7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
General Office
Building
8.80671 /
5.39766
8.9510 0.2880 6.9000e00318.2052
Single Family
Housing
38.2454 /
24.1112
39.0889 1.2506 0.0300 79.2802
Strip Mall 3.67029 /
2.24953
3.7304 0.1200 2.8700e0037.5872
Total 51.7703 1.6586 0.0397 105.0726
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 38 of 42 Date: 1/25/2025 2:32 AM Merced Gateway - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ,:
" " " "
~ !---- -~1.···················1.···················
, : :
······························ t----...... 11------t------t----- •••••••••••••••••• • ······························ t----...... 11------t------t----- •••••••••••••••••• •
7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
General Office
Building
8.80671 /
5.39766
8.9510 0.2880 6.9000e00318.2052
Single Family
Housing
38.2454 /
24.1112
39.0889 1.2506 0.0300 79.2802
Strip Mall 3.67029 /
2.24953
3.7304 0.1200 2.8700e0037.5872
Total 51.7703 1.6586 0.0397 105.0726
Mitigated
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
8.0 Waste Detail
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 39 of 42 Date: 1/25/2025 2:32 AM Merced Gateway - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ····························•• i------iM-----+-----+------f••················· ····························•• i------iM-----+-----+------f••················· Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 142.6113 8.4281 0.0000 353.3135
Unmitigated 142.6113 8.4281 0.0000 353.3135
Category/Year
8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
General Office
Building
46.08 9.3538 0.5528 0.0000 23.1737
Single Family
Housing
604.44 122.6959 7.2511 0.0000 303.9738
Strip Mall 52.03 10.5616 0.6242 0.0000 26.1660
Total 142.6113 8.4281 0.0000 353.3135
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 40 of 42 Date: 1/25/2025 2:32 AM Merced Gateway - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ,:
" " " ······························ •i" l-----1·················1···················1··················· ······························ t-----11------1------1------1··················· ······························ t-----11------1------1------1···················
8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
General Office
Building
46.08 9.3538 0.5528 0.0000 23.1737
Single Family
Housing
604.44 122.6959 7.2511 0.0000 303.9738
Strip Mall 52.03 10.5616 0.6242 0.0000 26.1660
Total 142.6113 8.4281 0.0000 353.3135
Mitigated
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 41 of 42 Date: 1/25/2025 2:32 AM Merced Gateway - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ······························ ------··················· ······························ ------···················
11.0 Vegetation
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 42 of 42 Date: 1/25/2025 2:32 AM Merced Gateway - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Merced Gateway Residential Property Development
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment
56 Appendix B
**AERMOD INPUT FILE CREATED BY HARP VERSION 22118
**DATE CREATED: 1/25/2025 12:58:45 AM
**
CO STARTING
TITLEONE MG Construction
TITLETWO
MODELOPT DFAULT CONC
AVERTIME 1 PERIOD
POLLUTID OTHER
RUNORNOT RUN
ERRORFIL "D:\Extra HDD Files\JK Consulting Group Project Files\2021-2022 -GS1\Merced Gateway Materials\Air Quality-HRA\HARP2\MERCED GATEWAY\MERCED GATEWAY_AERMOD.ERR"
CO FINISHED
**
**SOURCES
SO STARTING
**SOURCES LOCATIONS
LOCATION 1 POINT 728158.7 4128746 55.78
LOCATION 2 VOLUME 728141.7 4128754 55.78
LOCATION 3 LINE 727951.5 4128728 728158.7 4128728 55.47 LOCATION 4 LINE 727955.4 4128713 728160 4128713 55.47
**SOURCES PARAMETERS
SRCPARAM 1 1 3.84 366 50 0.1
SRCPARAM 2 1 3.05 8.45 6.1
SRCPARAM 3 0.00172 3.66 2.8 3.66
SRCPARAM 4 0.00175 0 2.8 3.66
SRCGROUP 1 1
SRCGROUP 2 2
SRCGROUP 3 3
SRCGROUP 4 4
SO FINISHED
**
**RECEPTORS
RE STARTING
INCLUDED "D:\Extra HDD Files\JK Consulting Group Project Files\2021-2022 -GS1\Merced Gateway Materials\Air Quality-HRA\HARP2\MERCED GATEWAY\MERCED GATEWAY_AERMAP.REC"
RE FINISHED
**
**MET PATHWAY
ME STARTING
ME SURFFILE "C:\Users\jella\Downloads\merced-muni-23257\Merced_18-22.SFC" ME PROFFILE "C:\Users\jella\Downloads\merced-muni-23257\Merced_18-22.PFL" ME SURFDATA 23257 2018
ME UAIRDATA 23230 2018
ME SITEDATA 0 2018
ME PROFBASE 56.08
ME FINISHED
**
**OUTPUT PATHWAY
OU STARTING
RECTABLE ALLAVE 1ST
RECTABLE 1 1ST
PLOTFILE 1 1 1ST "D:\Extra HDD Files\JK Consulting Group Project Files\2021-2022 -GS1\Merced Gateway Materials\Air Quality-HRA\HARP2\MERCED GATEWAY\plt\MAX1HR1.PLT" 31 PLOTFILE 1 2 1ST "D:\Extra HDD Files\JK Consulting Group Project Files\2021-2022 -GS1\Merced Gateway Materials\Air Quality-HRA\HARP2\MERCED GATEWAY\plt\MAX1HR2.PLT" 32 PLOTFILE 1 3 1ST "D:\Extra HDD Files\JK Consulting Group Project Files\2021-2022 -GS1\Merced Gateway Materials\Air Quality-HRA\HARP2\MERCED GATEWAY\plt\MAX1HR3.PLT" 33 PLOTFILE 1 4 1ST "D:\Extra HDD Files\JK Consulting Group Project Files\2021-2022 -GS1\Merced Gateway Materials\Air Quality-HRA\HARP2\MERCED GATEWAY\plt\MAX1HR4.PLT" 34 PLOTFILE PERIOD 1 "D:\Extra HDD Files\JK Consulting Group Project Files\2021-2022 -GS1\Merced Gateway Materials\Air Quality-HRA\HARP2\MERCED GATEWAY\plt\PERIOD1.PLT" 35 PLOTFILE PERIOD 2 "D:\Extra HDD Files\JK Consulting Group Project Files\2021-2022 -GS1\Merced Gateway Materials\Air Quality-HRA\HARP2\MERCED GATEWAY\plt\PERIOD2.PLT" 36 PLOTFILE PERIOD 3 "D:\Extra HDD Files\JK Consulting Group Project Files\2021-2022 -GS1\Merced Gateway Materials\Air Quality-HRA\HARP2\MERCED GATEWAY\plt\PERIOD3.PLT" 37 PLOTFILE PERIOD 4 "D:\Extra HDD Files\JK Consulting Group Project Files\2021-2022 -GS1\Merced Gateway Materials\Air Quality-HRA\HARP2\MERCED GATEWAY\plt\PERIOD4.PLT" 38 OU FINISHED
*** Message Summary For AERMOD Model Setup ***
--------- Summary of Total Messages --------
A Total of 0 Fatal Error Message(s)
A Total of 3 Warning Message(s)
A Total of 0 Informational Message(s)
******** FATAL ERROR MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
CO W200 6 TITLES: Missing Parameter(s). No Options Specified For
TITLETWO
ME W186 45 MEOPEN: THRESH_1MIN 1-min ASOS wind speed threshold used
0.50 ME W187 45 MEOPEN: ADJ_U* Option for Stable Low Winds used in AERMET
***********************************
*** SETUP Finishes Successfully ***
***********************************
*** AERMOD - VERSION 21112 *** *** MG Construction
*** 01/25/25
*** AERMET - VERSION 21112 *** ***
*** 00:59:01
PAGE 1
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV RURAL ADJ_U*
*** MODEL SETUP OPTIONS SUMMARY
***
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
**Model Is Setup For Calculation of Average CONCentration Values.
-- DEPOSITION LOGIC --
**NO GAS DEPOSITION Data Provided.
**NO PARTICLE DEPOSITION Data Provided.
**Model Uses NO DRY DEPLETION. DRYDPLT = F
**Model Uses NO WET DEPLETION. WETDPLT = F
**Model Uses RURAL Dispersion Only.
**Model Uses Regulatory DEFAULT Options:
1. Stack-tip Downwash.
2. Model Accounts for ELEVated Terrain Effects.
3. Use Calms Processing Routine.
4. Use Missing Data Processing Routine.
5. No Exponential Decay.
**Other Options Specified:
ADJ_U* - Use ADJ_U* option for SBL in AERMET
CCVR_Sub - Meteorological data includes CCVR substitutions TEMP_Sub - Meteorological data includes TEMP substitutions
**Model Assumes No FLAGPOLE Receptor Heights.
**The User Specified a Pollutant Type of: OTHER
**Model Calculates 1 Short Term Average(s) of: 1-HR
and Calculates PERIOD Averages
**This Run Includes: 4 Source(s); 4 Source Group(s); and 7 Receptor(s)
with: 1 POINT(s), including
0 POINTCAP(s) and 0 POINTHOR(s)
and: 1 VOLUME source(s)
and: 0 AREA type source(s)
and: 2 LINE source(s)
and: 0 RLINE/RLINEXT source(s)
and: 0 OPENPIT source(s)
and: 0 BUOYANT LINE source(s) with a total of 0 line(s)
**Model Set To Continue RUNning After the Setup Testing. **The AERMET Input Meteorological Data Version Date: 21112
**Output Options Selected:
Model Outputs Tables of PERIOD Averages by Receptor
Model Outputs Tables of Highest Short Term Values by Receptor (RECTABLE Keyword)
Model Outputs External File(s) of High Values for Plotting (PLOTFILE Keyword)
**NOTE: The Following Flags May Appear Following CONC Values: c for Calm Hours m for Missing Hours
b for Both Calm and
Missing Hours
**Misc. Inputs: Base Elev. for Pot. Temp. Profile (m MSL) = 56.08 ; Decay Coef. = 0.000 ; Rot. Angle = 0.0
Emission Units = GRAMS/SEC ;
Emission Rate Unit Factor = 0.10000E+07
Output Units = MICROGRAMS/M**3
**Approximate Storage Requirements of Model = 3.5 MB of RAM.
**Input Runstream File: aermod.inp
**Output Print File: aermod.out
**Detailed Error/Message File: D:\Extra HDD Files\JK Consulting Group Project Files\2021-2022 -GS1\Merced Gateway Materials\Air
*** AERMOD - VERSION 21112 *** *** MG Construction
*** 01/25/25
*** AERMET - VERSION 21112 *** ***
*** 00:59:01
PAGE 2
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV RURAL ADJ_U*
*** POINT SOURCE DATA ***
NUMBER EMISSION RATE BASE STACK STACK
STACK STACK BLDG URBAN CAP/ EMIS RATE
SOURCE PART. (GRAMS/SEC) X Y ELEV. HEIGHT TEMP. EXIT
VEL. DIAMETER EXISTS SOURCE HOR SCALAR
ID CATS. (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (DEG.K)
(M/SEC) (METERS) VARY BY
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1 0 0.10000E+01 728158.7 4128746.0 55.8 3.84 366.00
50.00 0.10 NO NO NO
*** AERMOD - VERSION 21112 *** *** MG Construction
*** 01/25/25
*** AERMET - VERSION 21112 *** ***
*** 00:59:01
PAGE 3
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV RURAL ADJ_U*
*** VOLUME SOURCE DATA ***
NUMBER EMISSION RATE BASE RELEASE INIT.
INIT. URBAN EMISSION RATE
SOURCE PART. (GRAMS/SEC) X Y ELEV. HEIGHT SY
SZ SOURCE SCALAR VARY
ID CATS. (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS)
(METERS) BY
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
2 0 0.10000E+01 728141.7 4128754.0 55.8 3.05 8.45
6.10 NO
*** AERMOD - VERSION 21112 *** *** MG Construction
*** 01/25/25
*** AERMET - VERSION 21112 *** ***
*** 00:59:01
PAGE 4
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV RURAL ADJ_U*
*** LINE SOURCE DATA ***
NUMBER EMISSION RATE FIRST COORD SECOND COORD BASE
RELEASE WIDTH INIT. URBAN EMISSION RATE
SOURCE PART. (GRAMS/SEC X Y X Y ELEV.
HEIGHT OF LINE SZ SOURCE SCALAR VARY
ID CATS. /METER**2) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) BY
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
3 0 0.17200E-02 727951.5 4128728.0 728158.7 4128728.0 55.5
3.66 2.80 3.66 NO
4 0 0.17500E-02 727955.4 4128713.0 728160.0 4128713.0 55.5
0.00 2.80 3.66 NO
*** AERMOD - VERSION 21112 *** *** MG Construction
*** 01/25/25
*** AERMET - VERSION 21112 *** ***
*** 00:59:01
PAGE 5
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV RURAL ADJ_U*
*** SOURCE IDs DEFINING SOURCE GROUPS ***
SRCGROUP ID SOURCE IDs
----------- ----------
1 1 ,
2 2 ,
3 3 ,
4 4 ,
*** AERMOD - VERSION 21112 *** *** MG Construction
*** 01/25/25
*** AERMET - VERSION 21112 *** ***
*** 00:59:01
PAGE 6
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV RURAL ADJ_U*
*** DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTORS ***
(X-COORD, Y-COORD, ZELEV, ZHILL, ZFLAG)
(METERS)
( 727677.9, 4129119.0, 55.5, 55.5, 0.0); ( 727812.1,
4129120.0, 55.5, 55.5, 0.0);
( 727963.3, 4129116.0, 55.8, 55.8, 0.0); ( 728066.2,
4129119.0, 56.0, 56.0, 0.0);
( 728165.2, 4129119.0, 56.1, 56.1, 0.0); ( 728277.2,
4129116.0, 56.4, 56.4, 0.0);
( 727977.6, 4128247.0, 54.9, 54.9, 0.0);
*** AERMOD - VERSION 21112 *** *** MG Construction
*** 01/25/25
*** AERMET - VERSION 21112 *** ***
*** 00:59:01
PAGE 7
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV RURAL ADJ_U*
*** METEOROLOGICAL DAYS SELECTED FOR
PROCESSING ***
(1=YES; 0=NO)
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
NOTE: METEOROLOGICAL DATA ACTUALLY PROCESSED WILL ALSO DEPEND ON WHAT IS INCLUDED IN THE DATA FILE.
*** UPPER BOUND OF FIRST THROUGH FIFTH WIND SPEED
CATEGORIES ***
(METERS/SEC)
1.54, 3.09, 5.14, 8.23,
10.80,
*** AERMOD - VERSION 21112 *** *** MG Construction
*** 01/25/25
*** AERMET - VERSION 21112 *** ***
*** 00:59:01
PAGE 8
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV RURAL ADJ_U*
*** UP TO THE FIRST 24 HOURS OF METEOROLOGICAL
DATA ***
Surface file: C:\Users\jella\Downloads\merced-muni-23257\Merced_18-22.SFC Met Version: 21112
Profile file: C:\Users\jella\Downloads\merced-muni-23257\Merced_18-22.PFL
Surface format: FREE
Profile format: FREE
Surface station no.: 23257 Upper air station no.: 23230 Name: UNKNOWN Name: UNKNOWN
Year: 2018 Year: 2018
First 24 hours of scalar data
YR MO DY JDY HR H0 U* W* DT/DZ ZICNV ZIMCH M-O LEN Z0 BOWEN
ALBEDO REF WS WD HT REF TA HT
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
18 01 01 1 01 -6.1 0.099 -9.000 -9.000 -999. 74. 14.3 0.02 0.81
1.00 1.76 296. 10.0 280.9 2.0
18 01 01 1 02 -8.8 0.127 -9.000 -9.000 -999. 108. 21.0 0.09 0.81
1.00 1.64 334. 10.0 279.2 2.0
18 01 01 1 03 -2.7 0.068 -9.000 -9.000 -999. 43. 10.4 0.02 0.81
1.00 1.14 305. 10.0 278.8 2.0
18 01 01 1 04 -2.8 0.069 -9.000 -9.000 -999. 43. 10.3 0.01 0.81
1.00 1.18 211. 10.0 277.5 2.0
18 01 01 1 05 -5.5 0.093 -9.000 -9.000 -999. 68. 13.2 0.02 0.81
1.00 1.67 246. 10.0 275.9 2.0
18 01 01 1 06 -1.6 0.058 -9.000 -9.000 -999. 34. 11.4 0.02 0.81
1.00 0.77 241. 10.0 275.9 2.0
18 01 01 1 07 -3.2 0.072 -9.000 -9.000 -999. 47. 10.7 0.02 0.81
1.00 1.26 258. 10.0 275.9 2.0
18 01 01 1 08 -4.0 0.085 -9.000 -9.000 -999. 59. 14.0 0.07 0.81
0.69 1.14 87. 10.0 274.2 2.0
18 01 01 1 09 2.5 0.149 0.104 0.006 17. 138. -121.6 0.07 0.81
0.37 1.74 71. 10.0 279.9 2.0
18 01 01 1 10 45.2 0.176 0.571 0.006 150. 178. -11.0 0.10 0.81
0.27 1.59 58. 10.0 283.1 2.0
18 01 01 1 11 77.3 0.207 0.989 0.015 455. 227. -10.5 0.09 0.81
0.23 1.89 355. 10.0 286.4 2.0
18 01 01 1 12 94.6 0.331 1.123 0.017 544. 457. -34.8 0.14 0.81
0.21 3.07 8. 10.0 288.1 2.0
18 01 01 1 13 96.6 0.223 1.184 0.018 623. 259. -10.4 0.09 0.81
0.21 2.03 338. 10.0 289.9 2.0
18 01 01 1 14 82.7 0.216 1.165 0.019 692. 242. -11.1 0.09 0.81
0.22 1.99 338. 10.0 290.4 2.0
18 01 01 1 15 54.2 0.136 1.026 0.019 721. 122. -4.2 0.02 0.81
0.26 1.65 326. 10.0 290.9 2.0
18 01 01 1 16 13.3 0.152 0.644 0.019 724. 142. -23.9 0.02 0.81
0.35 2.18 252. 10.0 290.4 2.0
18 01 01 1 17 -7.9 0.118 -9.000 -9.000 -999. 97. 18.5 0.02 0.81
0.60 2.06 278. 10.0 288.1 2.0
18 01 01 1 18 -6.3 0.101 -9.000 -9.000 -999. 77. 14.7 0.02 0.81
1.00 1.79 276. 10.0 285.9 2.0
18 01 01 1 19 -5.1 0.090 -9.000 -9.000 -999. 65. 13.0 0.02 0.81
1.00 1.62 246. 10.0 283.8 2.0
18 01 01 1 20 -1.9 0.061 -9.000 -9.000 -999. 36. 10.5 0.01 0.81
1.00 0.92 152. 10.0 280.9 2.0
18 01 01 1 21 -7.3 0.111 -9.000 -9.000 -999. 89. 17.1 0.04 0.81
1.00 1.74 111. 10.0 279.9 2.0
18 01 01 1 22 -5.9 0.102 -9.000 -9.000 -999. 79. 16.6 0.07 0.81
1.00 1.40 74. 10.0 281.4 2.0
18 01 01 1 23 -5.0 0.088 -9.000 -9.000 -999. 63. 12.5 0.01 0.81
1.00 1.64 122. 10.0 280.9 2.0
18 01 01 1 24 -7.1 0.113 -9.000 -9.000 -999. 91. 18.4 0.07 0.81
1.00 1.54 86. 10.0 279.9 2.0
First hour of profile data
YR MO DY HR HEIGHT F WDIR WSPD AMB_TMP sigmaA sigmaW sigmaV 18 01 01 01 10.0 1 296. 1.76 281.0 99.0 -99.00 -99.00
F indicates top of profile (=1) or below (=0)
*** AERMOD - VERSION 21112 *** *** MG Construction
*** 01/25/25
*** AERMET - VERSION 21112 *** ***
*** 00:59:01
PAGE 9
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV RURAL ADJ_U*
*** THE PERIOD ( 43824 HRS) AVERAGE CONCENTRATION
VALUES FOR SOURCE GROUP: 1 ***
INCLUDING SOURCE(S): 1 ,
*** DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTOR POINTS
***
** CONC OF OTHER IN MICROGRAMS/M**3
**
X-COORD (M) Y-COORD (M) CONC X-COORD (M)
Y-COORD (M) CONC
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
727677.90 4129119.00 3.93879 727812.10
4129120.00 3.57910
727963.30 4129116.00 2.80281 728066.20
4129119.00 2.30454
728165.20 4129119.00 1.80188 728277.20
4129116.00 1.53272
727977.60 4128247.00 1.56183
*** AERMOD - VERSION 21112 *** *** MG Construction
*** 01/25/25
*** AERMET - VERSION 21112 *** ***
*** 00:59:01
PAGE 10
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV RURAL ADJ_U*
*** THE PERIOD ( 43824 HRS) AVERAGE CONCENTRATION
VALUES FOR SOURCE GROUP: 2 ***
INCLUDING SOURCE(S): 2 ,
*** DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTOR POINTS
***
** CONC OF OTHER IN MICROGRAMS/M**3
**
X-COORD (M) Y-COORD (M) CONC X-COORD (M)
Y-COORD (M) CONC
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
727677.90 4129119.00 7.88324 727812.10
4129120.00 8.36038
727963.30 4129116.00 8.54181 728066.20
4129119.00 8.03235
728165.20 4129119.00 6.95112 728277.20
4129116.00 5.77112
727977.60 4128247.00 2.89733
*** AERMOD - VERSION 21112 *** *** MG Construction
*** 01/25/25
*** AERMET - VERSION 21112 *** ***
*** 00:59:01
PAGE 11
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV RURAL ADJ_U*
*** THE PERIOD ( 43824 HRS) AVERAGE CONCENTRATION
VALUES FOR SOURCE GROUP: 3 ***
INCLUDING SOURCE(S): 3 ,
*** DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTOR POINTS
***
** CONC OF OTHER IN MICROGRAMS/M**3
**
X-COORD (M) Y-COORD (M) CONC X-COORD (M)
Y-COORD (M) CONC
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
727677.90 4129119.00 7.79485 727812.10
4129120.00 7.69288
727963.30 4129116.00 7.14342 728066.20
4129119.00 6.07470
728165.20 4129119.00 5.18759 728277.20
4129116.00 4.68580
727977.60 4128247.00 3.81832
*** AERMOD - VERSION 21112 *** *** MG Construction
*** 01/25/25
*** AERMET - VERSION 21112 *** ***
*** 00:59:01
PAGE 12
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV RURAL ADJ_U*
*** THE PERIOD ( 43824 HRS) AVERAGE CONCENTRATION
VALUES FOR SOURCE GROUP: 4 ***
INCLUDING SOURCE(S): 4 ,
*** DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTOR POINTS
***
** CONC OF OTHER IN MICROGRAMS/M**3
**
X-COORD (M) Y-COORD (M) CONC X-COORD (M)
Y-COORD (M) CONC
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
727677.90 4129119.00 7.31847 727812.10
4129120.00 7.24273
727963.30 4129116.00 6.81846 728066.20
4129119.00 5.79538
728165.20 4129119.00 4.90445 728277.20
4129116.00 4.39378
727977.60 4128247.00 3.82523
*** AERMOD - VERSION 21112 *** *** MG Construction
*** 01/25/25
*** AERMET - VERSION 21112 *** ***
*** 00:59:01
PAGE 13
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV RURAL ADJ_U*
*** THE 1ST HIGHEST 1-HR AVERAGE CONCENTRATION
VALUES FOR SOURCE GROUP: 1 ***
INCLUDING SOURCE(S): 1 ,
*** DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTOR POINTS
***
** CONC OF OTHER IN MICROGRAMS/M**3
**
X-COORD (M) Y-COORD (M) CONC (YYMMDDHH) X-COORD (M)
Y-COORD (M) CONC (YYMMDDHH)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
727677.90 4129119.00 189.15182 (22122509) 727812.10
4129120.00 207.51933 (20090604)
727963.30 4129116.00 225.70457 (22010517) 728066.20
4129119.00 262.17864 (18032718)
728165.20 4129119.00 270.08610 (19041607) 728277.20
4129116.00 228.13033 (21122220)
727977.60 4128247.00 177.76650 (22022419)
*** AERMOD - VERSION 21112 *** *** MG Construction
*** 01/25/25
*** AERMET - VERSION 21112 *** ***
*** 00:59:01
PAGE 14
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV RURAL ADJ_U*
*** THE 1ST HIGHEST 1-HR AVERAGE CONCENTRATION
VALUES FOR SOURCE GROUP: 2 ***
INCLUDING SOURCE(S): 2 ,
*** DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTOR POINTS
***
** CONC OF OTHER IN MICROGRAMS/M**3
**
X-COORD (M) Y-COORD (M) CONC (YYMMDDHH) X-COORD (M)
Y-COORD (M) CONC (YYMMDDHH)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
727677.90 4129119.00 503.58344 (21022308) 727812.10
4129120.00 619.57484 (21021908)
727963.30 4129116.00 788.18906 (20021208) 728066.20
4129119.00 841.25691 (20121517)
728165.20 4129119.00 840.40483 (19012101) 728277.20
4129116.00 788.14950 (21121722)
727977.60 4128247.00 512.78913 (22021208)
*** AERMOD - VERSION 21112 *** *** MG Construction
*** 01/25/25
*** AERMET - VERSION 21112 *** ***
*** 00:59:01
PAGE 15
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV RURAL ADJ_U*
*** THE 1ST HIGHEST 1-HR AVERAGE CONCENTRATION
VALUES FOR SOURCE GROUP: 3 ***
INCLUDING SOURCE(S): 3 ,
*** DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTOR POINTS
***
** CONC OF OTHER IN MICROGRAMS/M**3
**
X-COORD (M) Y-COORD (M) CONC (YYMMDDHH) X-COORD (M)
Y-COORD (M) CONC (YYMMDDHH)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
727677.90 4129119.00 607.63857 (19060906) 727812.10
4129120.00 703.13622 (18040307)
727963.30 4129116.00 685.04621 (18091107) 728066.20
4129119.00 632.29965 (19112208)
728165.20 4129119.00 569.53674 (21011207) 728277.20
4129116.00 626.91054 (20092307)
727977.60 4128247.00 462.60884 (22012321)
*** AERMOD - VERSION 21112 *** *** MG Construction
*** 01/25/25
*** AERMET - VERSION 21112 *** ***
*** 00:59:01
PAGE 16
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV RURAL ADJ_U*
*** THE 1ST HIGHEST 1-HR AVERAGE CONCENTRATION
VALUES FOR SOURCE GROUP: 4 ***
INCLUDING SOURCE(S): 4 ,
*** DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTOR POINTS
***
** CONC OF OTHER IN MICROGRAMS/M**3
**
X-COORD (M) Y-COORD (M) CONC (YYMMDDHH) X-COORD (M)
Y-COORD (M) CONC (YYMMDDHH)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
727677.90 4129119.00 725.52454 (19060906) 727812.10
4129120.00 744.76619 (18040307)
727963.30 4129116.00 677.27315 (18091107) 728066.20
4129119.00 673.76995 (19112208)
728165.20 4129119.00 592.21025 (21011207) 728277.20
4129116.00 669.12981 (20092307)
727977.60 4128247.00 524.06208 (22012321)
*** AERMOD - VERSION 21112 *** *** MG Construction
*** 01/25/25
*** AERMET - VERSION 21112 *** ***
*** 00:59:01
PAGE 17
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV RURAL ADJ_U*
*** THE SUMMARY OF MAXIMUM PERIOD ( 43824
HRS) RESULTS ***
** CONC OF OTHER IN MICROGRAMS/M**3
**
NETWORK
GROUP ID AVERAGE CONC RECEPTOR (XR, YR, ZELEV,
ZHILL, ZFLAG) OF TYPE GRID-ID
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1 1ST HIGHEST VALUE IS 3.93879 AT ( 727677.90, 4129119.00, 55.47,
55.47, 0.00) DC
2ND HIGHEST VALUE IS 3.57910 AT ( 727812.10, 4129120.00, 55.47,
55.47, 0.00) DC
3RD HIGHEST VALUE IS 2.80281 AT ( 727963.30, 4129116.00, 55.78,
55.78, 0.00) DC
4TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 2.30454 AT ( 728066.20, 4129119.00, 56.02,
56.02, 0.00) DC
5TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 1.80188 AT ( 728165.20, 4129119.00, 56.08,
56.08, 0.00) DC
6TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 1.56183 AT ( 727977.60, 4128247.00, 54.86,
54.86, 0.00) DC
7TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 1.53272 AT ( 728277.20, 4129116.00, 56.39,
56.39, 0.00) DC
8TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 0.00000 AT ( 0.00, 0.00, 0.00,
0.00, 0.00)
9TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 0.00000 AT ( 0.00, 0.00, 0.00,
0.00, 0.00)
10TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 0.00000 AT ( 0.00, 0.00, 0.00,
0.00, 0.00)
2 1ST HIGHEST VALUE IS 8.54181 AT ( 727963.30, 4129116.00, 55.78,
55.78, 0.00) DC
2ND HIGHEST VALUE IS 8.36038 AT ( 727812.10, 4129120.00, 55.47,
55.47, 0.00) DC
3RD HIGHEST VALUE IS 8.03235 AT ( 728066.20, 4129119.00, 56.02,
56.02, 0.00) DC
4TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 7.88324 AT ( 727677.90, 4129119.00, 55.47,
55.47, 0.00) DC
5TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 6.95112 AT ( 728165.20, 4129119.00, 56.08,
56.08, 0.00) DC
6TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 5.77112 AT ( 728277.20, 4129116.00, 56.39,
56.39, 0.00) DC
7TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 2.89733 AT ( 727977.60, 4128247.00, 54.86,
54.86, 0.00) DC
8TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 0.00000 AT ( 0.00, 0.00, 0.00,
0.00, 0.00)
9TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 0.00000 AT ( 0.00, 0.00, 0.00,
0.00, 0.00)
10TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 0.00000 AT ( 0.00, 0.00, 0.00,
0.00, 0.00)
3 1ST HIGHEST VALUE IS 7.79485 AT ( 727677.90, 4129119.00, 55.47,
55.47, 0.00) DC
2ND HIGHEST VALUE IS 7.69288 AT ( 727812.10, 4129120.00, 55.47,
55.47, 0.00) DC
3RD HIGHEST VALUE IS 7.14342 AT ( 727963.30, 4129116.00, 55.78,
55.78, 0.00) DC
4TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 6.07470 AT ( 728066.20, 4129119.00, 56.02,
56.02, 0.00) DC
5TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 5.18759 AT ( 728165.20, 4129119.00, 56.08,
56.08, 0.00) DC
6TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 4.68580 AT ( 728277.20, 4129116.00, 56.39,
56.39, 0.00) DC
7TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 3.81832 AT ( 727977.60, 4128247.00, 54.86,
54.86, 0.00) DC
8TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 0.00000 AT ( 0.00, 0.00, 0.00,
0.00, 0.00)
9TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 0.00000 AT ( 0.00, 0.00, 0.00,
0.00, 0.00)
10TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 0.00000 AT ( 0.00, 0.00, 0.00,
0.00, 0.00)
4 1ST HIGHEST VALUE IS 7.31847 AT ( 727677.90, 4129119.00, 55.47,
55.47, 0.00) DC
2ND HIGHEST VALUE IS 7.24273 AT ( 727812.10, 4129120.00, 55.47,
55.47, 0.00) DC
3RD HIGHEST VALUE IS 6.81846 AT ( 727963.30, 4129116.00, 55.78,
55.78, 0.00) DC
4TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 5.79538 AT ( 728066.20, 4129119.00, 56.02,
56.02, 0.00) DC
5TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 4.90445 AT ( 728165.20, 4129119.00, 56.08,
56.08, 0.00) DC
6TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 4.39378 AT ( 728277.20, 4129116.00, 56.39,
56.39, 0.00) DC
7TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 3.82523 AT ( 727977.60, 4128247.00, 54.86,
54.86, 0.00) DC
8TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 0.00000 AT ( 0.00, 0.00, 0.00,
0.00, 0.00)
9TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 0.00000 AT ( 0.00, 0.00, 0.00,
0.00, 0.00)
10TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 0.00000 AT ( 0.00, 0.00, 0.00,
0.00, 0.00)
*** RECEPTOR TYPES: GC = GRIDCART
GP = GRIDPOLR
DC = DISCCART
DP = DISCPOLR
*** AERMOD - VERSION 21112 *** *** MG Construction
*** 01/25/25
*** AERMET - VERSION 21112 *** ***
*** 00:59:01
PAGE 18
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV RURAL ADJ_U*
*** THE SUMMARY OF HIGHEST 1-HR
RESULTS ***
** CONC OF OTHER IN MICROGRAMS/M**3
**
DATE
NETWORK
GROUP ID AVERAGE CONC (YYMMDDHH) RECEPTOR
(XR, YR, ZELEV, ZHILL, ZFLAG) OF TYPE GRID-ID
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1 HIGH 1ST HIGH VALUE IS 270.08610 ON 19041607: AT ( 728165.20, 4129119.00, 56.08, 56.08, 0.00) DC
2 HIGH 1ST HIGH VALUE IS 841.25691 ON 20121517: AT ( 728066.20, 4129119.00, 56.02, 56.02, 0.00) DC
3 HIGH 1ST HIGH VALUE IS 703.13622 ON 18040307: AT ( 727812.10, 4129120.00, 55.47, 55.47, 0.00) DC
4 HIGH 1ST HIGH VALUE IS 744.76619 ON 18040307: AT ( 727812.10, 4129120.00, 55.47, 55.47, 0.00) DC
*** RECEPTOR TYPES: GC = GRIDCART
GP = GRIDPOLR
DC = DISCCART
DP = DISCPOLR
*** AERMOD - VERSION 21112 *** *** MG Construction
*** 01/25/25
*** AERMET - VERSION 21112 *** ***
*** 00:59:01
PAGE 19
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV RURAL ADJ_U*
*** Message Summary : AERMOD Model Execution ***
--------- Summary of Total Messages --------
A Total of 0 Fatal Error Message(s)
A Total of 3 Warning Message(s)
A Total of 1280 Informational Message(s)
A Total of 43824 Hours Were Processed
A Total of 592 Calm Hours Identified
A Total of 688 Missing Hours Identified ( 1.57 Percent)
******** FATAL ERROR MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
CO W200 6 TITLES: Missing Parameter(s). No Options Specified For
TITLETWO
ME W186 45 MEOPEN: THRESH_1MIN 1-min ASOS wind speed threshold used
0.50 ME W187 45 MEOPEN: ADJ_U* Option for Stable Low Winds used in AERMET
************************************
*** AERMOD Finishes Successfully ***
************************************
APPENDIX B
BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION
BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION
MERCED GATREWAY
MERCED COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Prepared by:
LIVE OAK ASSOCIATES, INC.
Austin Pearson, Vice President
Rebekah Jensen, Senior Project Manager and Ecologist
Natalie Neff, Ecologist
Prepared for:
Rabie Mekideche
8080 N. Palm Avenue
Fresno, CA 93711
September 26, 2024 PN 2901-01
OAKill"RST
P.O. Box 2697 I 39930 Sierra Way #B
Oakhurst, CA 93644
P: (559) 642-4880 I F: (559) 642-4883
SAN .JO SE
6840 Via Del Oro. Suite 220
San Jose. CA 95119
(408) 224-8300
W WW.L O A I NC.C O M
sorTII LAKE TAH OE
P.O. Box 7314
South Lake Tahoe. CA 96158
(408) 281-5885
ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Live Oak Associates, Inc. (LOA) investigated the biological resources of an approximately 73.7- acre site proposed for residential and commercial development (“project”) and evaluated potential project-related impacts to such resources pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The site is located at the southeast edge of the City of Merced in Merced County, California.
LOA’s analysis was based on a reconnaissance-level field survey conducted on August 19, 2024.
At that time, the site consisted of a harvested oat field, a ruderal field, and two irrigation ditches.
Vegetation spanned the entirety of the site but was densest at the edges of the oat field and in the ruderal field. Vegetation primarily consisted of oat and weedy forbs.
The project site has the potential to be used for nesting by various avian species protected by state and federal laws including the northern harrier, a California Species of Special Concern. The Swainson’s hawk, a California Threatened species, could nest in trees in close proximity to the project site and forage on site. By limiting construction to lower-risk times of year if feasible, conducting preconstruction surveys for nesting birds and raptors, and avoiding any active nests that are discovered, potential project impacts to nesting birds and raptors can be reduced to a less than significant level under CEQA.
No other biological resources would be significantly impacted by project implementation. Impacts are considered less than significant for all regionally occurring special status plant species, 20 of the 22 regionally-occurring special status animal species, wildlife movement corridors, sensitive natural communities, jurisdictional waters, and designated critical habitat. The project appears to be consistent with the Merced Vision 2030 General Plan policies related to biological resources and is currently not subject to any Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans.
d'\---------
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................1
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION..............................................................................................................................1
1.2 REPORT OBJECTIVES ..................................................................................................................................1
1.3 STUDY METHODOLOGY..............................................................................................................................5
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ...................................................................................................................................6
2.1 REGIONAL SETTING.....................................................................................................................................6
2.2 PROJECT SITE ................................................................................................................................................6
2.3 LAND USES / BIOTIC HABITATS................................................................................................................7
2.3.1 Agricultural................................................................................................................................................. 7
2.3.2 Ruderal Field ............................................................................................................................................ 10
2.4 SPECIAL STATUS PLANTS AND ANIMALS ...........................................................................................10
2.5 JURISDICTIONAL WATERS ......................................................................................................................19
2.6 SENSITIVE NATURAL COMMUNITIES...................................................................................................20
2.7 WILDLIFE MOVEMENT CORRIDORS ....................................................................................................21
2.8 DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT.........................................................................................................21
3.0 RELEVANT GOALS, POLICIES, AND LAWS..............................................................................................22
3.1 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ...............................................................................22
3.2 OTHER RELEVANT LAWS AND POLICIES ...........................................................................................23
3.2.1 Merced Vision 2030 General Plan............................................................................................................ 23
3.2.2 Threatened and Endangered Species ........................................................................................................ 24
3.2.3 Migratory Birds ........................................................................................................................................ 24
3.2.4 Birds of Prey............................................................................................................................................. 25
3.2.5 Nesting Birds............................................................................................................................................ 25
3.2.6 Habitat Conservation Plans and Natural Community Conservation Plans ............................................... 25
3.2.7 Wetlands and Other Jurisdictional Waters................................................................................................ 26
4.0 IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS ......................................................................................................................29
4.1 POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT PROJECT IMPACTS/MITIGATION .................................................29
4.1.1 Potential Project Impacts to Nesting Birds and Raptors Including Northern Harrier and Swainson’s Hawk ................................................................................................................................................................ 29
4.2 LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT PROJECT IMPACTS...................................................................................30
4.2.1 Potential Project Impacts to Special Status Plants................................................................................... 30
4.2.2 Project Impacts to Special Status Animal Species Absent from or Unlikely to Occur on the Project Site30
4.2.3 Project Impacts to Special Status Animal Species that Would Use the Site for Non-sensitive Activities Only ................................................................................................................................................................ 31
4.2.4 Project Impacts to Wildlife Movement Corridors..................................................................................... 32
4.2.5 Project Impacts to Sensitive Natural Communities and Critical Habitat .................................................. 32
4.2.6 Project Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters................................................................................................... 32
4.2.7 Consistency with Local Policies and Ordinances..................................................................................... 32
4.2.8 Consistency with Habitat Conservation Plans and Natural Community Conservation Plans................... 33 APPENDIX A: VASCULAR PLANT LIST...........................................................................................................35 APPENDIX B: TERRESTRIAL VERTEBRATE SPECIES THAT POTENTIALLY OCCUR ON THE PROJECT SITE ........................................................................................................................................................38 APPENDIX C: REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOS OF THE PROJECT SITE......................................................42 d'\---------
1 1.0 INTRODUCTION
This technical report, prepared by Live Oak Associates, Inc. (LOA) in support of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review, describes the biological resources of an approximately 73.7-acre site (“project site”) proposed for residential and commercial development (“project”), and evaluates the potential impacts to biological resources associated with project implementation. The project site is located on the southeast edge of the city limits of Merced, California, between East Mission Avenue and East Gerard Avenue and approximately 0.25 miles east of South Coffee Street. It is bisected by Campus Parkway (Figure 1). It may be found on the Merced U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute quadrangle, in the southern edge of Section 34 of Township 7 South, Range 14 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian (Figure 2).
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Lennar Central Valley proposes a mixed-use development, referred to as “Merced Gateway.” The proposed development consists of 587 residential lots, 2 commercial lots with associated infrastructure such as roads and sidewalks, and a park across 73.7acres. The residential lots consist of 129 45’x85’ lots, 201 40’x70’ lots, and 257 25’x95’ lots for a total of 587 residential lots encompassing approximately 61-acres. The two commercial lots are approximately 4.4 and 4.5- acres respectively, for a total of approximately 9-acres. The park is approximately 3.7-acres.
Campus Parkway bisects the project site into north and south halves and will not be impacted by project development. The abandoned irrigation ditch running east to west in the northern portion of the site will be filled in and the irrigation ditch along the eastern boundary, south of Campus Parkway, will not be impacted by the project.
