/. Accessed April 11, 2022. 52 California Energy Commission (CEC). 2020. “Oil Supply Sources to California Refineries.” Website: https://www.energy.ca.gov/datareports/energy-almanac/californias-petroleum-market/oil-supply-sources-california-refineries. Accessed July 21, 2021. 53 California Energy Commission (CEC). 2019. “Foreign Sources of Crude Oil Imports to California 2018.” March. Website:
https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/californias-petroleum-market/foreign-sources-crude-oil-imports.

Accessed July 21, 2021. 54 California Energy Commission (CEC). 2020. “Oil Supply Sources to California Refineries.” Website: https://www.energy.ca.gov/datareports/energy-almanac/californias-petroleum-market/oil-supply-sources-california-refineries. Accessed July 21, 2021. 55 United States Department of Energy, Alternative Fuels Data Center. 2020. “Alternative Fueling Station Locator [Interactive Database].” Website: https://afdc.energy.gov/stations/#/find/nearest. Accessed July 21, 2021. 56 United States Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2020. Table F33: Total Energy Consumption, Price, and Expenditure Estimates, 2019. Website: https://www.eia.gov/state/seds/sep_fuel/html/pdf/fuel_te.pdf. Accessed August 20, 2021. 57 United States Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2020. Table F16: Total Petroleum Consumption Estimates, 2019. Website:
https://www.eia.gov/state/seds/sep_fuel/html/pdf/fuel_use_pa.pdf. Accessed August 20, 2021. 58 United States Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2020. Table F18: Natural Gas Consumption Estimates, 2019. Website:
https://www.eia.gov/state/seds/seds-data-fuel.php?sid=CA#NaturalGas. Accessed August 20, 2021. 59 California Energy Commission (CEC). 2019. 2010-2019 CEC-A15 Results and Analysis. Website: https://www.energy.ca.gov/datareports/energy-almanac/transportation-energy/california-retail-fuel-outlet-annual-reporting. Accessed September 13, 2021. 373
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-19
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-06 GHG-Energy.docx Alternative Fuels
A variety of alternative fuels are used to reduce petroleum-based fuel demand. The use of these fuels is encouraged through various Statewide regulations and plans, such as the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) and SB 32. Conventional gasoline and diesel may be replaced, depending on the vehicle's capability, with transportation fuels including hydrogen, biodiesel, and electricity. Currently, 44 public hydrogen refueling stations exist in California; however, none are in the City. 60,61 Currently,
10 public biodiesel refueling stations are in California, with none in the City. 62 Electric Vehicles
Electricity can be used to power electric and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (EVs) directly from the power grid. Electricity used to power vehicles is generally provided by the electricity grid and stored in the vehicle’s batteries. Fuel cells are being explored to use electricity generated onboard the vehicle to power electric motors. Currently, California has 13,048 EV charging stations.63 According to the United States Department of Energy’s (DOE) Alternative Fuels Data Center, Napa County has 172 EV charging stations at 65 charging locations.
64 Project Site
The project site is currently vacant and does not consume any fuels.

3.6.3 - Regulatory Framework
International
United Nations Climate Change Framework Convention
On March 21, 1994, the United States joined a number of countries around the world in signing the United Nations Climate Change Framework Convention. Under the Convention, governments agreed to gather and share information on GHG emissions, national policies, and best practices; launch national strategies for addressing GHG emissions and adapting to expected impacts, including the provision of financial and technological support to developing countries; and cooperate in preparing for adaptation to the impacts of climate change.

Western Climate Initiative (Western North America Cap-and-Trade Program) Cap-and-trade refers to a policy tool where emissions are limited to a certain amount and can be traded, or provides flexibility on how the emitter can comply. Each emitter caps carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, auctions carbon dioxide emission allowances, and invests the proceeds in strategic energy programs that further reduce emissions, save consumers money, create jobs, and 60 United State Department of Energy (DOE). Alternative Fuels Data Center. 2020. Alternative Fueling Station Locator [Interactive Database]. Website: https://afdc.energy.gov/stations/#/find/nearest. Accessed July 21, 2021. 61 United State Department of Energy (DOE). Alternative Fuels Data Center. 2020. Alternative Fueling Station Counts by State. June.

Website: https://afdc.energy.gov/stations/states. Accessed July 21, 2021. 62 Ibid. 63 United States Department of Energy (DOE). No Date. Alternative Fuels Data Center: Electric Vehicle Charging Station Locations.

Website: https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/electricity_locations.html#/analyze?region=US-CA&fuel=ELEC&ev_levels=all. Accessed July 21, 2021. 64 Department of Energy (DOE) Alternative Fuels Data Center. 2020. Electric Vehicle Charging Station Locations. Website:
https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/electricity_locations.html#/analyze?country=US&location_mode=address&location=Solano%20Count y. Accessed September 22, 2021.
374
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Draft EIR

3.6-20 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-06 GHG-Energy.docx build a clean energy economy. The Western Climate Initiative partner jurisdictions have developed a comprehensive initiative to reduce North America GHG emissions to 15 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. The partners are California, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, and Québec. Currently only California and Québec are participating in the Cap-and-Trade Program. 65 Kyoto Protocol
The Kyoto Protocol is an international agreement linked to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The major feature of the Kyoto Protocol is that it sets binding targets for 37 industrialized countries and the European community for reducing GHG emissions at average of 5 percent against 1990 levels over the 5-year period from 2008–2012. The Convention (as discussed above) encouraged industrialized countries to stabilize emissions; however, the Protocol commits them to do so. Developed countries have contributed more emissions over the last 150 years; therefore, the Protocol places a heavier burden on developed nations under the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities.”
In 2001, President George W. Bush indicated that he would not submit the treaty to the U.S. Senate for ratification, which effectively ended American involvement in the Kyoto Protocol. In December 2009, international leaders met in Copenhagen to address the future of international climate change commitments post-Kyoto. No binding agreement was reached in Copenhagen; however, the Committee identified the long-term goal of limiting the maximum global average temperature increase to no more than 2°C above preindustrial levels, subject to a review in 2015. The Climate Change Committee held additional meetings in Durban, South Africa in November 2011; Doha, Qatar in November 2012; and Warsaw, Poland in November 2013. The meetings are gradually gaining consensus among participants on individual climate change issues.

On September 23, 2014, more than 100 heads of state and government, and leaders from the private sector and civil society met at the Climate Summit in New York hosted by the United Nations.

At the Summit, heads of government, business and civil society announced actions in areas that would have the greatest impact on reducing emissions, including climate finance, energy, transport, industry, agriculture, cities, forests, and building resilience.

Paris Climate Change Agreement
Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) reached a landmark agreement on December 12, 2015, in Paris, charting a fundamentally new course in the two-decadeold global climate effort. Culminating a 4-year negotiating round, the treaty ended the strict differentiation between developed and developing countries that characterized earlier efforts, replacing it with a common framework that commits all countries to put forward their best efforts and to strengthen them in the years ahead. For the first time, this included requirements that all parties report regularly on their emissions and implementation efforts and undergo international review. 65 Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES). 2015. Multi-State Climate Initiatives. Website: http://www.c2es.org/us-statesregions/regional-climate-initiatives. Accessed May 19, 2021. 375
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-21
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-06 GHG-Energy.docx The agreement and a companion decision by parties were the key outcomes of the conference, known as the 21st session of the UNFCCC Conference of the Parties, or “COP 21.” Together, the Paris Agreement and the accompanying COP decision:
• Reaffirm the goal of limiting global temperature increase well below 2 degrees Celsius, while urging efforts to limit the increase to 1.5 degrees;
• Establish binding commitments by all parties to make “nationally determined contributions” (NDCs), and to pursue domestic measures aimed at achieving them; • Commit all countries to report regularly on their emissions and “progress made in implementing and achieving” their NDCs, and to undergo international review; • Commit all countries to submit new NDCs every five years, with the clear expectation that they will “represent a progression” beyond previous ones; • Reaffirm the binding obligations of developed countries under the UNFCCC to support the efforts of developing countries, while for the first time encouraging voluntary contributions by developing countries too;
• Extend the current goal of mobilizing $100 billion a year in support by 2020 through 2025, with a new, higher goal to be set for the period after 2025; • Extend a mechanism to address “loss and damage” resulting from climate change, which explicitly will not “involve or provide a basis for any liability or compensation;” • Require parties engaging in international emissions trading to avoid “double counting;” and • Call for a new mechanism, similar to the Clean Development Mechanism under the Kyoto Protocol, enabling emission reductions in one country to be counted toward another country’s NDC.66
On June 1, 2017, President Trump announced the decision for the United States to withdraw from the Paris Agreement.
67 However, on January 20, 2021, President Biden signed the instrument to bring the United States back into the Paris Agreement that same day. Nonetheless, California remains committed to combating climate change through programs aimed to reduce GHGs.68 Federal
Massachusetts et al. v. EPA (U.S. Supreme Court GHG Endangerment Ruling) Massachusetts et al. v. EPA (Supreme Court Case 05-1120) was argued before the United States Supreme Court on November 29, 2006, in which it was petitioned that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulate four GHGs, including CO2, under Section 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). A decision was made on April 2, 2007, in which the Supreme Court found 66 Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES). 2015a. Outcomes of the U.N. Climate Change Conference. Website:
http://www.c2es.org/international/negotiations/cop21-paris/summary. Accessed May 19, 2021. 67 The White House. Statement by President Trump on the Paris Climate Accord. Website: https://it.usembassy.gov/statementpresident-trump-paris-climate-accord/. May 19, 2021. 68 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2017. New Release: California and China Team Up to Push for Millions More Zero-emission Vehicles. Website: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/news/california-and-china-team-push-millions-more-zero-emission-vehicles. Accessed May 19, 2021.
376
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Draft EIR

3.6-22 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-06 GHG-Energy.docx that GHGs are air pollutants covered by the CAA. The Court held that the Administrator must determine whether emissions of GHGs from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution, which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, or whether the science is too uncertain to make a reasoned decision. On December 7, 2009, the EPA Administrator signed two distinct findings regarding GHGs under Section 202(a) of the CAA:
• Endangerment Finding: The Administrator finds that the current and projected concentrations of the six key well-mixed greenhouse gases—CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6—in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations; and • Cause or Contribute Finding: The Administrator finds that the combined emissions of these well-mixed greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the greenhouse gas pollution, which threatens public health and welfare.

These findings do not impose requirements on industry or other entities. However, this was a prerequisite for implementing GHG emissions standards for vehicles, as discussed under “Clean Vehicles” below. After a lengthy legal challenge, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review an Appeals Court ruling which upheld the EPA Administrator findings.

United States Consolidated Appropriations Act (Mandatory GHG Reporting) The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, passed in December 2007, requires the establishment of mandatory GHG reporting requirements. On September 22, 2009, the EPA issued the Final Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule, which became effective January 1, 2010. The rule requires reporting of GHG emissions from large sources and suppliers in the United States, and is intended to collect accurate and timely emissions data to inform future policy decisions. Under the rule, suppliers of fossil fuels or industrial GHGs, manufacturers of vehicles and engines, and facilities that emit 25,000 MT or more per year of GHG emissions are required to submit annual reports to the EPA. The first annual reports for the largest emitting facilities, covering calendar year 2010, were submitted to EPA in 2011.

United States Clean Air Act Permitting Programs (New GHG Source Review) The EPA issued a final rule on May 13, 2010, which establishes thresholds for GHGs that define when permits under the New Source Review Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Operating Permit programs are required for new and existing industrial facilities. This final rule “tailors” the requirements of these CAA permitting programs to limit which facilities will be required to obtain Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V permits. In the preamble to the revisions to the Code of Federal Regulations, the EPA states:

This rulemaking is necessary because without it the Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V requirements would apply, as of January 2, 2011, at the 100 or 250 tons per year levels provided under the Clean Air Act, greatly increasing the number of required permits, imposing undue costs on small sources, overwhelming the resources of permitting authorities, and severely impairing the functioning of the programs. EPA is relieving these resource burdens by phasing in the applicability of these programs to greenhouse gas sources, starting with the largest greenhouse gas emitters. This rule establishes two initial steps of the phasein. The rule also commits the agency to take certain actions on future steps 377
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-23
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-06 GHG-Energy.docx addressing smaller sources, but excludes certain smaller sources from Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V permitting for greenhouse gas emissions until at least April 30, 2016.

The EPA estimates that facilities responsible for nearly 70 percent of the national GHG emissions from stationary sources will be subject to permitting requirements under this rule. This includes the nation’s largest GHG emitters—power plants, refineries, and cement production facilities.

Energy Independence and Security Act
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 created the Renewable Fuel Standard program. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 expanded this program by:
• Expanding the Renewable Fuel Standard program to include diesel in addition to gasoline; • Increasing the volume of renewable fuel required to be blended into transportation fuel from 9 billion gallons in 2008 to 36 billion gallons by 2022; • Establishing new categories of renewable fuel, and setting separate volume requirements for each one; and
• Requiring EPA to apply lifecycle GHG performance threshold standards to ensure that each category of renewable fuel emits fewer GHGs than the petroleum fuel it replaces.

This expanded Renewable Fuel Standard program lays the foundation for achieving substantial reductions of GHG emissions from the use of renewable fuels, reducing the use of imported petroleum, and encouraging the development and expansion of the nation’s renewable fuels sector.

Signed on December 19, 2007, by President George W. Bush, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) aims to:
• Move the United States toward greater energy independence and security. • Increase the production of clean renewable fuels.
• Protect consumers.
• Increase the efficiency of products, buildings, and vehicles. • Promote research on and deploy greenhouse gas capture and storage options. • Improve the energy performance of the federal government. • Increase U.S. energy security, develop renewable fuel production, and improve vehicle fuel economy.

EISA reinforces the energy reduction goals for federal agencies put forth in Executive Order 13423 and introduces more aggressive requirements. The three key provisions enacted are the Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards, the Renewable Fuel Standard, and the appliance/lighting efficiency standards.

The EPA is committed to developing, implementing, and revising both regulations and voluntary programs under the following subtitles in EISA, among others:
378
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Draft EIR

3.6-24 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-06 GHG-Energy.docx • Increased Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards
• Federal Vehicle Fleets
• Renewable Fuel Standard
• Biofuels Infrastructure
• Carbon Capture and Sequestration69
EPA and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards Final Rule Congress first passed the Corporate Average Fuel Economy law in 1975 to increase the fuel economy of cars and light-duty trucks. The law has become more stringent over time. On May 19, 2009, President Barack Obama put in motion a new national policy to increase fuel economy for all new cars and trucks sold in the United States. On April 1, 2010, the EPA and the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) announced a joint final rule establishing a national program that would reduce GHG emissions and improve fuel economy for new cars and trucks sold in the United States.

The first phase of the national program would apply to passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles, covering model years 2012 through 2016. They require these vehicles to meet an estimated combined average emissions level of 250 grams of CO2 per mile, equivalent to 35.5 miles per gallon if the automobile industry were to meet this CO2 level solely through fuel economy improvements. Together, these standards would cut CO2 emissions by an estimated 960 MMT and 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the lifetime of the vehicles sold under the program (model years 2012-2016).

The EPA and the NHTSA issued final rules on a second phase joint rulemaking, establishing national standards for light-duty vehicles for model years 2017 through 2025 in August 2012. 70 The new
standards for model years 2017 through 2025 apply to passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles. The final standards are projected to result in an average industry fleet wide level of 163 grams/mile of CO2 in model year 2025, which is equivalent to 54.5 miles per gallon if achieved exclusively through fuel economy improvements.

The EPA and NHTSA issued final rules for the first national standards to reduce GHG emissions and improve fuel efficiency of heavy-duty trucks and buses on September 15, 2011, which became effective November 14, 2011. For combination tractors, the agencies are proposing engine and vehicle standards that began in the 2014 model year and achieve up to a 20 percent reduction in CO2 emissions and fuel consumption by the 2018 model year. For heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans, the agencies are proposing separate gasoline and diesel truck standards, which phase in starting in the 2014 model year and achieve up to a 10 percent reduction for gasoline vehicles, and a 15 percent reduction for diesel vehicles by 2018 model year (12 and 17 percent respectively if accounting for air conditioning leakage). Lastly, for vocational vehicles, the engine and vehicle standards would achieve up to a 10 percent reduction in fuel consumption and CO2 emissions from the 2014 to 2018 model years.
69 United States Environment Protection Agency (EPA). Summary of the Energy Independence and Security Act. Website:
https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-energy-independence-and-security-act. Accessed May 19, 2021. 70 United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2012. EPA and NHTSA Set Standards to Reduce Greenhouse Gases and Improve Fuel Economy for Model Years 2017-2025 Cars and Light Trucks. EPA-420-F-12-051. August. 379
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-25
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-06 GHG-Energy.docx The State of California has received a waiver from the EPA to have separate, stricter Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards. Although global climate change did not become an international concern until the 1980s, efforts to reduce energy consumption began in California in response to the oil crisis in the 1970s, resulting in the incidental reduction of GHG emissions. In order to manage the State’s energy needs and promote energy efficiency, AB 1575 created the CEC in 1975.

State
California Assembly Bill 32: Global Warming Solutions Act and Scoping Plan The California State Legislature enacted AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.

AB 32 requires that GHGs emitted in California be reduced to 1990 levels by the year 2020. “Greenhouse gases” as defined under AB 32 include CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6. Since AB 32 was enacted, a seventh chemical, nitrogen trifluoride, has also been added to the list of GHGs. The ARB is the State agency charged with monitoring and regulating sources of GHGs. AB 32 states the following:

Global warming poses a serious threat to the economic well-being, public health, natural resources, and the environment of California. The potential adverse impacts of global warming include the exacerbation of air quality problems, a reduction in the quality and supply of water to the State from the Sierra snowpack, a rise in sea levels resulting in the displacement of thousands of coastal businesses and residences, damage to marine ecosystems and the natural environment, and an increase in the incidences of infectious diseases, asthma, and other human healthrelated problems.

The ARB approved the 1990 GHG emissions level of 427 MMT CO2e on December 6, 2007. 71 Therefore, to meet the State’s target, emissions generated in California in 2020 were required to be equal to or less than 427 MMT CO2e. Emissions in 2020 in a business-as-usual (BAU) scenario were estimated to be 596 MMT CO2e, which do not account for reductions from AB 32 regulations. 72 At
that rate, a 28 percent reduction was required to achieve the 427 MMT CO2e 1990 inventory. In October 2010, the ARB prepared an updated 2020 forecast to account for the effects of the 2008 recession and slower forecasted growth. The 2020 inventory without the benefits of adopted regulation is now estimated at 545 MMT CO2e. Therefore, under the updated forecast, a 21.7 percent reduction from a BAU scenario is required to achieve 1990 levels.73 The State has made steady progress in implementing AB 32. The progress is shown in updated emission inventories prepared by ARB for 2000 through 2012 to show progress achieved to date.74 The State also achieved its target for 2010 of reducing GHG emissions to 2000 levels. As shown below, the 2010 emission inventory achieved this target. Also shown are the average reductions 71 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2007. Staff Report. California 1990 Greenhouse Gas Level and 2020 Emissions Limit. November 16, 2007. Website: www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/reports/staff_report_1990_level.pdf. Accessed May 19, 2021. 72 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2008. Climate Change Scoping Plan, a framework for change. Website:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/adopted_scoping_plan.pdf. Accessed May 19, 2021. 73 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2014. GHG 2020 Business-as-Usual Emissions Projection. Website: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghgbau. Accessed August 3, 2021. 74 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2014. California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2012—Trends of Emissions and Other Indicators. Website: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/reports/ghg_inventory_00-12_report.pdf. Accessed May 19, 2021. 380
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Draft EIR

3.6-26 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-06 GHG-Energy.docx needed from all Statewide sources (including all existing sources) to reduce GHG emissions back to 1990 levels.
• 1990: 427 MMT CO2e (AB 32 2020 Target)
• 2000: 463 MMT CO2e (an average 8 percent reduction needed to achieve 1990 base) • 2010: 450 MMT CO2e (an average 5 percent reduction needed to achieve 1990 base) • 2020: 545 MMT CO2e BAU (an average 21.7 percent reduction from BAU needed to achieve 1990 base)
The ARB’s initial Climate Change Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan) contained measures designed to reduce the State’s emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020 to comply with AB 32. 75 The Scoping Plan
identified recommended measures for multiple GHG emission sectors and the associated emission reductions needed to achieve the year 2020 emissions target—each sector had a different emission reduction target. Most of the measures target the transportation and electricity sectors. As stated in the Scoping Plan, the key elements of the strategy for achieving the 2020 GHG target include:
• Expanding and strengthening existing energy efficiency programs as well as building and appliance standards;
• Achieving a Statewide renewables energy mix of 33 percent; • Developing a California Cap-and-Trade Program that links with other Western Climate Initiative partner programs to create a regional market system; • Establishing targets for transportation-related GHG emissions for regions throughout California and pursuing policies and incentives to achieve those targets; • Adopting and implementing measures pursuant to existing State laws and policies, including California’s clean car standards, goods movement measures, and the LCFS; and • Creating targeted fees, including a public goods charge on water use, fees on high GWP gases, and a fee to fund the administrative costs of the State’s long-term commitment to AB 32 implementation.

