Atwater City Council
June 22, 2026

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
April 2026
CITY OF ATWATER – Castle Family Health Center | 122
implementation of the Project would result in a less than significant impact related to hazards associated with roadway design features or incompatible uses.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project would be accessible via the existing driveways along Third Street, providing ingress/egress to the medical clinic. The Project would not alter or impede any primary evacuation routes. While temporary lane closures may occur during construction, these would be managed through approved traffic control plans and encroachment permits to maintain emergency vehicle access. Post-construction, the Project would maintain adequate emergency access, including appropriate turning radii for emergency vehicles, clearly marked fire lanes, and sufficient hydrant access. The City's review and approval process would ensure compliance with all applicable codes and regulations related to emergency access and evacuation. Therefore, the Project would not impair emergency response or evacuation plans, and a less than significant impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
April 2026
CITY OF ATWATER – Castle Family Health Center | 123

5.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the Project:

Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural resource,
defined in PRC Section 21074 as either a
site, feature, place, cultural landscape that
is geographically defined in terms of the size
and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or
object with cultural value to a California
Native American tribe, and that is:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in PRC
Section 5020.1(k), or,
X
b) A resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and
supported by substantial evidence, to
be significant pursuant to criteria set
forth in subdivision (c) of PRC section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set
forth in subdivision (c) of PRC section
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider
the significance of the resource to a
California Native American tribe.

X

5.18.1 Environmental Setting
See Section 5.5. Cultural Resources.

5.18.2 Impact Assessment
Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Public Resources Code Section 21074 defines a "tribal cultural resource" as a site, feature, place, cultural landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources or listed in a local register of historical resources. Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5020.1(k) further clarifies that a local register of historical resources is a list of properties officially designated as historically significant by a city or county through a local ordinance or resolution.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
April 2026
CITY OF ATWATER – Castle Family Health Center | 124
As discussed in Section 5.5. Cultural Resources, a CHRIS record search, consultation notices to Native American tribes, and a Sacred Lands File check were conducted for the Project site and surrounding area. These efforts, which specifically sought to identify known tribal cultural resources, did not identify any such resources within the Project boundaries. Therefore, the Project would not impact any known tribal cultural resources listed or eligible for listing in the California Register or a local register.

However, recognizing the possibility of encountering undiscovered tribal cultural resources during grounddisturbing activities, the Project would incorporate Mitigation Measure CUL-1 through Mitigation CUL-3. This measure would protect any inadvertently discovered cultural resources, including tribal cultural resources as defined in PRC Section 21074. Specifically, this measure outlines a stop-work and assess procedure during the construction phases of the project including stop work, expert consultation, City notification, resource evaluation and protection, and long-term preservation to avoid or minimize potential impacts. This measure directly addresses potential impacts to undiscovered tribal cultural resources that might meet the criteria of PRC Section 21074.

Therefore, considering the negative findings of the record search and tribal consultation regarding known resources, and the implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 through Mitigation CUL-3 to address potential impacts to undiscovered resources, the Project is not anticipated to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource. Potential impacts to unknown resources, if any, will be reduced to a less than significant level through the procedures outlined in Mitigation Measure CUL-1 through Mitigation CUL-3.

Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
Implementation of MM CUL-1 through MM CUL-3.
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5024.1 outlines criteria for determining the historical significance of a resource. While the Project site has not been formally designated as a historical resource by the City of Atwater under this section, undiscovered tribal cultural resources, potentially meeting the criteria of PRC 5024.1, could be encountered during ground-disturbing activities.

As discussed previously, a CHRIS record search, formal tribal consultation notices, and a Sacred Lands File check were conducted. These efforts did not identify any known tribal cultural resources on the project site. However, the possibility of encountering undiscovered resources, potentially meeting the significance criteria of PRC Section 5024.1, remains.