1.2 REPORT OBJECTIVES
This report summarizes a biological study conducted by LOA to facilitate environmental review pursuant to CEQA. As such, the report’s objectives are to:
• Characterize the project site’s existing biological resources, including biotic habitats, flora and fauna, soils, and aquatic resources
• Evaluate the project site’s potential to support sensitive resources such as special status species, sensitive natural communities, and jurisdictional waters and wetlands d'\---------
2 • Summarize all state and federal natural resource protection laws that may be relevant to project implementation
• Identify and discuss potential project-related impacts to biological resources within the context of CEQA and other state and federal laws
• Identify avoidance and mitigation measures that would reduce the magnitude of projectrelated impacts in a manner consistent with CEQA and species-specific guidelines d'\---------
2 miles
approximate scale
0 Vicinity Map Regional Map
See
Vicinity Map
(left)
Not to scale
San Jose
Project location
Fresno
Madera
Merced
See Site Location
Map (above)
San
Francisco
2 miles
Date Project # Figure #
1 Site Vicinity Map
9/23/2024 2901-01
Merced Gateway
Project
Site
Site Location Map
MERCED
99 99
Merced
Lateral
Black Rascal Cr
Miles Cr
1----l - - -
(
~ ,-' r-
( !j'\
i I ------------------------ - ,._ ,-:- - - --)
!
- · --;-:...::-.::..::-] __ i ____ - /'- .--,_? ,. ' :1 ,<,-,---'( I I I ( _, \-- -- --- ------------------------; LISJ i I
/,} ·,.____ ___ _
"'~,1-#:::;_:' •• • -------__;~-,--------------
/j· -
____ ,.,.:;:',-~~-----
z
2S __,/ _____ / Q
CJ ,/ """~ ----1 en" - ,._
-< [
e--~-<~ ~
__ _;
1 \ E Gerard Ave L----i-~-J___---1 C/)
0 g.
Jll!!="-"-'= '_,_I~ - ----~=--= =- --=--=----- - ::i:
(I)
- a·-----11
CJ
... ::i / - - - -..._
'< -----------/ ~ \=~-~/_/ _, ___ _
LIVEOAK
ASSOC IATES, I NC.
PROJECT
SITE
99 99
0 approximate scale
1 mile
From USGS
Merced 7.5' Quadrangle 1987
1/2 mile Date Project # Figure #
2 U.S.G.S. Quadrangle
9/23/2024 2901-01
Merced Gateway
1 mile
0 L AVENIJE
llZ
- . - ~
• a C
ll lf,J
~I
I
I
1 I
I
I I
I I
I I
vcJsar Ave 14 I ·I .
. .. Reilly Rd.
·- I
I
GERARD
MISSION
I
I
I
I
I
1 I - I,.' ,
.-. - - - , .. ~
I ,.,, I
________ __ j
u...,~. -- J !V ~\l - -
• · wil
Substati '-1_
wr ."
~
~
Cl
- ---
~ • o
r93 0Well
I \ ~)~ , ........ :~ ··
VASSAR
..
~ ~ ., '~~?-~,:~\ ·-.:~ '
~,_~ ~ L i:;.. _J....;.Y~ s~::'."' 1AT~E~~1N A~. _?K;:-I 5 1.3 STUDY METHODOLOGY
A reconnaissance-level field survey of the project site was conducted on August 19, 2024 by LOA ecologist Natalie Neff. The survey consisted of walking around and through the project site while identifying its principal land uses, biotic habitats, flora, and fauna, and assessing its potential to support special status species and other sensitive resources. The survey did not include a formal aquatic resources delineation or focused surveys for special status species. The survey was sufficient to assess the significance of possible biological impacts associated with project implementation, and to assess the need for more detailed studies that could be warranted if sensitive resources were identified in this initial survey.
LOA conducted an analysis of potential project impacts based on the known and potential biotic resources of the project site. Sources of information used in the preparation of this analysis included the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CDFW 2024), Online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (CNPS 2024), and manuals, reports, and references related to plants and animals of the project vicinity.
d'\---------
6 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
2.1 REGIONAL SETTING
The project site is located in the San Joaquin Valley of California, approximately 20 miles west of the base of the Sierra Nevada foothills. The San Joaquin Valley is bordered by the Sierra Nevada to the east, the Tehachapi Mountains to the south, the California coastal ranges to the west, and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to the north.
Like most of California, the San Joaquin Valley experiences a Mediterranean climate. Warm, dry summers are followed by cool, moist winters. Summer temperatures commonly exceed 90 degrees Fahrenheit, and the relative humidity is generally very low. Winter temperatures rarely exceed 70 degrees Fahrenheit, with daytime highs often below 60 degrees Fahrenheit. Annual precipitation in the project vicinity varies considerably from year to year, but averages approximately 11 inches, almost all of which falls between the months of October and March. Nearly all precipitation falls in the form of rain.
The project site is located approximately 0.75 miles north of Owens Creek and approximately 2 miles south of Bear Creek.
The site is located at the interface of urban and agricultural land uses. It is bordered to the north by a residential area, to the east and west by agriculture, and to the south by agriculture and residential areas.
2.2 PROJECT SITE
The project site has level topography and sits at an elevation of approximately 184 feet above sea level. At the time of LOA’s field survey, it consisted primarily of a harvested oat field, but also contained a ruderal field and two irrigation ditches.
The site contains two soil mapping units: Landlow silty clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes; and Wyman clay loam, deep over hardpan, 0 to 1 percent slopes (NRCS 2024). These soils are not classified as hydric, meaning they do not have the propensity to pond water and support the growth of wetland vegetation.
d'\---------
7 2.3 LAND USES / BIOTIC HABITATS
Two biotic habitats / land uses were identified within the project site: agricultural and ruderal field.
An aerial view of the site is presented in Figure 3. A list of vascular plants identified on the site is presented in Appendix A. A list of terrestrial vertebrates using or potentially using the project site is presented in Appendix B. Representative photos of the site are presented in Appendix C.
2.3.1 Agricultural
At the time of LOA’s field survey, the majority of the project site consisted of a harvested oat field bisected into north and south sections by Campus Parkway, with an irrigation ditch running along the eastern margin of the oat field south of Campus Parkway. Analysis of aerial imagery indicates that the field has been used for agricultural purposes since at least 1946 (historicalaerials.com 2024). The irrigation ditch was dry at the time of the survey but is sporadically inundated in Google Earth aerial imagery.
Both the oat field and irrigation ditch supported a variety of weedy and native forbs. The margins of the field hosted the greatest diversity of plant life, though the fields center also contained an assortment of plant species as well. Oat (Avena sativa), milk thistle (Silybum marianum), Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), and jimsonweed (Datura wrightii) were most common along the field margins and irrigation ditch, while oat, narrowleaf milkweed (Asclepias fascicularis), panicle willowherb (Epilobium brachycarpum), and prickly lettuce (Latuca serriola) were most common throughout the center of the field.
The project site’s agricultural land provides some habitat for common wildlife species. Common amphibians such as the western toad (Bufo boreas) and Sierran treefrog (Pseudacris sierra) may breed in nearby ditches or basins and subsequently disperse across the oat field. Aerial imagery indicates that the on-site ditches are infrequently inundated and may not, themselves, support amphibian breeding. Reptiles such as side-blotched lizards (Uta stansburiana), Pacific gopher snakes (Pituophis catenifer catenifer), and California king snakes (Lampropeltis californiae) could occur on or pass through the site’s oat field from time to time. Common avian species are expected to utilize the oat field for foraging including American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta), western kingbird (Tyrannus verticalis), and northern 8 mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos). Raptors such as red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis) and American kestrels (Falco sparverius) are likely to forage over the oat field as well. Ground nesting birds such as mourning doves (Zenaida macroura) could nest in the field. d'\---------
Campus Pkwy
E. Gerard Ave
E. Mission Ave
Off-Site ROW Dedication Off-Site ROW Dedication
400 feet
approximate scale
0 Date Project # Figure #
3 Biotic Habitats / Land Cover
9/23/2024 2901-01
Merced Gateway
400' 200'
Project Boundary
Project Boundary
Source:
Boundary courtesy of North Star Engineering
Aerial photo courtesy of U.S.D.A. Aerial photo field office 2022 LEGEND
Project Boundary
Ruderal Field
Agricultural Field
~ c:.. • -•~---------------•.
/ •. I .........
LIVEOAK
--- ASSOCIATES, INC . ---
10 Small mammal use of the site’s agricultural land may include deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus), California voles (Microtus californicus), Botta’s pocket gophers (Thomomys bottae), and California ground squirrels (Otospermophilus beecheyi). Several Botta’s pocket gopher and numerous California ground squirrel burrows were observed in the oat field, specifically within the portion south of Campus Parkway.
Mid-tier predatory mammal species that may forage or pass through the site’s agricultural land include raccoon (Procyon lotor), western striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), red fox (Vulpes vulpes) and coyote (Canis latrans). Various bat species may forage over the site’s agricultural land for insects. Due to the proximity of residences, domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) and cats (Felis catus) may also occur here from time to time.
2.3.2 Ruderal Field
The northern and northeastern edges of the project site can be categorized as ruderal field. At the time of LOA’s survey, the northernmost portion of ruderal field was densely covered in vegetation including milk thistle, oat, prickly lettuce, Russian thistle, and flax-leaved horseweed (Erigeron bonariensis). A young, shrubby California black walnut tree (Juglans hindsii) was found in this portion of the ruderal field as well. This portion of the ruderal field was separated from the oat field by an irrigation ditch on the north side of the oat field, which that was dry at the time of the survey and does not appear to be inundated in any recent Google Earth aerial images. Vegetative cover in the ditch was indistinguishable from the surrounding ruderal field and at the time of the survey was dominated by oat and Russian thistle. The northeast portion of the ruderal field was less densely vegetated but contained many similar species to the northernmost section including oat, prickly lettuce, Russian thistle, and flax-leaved horseweed.
Wildlife use of the site’s ruderal field would be similar to that described for the agricultural land.
2.4 SPECIAL STATUS PLANTS AND ANIMALS
Many species of plants and animals within the state of California have low populations, limited distributions, or both. Such species may be considered “rare” and are vulnerable to extirpation as the state’s human population grows and the habitats these species occupy are converted to agricultural and urban uses. As described more fully in Section 3.2, state and federal laws have 11 provided CDFW and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) with a mechanism for conserving and protecting the diversity of plant and animal species native to the state. A sizable number of native plants and animals have been formally designated as threatened or endangered under state and federal endangered species legislation. Others have been designated as “candidates” for such listing. Still others have been designated as “species of special concern” by the CDFW. The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) has developed its own ranking system, California Rare Plant Ranks (CRPR), for native plants considered rare, threatened, or endangered.
Plants with a CRPR ranking of 1 or 2 meet the definitions of the California Endangered Species Act and are eligible for state listing. Collectively, all of the aforementioned plants and animals are referred to as “special status species.”
The California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) (CDFW 2024) was queried for special status species occurrences in the nine USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles containing and immediately surrounding the project site (Winton, Yosemite Lake, Haystack Mtn., Atwater, Merced, Planada, Sandy Mush, El Nido, Plainsburg). These species, and their potential to occur on site, are listed in Table 1 on the following pages. Sources of information for Table 1 included California’s Wildlife, Volumes I, II, and III (Zeiner et. al 1988), The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, second edition (Baldwin et al. 2012), CNPS’s Online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (CNPS 2024), Calflora.org, and eBird.org. d'\---------
12 TABLE 1. LIST OF SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES THAT COULD OCCUR IN THE
PROJECT VICINITY
PLANTS
Species Listed as Threatened or Endangered under the State and/or Federal Endangered Species Act Species Status Habitat Occurrence on the Project Site
Succulent Owl’s-Clover
(Castilleja campestris ssp.
succulenta)
FT, CE
CRPR
1B.2
Occurs in vernal pools of the Central
Valley that are often acidic; blooms
April-May; elevation 160-2460 ft.
Absent. Suitable habitat in the form of
vernal pools is absent from the project site.
Delta Button Celery
(Eryngium racemosum)
CE, CRPR
1B.1
Found in seasonally flooded clay
depressions in floodplains at
elevations between 10- 100 feet.
Blooms June – October.
Absent. Decades of agricultural
disturbance have eliminated any habitat
that may have once been present on site or
in the immediate vicinity. In addition, the
project site is outside of the species
elevational range.
Boggs Lake Hedge-Hyssop
(Gratiola heterosepala)
CE
CRPR
1B.2
Inhabits the Central Valley, inner
north coast range, and Sierra Nevada
foothills. The largest concentration is
located within the Modoc Plateau.
Restricted to clay soils in or near
shallow water such as lake edges and
vernal pools. Elevation below 5250
feet. Blooms April- August.
Absent. Suitable habitat in the form of
vernal pools and/or lake edges is absent
from the project site.
Colusa Grass
(Neostapfia colusana)
FT, CE,
CRPR
1B.1
Typically found in alkaline basins of
Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys
and in acidic soils along the eastern
San Joaquin Valley and the Sierra
Nevada foothills.
Absent. Decades of agricultural
disturbance has eliminated any habitat that
may have once been present on site or in
the immediate vicinity.
San Joaquin Valley Orcutt
Grass
(Orcuttia inaequalis)
FT, CE
CRPR
1B.1
Occurs in vernal pools of the Central
Valley; requires deep pools with
prolonged periods of inundation;
blooms April-September; elevation
100-2,480 ft.
Absent. Vernal pool habitat is absent from
the project site.
Hairy Orcutt Grass
(Orcuttia pilosa)
FE, CE Vernal pools of California’s Central
Valley. Requires deep pools with
prolonged periods of inundation;
blooms May to September.
Absent. Vernal pool habitat is absent from
the project site.
Hartweg’s Golden Sunburst
(Pseudobahia bahiifolia)
FE, CE
CRPR
1B.1
Found in heavy clay soils in open
woodlands and non-native grasslands.
The current known distribution of this
species occurs along the eastern side
of the San Joaquin Valley and lower
central Sierra Nevada foothills.
Elevation between 330- 650 feet.
Blooms March- April.
Absent. Decades of agricultural
disturbance has eliminated any habitat that
may have once been present on site or in
the immediate vicinity. In addition, the
project site is outside of the species
elevational range.
Merced Phacelia
(Phacelia ciliate var.
opaca)
CRPR 3.2 Restricted to heavy clay soils on the
San Joaquin Valley floor and adjacent
hills at elevations below 330 feet.
Absent. Decades of agricultural
disturbance has eliminated any habitat that
may have once been present on site or in
the immediate vicinity.
Keck’s Checkerbloom
(Sidalcea keckii)
FE, CRPR
1B.1
Occurs in cismontane woodland and
valley and foothill grassland habitat
with serpentine and/or clay soils
between 525 and 2,230 ft. in
elevation. Blooms April-May.
Absent. Suitable habitat is absent from the
project site and the site is outside the
species elevational range.
Greene’s Tuctoria
(Tuctoria greenei)
FE, CR,
CRPR
1B.1
Occurs in vernal pools of California’s
Central Valley from Shasta Co. on the
north to Tulare Co. on the south;
blooms May to September.
Absent. Suitable habitat in the form of
vernal pools is absent from the project site.
d'\---------
13 TABLE 1. LIST OF SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES THAT COULD OCCUR IN THE
PROJECT VICINITY
PLANTS (cont’d)
CNPS-Listed Species
Species Status Habitat Occurrence on the Project Site
Henderson’s Bent Grass
(Agrostis hendersonii)
CRPR 3.2 Found in vernal pools at elevations
under 984 feet in north and central
San Joaquin Valley. Blooms AprilJune.
Absent. Suitable habitat in the form of
vernal pools is absent from the project site.
Heartscale
(Atriplex cordulata var.
cordulata)
CRPR
1B.2
Occurs on saline or alkaline soils in
chenopod scrub, meadows, seeps, and
grasslands; blooms April-October;
elevations below 1,230 ft.
Absent. Suitable soils and habitat are
absent from the project site.
Lesser Saltscale
(Atriplex minuscula)
CRPR
1B.1
Occurs in cismontane woodland and
valley and foothill grasslands of the
San Joaquin Valley; alkaline/sandy
soils; blooms May-October; elevation
50-660 ft.
Absent. Suitable soils and habitat are
absent from the project site.
Vernal Pool Smallscale
(Atriplex persistens)
CRPR
1B.2
Occurs in alkaline vernal pools;
blooms July-Oct.; elevations below
400 ft.
Absent. Suitable habitat in the form of
vernal pools is absent from the project site.
Subtle Orache
(Atriplex subtilis)
CRPR
1B.2
Occurs in valley and foothill
grasslands of the San Joaquin Valley;
blooms August-October; elevation
130-330 ft.
Absent. Decades of agricultural
disturbance has eliminated any habitat that
may have once been present on site or in
the immediate vicinity.
Watershield
(Brasenia schreberi)
CRPR
2B.3
An aquatic, perennial herb with
floating leaves that grows in ponds,
lakes, and slow-moving streams.
Absent. The project site’s irrigation
ditches do not have a sufficient inundation
regime for this species.
Hoover’s Calycadenia
(Calycadenia hooveri)
CRPR
1B.3
Found in rocky soils, frequently of the
Hornitos series, in Calaveras, Madera,
Mariposa, and Stanislaus Counties.
Absent. Suitable soils and habitat are
absent from the project site.
Beaked Clarkia
(Clarkia rostrata)
CRPR
1B.3
This species occurs in the woodlands
of the Sierra Nevada Forest near the
Merced River. Elevations up to 1,640
feet. Blooms April- May.
Absent. Suitable habitat is absent from the
project site.
Recurved Larkspur
(Delphinium recurvatum)
CRPR
1B.2
Chenopod scrub, cismontane
woodlands, and alkaline soils of
valley and foothill grasslands.
Blooms March-May.
Absent. Suitable soils and habitat are
absent from the project site.
Dwarf Downingia
(Downingia pusilla)
CRPR
2B.2
Grows in vernal pools and other
seasonal wetlands. Blooms March –
May.
Unlikely. Suitable habitat in the form of
vernal pools and other seasonal wetlands
is absent from the project site.
Spiny-Sepaled Button Celery
(Eryngium spinosepalum)
CRPR
1B.2
Found in vernal pools, swales and
valley and foothill grasslands at the
eastern edge of the San Joaquin
Valley and in the Tulare Basin;
elevation between 330 and 840 ft.
Blooms April to May
Absent. Suitable habitat in the form of
vernal pools and swales is absent from the
project site. Furthermore, the project site
is outside of this species’ elevational
range.
Forked Hare-Leaf
(Lagophylla dichotoma)
CRPR
1B.1
Occurs in openings in woodlands or
grasslands at elevations between 164
feet to 1312 feet. Flowers April and
May.
Absent. Decades of agricultural
disturbance has eliminated any habitat that
may have once been present on site or in
the immediate vicinity.
d'\---------
14 TABLE 1. LIST OF SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES THAT COULD OCCUR IN THE
PROJECT VICINITY
PLANTS (cont’d)
CNPS-Listed Species
Species Status Habitat Occurrence on the Project Site
Alkali-Sink Goldfields
(Lasthenia chrysantha)
CRPR
1B.1
Occurs in valley grassland, alkali
sink, wetland riparian areas less than
328 ft. in elevation in the southern
Sacramento Valley and San Joaquin
Valley. Blooms February – June.
Absent. Decades of agricultural
disturbance has eliminated any habitat that
may have once been present on site or in
the immediate vicinity.
Pincushion Navarretia
(Navarretia myersii spp.
myersii)
CRPR
1B.1
Occurs in vernal pools in the Central
Valley, particularly on the eastern
edge. Elevations 66 to 295 feet.
Blooms in May.
Absent. Suitable habitat in the form of
vernal pools is absent from the project site.
Shining Navarretia
(Navarretia nigelliformis
ssp. radians)
CRPR1B.
2 Occurs in Valley grassland, foothill
woodland, freshwater-wetlands, and
wetland-riparian between 525 and
1770 ft. in elevation. Blooms AprilJuly.
Absent. Suitable habitat is absent, and the
project site is outside of this species’
elevational range.
California Alkali-Grass
(Puccinellia simplex)
CRPR
1B.2
Occurs in saline flats and mineral
springs less than 900 m. in elevation
in the Central Valley, San Francisco
Bay area and western Mojave Desert.
Absent. Decades of agricultural
disturbance has eliminated any habitat that
may have once been present on site or in
the immediate vicinity.
Sanford’s Arrowhead
(Sagittaria sanfordii)
CRPR
1B.2
Occurs in freshwater emergent marsh
habitatsin drainage ditches and canals
of California’s Central Valley.
Blooms May to October.
Unlikely. The project site’s irrigation
ditches do not appear to have a sufficient
inundation regime for this species.
d'\---------
15 ANIMALS (cont’d)
Species Listed as Threatened or Endangered under the State and/or Federal Endangered Species Act Species Status Habitat Occurrence on the Project Site
Crotch Bumblebee
(Bombus crotchii)
CCE Once common in the Central Valley, this
species is now absent from most of it,
particularly in the central portion of its
historic range. Where present, it is
associated with open grassland and
scrub habitats, where it relies on food
plants of the Asclepias, Chaenactis,
Lupinus, Medicago, Phacelia, and
Salvia genera (Williams et al. 2014).
Unlikely. While the project site contains
some potential foraging resources for the
Crotch bumblebee, it is situated in a
matrix of intensive agricultural,
residential, and commercial uses
incompatible with this species’ ecology.
Moreover, the Crotch bumble bee is
thought to be nearly extirpated from the
valley floor (CDFW 2019). For these
reasons, it is unlikely to occur on site.
Conservancy Fairy Shrimp
(Branchinecta conservatio)
FE Occurs in large, turbid vernal pools in
grasslands of the northern two-thirds of
the Central Valley.
Absent. Suitable habitat in the form of
vernal pools is absent from the site and
immediately surrounding lands.
Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp
(Branchinecta lynchi)
FT Primarily found in vernal pools of
California’s Central Valley.
Absent. Suitable habitat in the form of
vernal pools is absent from the site and
immediately surrounding lands.
Vernal Pool Tadpole Shrimp
(Lepidurus packardi)
FE Primarily found in vernal pools but may
use other seasonal wetlands in mesic
valley and foothill grasslands.
Absent. Suitable habitat in the form of
vernal pools is absent from the site and
immediately surrounding lands.
Steelhead - Central Valley
DPS
(Oncorhynchus mykiss
irideus pop. 11)
FT,
CSC
This slender-bodied fish is endemic to
the San Francisco Bay and SacramentoSan Joaquin Delta upstream through Contra Costa, Sacramento, San Joaquin,
Solano, and Yolo Counties.
Absent. Suitable habitat in the form of
streams is absent from the project site.
California Tiger Salamander
(Ambystoma californiense
pop. 1)
FT, CT Found primarily in annual grasslands;
requires vernal pools for breeding and
rodent burrows for aestivation.
Although most CTS aestivate within 0.4
mile of their breeding pond, outliers may
aestivate up to 1.3 miles away (Orloff
2011).
Absent. The project site and surrounding
areas have experienced decades of
agricultural disturbance and urban
development, eliminating any potential
habitat that may have once existed on and
within the vicinity of the project site. The
closest CNDDB occurrence is from 1999
and lies approximately 4.5 miles
southwest of the project site across
California State Route 99 (CDFW 2024).
Western Spadefoot
(Spea hammondii)
FPT,
CSC
Occurs in grasslands of San Joaquin
Valley, where it breeds in vernal pools
or other seasonal wetlands and aestivates
in underground refugia such as rodent
burrows. Baumberger et al. (2019)
recorded a mean maximum distance of
around 230 feet between breeding and
aestivation sites, with an overall
maximum of 890 feet.
Absent. Suitable breeding habitat is
absent from the site and surrounding lands
and there are no CNDDB occurrences
within the vicinity of the project site
(CDFW 2024).
TABLE 1. LIST OF SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES THAT COULD OCCUR IN THE
PROJECT VICINITY
d'\---------
16 ANIMALS (cont’d)
Species Listed as Threatened or Endangered under the State and/or Federal Endangered Species Act Species Status Habitat Occurrence on the Project Site
Northwestern Pond Turtle
(Actinemys marmorata)
FPT,
CSC
Found in ponds, marshes, rivers,
streams, and irrigation ditches with
aquatic vegetation. Requires partially
submerged rocks or logs or sandy banks
for basking sites. Nesting takes place in
open areas, on a variety of soil types, and
up to ¼ mile away from water.
Unlikely. The project site’s irrigation
ditches do not have a sufficient inundation
regime for this species. An irrigation canal
lies approximately 85 ft south of the
southern border of the project site.
Although historical imagery shows the
irrigation canal primarily inundated with
water throughout the year, northwestern
pond turtles are unlikely to be found here
due to the steep edges of the canal, lack of
basking habitat, and proximity to a busy
street and residential development. The
closest known CNDDB occurrence is an
undated occurrence 5 miles south of the
project across California State Route 99
(CDFW 2024).
Blunt-Nosed Leopard Lizard
(Gambelia sila)
FE, CE,
CFP
Occurs in semiarid grasslands, alkali
flats, and washes. Avoids densely
vegetated areas. Inhabits the San
Joaquin Valley and adjacent valleys and
foothills north to southern Merced
County.
Absent. Historical agricultural
disturbance and urban development in and
around the site has created unsuitable
habitat for this species and there are no
CNDDB occurrences within the vicinity
of the project site (CDFW 2024).
Giant Garter Snake
(Thamnophis gigas)
FT, CT,
CFP
Occurs in marshes, sloughs, drainage
canals, irrigation ditches, rice fields, and
adjacent uplands. Prefers locations with
emergent vegetation for cover and open
areas for basking. Inhabit small mammal
burrows and other upland soil crevices
during the winter during hibernation.
Absent. The giant garter snake was
historically known from the area; there is
a CNDDB occurrence from 1908 that was
mapped to the general vicinity of the City
of Merced (CDFW 2024). Since that time,
the species has undergone a dramatic
reduction in its range. The closest known
extant population is in the North and
South Grasslands region, some 20 miles
west of the project site (USFWS 2012).
Tricolored Blackbird
(Agelaius tricolor)
CT Nests colonially near fresh water in
dense cattails or tules, in thickets of
willows or shrubs, and increasingly in
grain fields. Forages in grassland and
cropland areas.
Possible. Tricolored blackbirds are
occasionally sighted in the general project
vicinity, and may occasionally pass
through or forage on site, though this
species is not expected to nest on site or in
the near vicinity. Analysis of aerial
imagery indicates the site’s agricultural
field is typically planted to row
vegetables, and not to crops suitable for
tricolored blackbird nesting such as wheat,
soy, or triticale.
TABLE 1. LIST OF SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES THAT COULD OCCUR IN THE
PROJECT VICINITY
d'\---------
17 ANIMALS (cont’d)
Species Listed as Threatened or Endangered under the State and/or Federal Endangered Species Act Species Status Habitat Occurrence on the Project Site
Swainson’s Hawk
(Buteo swainsoni)
CT This breeding migrant to California
nests in mature trees in riparian areas
and oak savannah, and occasionally in
lone trees at the margins of agricultural
fields. Requires adjacent suitable
foraging areas such as grasslands or
alfalfa fields supporting rodent
populations.
Likely. There are over 50 sightings of
Swainson’s hawks within the vicinity of
the project site and 30 CNDDB
documented nesting occurrences within
10 miles of the project site (CDFW 2024,
eBird 2024). The project site offers
suitable foraging habitat for this species in
the form of an agricultural field. The
project site does not offer any nesting
habitat, though mature trees within the
vicinity of the project site represent
potential nesting habitat. The high number
of sightings and nesting occurrences
within the area make it likely for this
species to occur on site.
Bald Eagle
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
CE,
CFP
Nests and winters on ocean shores, lake
margins and rivers. Uses old-growth
snags. Mostly forages over water and
along shores.
Unlikely. There are several eBird
sightings of bald eagles within 10 miles of
the project site and one unknown dated
CNDDB nesting occurrence
approximately 6 miles north of the project
site at Lake Yosemite (CDFW 2024, eBird
2024). Bald eagles are not expected to
forage or nest on or near the site due to
lack of suitable habitat. They may
occasionally fly over the site.
San Joaquin Kit Fox (SJKF)
(Vulpes macrotis mutica)
FE, CT Frequents desert alkali scrub and annual
grasslands. Utilizes enlarged ground
squirrel burrows as denning habitat.
May become adapted to urban
environments, as has occurred in the
cities of Bakersfield, Taft, and Coalinga.
Unlikely. The project site is situated in the
outskirts of Merced, in an area
characterized by residential, commercial,
and intensive agricultural uses generally
not compatible with kit fox ecology. No
recent records of this species are known
from the project vicinity; the four CNDDB
occurrences within 10 miles of the site are
all from 2001 or earlier, and there are no
iNaturalist records within 20 miles.
Finally, the site is located over 40 miles
away from the nearest SJKF core
population in the Ciervo-Panoche region.
For these reasons, the SJKF is considered
unlikely to occur on site.
TABLE 1. LIST OF SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES THAT COULD OCCUR IN THE
PROJECT VICINITY
d'\---------
18 ANIMALS (cont’d)
California Species of Special Concern or Fully Protected Species Status Habitat Occurrence on the Project Site
Hardhead
(Mylopharadon
conocephalus)
CSC Occurs in clear deep streams with a slow
but present flow, in a low to midelevation environment. May also inhabit lakes or reservoirs. Spawns in pools,
runs, or rifles with a gravel and rocky
substrate.
Absent. Suitable habitat in the form of
streams is absent from the project site
Burrowing Owl
(Athene cunicularia)
CSC Frequents open, dry annual or perennial
grasslands, deserts, and scrublands
characterized by low growing
vegetation. Dependent upon burrowing
mammals, most notably the California
ground squirrel, for nest burrows.
Possible. Burrowing owls are unlikely
to nest or roost on site due to intensive
agricultural practices in the oat field and
tall, dense vegetative cover in the
ruderal field. Burrowing owls may
occasionally pass through or forage on
site, if present in the vicinity. The
closest CNDDB occurrences of this
species are approximately 4.25 miles
west of the project site at the Merced
Municipal Airport (CDFW 2024).
Mountain Plover
(Charadrius montanus)
CSC This species is a winter resident of
California’s Central and Imperial
Valleys, where it forages in short
grasslands and freshly plowed fields.
Breeds in the western Great Plains and
Rocky Mountain states.
Possible. The site’s agricultural field
could provide foraging habitat for
wintering mountain plovers. This
species does not breed in the region.
Northern Harrier
(Circus cyaneus)
CSC Nests on the ground and forages in
meadows, grasslands, open rangelands,
freshwater emergent wetlands;
uncommon in wooded habitats.
Possible. This species has been spotted
in the general vicinity of the project site
but is not a common visitor and there are
no CNDDB nesting records within 10
miles of the project site (CDFW 2024,
eBird 2024). Nevertheless, the project
site and surrounding lands provide some
suitable foraging and nesting habitat for
this species. Northern harriers will
occasionally nest in dry, open fields if
preferable habitat is unavailable, and the
site’s agricultural field and ruderal field
could conceivably be used for this
purpose.
Pallid Bat
(Antrozous pallidus)
CSC Roosts in rocky outcrops, cliffs, and
crevices with access to open habitats for
foraging. May also roost in caves, mines,
hollow trees and buildings.
Possible. Pallid bats could forage over
the site, but roosting habitat is absent.
Western Mastiff Bat
(Eumops perotis ssp.
californicus)
CSC Frequents open, semi-arid to arid
habitats, including conifer, and
deciduous woodlands, coastal scrub,
grasslands, palm oasis, chaparral and
urban. Roosts in cliff faces, high
buildings, and tunnels.
Possible. The western mastiff bat could
forage over the site, but roosting habitat
is absent.
TABLE 1. LIST OF SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES THAT COULD OCCUR IN THE
PROJECT VICINITY
d'\---------
19 ANIMALS (cont’d)
California Species of Special Concern or Fully Protected Species Status Habitat Occurrence on the Project Site
Western Red Bat
(Lasiurus blossevillii)
CSC This mostly solitary bat roosts primarily
in trees, 2-40 feet above ground, from
sea level up through mixed conifer
forests. Prefers habitat edges and
mosaics with trees that are protected
from above and open below with open
areas for foraging.
Possible. The western red bat could
forage over the site, but roosting habitat
is absent.
American Badger
(Taxidea taxus)
CSC Found in drier open stages of most
shrub, forest, and herbaceous habitats
with friable soils. Utilize subterranean
burrows, usually self-dug, for rest and
reproduction.
Unlikely. The project site is located in
the outskirts of Merced, in an area
characterized by residential,
commercial, and intensive agricultural
uses generally not compatible with
badger ecology. The site itself is highly
disturbed and unlikely to be occupied or
utilized by American badgers.
OCCURRENCE DESIGNATIONS AND STATUS CODES
Present: Species observed on the site at time of field surveys or during recent past.
Likely: Species not observed on the site, but it may reasonably be expected to occur there on a regular basis.
Possible: Species not observed on the site, but it could occur there from time to time.
Unlikely: Species not observed on the site, and would not be expected to occur there except, perhaps, as a transient.
Absent: Species not observed on the site and precluded from occurring there because habitat requirements not met.
STATUS CODES
FE Federally Endangered CE California Endangered
FT Federally Threatened CT California Threatened
FC Federal Candidate CCE California Candidate Endangered CFP California Fully Protected
CSC California Species of Special Concern
CR California Rare
CRPR CODES
1A Plants Presumed Extinct in California 2 Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in 1B Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California, but more common elsewhere California and elsewhere
2.5 JURISDICTIONAL WATERS
Jurisdictional waters are those rivers, creeks, drainages, lakes, ponds, reservoirs, and wetlands that are subject to the authority of the USACE, CDFW, and/or the RWQCB. In general, the USACE regulates navigable waters, tributaries to navigable waters, and wetlands with a continuous surface connection to these waters, where wetlands are defined by the presence of hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and wetland hydrology. All waters under USACE jurisdiction are also regulated by the RWQCB as waters of the State. Additionally, the RWQCB asserts jurisdiction over certain isolated TABLE 1. LIST OF SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES THAT COULD OCCUR IN THE
PROJECT VICINITY
d'\---------
20 features disclaimed by the USACE. The CDFW has jurisdiction over waters that have a defined bed and bank. The regulation of jurisdictional waters is discussed in more detail in Section 3.2.7.
The project site contains two irrigation ditches that are depicted as blue-line waters on USGS topographical maps. With the development of Campus Parkway and other land use changes in the vicinity, both ditches appear to have been modified from their historic blue-line course, and are difficult to track in aerial imagery. The ditch along the eastern margin of the site’s oat field appears to connect to Miles Creek approximately ½ mile south of project boundaries. As a tributary to a known Water of the U.S., it may itself be considered a Water of the U.S. by the USACE if it carries “relatively permanent” flows (see Section 3.2.7). The lack of wetland vegetation observed during the field survey, combined with limited evidence of inundation in Google Earth aerial imagery, suggests that it might not meet this standard. Regardless, it is likely to fall under the jurisdiction of the RWQCB as a Water of the State.
The ditch running east to west that separates the oat field from the ruderal field appears to either terminate or be undergrounded approximately 700 feet west of project boundaries and is no longer in use. Its vegetative community was indistinguishable from that of the ruderal field at the time of LOA’s survey, and there are no Google Earth aerial images in which it is obviously inundated. As such, it may be a remnant feature. This ditch does not meet the current definition of a Water of the U.S. and is also not likely to be regulated by the RWQCB.
Neither of the project site’s two ditches would fall under CDFW’s jurisdiction.
2.6 SENSITIVE NATURAL COMMUNITIES
California contains a wide range of natural communities, or unique assemblages of plants and animals. These communities have largely been classified and mapped by CDFW as part of their Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program (VegCAMP). Natural communities are assigned state and global ranks according to their rarity and the magnitude and trend of the threats they face.
Any natural community with a state rank of 3 or lower (on a 1 to 5 scale) is considered “sensitive” and must be considered in CEQA review.
The project site does not contain or adjoin any sensitive natural communities. d'\---------
21 2.7 WILDLIFE MOVEMENT CORRIDORS
Wildlife movement corridors are routes that animals regularly and predictably follow during seasonal migration, dispersal from native ranges, daily travel within home ranges, and interpopulation movements. Movement corridors in California are typically associated with valleys, ridgelines, and rivers and creeks supporting riparian vegetation.
The project site does not contain any features likely to function as wildlife movement corridors.
2.8 DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT
The USFWS often designates areas of “critical habitat” when it lists species as threatened or endangered. Critical habitat is a specific geographic area(s) that contains features essential for the conservation of a threatened or endangered species and that may require special management and protection.
Designated critical habitat is absent from the project site and immediate vicinity. d'\---------
22 3.0 RELEVANT GOALS, POLICIES, AND LAWS
3.1 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
In California, any project carried out or approved by a public agency that will result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment must comply with CEQA. The purpose of CEQA is to ensure that a project’s potential impacts on the environment are evaluated and methods for avoiding or reducing these impacts are considered before the project is allowed to move forward. A secondary aim of CEQA is to provide justification to the public for the approval of any projects involving significant impacts on the environment.
According to Section 15382 of the CEQA Guidelines, a significant effect on the environment means a “substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic interest.” Although the lead agency may set its own CEQA significance thresholds, project impacts to biological resources are generally considered to be significant if they would meet any of the following criteria established in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines:
• 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 CDFW or USFWS.
• Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by CDFW or USFWS.
• 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.
• Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.
• Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.
• Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. d'\---------
23 Furthermore, CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a) requires the lead agency to make “mandatory findings of significance” if there is substantial evidence that a project may:
• Substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare or threatened species. • Achieve short-term environmental goals to the detriment of long-term environmental goals.
• Produce environmental effects that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable, meaning that the incremental effects of the project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects.
3.2 OTHER RELEVANT LAWS AND POLICIES
3.2.1 Merced Vision 2030 General Plan
Cities and counties adopt general plans to guide future development and to protect and/or enhance natural and cultural resources. In general, projects must be consistent with the goals and policies of these general plans. The Merced Vision 2030 General plan was adopted in 2012. The “Open Space, Conservation & Recreation” element of the plan addresses the City of Merced’s policies towards these resources. The goals with respect to biological resources are as follows:
• Maintain Merced’s biological resources by identifying and mitigating impacts to wildlife habitats that support rare, endangered, or threatened species; • Preserve and enhance creeks in their natural states;
• Expand and improve the City’s urban forest;
• Preserve scenic corridors and resources;
• Improve and enhance water quality;
d'\---------
24 3.2.2 Threatened and Endangered Species
In California, imperiled plants and animals may be afforded special legal protections under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) and/or Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA). Species may be listed as “threatened” or “endangered” under one or both Acts, and/or as “rare” under CESA. Under both Acts, “endangered” means a species is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and “threatened” means a species is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future. Under CESA, “rare” means a species may become endangered if their present environment worsens. Both Acts prohibit “take” of listed species, defined under CESA as “to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture or kill” (California Fish and Game Code, Section 86), and more broadly defined under FESA to include “harm” (16 USC, Section 1532(19), 50 CFR, Section 17.3). The USFWS commonly interprets “take” to include the loss of habitat utilized by a listed species.
When state and federally listed species have the potential to be impacted by a project, the USFWS and CDFW must be included in the CEQA process. These agencies review the environmental document to determine the adequacy of its treatment of endangered species issues and to make project-specific recommendations for the protection of listed species. Projects that may result in the “take” of listed species must generally enter into consultation with the USFWS and/or CDFW pursuant to FESA and CESA, respectively. In some cases, incidental take authorization(s) from these agencies may be required before the project can be implemented.
3.2.3 Migratory Birds
The Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (FMBTA: 16 USC 703-712) prohibits killing, possessing, or trading in any bird species covered in one of four international conventions to which the United States is a party, except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior.
The name of the act is misleading, as it actually covers almost all birds native to the United States, even those that are non-migratory. The FMBTA encompasses whole birds, parts of birds, and bird nests and eggs.
d'\---------
25 Native birds are also protected under California state law. The California Fish and Game Code makes it unlawful to take or possess any non-game bird covered by the FMBTA (Section 3513), as well as any other native non-game bird (Section 3800), even if incidental to lawful activities.
3.2.4 Birds of Prey
Birds of prey are also protected in California under provisions of the State Fish and Game Code, Section 3503.5, 1992), which states that it is “unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the order Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds of prey) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto.” Construction disturbance during the breeding season could result in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings, or otherwise lead to nest abandonment. Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort is considered “taking” by the CDFW.
3.2.5 Nesting Birds
In California, protection is afforded to the nests and eggs of all birds. California Fish and Game Code (Section 3503) states that it is “unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto.” Breeding-season disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort is considered a form of “take” by the CDFW.
3.2.6 Habitat Conservation Plans and Natural Community Conservation Plans Section 10 of the federal Endangered Species Act establishes a process by which non-federal projects can obtain authorization to incidentally take listed species, provided take is minimized and thoroughly mitigated. A Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), developed by the project applicant in collaboration with the USFWS and/or NMFS, ensures that such minimization and mitigation will occur, and is a prerequisite to the issuance of a federal incidental take permit. Similarly, a Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), developed by the project applicant in collaboration with CDFW, provides for the conservation of biodiversity within a project area, and permits limited incidental take of state-listed species. d'\---------
26 3.2.7 Wetlands and Other Jurisdictional Waters
Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into “navigable waters” (33 U.S.C. §1344), defined in the CWA as “the waters of the United States, including the territorial seas” (33 U.S.C. §1362(7)). The CWA does not supply a definition for waters of the U.S., and that has been the subject of considerable debate since the CWA’s passage in 1972. A variety of regulatory definitions have been promulgated by the two federal agencies responsible for implementing the CWA, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and USACE. These definitions have been interpreted, and in some cases, invalidated, by federal courts.