In addition, the Scoping Plan differentiates between “capped” and “uncapped” strategies. Capped strategies are subject to the ARB’s Cap-and-Trade Program. The Scoping Plan states that the inclusion of these emissions within the Cap-and-Trade Program would help ensure that the year 2020 emission targets were met despite some degree of uncertainty in the emission reduction estimates for any individual measure. Implementation of the capped strategies is calculated to achieve sufficient reductions by 2020 to achieve the emission target contained in AB 32. Uncapped strategies that will not be subject to the cap-and-trade emissions limits and requirements were provided as a margin of safety by accounting for additional GHG emission reductions. 76 75 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2008. Climate Change Scoping Plan, a framework for change. Website:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/adopted_scoping_plan.pdf. Accessed May 19, 2021. 76 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2008. Climate Change Scoping Plan, a framework for change. Website:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/adopted_scoping_plan.pdf. Accessed May 19, 2021. 381
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-27
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-06 GHG-Energy.docx The Cap-and-Trade Program remains a key element of the Scoping Plan. It sets a Statewide limit on sources responsible for 85 percent of California’s GHG emissions and establishes a price signal needed to drive long-term investment in cleaner fuels and more efficient use of energy. The program is designed to provide covered entities the flexibility to seek out and implement the lowest cost options to reduce emissions. The program conducted its first auction in November 2012. Compliance obligations began for power plants and large industrial sources in January 2013. Other significant milestones include linkage to Québec’s cap-and-trade system in January 2014 and starting the compliance obligation for distributors of transportation fuels, natural gas, and other fuels in January 2015.77
The Cap-and-Trade Program provides a firm cap, ensuring that the 2020 Statewide emission limit would not be exceeded. An inherent feature of the Cap-and-Trade Program is that it does not guarantee GHG emissions reductions in any discrete location or by any particular source. Rather, GHG emissions reductions are only guaranteed on an accumulative basis. As summarized by the ARB in the First Update:

The Cap-and-Trade Regulation gives companies the flexibility to trade allowances with others or take steps to cost-effectively reduce emissions at their own facilities.

Companies that emit more have to turn in more allowances or other compliance instruments. Companies that can cut their GHG emissions have to turn in fewer allowances. But as the cap declines, aggregate emissions must be reduced. In other words, a covered entity theoretically could increase its GHG emissions every year and still comply with the Cap-and-Trade Program if there is a reduction in GHG emissions from other covered entities. Such a focus on aggregate GHG emissions is considered appropriate because climate change is a global phenomenon, and the effects of GHG emissions are considered cumulative.
78 The Cap-and-Trade Program works with other direct regulatory measures and provides an economic incentive to reduce emissions. If California’s direct regulatory measures reduce GHG emissions more than expected, then the Cap-and-Trade Program will be responsible for relatively fewer emissions reductions. If California’s direct regulatory measures reduce GHG emissions less than expected, then the Cap-and-Trade Program will be responsible for relatively more emissions reductions. Thus, the Cap-and-Trade Program assures that California will meet its 2020 GHG emissions reduction mandate:

The Cap-and-Trade Program establishes an overall limit on GHG emissions from most of the California economy—the “capped sectors.” Within the capped sectors, some of the reductions are being accomplished through direct regulations, such as improved building and appliance efficiency standards, the [Low Carbon Fuel Standard] LCFS, and the 33 percent [Renewables Portfolio Standard] RPS. Whatever additional reductions are needed to bring emissions within the cap is accomplished through price incentives 77 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2015. ARB Emissions Trading Program. Website:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/capandtrade/guidance/cap_trade_overview.pdf Accessed May 19, 2021. 78 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2014. First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan. Website https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic//cc/scopingplan/2013_update/first_update_climate_change_scoping_plan.pdf.

Accessed May 19, 2021.
382
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Draft EIR

3.6-28 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-06 GHG-Energy.docx posed by emissions allowance prices. Together, direct regulation and price incentives assure that emissions are brought down cost-effectively to the level of the overall cap.

The Cap-and-Trade Regulation provides assurance that California’s 2020 limit will be met because the regulation sets a firm limit on 85 percent of California’s GHG emissions. In sum, the Cap-and-Trade Program will achieve aggregate, rather than site specific or project-level, GHG emissions reductions.

Also, due to the regulatory architecture adopted by ARB in AB 32, the reductions attributed to the Cap-and-Trade Program can change over time depending on the State’s emissions forecasts and the effectiveness of direct regulatory measures.79 California Senate Bill 32
The Governor signed SB 32 in September of 2016, giving the ARB the statutory responsibility to include the 2030 target previously contained in Executive Order B-30-15 in the 2017 Scoping Plan Update. SB 32 states, “In adopting rules and regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective greenhouse gas emissions reductions authorized by this division, the state [air resources] board shall ensure that Statewide greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to at least 40 percent below the Statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit no later than December 31, 2030.” As such, SB 32 lays the foundation for the legislative reduction targets for 2030. 2017 Scoping Plan
The most recent version of the ARB’s Scoping Plan, the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update, addresses the SB 32 targets and was adopted on December 14, 2017. The major elements of the framework proposed to achieve the 2030 target are as follows:

1. SB 350
• Achieve 50 percent Renewables Portfolio Standard by 2030. • Doubling of energy efficiency savings by 2030.

2. Low Carbon Fuel Standard
• Increased stringency (reducing carbon intensity 18 percent by 2030, up from 10 percent in 2020).

3. Mobile Source Strategy (Cleaner Technology and Fuels Scenario) • Maintaining existing GHG standards for light- and heavy-duty vehicles. • Put 4.2 million Zero-Emission Vehicles (ZEVs) on the roads. • Increase ZEV buses, delivery and other trucks.

4. Sustainable Freight Action Plan
• Improve freight system efficiency.
• Maximize use of near-ZEVs and equipment powered by renewable energy. • Deploy over 100,000 zero-emission trucks and equipment by 2030.

5. Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy
79 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2014. First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan. Website:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic//cc/scopingplan/2013_update/first_update_climate_change_scoping_plan.pdf.

Accessed May 19, 2021.
383
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-29
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-06 GHG-Energy.docx • Reduce emissions of methane and hydrofluorocarbons 40 percent below 2013 levels by 2030.
• Reduce emissions of black carbon 50 percent below 2013 levels by 2030.

6. SB 375 Sustainable Communities Strategies
• Increased stringency of 2035 targets.

7. Post-2020 Cap-and-Trade Program
• Declining caps, continued linkage with Québec, and linkage to Ontario, Canada. • The ARB will look for opportunities to strengthen the program to support more air quality co-benefits, including specific program design elements. In Fall 2016, the ARB staff described potential future amendments including reducing the offset usage limit, redesigning the allocation strategy to reduce free allocation to support increased technology and energy investment at covered entities and reducing allocation if the covered entity increases criteria or toxics emissions over some baseline.

8. 20 percent reduction in GHG emissions from the refinery sector.

9. By 2018, develop Integrated Natural and Working Lands Action Plan to secure California’s land base as a net carbon sink.

California Senate Bill 350: Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act In 2015, the State Legislature approved, and the Governor signed, SB 350, which reaffirmed California’s commitment to reducing its GHG emissions and addressing climate change. Key provisions include an increase in the RPS, higher energy efficiency requirements for buildings, initial strategies toward a regional electricity grid, and improved infrastructure for EV charging stations.

Provisions for a 50 percent reduction in the use of petroleum Statewide were removed from the Bill due to opposition and concern that it would prevent the Bill’s passage. Specifically, SB 350 requires the following to reduce Statewide GHG emissions:
• Increase the amount of electricity procured from renewable energy sources from 33 percent to 50 percent by 2030, with interim targets of 40 percent by 2024, and 25 percent by 2027. • Double the energy efficiency in existing buildings by 2030. This target will be achieved through the California Public Utility Commission, the CEC, and local publicly owned utilities. • Reorganize the Independent System Operator (ISO) to develop more regional electrified transmission markets and to improve accessibility in these markets, which will facilitate the growth of renewable energy markets in the western United States.80 California Senate Bill 100: Renewable Portfolio Standard Program On September 10, 2018, Governor Newsom signed SB 100, requiring California electricity utility providers to supply all in-state end users with electricity sourced from renewable or carbon-free sources by 2045. Specifically, SB 100 accelerates previously established RPS goals and requires that the program achieve 50 percent of electricity sourced from renewables by December 31, 2026, 60 80 California Legislative Information (California Leginfo). 2015. Senate Bill 350 Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015. Website:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB350. Accessed May 19, 2021. 384
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Draft EIR

3.6-30 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-06 GHG-Energy.docx percent by December 31, 2030, and 100 percent of electricity sourced from carbon-free sources by December 31, 2045. For clarification, renewable sources, as described herein, includes all renewable sources (e.g., solar, small hydro, wind) but notably omits large-scale hydroelectric and nuclear electricity generation; carbon-free sources include all renewable sources as well as large-scale hydroelectric and nuclear electricity generation.

California Assembly Bill 1493: Pavley Regulations and Fuel Efficiency Standards California AB 1493, enacted on July 22, 2002, required the ARB to develop and adopt regulations that reduce GHGs emitted by passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks. Implementation of the regulation was delayed by lawsuits filed by automakers and by the EPA’s denial of an implementation waiver. The EPA subsequently granted the requested waiver in 2009, which was upheld by the U.S.

District Court for the District of Columbia in 2011.81
The standards were to be phased in during the 2009 through 2016 model years. When fully phased in, the near-term (2009–2012) standards were to result in an approximately 22 percent reduction compared with the 2002 fleet, and the mid-term (2013–2016) standards were to result in about a 30 percent reduction. Several technologies stand out as providing significant reductions in emissions at favorable costs. These include discrete variable valve lift or camless valve actuation to optimize valve operation rather than relying on fixed valve timing and lift as has historically been done; turbocharging to boost power and allow for engine downsizing; improved multi-speed transmissions; and improved air conditioning systems that operate optimally, leak less, and/or use an alternative refrigerant.82
The second phase of the implementation for the Pavley Bill was incorporated into Amendments to the Low Emission Vehicle (LEV) Program referred to as LEV III or the Advanced Clean Cars program.

The Advanced Clean Car program combines the control of smog-causing pollutants and GHG emissions into a single coordinated package of requirements for model years 2017 through 2025.

The regulation will reduce GHGs from new cars by 34 percent from 2016 levels by 2025. The new rules will reduce pollutants from gasoline and diesel-powered cars, and deliver increasing numbers of zero-emission technologies, such as full battery electric cars, newly emerging plug-in hybrid EVs and hydrogen fuel cell cars. The regulations will also ensure adequate fueling infrastructure is available for the increasing numbers of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles planned for deployment in California.83
California Senate Bill 375: Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act SB 375 was signed into law on September 30, 2008. According to SB 375, the transportation sector is the largest contributor of GHG emissions, which emits over 40 percent of the total GHG emissions in California. SB 375 states, “Without improved land use and transportation policy, California will not be able to achieve the goals of AB 32.” SB 375 does the following: (1) requires metropolitan planning organizations to include sustainable community strategies in their regional transportation plans for 81 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2013. Clean Car Standards—Pavley, Assembly Bill 1493. Website:
https://www.gsweventcenter.com/GSW_RTC_References/2015_0915_CleanAirStandards_Pavley.pdf. Accessed May 19, 2021. 82 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2011. Facts About the Advanced Clean Cars Program. November 9. 83 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2011. Status of Scoping Plan Recommended Measures. 385
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-31
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-06 GHG-Energy.docx reducing GHG emissions, (2) aligns planning for transportation and housing, and (3) creates specified incentives for the implementation of the strategies.

California Senate Bill 1368: Emission Performance Standards In 2006, the State Legislature adopted SB 1368, which the Governor subsequently signed into law. SB 1368 directs the California Public Utilities Commission to adopt a performance standard for GHG emissions for the future power purchases of California utilities. SB 1368 seeks to limit carbon emissions associated with electrical energy consumed in California by forbidding procurement arrangements for energy longer than 5 years from resources that exceed the emissions of a relatively clean, combined cycle natural gas power plant. Because of the carbon content of its fuel source, a coal-fired plant cannot meet this standard because such plants emit roughly twice as much carbon as natural gas, combined cycle plants. Accordingly, the new law effectively prevents California’s utilities from investing in, otherwise financially supporting, or purchasing power from new coal plants located in or out of the State. The California Public Utilities Commission adopted the regulations required by SB 1368 on August 29, 2007. The regulations implementing SB 1368 establish a standard for baseload generation owned by, or under long-term contract to, publicly owned utilities of 1,100 lb. CO2 per megawatt-hour (MWh).

California Senate Bill X7-7: Water Conservation Act
This 2009 legislation directed urban retail water suppliers to set individual 2020 per capita water use targets and begin implementing conservation measures to achieve those goals. Meeting this Statewide goal of 20 percent decrease in demand would have resulted in a reduction of almost 2 million acre-feet in urban water use in 2020.

California Air Resources Board Truck and Bus Regulation As part of the ARB’s Sustainable Freight Strategy, the ARB adopted the Truck and Bus Regulation. The latest amendments to the Truck and Bus Regulation became effective on December 31, 2014. The amended regulation requires diesel trucks and buses that operate in California to be upgraded to reduce emissions. Newer heavier trucks and buses had to meet particulate matter (PM) filter requirements as of January 1, 2012. Lighter and older heavier trucks had to be replaced starting January 1, 2015. By January 1, 2023, nearly all trucks and buses will need to have 2010 model year engines or equivalent.

This regulation applies to nearly all privately and federally owned diesel-fueled trucks and buses and to privately and publicly owned school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 14,000 pounds. The regulation provides a variety of flexibility options tailored to fleets operating low use vehicles, fleets operating in selected vocations like agricultural and construction, and small fleets of three or fewer trucks.84
California Air Resources Board Advanced Clean Trucks Rule To further advance the State’s Sustainable Freight Strategy, the ARB adopted the Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT) Rule in July 2020, which requires manufacturers of vehicle class 2b through vehicle class 84 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2015. On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles (In-Use) Regulation. Website:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onrdiesel/onrdiesel.htm. Accessed September 22, 2017. 386
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Draft EIR

3.6-32 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-06 GHG-Energy.docx 8 trucks to begin meeting escalating in-State ZEV sales from 2024 through 2035. By 2035, the ACT Rule will require 55 percent of trucks class 2b through class 3 to be ZEVs, 75 percent of trucks class 4 through class 8 to be ZEVs, and 40 percent of truck tractors to be ZEVs. 85 Complementary to the ACT Rule, and as discussed further below, Executive Order N-79-20 set a goal of 100 percent of all inState drayage truck sales to be ZEVs by 2035 and 100 percent of all in-State heavy-duty vehicle sales to be ZEVs by 2045.The ARB is also in process of developing an Advanced Clean Fleet (ACF) Rule to accelerate the ACT Rule by requiring 100 percent of all in-State sales to be ZEVs in 2040 for class 2b through class 3 trucks, class 4 through class 8 vocational trucks, and class 7 through class 8 tractor trucks. The ACF Rule would also provide a clear timeline for requirements for phasing in in-State ZEV sales targets through 2040.86
California Code of Regulations Title 20: Appliance Efficiency Regulations California Code of Regulations, Title 20: Division 2, Chapter 4, Article 4, Sections 1601-1608:

Appliance Efficiency Regulations regulates the sale of appliances in California. The Appliance Efficiency Regulations include standards for both federally regulated appliances and non-federally regulated appliances. Twenty-three categories of appliances are included in the scope of these regulations. The standards within these regulations apply to appliances that are sold or offered for sale in California, except those sold wholesale in California for final retail sale outside the State and those designed and sold exclusively for use in recreational vehicles or other mobile equipment.

California Code of Regulations Title 24: Energy Efficiency Standards Part 6 (Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings) California Code of Regulations Title 24 Part 6 (California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings) was first adopted in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption. The standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy-efficient technologies and methods. Energy efficient buildings require less electricity; therefore, increased energy efficiency reduces fossil fuel consumption and decreases GHG emissions. The 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards went into effect on January 1, 2020.

California Code of Regulations Title 24: California Green Building Standards Code California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 11, is a comprehensive and uniform regulatory code for all residential, commercial, and school buildings that went into effect on January 1, 2011. The Code is updated on a regular basis, with the most recent update consisting of the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) that became effective January 1, 2020. Local jurisdictions are permitted to adopt more stringent requirements, as State law provides methods for local enhancements. The Code recognizes that many jurisdictions have developed existing construction ordinances and defers to them as the ruling guidance, provided that they provide a minimum 50 percent diversion requirement. The Code also provides exemptions for areas not served by construction and demolition recycling infrastructure. The State Building Code provides the minimum 85 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2021. Advanced Clean Trucks Fact Sheet. Website: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/factsheets/advanced-clean-trucks-fact-sheet. Accessed April 8, 2022. 86 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2022. Path to Zero Emission Trucks FAQ. Website:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/path-zero-emission-trucks-faq. Accessed April 8, 2022. 387
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-33
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-06 GHG-Energy.docx standard that buildings need to meet in order to be certified for occupancy, which is generally enforced by the local building official.

CALGreen (California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 24, Part 11) requires:
• Short-term bicycle parking. If a commercial project is anticipated to generate visitor traffic, provide permanently anchored bicycle racks within 200 feet of the visitors’ entrance, readily visible to passers-by, for 5 percent of visitor motorized vehicle parking capacity, with a minimum of one two-bike capacity rack (5.106.4.1.1).
• Long-term bicycle parking. For buildings with over 10 tenant-occupants, provide secure bicycle parking for 5 percent of tenant-occupied motorized vehicle parking capacity, with a minimum of one space (5.106.4.1.2).
• Designated parking. Provide designated parking in commercial projects for any combination of low-emitting, fuel-efficient and carpool/van pool vehicles as shown in Table 5.106.5.2 (5.106.5.2).
• Recycling by Occupants. Provide readily accessible areas that serve the entire building and are identified for the depositing, storage and collection of nonhazardous materials for recycling (5.410.1).
• Construction waste. A minimum 65 percent diversion of construction and demolition waste from landfills. (5.408.1, A5.408.3.1 [nonresidential], A5.408.3.1 [residential]). All (100 percent) of trees, stumps, rocks and associated vegetation and soils resulting from land clearing shall be reused or recycled (5.408.3).
• Wastewater reduction. Each building shall reduce the generation of wastewater by one of the following methods:

1. The installation of water-conserving fixtures or

2. Using nonpotable water systems (5.303.4).
• Water use savings. 20 percent mandatory reduction in indoor water use with voluntary goal standards for 30, 35, and 40 percent reductions (5.303.2, A5303.2.3 [nonresidential]). • Water meters. Separate water meters for buildings in excess of 50,000 square feet or buildings projected to consume more than 1,000 gallons per day (5.303.1). • Irrigation efficiency. Moisture-sensing irrigation systems for larger landscaped areas (5.304.3). • Materials pollution control. Low-pollutant emitting interior finish materials such as paints, carpet, vinyl flooring and particleboard (5.404).
• Building commissioning. Mandatory inspections of energy systems (i.e., heat furnace, air conditioner, mechanical equipment) for nonresidential buildings over 10,000 square feet to ensure that all are working at their maximum capacity according to their design efficiencies (5.410.2).
388
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Draft EIR

3.6-34 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-06 GHG-Energy.docx California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance
The Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (Ordinance) was required by the AB 1881 Water Conservation Act. The Ordinance required local agencies to adopt a local landscape ordinance at least as effective in conserving water as the Model Ordinance by January 1, 2010. Reductions in water use of 20 percent consistent with the SB X7-7 2020 mandate were required. Governor Brown’s Drought Executive Order of April 1, 2015 (Executive Order B-29-15) directed DWR to update the Ordinance through expedited regulation. The California Water Commission approved the revised Ordinance on July 15, 2015, which became effective on December 15, 2015. New development projects that include landscaped areas of 500 square feet or more are subject to the Ordinance. The update requires:
• More efficient irrigation systems
• Incentives for graywater usage
• Improvements in on-site stormwater capture
• Limiting the portion of landscapes that can be planted with high water use plants • Reporting requirements for local agencies.