To address this possibility, the Project would incorporate Mitigation Measure CUL-1 through Mitigation CUL-3. This measure would protect any inadvertently discovered cultural resources, including tribal cultural resources as defined in PRC Section 21074. Specifically, this measure outlines a stop-work and assess procedure during the construction phases of the project including stop work, expert consultation, City notification, resource evaluation and protection, and long-term preservation to avoid or minimize potential impacts.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
April 2026
CITY OF ATWATER – Castle Family Health Center | 125
Therefore, considering the negative findings of the record search and tribal consultation regarding known resources, and the implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 through Mitigation CUL-3 to address potential impacts to undiscovered resources that might meet the criteria of PRC Section 5024.1, the Project is not anticipated to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource. Potential impacts to unknown resources, if any, will be reduced to a less than significant level through incorporation of Mitigation Measure CUL1 through Mitigation CUL-3. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
Implementation of MM CUL-1 through MM CUL-3.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
April 2026
CITY OF ATWATER – Castle Family Health Center | 126

5.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded
water, wastewater treatment or storm
water drainage, electric power, natural
gas, or telecommunications facilities,
the construction or relocation of which
could cause significant environmental
effect?
X
b) Have sufficient water supplies available
to serve the Project and reasonably
foreseeable future development
during normal, dry and multiple dry
years?
X
c) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider, which
serves or may serve the Project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the
Project’s Projected demand in addition
to the provider’s existing
commitments?
X
d) Generate solid waste in excess of state
or local standards, or in excess of the
capacity of local infrastructure, or
otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals?
X
e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes
and regulations related to solid waste?
X

5.19.1 Environmental Setting
The Project site was previously developed and is within City limits and thus, is connected to water, wastewater, and stormwater services. Natural gas, electricity, telecommunications, and solid waste services are provided by private companies. Each utility system is described below.

Water
Water supply, usage, and services are described in Section 5.10.

Wastewater
The City of Atwater Public Works Department operates and maintains the City’s municipal wastewater collection and treatment system, which includes a network of pipelines, pump stations, and a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) facility. The City’s new WWTP, constructed in 2012, is located west of State Route 99 on Bert Crane Road.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
April 2026
CITY OF ATWATER – Castle Family Health Center | 127
The facility has an average permitted treatment capacity of six (6) million gallons per day (mgd). Although the WWTP is owned by the City, it is operated under contract by Veolia Water North America West. In 2020, the facility treated an average daily flow of 3.3 mgd, which represents approximately 54 percent of its permitted capacity. In addition to serving the City of Atwater, the WWTP also receives and treats wastewater flows from the United States Penitentiary Atwater, the Winton Water and Sanitary District (WWSD), and Castle Airport.45 Solid Waste
The City of Atwater Public Works Department contracts solid waste to a private contractor, Mid Valley Disposal.

Solid waste is then transported and disposed in one (1) of the two (2) Merced County Landfills. The Merced County Association of Governments (MCAG) is responsible for managing and implementing regional solid waste disposal services, known as the Merced County Regional Waste Management Authority (RWA). The RWA owns and operates the two (2) regional landfills within Merced County and administers integrated waste management contracts and grants on behalf of member jurisdictions.

Stormwater
Stormwater services are described in Section 5.10.

Natural Gas and Electricity
According to the Atwater General Plan, MID is the electricity and natural gas provider. Power is provider through major electrical transmission lines running through the northern and southern portions of the city. State Route 99 contains a major natural gas main and crude oil pipeline. The gas main pipeline has an offshoot line running directly north through down, beginning approximately at Atwater Boulevard and First Street.

Telecommunications
Telecommunications providers in the area incrementally expand and update their service systems in response to usage and demand. Upon request, the site would be connected to existing broadband infrastructure and subject to applicable connection and service fees.

5.19.2 Impact Assessment
Would the Project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project would connect to existing municipal water infrastructure located along Third Street. The existing mains would not require upgrading or relocation to facilitate the proposed development.