Waters of the U.S. are presently defined by the EPA and USACE’s joint 2023 Revised Definition of ‘Waters of the U.S.’ Rule (2023 WOTUS Rule), issued in January 2023 and amended in August 2023. Generally speaking, waters of the U.S. include:
• Waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide
• The territorial seas
• Interstate waters
• Impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under the definition
• Tributaries to other waters of the U.S. that are relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water
• Wetlands adjacent to other waters of the U.S. that have a continuous surface connection to those waters
The 2023 WOTUS Rule also defines a number of exclusions from the definition of waters of the U.S., many of which are longstanding exclusions from earlier regulatory regimes. These generally include:
• Waste treatment systems
• Prior converted cropland
d'\---------
27 • Ditches excavated wholly in and draining only dry land that do not carry a relatively permanent flow of water
• Certain artificial features, e.g. irrigation basins, swimming pools, borrow pits, and artificially irrigated areas
• Swales and erosional features characterized by low volume, infrequent, or short duration flow
All activities that involve the discharge of dredge or fill material into waters of the U.S. are subject to the permit requirements of the USACE. Such permits are typically issued on the condition that the applicant agrees to provide mitigation that result in no net loss of wetland functions or values.
Under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1969, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) has regulatory authority to protect the water quality of all surface water and groundwater in the State of California (“waters of the State”). Nine RWQCBs oversee water quality at the local and regional level. The RWQCB for a given region regulates discharges of fill or pollutants into waters of the State through the issuance of various permits and orders.
Discharges into waters of the State that are also waters of the U.S. require a Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the RWQCB as a prerequisite to obtaining a Section 404 Clean Water Act permit. Discharges into waters of the State that are not also waters of the U.S. require Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs), or waivers of WDRs, from the RWQCB.
The SWRCB and RWQCBs also administer the federal National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program, which is concerned with the discharge of stormwater and other pollutants into water bodies. Projects that disturb one or more acres of soil must obtain coverage under the SWRCB’s current NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit. A prerequisite for permit coverage is the development of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) by a certified Qualified SWPPP Developer. Other types of pollutant discharges into waters of the U.S., such as wastewater, may require coverage under a different NPDES general permit, and in some cases an individual permit.
CDFW has jurisdiction over the bed and bank of natural drainages and lakes according to provisions of Section 1601 and 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code. Activities that may substantially modify such waters through the diversion or obstruction of their natural flow, change or use of any material from their bed or bank, or the deposition of debris require a Notification of d'\---------
28 Lake or Streambed Alteration. If CDFW determines that the activity may adversely affect fish and wildlife resources, a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement will be prepared. Such an agreement typically stipulates that certain measures will be implemented to protect the habitat values of the lake or drainage in question.
d'\---------
29 4.0 IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS
The following discussions address the potential impacts to biological resources from development of the 73.7-acre mixed-use project in southeast Merced.
4.1 POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT PROJECT IMPACTS/MITIGATION
4.1.1 Potential Project Impacts to Nesting Birds and Raptors Including Northern Harrier and Swainson’s Hawk
Potential Impacts. The project site has the potential to be used for nesting and foraging by several avian species including northern harrier, a California Species of Special Concern. Other birds and raptors, among them the state-threatened Swainson’s hawk, may nest on adjacent lands and forage on site. Nearly all native birds are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and related state laws. Foraging birds and raptors are generally not susceptible to construction-related injury and mortality because they are highly mobile during this activity and can simply avoid active work areas. However, during the breeding season, adult birds have reduced mobility as they attempt to guard their nests, incubate eggs, and care for young, and nestlings may have no mobility at all.
Nests may be destroyed by construction equipment, and the birds inside injured or killed. Noise and other forms of disturbance from nearby construction activities may cause birds to abandon their nests. Construction-related mortality of nesting birds and construction-related disturbance leading to nest abandonment are potentially significant impacts of the project. Moreover, such incidents would violate the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code.
The project site is not expected to significantly impact the northern harrier or Swainson’s hawk through loss of habitat as many more miles of similar or higher quality habitat exist in the vicinity of the project site. Loss of habitat for these species is not considered a significant impact of the project under CEQA.
Mitigation. The following measures will be implemented for the protection of nesting birds and raptors, including the northern harrier and Swainson’s hawk.
Mitigation Measure 4.1.1a (Construction Timing). If feasible, future construction activities will take place entirely outside of the avian nesting season, defined here as February 1 to August 31.
d'\---------
30 Mitigation Measure 4.1.1b (Preconstruction Surveys). If construction must occur between February 1 and August 31, a qualified biologist will conduct surveys for active bird nests within 10 days prior to the start of work during this period. The survey area will encompass the site and accessible surrounding lands within ¼ mile for nesting Swainson’s hawks, 500 feet for northern harrier and other nesting raptors, and 250 feet for nesting birds.
Mitigation Measure 4.1.1c (Avoidance of Active Nests). Should any active nests be discovered in or near proposed construction zones, the biologist will identify a suitable construction-free buffer around the nest. This buffer will be identified on the ground with flagging or fencing and will be maintained until the biologist has determined that the young have fledged and are capable of foraging independently.
Implementation of the above measures will reduce potential project impacts to nesting birds and raptors, including the northern harrier and Swainson’s hawk, to a less than significant level under CEQA and ensure compliance with state and federal laws protecting these species.
4.2 LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT PROJECT IMPACTS
4.2.1 Potential Project Impacts to Special Status Plants Potential Impacts. Twenty-seven special status plant species have been documented in the general vicinity of the project site (see Table 1). All 27 species are considered absent from the project site due to an absence of suitable habitat. The project is not expected to adversely affect these species, either directly or indirectly, and impacts are considered less than significant under CEQA.
Mitigation. No mitigation is warranted.
4.2.2 Project Impacts to Special Status Animal Species Absent from or Unlikely to Occur on the Project Site
Potential Impacts. Twenty-two special status animalspecies have been documented in the general vicinity of the project site or are known to occur regionally (Table 1). Of these, 14 are considered absent from or unlikely to occur on the site due to the absence of suitable habitat, the site’s developed setting and other landscape factors, and/or the site’s being situated outside of the species’ known distribution. These comprise Crotch bumblebee (Bombus crotchii), conservancy fairy shrimp (Branchinecta conservatio), vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi), vernal pool tadpole shrimp (Lepidurus packardi), steelhead - Central Valley DPS (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop. 11), California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense pop. 1), western spadefoot d'\---------
31 (Spea hammondii), northwestern pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata), blunt-nosed leopard lizard (Gambelia sila), giant garter snake (Thamnophis gigas), San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis muitca), hardhead (Mylopharadon conocephalus), bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), and American badger (Taxidea taxus). Because these species have no appreciable potential to occur on site, they are not expected to be affected by the project, directly or indirectly. Project impacts are considered less than significant under CEQA.
Mitigation. Mitigation measures are not warranted.
4.2.3 Project Impacts to Special Status Animal Species that Would Use the Site for Nonsensitive Activities Only Potential Impacts. Six special status animal species potentially occur on site, but are not expected to use the site for sensitive activities such as breeding, nesting, or communal roosting, nor are they likely to breed, nest, or communally roost close enough to the site that they would be vulnerable to construction-related disturbance during these activities. These species are the tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), mountain plover (Charadrius montanus), pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis ssp. californicus), and western red bat (Lassiurus blossevillii) (see Table 1).
Individuals of these species are unlikely to be injured or killed by construction activities because they are highly mobile while foraging or passing through and would be expected to simply avoid active work areas.
The project would not adversely affect any of these species through loss of foraging habitat. The site does not offer unique habitat for any of these species, nor is it likely to represent an important part of any individual foraging range, given its disturbed nature and developed setting. Similar and higher quality habitats are abundant in the project vicinity and elsewhere in the region. For these reasons, impacts to the tricolored blackbird, burrowing owl, mountain plover, pallid bad, western mastiff bat, and western red bat are considered less than significant under CEQA.
Mitigation. Mitigation is not warranted.
d'\---------
32 4.2.4 Project Impacts to Wildlife Movement Corridors Potential Impacts. The project site does not contain or adjoin any geographic features that could function as a wildlife movement corridor. Project impacts to wildlife movement corridors are considered less than significant under CEQA.
Mitigation. Mitigation is not warranted.
4.2.5 Project Impacts to Sensitive Natural Communities and Critical Habitat Potential Impacts. The project site does not contain or adjoin any sensitive natural communities or designated critical habitat. There will be no impact to such resources.
Mitigation. Mitigation is not warranted.
4.2.6 Project Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters
Potential Impacts. As discussed, the irrigation ditch running east to west that separates the oat field from the ruderal field does not meet the current definition of a Water of the US and is not likely to be regulated by state agencies. Furthermore, the ditch is abandoned and no longer in use.
Impacts to this ditch are considered less than significant and will have no impact on jurisdictional waters.
The irrigation ditch running along the eastern border of the site, south of Campus Parkway, has some potential to be a jurisdictional water, however, as designed the project will avoid this ditch.
Mitigation. Mitigation is not warranted.
4.2.7 Consistency with Local Policies and Ordinances
Potential Impacts. The project appears consistent with the Merced Vision 2030 General Plan and policies related to biological resources.
Mitigation. Mitigation measures are not warranted.
d'\---------
33 4.2.8 Consistency with Habitat Conservation Plans and Natural Community Conservation Plans
Potential Impacts. At the time of this analysis there are no known HCPs or NCCPs that would apply to the project.
Mitigation. Mitigation measures are not warranted.
d'\---------
34 5.0 LITERATURE REFERENCED
Baldwin, B.G., D.H. Goldman, D.J. Keil, R. Patterson, T.J. Rosatti, and D. G. Wilken, editors. 2012. The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, second edition. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Calflora. 2024. Calflora: An online database of plant identification and distribution [web application]. Calflora, Berkeley, California. Available online at: http://www.calflora.org.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2024. California Natural Diversity Database.
The Resources Agency, Sacramento, CA.
California Native Plant Society. 2024. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. Available online at: http://cnps.site.aplus.net/cgi-bin/inv/inventory.cgi. eBird. 2024. eBird: An online database of bird distribution and abundance [web application]. eBird, Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. Available: http://www.ebird.org.
Historical Aerials. 2024. Nationwide Environmental Title Research. [web application]. https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer
iNaturalist. 2024. Available: https://www.inaturalist.org/ Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2024. Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Web Soil Survey.
Available online at: https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx.
NRCS. 2011. National Hydric Soils List by State, California. U.S. Department of Agriculture.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual.
Department of the Army.
Zeiner, David C., William F. Laudenslayer, Kenneth E. Mayer and Marshal White. Ed. 1988.
California’s wildlife, volume I, amphibians and reptiles, volume II, birds, and volume III, mammals. Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA. (Online:
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/cawildlife.aspx). d'\---------
35 APPENDIX A: VASCULAR PLANT LIST
d'\---------
36 APPENDIX A
VASCULAR PLANTS OF THE PROJECT SITE
In addition to the site’s crop species, the plants listed below were observed on the project site during LOA’s August 19, 2024 survey. The wetland indicator status of each plant, derived from the USACE-administered National Wetland Plant List for the Arid West Region, has been shown following its common name if available.
OBL - Obligate
FACW - Facultative Wetland
FAC - Facultative
FACU - Facultative Upland
UPL – Upland
ASTERACEAE – Sunflower Family
Carduus pycnocephalus Italian Thistle UPL
Centaurea solstitialis Yellow Star Thistle UPL
Centromadia pungens Common Spikeweed FAC
Erigeron bonariensis Flax-leaved Horseweed FACU
Helianthus annuus Sunflower FACU
Lactuca serriola Prickly Lettuce FACU
Silybum marianum Milk Thistle UPL
APOCYNACEAE – Dogbane Family
Asclepias fascicularis Narrowleaf Milkweed FAC
BRASSICACEAE – Mustard Family
Brassica nigra Black Mustard UPL
CHENOPODIACEAE – Goosefoot Family
Salsola tragus Russian Tumbleweed FACU
CONVOLVULACEAE – Morning Glory Family
Convolvulus arvensis Field Bindweed UPL
EUPHORBIACEAE – Spurge Family
Croton setiger Turkey-mullein UPL
JUGLANDACEAE – Walnut Family
Juglans hindsii Northern California Black Walnut FAC
LAMIACEAE – Mint Family
Trichostema lanceolatum Vinegarweed FACU
MALVACEAE – Mallow Family
Malva parviflora Cheeseweed UPL
ONAGRACEAE – Evening Primrose Family
Epilobium brachycarpum Panicle Willowherb FAC
POACEAE – Grass Family
Avena fatua Wild Oat UPL
Phalaris minor Mediterranean Canarygrass FAC
d'\---------
37 Sorghum halepense Johnson Grass FACU
POLYGONACEAE – Buckwheat Family
Rumex crispus Curly Dock FAC
SOLANACEAE – Nightshade Family
Datura wrightii Jimsonweed UPL
d'\---------
38 APPENDIX B: TERRESTRIAL VERTEBRATE SPECIES THAT POTENTIALLY
OCCUR ON THE PROJECT SITE
d'\---------
39 APPENDIX B
TERRESTRIAL VERTEBRATE SPECIES THAT POTENTIALLY OCCUR
ON THE PROJECT SITE
The species listed below are those that may be expected to routinely and predictably use or pass through the project site during some or all of the year. An asterisk denotes a species observed on or immediately adjacent to the site during surveys conducted for the current project by LOA on August 19, 2024.
CLASS: REPTILIA
ORDER: SQUAMATA (Lizards and Snakes)
SUBORDER: SAURIA (Lizards)
FAMILY: PHRYNOSOMATIDAE
Side-blotched Lizard (Uta stansburiana)
Western Fence Lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis)
FAMILY: TEIIDAE (Whiptails and relatives)
Western Whiptail (Cnemidophorus tigris)
SUBORDER: SERPENTES (Snakes)
FAMILY: COLUBRIDAE (Colubrids)
Pacific Gopher Snake (Pituophis catenifer catenifer)
Common Kingsnake (Lampropeltis californiae)
FAMILY: VIPERIDAE (Vipers)
Western Rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis)
CLASS: AVES
ORDER: CICONIIFORMES (Herons, Storks, Ibises and Relatives) FAMILY: ARDEIDAE (Bitterns, Herons, and Egrets)
Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias)
*Great Egret (Ardea alba)
ORDER: CICONIIFORMES (Herons, Storks, Ibises and Relatives) FAMILY: CATHARTIDAE (New World Vultures)
Turkey Vulture (Cathartes aura)
ORDER: FALCONIFORMES (Vultures, Hawks, and Falcons)
FAMILY: ACCIPITRIDAE (Hawks, Old World Vultures, and Harriers) *Red-tailed Hawk (Buteo jamaicensis)
FAMILY: FALCONIDAE (Caracaras and Falcons)
*American Kestrel (Falco sparverius)
ORDER: CHARADRIIFORMES (Shorebirds, Gulls, and relatives) FAMILY: CHARADRIIDAE (Plovers and relatives)
Killdeer (Charadrius vociferus)
ORDER: COLUMBIFORMES (Pigeons and Doves)
FAMILY: COLUMBIDAE (Pigeons and Doves)
Rock Pigeon (Columba livia)
*Mourning Dove (Zenaida macroura)
Eurasian Collared Dove (Streptopelia decaocto)
ORDER: STRIGIFORMES (Owls)
FAMILY: TYTONIDAE (Barn Owls)
d'\---------
40 Barn Owl (Tyto alba)
ORDER: APODIFORMES (Swifts and Hummingbirds)
FAMILY: TROCHILIDAE (Hummingbirds)
Black-chinned Hummingbird (Archilochus alexandri)
Anna’s Hummingbird (Calypte anna)
ORDER: PASSERIFORMES (Perching Birds)
FAMILY: TYRANNIDAE (Tyrant Flycatchers)
Black Phoebe (Sayornis nigricans)
Say’s Phoebe (Sayornis saya)
*Western Kingbird (Tyrannus verticalis)
FAMILY: CORVIDAE (Jays, Magpies, and Crows)
California Scrub Jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens)
*American Crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos)
Common Raven (Corvus corax)
FAMILY: ALAUDIDAE (Larks)
Horned Lark (Eremophila alpestris)
FAMILY: HIRUNDINIDAE (Swallows)
Cliff Swallow (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota)
Barn Swallow (Hirundo rustica)
FAMILY: AEGITHALIDAE (Bushtits)
Bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus)
FAMILY: TROGLODYTIDAE (Wrens)
House Wren (Troglodytes aedon)
FAMILY: REGULIDAE (Kinglets)
Ruby-crowned Kinglet (Regulus calendula)
FAMILY: TURDIDAE (Thrushes)
American Robin (Turdus migratorius)
FAMILY: MIMIDAE (Mockingbirds and Thrashers)
*Northern Mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos)
FAMILY: PARULIDAE (Wood Warblers and Relatives)
Yellow-rumped Warbler (Dendroica coronata)
FAMILY: STURNIDAE (Starlings and Allies)
European Starling (Sturnus vulgaris)
FAMILY: MOTACILLIDAE (Wagtails and Pipits)
American Pipit (Anthus rubrescens)
FAMILY: EMBERIZIDAE (Sparrows)
Savannah Sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis)
White-crowned Sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys)
FAMILY: ICTERIDAE (Blackbirds, Orioles and Allies)
*Western Meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta)
Red-winged Blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus)
Great-tailed Grackle (Quiscalus mexicanus)
Brewer's Blackbird (Euphagus cyanocephalus)
Brown-headed Cowbird (Molothrus ater)
Bullock’s Oriole (Icterus bullockii)
FAMILY: FRINGILLIDAE (Finches)
d'\---------
41 House Finch (Carpodacus mexicanus)
Lesser Goldfinch (Carduelis psaltria)
FAMILY: PASSERIDAE (Old World Sparrows)
House Sparrow (Passer domesticus)
CLASS: MAMMALIA
ORDER: DIDELPHIMORPHIA (Marsupials)
FAMILY: DIDELPHIDAE (Opossums)
Virginia Opossum (Didelphis virginiana)
ORDER: INSECTIVORA (Shrews and Moles)
FAMILY: TALPIDAE (Moles)
Broad-footed Mole (Scapanus latimanus)
ORDER: CHIROPTERA (Bats)
FAMILY: VESPERTILIONIDAE (Vespertilionid Bats)
Yuma Myotis (Myotis yumanensis)
California Myotis (Myotis californicus)
Western Pipistrelle (Pipistrellus hesperus)
Big Brown Bat (Eptesicus fuscus)
FAMILY: MOLOSSIDAE (Free-tailed Bat)
Brazilian Free-tailed Bat (Tadarida brasiliensis)
ORDER: LAGOMORPHA (Rabbits, Hares, and Pikas)
FAMILY: LEPORIDAE (Rabbits and Hares)
Audubon’s Cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii)
ORDER: RODENTIA (Rodents)
FAMILY: SCIURIDAE (Squirrels, Chipmunks, and Marmots)
*California Ground Squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi)
FAMILY: GEOMYIDAE (Pocket Gophers)
*Botta’s Pocket Gopher (Thomomys bottae)
FAMILY: MURIDAE (Mice, Rats and Voles)
Western Harvest Mouse (Reithrodontomys megalotis)
Deer Mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus)
Norway Rat (Rattus norvegicus)
House Mouse (Mus musculus)
California Vole (Microtus californicus)
FAMILY: HETEROMYIDAE (Kangaroo Rats)
Heermann’s Kangaroo Rat (Dipodomys heermanni)
ORDER: CARNIVORA (Carnivores)
FAMILY: CANIDAE (Foxes, Wolves, and Relatives)
Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes)
Coyote (Canis latrans)
*Domestic Dog (Canis familiaris)
FAMILY: PROCYONIDAE (Raccoons and Relatives)
Raccoon (Procyon lotor)
FAMILY: MUSTELIDAE (Weasels and Relatives)
Striped Skunk (Mephitis mephitis)
FAMILY: FELIDAE (Cats)
Feral Cat (Felis cattus)
d'\---------
42 APPENDIX C: REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOS OF THE PROJECT SITE d'\---------
43 Photo 1: Southern portion of the site’s oat field, looking southwest.
Photo 2: Southern portion of the site’s oat field, looking north towards a California ground squirrel burrow matrix and the trees bordering Campus Parkway. 44 Photo 3: Northern portion of the site’s oat field, looking southeast.
Photo 4: Northern portion of the site’s oat field, facing southwest. Campus Parkway on left side of the image.
45 Photo 5: Northeast portion of the ruderal field in foreground with oat field in background.
Facing northwest.
Photo 6: Ruderal field habitat, facing west along the dry, overgrown irrigation ditch. At the time of LOA’s survey, the ditch was filled with oat and Russian thistle and virtually indistinguishable from the surrounding landscape.
APPENDIX C
CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY AND EVALUATION
USGS Merced, CA 7.5-quadrangle, T07S, R14E, Sec. 34
71.18-acre Project area
Resources: Doane Lateral (P-24-001886); Unnamed Earthen Ditch, 3345 East Gerard (P-24-001930) Cultural Resource Study and Evaluation for Merced
Gateway, City of Merced, California
Nicole Saenz and Cheyenne Good-Peery
Prepared By
Applied EarthWorks, Inc.
1391 W. Shaw Ave., Suite C
Fresno, CA 93711
Prepared For
Lennar Homes of California, LLC
8080 N. Palm Street, Suite 110
Fresno, CA 93711
November 2024
draft
DRAFT
M.
Cultural Resource Study and Evaluation for Merced Gateway ii
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
At the request of Lennar Homes of California, LLC, Applied EarthWorks, Inc. (Æ) completed a cultural resource study for the proposed Merced Gateway (Project) in the city of Merced in Merced County, California. The Project includes development of 562 single-family homes on a
71.18-acre lot southeast of the intersection of Pluim Drive and Gerard Avenue.
As part of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review process, the Development Review Committee of the City of Merced (City) has requested a cultural resource study be conducted for the Project to assist with the identification of historical resources within the Project area. CEQA mandates that public agencies determine whether a project will cause a significant change to the environment, including cultural resources. To assist the City and Lennar Homes of California, LLC in fulfilling their responsibility under CEQA, Ӕ conducted a cultural resource study to identify whether there are historical resources (i.e., cultural resources listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources [CRHR]) within the Project area.
For this study, Æ conducted a records search at the Central California Information Center (CCaIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS); desktop research to better understand the history of land use in the Project area; a search of the Native American Heritage Commission’s (NAHC) Sacred Lands File, and nongovernmental outreach to local tribes and individuals; an intensive pedestrian survey of the entire 71.18-acre Project area to identify archaeological and historical built environment cultural resources; and an evaluation of two historical built environment resources for listing in the CRHR.
The CCaIC records search returned three previously recorded historic-era cultural resources within the Project area—the Merced Irrigation District (P-24-001909), the Doane Lateral (P-24-001886), which is owned by the Merced Irrigation District, and a residential and agricultural property (P-24-001930)—and nine previously recorded cultural resources within a
0.5-mile radius. Additionally, the CCaIC reported 7 cultural resource studies previously conducted within the Project area and 14 previous studies within the 0.5-mile radius. A search of the NAHC’s Sacred Land File did not identify Native American cultural resources within or near the Project area, and no specific information was gleaned from outreach with local tribal representatives.
Ӕ conducted an archaeological pedestrian survey of the Project area on August 28 and November 8, 2024, and a built environment pedestrian survey on August 31, 2024. Ӕ archaeologists did not discover any precontact or historic-era archaeological resources within the Project area. One possibly historic-era straight razor was observed but not recorded due to lack of provenience. Æ architectural historians found that the previously recorded residential and agricultural property (P-24-001930) is no longer extant and identified two historic-era built environment resources within and adjacent to the Project area—the Doane Lateral (P-24-001886) and an unnamed earthen ditch. Although, the Doane Lateral (P-24-001886) is adjacent to the eastern boundary of the Project area, Æ recorded and evaluated this resource at the request of Lennar Homes of California, LLC, to facilitate potential future development. Æ evaluated the two water conveyances resources for CRHR eligibility and found both resources ineligible for DRAFT
Cultural Resource Study and Evaluation for Merced Gateway iii listing because they do not possess significance under any CRHR evaluation criteria. Therefore, they do not qualify as historical resources for the purposes of CEQA and no further action is recommended for the management of these cultural resources.
Ӕ’s cultural resource study found no historical resources within the Project area that could be impacted by the proposed development. However, if cultural resources are discovered during Project activities, all work should halt until a qualified archaeologist can assess the find.
Additionally, if human remains are uncovered during construction, the Project operator shall immediately halt work within 50 feet of the find, contact the Merced County Coroner to evaluate the remains, and follow the procedures and protocols set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e)(1). If the remains are identified on the basis of archaeological context, age, cultural associations, or biological traits to be those of a Native American person, then the California Health and Safety Code 7050.5 and Public Resource Code 5097.98 require that the county coroner notify the NAHC within 24 hours of discovery. The NAHC will then identify the Most Likely Descendant, who will be afforded the opportunity to recommend treatment of the ancestral human remains.
Field notes, maps, and a complete set of photographs from the current study are on file at Æ’s office in Fresno, California. A copy of the final version of this report will be submitted to the CCaIC of the CHRIS at California State University, Stanislaus.
DRAFT
Cultural Resource Study and Evaluation for Merced Gateway iv
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................1
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................1
1.2 REGULATORY GUIDANCE .................................................................................1
1.3 PROJECT PERSONNEL.........................................................................................5
1.4 REPORT ORGANIZATION ...................................................................................5 2 SETTING ............................................................................................................................7
2.1 NATURAL SETTING .............................................................................................7
2.2 PRECONTACT PERIOD AND ARCHAEOLOGY ...............................................8
2.3 ETHNOGRAPHY....................................................................................................9
2.4 HISTORIC CONTEXT .........................................................................................10
2.4.1 Beginnings of Merced County ...................................................................10
2.4.2 Merced Irrigation District ..........................................................................11
2.4.3 Agriculture in Merced County ...................................................................11 3 METHODS .......................................................................................................................12
3.1 RECORDS SEARCH ............................................................................................12
3.2 ARCHIVAL RESEARCH .....................................................................................12
3.3 NATIVE AMERICAN OUTREACH ....................................................................13
3.4 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND BUILT ENVIRONMENT FIELD
SURVEYS .............................................................................................................13 4 FINDINGS ........................................................................................................................14
4.1 RECORDS SEARCH ............................................................................................14
4.1.1 Previous Cultural Resource Studies ...........................................................14
4.1.2 Previously Recorded Resources .................................................................16
4.2 BACKGROUND RESEARCH .............................................................................18
4.2.1 Property-Specific History ..........................................................................18
4.3 NATIVE AMERICAN OUTREACH ....................................................................20
4.4 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY FINDINGS ......................................................21
4.5 BUILT ENVIRONMENT SURVEY FINDINGS .................................................24
4.5.1 Doane Lateral .............................................................................................24
4.5.2 Unnamed Earthen Ditch .............................................................................27 5 HISTORIC RESOURCE EVALUATIONS ..................................................................30
5.1 EVALUATION CRITERIA ..................................................................................30
5.2 ASPECTS OF INTEGRITY ..................................................................................31
5.3 CRHR EVALUATIONS .......................................................................................32
5.3.1 Doane Lateral .............................................................................................32
5.3.2 Unnamed Earthen Ditch .............................................................................34 6 SUMMARY AND MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS .................................36
6.1 SUMMARY ...........................................................................................................36
6.2 RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................37 DRAFT
Cultural Resource Study and Evaluation for Merced Gateway v
6.2.1 Inadvertent Discoveries .............................................................................37
6.2.2 Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains ................................................37 7 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................38
APPENDICES
A Personnel Qualifications
B Records Search Results
C Native American Outreach
D Cultural Resource Records
FIGURES AND TABLES
Figure 1-1 Project vicinity in Merced County, California. ........................................................2 Figure 1-2 Project location on USGS Merced 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle. .........................................................................................................3 Figure 1-3 Aerial view of the Project area. ................................................................................4 Figure 4-1 1957 aerial photograph with the Project area indicated in red. ..............................19 Figure 4-2 Survey coverage and cultural resources within the Project area. ...........................22 Figure 4-3 Ground visibility in the Project area, facing southwest. ........................................23 Figure 4-4 Tall grass and thistle in the area recorded as P-24-001930 in the northern portion of the Project area, facing south. ...........................................23 Figure 4-5 Depression of unknown purpose in the northern portion of the Project area, facing northwest. .........................................................................24 Figure 4-6 Undergrounded lateral north of Campus Parkway, facing north. ..........................25 Figure 4-7 Aboveground portion of the lateral with evidence of vegetation intrusion, facing north. .....................................................................................25 Figure 4-8 Trees growing in lateral and view of concrete culvert, facing east. ......................26 Figure 4-9 Metal post with debris and manhole, facing northeast. .........................................26 Figure 4-10 Culvert at west end of the underground diversion, left photo facing northeast. ..........................................................................................................27 Figure 4-11 Earthen ditch with severe vegetation intrusion from east end of the segment, facing west. .......................................................................................28 Figure 4-12 Concrete culvert on the bank of the segment, facing northeast. ............................28 Figure 4-13 Partially fallen fence along west side of the parcel, facing south. .........................29 Table 4-1 Previous Investigations in the Project Area and 0.5-Mile Search Radius ..............................................................................................................14 Table 4-2 Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within the Project Area and 0.5-Mile Search Radius .............................................................................16 DRAFT
Cultural Resource Study and Evaluation for Merced Gateway 1 1 INTRODUCTION
At the request of Lennar Homes of California, LLC, (Lennar) Applied EarthWorks, Inc. (Æ) completed a cultural resource study for the Merced Gateway (Project) within the city of Merced, Merced County, California (Figure 1-1). The Project is in the southwest quarter of Section 34 of Township 07 South, Range 14 East, as depicted on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Merced (1987) California, 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle (Figure 1-2). The Project area is a
71.18-acre lot southeast of the intersection of Pluim Drive and East Gerard Avenue, bisected by Campus Parkway (Figure 1-3).
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Lennar is proposing a 562-unit, single-family home community on 71.18-acres between East Gerard Avenue and East Mission Avenue, east of South Coffee Street and directly west of the northern portion of Campus Parkway, which curves west and divides the Project into north and south segments. Project designs also include construction of a 1.75-acre park and interior streets, curbs, and gutters. The future Pluim Drive will be constructed from curb to curb as an extension of the existing road to the north and will serve as the western border of the development. A traffic signal will be installed at the intersection of Pluim Drive and Campus Parkway.
Additionally, road widening will be completed on East Gerard and East Mission avenues.
The Project is within the larger Merced Irrigation District (MID) and the Doane Lateral (P-24-001886) runs just outside of the eastern border of the Project area. The MID does not warrant further study at this time (see Sections 2.4.2 and 4.1.2); however, Æ recorded and evaluated the Doane Lateral at the request of Lennar to facilitate potential future development in this area.
1.2 REGULATORY GUIDANCE
The Project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), with guidelines for implementation codified in the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 15000 et seq. Historical resources are considered part of the environment and are subject to review under CEQA. Per CEQA, the lead agency, in this case the City of Merced (City), is required to determine whether a project may have a significant effect on historical resources, and therefore cause a significant effect on the environment (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 5024.1[b]). CEQA defines a substantial adverse change to a historical resource as the “physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of a historical resource would be materially impaired” (14 CCR Section 15064.5[b][1]). Where substantial adverse change is unavoidable and the historical resource cannot be preserved in an undisturbed state, the lead agency shall require mitigation measures to minimize substantial adverse changes to the resource’s significance (PRC Section 21083.2[c]). It is further stipulated that the “lead agency shall ensure that any adopted measures to mitigate or avoid significant adverse changes are fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures” (14 CCR Section 15064.5[b][4]; PRC Section 5020.1[q]).
DRAFT
Cultural Resource Study and Evaluation for Merced Gateway 2 Figure 1-1 Project vicinity in Merced County, California.
PROJECT
VICINITY
0 10,000
0 20,000
5 30,000 40,000
10 Kilometers
50,000
Feet o
0 5 10
Miles
Scale: 1:250,000
jhaller 11/25/2024
National Geographic, Esri, Garmin, HERE, UNEP-WCMC, USGS, NASA, ESA, METI, NRCAN, GEBCO, NOAA, increment P Corp.
PROJECT VICINITY
DRAFT
\lll
t.)
t:
,,,
(U
>
i:::,
0:::
Winton c~stle
* rport .
..Atw
......
0 -p
0 c:.
MercecilMuni
Macre·1dy Fld
-z
Sand) ,1ush Rd -P
rr
-<.
E-----3
:t
"' 0
C:
(D "'
"' ;l
iii
(.!)
.Merced
59 152
E-----3 E-----3
E-3 E-3 E-3
236 m
Le Gr.:ind Rt. Le Grand .
. Applied
EARTHWORKS~
Cultural Resource Study and Evaluation for Merced Gateway 3 Figure 1-2 Project location on USGS Merced 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle. 0 0.5 1
Kilometers
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000
Feet
0 0.5 1
Miles
Scale: 1:24,000
o
07S 14E: 34
Merced (1987), CA 7.5' USGS
Topographic Quadrangle
jhaller 11/25/2024
PROJECT AREA
DRAFT
..
!
:i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I .
Rado Towero
·--=-- t
Trailer l
Par1< I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
14 ~--, Duve-in , 'J'heater : • \I !,!
·.
·. e . ..E • e,ver Seb 0
,:;,,-- • • 0
I •
-- ·- •• ••~ o• ..
A
179
E-3 E-3 E-3
.. Applied
EARTHWORKSk
4 Figure 1-3 Aerial view of the Project area.
o
0 50 100 150 200 250
Meters
0 250 500 750 1,000
Feet
jhaller 11/25/2024
Ditch
Project Area
© 2024 Microsoft Corporation © 2024 Maxar ©CNES (2024) Distribution Airbus DS Scale: 1:5,500
Campus Parkway
E Mission Avenue
E Gerard Avenue
Farmdale Lateral
Doane Lateral
Pluim Drive
Cultural Resource Study and Evaluation for Merced Gateway Earthen Ditch
DRAFT
E--3 E----------3 E----------3
.. Applied
EARTHWORKSk
Cultural Resource Study and Evaluation for Merced Gateway 5 In addition, the Recreation and Cultural Resources Element of the 2030 Merced County General Plan (2013), put forth by Merced County (County), outlines several goals and policies aimed at the preservation, restoration, and compatible reuse of historically significant structures and sites.
Of note is Goal RCR-2, which states that the County will “protect and preserve the cultural, archaeological, and historical resources of the County in order to maintain its unique character.” This goal is supported by Policy RCR-2.1: Archaeological Site and Artifact Protection, which states that the County “[r]equires development projects that affect archaeological sites and artifacts to avoid disturbance or damage to these sites” and Policy RCR-2.2: Historical Area Preservation, which stipulates that the County “support preservation of historical structures and areas, particularly those listed on the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register of Historic Places [sic].”
For the purposes of this report, a cultural resource is defined as a precontact or historical (i.e., 45 years old or older) archaeological site or a historical building, structure, or object (Office of Historic Preservation 1995). The importance or significance of a cultural resource depends on whether it qualifies for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR).
Cultural resources determined eligible for listing in the CRHR are called “historical resources” (Title 14, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15064.5 of the CCR). The determination of eligibility is based on a set of significance criteria (14 CCR 15064.5).
1.3 PROJECT PERSONNEL
Æ Principal Archaeologist Anna Hoover (M.S.), Registered Professional Archaeologist [RPA] 28576661) served as project manager, providing quality assurance, quality control and technical oversight. Principal Architectural Historian Carlos van Onna (M.A.) oversaw all built environment tasks. Staff Anthropologist Nicole Saenz (M.S.) co-authored the report. Associate Archaeologists Betsy Rapp (B.A.) and Ward Stanley (B.A.) and Field Technician Charles Pansarosa (B.A.) conducted the archaeological pedestrian survey, and Staff Architectural Historian Julio Olivares (M.A.) conducted the built environment pedestrian survey. Additional built environment tasks, including preparation of report sections and California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) forms, were completed by Associate Architectural Historian Cheyenne Good-Peery (B.A.). Æ Senior Archaeologist Jasmine Kidwell (M.A., RPA 17325) reviewed this document for consistency and technical accuracy. Qualifications of key personnel are provided in Appendix A.
1.4 REPORT ORGANIZATION
This report was prepared in accordance with the California Office of Historic Preservation’s Archaeological Resource Management Reports: Recommended Contents and Format (Office of Historic Preservation 1990). This document consists of seven chapters. Following this introduction, Chapter 2 describes the environmental and cultural context of the Project area.
Chapter 3 presents the methods used for archaeological and built environment background research, Native American outreach, and pedestrian surveys, while Chapter 4 discusses the results of these efforts. Chapter 5 presents CRHR evaluations of identified historic-era built environment resources. Chapter 6 contains a summary and provides recommendations. A complete listing of references cited is in Chapter 7. Appendix A contains resumes of key personnel. Appendix B presents the records search results and Appendix C contains DRAFT
Cultural Resource Study and Evaluation for Merced Gateway 6 documentation of communication with the NAHC and local tribal representatives. Appendix D contains DPR forms for all recorded cultural resources.
Field notes, maps, and a complete set of photographs from the current study are on file at Æ’s office in Fresno, California. A copy of the final version of this report will be submitted to the Central California Information Center (CCaIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) at California State University, Stanislaus.
DRAFT
Cultural Resource Study and Evaluation for Merced Gateway 7 2 SETTING
This chapter describes the natural environment within the Project area and surrounding region. It provides a summary of precontact and previous archaeological investigations as well as an ethnographic overview. The chapter concludes with an overview of the history of the region and specific information about the Project area that provides a context for evaluation of the significance of the recorded cultural resources.
2.1 NATURAL SETTING
The Project area lies within the San Joaquin Valley. The San Joaquin Valley and its northern counterpart, the Sacramento Valley, comprise the Central Valley, a 50-mile-wide elongated trough that extends approximately 400 miles south from the Cascade Range to the Tehachapi Mountains (Norris and Webb 1990). This vast lowland parallels the Sierra Nevada, which has had considerable effect on the valley’s geological past and current hydrology.
From the late Mesozoic until the late Cenozoic, the area that would become the Great Valley served as a shallow marine embayment (Norris and Webb 1990). The Coast Ranges had yet to be formed, but the region received sediments from the eroding Sierra Nevada as well as marine deposition throughout this period. These waters began to diminish around 10 million years ago and eventually were cut off from the ocean altogether by the formation of the Coast Ranges (starting in the late Pliocene), leaving tributaries and small lakes that survived until historical times (Hill 1984; Norris and Webb 1990). Much of the Great Valley rests upon thick strata of alluvial sediments laid down during the Quaternary (Norris and Webb 1990; Figure 12-9). It is this same soil that today makes the valley such a fertile agricultural region. Below these levels are layers from the Pliocene and older epochs, which consist of both marine (shale, sandstone) and nonmarine (basalt, andesite) materials.
The San Joaquin River is the San Joaquin Valley’s dominant hydrological feature. The river descends from the foothills northeast of Fresno and flows west across the valley floor toward the community of Mendota, where it turns and follows a north–northwest course to the Sacramento– San Joaquin Delta region. Along the way, numerous rivers and creeks emerging from the Sierra Nevada flow into the San Joaquin River—within Merced County, which is fed by the Merced and Chowchilla rivers as well as Bear Creek. The San Joaquin and Sacramento rivers converge in the Delta, where they eventually empty into San Francisco Bay. Prior to the mid-twentieth century and construction of Friant Dam, which controls the river’s natural run-off, the river’s periodic overflow during the rainy seasons (winter and spring) created marshes and swamps along its banks. Historical and even current maps of the Project vicinity show a dense network of sloughs on either side of the river. The wetlands surrounding the San Joaquin River and other waterways supported marshy or aquatic communities of tule (Scirpus sp.), cottonwood (Populus fremontii), sycamore (Platanus racemosa), and willow (Salix sp.) (Wallace 1978b).
The previously swampy valley floor once provided a lush habitat for a variety of animals. Even as late as the 1860s, travelers passing through the valley reported that there were “herds of antelope in sight all the time, grizzly bears along the river, bands of wild horses on the plains, DRAFT
Cultural Resource Study and Evaluation for Merced Gateway 8 many elk along the sloughs, and in the winter and spring, millions of ducks and geese and many sand hill cranes. Coyotes and jackrabbits were unbelievably thick” (Radcliffe 1940). In addition, salmon, which made their annual runs up the San Joaquin River and its tributaries, provided a short-term but abundant food source during historical and precontact times.
2.2 PRECONTACT PERIOD AND ARCHAEOLOGY
Relatively few archaeological investigations have been conducted in the Central Valley south of the Stockton area, and thus information on precontact events in the area is sparse. The results of these few studies nonetheless provide valuable information for understanding the first people who inhabited this region. Details of these efforts are summarized by Moratto (1984) and briefly presented below.
A cultural sequence for the Central Valley was first proposed in the 1930s, after archaeologists from Sacramento Junior College and University of California, Berkeley excavated numerous sites in the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta and lower Sacramento Valley (Heizer 1936; Heizer and Fenenga 1938; Heizer and Krieger 1935–1936; Lillard and Purves 1936; Riddell and Riddell 1940; Wedel 1935); many of these were mound sites. Through an intersite comparison of stratigraphically distinct cultural assemblages, a tri-period chronological sequence—Early Horizon, Middle Horizon, and Late Horizon—was developed for the Delta region, defined primarily in terms of mortuary patterns and ornamental artifacts (Lillard et al. 1939; Moratto 1984).