California Public Utilities Code
The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) regulates privately owned telecommunication, electric, natural gas, water, railroad, rail transit, and passenger transportation companies. It is the responsibility of the CPUC to (1) assure California utility customers receive safe, reliable utility service at reasonable rates; (2) protect utility customers from fraud; and (3) promote a healthy California economy. The Public Utilities Code, adopted by the legislature, defines the jurisdiction of the CPUC.

California Executive Order B-55-18 (GHG Emissions Reduction Targets) On September 10, 2018, former California Governor Jerry Brown issued Executive Order B-55-18, which established the following GHG emissions reduction target:

By 2045, California shall achieve carbon net neutrality.

Executive Order B-55-18 identifies that new Statewide goal is to achieve carbon neutrality as soon as possible, and no later than 2045, and achieve and maintain net neutrality emissions thereafter. This emissions goal is in addition to the existing targets established by Executive Orders S-3-05 and B-30- 15 and SB 32, as described in greater detail below. This Executive Order also directs the ARB to work with other State agencies to identify and recommend measures to achieve this goal.

California Executive Order S-01-07: Low Carbon Fuel Standard The Governor signed Executive Order S 01-07 on January 18, 2007. The order mandated that a Statewide goal be established to reduce the carbon intensity of California’s transportation fuels by at least 10 percent by 2020. In particular, the Executive Order established an LCFS and directed the Secretary for Environmental Protection to coordinate the actions of the CEC, the ARB, the University of California, and other agencies to develop and propose protocols for measuring the “lifecycle carbon intensity” of transportation fuels.
389
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-35
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-06 GHG-Energy.docx California Executive Order N-79-20
On September 23, 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom issued Executive Order N-79-20 establishing a goal that 100 percent of new passenger cars and trucks sold in California shall be zero-emission by 2035.

The Executive Order also sets a goal that, where feasible, all operations include zero-emission medium- and heavy-duty trucks by 2045, and drayage trucks by 2035. Off-road vehicles have a goal to transition to 100 percent ZEVs by 2035, where feasible. While in-state sales of EVs will increase through 2045, the State does not currently have legislation which will restrict or preclude the use of fossil-fueled vehicles by or after 2045.

California Executive Order S-13-08
Executive Order S-13-08 states that “climate change in California during the next century is expected to shift precipitation patterns, accelerate sea level rise and increase temperatures, thereby posing a serious threat to California’s economy, to the health and welfare of its population and to its natural resources.” Pursuant to the requirements in the order, the 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy was adopted, which is the “. . . first Statewide, multi-sector, region-specific, and information-based climate change adaptation strategy in the United States.” Objectives include analyzing risks of climate change in California, identifying and exploring strategies to adapt to climate change, and specifying a direction for future research.

California Executive Order B-30-15
On April 29, 2015, the Governor issued an Executive Order to establish a California GHG emissions reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. The Governor’s Executive Order aligns California’s GHG reduction targets with those of leading international governments ahead of the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris late 2015. The Executive Order sets a new interim Statewide GHG emission reduction target to reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 in order to ensure California meets its target of reducing GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 and directs the ARB to update the Climate Change Scoping Plan to express the 2030 target in terms of MMT CO2e. The Executive Order also requires the State’s climate adaptation plan to be updated every three years and for the State to continue its climate change research program, among other provisions. As with Executive Order S-3-05, this Executive Order is not legally enforceable against local governments and the private sector. Legislation that would update AB 32 to make post 2020 targets and requirements a mandate is in process in the State Legislature.

California Senate Bill 97 and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Update Passed in August 2007, SB 97 added Section 21083.05 to the Public Resources Code. SB 97 states “(a) On or before July 1, 2009, the Office of Planning and Research shall prepare, develop, and transmit to the Resources Agency guidelines for the mitigation of GHG emissions or the effects of GHG emissions as required by this division, including, but not limited to, effects associated with transportation or energy consumption. (b) On or before January 1, 2010, the Resources Agency shall certify and adopt guidelines prepared and developed by the Office of Planning and Research pursuant to subdivision (a).”
390
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Draft EIR

3.6-36 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-06 GHG-Energy.docx The 2010 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Amendments first guided public agencies regarding the analysis and mitigation of the effects of GHG emissions in CEQA documents. The 2010 CEQA Amendments fit within the existing CEQA framework by amending existing CEQA Guidelines to reference climate change. The 2010 CEQA Amendments also revised Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines, which focuses on energy conservation, and the sample environmental checklist in Appendix G was amended to include GHG questions.

The most recent 2018 CEQA Amendments expanded upon the previous guidance by specifying that:
• The lead agency should focus its analysis on the reasonably foreseeable incremental contribution of the project’s emissions to the effects of climate change. A project’s incremental contribution may be cumulatively considerable even if it appears relatively small compared to Statewide, national, or global emissions. The agency’s analysis should consider a timeframe that is appropriate for the project. The agency’s analysis also must reasonably reflect evolving scientific knowledge and State regulatory schemes. • In determining the significance of impacts, the lead agency may consider a project’s consistency with the State’s long-term climate goals or strategies, provided that substantial evidence supports the agency’s analysis of how those goals or strategies address the project’s incremental contribution to climate change and its conclusion that the project’s incremental contribution is not cumulatively considerable.

A lead agency may use a model or methodology to estimate greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project. The lead agency has discretion to select the model or methodology it considers most appropriate to enable decision-makers to intelligently take into account the project’s incremental contribution to climate change. The lead agency must support its selection of a model or methodology with substantial evidence. The lead agency should explain the limitations of the particular model or methodology selected for use.

The 2010 changes to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15126.4 and 15130, which address mitigation measures and cumulative impacts, respectively, remained unchanged by the 2018 CEQA Amendment.

The cumulative impact discussion requirement (CEQA Guidelines § 15130) simply directs agencies to analyze GHG emissions in an EIR when a project’s incremental contribution of emissions may be cumulatively considerable; however, it does not answer the question of when emissions are cumulatively considerable.

Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4(b), a lead agency should consider the following factors, among others, when determining the significance of impacts from GHG emissions on the environment:
(1) The extent to which the project may increase or reduce greenhouse gas emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting;
(2) Whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project.
391
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-37
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-06 GHG-Energy.docx (3) The extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a Statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5 continues to permit programmatic GHG analysis and later projectspecific tiering, as well as the preparation of Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plans. Compliance with such plans can support a determination that a project’s cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable, according to Section 15183.5(b).

CEQA emphasizes that the effects of GHG emissions are cumulative and should be analyzed in the context of CEQA’s requirements for cumulative impacts analysis (see CEQA Guidelines § 15130(f)).

Center for Biological Diversity v. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (California Supreme Court GHG Ruling)
In a November 30, 2015 ruling, the California Supreme Court in Center for Biological Diversity v.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife on the Newhall Ranch project concluded that assessing whether the project was consistent with meeting Statewide emission reduction goals is a legally permissible approach for assessing significance, but the significance finding for the project was not supported by a reasoned explanation based on substantial evidence. The Court offered potential solutions on pages 25–27 of the ruling to address this issue, as summarized below:

Specifically, the Court advised that:
• Substantiation of Project Reductions from BAU. A lead agency may use a BAU comparison based on the Scoping Plan’s methodology if it also substantiates the reduction a particular project must achieve to comply with Statewide goals. The Court suggested a lead agency could examine the “data behind the Scoping Plan’s business-as-usual model” to determine the necessary project-level reductions from new land use development at the proposed location (p. 25).
• Compliance with Regulatory Programs or Performance Based Standards. A lead agency “might assess consistency with AB 32’s goal in whole or part by looking to compliance with regulatory programs designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from particular activities. (See Final Statement of Reasons, supra, at p. 64 [greenhouse gas emissions ‘may be best analyzed and mitigated at a programmatic level.’].)” To the extent a project’s design features comply with or exceed the regulations outlined in the Scoping Plan and adopted by the Air Resources Board or other state agencies, a lead agency could appropriately rely on their use as showing compliance with ‘performance based standards’ adopted to fulfill ‘a Statewide . . . plan for the reduction or mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions’ (CEQA Guidelines § 15064.4(a)(2), (b)(3); see also id., § 15064(h)(3) [determination that impact is not cumulatively considerable may rest on compliance with previously adopted plans or regulations, including ‘plans or regulations for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions’]) (p. 26). • Compliance with GHG Reduction Plans or Climate Action Plans. A lead agency may utilize “geographically specific GHG emission reduction plans” such as climate action plans or 392
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Draft EIR

3.6-38 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-06 GHG-Energy.docx greenhouse gas emission reduction plans to provide a basis for the tiering or streamlining of project-level CEQA analysis (p. 26).

Compliance with Local Air District Thresholds. A lead agency may rely on “existing numerical thresholds of significance for greenhouse gas emissions” adopted by, for example, local air districts (p. 27).

Regional
Plan Bay Area 2040
As required by SB 375, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) are jointly tasked with developing a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) as part of its Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) development. The SCS integrates transportation, land use, and housing for the region to help the State meet its GHG legislative reduction targets. Plan Bay Area 2040 further integrates the region’s SCS, RTP, and Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) into a single regional plan. Plan Bay Area 2040 contains several goals for the region to attain ranging in focus from climate protection to adequate housing to open space and agricultural preservation.

Local
City of American Canyon Energy Efficiency Climate Action Plan The proposed project is within the jurisdiction of the City of American Canyon, which has adopted an Energy Efficiency Climate Action Plan (EECAP) as discussed above in the Regulatory Framework section. The EECAP outlines a course of action to reduce community wide GHG emissions generated within the City of American Canyon. The EECAP includes two measures to reduce energy-related emissions from new nonresidential projects: (1) Participation in PG&E’s Savings by Design program for nonresidential construction programs and (2) incorporation of energy efficiency improvements beyond Title 24 for new nonresidential construction. The City would impose the requirements of these measures as applicable through the project Conditions of Approval. It should be noted that the EECAP does not meet the standards required by the BAAQMD to be tiered from under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5.

City of American Canyon General Plan
The City of American Canyon adopted its General Plan in 1994, which contains objectives and policies that help address climate change and reduce the community’s GHG emissions at the local level and improve energy efficiency and conservation. Under Resolution 2021-60, the General Plan was updated September 7, 2021, to include additional climate change and adaptation policies. The following objectives and policies from the City’s General Plan are relevant to GHG emissions and energy conservation:

Objective 1.37 Consider initiatives to reduce direct and indirect greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from transportation sources, and from new, renovated, and existing development in the City.
393
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-39
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-06 GHG-Energy.docx Policy 1.37.6 Reduce vehicle engine idling in American Canyon by educating the broader community (i.e.: businesses, commuters, residents) on the greenhouse gas impacts caused by engine idling, and implementing feasible commercial vehicle regulations.

Goal 8F Reduce consumption of nonrenewable energy sources and support the development and utilization of new energy sources.

Objective 8.22 Minimize transportation-related energy consumption.

Policy 8.22.1 Encourage the development of mixed use, pedestrian friendly employment/residential centers that help minimize vehicle trips in American Canyon and contribute to a reduction in energy consumption.

Policy 8.22.2 Encourage the clustering of residential structures.

Policy 8.22.3 Require that Development Plans provide for linkages between bicycle and pedestrian circulation systems and transit and employment centers, in accordance with established areawide plans.

Policy 8.22.4 Maintain a system of traffic signals and controls that minimizes waiting time and vehicle speed changes through routes.

Policy 8.22.5 Require that Development Plans provide for High-Occupancy Vehicles (HOV) and public transportation, where feasible, through the provision of appropriate transit areas and park-and-ride locations along public transportation routes.

Objective 8.23 Reduce Energy consumption in buildings.

Policy 8.23.1 Require that developers employ energy-efficient subdivision and site planning methods as well as building design. Measures to be considered include building orientation and shading, landscaping, building reflectance, use of active and passive solar heating and hot water system, etc. In establishing these energy related design requirements, the City shall balance energy-efficient design with good planning principles.

Policy 8.23.2 Require that new City buildings be energy efficient.

Objective 8.24 Increase public awareness of energy conservation needs and means in order to encourage informed choices about energy conservation by the general public.

Policy 8.24.1 Cooperate with local utilities to provide energy conservation information to the public.

Policy 8.24.2 Develop public and/or public-private energy conservation educational programs for City employees and the public.
394
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Draft EIR

3.6-40 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-06 GHG-Energy.docx Objective 8.25 Increase the energy efficiency of City operations to save energy, reduce municipal costs, and provide an example to the private sector.

Policy 8.25.1 Introduce concepts of energy efficiency and lifecycle costing to City planning and operating decisions and to the design of all major City facilities.

Policy 8.25.2 Work with other agencies and utility companies to develop safe, economical and renewable energy resources.

Policy 8.25.3 Consider participating in energy conservation demonstration projects and promoting the use of treatment technologies that provide for the reuse of waste and water treatment by products, such as sludge and methane gas.

In addition to the above General Plan policies related to GHG emissions and energy consumption, the City adopted a Climate Emergency Proclamation on November 16, 2021.

3.6.4 - Thresholds of Significance
Appendix G to the CEQA Guidelines is a sample Initial Study Checklist that includes questions for determining whether impacts related to the emissions of greenhouse gases and energy consumption are significant. These questions reflect the input of planning and environmental professionals at the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research and the California Natural Resources Agency, based on input from stakeholder groups and experts in various other governmental agencies, nonprofits, and leading environmental consulting firms. They also reflect the requirements of laws other than CEQA, such as AB 32 and SB 32. As a result, many lead agencies derive their significance criteria from the questions posed in Appendix G. The City has chosen to do for this project. Thus, the proposed project would have significant effects if the project would:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment (Impact GHG-1).
b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases (Impact GHG-2). c) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation (Impact GHG-3).
d) Conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency (Impact GHG-4).

Significance Criteria
Impact GHG-1: GHG Emissions Generation
Construction
Construction emissions can vary substantially from day to day, depending on the level of activity, the specific type of operation, and prevailing weather conditions. Construction emissions result from onsite and off-site activities. On-site GHG emissions principally consist of exhaust emissions from 395
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-41
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-06 GHG-Energy.docx heavy-duty construction equipment. Off-site GHG emissions would occur from motor vehicle exhaust from material delivery vehicles and construction worker traffic.

Neither the City of American Canyon nor the BAAQMD has an adopted threshold of significance for construction-related GHG emissions. Because construction would be temporary and would not result in a permanent increase in emissions, construction of the proposed project is presumed to not interfere with the implementation of SB 32. Nonetheless, the BAAQMD, in their 2017 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, states that lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce GHG emissions during construction, as feasible and applicable.

The use of GHG-reducing construction BMPs is considered by the City to be a pragmatic and effective approach for the control of construction-related GHG emissions. The BAAQMD, in their 2017 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, specifically mention the following pragmatic and effective construction BMPs for reducing GHG emissions:
• The use of alternative fueled construction vehicles and equipment for at least 15 percent of the fleet.
• The use of local building materials for at least 10 percent of materials uses. • The recycling and reuse of at least 50 percent of construction and demolition waste materials.

The incorporation of feasible and applicable GHG-reducing construction BMPs serves herein as the basis for whether project construction would contribute its "fair share" of GHG emission reductions consistent with the legislative reduction targets codified by SB 32 and the State’s long-term climate goal of carbon neutrality by 2045, thereby resulting in a less than significant impact. As explained below in the discussion of the approach for assessing the significance of the proposed project’s operational emissions, the California Supreme Court, in Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife (2015) (62 Cal.4th 204, 220-223), explained that an approach by which a lead agency ascertains a proposed project’s “fair share” of required Statewide GHG reductions is a legitimate approach for formulating significance thresholds for GHG emissions. Under this approach, which here is focused on the proposed project incorporating BAAQMD-recommended BMPs for construction-related emissions, the proposed project would be considered to result in a potentially significant impact if project construction would not incorporate feasible and applicable GHGreducing construction BMPs including, at a minimum, those listed above.

Operation
The BAAQMD is currently updating their GHG significance thresholds and is expected to adopt new significance thresholds in 2022. The BAAQMD’s proposed 2022 significance thresholds for land use projects are listed below. If a land use development project cannot demonstrate consistency with Criterion A or Criterion B, then that project would result in a potentially significant impact related to GHG emissions.

A. Projects must be consistent with a local GHG reduction strategy that meets the criteria under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b).

B. Projects must include, at a minimum, the following project design elements. 396
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Draft EIR

3.6-42 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-06 GHG-Energy.docx a. Buildings:
i. The project will not include natural gas appliances or natural gas plumbing (in both residential and nonresidential development).
ii. The project will not result in any wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary electrical usage as determined by the analysis required under CEQA Section 21100(b)(3) and Section 15126.2(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines.
b. Transportation:
i. Achieve compliance with EV requirements in the most recently adopted version of CALGreen Tier 2.
ii. Achieve a reduction in project-generated VMT below the regional average consistent with the current version of the California Climate Change Scoping Plan (currently 15 percent) or meet a locally adopted SB 743 VMT target, reflecting the recommendations provided in the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research's Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA:

1. Residential projects: 15 percent below the existing VMT per capita.

2. Office projects: 15 percent below the existing VMT per employee.

3. Retail projects: no net increase in existing VMT.

The BAAQMD’s GHG significance thresholds from their 2017 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines were established based on meeting the 2020 GHG targets set forth in the AB 32 Scoping Plan.87 AB 32 required that Statewide GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. SB 32 extended California’s GHG reduction programs beyond 2020 and contains language to authorize the ARB to achieve a Statewide GHG emission reduction of at least 40 percent below 1990 levels by December 31, 2030. The ARB approved the 2017 California's Climate Change Scoping Plan update.88 The 2017 Scoping Plan Update outlines the proposed framework of action for achieving the 2030 GHG target of 40 percent reduction in GHG emissions relative to 1990 levels.

Because the proposed project would be constructed after 2020, the BAAQMD’s GHG significance thresholds from their 2017 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines would be inappropriate to use in determining whether the proposed project could result in potentially significant impacts related to meeting the 2030 GHG emission reduction targets codified by SB 32. For land use development projects, the BAAQMD is proposing that lead agencies use one of the approaches endorsed by the California Supreme Court in Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife (2015) (62 Cal.4th 204), which evaluates a project based on its effect on California’s efforts to meet the State’s long-term climate goals.89 As the Supreme Court held in that case, a project that would be consistent with meeting those goals can be found to have a less than significant impact on climate change under CEQA. This approach, endorsed by the Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife (2015) court decision, evaluates whether a project’s GHG emissions are cumulatively considerable based on “their effect on the state’s efforts to meet [those] goals.” (Center for 87 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2008. Climate Change Scoping Plan. December. Website:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic//cc/scopingplan/document/adopted_scoping_plan.pdf. Accessed June 11, 2021. 88 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. Website:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic//cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf. Accessed June 11, 2021. 89 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2022. Draft Justification Report: CEQA Thresholds for Evaluating the Significance of Climate Impacts from Land Use Projects and Plans. February. Website: https://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-andclimate/california-environmental-quality-act-ceqa/~/media/ffb719cfa04a438d9c7be10007a5abdf.ashx. Accessed April 4, 2022. 397
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-43
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-06 GHG-Energy.docx Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife [2015] 62 Cal.4th at p. 221.) If a project would contribute its “fair share” of what will be required to achieve those long-term climate goals, then a reviewing agency can find that the impact would not be significant because the project will help to solve the problem of global climate change (62 Cal.4th at pp. 220-223).