New water mains will be extended internally throughout the site to service the new building. The water system improvements for the Project would be designed and constructed in accordance with City standards and requirements, as verified through the building permit process. As discussed in criterion (b), the Project’s estimated 45 City of Atwater (2022). 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Accessed April 8, 2026, https://www.atwater.org/wpcontent/uploads/2022/04/Final-2020-Urban-Water-Management-Plan.pdf

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
April 2026
CITY OF ATWATER – Castle Family Health Center | 128
water demand would fall within the projected supplies for all normal and dry years under the City’s Urban Water Management Plan. Further, the Project's adherence to regulatory requirements, implementation of water conservation measures, and payment of capacity and connection fees would ensure its water demand remains within acceptable limits, thus minimizing its impact on groundwater supplies and resulting in a less than significant impact.

The Project would also connect to existing municipal sanitary mains located along Third Street. The existing mains would not require upsizing or relocation to facilitate the proposed development. New sewer lines would be extended internally through the site to service each of the proposed buildings. The sewer system improvements for the Project would be designed and constructed in accordance with City standards and requirements, as verified through the building permit process. As discussed in criterion (c), wastewater flows generated by the Project would represent a minimal percentage of the City’s wastewater treatment plant capacity, which currently operates well below its permitted treatment limit of 6 mgd. The Project would also be subject to sewer facilities development and connection fees, contributing to the funding of adequate sewer infrastructure. Accordingly, no new or expanded off-site wastewater facilities would be required, and impacts would be less than significant.

The Project would connect to existing storm drain facilities in adjacent roadways. The Project would incorporate storm water drainage infrastructure designed in compliance with all applicable codes and standards to manage stormwater runoff effectively, as ensured through City reviewed and approved grading and drainage plans. As discussed in Section 5.10, the Project’s compliance with approved grading and drainage plan, and implementation of BMPs would control and direct runoff. The existing facilities would not require relocation or expansion of new facilities to facilitate the proposed development. Impacts would be less than significant.

MID would provide natural gas and electricity, and a telecommunications provider would serve the site. The Project would relocate and underground the utilities on the site. The construction and operations of the Project would be subject to compliance with applicable energy efficiency regulations including CALGreen, Title 24, and CARB. No new expanded facilities would be required for electric, gas, or telecommunications facilities. For these reasons, a less than significant impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
Less than Significant Impact. Water supply reliability is assessed in the City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) based on the City’s water supplies during various water year types, including Normal Year, Single Dry Year, and Five-Year Consecutive Drought period. The supply, demand, and surplus for the three hydrologic conditions are shown in Table 5-11. As shown, water supply is assumed to match with demand total because the groundwater pumping will operate to meet the demand through the three (3) hydrologic conditions over the timeframe.

Table 5-11 City of Atwater Water Supply and Demand Comparison, Hydrologic Conditions, 2025 - 2040 2025 2030 2035 2040
Normal Year
Total Supply 9,642 10,324 11,056 11,838
Total Demand 9,642 10,324 11,056 11,838

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
April 2026
CITY OF ATWATER – Castle Family Health Center | 129
Single Dry Year
Total Supply 6,749 7,227 7,739 8,287
Total Demand 6,749 7,227 7,739 8,287
Multiple Dry Year
Year 1
Total Supply 6,749 7,227 7,739 8,287
Total Demand 6,749 7,227 7,739 8,287
Year 2
Total Supply 6,749 7,227 7,739 8,287
Total Demand 6,749 7,227 7,739 8,287
Year 3
Total Supply 6,749 7,227 7,739 8,287
Total Demand 6,749 7,227 7,739 8,287
Year 4
Total Supply 7,713 8,260 8,844 9,471
Total Demand 7,713 8,260 8,844 9,471
Year 5
Total Supply 8,677 9,292 9,950 10,655
Total Demand 8,677 9,292 9,950 10,655
Source: City of Atwater 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Project water use was estimated using CalEEMod methodology (Appendix A). Based on default land use factors, the Project would require approximately 2,069,188 gallons of potable water annually, equivalent to 6.35 AFY. This estimate reflects operational (post-construction) demand only and represents a conservative scenario. Given that actual Project activities are limited to medical clinic and office, long-term water consumption is expected to be lower. The Project’s projected annual demand of 6.35 AFY represents less than one percent of the City’s projected 2040 supply and would be well within the available groundwater capacity under normal, single-dry, and multipledry year conditions. Therefore, the City would have sufficient water supplies to serve the Project and planned future demands, and impacts would be less than significant.