Efforts to date this widely used Delta sequence were problematic due to the broad geographic and cultural range to which it was applied. Initial dates of 2500 B.C. for the Early Horizon, 1500 B.C. for the Middle Horizon, and A.D. 500 for the Late Horizon were developed midcentury (Heizer 1949) and have remained relatively unchanged. However, growing criticism and frustration with the limitations of the sequence (Bickel 1974; Gerow 1954), spurred by the development of more sophisticated dating techniques, prompted Ragir (1972), Bennyhoff (1977), Fredrickson (1974), and others to modify the sequence and develop variations for specific localities in central California (Moratto 1984). As Moratto (1984) summarizes, the precontact history of the mid Central Valley is better understood now in terms of the broad cultural “patterns” proposed by Fredrickson (1974) “which represent fundamental economic, technologic, and often social continuities over large areas and long intervals of time.” The Windmiller, Berkeley, and Augustine patterns are especially relevant to Central Valley precontact history.
Studies conducted in the 1960s along the eastern side of the Diablo Mountains, west of the Project area, resulted in the identification of a cultural sequence similar to, but distinct from, that of the Delta region. Excavations conducted for the construction of several reservoirs, including San Luis (Olsen and Payen 1969; Riddell and Olsen 1965; Treganza 1960), Los Banos (Pritchard 1967, 1970), and Little Panoche (Olsen and Payen 1968), led to the construction of four cultural complexes focused on the exploitation of the foothill-valley biotic zone. As summarized by Moratto (1984), the earliest complex identified is the Positas Complex (circa 3300–2600 B.C.), which is distinguished by small mortars, short cylindrical pestles, milling stones, perforated flat cobbles and spire-lopped Olivella beads. The Pacheco Complex (circa 2600 B.C.–A.D. 300) is divided into an early and late phase. The earlier phase (until circa 1600 B.C.) is marked by DRAFT
Cultural Resource Study and Evaluation for Merced Gateway 9 foliate bifaces, rectangular Haliotis ornaments, and thick rectangular Olivella beads. Various Olivella bead types including spire-ground, modified saddle, saucer, and split-drilled types; Haliotis disk beads; bone awls, whistles, and grass saws; large stemmed and side-notched points; and an abundance of milling stones, mortars, and pestles make up the later phase. Moratto notes that the Pacheco shell and bone industries are most like those of the Delta “Middle Horizon.” The Gonzaga Complex (circa A.D. 300–1000) is recognized by extended and flexed burials, bowl mortars and shaped pestles, squared and tapered-stem projectile points, a distinct bead assemblage, and other artifacts similar to that of the Delta “Late Horizon” Phase 1. Large circular structures, flexed burials as well as primary and secondary cremations, some milling stones, varied mortars and pestles, small side-notched arrow points, bone tools, clamshell disk beads, Haliotis and Olivella beads, and other artifacts comparable to those of the Delta “Late Horizon” Phase 2 are typical of the Panoche Complex (circa A.D. 1500–1850).
It is difficult to determine the ancestry of these early inhabitants. Olsen and Payen (1983) speculate that Costanoans may have crossed the Diablo Range and established habitation on its eastern side near the pass. Others suggest that the artifact assemblages associated with occupation circa 1000 B.C.–A.D. 500 are more similar to those of the Valley Yokuts (Moratto 1984). The latest occupation, the Panoche Complex, is associated with the time that the ethnographic Yokuts inhabited the region.
2.3 ETHNOGRAPHY
The vicinity surrounding the Project area was likely inhabited by the Northern Valley Yokuts, whose territory extended south from Bear Creek near Stockton to the south side of the San Joaquin River past Mendota, east to the Sierra foothills, and west to the Coast Ranges (Wallace 1978b). Specifically, the lower reaches of the Merced River were within the territory of the Coconoon group of the Northern Valley Yokuts. Although there are no firm ethnographic data, Latta (1977) hypothesized that the Ausumne tribelet of the Coconoon group occupied the Project area. It is also possible that at some point during the precontact era the Chauchela tribelet occupied the Project area, although it is unclear how far away from the Chowchilla River (south of the Project area) the Chauchela ranged (Latta 1977). Johnson and Lorenz (2006) place the Silelamne closer to Livingston.
The Northern Valley Yokuts occupied year-round villages along the San Joaquin River and other major tributaries to exploit riverine resources. The Delta wetlands stocked an array of waterfowl and aquatic resources as well as herds of browsing mammals that frequented the fringes of the marshes. Wallace (1978b) states that fish were one of the most important resources procured, with salmon topping the list of preferred varieties. Some travel did occur for collection of seasonal plant foods and hunting.
The Northern Valley Yokuts were organized into individual autonomous villages composed of single-family structures (Moratto 1988). The structures were small and usually built from woven tule mats. Other structures included sweathouses and ceremonial chambers. Villages were established on high ground near drainages and other valley water sources (Moratto 1988).
Most stone artifacts were fashioned of chert from nearby coastal sources, and obsidian was imported from other locations (Wallace 1978b). Mortars and pestles were the dominant ground stone tools; bone was used to manufacture awls for making coiled baskets. Tule was important in DRAFT
Cultural Resource Study and Evaluation for Merced Gateway 10 the manufacture of mats and boats, and other materials were acquired by trading with neighboring Miwok and Costanoans.
As with other Indian groups in the valley, the lifeways of the Northern Valley Yokuts were dramatically altered as a result of contact with Spanish explorers and missionaries, miners, ranchers, and other European immigrants who entered the valley after 1800. Population estimates for the eighteenth century put the number of Yokuts living in the San Joaquin Valley at around 41,000. However, the introduction of European culture and new diseases proved devastating to the native population. Traditional lifestyles were diminished and numerous people died from disease (Moratto 1988).
2.4 HISTORIC CONTEXT
The first Europeans known to have ventured into the San Joaquin Valley were Spanish soldiers led by Pedro Fages, who entered the valley through Tejon Pass in 1772 (Wallace 1978a). Other Europeans followed in 1806 when Lieutenant Gabriel Moraga led a group of Spanish explorers into the San Joaquin Valley to locate new lands for missions (Clough and Secrest 1984). It was on this expedition that Moraga gave the Merced River its official name (El Rio de Nuestra Señora de la Mercedes [River of Our Lady of Mercy]) when he and his troops reached its bank after a long hot trek through the valley. The expansion of missions in California ceased by the early 1820s as a result of Mexico’s independence from Spain (Clough and Secrest 1984), and the Mexican government granted several large tracts of land (ranchos) to individuals during the 1830s and 1840s. The region remained sparsely populated, and the arid valley climate was not conducive to dry farming. Nevertheless, the establishment of the ranchos not only provided the legal basis for property rights for years to come but also marked the beginnings of the Central Valley’s first industry—cattle ranching.
The discovery of gold in the Sierra Nevada and the accession of California to the Union were watershed events in the history of the state and Merced County. During the late 1840s and early 1850s, prospectors from across the nation and around the world flocked to California to mine the precious ore. The first settlements in the county emerged in the foothill areas along the Merced River and included Snelling and Forelorn Hope, later renamed Hopeton (Outcalt 1925).
2.4.1 Beginnings of Merced County
Established in 1855, Merced County was carved out of the northwest portion of Mariposa County. The first county seat was at the Turner and Osborn Ranch on Mariposa Creek but shortly moved to the Snelling Ranch, where a courthouse was constructed in 1857. Except for fertile areas along the banks of the major waterways, the Central Valley remained largely undeveloped. To the speculators that came to the Sierra Nevada from San Francisco and other western ports, the valley probably represented little more than a dry stretch of land to be traversed before reaching the goldfields to the east. The momentum of the gold rush could not be sustained, and by the early 1850s most of the miners and the merchants who relied on their patronage began to look to other pursuits. With the coming of the railroad and the advent of intensive irrigation, the focus of the county shifted from the foothills to the valley. The founding of the City of Merced in the early 1870s coincided with the arrival of the Central Pacific Railroad (later renamed the Southern Pacific).
DRAFT
Cultural Resource Study and Evaluation for Merced Gateway 11 Beginning in the 1870s, Merced County also saw a change in its economic leadership. Cattle ranching, which boomed during the 1850s and 1860s with the influx of miners and homesteaders to the valley, gave way to agriculture, specifically wheat farming. Throughout the valley, wealthy real estate moguls were applying a similar formula, purchasing large tracts of land for subdivision, referred to as “colonies,” and selling the parcels to be used for small and mediumsized farming operations. Critical to the marketing and success of these colonies was the development of a reliable water conveyance system that could transform dry soils into arable land. A network of canals soon spread across the valley floor.
2.4.2 Merced Irrigation District
Emerging from the aggregation of various irrigation canals and ditches that were privately constructed between 1870 and 1922, the Merced Irrigation District formed as a public entity in 1919 (McSwain 1978). The Merced Irrigation District quickly became the leading irrigation district in Merced County and was providing irrigation for roughly 180,000 acres of farmland by 1920 (McSwain 1978). Designed as a publicly owned company, the Merced Irrigation District operated through the collection of taxes from landowners. Taxes were based on the crop type and acreage size. Ditch tenders were employed by the Merced Irrigation District to maintain laterals and help reduce the frequency of conflicts between agricultural landowners. Plans for a dam began in 1921, and by 1927 the New Exchequer Dam was constructed on the Merced River with fully operational hydroelectric power facilities. Excess generated power was sold to the San Joaquin Power and Light Company, providing another source of income for the company.
Unfortunately for the Merced Irrigation District, between the months of October and March, the reservoir would remain empty, thus stopping the sale of excess hydroelectric power.
Additionally, hydroelectric revenues dropped during a drought between 1928 and 1932. The result was catastrophic for the Merced Irrigation District, and by 1932 the district filed for bankruptcy. Through federal loans and Roosevelt’s New Deal plan, the Merced Irrigation District regained economic stability, and by 1936 the company was once again operational (Dice 2010). From 1935 to 1937, the Merced Irrigation District gained access to funding through the New Deal’s Reconstruction Finance Corporation, which allowed Merced Irrigation District to line canals and laterals throughout its system. Today, the Merced Irrigation District continues to manage a 1,000-square-mile watershed and provide energy services to residents of Merced County.
2.4.3 Agriculture in Merced County
By 1850, California had shed its territory status for full statehood, and the initial excitement generated by the gold rush had subsided. The fertile soil of the Merced region quickly attracted early agriculturalists who focused on crops, such as wheat, that could be “dry farmed.” Vast herds of cattle grazed the open grasslands. Completion of the Central Pacific Railroad between Lathrop and Fresno in 1872 offered developers an easy way to attract potential residents into the Central Valley. Many families came to the valley to settle in colonies, where they could farm their own 20- or 40-acre plot of land. The extensive canal system established in the area allowed these colonies to develop far from natural waterways (Parker 1881; Wood 2013).
DRAFT
Cultural Resource Study and Evaluation for Merced Gateway 12 3 METHODS
This chapter describes methods used to complete the cultural resource inventory of the Project area. This includes a records search to identify known cultural resources and previously completed studies within and adjacent to the Project area, archival research, Native American outreach, and intensive archaeological and built environment pedestrian surveys.
3.1 RECORDS SEARCH
At Æ’s request, the CCaIC of the CHRIS at California State University, Stanislaus, performed a records search to identify previously recorded cultural resources and prior surveys within the Project area and surrounding 0.5-mile search radius. CCaIC staff consulted cultural resource location and survey base maps, reports of previous investigations, and cultural resource records (Appendix B).
3.2 ARCHIVAL RESEARCH
Prior to conducting a pedestrian archaeological survey, Æ’s historians conducted background research to identify areas within the Project area where extant historic-aged buildings, structures, or objects might be present, or where archaeological deposits might exist. Desktop and online library research focused on historical newspapers, maps, aerial images, atlases, and photographs.
Æ reviewed and compiled information from various sources including:
• General Land Office (GLO) plat maps (https://glorecords.blm.gov/default.aspx; 1854);
• GLO land patents (https://glorecords.blm.gov/search/default.aspx; 1869 and 1891); • Aerial photographs, accessed through the Map Aerial Locator Tool maintained by California State University, Fresno (http://malt.lib.csufresno.edu/MALT/; 1950 and 1992);
• Aerial photographs accessed via HistoricAerials.com administered by NETRonline (historicaerials.com; 1946, 1957, 1958, 1984, 2005, 2009, 2018, and 2020); • Images accessed via Google Maps Street View (August 2007 and November 2022); • USGS topographic maps accessed via USGS topoView
(https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/; Merced 1914, 1917, 1946, 1948, 1961, 1962, 2015, and 2018);
• Historical maps accessed via David Rumsey Map Collection (https://www.davidrumsey.com/; 1885 & 1886 Irrigation Map of the San Joaquin Valley by W. H. Hall);
DRAFT
Cultural Resource Study and Evaluation for Merced Gateway 13 • Merced County Assessor’s Office online parcel maps
(https://apps.co.merced.ca.us/PublicApplets/pages/assessor/parcelmap.aspx; Book 61,
• Historical newspapers accessed via Newspapers.com administered by Ancestry.com (https://www.newspapers.com/); and
• USGS topographic maps accessed via HistoricAerials.com administered by NETRonline (historicaerials.com; T1923, T1942, T1947, T1965, T1967, T1986, T2012, T2015, T2018, and T2021).
3.3 NATIVE AMERICAN OUTREACH
Pursuant to California PRC Section 5097.95, state and local agencies cooperate with and assist the NAHC in its efforts to preserve and protect locations of sacred or special cultural and spiritual significance to Native Americans. Æ contacted the NAHC to request a search of its Sacred Lands File (SLF) to identify Native American resources in the Project area and obtain the names and contact information for individuals knowledgeable of such resources.
The NAHC responded with its findings and attached a list of Native American tribes and individuals culturally affiliated with the Project area. Æ prepared and mailed an outreach letter to each of the contacts identified by the NAHC. The letter summarized the Project and requested information about known cultural resources within the Project area and surrounding region. Ӕ followed up with a telephone call to each contact to confirm the correspondence was received and to provide an opportunity for comment. Outreach with the Native American tribes and individuals is standard best practices to complete a cultural resource study and is not part of formal government-to-government consultation under Assembly Bill 52. Æ’s record of correspondence is included in Appendix C.
3.4 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND BUILT ENVIRONMENT FIELD SURVEYS
Æ Archaeologists Betsy Rapp, Ward Stanley, and Charles Pansarosa conducted an intensive archaeological pedestrian survey of the Project area, using parallel transects spaced 10–15 meters apart. Field crews documented information on the survey coverage and made observations regarding the ground visibility and other conditions on digital Survey123 Field Record forms.
They took photographs of the Project area using an iPad camera.
In addition to the archaeological pedestrian survey, Ӕ’s Architectural Historian Julio Olivares surveyed the Project area to identify historic-era built environment resources. Identified cultural resources were recorded and photo-documented using an iPad camera and digital Survey123 Field Record forms. Ӕ used an Arrow 100 Global Navigation Satellite System unit to collect spatial information. All field records and photographs are archived at Æ’s office in Fresno, California. Complete documentation of cultural resources within the Project area is included in Appendix D.
DRAFT
Cultural Resource Study and Evaluation for Merced Gateway 14 4 FINDINGS
This chapter provides results of the CCaIC records search, background research, Native American outreach, and pedestrian surveys, including observations of field conditions and cultural resources identified within the Project area.
4.1 RECORDS SEARCH
On July 18, 2024, the CCaIC responded to Æ’s records search request (Records Search File No. 12990I). In their response, they identified 10 previous cultural resource investigations within the Project area and 11 previous investigations in the 0.5-mile search radius. However, upon further examination Æ discovered that three of the studies that were initially identified within the Project area (ME-02418, -04773, and -08444) were adjacent to the Project area rather than overlapping it. Thus, there have been 7 previous studies covering portions of the Project area and 14 studies within the search radius.
The records search also identified three previously recorded cultural resources within the Project area and nine previously recorded cultural resources within the 0.5-mile records search radius (Appendix B). These are discussed in further detail below.
4.1.1 Previous Cultural Resource Studies
Seven previous archaeological studies overlay the Project area, covering 100 percent of the subject property (Table 4-1; Appendix B). The most recent study occurred in 2008 in support of the Merced Gateway East project. All other studies were conducted more than 20 years ago.
Table 4-1
Previous Investigations in the Project Area and 0.5-Mile Search Radius CHRIS
Report No. Author(s) Year Title
Within Project Area
ME-03834 Laylander, D. 1999 Department of Transportation Negative Archaeological Survey ReportSecond Supplement, 10-MER-99, P.M. 10.5/12.5, E.A. 10-363100 ME-04384 USR Corporation 2001 Archaeological Survey Report, Merced Campus Parkway (Draft Technical Report, Federal Aid Project #RPHP21L-0484[001]) ME-04385 USR Corporation 2001 Archaeological Survey Report--Addendum 1, Merced Campus Parkway (Draft Technical Report, Federal Aid Project #RPHP21L-0484[001]) ME-04772 Cardiff, D.B;
Eastman, C;
Hibbard, J;
Huddleson, R;
Levy, T; and
Stillman, B.
1999 Archaeological Survey Report for the Proposed Campus/Healy Interchange on California State Highway 99 from Owens Creek Bridge (P.M. 10.5) to Childs Avenue in Merced (P.M. 12.5), Merced County, 10-363100
ME-04775 Eastman, B. and
Hupp, J.
1999 Historic Architectural Survey Report and Historic Resource Evaluation Report for MER-99 Mission/Healy Interchange, Merced, Merced County, California, 10-MER-99, P.M. 10.5/12.5, 10-363100 DRAFT
Cultural Resource Study and Evaluation for Merced Gateway 15 Table 4-1 (continued)
Previous Investigations in the Project Area and 0.5-Mile Search Radius CHRIS
Report No. Author(s) Year Title
ME-06857 Wills, C.D. 2008 Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment, Merced Gateway East Project, City of Merced, Merced County, California
ME-06966 JRP Historical
Consulting
Services
2001 Historic Resource Evaluation Report Ten Canals of the Merced Irrigation District Campus Parkway Project, Merced County, California
Within 0.5-Mile Radius
ME-00644 Napton, L.K. 1989 Cultural Resources Investigation of the Alfarata Ranch, Merced County, California
ME-02418 Napton, L.K. 1994 Cultural Resources Investigations of the Proposed 359-Acre Weaver Area Annexation/Master Planned Community Project, Merced County, California
ME-02759 Hatoff, B; Voss, B;
Waechter, S; Wee,
S; and Bente, V.
1995 Cultural Resources Inventory Report for the Proposed Mojave Northward Expansion Project; Final. [multivolume report] ME-02930 Jensen, P. 1996 Archaeological Inventory Survey; Tracy to Fresno Longhaul Fiberoptics Data Transmission Line, Portions of Fresno, Madera, Merced, Stanislaus, and San Joaquin Counties, California.
ME-03614 Laylander, D. and
Silva, B.A.
1999 Department of Transportation Negative Archaeological Survey ReportFirst Supplement; 10-MER-99, P.M. 10.5/12.5, EA 10-363100, Convert State Route 99 from Four-Lane Expressway to a Four-Lane Freeway
ME-03786 Wilson, K. and Van
Bueren T.M.
1999 Historical Study Report for the Proposed Campus/Healy Interchange on California State Highway 99 in Merced, Merced County, California, 10-MER-99, Post Miles 10.5/12.5, EA 10-363100
ME-04042 Pastron, A.G. and
Brown, R.K.
2000 Letter Report: Historical & Cultural Resource Assessment, Existing Telecommunications Facility, Site No. CV-504-03,1392 Healy Road, Merced County, California
ME-04097 Laylander, D. 2000 Department of Transportation Negative Archaeological Survey ReportFourth Supplement: 10-MER-99, P.M. 10.5/12.5, K.P. 16.9/20.1, EA 10-363100, Convert State Route 99 from a Four-lane expressway to a Four-lane Freeway and to Construct an Interchange at Mission Road ME-04773 Caltrans District 10 1999 Historic Property Survey Report: Mission Interchange Project, 10- MER-99, K.P. 16.9/20.1, P.M. 10.5/12.5, 10-363100
ME-04776 Welch, L. 2000 Supplemental Historic Resource Evaluation Report for MER-99 Mission/Healy Interchange, Merced, Merced County, California, 10- MER-99, P.M. 10.5/12.5, 10-363100
ME-05420 Peak & Associates,
Inc.
2004 Cultural Resource Assessment for an Industrial Park Site, City of Merced, Merced County, California
ME-06345 SWCA
Environmental
Consultants
2006 Cultural Resources Final Report of Monitoring and Findings for the QWest Network Construction Project, State of California. SWCA Project No. 10715-180.
ME-06839 Montastero, A.P.
and Baloian, M. C.
2008 Cultural Resources Survey for the Wilson-Oro Loma 115-kV Transmission Line Reconductoring Project, Merced County, California
ME-08444 First Carbon
Solutions
2016 Draft Environmental Impact Report, Merced Gateway Master Plan, City of Merced, Merced County, California State Clearing House Number 2015101048
DRAFT
Cultural Resource Study and Evaluation for Merced Gateway 16 Five of the seven previously conducted studies within the Project area identified cultural resources. The most recent study was conducted by C. D. Wills of Michael Brandman Associates in 2008 in support of the Merced Gateway East project and covered the entirety of the Project area. Willis identified and recorded a historic-era residential and agricultural property (P-24-001930) at 3345 E. Gerard Avenue in the northern portion of the Project area. In 2001, JRP Historical Consulting Services evaluated 10 historic canals in the MID; one was the Doane Lateral (P-24-001886) along the eastern portion of the Project area. The other nine MID canals evaluated as part of the study are outside of the Project area and the surrounding 0.5-mile radius.
URS Corporation conducted a large, linear study in 2001 in support of the Merced Campus Parkway project. The study identified three cultural resources; none are the Project area or within a 0.5-mile radius. Additionally, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) conducted two studies in 1999 in support of State Route 99 interchanges at Campus/Healy and Mission/Healy, which covered a portion of the Project area. Between the two studies they identified 27 cultural resources; however, none of these 27 resources are within or adjacent to the Project area.
Three cultural resource studies have been conducted directly adjacent to the Project area. A 1994 study by Napton was negative for cultural resources and a 1999 study by Caltrans District 10 identified 29 cultural resources; none are adjacent to the Project area. A 2016 study by First Carbon Solutions resulted in the identification of a single resource—the MID (P-24-001909), which encompasses the Project area.
4.1.2 Previously Recorded Resources
The records search results returned three previously recorded resources within the Project area and nine previously recorded cultural resources within the 0.5-mile search radius (Table 4-2).
Previously recorded resources within the Project area include the historical MID (P-24-001909); the historical Doane Lateral canal (P-24-001886), which is a component of the MID and a historic-era residential and agricultural property (P-24-001930).
Table 4-2
Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within the Project Area and 0.5-Mile Search Radius Primary Trinomial Age Type
Within Project Area
P-24-001886 CA-MER-456H Historic Structure
P-24-001909 — Historic District
P-24-001930 — Historic Building, Structure
Within 0.5-Mile Radius
P-24-000097 — Historic Structure
P-24-000598 CA-MER-355H Historic Site
P-24-000602 CA-MER-359H Historic Building, Structure, Site, Other P-24-000604 CA-MER-361H Historic Site, Other
P-24-000605 CA-MER-362H Historic Site
P-24-000614 — Historic Building
P-24-000615 — Historic Building
P-24-001712 — Historic Structure
DRAFT
Cultural Resource Study and Evaluation for Merced Gateway 17 Table 4-2 (continued)
Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within the Project Area and 0.5-Mile Search Radius Primary Trinomial Age Type
P-24-001713 — — Structure
The MID (P-24-001909) spans much of the northeast portion of Merced County and consists of ditches, canals, laterals, wells, pumping plants, dams, reservoirs, and hydroelectric facilities that serve farmers and domestic water users. Many of the canals and ditches that comprise the MID were privately built between 1870 and 1922. In 1919, the Merced Irrigation District was founded and began purchasing privately-owned irrigation systems and constructing new water conveyance systems. The MID has been recorded several times following its first recording by JRP Historical Consulting, LLC in 2007. The Merced County Built Environment Resource Directory, maintained by the California Office of Historic Preservation, lists the most recent recordation of the MID from 2020 with the status code of 6Y, “determined ineligible for NRHP listing by consensus through Section 106 process—Not evaluated for CRHR or local listing” (2024). While it is possible that the MID is eligible for listing in the CRHR at the state or local level, a formal evaluation of this resource is outside the scope of this study. The MID merely encompasses the Project area and none of its primary components are within the Project area.
Because of this, the MID is not discussed in further detail in this study or included in the figures.
The Doane Lateral (P-24-001886) is within the boundary of the MID; however, it is not identified as a primary component of the district in previous evaluations. The lateral is an approximate 2-mile-long irrigation canal that borders the eastern side of the Project area and was constructed between 1922 and 1927 (Larson and Cannon 2000). JRP Historical Consulting Services recorded and evaluated the Doane Lateral and found that the canal did not appear to be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) (Larson and Cannon 2000). The Merced County Built Environment Resource Directory lists this finding as receiving California State of Historic Preservation Office concurrence in 2002, designating it with status code of 6Y, “determined ineligible for NRHP listing by consensus through Section 106 process—Not evaluated for CRHR or local listing” (Office of Historic Preservation 2024). The Doane Lateral and an unnamed earthen ditch that branches from it were likely used to irrigate the residence and agriculture property (P-24-001930) recorded at 3345 E. Gerard Avenue in the northern portion of the Project area.
Recorded in 2006, P-24-001930 is described as a cluster of buildings and structures that may have served as a dairy operation, including a milking barn with two grain silos. The record notes a residential building associated with the dairy consisting of only two bedrooms and a living room; no kitchen, bathroom, or closets were observed. The record also notes a mobile home elevated on concrete blocks 300 feet northeast of the residential building, and a large concrete building foundation east of the barn. A subsurface concrete trough was southeast of the barn (Wills 2006). While no formal evaluation was included, the record indicates that the buildings do not appear to retain sufficient integrity to be considered eligible for listing in the NRHP or CRHR (Wills 2006).
DRAFT
Cultural Resource Study and Evaluation for Merced Gateway 18
4.2 BACKGROUND RESEARCH
Æ consulted historical topographic maps, atlases, aerial photographs, land patents, and newspapers to determine the ownership history of the Project area and verify the presence of historic-age resources. The review revealed minimal development in the Project area and moderate development in the surrounding area over the last 100 years.
4.2.1 Property-Specific History
The 1854 GLO plat map shows no development in or around the Project area, though sloughs are present in the area. The earliest available record of the Project area is an 1869 GLO land patent issued to Isaac Friedlander. No further records of Friedlander were found in the archives.
According to an 1885 irrigation map, the Project area was owned by an individual with the surname Fancher. An early water conveyance feature is also shown in the map trending east to west through the Project area. This feature is not in the same alignment as the current water conveyance features present in the Project area today. By 1891, another GLO land patent designates George Davis as owning the southern half of the Project area.
The next available record of the Project area is a USGS topographical map, the earliest available, from 1914. However, the map does not show ownership and does not display any significant changes to the land since the 1885 irrigation map. The 1914 Merced topographic map shows several waterways transecting the Project area, though they are different from the current canal system. Gerard and Mission avenues are in their current alignment and a single building is shown west of the northern portion of the Project area.
An aerial photograph from 1946 first shows the Doane Lateral in its current alignment along the eastern border of the Project area, as well as the unnamed earthen ditch that transects the Project area in its current alignment. Furthermore, north of the unnamed earthen ditch, approximately five residential and agricultural buildings and structures are visible, presumably the residential and agricultural property recorded as P-24-001930. The fields surrounding the ditches are cultivated with multiple crop varieties.
The Doane Lateral was constructed as an earthen ditch by the Merced Irrigation District between 1922 and 1927. It was sometimes mistakenly referred to as the Hartley Lateral as this is the name of the structure where its water is sourced (Larson and Cannon 2000). Likewise, in recent years, it has incorrectly been referred to as the Farmdale Lateral, which is a separate canal that crosses the Doane Lateral directly south of the Project area.
Historical newspapers attribute the property ownership at 3345 E. Gerard Avenue (P-24-001930) to Solomon Elias Price by 1926 (Merced Express 1926). Price lived on the property with his wife and children, and he used the land for fruit cultivation. Price listed the property for sale in 1934, and it included a family home, barn, tank, tank house, and a windmill, as well as an almond orchard and alfalfa field (Merced Sun-Star 1934; U.S. Census Bureau 1930). Chain of title records indicate that property was deeded to Oscar B. and Mary B. Chaney by the Bank of America National Trust and Savings Association in 1938 (Environmental Data Resources 2024).
Census data details that Oscar Chaney lived at this property with his family and used the land for his farming operations (U.S. Census Bureau 1940). The 1946 USGS topographical map of Merced confirms this development in the Project area. A house and several auxiliary buildings DRAFT
Cultural Resource Study and Evaluation for Merced Gateway 19 are present in the northern portion of the Project area along East Gerard Avenue (P-24-001930).
The residence and agricultural building, as well as the Doane Lateral, are on the 1946 topographic map.
A 1950 aerial photograph points to further development of the Project area, showing an additional six auxiliary buildings and structures in the same location (P-24-001930). Historical newspapers suggest the property retained the residential home, barn, and auxiliary buildings and structures, but the fruit fields were converted into pastureland for dairy farming. In 1954, the parcel was deeded to Mildred Brier Green (Environmental Data Resources 2024). By 1957, only the largest buildings remain, likely the residential home and barn (Figure 4-1).
Figure 4-1 1957 aerial photograph with the Project area indicated in red.
Green was a well-known businesswoman, who along with her husband, Alfred C. Green managed the Al C. Green Insurance Company (Merced Sun-Star 1951; U.S. Census Bureau 1950). She also served as the president of the women’s division of the Merced City Chamber of Commerce and as the auditor of the local Soroptimists club (Merced Sun-Star 1953, 1954).
Census data suggests that Green and her husband also worked as landlords who hosted several lodgers (U.S. Census Bureau 1950). No archival evidence indicates that Green ever resided at the 3345 E. Gerard Avenue property, and it is likely that she rented it to other occupants.
Minimal changes to the Project area are observed in the following decades. Historical newspapers note that the property was occupied by Paul R. Quario Sr. by 1964 and then by Kenneth Jones by 1969 (Merced Sun-Star 1964, 1969). Additional archival research did not return further information about the two men. In 1974, Green deeded the parcel to Larry A. and DRAFT
Project Area
Cultural Resource Study and Evaluation for Merced Gateway 20 Janice E. Brookin, who owned the parcel until 1999 when it entered into the Larry Arthur Brookin Revocable Trust. The Trust deeded the parcel to B & B Associates, LLC in 2005, which deeded it to Merced Gateway, LLC in 2008 (Environmental Data Resources 2024).
No significant changes occur in the area surrounding the Project area until 2005, when housing developments are shown north of the Project area on aerial photographs. In 2006, P-24-001930 was still extant and included a residential building, dairy milking barn with a storage shed, two grain silos, and a concrete foundation pad (Wills 2006). All historic-era residential buildings and structures within the Project area were removed between 2006 and 2009. The Project area appears to serve as agricultural land until 2009, when aerial photographs show vacant land, with no buildings or structures remaining, and the construction of Campus Parkway in process. By 2020, the segment of the Doane Lateral north of Campus Parkway within the Project area is undergrounded. Since the completion of Campus Parkway in 2010, no further significant changes are evident in the Project area.
4.3 NATIVE AMERICAN OUTREACH
Æ requested a search of the NAHC’s SLF and a tribal contact list on July 18, 2024. The NAHC provided a response on July 23, 2024, and stated that its search of the SLF was negative for the presence of tribal cultural resources in the Project area. The NAHC also supplied a list of individuals to be contacted for information regarding locations of sacred or special sites of cultural or spiritual significance in the Project area.
On July 30, 2024, Æ sent a letter describing the Project and its location to:
• Chairperson Valentin Lopez of the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band; • Chairperson Ed Ketchum of the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band; • Chairperson Fred Beihn of the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians; • Environmental Heritage Manager Mary Stalter of the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians;
• Tribal Compliance Officer Timothy Perez of the Northern Valley Yokut Ohlone Tribe;
• Chairperson Katherine Perez of the Northern Valley Yokut Ohlone Tribe; • Chairperson Sandra Chapman of the Southern Sierra Miwuk Nation; • Director of Cultural Resource Preservation Jazzmyn Gegere of the Southern Sierra Mewuk Nation;
• Chairperson Neil Peyron of the Tule River Indian Tribe; • Environmental Department Kerri Vera of the Tule River Indian Tribe; and • Chairperson Kenneth Woodrow of the Wuksachi Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band.
DRAFT
Cultural Resource Study and Evaluation for Merced Gateway 21 Ӕ also distributed these letters via email on July 30, 2024, and followed up with all tribes by telephone on September 3, 2024. To date, Ӕ has received two responses: Ashley Pomona of the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians responded by email on August 8, 2024, deferring interest to the Southern Sierra Miwuk Nation. On September 4, 2024, Jazzmyn Gegere responded by email stating that the Southern Sierra Miwuk Nation has no tribal cultural resource concerns for this project and defers to any consulting tribes. A log detailing the outreach efforts and responses is provided in Appendix C. Æ did not facilitate government-to-government consultation on behalf of the City.
4.4 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY FINDINGS
Æ conducted an intensive archaeological pedestrian survey of the Project area in two stages. On August 28, 2024, Ӕ Archaeologists Betsy Rapp and Chuck Pansarosa surveyed 60.1 acres (84.4 percent) of the 71.18-acre Project area (Figure 4-2). The northernmost 11.1-acres of the Project area, where P-24-001930 was originally recorded, was inaccessible and not surveyed at this time due to dense vegetation over 5 feet tall and poor ground visibility. Visibility in the remaining Project area also was generally poor, averaging 5 to 10 percent, due to dense dried grass (Figure 4-3).
Ӕ Associate Archaeologist Ward Stanley returned to the Project area on November 8, 2024, to check accessibility and ground cover in the previously inaccessible 11.1-acres in the northern portion of the Project area. Stanley found the area still covered by tall grass and dense thistle (Figure 4-4) but, despite poor ground visibility, was able to completely survey the remaining acreage. Stanley closely inspected the area previously recorded as P-24-001930 looking specifically for artifacts and features associated with the previous farm building. He noted a 393.21 by 287.47 foot patch of undulating and raised ground where the previous structures had been recorded. Additionally, Stanley observed a 90 by 20 by 6 foot depression directly south of the disturbed footprint (Figure 4-5). The purpose of this depression is unknown. Ӕ prepared an updated DPR form to document that the resource is no longer extant and no artifacts, structural remnants, or other associated cultural debris remain (Appendix D).
During the survey, Æ noted various impacts to the Project area including disturbance to the natural topography from decades of agricultural activity and vegetation management efforts.
Also evident is recent disturbances from ground squirrel burrowing. Æ observed a modern drainage ditch with a standpipe in the southwest corner of the Project area that was likely used to irrigate crops when the Project area was actively farmed. Ӕ also observed a single, potentially historic-era straight razor in the southern portion of the Project area. It was not formally recorded as a cultural resource due to a lack of provenience and diagnostic features. No cultural resources were observed during the pedestrian survey.
DRAFT
22 Figure 4-2 Survey coverage and cultural resources within the Project area. o 0 50 100 150 200 250 Meters
0 250 500 750 1,000
Feet
jhaller 12/3/2024
Ditch
Recorded
Segment
Surveyed
P-24-001930
(No longer
present)
Project Area
© 2024 Microsoft Corporation © 2024 Maxar ©CNES (2024) Distribution Airbus DS Scale: 1:5,500
Cultural Resource Study and Evaluation for Merced Gateway Campus Parkway
E Mission Avenue
E Gerard Avenue
Farmdale Lateral Doane Lateral
Earthen Ditch
P-24-001930
Pluim Drive
DRAFT
E-3 E---3 E---3
.. Applied
EARTHWORKSk
Cultural Resource Study and Evaluation for Merced Gateway 23 Figure 4-3 Ground visibility in the Project area, facing southwest.
Figure 4-4 Tall grass and thistle in the area recorded as P-24-001930 in the northern portion of the Project area, facing south.
DRAFT
Cultural Resource Study and Evaluation for Merced Gateway 24 Figure 4-5 Depression of unknown purpose in the northern portion of the Project area, facing northwest.
4.5 BUILT ENVIRONMENT SURVEY FINDINGS
Æ recorded two historic-age structures: the Doane Lateral and an unnamed earthen ditch.
Physical descriptions of both structures are provided below. While the north to south trending Doane Lateral is immediately adjacent to the Project area, Æ recorded and evaluated the resource, at the request of Lennar Homes, to facilitate potential future development along this linear feature.
4.5.1 Doane Lateral
The Doane Lateral (P-24-001886/CA-MER-456H) trends north to south approximately 2 miles, heading at the Hartley Lateral 5,109 feet north of the Project area and terminating at Vassar Creek 2,830 feet south the Project area. A 2,538-foot-long segment of the Doane Lateral borders the outside of the Project area to the east and is bisected by Campus Parkway. North of Campus Parkway, approximately 945 feet of the segment is underground (Figure 4-6), while 1,283 feet of the segment south of the parkway is aboveground (Figure 4-7). The aboveground portion of the segment is an open, earthen ditch approximately 10 feet wide from bank to bank. This portion displays severe vegetation intrusion, with shrubs and moderately sized trees scattered throughout (Figure 4-8). Several concrete culverts are within the west bank of the segment, and several standing metal pipes are adjacent to the east bank (Figure 4-9).
DRAFT
Cultural Resource Study and Evaluation for Merced Gateway 25 Figure 4-6 Undergrounded lateral north of Campus Parkway, facing north.
Figure 4-7 Aboveground portion of the lateral with evidence of vegetation intrusion, facing north.
DRAFT
Cultural Resource Study and Evaluation for Merced Gateway 26 Figure 4-8 Trees growing in lateral and view of concrete culvert, facing east.
Figure 4-9 Metal post with debris and manhole, facing northeast.
DRAFT
Cultural Resource Study and Evaluation for Merced Gateway 27
4.5.2 Unnamed Earthen Ditch
The unnamed earthen ditch runs east to west near the north end of the Project area. Currently, the full length of the ditch is approximately 1.15 miles long, although only 1,932 feet of the east end is aboveground. It is headed at the recorded Doane Lateral along the east boundary of the Project area, and continues for approximately 4,750 feet west and south, where it terminates underground at the Farmdale Lateral west of the Project area.
A 1,353-foot-long segment of the aboveground portion of unnamed earthen ditch transects the northern Project area (Figure 4-2). A 116-foot-long segment is diverted underground through a concrete culvert, visible at the west end of the diversion, to allow pedestrian and vehicle access between the northern and southern parcel (Figure 4-10). The ditch presents severe vegetation intrusion obstructing the view of the bed and banks of the ditch (Figure 4-11). Another concrete culvert is within the bank of the ditch toward the west end of the segment (Figure 4-12). A partially downed post and wire fence borders the west edge of the parcel (Figure 4-13).
Figure 4-10 Culvert at west end of the underground diversion, left photo facing northeast.
DRAFT
Cultural Resource Study and Evaluation for Merced Gateway 28 Figure 4-11 Earthen ditch with severe vegetation intrusion from east end of the segment, facing west.
Figure 4-12 Concrete culvert on the bank of the segment, facing northeast.
DRAFT
Cultural Resource Study and Evaluation for Merced Gateway 29 Figure 4-13 Partially fallen fence along west side of the parcel, facing south.
DRAFT
Cultural Resource Study and Evaluation for Merced Gateway 30 5 HISTORIC RESOURCE EVALUATIONS
This chapter presents the CRHR evaluation criteria and eligibility evaluations for the recorded segments of the two extant resources, Doane Lateral (P-24-001886) and an unnamed earthen ditch, in the Project area. The details of the evaluations are provided below while completed DPR 523-series forms for each resource are provided in Appendix D.
5.1 EVALUATION CRITERIA
To determine whether the Project will have a significant impact on a potential historical resource, cultural resources within the Project area must be evaluated for eligibility to be listed in the CRHR. If a resource qualifies as a historical resource, the potential for the Project to cause a significant adverse change to the qualities of the resource that make it eligible will require assessment, and the impacts may be subject to mitigation to reduce the impacts to less than significant. Cultural resources that are not eligible for listing in the CRHR do not require further consideration. The National Park Service (NPS) has established a process for identifying, evaluating, and assessing effects to historic properties (i.e., cultural resources eligible for listing in the NRHP). Practically speaking, determinations made within a federal regulatory context are almost always universally accepted for purposes of identifying, evaluating, and assessing impacts under CEQA. Thus, the NPS guidelines are applicable herein.
The first threshold in this process is to ascertain whether a site or built environment resource within the Project area is old enough to be considered a historical resource and, accordingly, eligible for listing in the CRHR. To be eligible for listing in the CRHR, an archaeological or built environment resource must be 45 years old or older. Documentation of resources less than 45 years old also may be filed if those resources have been formally evaluated, regardless of the outcome of the evaluation (Office of Historic Preservation 1995). If a resource is found to meet this age criterion, the following sequential steps apply:
• Classifying the resource as a district, archaeological site, building, structure, or object;
• Determining the theme, context, and relevant thematic period of significance with which the resource is associated;
• Determining whether the resource is historically important under a set of significance criteria; and
• If significant, determining whether the resource retains integrity.
In California, historical resources are usually classified according to Instructions for Recording Historical Resources, published by the California Office of Historic Preservation in 1995. This handbook contains listings of resource categories for historical and precontact sites as well as standing structures. For built environment resources, it is additionally helpful to define a property’s type (e.g., commercial vs. residential, urban vs. rural, agricultural vs. industrial).
DRAFT
Cultural Resource Study and Evaluation for Merced Gateway 31 The significance of a historical resource is best understood and judged in relation to a historic context (Office of Historic Preservation 1995). The evaluation process essentially weighs the relative importance of events, people, and places against the larger backdrop of history. Within this process, the context provides the comparative standards and/or examples as well as the theme(s) necessary for this assessment. According to the NPS (1997), a theme is a pattern or trend that has influenced the history of an area over time. A theme is typically couched in geographic (i.e., local, state, or national) and temporal terms to focus and facilitate the evaluation process.