If a new land use project would serve California’s pressing need to provide housing, jobs, and related infrastructure in a manner that supports achieving those climate goals, then the project would help to solve the climate change problem, and its GHG emissions should not be treated as cumulatively considerable. As the Supreme Court held, “consistency with meeting [those] Statewide goals [is] a permissible significance criterion for project emissions” (Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife [2015] 62 Cal.4th at p. 220), and an agency’s “choice to use that criterion does not violate CEQA” (Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife [2015] 62 Cal.4th at p. 223). This approach is based on the principle inherent in CEQA that an individual project would make a less than cumulatively considerable contribution if it would do its part to address the cumulative problem. As the Supreme Court explained, “if a plan is in place to address a cumulatively problem, a new project’s incremental addition to the problem will not be ‘cumulatively considerable’ if it is consistent with the plan and is doing its fair share to achieve the plan’s goals” (Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife [2015] 62 Cal.4th at p. 223). Given that the problem is the result of such numerous and diverse emission sources, no individual project needs to or could solve the entire cumulative problem by itself. However, each individual project does need to do what is required of it to ensure that the overall solution is implemented, and if it does that, then its impacts on climate change can be treated as less than cumulatively considerable. As the Supreme Court put it in the climate context, “[t]o the extent a project incorporates efficiency and conservation measures sufficient to contribute its portion of the overall greenhouse gas reductions necessary [to achieve the State’s climate goals], one can reasonably argue that the project’s impact is not cumulatively considerable, because it is helping to solve the cumulative problem” (Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife [2015] 62 Cal.4th at p. 220).

The Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife court case was decided in 2015, and it specifically addressed only the AB 32 goal of attaining 1990 emission levels by 2020 Statewide, not the longer-term goal for carbon neutrality in 2045. However, it is now past the 2020 goal horizon and the focus of State climate legislation and Statewide and local reduction targets have since shifted to longer-term goals. The Supreme Court has recognized the necessity and appropriateness of using these longer-term goals as the basis for the CEQA analysis. As it held in Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. SANDAG, these longer-term goals express “what scientific research has determined to be the level of emissions reductions necessary to stabilize the climate by midcentury and thereby avoid catastrophic effects of climate change” (Cleveland National Forest Foundation v.

SANDAG [2017] 3 Cal.5th 497, 513). 90
Although the 2045 carbon neutrality goal is set forth in an Executive Order and not in a statute, as with the 2020 AB 32 goal that the Supreme Court addressed in Center for Biological Diversity, the Executive Order B-55-18 goal is appropriate to use for developing a threshold of significance given 90 These statements were referring to Executive Order S-3-05, which included an 80 percent reduction target by 2050, but they equally apply to the more recent Executive Order B-55-18, which includes a carbon neutrality target by 2045. 398
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Draft EIR

3.6-44 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-06 GHG-Energy.docx the science supporting it. The Supreme Court explicitly rejected the argument that an Executive Order cannot be used for this purpose because it has not been adopted by statute in the SANDAG case. The Court explained that the Executive Order at issue there “expresses the pace and magnitude of reduction efforts that the scientific community believes is necessary to stabilize the climate. This scientific information has important value to policymakers and citizens in considering the emission impacts of a project” (Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. SANDAG [2017] 3 Cal.5th at p. 515). Agencies are required to design their CEQA analyses “based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data,” and if an Executive Order best embodies the current state of the scientific and factual data, an agency may use it as the basis for its CEQA analysis (Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. SANDAG [2017] 3 Cal.5th at p. 515).

In developing the their proposed 2022 GHG significance thresholds, the BAAQMD analyzed what will be required of new land use development projects to achieve California’s long-term climate goal of carbon neutrality by 2045, thereby better representing what design elements new land use development projects need to incorporate to sufficiently contribute to achieving the State’s goal of carbon neutrality by 2045. As GHG emissions from the land use sector come primarily from building energy use and from transportation, these are the areas that need to be evaluated to determine whether the project can or will be carbon neutral. With respect to building energy use, this can be achieved by replacing natural gas with electric power and by eliminating inefficient or wasteful electricity usage. These strategies will support California’s transition away from fossil fuel-based energy sources and will bring the project’s GHG emissions associated with building energy use down to zero as SB 100 incrementally requires greater and greater proportions of in-state sales of electricity are generated from renewable and carbon-free sources, ultimately requiring 100 percent of in-state electricity sales to be generated from carbon-free sources by 2045. With respect to transportation, projects need to be designed to reduce project-generated VMT and to provide sufficient EV charging infrastructure to support the adoption of EVs.

As illustrated above in the BAAQMD’s proposed 2022 GHG significance thresholds, the draft BAAQMD document recommends that residential and office projects use a threshold of a 15 percent reduction in project-generated VMT per capita compared with existing levels (or other, more current percentage to the extent further analysis shows that a different level of reduction is needed) and providing EV charging infrastructure as specified in the CALGreen Tier 2 standards. If a land use project being designed and built today incorporates the design elements necessary for the project to be carbon neutral by 2045, then it will contribute its “fair share” to achieving the State’s climate goals, resulting in a less than cumulatively considerable climate impact. Therefore, the proposed 2022 GHG significance thresholds will be utilized to determine whether the proposed project would result in potentially significant impacts related to GHG emissions. Please refer to a copy of the BAAQMD’s Draft Justification Report: CEQA Thresholds for Evaluating the Significance of Climate Impacts From Land Use Projects and Plans contained in Appendix B for more information supporting the use of these GHG significance thresholds.

Although the BAAQMD has not yet formally adopted these thresholds, the City of American Canyon exercises its discretion as the CEQA lead agency to embrace and adopt the BAAQMD’s draft approach, with minor refinements, as being reflective of what the City considers to be the best current thinking on the subject. As the Supreme Court said in (Center for Biological Diversity v. 399
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-45
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-06 GHG-Energy.docx Department of Fish & Wildlife [2015] 62 Cal.4th at p. 228), “[a] lead agency enjoys substantial discretion in its choice of methodology.”
The refinements made by the City relate to the manner of dealing with VMT. The BAAQMD proposal does not specify what level of VMT reduction, vis-à-vis a regional average, should be used for an industrial project such as the proposed project. Rather, BAAQMD is silent on this subject. The City therefore had to consider how to address this particular issue. One option was to consider the approach that BAAQMD is considering with respect to retail projects: to assess whether such projects will result in a net increase in existing VMT. A second option was to consider BAAQMD’s approach with respect to residential projects: to assess whether such projects will result in 15 percent below the existing regional VMT per capita. And a third option was to consider BAAQMD’s approach with respect to office projects: to assess whether such projects will result in VMT 15 percent below the existing VMT per employee.

Because industrial projects more closely resemble office projects than residential projects, and because the BAAQMD approach for office projects is more conservative than the approach for retail projects, the City has conservatively determined that it should use the BAAQMD’s proposed approach used for office projects: 15 percent below the existing VMT per employee.

BAAQMD’s silence on the issue of how to address VMT with respect to industrial projects is not the only example of a lack of guidance on this subject from expert regulatory agencies. Neither CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 nor the 2018 Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impact in CEQA published by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) provides specific guidance related to industrial land uses. As with the proposed BAAQMD thresholds, OPR’s Technical Advisory provides guidance relative to VMT significance criteria for residential, office, and retail uses but does not address industrial land uses.

The majority of trips generated by industrial land uses are typically attributed to employees and heavy-duty vehicles used to transport commercial goods. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(a) states that VMT refers to the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project (italics added). The OPR Technical Advisory states that the term “automobile,” as used in Section 15064.3(a), refers to on-road passenger vehicles, specifically cars and light trucks; heavy vehicles are not included in the definition.

The legislature’s stated intent in abandoning level of service as a metric for transportation-related impacts, as set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21099(b)(1), was to promote the reduction of GHG emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses. The GHG emissions of trips associated with heavy vehicles serving industrial uses are addressed through the implementation of Statewide programs such as the ARB’s Sustainable Freight Strategy, which through regulations such as the Truck and Bus Regulation and ACT Regulation will transition a larger and larger portion of heavy-duty trucks operating within California to be electric through 2050. Additionally, heavy-duty vehicle trips associated with industrial land uses would occur regardless of the available modes of transportation (e.g., walking, bicycling, public transit) or the mix of land uses in the project vicinity. Therefore, limiting the VMT analysis to employee automobile travel is consistent with State policy to reduce GHG emissions from land use decisions and the 400
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Draft EIR

3.6-46 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-06 GHG-Energy.docx availability of alternatives to automobile travel. For these reasons, the City has determined that it is appropriate to employ a VMT metric for GHG analysis based on the proposed BAAQMD approach for office land uses, namely, one focused on employee VMT.

Impact GHG-2: GHG Emissions Reduction Plan Consistency
While the above methodology is employed under Impact GHG-1, which focuses on the proposed project’s direct and indirect generation of GHG emissions, Impact GHG-2 methodology for determining whether a potentially significance impact would occur focuses on the proposed project’s consistency with the applicable plan adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions.

Consistent with the BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, for this impact to be less than significant, the proposed project must demonstrate consistency with the applicable GHG emissions reduction plan. As such, the proposed project would be determined to conflict with the applicable GHG emissions reduction plan if it would not adhere to applicable GHG reduction measures and policies included in the City’s General Plan and EECAP, the MTC/ABAG Plan Bay Area 2050, and the ARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan.

Impact GHG-3: Wasteful, Inefficient, or Unnecessary Energy Consumption The methodology employed under Impact GHG-3, which focuses on determining whether the proposed project would result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, follows the guidance provided in Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines as well as the analytical precedent set by League to Save Lake Tahoe Mountain etc. v. County of Placer (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 63, 164-168).

According to Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines, the goal of conserving energy is translated to include decreasing overall per capita energy consumption; decreasing reliance on fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas, and oil; and increasing reliance on renewable energy sources. In League to Save Lake Tahoe Mountain etc. v. County of Placer (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th at pp. 164-168), the Appellate Court concluded that the analysis of wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary energy consumption was not adequate because it did not consider whether additional renewable energy features can be added to the project.

The proposed project would be considered to result in a potentially significant impact if it would result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. Considering the guidance provided by Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines and the Appellate Court decision in League to Save Lake Tahoe Mountain etc. v. County of Placer (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th at pp. 164-168, the proposed project would be considered to result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources if it would conflict with the following energy conservation goals:
• Decreasing overall per capita energy consumption;
• Decreasing reliance on fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas, or oil; and • Increasing reliance on renewable energy sources.
401
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-47
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-06 GHG-Energy.docx Impact GHG-4: Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Plan Consistency Similar to the impact discussion under Impact GHG-2, this impact discussion focuses on project consistency with a local plan or policy adopted for the purpose of improving energy efficiency or reliance on renewable energy sources. The impact discussion under Impact GHG-2 differs from this impact discussion in that Impact GHG-2 explores project consistency with relevant policies intended to reduce GHG emissions, which often encompass energy efficiency and renewable energy measures. Impact GHG-4, by contrast, focuses on project consistency with relevant policies intended to improve energy efficiency and encourage the use of renewable energy sources. Therefore, while both Impact GHG-2 and Impact GHG-4 will discuss project consistency with the City’s General Plan and EECAP, Impact GHG-4 focuses solely on policies applicable to energy consumption. As such, the proposed project would be determined to conflict with the applicable energy efficiency or renewable energy plan if it would not adhere to applicable energy consumption related measures included in the City’s General Plan and EECAP.

Approach to the Analysis
The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2020.4.0 was developed in collaboration with the South Coast Air Quality Management District and other air districts throughout the State. CalEEMod is designed as a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify potential GHG emissions associated with construction and operation from various land uses. The modeling used to support this analysis follows BAAQMD guidance where applicable from its CEQA Air Quality Guidelines.

At the time of this analysis, the construction of Phase 1 of the proposed project was anticipated to begin in early 2022 and be completed 10 months later. Construction of Phase 2 of the proposed project was expected to begin immediately following the completion of Phase 1 construction and be completed 10 months later. In general, this analysis also included estimated project trip generation and trip length provided by W-Trans (Appendix H). As the proposed project is a speculative warehouse development which could accommodate cold storage and accompanying Transport Refrigeration Units (TRU), this analysis considers two project scenarios: a cold warehouse project scenario and a dry warehouse project scenario. Where appropriate, both project scenarios are presented herein to determine project impacts.

Construction-Related GHG Emissions
Construction emissions can vary substantially from day to day, depending on the level of activity, the specific type of operation, and prevailing weather conditions. Construction emissions result from both on-site and off-site activities. On-site emissions consist of exhaust emissions from the activity levels of heavy-duty construction equipment and motor vehicle operation. Off-site emissions result from motor vehicle exhaust from hauling and vendor trucks and worker traffic.

Construction emissions are generally calculated as the product of an activity factor and an emission factor. The activity factor for construction equipment is a measure of how active a piece of equipment is and can be represented as the amount of material processed, elapsed time that a piece of equipment is in operation, horsepower of a piece of equipment used, or the amount of fuel consumed in a given amount of time. The emission factor relates the process activity to the amount 402
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Draft EIR

3.6-48 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-06 GHG-Energy.docx of pollutant emitted. Examples of emission factors include grams of emissions per VMT and grams of emissions per horsepower-hour. The operation of a piece of equipment is tempered by its load factor, which is the average power of a given piece of equipment while in operation compared with its maximum rated horsepower. A load factor of 1.0 indicates that a piece of equipment continually operates at its maximum operating capacity. This analysis uses the CalEEMod default load factors for off-road equipment.

Operation-Related GHG Emissions
The operational-phase emissions are based on the development of the proposed industrial park. The modeling accounts for the average daily vehicle and truck trips and VMT, energy usage, water demand, and wastewater and solid waste generation. For purposes of this analysis, hours of operation for the proposed project are 24 hours per day, 7 days per week.

Transportation
On-road transportation sources are based on passenger vehicle and truck trip generation rates and VMT provided in the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) prepared by W-Trans for the proposed project (see Appendix H). According to the VMT information provided therein, which is based on regional demographic information, the proposed project would result in an average employee daily VMT of

16.24 miles. Please refer to the TIS in Appendix H for more information regarding the methodology behind determining the proposed project’s average employee daily VMT. As this VMT would represent all travel to and from the project site for employees in addition to any other destinations those employees will travel to and from each day, an average of 8.12 miles per one-way vehicle trip was conservatively utilized in this analysis to estimate associated emissions from employee passenger vehicle activity. However, as provided in the TIS, the proposed project would also generate truck traffic for deliveries and shipments. As indicated by the project applicant, the most likely port of origin for freight deliveries and shipments would be the Port of Oakland, approximately

32.8 miles from the project site. Therefore, truck travel distances utilized in emission estimates contained in this analysis were assumed to be 32.8 miles per trip.

Furthermore, the proposed project would include locomotive operations beginning with operation of Phase 1. The quantity and frequency of rail shipments to the project site are currently unknown; therefore, various assumptions are utilized in this analysis to characterize future operations. For instance, according to the United States Bureau of Transportation Statistics, the average weight of a loaded railcar ranges from 63 to 67 tons;91 therefore, for the purposes of this analysis, a loaded railcar being shipped to the proposed project is assumed to weigh 65 tons on average. Assuming an average travel distance of 50 miles and an average loaded railcar weight of 65 tons,92 this would represent nearly two loaded, 20-railcar locomotive deliveries per week. Please refer to the locomotive emissions estimations contained in Appendix B for more details. 91 United States Bureau of Transportation Statistics. 2012. Railcar Weights. Website:
https://www.bts.gov/archive/publications/transportation_statistics_annual_report/2003/chapter_02/railcar_weights#:~:text=The% 20average%20weight%20of%20a,trends%20among%20selected%20freight%20commodities. Accessed July 29, 2021. 92 United States Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics. 2012. Railcar Weights. Website:
https://www.bts.gov/archive/publications/transportation_statistics_annual_report/2003/chapter_02/railcar_weights#:~:text=The% 20average%20weight%20of%20a,trends%20among%20selected%20freight%20commodities. Accessed August 2, 2021. 403
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-49
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-06 GHG-Energy.docx CalEEMod, Version 2020.4.0 was used to quantify passenger vehicle emissions using vehicle emission rates based on vehicle emissions data obtained from the ARB’s EMFAC2017 Version 1.0.3 web database and adjusted based on methodology provided in Appendix B of the CalEEMod User’s Guide.93 The passenger vehicle trips were assumed to be distributed among the light-duty auto (LDA), light-duty truck 1 (LDT1), light-duty truck 2 (LDT2), and medium-duty vehicle (MDV) EMFAC2007 vehicle categories proportional to that respective vehicle category’s share between those four passenger vehicle categories within the CalEEMod for Napa County.

Truck and TRU emissions were calculated utilizing the ARB’s EMFAC2017 Version 1.0.3 and OFFROAD web databases, respectively, and adjusted based on methodology provided in Appendix B. Please refer to the fleet mix adjustment calculations contained in Appendix B for more details.

Other Operational Emissions
Solid Waste Disposal
Indirect emissions from waste generation are based on the CalEEMod default solid waste generation rates, which are based on data from the California Department of Resources, Recycling, and Recovery (CalRecycle).

Water/Wastewater
GHG emissions from this sector are associated with the embodied energy used to supply water, treat water, distribute water, and then treat wastewater and fugitive GHG emissions from wastewater treatment. Indoor water consumption is based on CalEEMod default indoor water use rates.

Area Sources
Area sources are based on the CalEEMod defaults for use of consumer products and landscaping equipment.

Energy
Emissions from this sector are from use of natural gas for space and water heating and electricity use for lighting and power needs at the proposed buildings.

Stationary Sources
Stationary sources are based on the anticipated stationary source equipment included in the proposed project. Given the type and size of the proposed project, the project applicant anticipates the use of a back-up diesel generator and diesel-fueled fire pump for each of the proposed buildings; however, the exact specifications for this equipment are unknown at the time of this analysis. To account for potential operational emissions generated from the non-emergency use of this equipment, the proposed project was assumed to include three back-up diesel generators and three diesel-fueled fire pumps, each assumed to be rated at 50 horsepower and operate for a 4-hour maintenance period one day per month, totaling an estimated 48 hours of operation per year. 93 California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2017. California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). Version 2020.4.0 Prepared by: BREEZE Software, A Division of Trinity Consultants in collaboration with South Coast Air Quality Management District and the California Air Districts.
404
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Draft EIR

3.6-50 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-06 GHG-Energy.docx

3.6.5 - Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This section discusses potential impacts associated with the project and provides mitigation measures where necessary.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact GHG-1: The proposed project would generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.

Impact Analysis
Both construction and operational activities have the potential to generate GHG emissions. The proposed project would generate GHG emissions during temporary (short-term) construction activities such as site grading, operation of construction equipment, operation of on-site heavy-duty construction vehicles, hauling of materials to and from the project site, asphalt paving, and construction worker vehicle trips. On-site construction activities would vary depending on the level of construction activity.

Long-term, operational GHG emissions would result from project-generated vehicular traffic, operation of any landscaping equipment, off-site generation of electrical power over the life of the proposed project, the energy required to convey water to and wastewater from the project site, the emissions associated with the hauling and disposal of solid waste from the project site, any fugitive refrigerants from air conditioning or refrigerators, and the operation of any proposed stationary sources such as back-up generators or fire pumps.

Global climate change is not confined to a particular project area and is generally accepted as the consequence of global industrialization over the last 200 years. A typical project, even a very large one, does not generate enough GHG emissions on its own to influence global climate change significantly; hence, the issue of global climate change is, by definition, a cumulative environmental impact. Therefore, this section measures the proposed project’s incremental contribution to the cumulative environmental impact. The following is a discussion of the proposed project’s contribution to GHG emissions during both the construction and operation phases.