Temporary water use during construction for dust control, soil compaction, and worker needs would be short-term and minor relative to the City’s annual supply and existing demand. Construction water would be obtained under standard City permitting processes and would not affect groundwater availability for municipal or other users.

Therefore, the City would have sufficient water supplies to serve the Project and planned future demands, and impacts would be less than significant.

Furthermore, as discussed under Section 5.10, adherence to connection requirements and recommendations pursuant to the City’s conservation efforts (e.g., compliance with California Plumbing Code, efficient appliances, efficient landscaping, etc.) should not negatively impact water supply or impede water management. In particular, the proposed Project would be required to be built accordance with all mandatory outdoor water use requirements as outlined in the applicable California Green Building Standards Code, Title 24, Part 11, Section 4.304 – Outdoor Water Use and verified through the building permit process. As a commercial development that would contain landscaping pursuant to AMC regulations, future development shall comply with the updated Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) (California Code of Regulations, Title 23, Chapter 2.7, Division 2), as implemented and enforced through the building permit process. Therefore, through compliance, the potential for the Project to substantially decrease groundwater supplies is limited and impacts would be less than significant.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
April 2026
CITY OF ATWATER – Castle Family Health Center | 130
Overall, based on the information collected from the UWMP, the Project would not generate significantly greater water demand that would substantially decrease groundwater supplies. Additionally, adherence to connection requirements and recommendations pursuant to water conservation efforts as well as compliance with applicable California Green Building Standards Code and MWELO would reduce water demand and reduce the potential for the Project to substantially decrease water supply available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. For these reasons, the Project would have a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the Project’s Projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Less than Significant Impact. According to the 2020 UWMP, the City of Atwater owns a citywide wastewater collection and treatment system, which is operated by Veolia Water North America, West. The City’s existing sewer collection system consists of pipelines 10 inches or larger in diameter connected to the City’s Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP), located on Bert Crane Road south of the previous facility on State Route 99. The WWTP has a permitted capacity of 6.0 mgd and currently treats an average of approximately 3.3 mgd.

The Project involves the construction of a new medical clinic. A conservative, worst-case scenario estimate using the CalEEMod model and default wastewater generation rates for the designated land uses at maximum buildout yields a projected demand of approximately 1,857,112 gallons per day (0.050 mgd) (Appendix A). This worst-case estimate accounts for less than one percent (approx. 0.8%) of the WWTP's permitted capacity.

While the CalEEMod estimate above provides a conservative ceiling, it utilizes a default percentage of water usage converted to wastewater that may not accurately reflect the actual generation profile of a museum complex. The majority of the Project site consists of aircraft display areas and a parking lot that generate no wastewater.

Wastewater generation would be limited almost entirely to the restrooms and food preparation/cleanup facilities within the new café/gift shop building. Given that the actual primary source of wastewater is limited to a small commercial/institutional component (café/gift shop and public restrooms), the actual wastewater generation is expected to be substantially minimal and far less than the conservative 0.047 mgd maximum estimate.