Significance is based on how well a subject resource represents one or more themes through its associations with important events or people and/or through its inherent qualities. A resource must demonstrate more than just association with a theme; it must be a good representative of the theme, capable of illustrating the various thematic elements of a time and place in history.
According to the CEQA Guidelines, for a historical resource to be eligible for listing in the CRHR, it must meet at least one of the criteria defined in California PRC 5024.1(c):
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 history or prehistory.
If a resource does not possess historical significance, a discussion of integrity is not required.
5.2 ASPECTS OF INTEGRITY
To be included in the CRHR, a resource must not only possess historical significance but also the physical means to convey such significance—that is, it must possess integrity. Integrity refers to the degree to which a resource retains and expresses its original character. To facilitate this assessment, the NPS (1997) provides the following definition of the seven aspects of integrity.
These aspects of integrity have been adopted by the CRHR.
1. Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred;
2. Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property;
3. Setting is the physical environment of a historic property; DRAFT
Cultural Resource Study and Evaluation for Merced Gateway 32
4. Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property;
5. Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory;
6. Feeling is a property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time; and
7. Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property.
5.3 CRHR EVALUATIONS
Æ evaluated the recorded segments of the Doane Lateral and an unnamed earthen ditch for CRHR eligibility, which entailed an assessment of historical significance and a discussion of integrity, if applicable.
5.3.1 Doane Lateral
As detailed in Section 4.2, the Doane Lateral (P-24-001886) was constructed by the Merced Irrigation District between 1922 and 1927 (Larson and Cannon 2000:2). The Doane Lateral trends north to south approximately 2 miles, heading at the Hartley Lateral and terminating at Vassar Creek 2,830 feet south of the Project area. The Doane Lateral is incorrectly labeled as a branch of the Farmdale Lateral on a 2018 USGS topographical map and on Google Maps (U.S.
Geological Survey 2018). However, it is labeled as the Doane Lateral in the historical map records, as well as the Merced County Assessor’s Parcel book, revised in 2024 (Merced County Department of the Assessor 2024). The Doane Lateral was first recorded on DPR Primary Record and Linear Feature Record forms in 1999 by the Archaeological Resource Center at California State University, Sacramento; however, this recordation did not include an eligibility evaluation (Pierce et al. 1999). The lateral was recorded and evaluated the following year by JRP Historical Consulting, LLC, and was found to be ineligible for listing in the NRHP (Larson and Cannon 2000). The California State of Historic Preservation Office concurred with this finding in 2002 (Office of Historic Preservation 2024).
Although the Doane Lateral was found ineligible for the NRHP with concurrence from the State Historic Preservation Office, it is possible that the resource could still be eligible for the CRHR due to its significance at a state or local level. To ascertain whether the Doane Lateral possesses historical significance, a formal discussion of the evaluation criteria is required. For this study, the CRHR eligibility is evaluated for the 2,538-foot-long recorded segment of the lateral starting immediately south of East Gerard Avenue and terminating immediately north of East Mission Avenue. However, to evaluate the CRHR eligibility of the segment, the historical significance of the entire resource, of which it is a part, must be considered.
DRAFT
Cultural Resource Study and Evaluation for Merced Gateway 33
5.3.1.1 Significance
Criterion 1—Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States. The Doane Lateral was constructed between 1922 and 1927 and was one of dozens of canals and ditches constructed by the Merced Irrigation District following its establishment in 1919 (Larson and Cannon 2000; McSwain 1978). The Doane Lateral is not representative of the earliest ditches in the region; archival evidence suggests several other canals were constructed in the area as early as the 1870s (McSwain 1978). The Doane Lateral is a tertiary distribution channel that aided in the distribution of water to individual agricultural parcels in its immediate area, but did not play a critical role in bringing irrigation to the surrounding area. Headed at the Hartley Lateral, the Doane Lateral is not a primary artery within the area or the larger MID system. No evidence was found to suggest that it irrigated parcels of particular significance to the greater community. Therefore, the size and relative irrigation impact of the Doane Lateral to the Merced region can be considered minor when compared to larger and earlier water conveyance systems within the area such as the Fairfield Canal or the Atwater Canal. The Doane Lateral is not considered significant under Criterion 1.
Criterion 2—Associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history. Archival research found no evidence to suggest that the Doane Lateral is directly linked to individuals significant in the history of the Merced area. Review of regional histories and historical irrigation maps did not reveal any information about the recorded segment or individuals associated with its construction. The Doane Lateral was likely named for an individual who had rights to its water or owned land adjacent to the lateral. Archival research shows that several individuals with the surname Doane resided within Merced County during the years of the lateral’s construction, none of whom appears to have held a prominent position in the community. As such, no association with a historically significant individual could be established. For this reason, the Doane Lateral is not considered significant under Criterion 2.
Criterion 3—Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values.
Significance under Criterion 3, when applied to canals, ditches, and similar linear structures, is measured by distinctive or innovative design, methods of construction, or involvement of a historically significant builder or engineer. Archival research uncovered no information about the original dimensions of the channel (i.e., its shape, width, depth, etc.) or related features within the Doane Lateral. At present, the recorded segment of the Doane Lateral is substantially modern in appearance, with only the southern part of the segment remaining aboveground. The Merced Irrigation District is credited with the engineering and construction of the Doane Lateral (Larson and Cannon 2000). However, the lateral is not representative of the district’s largest or most impressive works; rather, it is one of many smaller water conveyance structures created by the district throughout its history. As such, the Doane Lateral does not represent the work of a master engineer or builder. The lateral traverses level terrain that did not pose noteworthy engineering challenges for the irrigation company or its contractors. The Doane Lateral is not considered significant under Criterion 3.
Criterion 4—Has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation. Criterion 4 applies to built DRAFT
Cultural Resource Study and Evaluation for Merced Gateway 34 environment resources if further study has the potential to yield information that cannot be obtained from other sources. However, Doane Lateral is a commonplace example of a ubiquitous resource type in California and has been well-documented. In its current form, the lateral is substantially contemporary in appearance. Æ has exhausted available sources and no additional information could be gleaned from subsequent field visits. Therefore, Æ does not anticipate that any additional information can be identified that would prove the resource to be significant. The Doane Lateral is not considered significant under Criterion 4.
5.3.1.2 Eligibility
A discussion of integrity is not required because the resource does not possess historical significance. Because Doane Lateral does not possess significance under the CRHR criteria for evaluation, the 2,538-foot-long segment within the Project area is ineligible for listing in the CRHR and does not qualify as a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA.
5.3.2 Unnamed Earthen Ditch
As detailed in Section 4.2, the east to west trending, unnamed earthen ditch first appears through this parcel as early as 1885 (Hall 1885). However, it is not until 1946 that archival evidence shows the ditch in its present-day alignment (NETROnline 2024). In 1946, the ditch was entirely aboveground and open, extending from the east end of the Project area to Doppler Road, 4,377 feet southwest of the Project area. Currently, the full length of the ditch is approximately
1.15 miles long, although only 1,932 feet of the east end is aboveground. Today, the ditch heads at the Doane Lateral and terminates underground at the Farmdale Lateral.
To ascertain whether the unnamed earthen ditch possesses historical significance and has the potential to be eligible for inclusion in the CRHR, a formal discussion of the evaluation criteria is required. For this study, the CRHR eligibility is evaluated for the 1,353-foot-long recorded segment of the ditch extending east to west from the Doane Lateral to the Project area’s western boundary. However, to evaluate the CRHR eligibility of the segment, the historical significance of the entire resource, of which it is a part, must be considered.
5.3.2.1 Significance
Criterion 1—Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States. The unnamed earthen ditch is first shown in its current alignment by 1946; however, an east to west oriented ditch was depicted, in a different alignment, as early as 1885 (Hall 1885; NETROnline 2024). The unnamed earthen ditch was likely one of dozens of canals and ditches established by private agricultural parcel owners during the late 1800s to early 1900s. Research did not reveal that it played a critical role in bringing irrigation to the surrounding area. It merely aided in the distribution of water to individual agricultural parcels in its immediate area. No evidence suggests that the ditch irrigated parcels of particular significance to the greater community. The size and relative irrigation impact of the ditch to the Merced region can be considered minor when compared to larger and earlier water conveyance systems within the area.
Furthermore, no archival evidence was found to suggest it was built, owned, or operated by the Merced Irrigation District. Therefore, the unnamed earthen ditch is not considered significant under Criterion 1.
DRAFT
Cultural Resource Study and Evaluation for Merced Gateway 35 Criterion 2—Associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history. Archival research found no evidence to suggest that the unnamed earthen ditch is directly linked to individuals significant in the history of the Merced area. Review of regional histories and historical irrigation maps did not reveal any information about the ditch or individuals associated with its construction. The ditch was not designated by name on any available maps. Ownership records related to the parcel containing the recorded ditch segment were not available for the years the ditch was constructed or realigned, so no direct association with an individual to the ditch could be established. For this reason, the unnamed earthen ditch is not considered significant under Criterion 2.
Criterion 3—Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values.
Significance under Criterion 3, when applied to canals, ditches, and similar linear structures, is measured by distinctive or innovative design, methods of construction, or involvement of a historically significant builder or engineer. Archival research uncovered no information about the original dimensions of the channel (i.e., its shape, width, depth, etc.) or related features within the unnamed earthen ditch. At present, the ditch is largely overgrown and appears abandoned.
No archival evidence revealed that any individual engineer or builder was associated with the construction of the ditch. As such, the ditch does not represent the work of a master engineer or builder. The ditch traverses level terrain that did not pose noteworthy engineering challenges for the irrigation company or its contractors. The unnamed earthen ditch is not considered significant under Criterion 3.
Criterion 4—Has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation. Criterion 4 applies to built environment resources if further study has the potential to yield information that cannot be obtained from other sources. However, the unnamed earthen ditch is a commonplace example of a ubiquitous resource type in California that has been well-documented. Æ has exhausted available sources and no additional information could be gleaned from subsequent field visits.
Therefore, Æ does not anticipate that any additional information can be identified that would prove the resource to be significant. The unnamed earthen ditch is not considered significant under Criterion 4.
5.3.2.2 Eligibility
A discussion of integrity is not required because the resource does not possess historical significance. The unnamed earthen ditch does not possess significance under the CRHR criteria for evaluation, and the recorded segment is recommended ineligible for listing in the CRHR.
Therefore, it does not qualify as a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA.
DRAFT
Cultural Resource Study and Evaluation for Merced Gateway 36 6 SUMMARY AND MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
At the request of Lennar, Æ conducted a cultural resource study for the proposed Merced Gateway Project in the city of Merced. The Project will involve the construction of a 562-unit, single-family home community on 71.18 acres of land that is currently vacant. Æ conducted background research, obtained a records search from the CCaIC, requested a search of the NAHC’s SLF, conducted outreach to local tribal representatives, and preformed intensive archaeological and historic built environment pedestrian surveys of the Project. Additionally, Ӕ evaluated the historic significance of two historic-era built environment resources for CRHR eligibility.
6.1 SUMMARY
The records search conducted by the CCaIC reported three cultural resources within the Project area and nine historic-era resources within the 0.5-mile search radius. Additionally, the CCaIC identified 7 cultural resources investigations that have occurred within the Project area (overlapping the entirety of the Project area), and 14 investigations have been conducted within the 0.5-mile search radius.
The NAHC’s SLF search did not identify any previously recorded tribal resources within or near the Project area. Æ reached out to the interested individuals and tribal communities on the NAHC contact list. Formal government-to-government consultation under Assembly Bill 52 will be conducted by the City. No additional information regarding sensitive or sacred sites was obtained through Æ’s Native American outreach efforts.
Ӕ conducted an archaeological and historic built environment surveys of the entire 71.18-acre Project area. A potentially historic-era straight razor was observed in the southern portion of the Project area but was not recorded due to a lack of provenience or diagnostic features. No previously unrecorded historical or precontact archaeological resources were observed during the pedestrian survey. Field crews confirmed the previously recorded residential and agricultural property (P-24-001930) is no longer extant and was removed sometime between 2006 and 2009.
Although no associated surface materials were identified during the survey, ground disturbance from the demolition of the buildings and structures is still visible. P-24-001930 has not been formally evaluated, but the previous recordation notes that the building and structures did not appear to retain enough integrity to be considered eligible for listing in the NRHP and CRHR Wills (2006). Æ did not conduct additional studies as no remains of P-24-001930 exist.
Ӕ’s inventory resulted in the identification of two segments of historic-era built environment resources within the Project area—a 2,538-foot-long segment of the Doane Lateral and a 1,353-foot-long segment of an unnamed earthen ditch. Both resources were evaluated for CRHR eligibility and found ineligible for listing because they do not possess significance under the CRHR criteria for evaluation and, therefore, do not qualify as historical resources for the purposes of CEQA. No further action is recommended for the management of these resources. In conclusion, Ӕ’s cultural resource study found no historical resources that could be impacted by the proposed Project.
DRAFT
Cultural Resource Study and Evaluation for Merced Gateway 37
6.2 RECOMMENDATIONS
Although Ӕ’s study did not identify historical resources within the Project area, general recommendations are provided below in the event that unanticipated cultural materials are discovered during ground-disturbing activities.
6.2.1 Inadvertent Discoveries
Although Ӕ does not anticipate any subsurface deposits associated with P-24-001930 will be uncovered during construction, should buried artifacts or subsurface features such as building foundations, privies, or other remains be discovered during ground disturbance in the vicinity of the non-extant dairy, or elsewhere in the Project area, a temporary work stop within 50 feet of the find shall occur until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the significance of the resource and recommend appropriate mitigation measures.
Preservation in place is the preferred manner of mitigating impacts to archaeological sites (CCR Section 15126.4[b][3][A]). However, if preservation in place is not feasible, project redesign may be required to avoid impacts to significant cultural resources (i.e., historical resources; CCR Section 15126.4[b][3][B]). If it is demonstrated that a historical resource cannot be avoided, the qualified archaeologist shall develop mitigation practices in consultation with the City which may include data recovery or other appropriate measures. Construction can recommence based on the direction of the qualified archaeologist and with the City’s concurrence (CCR Section 15126.4[b][3][C]).
The City shall consult with interested Native American representatives in determining appropriate mitigation for unearthed cultural resources if the resources are precontact or Native American in nature.
The qualified archaeologist shall prepare a report documenting any further studies, excavations, and/or additional mitigation of the resource(s). If the resource(s) is more than 50-years old, a DPR form must be completed and/or updated and filed with the City and the CCaIC along with a copy of the final report.
6.2.2 Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains
Æ advises that in the event human remains are uncovered during Project activities, the Merced County Coroner is to be notified to evaluate the remains, and follow the procedures and protocols set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e)(1). If the remains are identified to be those of a Native American person, California Health and Safety Code 7050.5 requires that the county coroner notify the NAHC within 24 hours of discovery. The NAHC will then identify the Most Likely Descendant, who will be afforded the opportunity to recommend means for treatment of the human remains following protocols in California PRC 5097.98.
DRAFT
Cultural Resource Study and Evaluation for Merced Gateway 38 7 REFERENCES
Bennyhoff, James A.
1977 Ethnogeography of the Plains Miwok. Center for Archaeological Research at Davis Publication 5. Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis.
Bickel, P. McW
1974 Toward a Prehistory of the San Francisco Bay Area. Paper presented at the 8th Annual Meeting of the Society for California Archaeology, Riverside.
Clough, Charles W., and William B. Secrest, Jr.
1984 Fresno County—the Pioneer Years: From the Beginnings to 1900, edited by Bobbye Sisk Temple. Panorama West Books, Fresno, California.
Dice, Michael H.
2010 P-24-001909 (Merced Irrigation District) DPR 523-series resource record. Michael Brandman Associates, San Bernardino, California.
Environmental Data Resources
2024 EDR Chain of Title Report for 3345 East Gerard Avenue, Merced, California (APN 061-250-50 and 061-250-79). Environmental Data Resources, LLC, Shelton, Connecticut.
Fredrickson, David A.
1974 Cultural Diversity in Early Central California: A View from the North Coast Ranges.
Journal of California Anthropology 1(1):41–53.
Gerow, B. A.
1954 The Problem of Culture Sequences in Central California Archaeology. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Hall, William Hammond
1885 Detail Irrigation Map: Merced Sheet. 1:63,360. California State Department of Engineering, Sacramento, California.
Heizer, Robert F.
1936 Notes and Manuscript of the Miller Mound, Site CA-Col-1. University of California Archaeological Survey Manuscripts 94. Archaeological Archives, Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology.
1949 The Archaeology of Central California, I: The Early Horizon. University of California Anthropological Records 12(1). University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles.
DRAFT
Cultural Resource Study and Evaluation for Merced Gateway 39 Heizer, Robert F., and Franklin Fenenga
1938 Archaeological Notes on the Sandhill Site (CA-Col-3). University of California Archaeological Survey Manuscripts 57. Archaeological Archives, Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology.
Heizer, Robert F., and A. D. Krieger
1935–1936 Colusa County Sites: Miller Mound (CA-Col-1), Sandhill Mound (CACol-2), Howells Point Mound (CA-Col-3). University of California Archaeological Survey Manuscripts 383. Archaeological Archives, Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley.
Hill, Mary
1984 California Landscape. California Natural History Guide Series No. 48. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Johnson, John R., and Joseph G. Lorenz
2006 Genetics, Linguistics, and Prehistoric Migrations: An Analysis of California Indian Mitochondrial DNA Lineage. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 26(1):33–64.
Larson, Bryan, and Chris Cannon
2000 P-24-001886 (CA-MER-456H; Doane Lateral) DPR 523-series resource record (Primary; Linear Feature; Building, Structure, and Object Records). JRP Historical Consulting LLC, Davis, California. On file, California Historical Resources Information System, Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center, California State University, Bakersfield.
Latta, Frank F.
1977 Handbook of Yokuts Indians. 2nd ed. Bear State Books, Santa Cruz, California.
Lillard, Jeremiah B., Robert F. Heizer, and Franklin Fenenga 1939 An Introduction to the Archaeology of Central California. Department of Anthropology Bulletin 2. Sacramento Junior College, Sacramento, California.
Lillard, Jeremiah B., and William K. Purves
1936 The Archaeology of the Deer Creek–Cosumnes Area, Sacramento County, California.
Sacramento Junior College Department of Anthropology Bulletin 1. Sacramento Junior College, Sacramento.
McSwain, Kenneth R.
1978 History of the Merced Irrigation District: Merced and Mariposa Counties, California, 1919–1977. Merced Irrigation District, Merced, California.
Merced County Department of the Assessor
2024 Parcel Map. Assessor's Map Book 61, p. 71.
Merced County Planning Department
2013 2030 Merced County General Plan, Merced, California.
DRAFT
Cultural Resource Study and Evaluation for Merced Gateway 40 Merced Express
1926 Local and Personal. 29 January:1. Merced, California. Newspapers.com, accessed November 15, 2024.
Merced Sun-Star
1934 Want Ads: Real Estate—for Sale. 7 March:5. Merced, California. Newspapers.com, accessed November 15, 2024.
1951 Legal Notice—Certificate of Copartners Doing Business under Fictitious Name. 3 January:9. Merced, California. Newspapers.com, accessed November 26, 2024. 1953 Mildred Green Will Head Women's Division of C. Of C. 10 December:4. Merced, California. Newspapers.com, accessed November 26, 2024. 1954 Soroptimists Begin New Year, Install Officers. 18 June:4. Merced, California.
Newspapers.com, accessed November 26, 2024.
1964 Tells of Engagement. 9 April:4. Merced, California. Newspapers.com, accessed November 15, 2024.
1969 Four Persons Enter Pleas. 18 November:8. Merced, California. Newspapers.com, accessed November 15, 2024.
Moratto, Michael J.
1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, Orlando, Florida. 1988 Archaeological Excavations at Site CA-FRE-1671, Fresno County, California. 2 vols.
INFOTEC Research, Inc., Sonora, California. Submitted to the California Department of Transportation, District 6, Fresno, California. California Department of Transportation, Publications Unit, Sacramento, California.
National Park Service
1997 How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. National Register Bulletin 15. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resources Division, Washington, D.C.
NETROnline
2024 Aerial Imagery of 3300 Block of East Gerard Avenue, Merced, California, 1946, https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer, accessed July 23, 2024. Historic Aerials, NETROnline.
Norris, Robert M., and Robert W. Webb
1990 Geology of California. 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Office of Historic Preservation
1990 Archaeological Resource Management Reports (ARMR): Recommended Contents and Format. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento.
DRAFT
Cultural Resource Study and Evaluation for Merced Gateway 41 1995 Instructions for Recording Historical Resources. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento.
2024 Built Environment Resource Directory, Merced County. BERD. California State Parks, Office of Historic Preservation.
Olsen, William H., and Louis A. Payen
1968 Archeology of the Little Panoche Reservoir, Fresno County, California. California Department of Parks and Recreation Archaeological Reports No. 11. Sacramento. 1969 Archeology of the Grayson Site [CA-MER-S94], Merced County, California. 12 vols.
California Department of Parks and Recreation Archaeological Report. Coyote Press, Salinas, California.
1983 Excavations at CA-MER-130: A Late Prehistoric Site in Pacheco Pass. In Papers on Merced County Prehistory, pp. 1–85. California Department of Parks and Recreation Archaeological Reports No. 21 Sacramento.
Outcalt, John
1925 History of Merced County, California, with a Biographical Review. Historic Record Company, Los Angeles, California.
Parker, J. Carlyle
1881 History of Merced County, California, with Biographical Sketches of Prominent Citizens. Elliot & Moore, San Francisco.
Pierce, Wendy, R. Bathard, T. Overly, and N. Stevens
1999 P-24-001886 (CA-MER-456H; Doane Lateral) DPR 523-series resource record (Primary; Linear Feature Records). Archaeological Resource Center, California State University, Sacramento, California. On file, California Historical Resources Information System, Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center, California State University, Bakersfield.
Pritchard, William E.
1967 The Archaeology of Lower Los Banos Creek. Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, California State University, Sacramento. Sacramento, California. 1970 Archaeology of the Menjoulet Site (CA-MER-3), Merced County, California.
California Department of Parks and Recreation Archaeological Reports No. 13.
Sacramento.
Radcliffe, Corwin
1940 History of Merced County. A. H. Cawston, Merced, California.
Ragir, Sonia R.
1972 The Early Horizon in Central California Prehistory. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility No. 15. Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley.
DRAFT
Cultural Resource Study and Evaluation for Merced Gateway 42 Riddell, F. A., and H. S. Riddell, Jr.
1940 Archaeological Notes on Site CA-Sac-28. University of California Archaeological Survey Manuscripts 34. Archaeological Archives, Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology, Berkeley.
Riddell, Francis A., and William H. Olsen
1965 Archaeology of Mer-14, Merced County, California. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento.
Treganza, Adan E.
1960 Archaeological Investigations in the San Luis Reservoir Area, Merced County, California. Submitted to California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento.
U.S. Census Bureau
1930 Sheet No. 3-B, Enumeration District No. 24-7; Supervisor's District No. 11. In United States Federal Census: Nevada Precinct, Merced County, California. 8 April. National Archives and Records Administration, Washington, D.C.
1940 Sixteenth Census of the United States: 1940, Township 2, Merced Colony, Merced County, California. Sheet No. 20A, Enumeration District No. 24-13, Supervisor's District No. 9.
1950 1950 Census of Population and Housing: Merced, Merced County, California. Sheet No. 71, Enumeration District No. 24-10.
U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Merced, CA. 1:24,000. 7.5-minute quadrangle. U.S. Department of the Interior Geological Survey.
Wallace, William J.
1978a Northern Valley Yokuts. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 462–470.
Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, William C. Sturtevant, general editor.
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
1978b Southern Valley Yokuts. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 448–461.
Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, William C. Sturtevant, general editor.
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Wedel, Waldo R.
1935 Archaeological Notes on the Howell’s Point Site (CA-Col-2) and CA-Sha-47.
University of California Archaeological Survey Manuscripts 18. Archaeological Archives, Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology, Berkeley.
Wills, Carrie D.
2006 P-24-001930 Primary Record. Michael Brandman Associates, San Ramon, California.
On file, California Historical Resources Information System, Central California Information Center, University of California, Stanislaus.
DRAFT
Cultural Resource Study and Evaluation for Merced Gateway 43 Wood, Herb
2013 Merced History,
https://web.archive.org/web/20131210132215/http://visitmerced.travel/Attractions/m erced_history.php, accessed November 6, 2024. Merced Visitor Services.
DRAFT
APPENDIX A
Personnel Qualifications
DRAFT
CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT | ARCHAEOLOGY | ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY | PALEONTOLOGY | GIS ANNA HOOVER Principal Archaeologist
Areas of Expertise
• Cultural resources management
• Prehistoric archaeology of
southern California
• Indigenous archaeology and Native
American/descendant community
coordination
• Federal, state, local environmental
laws and regulations
• Training, capacity building
• Traditional Cultural Property and
Landscape analysis
Years of Experience
• 24
Education
M.S., Anthropology, focus
Archaeology, 2003, University of
California, Riverside
B.S., Anthropology, 2000,
University of California, Riverside
B.A., Linguistics, 2000, University
of California, Riverside
A.A., English, 1996, Long Beach
City College
Registrations/Certifications
• Registered Professional
Archaeologist 28576661 (current)
• Cultural Consultant, Riverside
County #171 (current)
Permits/Licensure
• Field Director, California BLM
Statewide Cultural Resources Use
Permit CA-21-21
Professional Associations
• Society of California Archaeology
Professional Experience
2023– Principal Archaeologist, Applied EarthWorks, Inc. 2020–2022 Senior Archaeologist, Applied EarthWorks, Inc. 2017–2023 Senior Ethnoarchaeologist, Cultural Geographics Consulting
2007–2017 Deputy Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, Pechanga Band of Luiseño Mission Indians
2001–2015 Archaeological Assistant, San Bernardino County Coroner
2002–2007 Senior Archaeologist, L&L Environmental, Inc.
Technical Qualifications
Ms. Hoover has more than 24 years of experience in archaeological, cultural, and tribal resource management in southern California, Alta and Baja California, and Yucatan, Mexico. Ms. Hoover has collaborated with governmental agencies, environmental consultants, and indigenous communities to develop sustainable and practical applications for the identification and preservation of archaeological and tribal cultural resources, including landscapes and large, geographical features. As a capable Project Manager, she has coordinated dozens of CRM projects during all phases of development, including managing logistics and communications with various clients, lead agencies, Tribal communities, and project staff. Ms. Hoover is the designated archaeologist of record for three Native American Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (THPOs) in southern California.
Ms. Hoover has authored, co-authored, reviewed, and contributed to hundreds of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) technical reports; Programmatic, Memoranda, and Master Agreements; THPO development applications and associated tribal ordinances and historic preservation guidance; ethnographic studies and National Register of Historic Places eligibility forms; and other compliance and mitigation documents.
Ms. Hoover has presented collaborative projects, personal research, cultural resources education, and environmental regulation guidance trainings to a wide variety of audiences, including topics such as AB 52, SB 18 and CEQA guidance, cultural and tribal consultation best practices, and Tribal Monitoring Program trainings. She has contributed to CalTHPO organizational committees, participated in development of California and Federal archaeological and tribal consultation policies, and contributed to a published book on Tribal GIS applications.
DRAFT
.J/J;;;J;;J.. App lied
EARTHWORKS Inc.
CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT | ARCHAEOLOGY | ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY | PALEONTOLOGY | GIS CARLOS VAN ONNA Principal Architectural Historian
Areas of Expertise
• Cultural resource management
• Architectural history
• Historic preservation
Years of Experience
• 12
Education
Ph.D. candidate, Architectural
History, Utrecht University
M.A., Architectural History and
Historic Preservation, Utrecht
University, 2010–2011
B.A., Art History, Utrecht
University, 2007–2010
Professional Experience
2023– Principal Architectural Historian, Applied EarthWorks, Inc., Hemet, California
2023 Senior Architectural Historian, PaleoWest, LLC, Los Angeles, California
2022–2023 Senior Planner, Office of Historic Preservation, City of Dallas, Texas
2019–2021 Senior Architectural Historian, Applied EarthWorks, Inc., Fresno, California
2017–2019 Editor/Translator, SDI Media, Los Angeles, California 2016–2017 Subcontractor, GPA Consulting, Los Angeles, California 2015–2016 Project Manager, City of Amsterdam, The Netherlands 2014–2015 Visiting Scholar, Columbia University, New York 2011–2014 Advisor on Cultural History and Urban Development, City of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Technical Qualifications
Mr. van Onna has been involved in cultural resources management since 2011. His areas of expertise include built environment investigations, preparation of historic resource evaluation reports, and other required documentation for cultural resource management projects. As a Principal Architectural Historian for Applied EarthWorks, Mr. van Onna meets the Secretary of the Interior’s professional qualification standards in architectural history. He has prepared technical reports for historical built environment resources to satisfy compliance requirements under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), including significance evaluations and eligibility recommendations for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). Mr. van Onna has previously worked for the City of Amsterdam, Netherlands, coordinating its Municipal Landmarks Project and completing numerous built environment surveys, studies, and historical significance assessments. More recently, he worked for the city of Dallas as a senior planner in the Office of Historic Preservation. At Applied EarthWorks, he leads built environment studies, provides guidance and assistance to project managers and staff, and conducts review of technical documents.
Additional skills include archival research, architectural photography, editing, and quality assurance. Through his pursuit of a doctoral degree at Utrecht University, he explores the role of historic preservation in urban public spaces in the United States.
DRAFT
.J/J;;;J;;J.. App lied
EARTHWORKS Inc.
CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT | ARCHAEOLOGY | ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY | PALEONTOLOGY | GIS NICOLE SAENZ Staff Anthropologist
Areas of Expertise
• Forensic anthropology
• Exhumations
• Human osteology
• Faunal analysis/zooarchaeology
• Project administration
Years of Experience
• 7
Education
M.S., Forensic Anthropology,
Boston University Chobanian and
Avedisian School of Medicine, 2023
B.A., Anthropology, University of
California, Santa Cruz, 2012
Professional Associations
American Association of Biological
Anthropologists
Professional Experience
2023– Staff Anthropologist, Applied EarthWorks, Inc.
2022– Forensic Anthropology Consultant and Peer Reviewer, Puerto Rico Institute of Forensic Sciences
2022–2023 Field Technician, Applied EarthWorks, Inc.
2008–2012 Zooarchaeology Preparations and Curation Intern, University of California, Santa Cruz
Technical Qualifications
Ms. Saenz is a Staff Anthropologist at Applied EarthWorks, Inc. She received her Bachelor of Arts degree in Anthropology from the University of California, Santa Cruz and her Master of Science degree in Forensic Anthropology from the Boston University Chobanian and Avedisian School of Medicine. Ms. Saenz has completed internships in zooarchaeological preparation and curation, thermally altered scene analysis and remains recovery, and currently serves as a forensic anthropological consultant and peer reviewer for the Puerto Rico Institute of Forensic Sciences. In addition, Ms. Saenz serves as a forensic anthropology analyst at California State University Fresno, where she has performed laboratory case analysis and field exhumations. Ms. Saenz’s professional responsibilities include project administration, osteological assessments, outreach with the Native American Heritage Commission and its recommendations, pre-field project preparations, writing technical reports, completing California Department of Parks and Recreation 523-series forms, and assisting with project proposals.
DRAFT
.J/J;;;J;;J.. App lied
EARTHWORKS Inc.
CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT | ARCHAEOLOGY | ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY | PALEONTOLOGY | GIS CHEYENNE GOOD-PEERY Staff Architectural Historian
Areas of Expertise
• Architectural history
• California history
• Environmental history
• Archival and historical research
• CEQA/NEPA application and
analysis
• Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards for the Preservation of
Historic Properties
Years of Experience
• 2
Education
B.A., Art History, East Tennessee
State University, Johnson City, TN,
2019 (with great distinction)
B.A., Foreign Languages-French,
East Tennessee State University,
Johnson City, TN, 2019 (with great
distinction)
Professional Affiliations
• California Preservation Foundation
Professional Experience
2021– Staff Architectural Historian, Applied EarthWorks, Inc., Fresno, California.
Technical Qualifications
Ms. Good-Peery is a Staff Architectural Historian at Applied EarthWorks, Inc. She received dual Bachelor of Arts degrees in Art History and French from East Tennessee State University in 2019. Ms.
Good-Peery’s professional responsibilities include policy consistency analysis, historical resource evaluation, significance evaluation, integrity assessment, built environment monitoring, archival and historical research, and architectural field surveys. She maintains all measures to satisfy compliance requirements under Section 106 of the NRHP, CEQA, and local regulations. Since joining Applied EarthWorks, Inc., Ms. Good-Peery has employed her educational background for projects throughout California’s central valley, central coast, and southern California, including Fresno, Mariposa, Merced, Kern, Tulare, San Benito, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, San Bernardino, Riverside and Los Angeles Counties. She has prepared evaluations for various types of state historic resources and at-risk properties and performed Section 110 condition assessments at military installations. She has assessed potential adverse effects under 36 CFR 800.5 in support of projects dealing with sensitive or eligible resources.
She has also reviewed projects for consistency with the SOI Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. She is knowledgeable of urban, rural, residential, commercial, civic, agricultural, transportation, and scientific related properties.
DRAFT
.J/J;;;J;;J.. App lied
EARTHWORKS Inc.
CONFIDENTIAL—Not for Public Distribution*
*Archaeological site locations are exempt from the California Public Records Act, as specified in Government Code 6254.10, and from the Freedom of Information Act (Exemption 3), under the legal authority of both the NHPA (PL 89665, as amended, Section 304[a]) and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (PL 96-95, Section 9[a]).
APPENDIX B
Records Search Results
DRAFT
APPENDIX C
Native American Outreach
DRAFT
Native American Outreach
Merced Gateway Cultural Resource Study and Evaluation
Organization Name Letter Email Phone Summary of Contact Amah Mutsun Tribal
Band
Valentin Lopez 07/30/24 07/30/24 Called 9/3/24;
no answer and
i il
No response to date
Amah Mutsun Tribal
Band
Ed Ketchum 30-Jul-24 30-Jul-24 Called 9/3/24;
no answer and
no voicemail
No response to date
North Fork Rancheria of
Mono Indians
Fred Beihn 30-Jul-24 30-Jul-24
—
Ashley Pomona responded
8/8/2024 deferring to Southern
Sierra Miwok
North Fork Rancheria of
Mono Indians
Mary Stalter 07/30/24 Returned
unsendable ——
Northern Valley Yokut /
Ohlone Tribe
Timothy Perez 07/30/24 07/30/24 Message left
9/3/24
No response to date
Northern Valley Yokut /
Ohlone Tribe
Katherine Perez 07/30/24 07/30/24 Message left
9/3/24
No response to date
Southern Sierra Miwuk
Nation
Sandra Chapman 07/30/24 07/30/24 ——
Southern Sierra Miwuk
Nation
Jazzmyn Gegere 07/30/24 07/30/24 Called 9/3/24 Stated that Southern Sierra Miwuk Nation has no tribal cultural
resource concerns for this project
and defers to any consulting
tribes.
Tule River Indian Tribe Kerri Vera 07/30/24 07/30/24 Message left 9/3/24
No response to date
Tule River Indian Tribe Neil Peyron 07/30/24 07/30/24 Message left with recptionist
9/3/24
No response to date
Tule River Indian Tribe Joey Garfield —— — —
Wuksachi Indian
Tribe/Eshom Valley Band
Kenneth
Woodrow
07/30/24 07/30/24 Called 9/3/24;
no answer and
no voicemail
No response to date
12/4/2024 Page 1 of 1
DRAFT
M.Applied
EARTHWORKS Inc.
Sacred Lands File & Native American Contacts List Request Native American Heritage Commission
1550 Harbor Boulevard, Suite 100
West Sacramento, CA 95691
916-373-3710
916-657-5390 – Fax
[email protected]
Information Below is Required for a Sacred Lands File Search Date: July 18, 2024
Project: 4634 Merced Gateway
County: Merced
USGS Quadrangle Name: Merced
Township: 07S Range: 14E Section(s): 34
Company/Firm/Agency: Applied EarthWorks, Inc.
Contact Person: Nicole Saenz
Street Address: 1391 W. Shaw Ave., Suite C
City: Fresno Zip: 93711
Phone: (559) 229-1856 x 121
Fax: (559) 229-2019
Email: [email protected]
Project Description:
Pedestrian survey in advance of a residential development.
DRAFT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
July 23, 2024
Nicole Saenz
Applied EarthWorks, Inc.
Via Email to: [email protected]
Re: 4634 Merced Gateway Project, Merced County
Dear Ms. Saenz:
A record search of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) was completed for the information you have submitted for the above referenced project. The results were negative. However, the absence of specific site information in the SLF does not indicate the absence of cultural resources in any project area. Other sources of cultural resources should also be contacted for information regarding known and recorded sites.
Attached is a list of Native American tribes who may also have knowledge of cultural resources in the project area. This list should provide a starting place in locating areas of potential adverse impact within the proposed project area. I suggest you contact all of those indicated; if they cannot supply information, they might recommend others with specific knowledge. By contacting all those listed, your organization will be better able to respond to claims of failure to consult with the appropriate tribe. If a response has not been received within two weeks of notification, the Commission requests that you follow-up with a telephone call or email to ensure that the project information has been received.
If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify me. With your assistance, we can assure that our lists contain current information.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at my email address: [email protected].
Sincerely,
Pricilla Torres-Fuentes
Cultural Resources Analyst
Attachment
CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagaling
Chumash
VICE-CHAIRPERSON
Buffy McQuillen
Yokayo Pomo, Yuki,
Nomlaki
SECRETARY
Sara Dutschke
Miwok
PARLIAMENTARIAN
Wayne Nelson
Luiseño
COMMISSIONER
Isaac Bojorquez
Ohlone-Costanoan
COMMISSIONER
Stanley Rodriguez
Kumeyaay
COMMISSIONER
Laurena Bolden
Serrano
COMMISSIONER
Reid Milanovich
Cahuilla
COMMISSIONER
Bennae Calac
Pauma-Yuima Band of
Luiseño Indians
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Raymond C.
Hitchcock
Miwok, Nisenan
NAHC HEADQUARTERS
1550 Harbor Boulevard
Suite 100
West Sacramento,
California 95691
(916) 373-3710
[email protected]
NAHC.ca.gov
DRAFT
Tribe Name Contact Person Contact Address Phone # Email Address Amah Mutsun Tribal
Band
Valentin Lopez,
Chairperson
P.O. Box 5272
Galt, CA, 95632
(916) 743-5833 [email protected]
Amah Mutsun Tribal
Band
Ed Ketchum, ViceChairperson(530) 578-3864 [email protected] North Fork
Rancheria of Mono
Indians
Fred Beihn,
Chairperson
P.O. Box 929
North Fork, CA, 93643
(559) 877-2461 [email protected]
North Fork
Rancheria of Mono
Indians
Mary Stalter,
Environmental/Heritage
Manager
P.O. Box 929
North Fork, CA, 93643
(559) 877-2461 [email protected]
Northern Valley
Yokut / Ohlone Tribe
Timothy Perez, Tribal
Compliance Officer
P.O. Box 717
Linden, CA, 95236
(209) 662-2788 [email protected]
Northern Valley
Yokut / Ohlone Tribe
Katherine Perez,
Chairperson
P.O. Box 717
Linden, CA, 95236
(209) 649-8972 [email protected]
Southern Sierra
Miwuk Nation
Sandra Chapman,
Chairperson
P.O. Box 186
Mariposa, CA, 95338
(559) 580-7871 [email protected]
Southern Sierra
Miwuk Nation
Jazzmyn Gegere,
Director of Cultural
Resource Preservation
P.O. Box 186
Mariposa, CA, 95338
(209) 742-3104 preservation@southernsierramiw
uknation.org
Tule River Indian
Tribe
Kerri Vera,
Environmental
Department
P. O. Box 589
Porterville, CA, 93258
(559) 783-8892 [email protected]
Tule River Indian
Tribe
Neil Peyron,
Chairperson
P.O. Box 589
Porterville, CA, 93258
(559) 781-4271 neil.peyron@tulerivertribensn.gov
Tule River Indian
Tribe
Joey Garfield, Tribal
Archaeologist
P. O. Box 589
Porterville, CA, 93258
(559) 783-8892 joey.garfield@tulerivertribensn.gov
Wuksachi Indian
Tribe/Eshom Valley
Band
Kenneth Woodrow,
Chairperson
1179 Rock Haven Ct.
Salinas, CA, 93906
(831) 443-9702 [email protected]
07/23/2024 04:14 PM
1 of 1
DRAFT
1391 W. Shaw Ave., Suite C
Fresno, CA 93711-3600
O: (559) 229-1856 | F: (559) 229-2019
www.appliedearthworks.com
CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT | ARCHAEOLOGY | ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY | PALEONTOLOGY | GIS July 29, 2024
Jazzmyn Gegere, Director of Cultural Resource Preservation Southern Sierra Miwuk Nation
P.O. Box 186
Mariposa, CA, 95338
(209) 742-3104
Transmitted via USPS and email ([email protected]) RE: Merced Gateway Survey Project, Merced County, California Dear Jazzmyn Gegere,
Applied EarthWorks, Inc. (Æ) is providing cultural resource services, including archaeological survey, in support of proposed residential development with associated street improvements and utility tie-ins (Project). The Project boundaries are in the City of Merced, Merced County, California.
The project area is a 62.18-acre parcel as shown on the Merced (1987), CA 7.5-minute U.S. Geological Survey topographic quadrangle (see enclosed map). The project does involve new construction, including multiple ground-breaking activities related to construction and development. Therefore, a cultural resource study is required.