Construction
As previously discussed, neither the City nor the BAAQMD has thresholds of significance for construction-related GHG emissions; therefore, the incorporation of feasible and applicable GHGreducing construction BMPs, including but not limited to those listed above, serves herein as the basis for whether project construction would contribute its "fair share" of GHG emission reductions consistent with the legislative reduction targets codified by SB 32 and the State’s long-term climate goal of carbon neutrality by 2045. As such, the proposed project would be considered to result in a potentially significant impact if project construction would not incorporate feasible and applicable GHG-reducing construction BMPs including those recommended by the BAAQMD. The BAAQMDrecommended GHG-reducing construction BMPs are listed below:
• The use of alternative fueled construction vehicles and equipment for at least 15 percent of the fleet.
405
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-51
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-06 GHG-Energy.docx • The use of local building materials for at least 10 percent of materials uses. • The recycling and reuse of at least 50 percent of construction and demolition waste materials.

The proposed project’s Phase 1 and Phase 2 construction emissions for both dry and cold storage project scenarios are shown in Table 3.6-3. It should be noted that the analysis conservatively assumes that construction would start in January 2022. As vehicle and equipment fuel efficiencies and emission control standards continue to incrementally improve with each year, project construction emissions are likely to decrease nominally from what is shown in Table 3.6-3 should the construction schedule move to later years. Therefore, the construction GHG emissions contained in Table 3.6-3 represent a conservative assessment of project construction emissions.

Table 3.6-3: Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Construction Activity Calendar Year
Dry Storage Scenario
MT CO2e
Cold Storage Scenario
MT CO2e
Project Phase 1
Site Preparation 2022 3 3
Grading 2022 70 70
Building Construction1 2022 1,591 1,606
Paving 2022 12 12
Architectural Coating 2022 8 8
Project Phase 2
Site Preparation 2022 3 3
Grading 2022 48 48
Building Construction 2022 294 294
Total 2022 Construction Emissions 2,029 2,044
Building Construction1 2023 1,690 1,705
Paving 2023 13 13
Architectural Coating 2023 11 11
Total 2023 Construction Emissions 1,714 1,729
Notes:

MT CO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
Emission estimates shown above incorporate implementation of Mitigation Measure (MM) AIR-2a and MM AIR-2b. 1 Cold Storage Scenario Building Construction emission estimates include fugitive refrigerants during the installation of the anticipated refrigeration system.

Source: CalEEMod Output (Appendix B).

As shown above in Table 3.6-3, construction of the proposed project would result in an estimated 2,029 MT CO2e under a dry storage scenario and 2,044 MT CO2e under a cold storage scenario in the first analyzed construction year of 2022. Also illustrated above, construction of the proposed project would result in an estimated 1,714 MT CO2e under a dry storage scenario and 1,729 MT CO2e under 406
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Draft EIR

3.6-52 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-06 GHG-Energy.docx a cold storage scenario in the second analyzed construction year of 2023. Nonetheless, the proposed project would need to incorporate GHG-reducing construction BMPs for construction impacts to be considered less than significant, including the use of alternative fueled construction vehicles and equipment, the use of local building materials, and the recycling and reuse of construction and demolition waste. As the proposed project would not explicitly incorporate GHG-reducing construction BMPs, such as those listed above, the proposed project would be required to implement MM GHG-1a to reduce construction GHG emissions through the implementation of GHGreducing BMPs.

Moreover, the primary source for GHG emission generation during construction activities consists of the anticipated construction equipment included in the modeling to support the estimated emissions contained in Table 3.6-3. As GHG emission generation from off-road construction equipment is generally correlated with fuel consumption, the proposed project would be required to utilize alternatively fueled or electric construction equipment as a principal component of MM GHG-1a to reduce construction-generated GHG emissions. Therefore, MM GHG-1a would mandate the use of electric and alternatively fueled equipment for at least 15 percent of the construction fleet, the use of local building materials and contractors for at least 10 percent of all building materials used, and the recycling and reuse of at least 65 percent of construction and demolition waste generated during project construction, consistent with the current CALGreen model construction and demolition waste diversion requirement (see CALGreen Sections 4.408 and 5.408). MM GHG-1a would also require the proposed project to incorporate a variety of feasible and applicable GHG-reducing construction BMPs, such as utilizing local contractors and implementing idling restrictions, in addition to those recommended by the BAAQMD to maximize the potential reduction in construction GHG emissions.

MM GHG-1a notably has more construction BMPs than those recommended by the BAAQMD. The project applicant has identified these additional construction BMPs as feasible and applicable means to maximize GHG emission reductions during project construction; therefore, MM GHG-1a incorporates additional BMPs beyond those recommended by the BAAQMD to further the proposed project’s contribution to its “fair share” in GHG emission reductions during construction toward the State’s longterm climate goal of carbon neutrality by 2045.

In addition, as shown in Table 3.6-3, project construction could generate up to 2,044 MT CO2e per year during project construction before mitigation, or a potential total of 3,773 MT CO2e for total project construction before mitigation. As shown in Table 3.6-4 and discussed further below, project operation could generate up to 21,360 MT CO2e per year before mitigation targeting GHG emissions.

As is customary in GHG emissions analyses, emissions are analyzed over an assumed lifetime of the proposed project. Considering a 30-year lifetime of project operations, construction GHG emissions amortized over 30 years would equate to an estimated 126 MT CO2e per year, constituting approximately 0.6 percent of annual project GHG emissions. As project construction would constitute a small proportion of overall project GHG emissions, and with the incorporation of feasible and applicable GHG-reducing construction BMPs, the proposed project is considered to contribute its "fair share" of GHG emission reductions during construction consistent with the legislative reduction targets codified by SB 32 and the State’s long-term climate goal of carbon neutrality by 2045. Therefore, with the implementation of MM GHG-1a, project construction impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
407
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-53
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-06 GHG-Energy.docx Operation
The proposed project would contribute to global climate change through direct and indirect emissions of GHGs from mobile sources (e.g., passenger vehicles, trucks, locomotives), energy (e.g., on-site natural gas consumption and purchased electricity), water use and wastewater generation, and solid waste generation. All modeling parameters utilized in the Air Quality analysis are also utilized for this GHG analysis, including but not limited to trip generation rates, trip distances, building sizes and operations, energy consumption, water consumption, and waste generation.

Please refer to Appendix B for modeling results and detailed calculations.

The GHG emissions associated with full operation of the proposed project for operational years 2023 and 2030 are shown in Table 3.6-4, which incorporates implementation of MMs AIR-2c and AIR-2d.

Under a dry storage scenario, the proposed project is estimated to generate approximately 18,266 MT CO2e/year starting in 2023. Under a cold storage scenario, the proposed project is estimated to generate approximately 21,360 MT CO2e/year starting.

Table 3.6-4: Operational GHG Emissions
Source
Dry Storage Scenario Cold Storage Scenario
Year 2023
MT CO2e/year
Area 0 0
Fugitive Refrigerants – 903
Energy–Electricity 895 2,292
Energy–Natural Gas 443 487
Mobile–Passenger Vehicles 2,517 2,517
Mobile–Trucks 13,175 13,175
Mobile–Locomotives 66 66
Mobile–TRUs – 751
Waste 677 677
Water 493 493
Totals 18,266 21,360
Notes:

BAAQMD = Bay Area Air Quality Management District
CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent
MT = metric tons
TRU = Transport Refrigeration Unit
Manual summation of the sources may not equal to the Total due to rounding. Emission estimates shown above incorporate implementation of MM AIR-2c and MM AIR-2d.

Source: CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0; Appendix B.

As previously discussed, the BAAQMD’s proposed 2022 GHG significance thresholds represent a method for determining whether the proposed project would be cumulatively considerable or 408
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Draft EIR

3.6-54 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-06 GHG-Energy.docx whether the proposed project contributes to solving the cumulative problem of climate change, taking into consideration the State’s long-term climate goal of carbon neutrality by 2045. As such, the BAAQMD’s proposed 2022 GHG significance thresholds reflect California’s current short-term climate goal of reducing Statewide emissions by 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 as well as California’s long-term climate goal of achieving carbon neutrality by 2045. Therefore, the proposed project is analyzed herein against the BAAQMD’s proposed 2022 GHG significance thresholds to determine whether potentially significant impacts related to GHG emissions would occur.

As previously discussed, the BAAQMD’s proposed 2022 GHG significance thresholds identifies two pathways for determining consistency with the State’s climate goals: demonstrating project consistency with a qualified GHG reduction strategy under CEQA Section 15183.5(b), or ensuring that the proposed project incorporates design and operational features that support the region and State’s adoption of EVs, facilitate reductions in project-generated VMT, and preclude the use of legacy emission sources such as natural gas. The BAAQMD’s proposed 2022 GHG significance thresholds for land use projects are listed below. As noted above, the City has modified them only as necessary to address VMT from industrial projects, a subject on which the BAAQMD was silent. If the proposed project cannot demonstrate consistency with Criterion A or Criterion B, then the proposed project would result in a potentially significant impact related to GHG emissions.

A. Projects must be consistent with a local GHG reduction strategy that meets the criteria under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b).

B. Projects must include, at a minimum, the following project design elements. a. Buildings:
i. The project will not include natural gas appliances or natural gas plumbing (in both residential and nonresidential development).
ii. The project will not result in any wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary electrical usage as determined by the analysis required under CEQA Section 21100(b)(3) and Section 15126.2(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines.
b. Transportation:
i. Achieve compliance with EV requirements in the most recently adopted version of CALGreen Tier 2.
ii. Achieve a reduction in project-generated VMT below the regional average consistent with the current version of the California Climate Change Scoping Plan (currently 15 percent) or meet a locally adopted SB 743 VMT target, reflecting the recommendations provided in the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research's Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA:

1.Residential projects: 15 percent below the existing VMT per capita.

2.Office projects: 15 percent below the existing VMT per employee.

3.Retail projects: no net increase in existing VMT.

Criterion A
As previously mentioned, the City’s EECAP does not meet the requirements to be considered a qualified GHG reduction strategy capable of being tiered from under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b). Therefore, the proposed project is not capable of satisfying Criterion B from the above 409
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-55
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-06 GHG-Energy.docx 2022 GHG significance thresholds and must demonstrate consistency with the provisions of Criterion A to determine a less than significant impact related to GHG emissions. As illustrated above, Criterion A contains four notable provisions, against which the proposed project is analyzed herein.

Criterion B
Natural Gas Prohibition Provision
The first provision requires that the proposed project not include natural gas plumbing and instead relies on electricity as the primary building energy source. As the proposed project’s design does not specifically include the prohibition of natural gas plumbing, MM GHG-1b would be required to ensure that no natural gas plumbing be built into the design of the proposed project.

It should be noted that the emission estimates contained in Table 3.6-4 do not reflect the prohibition of natural gas plumbing and conservatively includes GHG emissions generated from the on-site combustion of natural gas for space and water heating. As shown therein, the proposed project could generate up to 443 MT CO2e per year under a dry storage scenario or up to 487 MT CO2e per year under a cold storage scenario if future tenants require natural gas for critical operations. The proposed project would be compliant with this provision with the incorporation of MM GHG-1b.

Wasteful, Inefficient, or Unnecessary Electricity Consumption Provision The second provision of the BAAQMD’s proposed 2022 GHG significance thresholds requires that electricity consumption would not be considered wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary. As discussed in greater detail under Impact GHG-3, the proposed project would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. However, this provision specifically refers to electricity consumption as opposed to the consumption of general energy resources. The proposed project would be required to be constructed compliant with the California Building Code Title 24 requirements, which requires that new buildings be designed to accommodate future rooftop solar systems among other energy conservation and energy efficiency standards. As such, the proposed project would be designed to accommodate the future use of on-site renewable energy and would not by design preclude the use of EVs or renewable energy sources. Moreover, MM GHG-1b would require the proposed project to prohibit the use of natural gas during project operation, thereby reducing project dependence on fossil fuels and removing legacy GHG emission sources in contributing to achieving the State’s long-term climate goal of carbon neutrality by 2045.

Nonetheless, the proposed project could consume up to an estimated 24,495,402 kWh electricity per year during operation, as discussed in greater detail under Impact GHG-3, and the proposed buildings would be constructed to at least the minimum energy efficiency standards contained in the California Building Code. Moreover, until California’s electricity grid is 100 percent generated from renewable and carbon-free sources in 2045, the proposed project’s electricity consumption would result in additional demand of fossil fuel resources for electricity generation. As such, MM GHG-1c would be required to increase the energy efficient standards met for the proposed buildings, thereby minimizing the potentially wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of electricity, and MM GHG-1d would be required to reduce project reliance on fossil fuels for electricity consumption until the State’s electricity grid achieves 100 percent carbon-free status in 2045 under SB 100. MM GHG1c would require the proposed buildings to be designed and built to meet the Tier 2 energy 410
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Draft EIR

3.6-56 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-06 GHG-Energy.docx efficiency requirements of the Nonresidential Voluntary Measures of the California Building Code, and MM GHG-1d would require the proposed project to source its electricity consumption from 100 percent carbon-free sources. Therefore, after incorporation of MM GHG-1c and MM GHG-1d, the proposed project’s design would not result in building electricity consumption that is wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary.

Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Provision
The third provision of the BAAQMD’s proposed 2022 GHG significance thresholds requires that the proposed project achieve compliance with the EV charging infrastructure standards contained in the Tier 2 requirements of CALGreen. Because the proposed project does not currently involve a site design which demonstrates compliance with the Tier 2 requirements of CALGreen’s EV charging infrastructure standards, MM GHG-1e would be required to ensure project compliance with this provision. MM GHG-1e would require that the proposed parking areas are designed and will be built to accommodate EV charging stations. At a minimum, the parking shall be designed to accommodate a number of EV charging stations equal to the Tier 2 Nonresidential Voluntary Measures of the California Green Building Standards Code, Section A5.106.5.3.2. Considering that trucking activities constitute a major operational activity for the proposed project, the Tier 2 EV charging infrastructure requirements contained in MM GHG-1e would apply to both passenger automobiles as well as trucks. Loading docks would also be required under MM GHG-1e to contain 240-volt outlets to accommodate EV and TRU charging while trucks are loading or unloading goods. The inclusion of MM GHG-1e would ensure that the proposed project meets the provision requiring compliance with the Tier 2 EV charging infrastructure of CALGreen. MM GHG-1e would also further reduce the potential for the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources from automobiles by supporting the region and State’s adoption of EVs and reducing reliance on fossil fuels. Therefore, with incorporation of MM GHG-1e, the proposed project would be compliant with this provision.

Vehicle Miles Traveled Provision
Lastly, the fourth provision of the BAAQMD’s proposed 2022 GHG significance thresholds requires a 15 percent decrease below existing VMT per capita for residential projects, a 15 percent decrease below existing VMT per employee for office projects, and a no net increase in existing VMT for retail projects. As the proposed project would be a logistics center, none of these VMT reduction requirements directly apply. As explained above, the City has therefore chosen to formulate a VMT formula specific to industrial uses—15 percent below existing regional average for employees. With this project-specific formula/threshold in mind, the TIS prepared by W-Trans for the proposed project.94 The study found that the proposed project’s employees would see a roughly 29 percent reduction in VMT when compared to existing regional VMT. As discussed therein, the region’s existing average daily employee VMT is 23 miles while the proposed project’s employee VMT would be 16.24 miles. Therefore, the proposed project’s employee-generated VMT would conform to the 15 percent reduction requirement formulated by the City based on similar provisions of the BAAQMD’s proposed 2022 GHG significance thresholds. Moreover, the State’s overarching GHG reduction strategy for the transportation sector for medium and heavy-duty trucks focuses on 94 W-Trans. 2021. Traffic Impact Study for the Giovannoni Logistics Center. July 22. 411
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-57
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-06 GHG-Energy.docx making trucks more fuel-efficient and expediting truck turnover rather than reducing VMT from trucks. This is in contrast to the passenger vehicle component of the transportation sector, where both per capita VMT reductions and an increase in vehicle efficiency are forecast to be needed to achieve the overall State emissions reductions goals.

Emissions associated with heavy-duty trucks involved in goods movements are generally controlled on the technology side and through fleet turnover of older trucks and engines to newer and cleaner trucks and engines. The following State strategies reduce GHG emissions from medium and heavyduty trucks:
• ARB’s Mobile Source Strategy focuses on reducing GHGs by transitioning to zero and low emission vehicles and from medium-duty and heavy-duty trucks.95 • ARB’s Sustainable Freight Action Plan establishes a goal to improve freight efficiency by 25 percent by 2030, deploy over 100,000 freight vehicles and equipment capable of zeroemission operation and maximize both zero and near-zero-emission freight vehicles and equipment powered by renewable energy by 2030.96
• ARB’s Truck and Bus Regulation requires diesel-fueled trucks and buses that operate in California to be upgraded to reduce emissions. Newer heavier trucks and buses must meet PM filter requirements beginning January 1, 2012. Lighter and older heavier trucks must be replaced starting January 1, 2015. By January 1, 2023, nearly all trucks and buses will need to have 2010 model year engines or equivalent. 97
• ARB’s Emissions Reduction Plan for Ports and Goods Movement (Goods Movement Plan) in California focuses on reducing heavy-duty truck-related emissions and the establishment of emissions standards for trucks, fleet turnover, truck retrofits, and restriction on truck idling.98 While the focus of the Goods Movement Plan is to reduce criteria air pollutant and air toxic emissions, the strategies to reduce these pollutants would also generally have a beneficial effect in reducing GHG emissions.

Trucks and truck fleet owners and operators accessing the proposed project would be subject to the above trucking and freight regulations. Thus, these strategies would contribute to controlling heavyduty truck GHG emissions associated with the proposed project, and the proposed project would not conflict with or inhibit these Statewide strategies. Any on-site trucks would be required to comply with ARB’s Heavy-Duty (Tractor-Trailer) GHG Regulation, which requires SmartWay tractor trailers that include idle-reduction technologies, aerodynamic technologies, and low-rolling resistant tires that would reduce fuel consumption and associated GHG emissions. Furthermore, truck manufacturers would be required to comply with the ARB ACT Rule, which requires manufacturers of medium- and heavy-duty trucks and vans to sell zero-emission trucks as an increasing percentage of their annual California sales from 2024 to 2035. Under the ACT Rule, by 2035, zero-emission truck/chassis sales would need to be 55 percent of Class 2b to Class 3 truck sales, 75 percent of Class 95 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan: The Strategy for Achieving California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas Target. November. Website: https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2030sp_pp_final.pdf. Accessed May 17, 2021. 96 Ibid. 97 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2015. On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles (In-Use) Regulation. Website:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onrdiesel/onrdiesel.htm. Accessed September 22, 2017. 98 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2006. Emission Reduction Plan for Ports and Goods Movement in California. April 20. Website:
https://bayplanningcoalition.org/downloads/library/Emission_Reduction_Plan_for_Ports_and_Intl_Goods_Movement_in_CA.pdf.

Accessed May 17, 2021.
412
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Draft EIR

3.6-58 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-06 GHG-Energy.docx 4 to Class 8 straight truck sales, and 40 percent of truck tractor sales.99 Moreover, as required under Mitigation Measure (MM) AIR-1d, the proposed project would utilize trucks no older than model year 2014, which would provide additional reductions in truck-associated GHG emissions. As the proposed project would not include any feature or design which would prohibit the implementation of these vehicle emission standards, the proposed project would be compliant with this provision.

Considering the above assessment, the project operation would be consistent with the BAAQMD’s proposed 2022 GHG significance thresholds. As such, the project operation would have a less than significant impact related to GHG emissions after the incorporation of MM AIR-1d and MMs GHG-1a through MM GHG-1e.

Conclusion
The proposed project would generate GHG emissions during construction and operation. The BAAQMD or City do not have an emissions threshold for determining potentially significant impacts related to construction GHG emissions; therefore, the BAAQMD’s recommended GHG-reducing BMPs was utilized as the basis for determining the proposed project’s construction-related impact.