On behalf of the City of Merced, Æ is conducting Native American outreach and performing other tasks related to cultural resource management. The project is subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and, as lead agency, the City of Merced is responsible for any formal government-to-government consultation required. This communication is not intended to initiate Assembly Bill 52 consultation.
Æ has requested a sacred lands file search from the Native American Heritage Commission. The results were received on July 23, 2024 and indicated a negative result. Your name and address were provided to us by the NAHC as someone who may have additional information and/or concerns about the project.
If you have information about tribal or cultural resources in the area or if you have any interest in the project, please email/phone me or send a letter to my attention. Your comments will be included in our cultural resource report unless noted otherwise. You can contact me during normal business hours (559- 229-1856 ext. 121) or via email at [email protected] if you have any questions or need additional information.
Sincerely,
Nicole Saenz, M.S.
Staff Anthropologist, Fresno Office
Applied EarthWorks, Inc.
encl.: Project Map
DRAFT
£Applied
EARTHWORKS Inc.
Project location map for the Project - Merced Gateway AE4634. 0 0.5 1
Kilometers
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000
Feet
0 0.5 1
Miles
Scale: 1:24,000
o
07S 14E : 34
Merced (1987), CA 7.5' USGS
Topographic Quadrangle
PROJECT AREA
Project Area
DRAFT
~
:i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I •
r·- ·- ·· - .. ·- ·•
:28 J O •
:-
: : a . ••
: .. . • I : o ♦- • ••: •• · ..... : .. .. -:. . . . . .... . . -~-. : -. - . . . . 0 --,
Her l
I Drive-in
E-3 E-3 E-3
r
I
I _______ J
CJ
.. Applied
EARTHWORKS~
!"##$%" &
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
&
RAU:F!2*2#-,$-25":##2#-$*-
VWWX3;YY3W> Z[VGGG4*),-./),0,$*1.",2$3*#*4%)5
\ V$()!)*$+*/,3*#*4%)5 WYX=]^EFB2EE#2-"H-9 N),-.J),09H:X@]>@
H^NJLURN7L:IL7_N^7LHR?7."1)*-"*-#)/-.2#"!$2E!"##$%"$*F$*M$--$1.!"*-#$,"2*-"*F"F#)E"EM/),-." $FF,"##""`#a$*F!$M1)*-$2*1)*/2F"*-2$E$*Fb),(,252E"%"F2*/),!$-2)*$*F!$MS"E"%$EEM(,)-"1-"F/,)!F2#1E)#8,"4L/ M)8$,"*)--."2*-"*F"F,"12(2"*-)/-.2#!"##$%"),-."2,$%"*-9),2/-.2#!"##$%".$#S""*$FF,"##"F-)M)82*",,),9 (E"$#"2!!"F2$-"EM$E",--."#"*F",SM,"(EM"!$2E$*F-."*F"E"-"-.2#!"##$%"$*F$*M$--$1.!"*-#4L/M)8$,"*)--." 2*-"*F"F,"12(2"*-9M)8$,".","SM*)-2/2"F-.$-$*M8#"9F2##"!2*$-2)*91)(M2*%9),#-),$%")/-.2#!"##$%"),2-# $--$1.!"*-#2##-,21-EM(,).2S2-"F4 ;b <b<>9 ?>@AB:((E2"FR$,-.G),0#9L*14B$2E3B",1"FK$-"G$MQ8,5"MA,)c"1- .--(#?bb!$2E4%))%E"41)!b!$2Eb8b=bd20e<W@X;><1"$f52"Ge(-f#"$,1.e$EEf(",!-.2Fe-.,"$F3/? ;=];]>=;Y>@X@X <=;f#2!(Ee!#%3/? ;=];]>=;Y>@X@X <=; b DRAFT ~ESOP
~1edc.-..w-Cn,p,.o,,o::eS"°°"~hpPLar,,
:i.oo~ E~u.-0~
Nicole Saenz <[email protected]>
Merced Gateway Archaeology Project
3 messages
Nicole Saenz <[email protected]> Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 8:52 AM To: [email protected]
Cc: Anna Hoover <[email protected]>
Dear Jazzmyn Gegere,
Applied EarthWorks, Inc. is providing archaeological services for a project in Merced, Merced County, CA. As a result of a recent Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands Search for this project, your name and contact information was provided by the NAHC as someone who may have additional information and/or concerns about this project.
Please kindly review the attached letter and project area map and respond with any comments or concerns you may have. Please note that our outreach is not formal government to government consultation, but an opportunity for you to provide information for the archaeological report.
We appreciate your time and consideration.
--
Nicole Saenz M.S. | Applied EarthWorks, Inc.
Staff Anthropologist - Osteologist - Project Administrator | (She/Her) 1391 W. Shaw Ave., Suite C
Fresno, CA 93711-3600
Office 559-229-1856 x121
www.appliedearthworks.com
Archaeology | Paleontology | Historical Architecture | GIS Southern Sierra Miwuk Director Cultural Resource Preservation.pdf 1098K
Nicole Saenz <[email protected]> Wed, Sep 4, 2024 at 1:54 PM To: [email protected]
Hello Jazzmyn,
I am writing to follow up on our conversation yesterday about this project to see if you have any feedback or information that you would like included in our report?
Thank you
Nicole
[Quoted text hidden]
--
Nicole
Jazzmyn Gegere Brochini <[email protected]> Wed, Sep 4, 2024 at 2:44 PM To: Nicole Saenz <[email protected]>
Hello Nicole,
The Southern Sierra Miwuk Nation has no tribal cultural resource concerns for this project. But, will defer to any consulting Tribes, if any.
Thank you,
9/4/24, 3:28 PM Applied Earthworks, Inc. Mail - Merced Gateway Archaeology Project https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=2539842cea&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r5318179400542232013&simpl=msg-a:r-62169854393852… 1/2 DRAFT
:LOO~ l="""f"U"'!:U-0~
Jazzmyn
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
Get Outlook for Android
From: Nicole Saenz <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2024 1:54:17 PM
To: Jazzmyn Gegere Brochini <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Merced Gateway Archaeology Project
[Quoted text hidden]
9/4/24, 3:28 PM Applied Earthworks, Inc. Mail - Merced Gateway Archaeology Project https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=2539842cea&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r5318179400542232013&simpl=msg-a:r-62169854393852… 2/2 DRAFT
CONFIDENTIAL—Not for Public Distribution*
*Archaeological site locations are exempt from the California Public Records Act, as specified in Government Code 6254.10, and from the Freedom of Information Act (Exemption 3), under the legal authority of both the NHPA (PL 89665, as amended, Section 304[a]) and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (PL 96-95, Section 9[a]).
APPENDIX D
Cultural Resource Records
DRAFT
APPENDIX D
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
& A S S O C I A T E S , I N C.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
CONSTRUCTION TESTING & INSPECTION
215 West Dakota Avenue • Clovis, California 93612 • (559) 348-2200 • FAX (559) 348-2190 With Offices Serving the Western United States
034-24036 Campus Gateway Devel Phase I ESA Report Final.docx May 31, 2024 Project No. 034-24036
Mr. Rabie Mekideche
Lennar Homes of California, LLC
8080 North Palm Avenue, Suite 110
Fresno, California 93711
[email protected]
RE: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Campus Gateway Development
Campus Parkway
APN 061-710-009 and A Portion of APN 061-710-023
Merced, California 95341
Dear Mr. Mekideche:
Krazan & Associates, Inc., (Krazan) completed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment at the referenced site summarized in a report dated May 31, 2024. Please note that the earliest date of source review was on May 9, 2024. This report is considered viable within 180 days of that date. We appreciate the opportunity to serve your environmental due diligence needs.
During the course of this assessment, Krazan identified no evidence of recognized environmental conditions (RECs), controlled RECs (CRECs) or historical RECs (HRECs) in connection with the subject site as defined by ASTM E 1527-21. However, the following potential areas of concern (PAOCs) and site development issues were identified in connection with the subject site:
PAOCs
Krazan’s review of historical aerial photographs indicates that the northern portion of the subject site was occupied by a rural residential area from at least 1937 until at least 1998. The rural residential area included a varying number of dwellings, barns, and other outbuildings over the course of the 1937- to 1998-time interval, with at least three barn-type structures present in 1950 and five or six barn-type structures present in 1984. Additionally, historical aerial photographs of the subject site vicinity indicate the presence of on-site farming operations during the 1937- to 1998-time interval expected to have utilized fuel-powered trucks and farm equipment. Mr.
Timothy Jones, a representative of the owner of the subject site familiar with the subject site for the past 17 years, indicated that he was unaware of underground storage tanks (USTs) being located at the subject site, and no records of USTs for the subject site are on file with the local regulatory agencies. However, USTs on rural or agricultural properties historically have been exempt from requirements for registration with regulatory agencies. Krazan’s experience with such properties has shown that it is not uncommon for property owners/operators to install USTs for their convenience, especially in the vicinity of structures, which are undocumented and whose presence would remain unknown in spite of the standard data research conducted in the course of this Phase I ESA. It is therefore possible that subsurface features such as unregistered USTs may exist in the vicinity of the former on-site structures which remain unknown based upon the absence of any regulatory, municipality, interview data, or other evidence indicating their presence or location.
Campus Gateway Development Project No. 034-24036
Merced, California Page No. 2
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
With Offices Serving the Western United States
034-24036 Campus Gateway Devel Phase I ESA Report Final.docx Consequently, despite an absence of data suggesting their presence, the presence or absence of USTs associated with the subject site prior to the current owner of the subject site is unknown.
If higher level of due diligence is required, an assessment of the inferred area of the former structures previously located within the subject site can be conducted to assess the presence or absence of subsurface metallic anomalies characteristic of USTs. If a UST is identified, it should be removed in accordance with State and local guidelines. Krazan’s historical research indicates that the subject site was utilized for agricultural purposes from at least 1937 until at least 1998. While there is a potential that environmentally persistent pesticides/herbicides may have been applied to the crops grown on the subject site prior to the 1970s, no chemical spray rig filling/mixing areas or chemical storage areas were observed during the site reconnaissance, no material evidence of the use of environmentally persistent pesticides/herbicides was obtained during the course of this assessment, and the subject site does not appear to have been occupied by a vineyard or an orchard which are typically more directly correlated with the historical use of environmentally persistent pesticides/herbicides. Therefore, the potential for elevated concentrations of environmentally persistent pesticides/herbicides to currently exist in the near-surface soils of the subject site appears to be low, although the actual condition of surficial soils is unknown.
It has been Krazan’s experience that chemical analysis of shallow soil samples for persistent pesticides/herbicides in current or former agricultural areas does not typically result in concentrations reported above regulatory screening levels; however, it has also been Krazan’s recent experience that Federal, State and Local agencies and/or financial lending institutions have at times required “pesticide screening” of properties with current and/or former agricultural uses.
If pesticide screening or further assessment is required by a government agency or financial lending institution, Krazan can assist with those requests.
Site Development Issues
As indicated previously, review of historical aerial photographs indicates that the northern portion of the subject site was occupied by dwellings and outbuildings circa 1937. The dwellings were located on site from at least 1937 until at least 1998. It is presumed that all water wells and septic systems associated with the historical on-site structures were properly destroyed or removed from the subject site at the time that these structures were demolished in the early- to late-2000s.
However, it is unknown if all water wells or septic systems were destroyed/removed from the subject site. If any water wells or septic systems are identified during the planned redevelopment of the subject site, they should be properly destroyed or removed in accordance with State and local guidelines.
According to the U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory available via the USFWS Internet website on May 24, 2024, a designated Riverine wetland is located within the northern portion of the subject site. The USFWS-reported on-site wetland is associated with the on-site portion of an irrigation canal present since at least 1937. While a definitive assessment of the presence of on-site wetland habitats is beyond the scope of this Phase I ESA, it is Krazan’s experience that unlined, irrigation ditches are common within agricultural areas and these areas can seasonally be consistent with wetland environments. Prior to development of the subject site, an assessment can be conducted by a qualified biologist to establish if wetland habitats exist and to determine the impact of development should wetlands be identified on the subject site. Refer to Appendix C – USFWS Map for details.
Project No. 034-24036 Campus Gateway Development
Page No. 3 Merced, California
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
With Offices Serving the Western United States
034-24036 Campus Gateway Devel Phase I ESA Report Final.docx If you have any questions regarding the information presented in this report, please call me at (559) 348- 2200.
Respectfully submitted,
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Remington R. Alexander, PE
Environmental Regional Manager
RRA/mlt
7-:y~
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
CAMPUS GATEWAY DEVELOPMENT
CAMPUS PARKWAY
APN 061-710-009 AND A PORTION OF
APN 061-710-023
MERCED, CALIFORNIA 95341
Project No. 034-24036
May 31, 2024
Prepared for:
Mr. Rabie Mekideche
Lennar Homes of California, LLC
8080 North Palm Avenue, Suite 110
Fresno, California 93711
Prepared by:
Krazan & Associates, Inc.
215 West Dakota Avenue
Clovis, California 93612
(559) 348-2200
i..fi I<razat1. & ASSOCIATE S. INC.
SITE DEVELOPMENT ENGIN EER S
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..................................................................................................................... i
1.0 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................... 1
2.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT ............................................................................ 3
2.1 Purpose ..................................................................................................................................... 3
2.2 Scope of Work........................................................................................................................... 3
3.0 SUBJECT SITE SETTING ........................................................................................................ 4
3.1 Geology and Hydrogeology ....................................................................................................... 4
4.0 SITE BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................... 6
4.1 Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps..................................................................................................... 6
4.2 USGS Topographic Quadrangle Maps ....................................................................................... 6
4.3 City Cross Reference Directories ............................................................................................... 8
4.4 Aerial Photograph Interpretation ................................................................................................ 8
4.5 Municipal Records .................................................................................................................. 11
4.6 Previous Environmental Assessments ...................................................................................... 11
4.7 Agricultural Chemicals ............................................................................................................ 12
5.0 USER-PROVIDED INFORMATION ...................................................................................... 13
5.1 Environmental Liens/Activity and Use Limitations Report ....................................................... 13
5.2 Title Report ............................................................................................................................. 13
5.3 Interviews................................................................................................................................ 13
5.4 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment User Questionnaire .................................................... 14
6.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE ...................................................................................................... 16
6.1 Observations ........................................................................................................................... 16
6.2 Adjacent Streets and Property Usage ....................................................................................... 18
6.3 ASTM Non-Scope Considerations ........................................................................................... 18
6.4 Regulatory Agency Records Review ........................................................................................ 20
7.0 DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS .................................................................................................. 26
7.1 Evaluation of Data Gaps/Data Failure ...................................................................................... 26
8.0 CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................................... 28
9.0 RELIANCE ............................................................................................................................... 30
10.0 LIMITATIONS ..................................................................................................................... 30
11.0 QUALIFICATIONS .............................................................................................................. 31 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................... 33 GLOSSARY OF TERMS .................................................................................................................... 34 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
FIGURES
Figure No. 1 Vicinity Map
Figure No. 2 Parcel Map
Figure No. 3 Site Map
Figure No. 4 Topographic Map
PHOTOGRAPHS
APPENDICES
Appendix A EDR – Certified Sanborn® Map Report
EDR – Historical Topo Map Report
EDR – City Directory Image Report
EDR – Aerial Photo Decade Package
Appendix B Preliminary Title Report
Phase I ESA Questionnaires
Appendix C EDR – Radius Map Report
USFWS - National Westlands Inventory May
i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Krazan & Associates, Inc. (Krazan) has conducted a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of the
72.25-acre property which is associated with Merced County Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 061-710- 009 and a portion of 061-710-023 (subject site). The subject site is a former rural residential and agricultural property located south of East Gerard Avenue and 0.25 miles east of South Coffee Street in Merced, Merced County, California 95341. The subject site does not currently appear to be associated with an address. At the time of Krazan’s May 24, 2024 site reconnaissance, the subject site was vacant.
The entire subject site was vacant land from at least 1914 until at least 1917, and the central and southern portions of the subject site have not been developed with any structures since at least 1914. The northern portion of the subject site was occupied by a rural residential area, including a varying number of dwellings, barns, and other outbuildings from at least 1937 until at least 1998. During the 1937- to 1998-time interval, an irrigation canal was present in the northern portion of the subject site and the remainder of the subject site was utilized for agricultural purposes, primarily the cultivation of grain crops. The subject site appears to have been only intermittently cultivated since 1998. The subject site appears to have been vacant land since at least 2006 except for remnants of two outbuildings present in 2006.
Lennar Homes of California, LLC plans to purchase the property in order to develop new single-family homes. The site is located in a mixed commercial, residential, and agricultural area of Merced.
The subject site location was not identified on any Federal, State or local regulatory database indicating that a release of hazardous materials has impacted the subject site.
Krazan identified no evidence of recognized environmental conditions (RECs), controlled RECs (CRECs) or historical RECs (HRECs) in connection with the subject site as defined by ASTM E 1527-21. However, the following potential areas of concern (PAOCs) and site development issues were identified in connection with the subject site:
PAOCs
Krazan’s review of historical aerial photographs indicates that the northern portion of the subject site was occupied by a rural residential area from at least 1937 until at least 1998. The rural residential area included a varying number of dwellings, barns, and other outbuildings over the course of the 1937- to 1998-time interval, with at least three barn-type structures present in 1950 and five or six barn-type structures present in 1984. Additionally, historical aerial photographs of the subject site vicinity indicate the presence of on-site farming operations during the 1937- to 1998-time interval expected to have utilized fuel-powered trucks and farm equipment. Mr.
Timothy Jones, a representative of the owner of the subject site familiar with the subject site for the past 17 years, indicated that he was unaware of underground storage tanks (USTs) being located at the subject site, and no records of USTs for the subject site are on file with the local regulatory agencies. However, USTs on rural or agricultural properties historically have been exempt from requirements for registration with regulatory agencies. Krazan’s experience with such properties has shown that it is not uncommon for property owners/operators to install USTs for their convenience, especially in the vicinity of structures, which are undocumented and whose presence would remain unknown in spite of the standard data research conducted in the course of this Phase I ESA. It is therefore possible that subsurface features such as unregistered USTs may exist in the vicinity of the former on-site structures which remain unknown based upon the absence of any regulatory, municipality, interview data, or other evidence indicating their presence or location.
Consequently, despite an absence of data suggesting their presence, the presence or absence of USTs associated with the subject site prior to the current owner of the subject site is unknown. Krazan’s historical research indicates that the subject site was utilized for agricultural purposes from at least 1937 until at least 1998. While there is a potential that environmentally persistent pesticides/herbicides may have been applied to the crops grown on the subject site prior to the 1970s, no chemical spray rig filling/mixing areas or chemical storage areas were observed during ii
the site reconnaissance, no material evidence of the use of environmentally persistent pesticides/herbicides was obtained during the course of this assessment, and the subject site does not appear to have been occupied by a vineyard or an orchard which are typically more directly correlated with the historical use of environmentally persistent pesticides/herbicides. Therefore, the potential for elevated concentrations of environmentally persistent pesticides/herbicides to currently exist in the near-surface soils of the subject site appears to be low, although the actual condition of surficial soils is unknown.
Site Development Issues
As indicated previously, review of historical aerial photographs indicates that the northern portion of the subject site was occupied by dwellings and outbuildings circa 1937. The dwellings were located on site from at least 1937 until at least 1998. It is presumed that all water wells and septic systems associated with the historical on-site structures were properly destroyed or removed from the subject site at the time that these structures were demolished in the early- to late-2000s.
However, it is unknown if all water wells or septic systems were destroyed/removed from the subject site. If any water wells or septic systems are identified during the planned redevelopment of the subject site, they should be properly destroyed or removed in accordance with State and local guidelines.
According to the U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory available via the USFWS Internet website on May 24, 2024, a designated Riverine wetland is located within the northern portion of the subject site. The USFWS-reported on-site wetland is associated with the on-site portion of an irrigation canal present since at least 1937. While a definitive assessment of the presence of on-site wetland habitats is beyond the scope of this Phase I ESA, it is Krazan’s experience that unlined, irrigation ditches are common within agricultural areas and these areas can seasonally be consistent with wetland environments. Prior to development of the subject site, an assessment can be conducted by a qualified biologist to establish if wetland habitats exist and to determine the impact of development should wetlands be identified on the subject site. Refer to Appendix C –USFWS Map for details.
Campus Gateway Development Project No. 034-24036
Merced, California Page No. 1
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
With Offices Serving the Western United States
034-24036 Campus Gateway Devel Phase I ESA Report Final.docx
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The subject site is located south of East Gerard Avenue and 0.25 miles east of South Coffee Street in Merced, Merced County, California 95341. The subject site is 72.25 acres in area and is associated with Merced County Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 061-710-009 and a portion of 061-710-023. The subject site does not currently appear to be associated with an address. At the time of Krazan’s May 24, 2024 site reconnaissance, the subject site was vacant land.
The entire subject site was vacant land from at least 1914 until at least 1917, and the central and southern portions of the subject site have not been developed with any structures since at least 1914. The northern portion of the subject site was occupied by a rural residential area, including a varying number of dwellings, barns, and other outbuildings from at least 1937 until at least 1998. During the 1937- to 1998-time interval, an irrigation canal was present in the northern portion of the subject site and the remainder of the subject site was utilized for agricultural purposes, primarily the cultivation of grain crops. The subject site appears to have been only intermittently cultivated since 1998. The subject site appears to have been vacant land since at least 2006 except for remnants of two outbuildings present in 2006.
Krazan conducted the Phase I ESA of the subject site in conformance with the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) E 1527-21 Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process. This Phase I ESA constitutes all appropriate inquiry (AAI) designed to identify recognized environmental conditions (RECs) in connection with the previous ownership and uses of the subject site as defined by ASTM E 1527-21.
ASTM E 1527-21 Section 1.1.1 Recognized Environmental Conditions – In defining a standard of good commercial and customary practice for conducting an environmental site assessment of a parcel of property, the goal of the processes established by this practice is to identify recognized environmental conditions.
The term recognized environmental conditions means: 1) the presence of hazardous substances or petroleum due to a release to the environment; 2) the likely presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products due to a likely release to the environment; or 3) the presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment. De minimis conditions are not recognized environmental conditions.
Campus Gateway Development Project No. 034-24036
Merced, California Page No. 2
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
With Offices Serving the Western United States
034-24036 Campus Gateway Devel Phase I ESA Report Final.docx It is incumbent upon the user to read this Phase I ESA report in its entirety. If not otherwise defined within the text of this report, please refer to the Glossary of Terms Section following the References Section for definitions of terms and acronyms utilized within this Phase I ESA report.
Previous Environmental Assessments
No previous environmental assessments of the subject site were provided to Krazan by Lennar of Homes of California, LLC for review as part of this Phase I ESA.
Campus Gateway Development Project No. 034-24036
Merced, California Page No. 3
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
With Offices Serving the Western United States
034-24036 Campus Gateway Devel Phase I ESA Report Final.docx
2.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT
2.1 Purpose
According to ASTM E 1527-21, the purpose of this practice is to define good commercial and customary practice in the United States of America for conducting an environmental site assessment of a parcel of commercial real estate with respect to the range of contaminants within the scope of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) (42 U.S.C. §9601) and petroleum products. As such, this practice is intended to permit a user to satisfy one of the requirements to qualify for the innocent landowner, contiguous property owner, or bona fide prospective purchaser limitation on CERCLA liability (hereinafter, the landowner liability protections, or LLPs): that is, the practice that constitutes all appropriate inquiries into the previous ownership and uses of the property consistent with good commercial and customary practice as defined at 42 U.S.C. §9601(35)(B).
2.2 Scope of Work
The scope of work for this Phase I ESA conforms to ASTM E 1527-21. The Phase I ESA includes the following scope of work: a) a site reconnaissance of existing on-site conditions and observations of adjacent property uses, b) a review of user-provided documents, c) a review of historical aerial photographs, a review of pertinent building permit records, cross-reference directories, historical Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps (SFIMs), and interview(s) with person(s) knowledgeable of the previous and current ownership and uses of the subject site, d) a review of local regulatory agency records, and e) a review of local, state, and federal regulatory agency lists compiled by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR).
Krazan was provided with written authorization to conduct the Phase I ESA by Mr. Walter Diamond with Lennar of California/Lennar Central Valley California on May 9, 2024 via Lennar Work Order # 20762 dated May 9, 2024 and Krazan’s May 7, 2024 Proposal/Cost Estimate No. P24-207.
Campus Gateway Development Project No. 034-24036
Merced, California Page No. 4
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
With Offices Serving the Western United States
034-24036 Campus Gateway Devel Phase I ESA Report Final.docx
3.0 SUBJECT SITE SETTING
The subject site is located south of East Gerard Avenue and 0.25 miles east of South Coffee Street in Merced, Merced County, California 95341. The subject site is an irregular-shaped parcel measuring 72.25 acres in area which does not currently appear to be associated with an address. The site is located within a mixed commercial, residential, and agricultural area of Merced. General property information and property use are summarized in the following table. Refer to Figures No. 1 – 4 for subject site details.
Subject Site Information Summary
Current Owner: Merced Gateway, LLC
Assessor’s Parcel Numbers: 061-710-009 and a portion of 061-710-023 Previously: 061-250 050 and a portion of 061-250-094
Addresses: No Address – City of Merced Jurisdiction
Merced, California 95341
Historical Addresses: None Identified
General Location: South of East Gerard Avenue and 0.25 miles east of South Coffee Street
Acreage: 72.25 acres
Zoning: BP – Business Park (City of Merced GIS Map – May 2024) Existing Use: Vacant/Fallow Land
Number of Buildings: None
Original Construction Date: N/A
Proposed Use: Residential – Single-Family Homes
Electricity: Pacific Gas & Electric/Merced Irrigation District Natural Gas: Pacific Gas & Electric
Potable Water: City of Merced
Sanitary Sewer: City of Merced
Latitude / Longitude: 37.2769000 / –120.4266840
Topographic Map: U.S. Geological Survey, 7.5-minute Merced, California Topographic Map Location: Southwestern quarter of Section 34, Township 07 South, Range 14 East, Mount Diablo Baseline and Meridian
Topography: Approximately 185 feet above mean sea level Approximate Depth to Groundwater: 165 feet below ground surface (bgs), State of California Department of Water Resources (DWR)*
Regional Groundwater Flow Direction: Southeast, DWR*
Note: * State of California, Department of Water Resources, Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) Data Viewer, Spring 2023
3.1 Geology and Hydrogeology
The subject site is located within the San Joaquin Valley, a broad structural trough bound by the Sierra Nevada and Coast Ranges of California. The San Joaquin Valley, which comprises the southern portion of the Great Valley of California, has been filled with several thousand feet of sedimentary deposits.
Sediments in the eastern valley, derived from the erosion of the Sierra Nevada, have been deposited by Campus Gateway Development Project No. 034-24036
Merced, California Page No. 5
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
With Offices Serving the Western United States
034-24036 Campus Gateway Devel Phase I ESA Report Final.docx major to minor west-flowing drainages and their tributaries. Near-surface sediments are dominated by sands and silty sands with lesser silts, minor clays, and gravel. The sedimentary deposits in the region form large coalescing alluvial fans with gentle slopes. According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service, soils at the subject site are described as Landlow series, a somewhat poorly drained silty clay loam with slow infiltration rates. Groundwater in the subject site vicinity was reported to be first encountered at a depth of approximately 165 feet bgs in Spring 2023. The groundwater flow direction in the area of the subject site was generally toward the southeast.
Campus Gateway Development Project No. 034-24036
Merced, California Page No. 6
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
With Offices Serving the Western United States
034-24036 Campus Gateway Devel Phase I ESA Report Final.docx
4.0 SITE BACKGROUND
A review of historical Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps (SFIMs), historic USGS topographic maps, reasonably ascertainable city cross-reference directories, historical aerial photographs, local agency records and previous environmental reports, as made available to Krazan, were utilized to assess the history of the subject site.
4.1 Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps
Krazan reviews Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps (SFIMs) to evaluate prior land use of the subject site and the adjacent properties. SFIMs typically exist for cities with populations of 2,000 or more, the coverage dependent on the location of the subject site within the city limits. Krazan contracted with Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) to provide copies of available SFIMs for the subject site and the adjacent properties. EDR’s search of SFIMs revealed no coverage for the subject site and the adjacent properties.
Refer to Appendix A – EDR – Certified Sanborn® Map Report dated May 9, 2024 for details.
4.2 USGS Topographic Quadrangle Map
Krazan reviewed the 7.5-minute Merced, California topographic quadrangle map dated 1914, 1917, 1946, 1948, 1961, 1976, 1987, 2012, 2015, 2018, and 2021 and the 15-minute Merced, California topographic quadrangle map dated 1962. According to review of the historical topographic quadrangle maps, the entire subject site was vacant land from at least 1914 until at least 1917, and the central and southern portions of the subject site were vacant land from at least 1914 until at least 1987. The northern portion of the subject site was occupied by a rural residential area, including a residential-type structure and one or more barntype outbuildings from at least 1946 until at least 1987. An east-west trending irrigation canal was present in the northern portion of the subject site from at least 1961 until at least 2021. The non-residential part of the northern portion of the subject site was depicted as vacant land from at least 1914 until at least 1987.
Subject site and adjacent/vicinity property usage is summarized in the following table. Refer to Figure No. 4 and Appendix A – EDR - Historical Topo Map Report dated May 9, 2024 for details.
Campus Gateway Development Project No. 034-24036
Merced, California Page No. 7
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
With Offices Serving the Western United States
034-24036 Campus Gateway Devel Phase I ESA Report Final.docx Topographic Maps Summary
Year Site Usage Adjacent Property Usage
1914 Vacant land. The subject site is depicted
as vacant land with relatively flat terrain.
No structures are depicted on the subject
site.
Rural residential and vacant land. The
northern, southern, and eastern adjacent
properties are depicted as vacant land with
relatively flat terrain. Paved roads are
present adjacent to the north and south of
the subject site. The western adjacent
property is occupied by a residential-type
structure and vacant land.
1917 Vacant land. The subject site is relatively
unchanged from the 1914 map.
Rural residential and vacant land. The
adjacent properties are relatively unchanged
from the 1914 map.
1946 Rural residential. The northern portion of
the subject site is occupied by a
residential-type structure. The remainder
of the subject site is depicted as vacant
land with relatively flat terrain.
Rural residential and vacant land. The
adjacent properties are relatively unchanged
from the 1917 map except rural residences
have been developed on the southern and
eastern adjacent properties.
1948 Rural residential. The subject site is
relatively unchanged from the 1946 map.
Rural residential and vacant land. The
adjacent properties are relatively unchanged
from the 1946 map.
1961 Rural residential and irrigation canal.
The subject site is relatively unchanged
from the 1948 map except: 1) a barntype structure has been developed in the northern portion of the subject site, and
2) an east-west trending irrigation canal
has been developed in the northern
portion of the subject site.
Rural residential and vacant land. The
adjacent properties are relatively unchanged
from the 1948 map except: 1) several
residences have been developed on the
southern adjacent property, 2) two
residences have been developed adjacent to
the northwest of the subject site, 3) barns
have been developed on the eastern adjacent
property, and 4) an irrigation canal has been
developed adjacent to the east of the subject
site.
1962 Rural residential and irrigation canal.
The subject site is relatively unchanged
from the 1961 map except for a water
well which is depicted on the northern
boundary of the subject site near the
northeastern corner of the subject site.
However, review of historical aerial
photographs indicates that this water
well is located on the northern adjacent
property.
Rural residential and vacant land. The
adjacent properties are relatively unchanged
from the 1961 map.
1976 Rural residential and irrigation canal.
The subject site is relatively unchanged
from the 1962 map except a third
structure is depicted within the rural
residential area in the northern portion of
the subject site.
Rural residential and vacant land. The
adjacent properties are relatively unchanged
from the 1962 map.
Campus Gateway Development Project No. 034-24036
Merced, California Page No. 8
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
With Offices Serving the Western United States
034-24036 Campus Gateway Devel Phase I ESA Report Final.docx Topographic Maps Summary (continued)
Year Site Usage Adjacent Property Usage
1987 Rural residential and irrigation canal.
The subject site is relatively unchanged
from the 1976 map.
Rural residential and vacant land. The
adjacent properties are relatively unchanged
from the 1976 map.
2012, 2015,
2018, 2021
The subject site is depicted within a
mixed developed and undeveloped area
southeast of the City of Merced. Map
details include streets, highways and
freeways, waterways, and surface
elevation contours. Subject site features
such as structures are not denoted. The
irrigation canal is depicted in the
northern portion of the subject site in the
2012, 2015, 2018, and 2021 maps.
The adjacent and surrounding property
usage is depicted within a mixed developed
and undeveloped area southeast of the City
of Merced. Map details include streets,
highways and freeways, waterways, and
surface elevation contours. Property
features such as structures are not denoted.
4.3 City Cross-Reference Directories
Krazan contracted with EDR to provide a review of available cross-reference directories dated between 1952 and 2020 for the subject site address and adjoining properties. The prescribed research conducted during the course of this Phase I ESA did not identify any current or historical addresses associated with the subject site. Consequently, it was not possible to ascertain potential previous occupants of the subject site, if any, through review of available cross-reference directories. The cross-reference directory research conducted by EDR utilizing Campus Parkway as the target property street did not reveal any Campus Parkway listings, and EDR reported “No cross streets identified” for their research. Consequently, no crossreference directory listings were obtained from EDR for the adjoining properties. Refer to Appendix A – EDR - City Directory Image Report dated May 13, 2024 for details.
Review of cross-reference directory information provided by EDR did not identify evidence of current or historic RECs based on subject site or the adjacent property uses.
4.4 Aerial Photograph Interpretation
Historical aerial photographs were obtained from EDR and reviewed to assess the history of the subject site. According to review of the historical aerial photographs, the northern portion of the subject site was occupied by a rural residential area, including a varying number of dwellings, barns, and other outbuildings from at least 1937 until at least 1998. During the 1937- to 1998-time interval, an irrigation canal was present in the northern portion of the subject site and the remainder of the subject site was utilized for agricultural purposes, primarily the apparent cultivation of grain crops. Except for remnants of two outbuildings present in 2006, the subject site appears to have been vacant land from at least 2006 until at Campus Gateway Development Project No. 034-24036
Merced, California Page No. 9
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
With Offices Serving the Western United States
034-24036 Campus Gateway Devel Phase I ESA Report Final.docx least 2020. The aerial photograph summary is provided in the following table. Refer to Appendix A – Aerial Photo Decade Package dated May 10, 2024 for details.
Aerial Photograph Review Summary
Year Site Use Adjacent Properties
1937 Rural residential, agricultural, and
vacant land. The northwestern portion
of the subject site appears to be
occupied by a rural residence,
including a dwelling, a barn-type
structure, and a second outbuilding.
The northern portion of the subject site
not occupied by the rural residence
appears to be cultivated with grain
crops. The southern portion of the
subject site appears to be vacant land.
An east-west trending irrigation canal
is visible in the northern portion of the
subject site.
Rural residential, agricultural, and vacant
land/pasture. An unpaved road is present
adjacent to the north of the subject site,
beyond which appears to be irrigated vacant
land being utilized as pasture. The eastern,
southern, southeastern, and southwestern
adjacent properties appear to be occupied by
rural residences and/or to be utilized for
agricultural purposes. The western adjacent
property appears to be vacant land which is
occupied by a small structure that may be a
dwelling but is more likely an unoccupied
outbuilding. A north-south trending irrigation
canal is present adjacent to the east of the
subject site.
1942 Rural residential, agricultural, and
vacant land/pasture. The subject site is
relatively unchanged from the 1937
photograph except: 1) an additional
small outbuilding is present north of
the dwelling, and 2) the southern
portion of the subject site appears to
be irrigated pasture.
Rural residential and agricultural. The adjacent
properties appear relatively unchanged from
the 1937 photograph except: 1) a driveway is
visible leading to the structure on the western
adjacent property suggesting that its use is
residential, 2) the western and northern
adjacent properties appear to be cultivated, and
3) the eastern adjacent property appears to be
fallow.
1946 Rural residential and agricultural. The
subject site is relatively unchanged
from the 1942 photograph except: 1)
an additional small outbuilding is
present north of the dwelling, and 2)
all of the non-residential portion of the
subject site appears to be cultivated.
Rural residential and agricultural. The adjacent
properties appear relatively unchanged from
the 1942 photograph except a rural residence
has been developed on the southern adjacent
property.
1950 Rural residential and agricultural. The
subject site is relatively unchanged
from the 1946 photograph except a
second barn-type structure appears to
have been developed southwest of the
residential area.
Rural residential and agricultural. The adjacent
properties appear relatively unchanged from
the 1946 photograph.
Campus Gateway Development Project No. 034-24036
Merced, California Page No. 10
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
With Offices Serving the Western United States
034-24036 Campus Gateway Devel Phase I ESA Report Final.docx Aerial Photograph Review Summary (continued)
Year Site Use Adjacent Properties
1973 Rural residential and agricultural. The
subject site is relatively unchanged
from the 1950 photograph. However,
the quality and resolution of the 1973
photograph are poor.
Rural residential and agricultural. The
adjacent properties appear relatively
unchanged from the 1950 photograph except
additional structures are visible on the
southern adjacent property. However, the
quality and resolution of the 1973 photograph
are poor.
1976 Rural residential and agricultural. The
subject site is relatively unchanged
from the 1973 photograph except for
the development of at least one
structure in the central-northern
portion of the subject site. However,
the quality and resolution of the 1976
photograph are poor.
Rural residential and agricultural. The
adjacent properties appear relatively
unchanged from the 1973 photograph.
However, the quality and resolution of the
1976 photograph are poor.
1984 Rural residential and agricultural. The
subject site is relatively unchanged
from the 1976 photograph except for
the development of additional on-site
structures, including small
outbuildings and two elongated
structures consistent with poultry
barns in the northeastern portion of the
property.
Rural residential and agricultural. The
adjacent properties appear relatively
unchanged from the 1976 photograph.
1998 Rural residential and agricultural. The
subject site is relatively unchanged
from the 1984 photograph except
several of the on-site structures have
been removed, with only the dwelling
and the two associated outbuildings
located in the central-northern portion
of the property remaining. The
agricultural portion of the subject site
appears to be fallow.
Rural residential and agricultural. The
adjacent properties appear relatively
unchanged from the 1984 photograph.
2006 Outbuildings and fallow/vacant land.
The subject site is relatively
unchanged from the 1998 photograph
except: 1) the dwelling has been
removed from the northern portion of
the subject site, 2) the remainder of the
northern portion of the subject site
appears to be vacant land, and 3) the
central and southern portions of the
subject site appear to be vacant/fallow
land.
Residential and agricultural. The adjacent
properties appear relatively unchanged from
the 1998 photograph except a residential
subdivision has been developed on the
northern adjacent property.
Campus Gateway Development Project No. 034-24036
Merced, California Page No. 11
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
With Offices Serving the Western United States
034-24036 Campus Gateway Devel Phase I ESA Report Final.docx Aerial Photograph Review Summary (continued)
Year Site Use Adjacent Properties
2009 Vacant land. The subject site appears
to be vacant land. All structures have
been removed from the subject site.
The irrigation canal located in the
northern portion of the subject site
appears to be dry and no longer
functional.
Residential, agricultural, and vacant land. The
adjacent properties appear relatively
unchanged from the 2006 photograph except:
1) the surface street which bisects the subject
site, Campus Parkway, is being developed, 2)
the eastern adjacent property appears to be
fallow, and 3) the western adjacent property
appears to be vacant land.
2012 Vacant land. The subject site is
relatively unchanged from the 2009
photograph.
Residential, agricultural, and vacant land. The
adjacent properties appear relatively
unchanged from the 2009 except development
of Campus Parkway has been completed.
2016, 2020 Vacant land. The subject site is
relatively unchanged from the 2012
photograph.
Residential, agricultural, and vacant land. The
adjacent properties appear relatively
unchanged from the 2012.
4.5 Municipal Records
City of Merced Development Services Department Records
On May 9, 2024, a building permit records request was submitted to the City of Merced Development Services Department for the subject site APNs of 061-710-009 and 061-710-023. According to a representative of the City of Merced, as of May 10, 2024, no building permits were on file with the City of Merced Development Services Department for the referenced subject site APNs. Therefore, no permits for hazardous materials underground storage tanks, previous structures/features, or other items of potential environmental concern were on file with the City of Merced Development Services Department for the subject site APNs.
City of Merced Fire Department
The City of Merced Fire Department has jurisdiction for fire protection for the subject site and the immediate vicinity. On May 9, 2024, the City of Merced Fire Department was contacted regarding potential records of hazardous materials spill/release incidents for the subject site APNs or the subject site location.
According to a representative of the City of Merced, as of May 10, 2024, no record of a hazardous materials spill or release incident was on file with the City of Merced Fire Department for the subject site APNs or the subject site location.
4.6 Previous Environmental Assessments
No previous environmental assessments of the subject site were provided to Krazan by Lennar of California, LLC for review as part of this Phase I ESA.
Campus Gateway Development Project No. 034-24036
Merced, California Page No. 12
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
With Offices Serving the Western United States
034-24036 Campus Gateway Devel Phase I ESA Report Final.docx
4.7 Agricultural Chemicals
Review of historical aerial photographs indicates that the subject site was utilized for agricultural purposes from at least 1937 until at least 1998. Although the potential exists that environmentally persistent pesticides/herbicides may have historically been applied to crops grown on the subject site circa 1940s to mid-1970s; 1) no chemical spray rig filling/mixing areas or chemical storage areas were observed during the site reconnaissance; 2) no material evidence of the use of environmentally persistent pesticides/herbicides was obtained during the course of this assessment; 3) the subject site does not appear to have been occupied by a vineyard or an orchard which are typically more directly correlated with adverse impacts from the historical use of environmentally persistent pesticides/herbicides, and 4) it is anticipated that any environmentally persistent pesticides/herbicides potentially located on site will be dislocated and diluted as a result of the grading and trenching operations which will be conducted in connection with the proposed redevelopment of the property. Consequently, given the above-referenced factors and Krazan’s experience in the subject site vicinity, the potential for elevated concentrations of environmentally persistent pesticides/herbicides related to crop cultivation to exist in the near-surface soils of common agricultural ground at concentrations which would require regulatory action appears to be low, although the actual condition of the surficial soils is unknown.