The proposed project would include the applicable GHG-reducing BMPs during construction through implementation of MM GHG-1a. MM GHG-1a notably has more construction BMPs than those recommended by the BAAQMD. The project applicant has identified these additional construction BMPs as feasible and applicable means to maximize GHG emission reductions during project construction; therefore, MM GHG-1a incorporates additional BMPs beyond those recommended by the BAAQMD to further the proposed project’s contribution to its “fair share” in GHG emission reductions during construction toward the State’s long-term climate goal of carbon neutrality by 2045.

Because MM GHG-1a would require the proposed project to meet and exceed implementation of the BAAQMD-recommended BMPs for reducing construction GHG emissions, project construction would be considered to commit its “fair share” of GHG emission reductions consistent with the State’s long-term climate goal of carbon neutrality and would therefore be less than significant.

GHG emissions associated with full operation of the proposed project for the anticipated first operation in 2023 are shown in Table 3.6-4, which incorporates implementation of MMs AIR-2c and AIR-2d. As discussed in Section 3.2, Air Quality, MM AIR-2c would be required to ensure the use of low-VOC (i.e., reactive organic gas [ROG]) architectural coating products that contain no more than 50 grams of VOC per liter of product to reduce the generation of ROG emissions during project operation. Any GHG emissions generated during architectural coating reapplication would be captured under area-source emissions in Table 3.6-4. As shown therein, area-source emissions generated during project operation would be less than 0.5 MT CO2e per year and was therefore rounded down to zero. As such, MM AIR-2c would result in a negligible effect on operational GHG emission generated by the proposed project.

As discussed in Section 3.2, Air Quality, MM AIR-2d would be required to ensure the trucking fleet accessing the project site would be comprised of vehicles no older than model year 2014 to reduce tailpipe NOX emissions. Model year 2014 was selected because it is the first homogenous model year 99 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2020. Advanced Clean Trucks: Accelerating Zero-Emission Truck Markets. June 25. Website:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-06/200625factsheet_ADA.pdf. Accessed May 17, 2021. 413
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-59
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-06 GHG-Energy.docx for a trucking fleet in Napa County, based on EMFAC2017 data, to demonstrate a reduction in NOX emissions when compared with unmitigated emission estimates. This is considered a feasible trucking mitigation measure as the ARB’s Truck and Bus Regulation100 would otherwise require trucks greater than a 26,000-pound gross vehicle weight rating which operate in California to be no older than 2010 model year by the time the proposed project would become operational in 2023. This would allow the proposed project to utilize trucks which are 9 years old and would not constitute an infeasible financial burden.

While the trucking fleet serving the proposed project would represent the greatest GHG emission source during project operation, as illustrated in Table 3.6-4, MM AIR-2d was determined to be the most feasible trucking mitigation to reduce tailpipe emissions of all types, including GHG emissions, due to the size of the trucking fleet. With over 500 trucks accessing the proposed project each day, the financial burden associated with implementing more stringent trucking mitigation is very likely to amount a cost greater than what a “prudent investor” would otherwise bear to develop the proposed project. In addition, the other principal emission source of passenger vehicles would not be possible to mitigate through project design as the operation of privately owned vehicles by employees and visitors would not be under the direct control of the proposed project.

Moreover, as discussed under Impact GHG-1, MMs GHG-1b through GHG-1e would ensure project consistency with the BAAQMD’s proposed 2022 GHG significance thresholds, as refined by the City, by prohibiting the use of natural gas infrastructure, complying with the Tier 2 EV charging infrastructure requirements of CALGreen, complying with the Tier 2 energy efficiency standards of CALGreen, and sourcing project electricity consumption from carbon-free sources. In addition, MMs GHG-1b through GHG-1e would reduce the proposed project’s reliance on fossil fuels and reduce the potential for the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources.

Lastly, as discussed further under Impact GHG-1, the proposed project would demonstrate a 15 percent reduction in employee-generated VMT from the region’s existing employee VMT, consistent with the BAAQMD’s proposed 2022 GHG significance thresholds for VMT reductions for other identified land use types, including office uses, which the City has determined are similar to industrial uses. In addition, the proposed project’s trucking operations would be subject to incrementally more stringent tailpipe emission standards and fleet turnover requirements through various ARB programs and rules, further facilitating the use of EVs and reducing the generation of truck-generated GHG emissions. As such, incorporation of MMs GHG-1b through GHG-1e would reduce the proposed project’s potentially significant operational impacts related to GHG emissions to a less than significant level.

The proposed project’s construction and operational GHG emissions impacts would be considered less than significant.
100 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2019. Truck and Bus Regulation Compliance Requirement Overview. June 18. Website:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onrdiesel/documents/fsregsum.pdf?_ga=2.176823522.653555524.1631722616- 611272733.1590599157. Accessed September 16, 2021.
414
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Draft EIR

3.6-60 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-06 GHG-Energy.docx Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
MM GHG-1a Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the project applicant shall provide the City of American Canyon with documentation (e.g., site plans) demonstrating project construction will include the following construction Best Management Practices (BMPs):
• At least 15 percent of the construction fleet for each project phase shall be alternatively fueled or electric.
• At least 10 percent of building materials used for project construction shall be sourced from local suppliers.
• At least 65 percent of construction and demolition waste materials shall be recycled or reused.
• At least one contractor that has a business location in American Canyon shall be contracted for project construction.
• All construction contracts shall include language that requires all off-road equipment with a power rating below 19 kilowatts (e.g., plate compactors, pressure washers) using during construction be electrically powered. • Architectural coatings used for project construction shall be “Low-VOC,” containing no greater than 50 grams of volatile organic compounds (VOC) per liter of product.
• Project construction shall prohibit the use of generators and shall establish grid power connection to electrical equipment needs.
• Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California Airborne Toxics Control Measure [ATCM] Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations). Clear signage regarding idling restrictions shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.
• All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. • The prime construction contractor shall post a publicly visible sign with their telephone number and contractor to contact. The construction contractor shall take corrective action within 48 hours. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) phone number shall also be identified and visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

MM GHG-1b Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the project applicant shall provide the City of American Canyon with documentation (e.g., site plans) demonstrating the proposed project is designed without the use of any natural gas -fueled appliances or natural gas plumbing.
415
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-61
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-06 GHG-Energy.docx MM GHG-1c Prior to issuance of any building permits, the project applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City of American Canyon (e.g., shown on-site plans), that the proposed buildings are designed and will be built to, at a minimum, the Tier 2 advanced energy efficiency requirements of the Nonresidential Voluntary Measures of the California Green Building Standards Code, Division A5.2, Energy Efficiency, as outlined under Section A5.203.1.2.2.

MM GHG-1d Prior to issuance of any building permits, the project applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City of American Canyon (e.g., shown on-site plans), that the proposed parking areas for passenger automobiles and trucks are designed and will be built to accommodate electric vehicle (EV) charging stations. At a minimum, the parking shall be designed to accommodate a number of EV charging stations equal to the Tier 2 Nonresidential Voluntary Measures of the California Green Building Standards Code, Section A5.106.5.3.2.

Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the project applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City of American Canyon (e.g., shown on-site plans), that each loading dock is each outfitted with at least one 240-volt outlet to accommodate truck and Transport Refrigeration Unit (TRU) charging and/or electrical power connection while trucks are loading and unloading goods.

MM GHG-1e Prior to the issuance of any building permit for the proposed project, the project applicant shall provide the City with documentation (e.g., site plans) demonstrating to the City’s satisfaction that the electricity demand will be supplied with 100 percent carbon-free electricity sources through the year 2045.

Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact.

Conflict with Plan, Policy, or Regulation that Reduces Emissions Impact GHG-2: The proposed project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.

Impact Analysis
The following discusses project consistency with applicable plans adopted to reduce GHG emissions, including ARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan, MTC/ABAG Plan Bay Area 2040, and the City of American Canyon EECAP.

California Air Resources Board Scoping Plan
The principal State plan and policy for GHG emission reduction targets are set forth in Executive Order S-03-05, AB 32, and the subsequent SB 32. The quantitative goal of AB 32 was to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. AB 32 required the ARB to develop a Scoping Plan that describes California's approach to reduce GHGs to achieve the 2020 emission target. SB 32 then accelerated the GHG emission reduction goals of AB 32. The 2017 Scoping Plan Update, the most recent update to the ARB Scoping Plan, reflects the 2030 target of a 40 percent reduction below 1990 levels as set 416
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Draft EIR

3.6-62 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-06 GHG-Energy.docx by Executive Order B-30-15 and codified by SB 32. It applies to State agencies but is not directly applicable to cities, counties, or individual projects (i.e., the Scoping Plan does not require the City to adopt policies, programs, or regulations to reduce GHG emissions). However, new regulations adopted by the State agencies outlined in the Scoping Plan result in GHG emissions reductions at the local level. As a result, local jurisdictions benefit from reductions in transportation emissions rates, increases in water efficiency in the building and landscape codes, and other Statewide actions that affect a local jurisdiction’s emissions inventory from the top down.

Transportation Sector
Trucks
In general, the State strategy for the transportation sector for medium and heavy-duty trucks focuses on making trucks more efficient and expediting truck turnover rather than reducing VMT from trucks. This is in contrast to the passenger vehicle component of the transportation sector, where both per capita VMT reductions and an increase in vehicle efficiency are forecast to be needed to achieve the overall State emissions reductions goals.

Emissions associated with heavy-duty trucks involved in goods movements are generally controlled on the technology side and through fleet turnover of older trucks and engines to newer and cleaner trucks and engines. The following State strategies reduce GHG emissions from medium and heavyduty trucks:
• ARB’s Mobile Source Strategy focuses on reducing GHGs by transitioning to zero and low emission vehicles and from medium-duty and heavy-duty trucks.101 • ARB’s Sustainable Freight Action Plan establishes a goal to improve freight efficiency by 25 percent by 2030, deploy over 100,000 freight vehicles and equipment capable of zeroemission operation and maximize both zero and near-zero-emission freight vehicles and equipment powered by renewable energy by 2030.102
• ARB’s Truck and Bus Regulation requires diesel-fueled trucks and buses that operate in California to be upgraded to reduce emissions. Newer heavier trucks and buses must meet PM filter requirements beginning January 1, 2012. Lighter and older heavier trucks must be replaced starting January 1, 2015. By January 1, 2023, nearly all trucks and buses will need to have 2010 model year engines or equivalent. 103
• ARB’s Emissions Reduction Plan for Ports and Goods Movement (Goods Movement Plan) in California focuses on reducing heavy-duty truck-related emissions and the establishment of emissions standards for trucks, fleet turnover, truck retrofits, and restriction on truck idling.104 While the focus of the Goods Movement Plan is to reduce criteria air pollutant and air toxic emissions, the strategies to reduce these pollutants would also generally have a beneficial effect in reducing GHG emissions.
101 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan: The Strategy for Achieving California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas Target. November. Website: https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2030sp_pp_final.pdf. Accessed May 17, 2021. 102 Ibid. 103 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2015. On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles (In-Use) Regulation. Website:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onrdiesel/onrdiesel.htm. Accessed September 22, 2017. 104 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2006. Emission Reduction Plan for Ports and Goods Movement in California. April 20. Website:
https://bayplanningcoalition.org/downloads/library/Emission_Reduction_Plan_for_Ports_and_Intl_Goods_Movement_in_CA.pdf.

Accessed May 17, 2021.
417
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-63
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-06 GHG-Energy.docx The proposed project would be subject to the above trucking and freight regulations. Thus, these strategies would contribute to controlling heavy-duty truck GHG emissions associated with the proposed project. The proposed project would not conflict with or inhibit these Statewide strategies.

Any on-site trucks would be required to comply with ARB’s Heavy-Duty (Tractor-Trailer) GHG Regulation, which requires SmartWay tractor trailers that include idle-reduction technologies, aerodynamic technologies, and low-rolling resistant tires that would reduce fuel consumption and associated GHG emissions. Furthermore, truck manufacturers would be required to comply with the ARB ACT Rule, which requires manufacturers of medium- and heavy-duty trucks and vans to sell zero-emission trucks as an increasing percentage of their annual California sales from 2024 to 2035.

Under the ACT Rule, by 2035, zero-emission truck/chassis sales would need to be 55 percent of Class 2b to Class 3 truck sales, 75 percent of Class 4 to Class 8 straight truck sales, and 40 percent of truck tractor sales.105 As the proposed project would not include any feature or design which would prohibit the implementation of these vehicle emission standards, the proposed project would be consistent with these requirements.

Passenger Vehicles
Statewide strategies to reduce GHG emissions from passenger vehicles and the transportation sector in general include the LCFS and changes in the Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards (e.g., Pavley I and Pavley California Advanced Clean Cars program). Furthermore, Executive Order N-79-20 would also require that 100 percent of new passenger cars and trucks sold in California be zeroemission by 2035, which would indirectly contribute to the extent of EV utilization in the proposed project’s passenger vehicle fleet beyond 2035. As the proposed project would not include any feature or design which would prohibit the implementation of these vehicle emission standards, the proposed project would be consistent with these requirements.

Energy Sector
As shown in Table 3.6-4, energy use generated by the proposed project represents the second largest source of emissions after considering mobile source GHG emissions. As discussed under Impact GHG-1, MM GHG-1c the proposed project would meet the Tier 2 energy efficiency requirements of the current CALGreen and Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Moreover, the proposed project would be sourcing electricity from on-site generation sources and/or utility providers in the State. As required by MM GHG-1e, any electricity consumed by the proposed project would be from carbon-free sources, such as an on-site photovoltaic system. If the proposed project secures electricity purchases from a utility provider, the proposed project would be required by MM GHG-1e to purchase 100 percent carbon-free electricity through the year 2045, at which time utility providers would be required to supply 100 percent carbon-free electricity for all in-state sales, as required by SB 100. As such, the proposed project would meet the requirements contained in the 2019 California Building Code and would be consistent with the State’s current CALGreen and Building Energy Efficiency Standards and the State’s renewable energy legislation, SB 100. 105 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2020. Advanced Clean Trucks: Accelerating Zero-Emission Truck Markets. June 25. Website:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-06/200625factsheet_ADA.pdf. Accessed May 17, 2021. 418
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Draft EIR

3.6-64 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-06 GHG-Energy.docx Other Sources
Other sources of GHG emissions include solid waste disposal, which is associated with landfilling municipal solid waste. The amount of methane emitted to the atmosphere as a fraction of the total amount of methane generated from the decomposition of accumulated waste has gradually declined over time as more landfills install landfill gas collection and control systems and existing systems are operated more efficiently as a result of ARB’s Landfill Methane Control Measure.106 Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the State’s goals for the recycling and waste sector.

Metropolitan Transportation Commission Plan Bay Area
As part of the implementing framework for Plan Bay Area 2050, local governments have identified planned development areas to focus growth. The project site is within the Napa County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan area. Thus, the proposed project would be consistent with the overall goals of Plan Bay Area, which include concentrating new investment in areas that would encourage job growth. In addition, the proposed project would be developed in an area with existing infrastructure.

Therefore, the proposed project would generally not conflict with the land use concept plan in Plan Bay Area 2050.

The project site is located approximately 700 feet from State Route (SR) 29. The closest public transit option would be the Vine bus system, operated by the Napa Valley Transportation Authority. The Vine provides transit opportunities throughout Napa County. The closest Vine stop is the American Canyon City Hall bus stop on Napa-Vallejo Connector Route 11, which extends from the Redwood Park n Ride in Napa, CA to the Vallejo Ferry Terminal. The stop is 1.5 miles from the project site. As such, it is not likely that many employees would travel to the project site using public transit.

City of American Canyon Energy Efficient Climate Action Plan The City of American Canyon adopted its EECAP in 2012.107 The EECAP identifies reduction measures and implementation responsibilities that the City used to achieve the State-recommended GHG emissions reduction target of 15 percent below 2005 emission levels by the year 2020 to fulfill the requirements of AB 32 and SB 375. Many of these measures are not mandatory or apply to government agencies rather than a project applicant or lead agency. The City would impose the requirements of these measures as applicable through local regulations and ordinances. Table 3.6-6 lists the relevant measures of the City’s EECAP and analyzes how the proposed project would conflict or be consistent with the EECAP and the relevant measures therein.

Table 3.6-5: Consistency with American Canyon Energy Efficient Climate Action Plan Climate Action Plan Measure Description Applicability and Compliance Community Strategy 1. Existing Uses–Nonresidential. Increase voluntary energy efficiency efforts and participation in PG&E energy efficiency programs by targeting sectors that are responsible for the largest portions of energy use, currently have low or medium participation rates, and/or have low savings-to-use ratios. 106 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2020. Advanced Clean Trucks: Accelerating Zero-Emission Truck Markets. June 25. Website:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-06/200625factsheet_ADA.pdf. Accessed May 17, 2021. 107 City of American Canyon. 2012. Energy Efficiency Climate Action Plan. Website:
https://www.cityofamericancanyon.org/home/showdocument?id=5024. Accessed May 19, 2021. 419
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-65
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-06 GHG-Energy.docx Climate Action Plan Measure Description Applicability and Compliance Community Measure C-1:

Targeted Energy Efficiency
Outreach to Nonresidential
Energy Customers.

Use PG&E data to target specific
nonresidential customer sectors for
participation in PG&E programs or
other local, regional, or State
programs.

Not Applicable. This measure applies to
the City and/or PG&E outreach effort.

Community Measure C-2:

Develop of Voluntary
Nonresidential Energy
Efficiency Checklist.

Build upon the energy disclosure
requirements of AB 1103 to develop
a voluntary nonresidential energy
efficiency checklist that will be
available at the time of building sale.

Not Applicable. This measure applies to
the City’s responsibility to develop a
nonresidential energy efficiency
checklist.

Community Measure C-3:

Participate in a
Nonresidential Property
Assessed Clean Energy
(PACE) Program.

Provide additional financing
opportunities for energy efficiency
improvements for commercial
structures by participating in a PACE
program.

Not Applicable. This measure applies to
the City’s responsibility to provide
financing opportunities for participation
in energy efficiency programs.

Community Strategy 3: New Development–Nonresidential. Ensure new development exceeds California’s Title 24 energy efficiency standard by 15 percent or more.

Community Measure C-6:

Savings By Design for New
Nonresidential
Construction.

Require participation in PG&E’s
Savings by Design Program (or future
iterations of such a program) for all
new nonresidential new construction
projects.

Not Applicable. This measure applies to
the City’s responsibility for requiring
participation in PG&E’s Savings by
Design Program, which is currently not
accepting new applications.108
Community Measure C-7:

Require Energy Efficiency
Beyond State Code for New
Nonresidential
Construction
Through 2013, provide a streamlined
permit process for new
nonresidential construction projects
that incorporate energy efficiency
improvements beyond Title 24,
include all items on a voluntary
energy efficiency checklist, or include
renewable energy improvements.

Starting in 2014 or 2017, require that
all new construction achieve Tier 1 of
Title 24 standards (15 percent more
stringent than the mandatory
standards.)
Not Applicable. This measure applies to
the City’s responsibility to require more
stringent energy efficiency standards
which exceed the energy efficiency
performance experienced under
minimal compliance with Title 24
requirements.

Community Strategy 6. Renewable Energy. Increase the number of distributed renewable energy installations on residential and Nonresidential properties to three new nonresidential sites/year and 15 residential sites/year by 2020.
108 Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E). 2021. Explore the Savings By Design Program. Website:
https://www.pge.com/en_US/large-business/save-energy-and-money/facility-improvement/savings-bydesign.page?WT.mc_id=Vanity_savingsbydesign. Accessed April 28, 2021. 420
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Draft EIR

3.6-66 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-06 GHG-Energy.docx Climate Action Plan Measure Description Applicability and Compliance Community Measure C-11:

Solar Ready Roofs for New
Construction
Require solar ready roofs that are
pre-wired and ready for the
installation of solar photovoltaic
panels and solar water heating
systems.

Consistent. The proposed project would
include roof structures designed to
accommodate additional weight for
rooftop photovoltaic electricity
generation panel arrays.

Community Strategy 7. Water Conservation. Reduce per capita community water use 20 percent by 2020 from the 2005 baseline.

Community Measure C-13:

Community Water
Reduction
Reduce community water use
through building and landscape
design and improvements.

Consistent. The proposed project would
include water efficient landscaping and
water use reduction methods.

Moreover, the proposed project
anticipates using recycled water for all
irrigated lands.109
Source: City of American Canyon. 2012. Energy Efficiency Climate Action Plan (EECAP). Website:
https://www.cityofamericancanyon.org/home/showdocument?id=5024. Accessed April 7, 2021.

As shown in Table 3.6-6, the proposed project incorporates features that would contribute to the City’s strategy to minimize GHG emissions. With these features, the proposed project would not conflict with the applicable measures and implementing actions identified by the City of American Canyon EECAP.

SB 32 2017 Scoping Plan Update
As discussed above, the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update addressing the SB 32 targets was adopted on December 14, 2017. Table 3.6-6 analyzes the proposed project’s consistency with the 2017 Scoping Plan Update measures. As shown in Table 3.6-6, none of the measures are applicable to the proposed project.

Table 3.6-6: Consistency with SB 32 2017 Scoping Plan Update 2017 Scoping Plan Update Reduction Measure Project Consistency SB 350 50 Percent Renewable Mandate. Utilities
subject to the legislation will be required to
increase their renewable energy mix from 33
percent in 2020 to 50 percent in 2030.

Not Applicable. This measure would apply to utilities
and not to individual development projects. The
proposed project would purchase electricity from a
utility subject to the SB 350 and SB 100 Renewable
Portfolio Standards requirements.

SB 350 Double Building Energy Efficiency by 2030.

This is equivalent to a 20 percent reduction from
2014 building energy usage compared to current
projected 2030 levels.

Not Applicable. This measure applies to existing
buildings. New structures are required to comply with
the Tier 2 energy efficiency standards of the California Building Code through implementation of MM GHG-1c.

In addition, the proposed project would source its
electricity consumption from 100 percent carbon-free
sources, as required by MM GHG-1d.
109 Balance Hydrologics. 2021. Draft Water Supply Assessment for the Giovannoni Logistics Center Project. September. 421
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-67
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-06 GHG-Energy.docx 2017 Scoping Plan Update Reduction Measure Project Consistency Low Carbon Fuel Standard. This measure requires
fuel providers to meet an 18 percent reduction in
carbon content by 2030.

Not Applicable. This is a Statewide measure that cannot be implemented by a project applicant or lead agency.

However, vehicles accessing the buildings at the
proposed project site would benefit from the standards.

Mobile Source Strategy (Cleaner Technology and
Fuels Scenario). Vehicle manufacturers will be
required to meet existing regulations mandated by
the LEV III and Heavy-Duty Vehicle programs. The
strategy includes a goal of having 4.2 million ZEVs
on the road by 2030 and increasing numbers of
ZEV trucks and buses.

Not Applicable. This measure is not applicable to the
proposed project; however, vehicles accessing the
buildings at the project site would benefit from the
increased availability of cleaner technology and fuels.

Sustainable Freight Action Plan. The plan’s target
is to improve freight system efficiency 25 percent
by increasing the value of goods and services
produced from the freight sector, relative to the
amount of carbon that it produces by 2030. This
would be achieved by deploying over 100,000
freight vehicles and equipment capable of zeroemission operation and maximize near-zeroemission freight vehicles and equipment powered by renewable energy by 2030.

Consistent. This measure applies to owners and
operators of trucks and freight operations. While the
proposed project is industrial in nature and would
support truck and freight operations, neither the
proposed project’s design nor nature would prevent
truck fleet owners and operators from utilizing zeroemission or near-ZEVs by 2030. Moreover, as required by MM GHG-1e, the proposed project would design and
construct all automobile and truck parking areas to
meet the Tier 2 EV charging infrastructure requirements of CALGreen. MM GHG-1e would further accelerate the
possible adoption of EVs and support this measure.

Short-Lived Climate Pollutant (SLCP) Reduction
Strategy. The strategy requires the reduction of
SLCPs by 40 percent from 2013 levels by 2030 and
the reduction of black carbon by 50 percent from
2013 levels by 2030.

Not Applicable. Black carbon is formed by the
incomplete combustion of fossil fuels, wood, and other
fuels. Households currently constitute the largest
source of black carbon worldwide, primarily originating from the use of biomass and coal cooking and heating
stoves.110 Nonetheless, the proposed project would
involve trucking activities. As such, freight vehicles
accessing the project site would be required to meet
the standards of the ARB’s Sustainable Freight Action
Plan and Truck and Bus Regulation, which would serve
to reduce potential freight-related black carbon
emissions resulting from fossil fuel combustion.

Therefore, the proposed project would not constitute a
major source of black carbon.

SB 375 Sustainable Communities Strategies.

Requires Regional Transportation Plans to include a
sustainable communities’ strategy for reduction of
per capita VMT.

Not Applicable. The proposed project does not include
the development of a Regional Transportation Plan.
110 Climate and Clean Air Coalition (CCAC). N.d. Black carbon. Website: https://www.ccacoalition.org/en/slcps/black-carbon. Accessed April 1, 2022.
422
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Draft EIR

3.6-68 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-06 GHG-Energy.docx 2017 Scoping Plan Update Reduction Measure Project Consistency Post-2020 Cap-and-Trade Program. The Post 2020
Cap-and-Trade Program continues the existing
program for another 10 years. The Cap-and-Trade
Program applies to large industrial sources such as
power plants, refineries, and cement
manufacturers.

Not Applicable. The proposed project is not one
targeted by the cap-and-trade system regulations, and,
therefore, this measure does not apply to the proposed
project.

Natural and Working Lands Action Plan. The ARB
is working in coordination with several other
agencies at the federal, State, and local levels,
stakeholders, and with the public, to develop
measures as outlined in the Scoping Plan Update
and the Governor’s Executive Order B-30-15 to
reduce GHG emissions and to cultivate net carbon
sequestration potential for California’s natural and
working land.

Not Applicable. The proposed project is in a built-up
urban area and would not be considered natural or
working lands.

Source: California Air Resource Board (ARB). 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. November. Website:
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf. Accessed May 17, 2021.

As shown in Table 3.6-6, the proposed project's implementation would not conflict with the reduction measures proposed in SB 32. As such, the proposed project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted to reduce GHG emissions. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.

Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact.

Impact GHG-3: The proposed project would not result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
Impact Analysis
A significant impact would occur if the proposed project would result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary use of energy.

Construction
The anticipated construction schedule for the proposed project was assumed to begin in January 2022 and conclude in August 2023, lasting approximately 20 months. If the anticipated construction schedule moves to later years, construction energy demand would likely decrease because of improvements in 423
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-69
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-06 GHG-Energy.docx technology and more stringent regulatory requirements as older, less efficient equipment is replaced by newer and cleaner equipment. The proposed project would require site preparation, grading, building construction, architectural coating, and paving activities. Project construction would require energy for the manufacture and transportation of building materials, preparation of the site (e.g.,site clearing, and grading), and the actual construction of the building. Petroleum-based fuels such as diesel fuel and gasoline would be the primary sources of energy for these tasks.

The types of on-site equipment used during the proposed project's construction could include gasoline- and diesel-powered construction and transportation equipment, including trucks, bulldozers, front-end loaders, forklifts, and cranes. Construction equipment is estimated to consume a total of 51,911 gallons of diesel fuel during project construction (Appendix B).

Fuel use associated with construction vehicle trips generated by the proposed project was also estimated; trips include construction worker trips, haul truck trips for material transport, and vendor trips for construction material deliveries. Fuel use from these vehicles traveling to the project site was based on (1) the projected number of trips the proposed project would generate during construction, (2) average trip distances by trip type, and (3) fuel efficiencies estimated in the ARB Emissions Factors model (EMFAC) mobile source emission model. The specific parameters used to estimate fuel usage are included in Appendix B. In total, the proposed project is estimated to consume a combined 337,528 gallons of gasoline and diesel for vehicle travel during construction.

Other equipment could include construction lighting, field services (office trailers), and electrically driven equipment such as pumps and other tools. Singlewide mobile office trailers, commonly used in construction staging areas, generally range in size from 160 square feet to 720 square feet. A typical 720-square-foot office trailer would consume approximately 20,152 kilowatt-hours (kWh) during the 20-month construction phase (Appendix B).

The proposed project’s construction is not anticipated to result in unusually high energy use.

Limitations on idling of vehicles and equipment and requirements that equipment be properly maintained would result in fuel savings. Similarly, compliance with State regulations would limit idling from both on-road and off-road diesel-powered equipment and are enforced by the ARB.

Additionally, the overall construction schedule and process is already designed to be efficient to avoid excess monetary costs. For example, equipment and fuel are not typically used wastefully due to the added expense associated with renting the equipment, maintaining it, and fueling it.

Therefore, the opportunities for future efficiency gains during construction are limited. Therefore, it is anticipated that the construction phase of the proposed project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy. Construction-related energy impacts would be less than significant.

Operation
The proposed project would consume energy as part of building operations and transportation activities. Project energy consumption is summarized in Table 3.6-7. 424
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Draft EIR

3.6-70 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-06 GHG-Energy.docx Table 3.6-7: Annual Project Energy Consumption
Energy Consumption Activity
Annual Consumption
Dry Storage Scenario Cold Storage Scenario
Electricity Consumption 8,834,476 kWh/year 24,495,402 kWh/year Natural Gas Consumption 8,260,000 kBTU/year 9,060,000 kBTU/year Total Passenger Vehicle
Fuel Consumption 280,981 gallons/year 280,981 gallons/year Total Truck Fuel Consumption 971,529 gallons/year 971,529 gallons/year Total Locomotive Fuel Consumption 537 gallons/year 537 gallons/year Total TRU Fuel Consumption – 1,304 gallons/year
Notes:
kBTU = kilo-British Thermal Unit
kWh = kilowatt-hour
TRU = Transport Refrigeration Unit
Locomotive fuel consumption is based on an average monthly delivery capacity of 500,000 ton-miles.

Source: Appendix B
Operation of the proposed project would consume an estimated 24,495,402 kWh of electricity and an estimated 9,060,000 kBTU of natural gas annually under the cold storage project scenario and an estimated 8,834,476 kWh of electricity and an estimated 8,260,000 kBTU of natural gas annually under the dry storage project scenario. As previously discussed, the proposed project would be considered to result in a potentially significant impact if it would result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. Considering the guidance provided by Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines and the Appellate Court decision in League to Save Lake Tahoe Mountain etc. v.

County of Placer (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 63, 164-168, the proposed project would be considered to result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources if it would conflict with the following energy conservation goals:
• Decreasing overall per capita energy consumption;
• Decreasing reliance on fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas, or oil; and • Increasing reliance on renewable energy sources.

Decreasing Overall Per Capita Energy Consumption
As discussed under Impact GHG-1, the proposed project would result in an approximately 29 percent reduction in employee VMT from regional average estimates. As such, the proposed project would result in an overall decrease in per capita transportation energy consumption with respect to employee transportation energy resources. As discussed under Impact GHG-1, trucking activities envisioned by the proposed project would be generally controlled by new technologies and the mandatory turnover of fleets through medium and heavy-duty truck emission standards and regulations. Moreover, the movement of freight goods and trucking and locomotive travel distances subsequent to that activity is largely dictated by market demand rather than the implementation of a specific development project, such as the proposed project. As such, overall energy consumption 425
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-71
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-06 GHG-Energy.docx related to trucking and locomotive activities is expected to not change as a result of implementation of the proposed project, and overall energy consumption related to employee transportation would decrease from that experienced by the region’s current average employee transportation behavior.

As discussed above in Section 3.6.2, Environmental Setting, the County currently has estimated per capita energy consumption of 7,471 kWh and 28.45 MMBtu per year. The County estimates are utilized herein rather than City estimates because this energy consumption data is not available at the City level. As shown in Table 3.6-7, the proposed project would result in up to 24,495,402 kWh per year and up to 9,060 MMBtu per year under a cold storage scenario starting in 2023 without considering any mitigation. As the proposed project is nonresidential, the number of estimated employees is used herein to identify the proposed project’s per capita energy consumption. As the proposed project is expected to generate employment for an estimated 3,643 people, the proposed project would result in a per capita energy consumption of 6,724 kWh per year and 2.49 MMBtu per year, both of which would be below the County’s average electricity and natural gas consumption rates.

It should be noted that with implementation of MM GHG-1c, the proposed project is likely to consume less electricity than what is disclosed in Table 3.6-7 due to the required additional energy efficiency improvements and the fact that CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0 assumes minimum energy efficiency design compliance with the 2019 California Building Code. Should the permitting of the proposed project occur after January 1, 2023, the proposed project would be subject to additional energy efficiency standards beyond what is currently required at the time of this analysis.

Nonetheless, the proposed project is likely to result in greater electricity consumption than what would otherwise occur as a result of implementation of MM GHG-1b, which would require the proposed project to implement an all-electric building design. Nevertheless, with implementation of MM GHG-1b, the proposed project would reduce natural gas-related energy consumption by 100 percent even if electricity consumption increased, thereby contributing to the overall decrease in per capita energy consumption. Considering the above assessment as well as the fact that the proposed project would result in an overall decrease in per capita building energy consumption before mitigation, the proposed project is considered consistent with this criterion with respect to per capita building energy consumption.

Decreasing Reliance on Fossil Fuels
The proposed project would be considered to conflict with this criterion if it did not take steps to decrease the reliance on fossil fuels. As discussed under Impact GHG-1, the proposed project would be required to implement MMs GHG-1a through GHG-1e to reduce GHG emissions. MMs GHG-1a through GHG-1e would also contribute to greater energy efficiency, the reduction in fossil fuel consumption, and an increase in consumption of renewable energy resources. Specifically focusing on decreased reliance on fossil fuels, MM GHG-1a would require the project applicant to utilize electric and alternatively fueled construction equipment and local contractors, among other requirements, which would reduce the proposed project’s commitment of fossil fuel energy resources during project construction. Moreover, MM GHG-1b would require the proposed project to prohibit the installation of natural gas infrastructure, thereby precluding the proposed project’s future use of natural gas. Lastly, MM GHG-1d would require the proposed project to source 100 426
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Draft EIR

3.6-72 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-06 GHG-Energy.docx percent of its electricity from carbon-free source, either from installing on-site renewable generation technologies, purchasing eligible renewable electricity services from PG&E or MCE, or a combination thereof. As such, the implementation of MMs GHG-1a, GHG-1b, and GHG-1d would actively promote the proposed project’s decreased reliance on fossil fuels through the design and operation of the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with this criterion with mitigation.

Increasing Reliance on Renewable Energy Sources
As previously discussed, MM GHG-1a would require the project applicant to utilize electric and alternatively fueled construction equipment and local contractors, among other requirements, which would reduce the proposed project’s commitment of fossil fuel energy resources during project construction. MM GHG-1a would increase the proposed project’s reliance on renewable energy sources during project construction. During operations, the proposed project’s buildings would be designed and constructed, consistent with MM GHG-1c, in accordance with the State’s Tier 2 Nonresidential Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which are widely regarded as some of the most advanced building energy efficiency standards in the country. In addition, the proposed project would be required under MM GHG-1e to install a greater amount of EV charging infrastructure than what would otherwise be experienced through minimum code compliance.

The proposed project would also include roof structures designed to accommodate additional weight for rooftop photovoltaic panel arrays should they be installed. MM GHG-1d would additionally require that the proposed project source its electricity consumption from carbon-free sources, either with on-site renewable generation technologies or through subscription with a 100 percent carbon-free electricity service with PG&E or MCE. Moreover, MM GHG-1b would require the proposed project to out-right prohibit the use of natural gas during project operation, thereby reducing project dependence on fossil fuels and removing legacy GHG emission sources in contributing to achieving the State’s long-term climate goal of carbon neutrality by 2045.

Moreover, MM GHG-1e would require that the proposed parking areas are designed and will be built to accommodate additional EV charging stations than would be required with minimum code compliance. At a minimum, the parking shall be designed to accommodate EV charging stations in an amount equal to the Tier 2 Nonresidential Voluntary Measures of the California Green Building Standards Code, Section A5.106.5.3.2. Considering that trucking activities constitute a major operational activity for the proposed project, the Tier 2 EV charging infrastructure requirements contained in MM GHG-1e would apply to both passenger automobile as well as truck parking areas.

Loading docks would also be required under MM GHG-1e to contain 240-volt outlets to accommodate EV and TRU charging while trucks are loading or unloading goods. The inclusion of MM GHG-1e would ensure that the proposed project meets the provision requiring compliance with the Tier 2 EV charging infrastructure of CALGreen. MM GHG-1e would further reduce the potential for the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources from automobiles by supporting the region and State’s adoption of EVs and reducing reliance on fossil fuels.

As a result, the proposed project’s energy consumption would not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. 427
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-73
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-06 GHG-Energy.docx Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
MM GHG-1a through MM GHG-1e
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact.

Impact GHG-4: The proposed project would conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Impact Analysis
A significant impact would occur if the proposed project conflicted with or obstructs a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Therefore, a significant impact would occur if the proposed project were considered inconsistent with applicable plans adopted to promote or improve energy efficiency or renewable energy, including the City’s EECAP. In addition, the City’s General Plan Natural and Historic and Cultural Resources Element contains several energy efficiency goals that would relate to the proposed project.

The proposed project would be designed in accordance with Title 24, California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Nonresidential Buildings techniques and practices. These standards include minimum energy efficiency requirements related to building envelope, mechanical systems (e.g., heating, ventilation, and air conditioning [HVAC] and water heating systems), and indoor and outdoor lighting. Incorporating the Title 24 standards into the proposed project's design would ensure that the proposed project would not result in the use of energy in a wasteful manner. Furthermore, the proposed project would have roof structures designed to accommodate additional weight for rooftop photovoltaic electricity generation panel arrays, so it is possible that the project could use solar electricity generation. MM GHG-1d would also require the proposed project to source its electricity from 100 percent carbon-free sources, which could include on-site renewable generation technologies such as rooftop solar.

The City’s General Plan Natural and Historic and Cultural Resources Element contains policies related to energy conservation that are relevant to the proposed project, such as Goal 8F to reduce consumption of nonrenewable energy sources and support the development and utilization of new energy sources. Compliance with Title 24 standards would help the project meet this goal, and implementation of MMs GHG-1a through GHG-1e would further serve to reduce project reliance on nonrenewable energy resources. Moreover, as previously illustrated in Table 3.6-5, the proposed project would be consistent with the energy efficiency measures contained in the EECAP.

The proposed project would comply with existing State energy standards and be consistent with the energy efficiency goals and measures contained in the City’s General Plan Natural and Historic and Cultural Resources Element and EECAP. As such, the proposed project would not conflict with State or local renewable or energy efficiency objectives. Impacts would be less than significant. 428
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Draft EIR

3.6-74 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec03-06 GHG-Energy.docx Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.

Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact.
429
American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project
Draft EIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.7-1
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec03-07 Hazards.docx

3.7 - Hazards and Hazardous Materials

3.7.1 - Introduction
This section describes the existing hazards and hazardous materials setting and the potential effects from project implementation on the site and its surrounding area. Descriptions and analysis in this section are based on review of the GeoTracker Database and site reconnaissance performed by FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS).

3.7.2 - Environmental Setting
Hazardous Materials
Hazardous materials, as defined by the California Code of Regulations, are substances with certain physical properties that could pose a substantial present or future hazard to human health or the environment when improperly handled, disposed of, or otherwise managed. Hazardous materials are grouped into the following four categories, based on their properties:
• Toxic: Causes human health effects
• Ignitable: Has the ability to burn
• Corrosive: Causes severe burns or damage to materials • Reactive: Causes explosions or generates toxic gases
A hazardous waste is any hazardous material that is discarded, abandoned, or slated to be recycled.

The criteria that define a material as hazardous also define a waste as hazardous. If improperly handled, hazardous materials and hazardous waste can result in public health hazards if released into the soil or groundwater or through airborne releases in vapors, fumes, or dust. Soil and groundwater having concentrations of hazardous constituents higher than specific regulatory levels must be handled and disposed of as hazardous waste when excavated or pumped from an aquifer.

The California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Sections 66261.20-24 contains technical descriptions of toxic characteristics that could cause soil or groundwater to be classified as hazardous waste.