Campus Gateway Development Project No. 034-24036
Merced, California Page No. 13
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
With Offices Serving the Western United States
034-24036 Campus Gateway Devel Phase I ESA Report Final.docx
5.0 USER-PROVIDED INFORMATION
A review of user-provided information was conducted in order to help identify pertinent information regarding potential environmental impacts associated with the subject site.
5.1 Environmental Liens/Activity and Use Limitations Report An Environmental Lien/Activity and Use Limitations (EL/AUL) Report for the subject site APN was not provided to Krazan by Lennar Homes of California, LLC, Phase I ESA user.
5.2 Title Report
A Preliminary Title Report (PTR) dated April 11, 2024, prepared for the subject site by WFG National Title Insurance Company, was provided to Krazan by Lennar Homes of California, LLC, Krazan’s client and the Phase I ESA user. The subject site PTR was reviewed to identify potential environmental deed restrictions, environmental liens, or environmental activity and use limitations (AULs) which may have occurred on or exist in connection with the subject site. Krazan’s review of the PTR indicated no environmental deed restrictions, environmental liens or environmental AULs for the subject site. However, as quoted from the subject site PTR, “It is important to note that this Preliminary Title Report is not a written representation as to the condition of title and may not list all liens, defects and encumbrances affecting title to the land.” The absence of a condition of title represents a data gap. Please refer to Appendix B – Preliminary Title Report for details.
5.3 Interviews
Krazan conducts interviews with the owner of the subject site, a key site manager, subject site occupant(s), and/or the previous owner/occupant(s) of the subject site. The interview(s) is/are designed to provide pertinent information regarding potential environmental impacts associated with the subject site.
Subject Site Owner - An interview was conducted with Mr. Timothy Jones, representative of Merced Gateway, LLC, the owner of the subject site, via his completion of an environmental questionnaire on May 14, 2024. According to questionnaire responses, Mr. Jones indicated that he has been familiar with the subject site for 17 years. Mr. Jones indicated that the subject site is currently vacant land and there are no structures located on site. Mr. Jones indicated that an abandoned canal is present in the northern portion of the property, and he indicated that it is unknown if a pipeline associated with that canal is still in place. Mr.
Jones indicated that he has no knowledge of the presence of any previous on-site structures. Mr. Jones indicated that the subject site was farmed at some point in the past; however, he was not aware of the type Campus Gateway Development Project No. 034-24036
Merced, California Page No. 14
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
With Offices Serving the Western United States
034-24036 Campus Gateway Devel Phase I ESA Report Final.docx of crop(s) cultivated. Mr. Jones indicated that he is not aware of the presence of imported soil on the subject site. Mr. Jones indicated that the subject site is not currently connected to municipal water and sewer service.
According to Mr. Jones, to the best of his knowledge, no use, storage, or disposal of hazardous materials; no existing or former ASTs or USTs; no hazardous materials spills, no environmental cleanups, no on-site treatment and/or discharge of waste; no environmental liens, AULs, engineering or institutional controls, no on-site leach fields, dry wells, sumps, or disposal ponds; no buried materials; no monitoring, domestic, or irrigation wells; or any items of environmental concern are associated with the subject site. Mr. Jones indicated that he is not aware of any obvious indications pointing to the presence or likely presence of contamination of the subject property, nor is he aware of any soil or groundwater contamination issues at or proximate to the subject site. Mr. Jones indicated that the reason for preparation of this Phase I ESA is related to a proposed property sale and indicated that the purchase price of the subject site reasonably reflects fair market value. Mr. Jones indicated that the property purchaser plans to develop the property.
Refer to Appendix B – Phase I ESA Questionnaires for details.
Previous Subject Site Owner Interview
A Phase I ESA interview with a previous owner of the subject site was not conducted as contact information was not reasonably available.
5.4 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment User Questionnaire In order to qualify for one of the Landowner Liability Protections (LLPs) offered by the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act of 2001 (the Brownfields Amendments), the user must provide the following information (if available) to the environmental professional. Failure to provide this information could result in a determination that all appropriate inquiry is not complete. The user is asked to provide information or knowledge of the following:
1. Environmental cleanup liens that are filed or recorded against the site.
2. Activity and land use limitations that are in place on the site or that have been filed or recorded in a registry.
3. Specialized knowledge or experience of the person seeking to qualify for the LLPs.
4. Relationship of the purchase price to the fair market value of the property if it were not contaminated.
Campus Gateway Development Project No. 034-24036
Merced, California Page No. 15
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
With Offices Serving the Western United States
034-24036 Campus Gateway Devel Phase I ESA Report Final.docx
5. Commonly known or reasonably ascertainable information about the property.
6. The degree of obviousness of the presence or likely presence of contamination at the property, and the ability to detect the contamination by appropriate investigation.
7. The reason for preparation of this Phase I ESA.
On May 9, 2024, a completed Phase I ESA User questionnaire was received from Mr. Rabie Mekideche, representative of Lennar Homes of California, LLC, Krazan’s client and the Phase I ESA user. According to the questionnaire responses, Mr. Mekideche, to the best of his knowledge as the user of this Phase I ESA, was not aware of any environmental cleanup liens and/or activity or land use limitations which have been filed or recorded against the subject site. Mr. Mekideche indicated that he has no knowledge of the past uses of the subject site. Mr. Mekideche has no specialized knowledge or experience of the prior nature of the business or chemical utilization on the subject site. Mr. Mekideche indicated that he did not have knowledge of the past or current presence of specific chemicals or hazardous materials, unauthorized spills or chemical releases or of any environmental cleanups in connection with the subject site. Mr. Mekideche indicated that he is not aware of any obvious indications pointing to the presence or likely presence of contamination of the subject property. Mr. Mekideche indicated that the purchase price of the subject site reasonably reflects fair market value and indicated that the reason for preparation of this Phase I ESA is related to property purchase due diligence. Refer to Appendix B – Phase I ESA Questionnaires for details.
Campus Gateway Development Project No. 034-24036
Merced, California Page No. 16
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
With Offices Serving the Western United States
034-24036 Campus Gateway Devel Phase I ESA Report Final.docx
6.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE
A site reconnaissance, which included a visual observation of the subject site and surrounding properties, was conducted by Mr. Bill Vick, Krazan’s Environmental Professional, on May 24, 2024. Krazan’s Environmental Professional was unescorted during the site reconnaissance. The objective of the site reconnaissance is to obtain information indicating the likelihood of identifying recognized environmental conditions, including hazardous substances and petroleum products, in connection with the property (including soils, surface waters, and groundwater).
6.1 Observations
The following table summarizes the subject site features encountered during our site reconnaissance.
Observed features are noted in the table below and described in detail below the table. Refer to Figure No. 3 - Site Map and Photographs for locations and details pertaining to site-specific features discussed in this section of the report.
Site Reconnaissance Summary
Features Observed Not
Observed
Structures (existing) X
Evidence of Past Uses (foundations, debris) X
Hazardous Substances and/or Petroleum Products (including containers) X Aboveground Storage Tanks (ASTs) X
Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) or evidence of USTs X
Evidence of Underground Pipelines (non-irrigation) X
Strong, Pungent, or Noxious Odors X
Pools of Liquid likely to be Hazardous Materials or Petroleum Products X Drums X
Unidentified Substance Containers X
Potential Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB)-Containing Equipment X Subsurface Hydraulic Equipment X
Heating/Ventilation/Air Conditioning (HVAC) X
Stains or Corrosion on Floors, Walls or Ceilings X
Floor Drains, Sumps, or Oil/Water Clarifiers X
Storm Drains X
Pits, Ponds, or Lagoons X
Stained Soil and/or Pavement X
Soil/Debris Piles X
Stressed Vegetation X
Waste or Wastewater (including stormwater) Discharges to Surface/Surface Waters X
Campus Gateway Development Project No. 034-24036
Merced, California Page No. 17
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
With Offices Serving the Western United States
034-24036 Campus Gateway Devel Phase I ESA Report Final.docx Site Reconnaissance Summary (continued)
Features Observed Not
Observed
Wells (Irrigation, Domestic, Dry, Injection, Abandoned, Monitoring Wells) X Septic Systems X
High-voltage, tower-mounted transmission lines X
The subject site was relatively flat vacant land at the time of the site reconnaissance. An east-west trending former irrigation canal was present in the northern portion of the subject site. The irrigation canal was dry, vegetation filled, and did not appear to have been utilized recently. No odors, surface staining/discolored soil, stressed vegetation, or other obvious evidence of the presence of hazardous materials were noted in association with the former irrigation canal. The area north of the irrigation canal, an area historically occupied by rural residential and farm structures, was densely covered with vegetation two to four feet high in most areas. Although the density of vegetation within this portion of the subject site precluded thorough observation of the ground surface, no evidence of the presence of features of potential environmental concern such as surface evidence of historical fuel USTs or septic systems was noted within the confines of this observational limitation. No significant remnants of the former on-site structures nor surface evidence of water wells were observed.
The area south of the former irrigation canal appeared to be former agricultural land which had been mowed recently in association with a native grass hay harvest. Site observation conditions were good within this portion of the subject site. Site conditions were very similar in the areas north and south of Campus Parkway which bisects this portion of the subject site. Property upkeep was observed to be good, and no evidence of illegal dumping or surface waste disposal was observed within the area of the subject site south of the irrigation canal. A north-south trending former irrigation ditch approximately 150 feet in length was present in the southwestern portion of the subject site. A steel pipe protruding from the ground surface and a concrete standpipe located in the southwestern corner of the subject site appear to have fed the irrigation ditch with water from an off-site source, likely water from a permanent irrigation canal located on the southern adjacent property. The on-site irrigation ditch was dry, vegetation filled, and did not appear to have been utilized recently. No odors, surface staining/discolored soil, stressed vegetation, or other obvious evidence of the presence of hazardous materials were noted in association with the former irrigation ditch.
Based on the presence of former irrigation features, subsurface irrigation piping may be present on the subject site.
Campus Gateway Development Project No. 034-24036
Merced, California Page No. 18
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
With Offices Serving the Western United States
034-24036 Campus Gateway Devel Phase I ESA Report Final.docx No fill stations at water wells or elevated water fill spouts characteristic of agricultural chemical spray rig filling/mixing areas were observed on the subject site.
During the visual observations of the subject site, no hazardous materials or hazardous waste were observed.
No noxious odors or stressed vegetation were noted. Exposed surface soils did not exhibit obvious signs of discoloration. No obvious evidence (vent pipes, fill pipes, dispensers, etc.) of USTs was noted within the areas observed. No indications of former structures were observed on the subject site. No pole- or padmounted electrical transformers were observed on the subject site. No high-voltage tower-mounted electrical transmission lines were observed on the subject site.
6.2 Adjacent Streets and Property Usage
The following table summarizes the current adjacent streets and adjacent property uses observed during the site reconnaissance:
Adjacent Streets and Property Usage
Direction Adjacent Street Adjacent Property Usage
North East Gerard Avenue
Campus Parkway bisects
the subject site
Residential – Single-Family Homes
South East Mission Avenue
Campus Parkway bisects
the subject site
Residential – Single-Family Homes
Agricultural Land
East Campus Parkway Agricultural Land
Vacant Land
West None Agricultural Land
Vacant Land
Based on the observed uses of the properties located immediately adjacent to the subject site, it is unlikely that significant quantities of hazardous materials currently are stored at these properties.
6.3 ASTM Non-Scope Considerations
According to ASTM E 1527-21, there may be environmental issues or conditions at assessed properties that are outside the scope of the Phase I ESA practice (non-scope considerations). Some substances may be present in quantities and under conditions that may lead to contamination of the subject site or of nearby properties but are not included in CERCLA’s definition of hazardous substances (42 U.S.C. §9601[14]).
ASTM Non-scope considerations appropriate for the subject site are discussed below.
Campus Gateway Development Project No. 034-24036
Merced, California Page No. 19
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
With Offices Serving the Western United States
034-24036 Campus Gateway Devel Phase I ESA Report Final.docx Radon
Radon is a radioactive gas that is found in certain geologic environments and is formed by the natural breakdown of radium, which is found in the earth’s crust. A radon survey was not included within the scope of this investigation; however, the State of California Department of Public Health (CDPH) maintains a statewide database of radon results in designated geographic areas. Radon detection devices are placed in homes throughout the study region to determine geographic regions with elevated radon concentrations.
The U.S. EPA has set the safety standard for radon gas in homes to be 4.0 pico Curies per liter (pCi/L).
The US EPA has prepared a map to assist National, State and local organizations to target their resources and to implement radon-resistant building codes. The map divides the country into three Radon Zones, Zone 1 being those areas with the average predicted indoor radon concentration in residential dwellings exceeding the EPA Action Limit of 4.0 pCi/L. It is important to note that the EPA has found homes with elevated levels of radon in all three zones, and the EPA recommends site-specific testing in order to determine radon levels at a specific location. However, the map does give a valuable indication of the propensity of radon gas accumulation in structures. Review of the EPA Map of Radon Zones places the Property in Zone 3, where average predicted radon levels are below 2.0 pCi/L. Therefore, the available data suggests that the potential for radon to adversely impact the subject site appears to be low.
Wetlands
As defined by the U.S. EPA and the Department of Army, Corps of Engineers, wetlands are “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.” Jurisdictional wetlands are regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (1972, 1977, and 1987, and also the 1985 and 1990 Farm Bills), and are important for protection of aquatic waterfowl and species, water purification, and flood control. According to current Corps of Engineers information, three basic criteria are currently used to define wetlands:
Wetland hydrology - areas exhibiting surface or near-surface saturation or inundation at some point in time (greater than 12.5 percent of growing season defined on basis of frost-free days) during an average rainfall year.
Hydrophilic vegetation - frequency of occurrence of wetland indicator plants (plant life growing in water, soil, or substrate that is periodically deficient in oxygen as a result of excessive water content).
Hydric soil - landscape patterns identified by saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season (generally seven days) which develop characteristic color changes in the upper part of the soil as a result of anaerobic conditions.
Campus Gateway Development Project No. 034-24036
Merced, California Page No. 20
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
With Offices Serving the Western United States
034-24036 Campus Gateway Devel Phase I ESA Report Final.docx According to the U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory available via the USFWS Internet website on May 24, 2024, a designated Riverine wetland is located within the northern portion of the subject site. The USFWS-reported on-site wetland is associated with the on-site portion of an irrigation canal present on the subject site since at least 1937. While a definitive assessment of the presence of on-site wetland habitats is beyond the scope of this Phase I ESA, it is Krazan’s experience that unlined, irrigation ditches are common within agricultural areas and these areas can seasonally be consistent with wetland environments. Prior to development of the subject site, an assessment can be conducted by a qualified biologist to establish if wetland habitats exist and to determine the impact of development should wetlands be identified on the subject site. Refer to Appendix C – USFWS Map for details.
Environmental Non-Compliance Issues
No material non-compliance issues were identified in connection with the subject site in the process of preparing this report.
Activity and Use Limitations
No activity and use limitations were identified in connection with the subject site in the process of preparing this report.
6.4 Regulatory Agency Records Review
A review of Federal and State regulatory databases was conducted to help determine if hazardous materials have been handled, stored, or generated on the subject site and/or the adjacent properties and businesses.
The Federal and State environmental databases consulted in the course of this assessment were compiled by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) and identified facilities within the search distances specified in ASTM 1527-21. Krazan did not verify the locations and distances of every property listed by the EDR Radius Map Report. Krazan verified the location and distances of the properties Krazan deemed as having the potential to adversely impact the subject site. The actual location of the listed properties may differ from the EDR listing. No EDR-listed unmapped (non-geocoded) sites identified were determined to be located on or adjacent to the subject site. Refer to Appendix C – EDR Radius Map Report dated May 9, 2024 for details.
Regulatory records are reviewed based on the following criteria: 1) properties with known soils and/or groundwater releases considered to represent the potential for impact to the subject site that are located within 1,760 feet of the subject site for constituents of concern impacts or 528 feet of the subject site for petroleum hydrocarbon impacts; 2) properties that are adjacent or in proximity to the subject site included Campus Gateway Development Project No. 034-24036
Merced, California Page No. 21
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
With Offices Serving the Western United States
034-24036 Campus Gateway Devel Phase I ESA Report Final.docx within the EDR regulatory database report or noted during the site reconnaissance to possibly handle, store, or generate hazardous materials. Applicable property records are discussed below.
No Federal Superfund – National Priorities List (NPL) sites were determined to be located within a onemile radius of the subject site according to Krazan’s May 23, 2024 review of the State of California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) – Department of Toxic Substances Control Envirostor database and the Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) regulatory agency database report.
State of California Environmental Protection Agency
Krazan’s May 23, 2024 review of the State of California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) – Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Envirostor database available via the DTSC’s Internet Website indicated that no records of cleanup sites including State response sites, voluntary cleanup sites, school cleanup sites, or military or school evaluation sites are listed for the subject site, the adjacent properties, or properties located within 500 feet of the subject site.
State of California Regional Water Quality Control Board - GeoTracker Krazan’s May 23, 2024 review of the State of California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) GeoTracker database available via the RWQCB Internet Website did not identify any cleanup sites including LUST sites, cleanup program sites, or military sites at the subject site, the adjacent properties, or properties located within 500 feet of the subject site.
California Department of Conservation, California Geologic Energy Management Division Krazan’s May 23, 2024 review of the State of California Department of Conservation, California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM) Online Mapping System indicated that no plugged and abandoned or producing oil wells are located on or adjacent to the subject site. A plugged and abandoned dry hole is reported to be located beneath Campus Parkway approximately 550 feet northeast of the closest subject site boundary. Based on its status as a plugged dry hole and its location beneath a paved surface street 550 feet distant, there is no evidence to indicate that this plugged dry hole represents an environmental concern in connection with the subject site.
Campus Gateway Development Project No. 034-24036
Merced, California Page No. 22
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
With Offices Serving the Western United States
034-24036 Campus Gateway Devel Phase I ESA Report Final.docx State of California Office of Emergency Services – Spills Database Krazan’s May 23, 2024 review of the State of California Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) Spill Reports database, available via the Cal OES website indicated that no hazardous materials spill reports are included in the Cal OES Spill Reports database for the subject site APNs of 061-710-009 and 061-710-023 or the former subject site APNs of 061-250-050 and 061-250-094.
Merced County Department of Public Health – Division of Environmental Health The Merced County Department of Public Health – Division of Environmental Health (MCDEH) is the lead regulatory agency or Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) for hazardous materials handling facilities located in Merced County. On May 9, 2024, the MCDEH was contacted regarding potential hazardous materials records including ASTs, USTs, leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTs), hazardous materials business plans (HMBPs), hazardous material releases, environmental cleanups, and/or hazardous waste generator records for the subject site APNs of 061-710-009 and 061-710-023 and the former subject site APNs of 061-250-050 and 061-250-094. According to Ms. Yolanda Alonso, representative of the MCEHD, no CUPA/hazardous materials records are on file with the MCDEH for the above-referenced subject site APNs.
Additionally, according to the California Environmental Reporting System (CERS) database available via the CalEPA Regulated Site Portal at the CalEPA website, as of May 24, 2024, no HMBP chemical inventory records and no CUPA compliance evaluation inspection records are included in the database for the subject site location or the adjacent properties indicating that hazardous materials are not stored in reportable quantity and that hazardous waste is not generated in reportable quantity at the subject site or the adjacent properties. Records are included in the CERS database for two properties located within 700 feet of the subject site which are discussed below:
Merced Ranch
3663 East Gerard Avenue
680 feet east
According to records on file with the MCDEH, the Merced Ranch occupant of the 3663 East Gerard Avenue address maintains a permit with the MCDEH as a chemical storage facility. According to information on file with the MCDEH as contained in the CERS database, a HMBP was submitted for this facility on May 1, 2018. Krazan’s May 23, 2024 review of the CERS database indicated that two chemicals/hazardous materials are used/stored at this property in reportable quantity, including: 1) gasoline (120-599 gallons), and 2) diesel fuel (120-599 gallons), both likely stored in aboveground storage tanks. No compliance evaluation inspections of this facility were included in the CERS database. Krazan’s review of records on file with the MCDEH as contained in the CERS database for this facility/property address revealed no evidence of a documented release of Campus Gateway Development Project No. 034-24036
Merced, California Page No. 23
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
With Offices Serving the Western United States
034-24036 Campus Gateway Devel Phase I ESA Report Final.docx fuel/hazardous materials to the subsurface. Consequently, there is no evidence to indicate that this facility currently represents an environmental concern in connection with the subject site.
Tractor Supply Company Store #2600
882 South Coffee Street
700 feet west
According to records on file with the MCDEH, the Tractor Supply Company occupant of the 882 South Coffee Street address maintains permits with the MCDEH as a chemical storage facility and as a hazardous waste generator. According to information on file with the MCDEH as contained in the CERS database, a HMBP was submitted for this facility on February 26, 2024. Krazan’s May 23, 2024 review of the CERS database indicated that seven chemicals/hazardous materials are used/stored at this property in reportable quantity, including: 1) six categories of hazardous wastes that are potentially generated via accidental breakage of the hazardous materials packaged for retail sale which are present in a Tractor Supply Company retail store (five waste categories in quantities of 0-11 gallons each and one waste category at 12-59 gallons), and 2) propane (600-1,199 gallons).
Hazardous materials release response plan (HMRRP) and hazardous waste generator (HWG) compliance evaluation inspections of this facility conducted by the MCDEH on September 7, 2022 revealed no violations. Krazan’s review of records on file with the MCDEH as contained in the CERS database for this facility/property address revealed no evidence of a documented release of hazardous materials to the subsurface. Consequently, there is no evidence to indicate that this facility currently represents an environmental concern in connection with the subject site.
Regulatory Database Review
Several agencies have published documents that list businesses or properties which have handled hazardous materials or waste or may have experienced site contamination. The lists consulted in the course of our assessment were compiled by EDR and Krazan and represent reasonably ascertainable current listings.
Krazan did not verify the locations and distances of every property listed by EDR. Krazan verified the location and distances of the properties Krazan deemed as having the potential to adversely impact the subject site. The actual location of the listed properties may differ from the EDR listing. No EDR-listed unmapped (non-geocoded) sites identified were determined to be located on or adjacent to the subject site. The Merced Gateway entry in the EDR database report is a listing for a NPDES and CIWQS site which likely includes the subject site. The NPDES and CIWQS listings are associated with the processing and presumed issuance of a permit for the control of stormwater runoff associated with construction activities. This NPDES permit application appears to have been processed in 2019 and terminated in November 2020. No violations or indications of an unauthorized release of hazardous material are noted in the EDR report. The issuance of an NPDES permit for an active or proposed construction site without evidence of violations associated with the permit does not represent an environmental concern in connection with the subject site. No EDR-listed facilities are located adjacent to the subject site. Karn Ice Cream, identified as 448 Azalea Court, A. S. Ice Cream, identified as 408 Lily Drive, and Accio Treats, identified as 440 Daffodil Drive, are listed in the EDR report as CUPA Listing sites located 385 to 716 feet from the subject site. However, all three of these addresses are associated Campus Gateway Development Project No. 034-24036
Merced, California Page No. 24
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
With Offices Serving the Western United States
034-24036 Campus Gateway Devel Phase I ESA Report Final.docx with single-family homes located in a residential subdivision north of the subject site. It is likely that these residential addresses are CUPA file addresses for the referenced food service businesses which operate as mobile businesses or at other locations. Consequently, there is no evidence to indicate that the above-referenced addresses represent an environmental concern in connection with the subject site.
Hazardous Materials Migration in Soils and/or Groundwater No sites with reported releases of hazardous materials to the subsurface were reported within a 1,250-foot radius of the subject site. In general, potentially hazardous materials or petroleum products released from facilities located generally hydraulically upgradient within the subject site vicinity, or in a hydraulically cross-gradient direction in proximity to the site, may have a reasonable potential of migrating to the subject site via groundwater flow. This opinion is based on the assumption that non-vaporous hazardous materials generally do not migrate large distances laterally within the soil, but rather tend to migrate with groundwater in the general direction of groundwater flow. However, the potential for migration of volatile hazardous materials may include movement within soils, groundwater flow or potentially omni-directionally if present in a vaporous state.
Hazardous Materials Migration in Vapor
Hazardous materials or petroleum product vapors which may have the potential to migrate into the subsurface of the subject site may be caused by the release of vapors from contaminated soil or groundwater either on or in the vicinity of the subject site from current or historical uses of the subject site and/or adjacent or vicinity properties. Current or past land uses such as gasoline stations (using petroleum hydrocarbons), dry cleaning establishments (using chlorinated volatile organic compounds), former manufactured gas plant sites (using volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds), and former industrial sites such as those that had vapor degreasing or other parts-cleaning operations (using chlorinated volatile organic compounds) are of particular concern. Constituent of concern vapors are capable of migrating great distances omnidirectionally along subsurface conduits such as pipelines, utility lines, sewer and stormwater lines, and building foundations.
Based on Krazan’s observations and review of State and local regulatory agency records and the EDR regulatory database report, no listings of concern related to potential vapor migration were determined to be associated with the subject site, adjacent properties, or properties located within the subject site vicinity.
The rationale supporting this opinion includes the following:
Relevant sites had undergone investigation and remediation sufficient to receive regulatory agency closure.
Campus Gateway Development Project No. 034-24036
Merced, California Page No. 25
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
With Offices Serving the Western United States
034-24036 Campus Gateway Devel Phase I ESA Report Final.docx Sites with reported releases of minor quantities of constituents of concern (COCs), or COCs of limited volatility impacting soil only were considered of minimal concern. Sites with reported releases of COCs including volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were either of sufficient distance or hydraulically down- or cross-gradient from the subject site such that they do not appear to represent a significant potential for vapor migration on the subject site.
No engineering control sites, sites with institutional controls, or sites with deed restrictions were listed for the subject site, adjacent sites or vicinity properties in the EDR Report.
Campus Gateway Development Project No. 034-24036
Merced, California Page No. 26
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
With Offices Serving the Western United States
034-24036 Campus Gateway Devel Phase I ESA Report Final.docx
7.0 DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
Summary of Conclusions
Apparent Evidence of RECs/CRECs or PAOCs From Not Noted Noted Historical Uses X
Current Uses X
Adjacent or Vicinity Property Uses X
Historical Uses
Based on Krazan’s review of historical aerial photographs and historical topographic maps, a site reconnaissance, contacts with the local regulatory agencies, and an interview with a representative of the owner of the subject site, there is no material evidence that RECs exist in connection with the historical uses of the subject site. However, potential areas of concern (PAOCs) were identified in connection with the subject site which are discussed in Section 8.0 of this report.
Current Uses
Based on Krazan’s site reconnaissance, contacts with local regulatory agencies, and an interview with a representative of the owner of the subject site, there is no material evidence that RECs exist in connection with the current uses of the subject site. However, site development issues were identified in connection with the subject site which are discussed in Section 8.0 of this report.
Adjacent or Vicinity Property Uses
Based on Krazan’s field observations, review of the EDR government database report, and consultation with local regulatory agencies, there is no material evidence that RECs exist in connection with the subject site from adjacent or vicinity property uses.
7.1 Evaluation of Data Gaps/Data Failure
In accordance with ASTM E 1527-21 guidance, data gaps represent a lack of or inability to obtain information required by this practice despite good faith efforts by the environmental professional to gather such information. Data gaps may result from incompleteness in any of the activities required by this practice. Data failure represents the failure to achieve the historical research objectives of this practice even after reviewing the standard historical sources that are reasonably ascertainable and likely to be useful.
Data failure is one type of data gap.
Campus Gateway Development Project No. 034-24036
Merced, California Page No. 27
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
With Offices Serving the Western United States
034-24036 Campus Gateway Devel Phase I ESA Report Final.docx The following is a summary of data gaps encountered in the process of preparing this report including an observation as to the presumed significance of that data gap to the conclusions of this assessment:
Absence of Final Title Report or Environmental Lien Search (Sections 5.1 and 5.2) A Final Title Report or Environmental Lien Search was not provided by the Phase I ESA user; therefore, a preliminary title report with attendant limitations was utilized in preparation of this report. Taken in consideration with the available information obtained in the course of preparing this report in connection with professional experience, there is no evidence to suggest that this data gap might alter the conclusions of this assessment. However, the contents of a Final Title Report or Environmental Lien Search are unknown.
Absence of Interview with Previous Property Owner/Occupant (Section 5.3) A Phase I ESA interview with the previous owner of the subject site was not reasonably ascertainable. Consequently, information regarding the history and historical uses of the subject site obtained from an interview of the previous owner of the subject site constitutes a data gap.
Taken in consideration with the available information obtained in the course of preparing this report in connection with professional experience, there is no evidence to suggest that this data gap might alter the conclusions of this assessment. However, the content of an interview with the previous property owner is unknown.
Campus Gateway Development Project No. 034-24036
Merced, California Page No. 28
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
With Offices Serving the Western United States
034-24036 Campus Gateway Devel Phase I ESA Report Final.docx
8.0 CONCLUSIONS
We have conducted a Phase I ESA of the subject site in conformance with the scope and limitations of the ASTM E 1527-21 Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process guidance documents. Any deviations from this practice were previously described in this report. During the course of this assessment, Krazan identified no evidence of recognized environmental conditions (RECs), controlled RECs (CRECs) or historical RECs (HRECs) in connection with the subject site as defined by ASTM E 1527-21. However, the following potential areas of concern (PAOCs) and site development issues were identified in connection with the subject site:
PAOCs
Krazan’s review of historical aerial photographs indicates that the northern portion of the subject site was occupied by a rural residential area from at least 1937 until at least 1998. The rural residential area included a varying number of dwellings, barns, and other outbuildings over the course of the 1937- to 1998-time interval, with at least three barn-type structures present in 1950 and five or six barn-type structures present in 1984. Additionally, historical aerial photographs of the subject site vicinity indicate the presence of on-site farming operations during the 1937- to 1998-time interval expected to have utilized fuel-powered trucks and farm equipment. Mr.
Timothy Jones, a representative of the owner of the subject site familiar with the subject site for the past 17 years, indicated that he was unaware of underground storage tanks (USTs) being located at the subject site, and no records of USTs for the subject site are on file with the local regulatory agencies. However, USTs on rural or agricultural properties historically have been exempt from requirements for registration with regulatory agencies. Krazan’s experience with such properties has shown that it is not uncommon for property owners/operators to install USTs for their convenience, especially in the vicinity of structures, which are undocumented and whose presence would remain unknown in spite of the standard data research conducted in the course of this Phase I ESA. It is therefore possible that subsurface features such as unregistered USTs may exist in the vicinity of the former on-site structures which remain unknown based upon the absence of any regulatory, municipality, interview data, or other evidence indicating their presence or location.
Consequently, despite an absence of data suggesting their presence, the presence or absence of USTs associated with the subject site prior to the current owner of the subject site is unknown. Krazan’s historical research indicates that the subject site was utilized for agricultural purposes from at least 1937 until at least 1998. While there is a potential that environmentally persistent pesticides/herbicides may have been applied to the crops grown on the subject site prior to the 1970s, no chemical spray rig filling/mixing areas or chemical storage areas were observed during the site reconnaissance, no material evidence of the use of environmentally persistent pesticides/herbicides was obtained during the course of this assessment, and the subject site does not appear to have been occupied by a vineyard or an orchard which are typically more directly correlated with the historical use of environmentally persistent pesticides/herbicides. Therefore, the potential for elevated concentrations of environmentally persistent pesticides/herbicides to currently exist in the near-surface soils of the subject site appears to be low, although the actual condition of surficial soils is unknown.
Campus Gateway Development Project No. 034-24036
Merced, California Page No. 29
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
With Offices Serving the Western United States
034-24036 Campus Gateway Devel Phase I ESA Report Final.docx Site Development Issues
As indicated previously, review of historical aerial photographs indicates that the northern portion of the subject site was occupied by dwellings and outbuildings circa 1937. The dwellings were located on site from at least 1937 until at least 1998. It is presumed that all water wells and septic systems associated with the historical on-site structures were properly destroyed or removed from the subject site at the time that these structures were demolished in the early- to late-2000s.
However, it is unknown if all water wells or septic systems were destroyed/removed from the subject site. If any water wells or septic systems are identified during the planned redevelopment of the subject site, they should be properly destroyed or removed in accordance with State and local guidelines.
According to the U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory available via the USFWS Internet website on May 24, 2024, a designated Riverine wetland is located within the northern portion of the subject site. The USFWS-reported on-site wetland is associated with the on-site portion of an irrigation canal present on the subject site since at least 1937. While a definitive assessment of the presence of on-site wetland habitats is beyond the scope of this Phase I ESA, it is Krazan’s experience that unlined, irrigation ditches are common within agricultural areas and these areas can seasonally be consistent with wetland environments. Prior to development of the subject site, an assessment can be conducted by a qualified biologist to establish if wetland habitats exist and to determine the impact of development should wetlands be identified on the subject site. Refer to Appendix C – USFWS Map for details.
Campus Gateway Development Project No. 034-24036
Merced, California Page No. 30
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
With Offices Serving the Western United States
034-24036 Campus Gateway Devel Phase I ESA Report Final.docx
9.0 RELIANCE
This report was prepared solely for use by Client and should not be provided to any other person or entity without Krazan & Associates’ prior written consent. No party other than Client may rely on this report without Krazan & Associates’ express prior written consent. Reliance rights for third parties will only be in effect once requested by Client and authorized by Krazan & Associates with authorization granted by way of a Reliance Letter. The Reliance Letter will require that the relying party(ies) agree to be bound to the terms and conditions of the agreement between Client and Krazan & Associates as if originally issued to the relying party(ies), or as so stipulated in the Reliance Letter.
10.0 LIMITATIONS
The site reconnaissance and research of the subject site has been limited in scope. This type of assessment is undertaken with the calculated risk that the presence, full nature, and extent of contamination would not be revealed by visual observation alone. Although a thorough site reconnaissance was conducted in accordance with ASTM Guidelines and employing a professional standard of care, no warranty is given, either expressed or implied, that hazardous material contamination or buried structures, which would not have been disclosed through this investigation, do not exist at the subject site. Therefore, the data obtained are clear and accurate only to the degree implied by the sources and methods used.
The findings presented in this report were based upon field observations during a single property visit, review of available data, and discussions with local regulatory and advisory agencies. Observations describe only the conditions present at the time of this investigation. The data reviewed and observations made are limited to accessible areas and currently available records searched. Krazan cannot guarantee the completeness or accuracy of the regulatory agency records reviewed. Additionally, in evaluating the property, Krazan has relied in good faith upon representations and information provided by individuals noted in the report with respect to present operations and existing property conditions, and the historical uses of the property. It must also be understood that changing circumstances in the property usage, proposed property usage, subject site zoning, and changes in the environmental status of the other nearby properties can alter the validity of conclusions and information contained in this report. Therefore, the data obtained are clear and accurate only to the degree implied by the sources and methods used.
Campus Gateway Development Project No. 034-24036
Merced, California Page No. 31
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
With Offices Serving the Western United States
034-24036 Campus Gateway Devel Phase I ESA Report Final.docx This report is provided for the exclusive use of the client noted on the cover page and shall be subject to the terms and conditions in the applicable contract between the client and Krazan. Any third-party use of this report, including use by Client’s lender, shall also be subject to the terms and conditions governing the work in the contract between the client and Krazan. The unauthorized use of, reliance on, or release of the information contained in this report without the express written consent of Krazan is strictly prohibited and will be without risk or liability to Krazan.
Conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based on the evaluation of information made available during the course of this assessment. It is not warranted that such data cannot be superseded by future environmental, legal, geotechnical or technical developments. Consequently, given the possibility for unanticipated hazardous conditions to exist on a subject site which may not have been discovered, this Phase I ESA is not intended as the basis for a buyer or developer of real property to waive their rights of recovery based upon environmental unknowns. Parties that choose to waive rights of recovery prior to site development do so at their own risk.
Parties who seek to rely upon Phase I Environmental Site Assessment reports dated more than 180 days prior to the date of reliance do so at their own risk. This limitation in reliance is based on the potential for physical changes at the site, changes in circumstances, technological and professional advances, and guidance related to the continued viability of Environmental Site Assessment reports, user’s responsibilities, and requirements for updating of components of the inquiry as stated in the ASTM Standard E 1527-21.
11.0 QUALIFICATIONS
This Phase I ESA was conducted under the supervision or responsible charge of Krazan’s undersigned environmental assessor with oversight from the undersigned environmental professional. The work was conducted in accordance with ASTM E 1527-21 guidance, generally accepted industry standards for environmental due diligence in place at the time of the preparation of this report, and Krazan’s qualitycontrol policies.
We declare that, to the best of our professional knowledge and belief, we meet the definition of environmental professional as defined in §312.10 of 40 CFR 312 and we have the specific qualifications based on education, training, and experience to assess a property of the nature, history, and setting of the Campus Gateway Development Project No. 034-24036
Merced, California Page No. 32
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
With Offices Serving the Western United States
034-24036 Campus Gateway Devel Phase I ESA Report Final.docx subject property. We have developed and performed the all appropriate inquiries in conformance with the standards and practices set forth in 40 CFR Part 312.
Respectfully submitted,
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
William H. Vick, PhD
Environmental Professional
Remington R. Alexander, PE
Environmental Regional Manager
WHV/RRA/mlt
Campus Gateway Development Project No. 034-24036
Merced, California Page No. 33
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
With Offices Serving the Western United States
034-24036 Campus Gateway Devel Phase I ESA Report Final.docx
REFERENCES
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) Process, ASTM Designation: E 1527-21.
ASTM, Standard Guide for Vapor Encroachment Screening on Property Involved in Real Estate Transactions, ASTM Designation E 2600-22.
City of Merced Development Services Department.
City of Merced Fire Department.
Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR), Aerial photographs, Microsoft® Research Maps.
Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR), Certified Sanborn Map Report.
Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR), City Directory Abstract.
Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR), Regulatory Database Report.
Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR), Topographic Map Report.
Jones, Mr. Timothy, Merced Gateway, LLC, Representative of the Property Owner, Phase I ESA Property Owner Questionnaire.
Mekideche, Mr. Rabie, Lennar Homes of California, LLC, Phase I ESA User Questionnaire.
Merced County Department of Public Health – Division of Environmental Health.
State of California Department of Toxic Substances Control, Envirostor Website:
http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public
State of California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM) Maps Website:
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/calgem/Pages/WellFinder.aspx State of California Regional Water Quality Control Board, GeoTracker Website:
http://GeoTracker.swrcb.ca.gov
State of California, Department of Water Resources, Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) Data Viewer, Spring 2023, https://sgma.water.ca.gov/webgis/?appid=SGMADataViewer#gwlevels U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Map of Radon Zones.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory Wetlands Mapper:
http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html
U.S. Geological Survey, 7.5-minute Merced, California topographic quadrangle map, dated 1987.
Campus Gateway Development Project No. 034-24036
Merced, California Page No. 34
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
With Offices Serving the Western United States
034-24036 Campus Gateway Devel Phase I ESA Report Final.docx
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Subject Site: The real property being investigated under this Phase I ESA.
Adjacent Properties: Properties which are contiguous with the subject site, or would be contiguous except for a street, road, or other public thoroughfare.
Subject Site Vicinity: Properties located within a 500-foot radius of the subject site.
Environmental Professional: A person meeting the education, training, and experience requirements as set forth in 40 CFR §312.10(b). The EP may be an independent contractor or an employee of the user.
User: The party seeking to use Practice E 1527 to complete an environmental site assessment of the subject site. A user may include, without limitation, a potential purchaser of the subject site, a potential tenant of the subject site, an owner of the subject site, a lender, or a property manager.
Recognized Environmental Condition (REC): In defining a standard of good commercial and customary practice for conducting an environmental site assessment of a parcel of property, the goal of the processes established by this practice is to identify recognized environmental conditions. The term recognized environmental conditions means the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at a property: (1) due to any release to the environment; (2) under conditions indicative of a release to the environment; or (3) under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment. De minimis conditions are not recognized environmental conditions.
Controlled Recognized Environmental Condition (CREC): A recognized environmental condition resulting from a past release of hazardous substances or petroleum products that has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority (for example, as evidenced by the issuance of a no further action letter or equivalent, or meeting risk-based criteria established by regulatory authority), with hazardous substances or petroleum products allowed to remain in place subject to the implementation of required controls (for example, property use restrictions, activity and use limitations, institutional controls, or engineering controls). For example, if a leaking underground storage tank has been cleaned up to a commercial use standard, but does not meet unrestricted residential cleanup criteria, this would be considered a CREC. The “control” is represented by the restriction that the property use remain commercial. A condition considered by the environmental professional to be a CREC shall be listed in the findings section of the Phase I ESA report and as an REC in the conclusions section. A condition identified as a CREC does not imply that the environmental professional has evaluated or confirmed the adequacy, implementation, or continued effectiveness of the required control that has been, or is intended to be, implemented.
Historical Recognized Environmental Condition (HREC): A past release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products that has occurred in connection with the property and has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority or meeting unrestricted use criteria established by a regulatory authority, without subjecting the property to any required controls (for example, property use restrictions, activity and use limitations, institutional controls, or engineering controls). Before calling the past release an HREC, the environmental professional must determine whether the past release is an REC at the time the Phase I ESA is conducted (for example, if there has been change in the regulatory criteria).
If the EP considers the past release to be an REC at the time the Phase I ESA is conducted, the condition shall be included in the conclusions section of the report as an REC.
Campus Gateway Development Project No. 034-24036
Merced, California Page No. 35
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
With Offices Serving the Western United States
034-24036 Campus Gateway Devel Phase I ESA Report Final.docx GLOSSARY OF TERMS (continued)
Potential Area of Concern (PAOC): A term adopted to provide an alternative designation to the REC and HREC for a range of environmental issues related to current subject site uses, historical subject site uses, or from adjacent and/or vicinity property uses. The PAOC is utilized to emphasize full disclosure and provide the User with conclusions and recommendations related to potential environmental issues in connection with the subject site based on Krazan’s professional experience in cases where official documentation or other evidence may be absent in order to identify an REC or HREC, thereby aiding the User’s considerations of environmental due diligence risk tolerance.
Migrate/migration: For the purposes of this practice, “migrate” and “migration” refer to the movement of hazardous substances or petroleum products in any form, including, for example, solid and liquid at the surface or subsurface, and vapor in the subsurface. Vapor migration in the subsurface is described in ASTM E 2600-10 guidance; however, nothing in the E 1527-21 practice should be construed to require application of the E 2600-10 standard to achieve compliance with AAI.
De minimis condition: A condition that generally does not present a threat to human health or the environment and that generally would not be the subject of an enforcement action if brought to the attention of appropriate governmental agencies. Condition determined to be de minimis conditions are not RECS or CRECs.
Data Gap: A lack of or inability to obtain information required by this practice despite good faith efforts by the Environmental Professional to gather such information. Data gaps may result from incompleteness in any of the activities required by this practice, including, but not limited to the site reconnaissance and interviews.
Data Failure: A failure to achieve the historical research objectives even after reviewing the standard historical sources that are reasonably ascertainable and likely to be useful. Data failure is one type of data gap.
= SUBJECT SITE BOUNDARY
VICINITY MAP Scale:
NTS
Date:
May 2024
SITE DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERS
With Offices Serving the Western U. S.
CAMPUS GATEWAY DEVELOPMENT
CAMPUS PARKWAY
APN 061-710-009 & A PORTION OF
061-710-023
MERCED, CALIFORNIA 95341
Drawn By:
BV
Approved by:
BV
Project No.
034-24036
Figure No.
1 EAST GERARD AVENUE
CAMPUS PARKWAY
EAST MISSION AVENUE
STATE
HIGHWAY 99
PARSONS AVENUE
SOUTH
COFFEE
STREET
BLIX AVENUE
CAMPUS
PARKWAY
= SUBJECT SITE BOUNDARY (APPROXIMATE)
FORMER APN 061-250-050 = CURRENT APN 061-710-009
FORMER APN 061-250-094 = CURRENT APN 061-710-023
PARCEL MAP Scale:
NTS
Date:
May 2024
SITE DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERS
With Offices Serving the Western U. S.
CAMPUS GATEWAY DEVELOPMENT
CAMPUS PARKWAY
APN 061-710-009 & A PORTION OF
061-710-023
MERCED, CALIFORNIA 95341
Drawn By:
BV
Approved by:
BV
Project No.
034-24036
Figure No.
2 ,.-
l .... ~· t!H"1,11i111'11~
lftt• 1111 ... 11,.-,1"" T.7S.,R.14 £ .,M.D.B.BM.
i
To,, Ro,e Aroo 5- 04
5-83
61-25 .. 1t-Qlll.l .. ..... ,a,I
o, ult~--.
8 .. .......,...._
~ a~..,.
Ct: ~lffW1.nflll1'
•: , ., ~N it.....,. 1u ,-
: ~ HIWIJI
~ .. ., Fron- W/nltt Sub. R. M Bk. 12, Pg. 26 41
Mttctd Colony R. M. Bit. 4, Pg. 24 '#;:,~::, ~
11 ~ .. ,. ..
Dl'tm'l • ffl07'.:tNl'f:iQ,t.r
... 7't'a'rll' a.it-..M.N' L .. 11' tr. ... , tofllUr ft..-U,l'V ltfl' ......... . ..,.D" 'II)~ .... ._hfttd"l411,-.,
flHl'MU'(-f1t-tr
._....,.,..,. ... «r •llo.JmJl"t• ... ,... ,,.""ff'Zff Jl(l.W' Alfaro la Ranch Na.2 Uni I I, R.M. Vol. 38, PQ./6
Sandcastle Subdivision Phase I, R.H. Vol.61, Pg.18
-z::l
2aHf
.. '
110-<JI 005-146
@ 005-148
, .. - ~-~ - -.- ~\It ,,._
The Crossing At River Dal<s Phase I, R.H. Vol.7"1, Pg.20 Assessor's Mop Bk.61 -Pg.25
HOfl.-Auau.air's IIIIU NvlNll.n lh..,11, I" r.t1r,1t1
A1MJ1Mr"1 PONd NwlllllMn 1HW11 le ChdH
County ol Merced, Co/ii.
/959
-f
= SUBJECT SITE BOUNDARY (APPROXIMATE)
= IRRIGATION PIPING ASSOCIATED WITH NORTHERN ADJACENT FORMER IRRIGATION DITCH = IRRIGATION CANAL - NO LONGER IN USE
= AREA OCCUPIED BY HISTORICAL RESIDENTIAL/FARM STRUCTURES (1937 - 1984 AERIAL PHOTOS) SITE MAP Scale:
NTS
Date:
May 2024
SITE DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERS
With Offices Serving the Western U. S.
CAMPUS GATEWAY DEVELOPMENT
CAMPUS PARKWAY
APN 061-710-009 & A PORTION OF
061-710-023
MERCED, CALIFORNIA 95341
Drawn By:
BV
Approved by:
BV
Project No.
034-24036
Figure No.
3 EAST GERARD AVENUE
CAMPUS PARKWAY
EAST MISSION AVENUE
0 __,..
c.:: .,
7.5-MINUTE SERIES
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
MERCED, CALIFORNIA
DATED 1987 = SUBJECT SITE BOUNDARY
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP Scale:
NTS
Date:
May 2024
SITE DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERS
With Offices Serving the Western U. S.
CAMPUS GATEWAY DEVELOPMENT
CAMPUS PARKWAY
APN 061-710-009 & A PORTION OF
061-710-023
MERCED, CALIFORNIA 95341
Drawn By:
BV
Approved by:
BV
Project No.
034-24036
Figure No.
4 . .
I
I
g
.1/
----_J
Photo 1: Southeastern-facing view of the oldest portion of the former rural residential area located in the central northern part of the subject site.
Photo 2: Western-facing view of the eastern-most portion of the former rural residential area located in the northeastern part of the subject site.
CAMPUS GATEWAY DEVELOPMENT
CAMPUS PARKWAY
APN 061-710-009 & A PORTION OF
061-710-023
MERCED, CALIFORNIA 95341
Project No. 034-24036
Date: May 2024
Approved by: BV
SITE DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERS
Offices Serving the Western United States
Photo 3: Eastern-facing view of the northwestern portion of the subject site (northwestern portion of APN 061-710-023 – north of the irrigation canal).
Photo 4: Western-facing view of the northeastern portion of the subject site (northern portion of APN 061-710-009 – north of the irrigation canal).
CAMPUS GATEWAY DEVELOPMENT
CAMPUS PARKWAY
APN 061-710-009 & A PORTION OF
061-710-023
MERCED, CALIFORNIA 95341
Project No. 034-24036
Date: May 2024
Approved by: BV
SITE DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERS
Offices Serving the Western United States
Photo 5: Northern-facing view of the oldest portion of the former rural residential area located in the central northern part of the subject site.
Photo 6: Western-facing view of the eastern portion of the former irrigation canal located in the northern portion of the subject site (northern portion of APN 061-710-009).
CAMPUS GATEWAY DEVELOPMENT
CAMPUS PARKWAY
APN 061-710-009 & A PORTION OF
061-710-023
MERCED, CALIFORNIA 95341
Project No. 034-24036
Date: May 2024
Approved by: BV
SITE DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERS
Offices Serving the Western United States
Photo 7: Western-facing view of the western portion of the former irrigation canal located in the northern portion of the subject site (northwestern portion of APN 061-710-023).
Photo 8: Southern-facing view of the northwestern portion of the subject site (northwestern portion of APN 061-710-023 – south of the irrigation canal).
CAMPUS GATEWAY DEVELOPMENT
CAMPUS PARKWAY
APN 061-710-009 & A PORTION OF
061-710-023
MERCED, CALIFORNIA 95341
Project No. 034-24036
Date: May 2024
Approved by: BV
SITE DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERS
Offices Serving the Western United States
Photo 9: Southwestern-facing view of the northeastern portion of the subject site (central portion of APN 061-710-009 – south of the irrigation canal).
Photo 10: Northern-facing view of the central portion of the subject site (southern portion of APN 061-710-009).
CAMPUS GATEWAY DEVELOPMENT
CAMPUS PARKWAY
APN 061-710-009 & A PORTION OF
061-710-023
MERCED, CALIFORNIA 95341
Project No. 034-24036
Date: May 2024
Approved by: BV
SITE DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERS
Offices Serving the Western United States
Photo 11: Northern-facing view of the central-western portion of the subject site (centralwestern portion of APN 061-710-023).
Photo 12: Southern-facing view of the central-eastern portion of the subject site (northeastern portion of APN 061-710-023 – south of Campus Parkway).
CAMPUS GATEWAY DEVELOPMENT
CAMPUS PARKWAY
APN 061-710-009 & A PORTION OF
061-710-023
MERCED, CALIFORNIA 95341
Project No. 034-24036
Date: May 2024
Approved by: BV
SITE DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERS
Offices Serving the Western United States
Photo 13: Western-facing view of the southeastern portion of the subject site (southeastern portion of APN 061-710-023 – south of Campus Parkway).
Photo 14: Northern-facing view of the southwestern portion of the subject site (southwestern portion of APN 061-710-023 – south of Campus Parkway).
CAMPUS GATEWAY DEVELOPMENT
CAMPUS PARKWAY
APN 061-710-009 & A PORTION OF
061-710-023
MERCED, CALIFORNIA 95341
Project No. 034-24036
Date: May 2024
Approved by: BV
SITE DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERS
Offices Serving the Western United States
Photo 15: Eastern-facing view of the central-western portion of the subject site (centralwestern portion of APN 061-710-023 – south of Campus Parkway).
Photo 16: View of irrigation water fill pipe features and the former irrigation ditch located in the southwestern corner of the subject site.
CAMPUS GATEWAY DEVELOPMENT
CAMPUS PARKWAY
APN 061-710-009 & A PORTION OF
061-710-023
MERCED, CALIFORNIA 95341
Project No. 034-24036
Date: May 2024
Approved by: BV
SITE DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERS
Offices Serving the Western United States
Photo 17: Eastern-facing view of the surface street, Campus Parkway, which bisects the subject site.
Photo 18: View of vacant land located adjacent to the east of the northern portion of the subject site.
CAMPUS GATEWAY DEVELOPMENT
CAMPUS PARKWAY
APN 061-710-009 & A PORTION OF
061-710-023
MERCED, CALIFORNIA 95341
Project No. 034-24036
Date: May 2024
Approved by: BV
SITE DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERS
Offices Serving the Western United States
Photo 19: View of agricultural land located adjacent to the east of the southern portion of the subject site.
Photo 20: View of East Mission Avenue, the dwelling, and the orchard located adjacent to the south of the central and eastern portions of the subject site.
CAMPUS GATEWAY DEVELOPMENT
CAMPUS PARKWAY
APN 061-710-009 & A PORTION OF
061-710-023
MERCED, CALIFORNIA 95341
Project No. 034-24036
Date: May 2024
Approved by: BV
SITE DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERS
Offices Serving the Western United States
Photo 21: View of East Mission Avenue and the single-family homes located adjacent to the south of the western portion of the subject site.
Photo 22: View of the vacant land located adjacent to the west of the southern portion of the subject site.
CAMPUS GATEWAY DEVELOPMENT
CAMPUS PARKWAY
APN 061-710-009 & A PORTION OF
061-710-023
MERCED, CALIFORNIA 95341
Project No. 034-24036
Date: May 2024
Approved by: BV
SITE DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERS
Offices Serving the Western United States
Photo 23: View of the vacant land located adjacent to the west of the central and northern portions of the subject site.
Photo 24: View of the residential subdivision located adjacent to the north of the subject site.
CAMPUS GATEWAY DEVELOPMENT
CAMPUS PARKWAY
APN 061-710-009 & A PORTION OF
061-710-023
MERCED, CALIFORNIA 95341
Project No. 034-24036
Date: May 2024
Approved by: BV
SITE DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERS
Offices Serving the Western United States
I
I
Certified Sanborn® Map Report
Inquiry Number:
6 Armstrong Road, 4th floor
Shelton, CT 06484
Toll Free: 800.352.0050
www.edrnet.com
Proposed Residential Property Campus Parkway Merced, CA 95341 May 09, 2024 7647153.3 Certified Sanborn® Map Report
Certified Sanborn Results:
Disclaimer - Copyright and Trademark Notice
EDR and its logos (including Sanborn and Sanborn Map) are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, LLC or its affiliates. All other trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners.
- page
The Sanborn Library includes more than 1.2 million
fire insurance maps from Sanborn, Bromley, Perris &
Browne, Hopkins, Barlow and others which track
historical property usage in approximately 12,000
American cities and towns. Collections searched:
Library of Congress
University Publications of America
EDR Private Collection
The Sanborn Library LLC Since 1866™
Limited Permission To Make Copies
Sanborn® Library search results
EDR Inquiry # Contact:
Site Name: Client Name:
Certification #
PO #
Project
05/09/24 Campus Parkway Proposed Residential Property Krazan & Associates, Inc. 215 West Dakota Merced, CA 953417647153.3 Clovis, CA 93612 Melanie L Thomas The Sanborn Library has been searched by EDR and maps covering the target property location as provided by Krazan & Associates, Inc. were identified for the years listed below. The Sanborn Library is the largest, most complete collection of fire insurance maps. The collection includes maps from Sanborn, Bromley, Perris & Browne, Hopkins, Barlow, and others. Only Environmental Data Resources Inc. (EDR) is authorized to grant rights for commercial reproduction of maps by the Sanborn Library LLC, the copyright holder for the collection. Results can be authenticated by visiting www.edrnet.com/sanborn.
The Sanborn Library is continually enhanced with newly identified map archives. This report accesses all maps in the collection as of the day this report was generated. 1586-4C37-9EFD NA UNMAPPED PROPERTY 034-24036-BV This report certifies that the complete holdings of the Sanborn Library, LLC collection have been searched based on client supplied target property information, and fire insurance maps covering the target property were not found.
Certification #: 1586-4C37-9EFD
Krazan & Associates, Inc. (the client) is permitted to make up to FIVE photocopies of this Sanborn Map transmittal and each fire insurance map accompanying this report solely for the limited use of its customer. No one other than the client is authorized to make copies. Upon request made directly to an EDR Account Executive, the client may be permitted to make a limited number of additional photocopies. This permission is conditioned upon compliance by the client, its customer and their agents with EDR's copyright policy; a copy of which is available upon request.
This Report contains certain information obtained from a variety of public and other sources reasonably available to Environmental Data Resources, LLC. It cannot be concluded from this Report that coverage information for the target and surrounding properties does not exist from other sources. This Report is provided on an “AS IS”, “AS AVAILABLE” basis. NO WARRANTY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT.
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, LLC AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES, AFFILIATES AND THIRD PARTY SUPPLIERS DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, OF ANY
KIND OR NATURE, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, ARISING OUT OF OR RELATED TO THIS REPORT OR ANY OF THE DATA AND INFORMATION PROVIDED IN
THIS REPORT, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES REGARDING ACCURACY, QUALITY, CORRECTNESS, COMPLETENESS,
COMPREHENSIVENESS, SUITABILITY, MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, TITLE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, MISAPPROPRIATION, OR OTHERWISE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, LLC OR ITS
SUBSIDIARIES, AFFILIATES OR THIRD PARTY SUPPLIERS BE LIABLE TO ANYONE FOR ANY DIRECT, INCIDENTAL, INDIRECT, SPECIAL,
CONSEQUENTIAL OR OTHER DAMAGES OF ANY TYPE OR KIND (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF PROFITS, LOSS OF USE, OR LOSS OF DATA), ARISING OUT OF OR IN ANY WAY CONNECTED WITH THIS REPORT OR ANY OF THE DATA AND INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS REPORT.
Any analyses, estimates, ratings, environmental risk levels, or risk codes provided in this Report are provided for illustrative purposes only, and are not intended to provide, nor should they be interpreted as providing any facts regarding, or prediction or forecast of, any environmental risk for any property. Only an assessment performed by a qualified environmental professional can provide findings, opinions or conclusions regarding the environmental risk or conditions in, on or at any property.
Copyright 2024 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in whole or in part, of any report or map of Environmental Data Resources, Inc., or its affiliates, is prohibited without prior written permission. 7647153 3 2 I l
~EDR.
J
EDR Historical Topo Map Report
Inquiry Number:
6 Armstrong Road, 4th floor
Shelton, CT 06484
Toll Free: 800.352.0050
www.edrnet.com
with QuadMatch™
Proposed Residential Property Campus Parkway Merced, CA 95341 May 09, 2024 7647153.4 EDR Historical Topo Map Report
EDR Inquiry #
Search Results:
P.O.#
Project:
Maps Provided:
Disclaimer - Copyright and Trademark Notice
EDR and its logos (including Sanborn and Sanborn Map) are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, LLC or its affiliates. All other trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners.
- page
Coordinates:
Latitude:
Longitude:
UTM Zone:
UTM X Meters:
UTM Y Meters:
Elevation:
Contact:
Site Name: Client Name:
2021
2018
2015
2012
1987
1976
1962
1961
1948
1946
1917
1914
05/09/24 Proposed Residential Property Krazan & Associates, Inc. Campus Parkway 215 West Dakota Merced, CA 95341 Clovis, CA 93612 7647153.4 Melanie L Thomas EDR Topographic Map Library has been searched by EDR and maps covering the target property location as provided by Krazan & Associates, Inc. were identified for the years listed below. EDR’s Historical Topo Map Report is designed to assist professionals in evaluating potential liability on a target property resulting from past activities. EDRs Historical Topo Map Report includes a search of a collection of public and private color historical topographic maps, dating back to the late 1800s.
NA 37.2769 37° 16' 37" North 034-24036-BV -120.426684 -120° 25' 36" West Zone 10 North 728151.21 4128694.81 184.39' above sea level This Report contains certain information obtained from a variety of public and other sources reasonably available to Environmental Data Resources, LLC. It cannot be concluded from this Report that coverage information for the target and surrounding properties does not exist from other sources. This Report is provided on an “AS IS”, “AS AVAILABLE” basis. NO WARRANTY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT.
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, LLC AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES, AFFILIATES AND THIRD PARTY SUPPLIERS DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, OF ANY
KIND OR NATURE, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, ARISING OUT OF OR RELATED TO THIS REPORT OR ANY OF THE DATA AND INFORMATION PROVIDED IN
THIS REPORT, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES REGARDING ACCURACY, QUALITY, CORRECTNESS, COMPLETENESS,
COMPREHENSIVENESS, SUITABILITY, MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, TITLE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, MISAPPROPRIATION, OR OTHERWISE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, LLC OR ITS
SUBSIDIARIES, AFFILIATES OR THIRD PARTY SUPPLIERS BE LIABLE TO ANYONE FOR ANY DIRECT, INCIDENTAL, INDIRECT, SPECIAL,
CONSEQUENTIAL OR OTHER DAMAGES OF ANY TYPE OR KIND (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF PROFITS, LOSS OF USE, OR LOSS OF DATA), ARISING OUT OF OR IN ANY WAY CONNECTED WITH THIS REPORT OR ANY OF THE DATA AND INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS REPORT.
Any analyses, estimates, ratings, environmental risk levels, or risk codes provided in this Report are provided for illustrative purposes only, and are not intended to provide, nor should they be interpreted as providing any facts regarding, or prediction or forecast of, any environmental risk for any property. Only an assessment performed by a qualified environmental professional can provide findings, opinions or conclusions regarding the environmental risk or conditions in, on or at any property.
Copyright 2024 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in whole or in part, of any report or map of Environmental Data Resources, Inc., or its affiliates, is prohibited without prior written permission. 7647153 4 2 ~EDR"
page
Topo Sheet Key
This EDR Topo Map Report is based upon the following USGS topographic map sheets. -
2021 Source Sheets
2021
Merced
7.5-minute, 24000
2018 Source Sheets
2018
Merced
7.5-minute, 24000
2015 Source Sheets
2015
Merced
7.5-minute, 24000
2012 Source Sheets
2012
Merced
7.5-minute, 24000
7647153 4 3
-,
page
Topo Sheet Key
This EDR Topo Map Report is based upon the following USGS topographic map sheets. -
1987 Source Sheets
1987
Merced
7.5-minute, 24000
Aerial Photo Revised 1984
1976 Source Sheets
1976
Merced
7.5-minute, 24000
Aerial Photo Revised 1976
1962 Source Sheets
1962
Merced
15-minute, 62500
1961 Source Sheets
1961
Merced
7.5-minute, 24000
Aerial Photo Revised 1960
7647153 4 4
page
Topo Sheet Key
This EDR Topo Map Report is based upon the following USGS topographic map sheets. -
1948 Source Sheets
1948
Merced
7.5-minute, 24000
1946 Source Sheets
1946
Merced
7.5-minute, 24000
1917 Source Sheets
1917
Merced
7.5-minute, 31680
1914 Source Sheets
1914
Merced
7.5-minute, 31680
7647153 4 5
Historical Topo Map
page
SITE NAME:
ADDRESS:
CLIENT:
This report includes information from the
following map sheet(s).
-
W E
SW S SE
NW N NE
2021 0 Miles 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 Proposed Residential Property Campus Parkway Merced, CA 95341 Krazan & Associates, Inc.
TP, Merced, 2021, 7.5-minute
7647153 4 6
~EDR®
E MISSION AVE E
4 9
STRETCH RD
!-
C, °'
~: TBS R14E ~
3 Bear
Creek
EMISSION AVE
VASSAR AVE 2
MCHENRY RD
Historical Topo Map
page
SITE NAME:
ADDRESS:
CLIENT:
This report includes information from the
following map sheet(s).
-
W E
SW S SE
NW N NE
2018 0 Miles 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 Proposed Residential Property Campus Parkway Merced, CA 95341 Krazan & Associates, Inc.
TP, Merced, 2018, 7.5-minute
7647153 4 7
~EDR®
STRETCH RD
4 3
10 Kadota
E.CH/LDS.t.V.E
"'
~
~ ... -----t------~6~5~ _____ 1
..!l I
'-
~ "'
EMISSION AVE
I
VASSAR AVE 2
MCHENRY RD
11 Historical Topo Map
page
SITE NAME:
ADDRESS:
CLIENT:
This report includes information from the
following map sheet(s).
-
W E
SW S SE
NW N NE
2015 0 Miles 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 Proposed Residential Property Campus Parkway Merced, CA 95341 Krazan & Associates, Inc.
TP, Merced, 2015, 7.5-minute
7647153 4 8
~EDR®
~1 I = ~ AVE i j
_ J.
I
I I
j __
E_C~ILDS AVE
Farmdale Latkral ----+
4 I~ I
I
3 E CHILDS AVE
35 i
E MISSION AVE I
___ J ~ '1----
1 ~
\
'· \ SMILES RD I \
\
VASSAR AVE 2
-,---i-------+-- r
MCHENRY RD \
11 Historical Topo Map
page
SITE NAME:
ADDRESS:
CLIENT:
This report includes information from the
following map sheet(s).
-
W E
SW S SE
NW N NE
2012 0 Miles 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 Proposed Residential Property Campus Parkway Merced, CA 95341 Krazan & Associates, Inc.
TP, Merced, 2012, 7.5-minute
7647153 4 9
~EDR®
.-aAVE I r1
I
"' :,.
___ j I __ _ "'
----
~ -- 0
0 \ I ;;;
8-ea C e~k
,!
~
"'
adota
- _ l IH--
EGERAROAVE
I
~1 :z:
- ~1--
1 -7
I
FAJ
t
\
Historical Topo Map
page
SITE NAME:
ADDRESS:
CLIENT:
This report includes information from the
following map sheet(s).
-
W E
SW S SE
NW N NE
1987 0 Miles 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 Proposed Residential Property Campus Parkway Merced, CA 95341 Krazan & Associates, Inc.
TP, Merced, 1987, 7.5-minute
7647153 4 10
~EDR®
f.- .,
lU I
"' e:
(/)
II
11 ·
11 .
- ··o--.......
r ··- ·· - ·
28 J • • 182
Rado Tower0
n• Q . a
II II • a
u. • • 0
.. :au •.a_.::: . . a.a. :· . •..
; - . . -;-·• -
. . .
.• _,...,,.
0 ROAD
er Sch 0rJ •
- -------1 - --------,,-.
iler ! ~. ;
rk I " ........ Dri ve-i
',Theate
,,
-----r----
...
1)£
:::=
6 1
I
I
I
. ~
~r
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I . • I
LA ("/'IL ·-
I 1 s
I
I
I
I
I :
I
I
14 • I
I
I
I
r,;=T."ll~;=--===~;.~: ==l,i~=======
II II ,, II
11 Ir !! u 11 26 •
'' i Wils :: Subs at1
~r,-1 __
---== I:: WT •
'
18 A VLf'/LJ_E. •
r
Ii 1-.: I \ 193 0Well
Ii
,:
,~ I ~
ii
..J
,q;
l)
I
GE:RARD /! .0 11
D a
Historical Topo Map
page
SITE NAME:
ADDRESS:
CLIENT:
This report includes information from the
following map sheet(s).
-
W E
SW S SE
NW N NE
1976 0 Miles 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 Proposed Residential Property Campus Parkway Merced, CA 95341 Krazan & Associates, Inc.
TP, Merced, 1976, 7.5-minute
7647153 4 11
o " ----- ,
" : I
l7i!
II
Ii i\ 68
II
I =;::.,
-=--
I
e
~r ,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
14 "-;.
• 0 .. .
Ra dio Tower0
I 7i!
. "
• o ROAD
...
I
~~
-
... . . 0
111
II
/I
11[1·
ill
1111
11111111 1
1111
l1U
11~1
11111 nu
::J:27
=====-=====:=- L M C HENR~/=86= ==- ,===~~-===- \1:1·
~~F= II ::-- I \i
,, Ji ," ".s s ~ - ~ ,:,
9 9 - $//
II
II
II
II
I'
II
II
I
'I
II
I
I•
Historical Topo Map
page
SITE NAME:
ADDRESS:
CLIENT:
This report includes information from the
following map sheet(s).
-
W E
SW S SE
NW N NE
1962 0 Miles 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 Proposed Residential Property Campus Parkway Merced, CA 95341 Krazan & Associates, Inc.
TP, Merced, 1962, 15-minute
7647153 4 12
~EDR®
~::.:.:.=-=~:::===~·
4 • • •
•
✓
0 W t r
1- · Tank
Q::
.
.
e":I·
C
1:
.
, II
II
I
II
- ···
•
I 0
~ ,.•
•
ion=
I
•'
, .
Wei
Historical Topo Map
page
SITE NAME:
ADDRESS:
CLIENT:
This report includes information from the
following map sheet(s).
-
W E
SW S SE
NW N NE
1961 0 Miles 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 Proposed Residential Property Campus Parkway Merced, CA 95341 Krazan & Associates, Inc.
TP, Merced, 1961, 7.5-minute
7647153 4 13
~EDR®
I
I
DI
I
UE
172
• D D
Ill
1 /69
I
'/
I
I
II.
Wei~:: 168
I
====-' 6
, I
I ____ J
. STRETCH " •••• _:_,.,~ •
...... ...... ...... ..... ..... ..... II
II
II
11 •
II
II
II • .011 •.o • • •
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
14 . .
...
182
.....
.... ....... ...... ...... ...... .
Rad•o Tower0
1172
. . ...
..
e.
.S WeaverSch 'F' 0 o o ,s/ • • . ~
• D 0
I - .. L
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ake
CHILDS
+
)
I
I
_____ j
-,
... ---------- H WT•
■■■ ■■■ " ••• It•I " ... ... , .. ············· ., •• ::::::::····· ~:: •••••••• !'I 189
• j tl
. • • I " 11 ■ :, 11
·· --···- ·~ 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0 0
·---.,--.
. '
'
Wil son ATCHISON;-
Substa lion ir
r ~ 1i ii: ..., C ~
AVENUE
193> Well
~
I
I
(
lh c
11 1...J 11 '!! 11 L.. II Q:
II -
Well 11 1~ ,11 11· 11·
IlII l
Il l 71°
I AVENUE ii
-
Cree
186
Historical Topo Map
page
SITE NAME:
ADDRESS:
CLIENT:
This report includes information from the
following map sheet(s).
-
W E
SW S SE
NW N NE
1948 0 Miles 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 Proposed Residential Property Campus Parkway Merced, CA 95341 Krazan & Associates, Inc.
TP, Merced, 1948, 7.5-minute
7647153 4 14
. . ... .. .
•
- - - - .
. ..
4 Merced
l Sc~ .. •• •
LATERAL ■
.,,
/'
>- I ..., I
~ I l:
.
. . .
. . .
ATCHISON
" FARM LE •
AS
II "
====L===~~==-=== ====-==--== I " I II
I :: I II I II
I I' tal ,i26
191 A N D
35 2
•
Historical Topo Map
page
SITE NAME:
ADDRESS:
CLIENT:
This report includes information from the
following map sheet(s).
-
W E
SW S SE
NW N NE
1946 0 Miles 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 Proposed Residential Property Campus Parkway Merced, CA 95341 Krazan & Associates, Inc.
TP, Merced, 1946, 7.5-minute
7647153 4 15
. . ATCHISON • • .... .. \ . I . . .
.
. .. . . Merced Colony Sch .: ..... . LA TE:RAL " .-
.,,
.'.' .
~
u ,..'::::!/
• • FARM LE: •
/ ,, ,
ff;=,!:~ ,, -'f,
4 NU£
""
AVE:NUE:
/ ,, / /
,,,. ,,
,, ,,
--
I Ii
" ---~--=~P=======------- 1 11 I 11
I Ii
I ::
Ii
" ::26
I:
I l
I I
I I
◄ I I
I l
i t
I I 35
AND
• I I
LATE:RAL
2 Historical Topo Map
page
SITE NAME:
ADDRESS:
CLIENT:
This report includes information from the
following map sheet(s).
-
W E
SW S SE
NW N NE
1917 0 Miles 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 Proposed Residential Property Campus Parkway Merced, CA 95341 Krazan & Associates, Inc.
TP, Merced, 1917, 7.5-minute
7647153 4 16
~EDR®
II
" II
II
II
II
II
" II
II
II
II
II
II 26
D SAtvrA FE I I
2 Historical Topo Map
page
SITE NAME:
ADDRESS:
CLIENT:
This report includes information from the
following map sheet(s).
-
W E
SW S SE
NW N NE
1914 0 Miles 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 Proposed Residential Property Campus Parkway Merced, CA 95341 Krazan & Associates, Inc.
TP, Merced, 1914, 7.5-minute
7647153 4 17
~EDR®
Merced Colo
lSchoo
0 2
Proposed Residential Property
Campus Parkway
Merced, CA 95341
Inquiry Number: 7647153.5
May 13, 2024
The EDR-City Directory Image Report
6 Armstrong Road
Shelton, CT 06484
800.352.0050
Environmental Data Resources Inc www.edrnet.com
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
Executive Summary
Findings
City Directory Images
Thank you for your business.
Please contact EDR at 1-800-352-0050
with any questions or comments.
Disclaimer - Copyright and Trademark Notice
This Report contains certain information obtained from a variety of public and other sources reasonably available to Environmental Data Resources, LLC. It cannot be concluded from this Report that coverage information for the target and surrounding properties does not exist from other sources. This Report is provided on an “AS IS”, “AS AVAILABLE” basis. NO WARRANTY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT. ENVIRONMENTAL DATA
RESOURCES, LLC AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES, AFFILIATES AND THIRD PARTY SUPPLIERS DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, OF
ANY KIND OR NATURE, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, ARISING OUT OF OR RELATED TO THIS REPORT OR ANY OF THE DATA AND
INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS REPORT, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES REGARDING
ACCURACY, QUALITY, CORRECTNESS, COMPLETENESS, COMPREHENSIVENESS, SUITABILITY, MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, TITLE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, MISAPPROPRIATION, OR OTHERWISE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, LLC OR ITS SUBSIDIARIES,
AFFILIATES OR THIRD PARTY SUPPLIERS BE LIABLE TO ANYONE FOR ANY DIRECT, INCIDENTAL, INDIRECT, SPECIAL,
CONSEQUENTIAL OR OTHER DAMAGES OF ANY TYPE OR KIND (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF PROFITS,
LOSS OF USE, OR LOSS OF DATA), ARISING OUT OF OR IN ANY WAY CONNECTED WITH THIS REPORT OR ANY OF THE DATA AND INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS REPORT. Any analyses, estimates, ratings, environmental risk levels, or risk codes provided in this Report are provided for illustrative purposes only, and are not intended to provide, nor should they be interpreted as providing any facts regarding, or prediction or forecast of, any environmental risk for any property. Only an assessment performed by a qualified environmental professional can provide findings, opinions or conclusions regarding the environmental risk or conditions in, on or at any property.
Copyright 2023 by Environmental Data Resources, LLC. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in whole or in part, of any report or map of Environmental Data Resources, LLC, or its affiliates, is prohibited without prior written permission.
EDR and its logos (including Sanborn and Sanborn Map) are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, LLC or its affiliates.
All other trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners.
I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
DESCRIPTION
Environmental Data Resources, Inc.’s (EDR) City Directory Report is a screening tool designed to assist environmental professionals in evaluating potential liability on a target property resulting from past activities.EDR’s City Directory Report includes a search of available business directory data at approximately five year intervals.
RECORD SOURCES
The EDR City Directory Report accesses a variety of business directory sources, including Haines, InfoUSA, Polk,Cole, Bresser, and Stewart. Listings marked as EDR Digital Archive access Cole and InfoUSA records.
The various directory sources enhance and complement each other to provide a more thorough and accurate report.
EDR is licensed to reproduce certain City Directory works by the copyright holders of those works. The purchaser of this EDR City Directory Report may include it in report(s) delivered to a customer.
RESEARCH SUMMARY
The following research sources were consulted in the preparation of this report. A check mark indicates where information was identified in the source and provided in this report.
Year Target Street Cross Street Source
2020 ¨ ¨ EDR Digital Archive
2017 ¨ ¨ Cole Information
2014 ¨ ¨ Cole Information
2010 ¨ ¨ Cole Information
2005 ¨ ¨ Cole Information
2000 ¨ ¨ Cole Information
1995 ¨ ¨ Cole Information
1990 ¨ ¨ Haines Criss-Cross Directory
1985 ¨ ¨ Haines Criss-Cross Directory
1979 ¨ ¨ Polk's City Directory
1974 ¨ ¨ Polk's City Directory
1969 ¨ ¨ Polk's City Directory
1964 ¨ ¨ Polk's City Directory
1960 ¨ ¨ Polk's City Directory
1952 ¨ ¨ Polk's City Directory
7647153- 5 Page 1
I
FINDINGS
TARGET PROPERTY STREET
Campus Parkway
Merced, CA 95341
Year CD Image Source
CAMPUS PKWY
2020 - EDR Digital Archive Street not listed in Source
2017 - Cole Information Street not listed in Source
2014 - Cole Information Street not listed in Source
2010 - Cole Information Street not listed in Source
2005 - Cole Information Street not listed in Source
2000 - Cole Information Street not listed in Source
1995 - Cole Information Street not listed in Source
1990 - Haines Criss-Cross Directory Street not listed in Source 1985 - Haines Criss-Cross Directory Street not listed in Source 1979 - Polk's City Directory Street not listed in Source 1974 - Polk's City Directory Street not listed in Source 1969 - Polk's City Directory Street not listed in Source 1964 - Polk's City Directory Street not listed in Source 1960 - Polk's City Directory Street not listed in Source 1952 - Polk's City Directory Street not listed in Source 7647153- 5 Page 2
I
FINDINGS
CROSS STREETS
No Cross Streets Identified
7647153- 5 Page 3
I
The EDR Aerial Photo Decade Package
Proposed Residential Property Campus Parkway Merced, CA 95341 Inquiry Number: May 10, 2024 7647153.8 6 Armstrong Road, 4th floor
Shelton, CT 06484
Toll Free: 800.352.0050
www.edrnet.com
2020 1"=500' Flight Year: 2020 USDA/NAIP
2016 1"=500' Flight Year: 2016 USDA/NAIP
2012 1"=500' Flight Year: 2012 USDA/NAIP
2009 1"=500' Flight Year: 2009 USDA/NAIP
2006 1"=500' Flight Year: 2006 USDA/NAIP
1998 1"=500' Acquisition Date: January 01, 1998 USGS/DOQQ 1984 1"=500' Flight Date: June 17, 1984 USDA
1976 1"=500' Flight Date: July 20, 1976 USGS
1973 1"=500' Flight Date: June 02, 1973 USGS
1950 1"=500' Flight Date: February 18, 1950 USDA
1946 1"=500' Flight Date: April 28, 1946 USGS
1942 1"=500' Flight Date: May 04, 1942 USDA
1937 1"=500' Flight Date: August 25, 1937 USDA
EDR Aerial Photo Decade Package 05/10/24 Proposed Residential Property Site Name: Client Name: Krazan & Associates, Inc. Campus Parkway 215 West Dakota Merced, CA 95341 Clovis, CA 93612 EDR Inquiry # 7647153.8 Contact: Melanie L Thomas Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) Aerial Photo Decade Package is a screening tool designed to assist environmental professionals in evaluating potential liability on a target property resulting from past activities. EDR’s professional researchers provide digitally reproduced historical aerial photographs, and when available, provide one photo per decade. Search Results: Year Scale Details Source
When delivered electronically by EDR, the aerial photo images included with this report are for ONE TIME USE ONLY. Further reproduction of these aerial photo images is prohibited without permission from EDR. For more information contact your EDR Account Executive. Disclaimer - Copyright and Trademark Notice Copyright 2024 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in whole or in part, of any report or map of Environmental Data Resources, Inc., or its affiliates, is prohibited without prior written permission.
EDR and its logos (including Sanborn and Sanborn Map) are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, LLC or its affiliates. All other trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners. 7647153 - 8 page 2 This Report contains certain information obtained from a variety of public and other sources reasonably available to Environmental Data Resources, LLC. It cannot be concluded from this Report that coverage information for the target and surrounding properties does not exist from other sources. This Report is provided on an “AS IS”, “AS AVAILABLE” basis. NO WARRANTY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT.
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, LLC AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES, AFFILIATES AND THIRD PARTY SUPPLIERS DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, OF ANY
KIND OR NATURE, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, ARISING OUT OF OR RELATED TO THIS REPORT OR ANY OF THE DATA AND INFORMATION PROVIDED IN
THIS REPORT, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES REGARDING ACCURACY, QUALITY, CORRECTNESS, COMPLETENESS,
COMPREHENSIVENESS, SUITABILITY, MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, TITLE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, MISAPPROPRIATION, OR OTHERWISE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, LLC OR ITS
SUBSIDIARIES, AFFILIATES OR THIRD PARTY SUPPLIERS BE LIABLE TO ANYONE FOR ANY DIRECT, INCIDENTAL, INDIRECT, SPECIAL,
CONSEQUENTIAL OR OTHER DAMAGES OF ANY TYPE OR KIND (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF PROFITS, LOSS OF USE, OR LOSS OF DATA), ARISING OUT OF OR IN ANY WAY CONNECTED WITH THIS REPORT OR ANY OF THE DATA AND INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS REPORT.
Any analyses, estimates, ratings, environmental risk levels, or risk codes provided in this Report are provided for illustrative purposes only, and are not intended to provide, nor should they be interpreted as providing any facts regarding, or prediction or forecast of, any environmental risk for any property. Only an assessment performed by a qualified environmental professional can provide findings, opinions or conclusions regarding the environmental risk or conditions in, on or at any property.
~EDR"
7647153.8 2020 = 500'
YEAR:
-------
~EDR'
/-•'
~ .. •· . . .. -=~_ .... ~ ...... ,.. ....... .
,. ,,.•
,f· . ·"
. .
.
:
.
!
7647153.8 2016 = 500'
-
YEAR:
------ ~EDR'
7647153.8 2012 = 500'
YEAR:
~EDR'
7647153.8 2009 = 500'
YEAR:
~EDR'
7647153.8 2006 = 500' INQU
IRY#:
YEAR: ir N
~EDR'
7647153.8 1998 = 500'
YEAR: ir N
~EDR'
7647153.8 1984 = 500'
YEAR:
~EDR'
7647153.8 1976 = 500'
YEAR:
~EDR'
7647153.8 1973 = 500'
YEAR: ir N
~EDR'
7647153.8 1950 = 500'
YEAR:
~EDR'
7647153.8 1946 = 500'
YEAR:
~EDR'
7647153.8 1942 = 500'
YEAR:
~EDR'
7647153.8 1937 = 500'
INQUIRY#:
YEAR:
~EDR'
.....___-----Appendix B -----
WFG Form No. 3180606 CLTA Preliminary Report Form (02-03-23) California