Records Search
FCS performed a query of the California State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) GeoTracker Database, which lists reported hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code 65962.5 (The Cortese List). These sites include sites where releases have occurred as well as sites that have permitted hazardous materials storage vessels, including underground storage tanks (USTs). The project site was not listed on the GeoTracker Database.

Four sites within 0.5-mile of the project site were listed on the GeoTracker Database and are summarized in Table 3.7-1. All four sites had reported releases of petroleum hydrocarbons into soil and groundwater. All four sites are listed as “Case Closed,” signifying that the regulatory agency with jurisdiction has determined that no further action is necessary. 430
American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft EIR

3.7-2 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec03-07 Hazards.docx Table 3.7-1: Recorded Hazardous Materials Sites
Name
Relationship to
Project Site Summary
5747 Highway
29 (Diablo
Timber)
200 feet east of
the project site
Case Closed (1998): An 8,000-gallon gasoline UST and a 6,000-gallon diesel UST were removed in 1993 and evidence of petroleum hydrocarbons was found in nearby soils. Impacted soils were removed and monitoring wells were installed. No groundwater contamination detected. No Further Action Letter issued in 1998.

Case Closed (2014): As part of a property ownership transfer, a Phase II soil and groundwater investigation was conducted that identified low levels of petroleum hydrocarbons in soil and groundwater. No Further Action Letter issued in 2014.
1500 Green
Island Road
(Zeneca ICI
Resins)
200 feet south
of the project
site
Case Closed (2000): Releases of petroleum hydrocarbons occurred in early 1990s. Low levels were detected in soil, soil vapor, and groundwater. No Further Action Letter issued in 2000.
1554 Green
Island Road
(Auto Salvage)
2,400 feet west
of project site
Case Closed (2002): Former auto salvage facility. Petroleum hydrocarbons detected in soil and groundwater. Well purged and abandoned. No Further Action Letter issued in 2002.
4000 Airport
Road (Napa
County
Airport)
2,400 feet
north of the
project site
Case Closed (1992): Leaking UST site. No additional information available.

No Further Action Letter issued in 1992.

Notes:

UST = underground storage tank
Source: California State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) 2021.

Common Hazardous Materials
Asbestos
Asbestos is the name given to a number of naturally occurring, fibrous silicate minerals mined for their useful properties, such as thermal insulation, chemical and thermal stability, and high tensile strength. Asbestos is commonly used for acoustic insulation, thermal insulation, fireproofing, and in other building materials. Asbestos is made up of microscopic bundles of fibers that may become airborne when asbestos-containing materials are damaged or disturbed. When these fibers get into the air, they may be inhaled into the lungs, where they can cause significant health problems. The California Occupational Health and Safety Administration (Cal/OSHA) defines asbestos-containing construction materials as any material that contains more than 0.1 percent asbestos by weight.

There are no structures on the project site. Thus, there is no basis to assume presence of asbestoscontaining materials.

Lead
Lead is a highly toxic metal that was used until the late 1970s in a number of products, most notably in paint. Lead may cause a range of health effects, from behavioral problems and learning disabilities 431
American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project
Draft EIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.7-3
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec03-07 Hazards.docx to seizures and death. Primary sources of lead exposure are deteriorating lead-based paint, leadcontaminated dust, and lead-contaminated soil. Both the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Department of Health Services define lead paint as containing a minimum of 0.5 percent by weight. Lead-containing waste materials with a concentration greater than 0.1 percent are considered hazardous waste by California law.

There are no structures on the project site. Thus, there is no basis to assume presence of lead-based paint.

Polychlorinated Biphenyls
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are mixtures of synthetic chemicals with similar chemical structures. PCBs can range from oily liquids to waxy solids. Because of their non-flammability, chemical stability, high boiling point, and electrical insulating properties, PCBs were used in hundreds of industrial and commercial applications, including electrical, heat transfer, and hydraulic equipment; as plasticizers in paints, plastics, and rubber products; in pigments, dyes, and carbonless copy paper; and many other applications. Electrical transformers are one of the most common sources of PCBs.

There are no structures or electrical transformers on the project site. Thus, there is no basis to assume presence of PCBs.

Radon
Radon is a carcinogenic, radioactive gas resulting from the natural breakdown of uranium in soil, rock, and water. Radon gas enters a building through cracks in foundations and walls. Once inside the building, radon decay products may become attached to dust particles and inhaled, or the decayed radioactive particles alone may be inhaled and cause damage to lung tissue. The EPA has established a safe radon exposure threshold of 4 picocuries per liter of air (pCi/l).

The California Department of Health Services has conducted more than 48,000 indoor radon tests in more than 1,700 zip codes through the State, including in the 94503 (American Canyon) zip code. A total of 18 tests have been conducted in the 94503 zip code, none of which yielded indoor radon levels above 4 pCi/l.

Low-Frequency Electromagnetic Fields
Electrical transmission and distribution lines emit extremely low-frequency electromagnetic fields (EMFs), which have been suspected to be linked to cancer. However, scientific research has never conclusively established a link between EMFs and cancer. In 2007, the World Health Organization issued a report titled “Extremely Low-Frequency Fields, Environmental Health Criteria Monograph No. 238” that concluded that evidence between extremely low-frequency EMFs and childhood leukemia is not strong enough to be considered causal, although it did note that the issue still was of concern. The same report indicated that there is inadequate evidence or no evidence linking lowfrequency EMFs and health effects associated with all other diseases. 432
American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft EIR

3.7-4 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec03-07 Hazards.docx According to the California Energy Commission, no major electrical transmission lines are located within 0.5-mile of the project site.

Aviation
The Napa County Airport is located 2,400 feet north of the project site. The County-owned airport consists of three runways, ranging from 2,510 to 5,931 feet in length. The airport averages 148 operations per day and 54,020 operations annually. (The Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] defines an “operation” as one takeoff or landing.)

3.7.3 - Regulatory Framework
Federal
Federal Toxic Substances Control Act and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act The Federal Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) regulate the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous and non-hazardous waste. The regulatory program is administered by the EPA. It mandates that hazardous wastes be tracked from the point of generation to their ultimate fate in the environment. This includes detailed tracking of hazardous materials during transport and permitting of hazardous material handling facilities. RCRA was amended in 1984 by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Act (HSWA), which affirmed and extended the “cradle to grave” system of regulating hazardous wastes. The HSWA also prohibited the use of certain techniques for the disposal of some hazardous wastes and provided the framework for a regulatory program designed to prevent releases from USTs. The program establishes tank and leak detection standards, including spill and overflow protection devices for new tanks and performance standards to ensure that the stored material will not corrode the tanks.

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) introduced active federal involvement to emergency response, site remediation, and spill prevention, most notably the Superfund program. The Act was intended to be comprehensive in encompassing both the prevention of and response to uncontrolled hazardous substances releases.

The Act deals with environmental response, providing mechanisms for reacting to emergencies and to chronic hazardous material releases. In addition to establishing procedures to prevent and remedy problems, it establishes a system for compensating appropriate individuals and assigning appropriate liability. It is designed to plan for and respond to failure in other regulatory programs and to remedy problems resulting from action taken before the era of comprehensive regulatory protection.

Transportation of Hazardous Materials
The Hazardous Materials Transportation Act of 1974, as amended, is the basic statute regulating hazardous materials transportation in the United States. Transportation of hazardous materials is regulated by the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) Office of Hazardous Materials Safety. The Office of Hazardous Materials Safety formulates, issues, and revises hazardous materials regulations under the Federal Hazardous Materials Transportation Law. The hazardous materials 433
American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project
Draft EIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.7-5
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec03-07 Hazards.docx regulations cover hazardous materials definitions and classifications, hazard communications, shipper and carrier operations, training and security requirements, and packaging and container specifications. The hazardous materials transportation regulations are codified in 49 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 100-185.

The hazardous materials transportation regulations require carriers transporting hazardous materials to receive training in the handling and transportation of hazardous materials. Training requirements include pre-trip safety inspections; use of vehicle controls and equipment, including emergency equipment; procedures for safe operation of the transport vehicle; instruction on the properties of the hazardous material being transported; and loading and unloading procedures. All drivers must possess a commercial driver’s license as required by 49 Code of Federal Regulations Part 383.

Vehicles transporting hazardous materials must be properly placarded. In addition, the carrier is responsible for the safe unloading of hazardous materials at the site, and operators must follow specific procedures during unloading to minimize the potential for an accidental release of hazardous materials.

State
Cortese List
The provisions in Government Code Section 65962.5 are commonly referred to as the “Cortese List.” The list, or a site’s presence on the list, has bearing on the local permitting process as well as on compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). While Government Code Section 65962.5 makes reference to the preparation of a “list,” many changes have occurred related to webbased information access since 1992 and this information is now largely available on the websites of GeoTracker and EnviroStor. Those requesting a copy of the Cortese “list” are now referred directly to the appropriate information resources contained on the internet web sites (e.g., GeoTracker and EnviroStor).

Handling and Storage of Hazardous Waste
The handling and storage of hazardous materials is regulated on the federal level by the EPA under the CERCLA as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA). Under SARA Title III, a nationwide emergency planning and response program was established that imposed reporting requirements for businesses that store, handle, or produce significant quantities of hazardous or acutely toxic substances as defined under federal laws. SARA Title III required each state to implement a comprehensive system to inform federal authorities, local agencies, and the public when a significant quantity of hazardous, acutely toxic substances are stored or handled at a facility.

In California, the handling and storage of hazardous materials is regulated by Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and Safety Code. Under Sections 25500-25543.3, facilities handling hazardous materials are required to prepare a Hazardous Materials Business Plan. The business plan provides information to the local emergency response agency regarding the types and quantities of hazardous materials stored at a facility and provides detailed emergency planning and response procedures in the event of a hazardous materials release. In the event that a facility stores quantities of specific acutely hazardous materials above the thresholds set forth by the California code, facilities are 434
American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft EIR

3.7-6 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec03-07 Hazards.docx required to prepare a Risk Management Plan and California Accidental Release Plan, which provide information on the potential impact zone of a worst-case release and requires plans and programs designed to minimize the probability of a release and mitigate potential impacts.

California Hazardous Waste Control Law
The California Hazardous Waste Control Law (HWCL) is administered by the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) to regulate hazardous wastes. While the HWCL is generally more stringent than RCRA, until the EPA approves the California program, both the State and federal laws apply in California. The HWCL lists 791 chemicals and approximately 300 common materials that may be hazardous; establishes criteria for identifying, packaging, and labeling hazardous wastes; prescribes management controls; establishes permit requirements for treatment, storage, disposal, and transportation; and identifies some wastes that cannot be disposed of in landfills.

The California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Chapter 11, Article 2, Section 66261.10 defines hazardous waste as a substance that may:
(1) Cause, or significantly contribute to, an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible or incapacitating reversible, illness; or (2) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, or disposed or otherwise managed.

According to California Code of Regulations Title 22, substances having a characteristic of toxicity, ignitability, corrosivity, or reactivity are considered hazardous waste. Hazardous wastes are hazardous substances that no longer have a practical use, such as material that has been abandoned, discarded, spilled, or contaminated or is being stored prior to proper disposal.

Toxic substances may cause short-term or long-lasting health effects, ranging from temporary effects to permanent disability or death. For example, toxic substances can cause eye or skin irritation, disorientation, headache, nausea, allergic reactions, acute poisoning, chronic illness, or other adverse health effects if human exposure exceeds certain levels. (The level depends on the substance involved.) Carcinogens (substances known to cause cancer) are a special class of toxic substances. Examples of toxic substances include most heavy metals, pesticides, and benzene (a carcinogenic component of gasoline). Ignitable substances are hazardous because of their flammable properties. Gasoline, hexane, and natural gas are examples of ignitable substances. Corrosive substances are chemically active and can damage other materials or cause severe bums upon contact. Examples include strong acids and bases such as sulfuric (battery) acid or lye. Reactive substances may cause explosions or generate gases or fumes. Explosives, pressurized canisters, and pure sodium metal (which reacts violently with water) are examples of reactive materials.

Other types of hazardous materials include radioactive and biohazardous materials. Radioactive materials and wastes contain radioisotopes, which are atoms with unstable nuclei that emit ionizing radiation to increase their stability. Radioactive waste mixed with chemical hazardous waste is referred to as “mixed wastes.” Biohazardous materials and wastes include anything derived from living organisms. They may be contaminated with disease-causing agents, such as bacteria or viruses. 435
American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project
Draft EIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.7-7
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec03-07 Hazards.docx The Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Law of 1985 (Business Plan Act) requires that any business that handles hazardous materials prepare a business plan that must include details, including floor plans, of the facility and business conducted at the site, an inventory of hazardous materials that are handled or stored on the site, an emergency response plan, a training program in safety procedures and emergency response for new employees, and an annual refresher course in the same topics for all employees.

The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act (California Water Code, Section 13000, et seq.) established the authority of the State Water Board and provided the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) with the primary responsibility of the protection of water quality in the State of California.

Hazardous Materials Worker Safety
Cal/OSHA and the Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) are the agencies responsible for assuring worker safety by developing and enforcing workplace safety regulations in the handling and use of chemicals in the workplace. Cal/OSHA standards are generally more stringent than federal regulations. The employer is required to monitor worker exposure to listed hazardous substances and notify workers of exposure (8 CCR §§ 337-340, Chapter 3.2). The regulations specify requirements for employee training, availability of safety equipment, accident prevention programs, and hazardous substance exposure warnings.

California Fire Code
California Code of Regulations, Title 24, also known as the California Building Standards Code, contains the California Fire Code at Part 9. The California Fire Code includes provisions and standards for emergency planning and preparedness, fire service features, fire protection systems, hazardous materials, fire flow requirements, and fire hydrant locations and distribution. The Fire Code requires two points of vehicular access for any nonresidential building 30 feet tall or higher.

California Department of Transportation and California Highway Patrol The California Vehicle Code Section 31303 requires that hazardous materials be transported via routes with the least overall travel time and prohibits the transportation of hazardous materials through residential neighborhoods. In California, the California Highway Patrol (CHP) is authorized to designate and enforce route restrictions for the transportation of hazardous materials. To operate in California, all hazardous waste transporters must be registered with the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). Unless specifically exempted, hazardous waste transporters must comply with the CHP Regulations, the California State Fire Marshal Regulations, and the USDOT Regulations. In addition, hazardous waste transporters must comply with Division 20, Chapter 6.5, Article 6 and 13 of the California Health and Safety Code, and the Title 22, Division 4.5, Chapter 13 of the California Code of Regulations, both of which are administered by the DTSC.

San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board
There are nine RWQCBs throughout the State. The San Francisco Bay RWQCB has jurisdiction over the City of American Canyon. Individual RWQCBs function as the lead agencies responsible for identifying, monitoring, and cleaning up Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUSTs). Storage of 436
American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft EIR

3.7-8 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec03-07 Hazards.docx hazardous materials in USTs is regulated by the State Water Board, which oversees the nine RWQCBs.

California State Aeronautics Act
The State Aeronautics Act, Public Utilities Code Section 21001, et seq., is the foundation for the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Division of Aeronautics aviation policies. The Division issues permits for and annually inspects hospital heliports and public use airports, makes recommendations regarding proposed school sites within 2 miles of an airport runway, and authorizes helicopter landing sites at/near schools. Aviation system planning provides for the integration of aviation into transportation system planning on a regional, statewide, and national basis. The Division of Aeronautics administers noise regulation and land use planning laws that foster compatible land use around airports and encourages environmental mitigation measures to lessen noise, air pollution, and other impacts caused by aviation. The Division of Aeronautics also provides grants and loans for safety, maintenance, and capital improvement projects at airports.

Local
City of American Canyon
General Plan
The City of American Canyon General Plan sets forth the following guiding and implementing policies relevant to hazards and hazardous materials:

Goal 1N Ensure the compatibility of development within American Canyon with the Napa County Airport.

Objective 1.27 Ensure that lands in American Canyon are developed in a manner which protects them from the noise and operational impacts of, and does not adversely constrain, the Napa County Airport.

Policy
Policy 1.27.2 Review all applications for new development, expansion of existing uses, and re-use within Napa County Airport Compatibility Zones “A” through “E” for compliance with the appropriate use and development conditions.

Goal 6A Maintain a high level of fire protection and emergency services to City/District businesses and residences.

Objective 6.3 Ensure that the Fire District’s facility, manpower and equipment needs keep pace with the City’s growth.

Policy
Policy 6.3.1 Require that City planning staff work closely with Fire District officials to ensure that fie facilities and personnel are expanded commensurably to serve the needs of the City’s growing population and development base.
437
American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project
Draft EIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.7-9
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec03-07 Hazards.docx Policy 6.4.3 Require, through the development review process, that all structures and facilities subject to the District’s jurisdiction adhere to City, State, and federal regulatory standards such as the Uniform Building and Fire Codes and other applicable safety guidelines.

County of Napa
Napa County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
The Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) governs land use around two Napa County aviation facilities: the Napa County Airport and Parrett Field in Angwin. The ALUCP was adopted by the Napa County Airport Land Use Commission in April 1991 and revised in December 1999.

Flight Hazards
The ALUCP identifies two categories of flight hazards: physical obstructions and land use characteristics.

Physical obstructions are associated with tall objects or structures. The ALUCP establishes a height restriction ranging from 50 feet to 185 feet above ground level.

Land use characteristics involve uses that may produce hazards to aviation. Specific characteristics prohibited within the airport land use planning boundaries are listed below:
• Glare or distracting lights, which could be mistaken for airport lights • Sources of dust, steam, or smoke that may impair pilot visibility • Sources of electrical interference with aircraft communications or navigation • Any use that may attract large flocks or birds, especially landfills or certain agricultural uses Zone D
The ALUCP provides the following description of Zone D in Table 3-1:

Common Traffic Pattern: This area is defined by the flight pattern of each airport and illustrated in the respective “Airport Impact Areas” figures contained in Part III.

These areas are routinely overflown by aircraft operating to and from the airport with frequent single-event noise intrusion. Overflights in these areas can range from near the traffic pattern altitude (about 1,000 feet above the ground) to as low as 300 feet above the ground. Accident risk varies from low to moderate. Areas where aircraft are near pattern altitude (e.g., downwind leg) have the lowest risk. In areas where aircraft are at lower altitudes (especially on circle-to-land instrument approaches), a moderate level of risk exists.

The ALUCP establishes the following standards for Zone D:
• Maximum density recommendation of 100 persons per acre inside structures for nonresidential uses.
• Maximum density recommendation of 150 persons per acre (both indoors and outdoors) for nonresidential uses.
438
American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft EIR

3.7-10 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec03-07 Hazards.docx • Residential uses are prohibited.
• Uses hazardous to flight are prohibited (i.e., features that attract large numbers of birds and sources of smoke, glare, distracting lights, or electrical interference). • Overflight easement or deed restrictions are required. • Building envelopes and approach surfaces are required on all development plans within 100 feet of approach zones.
• Clustering is encouraged to maximize open land areas. • Noise level reduction measures may be required for noise-sensitive uses.

The ALUCP states that most nonresidential uses are considered “normally acceptable” within Zone D.

Schools, libraries, hospitals, nursing homes, large shopping malls, amphitheaters, and ponds are identified as “not normally acceptable” within Zone D.

3.7.4 - Methodology
FirstCarbon Solutions evaluated potential impacts on hazards and hazardous materials through site reconnaissance, review of the State Water Board GeoTracker Database, and site reconnaissance performed in February 2021.

3.7.5 - Thresholds of Significance
Appendix G to the CEQA Guidelines is a sample Initial Study Checklist that includes questions for determining whether impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials are significant. These questions reflect the input of planning and environmental professionals at the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) and the California Natural Resources Agency, based on input from stakeholder groups and experts in various other governmental agencies, nonprofits, and leading environmental consulting firms. As a result, many lead agencies derive their significance criteria from the questions posed in Appendix G. The City has chosen to do so for this project. Thus, the proposed project would have a significant effect if it would:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials;
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment;
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school (refer to Section 7, Effects Found not to be Significant);
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment;
439
American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project
Draft EIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.7-11
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec03-07 Hazards.docx e) (For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport) result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working the project area; f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan; or
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires (refer to Section 7, Effects Found not to be Significant).