The existing WWTP has a significant available capacity of approximately 2.7 mgd. Even under the extremely conservative, worst-case estimate of 0.050 mgd, the Project's demand represents a negligible fraction of the remaining capacity. Given that the wastewater load will primarily come from a single café/gift shop, the actual load will be even lower. Therefore, the WWTP has sufficient capacity to accommodate the Project's projected demand, and impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
April 2026
CITY OF ATWATER – Castle Family Health Center | 131
Less than Significant Impact. Solid waste services are subject to the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939), which requires each jurisdiction in California to divert at least 50% of its waste stream away from landfills either through waste reduction, recycling, or other means. The City contract with Mid Valley Disposal for solid waste, recycling, and composting services. In addition, Mid Valley Disposal complies with SB 1383, which requires a reduction of organic waste disposal by 75% by 2025. 46 Solid waste generated in the City is disposed of at the SR 59 Landfill (formerly the Merced County Landfill; SWIS No. 24-AA-0001). The facility received 23,570.87 tons of solid waste in 1990 and has since expanded to approximately 200 acres, allowing for additional disposal capacity. Based on available capacity, the SR 59 Landfill is anticipated to be able to accommodate the incremental solid waste generated by the Project. Merced County Landfill is permitted to receive a max of 1,500 tons per day and has a remaining capacity of 28,025,334 cubic yards. 47 Construction
CALGreen mandates locally permitted new commercial building construction and demolition to recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum 65% of the nonhazardous construction and demolition debris generated during the Project. Further, the recycling of construction and demolition materials is required for any City-issued building or demolition permit that generates at least eight cubic yards of material by volume. Therefore, the Project would be required to implement techniques to reduce and recycle waste during construction activities in accordance with mandatory requirements under CALGreen as implemented through the building permit process. Compliance would be ensured through the building permit process. Therefore, through compliance, solid waste generated through construction activities is not anticipated to generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, in excess of the capacity of the local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals.

Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact.

Operations
The Project is anticipated to generate approximately 160 tons of solid waste per year as estimated by CalEEMod (Appendix A). The estimation accounts for compliance with AB 939. Solid waste generated through Project operations would account for less than 0.1 percent of the daily permitted throughput capacity of the landfill. As such, Project operations are not anticipated to generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, in excess of the capacity of the local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals.

Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
46 Mid Valley Disposal. Compliance Regulation. Accessed April 8, 2026, https://www.midvalleydisposal.com/sustainability/compliance-and-regulation/ 47 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (2023). “SWIS Facility/Site Search.” Accessed on April 8, 2026. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Search

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
April 2026
CITY OF ATWATER – Castle Family Health Center | 132
Less than Significant Impact. As described under criterion d), Project construction and operational activities that generate solid waste would be handled, transported, and disposed of in accordance with AB 939 and CALGreen regulations related to solid waste. Compliance would be ensured through the building permit process. Therefore, through compliance, the Project would comply with laws and regulations that would ensure impacts related to solid waste are reduced to less than significant levels.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
April 2026
CITY OF ATWATER – Castle Family Health Center | 133

5.20 WILDFIRE
If located in or near state responsibility or
lands classified as very high fire hazard
severity zones, Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
X
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and
other factors, exacerbate wildfire
risks, and thereby expose Project
occupants to pollutant concentrations
from a wildfire or the uncontrolled
spread of a wildfire?

X

c) Require the installation or
maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources,
power lines or other utilities) that may
exacerbate fire risk or that may result
in temporary or ongoing impacts to
the environment?
X
d) Expose people or structures to
significant risks, including downslope
or downstream flooding or landslides,
as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
X

5.20.1 Environmental Setting
According to the Atwater General Plan, grass and brush lands are the most likely places for wildlands in Merced County; however, Atwater lies outside of these areas and as a result, the risk of wildland fire is low. 48 Further, the Project site is not identified by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire) or the City of Atwater as a Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ); rather, the site is within an “area of local responsibility” as defined by Cal Fire and is considered an area of low fire risk. 49 Lastly, the Project would be required to be developed and operated in compliance with all regulations of the current California Building Code and Fire Code.

5.20.2 Impact Assessment
If located in or near state responsibility or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, Would the Project:
48 City of Atwater. (2000). City of Atwater 2000 General Plan. Accessed April 7, 2026, https://atwater.generalplan.org/documents-maps
49 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer. Accessed on April 7, 2026, https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/03beab8511814e79a0e4eabf0d3e7247/

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
April 2026
CITY OF ATWATER – Castle Family Health Center | 134
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact. The Project site is located within a fully urbanized area and is not situated in a wildland area or within a Cal Fire-designated Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ). The site is also within “an area of local responsibility”. The Project does not include any features that would obstruct, alter, or interfere with existing emergency access routes, nor would it require changes to adopted emergency response or evacuation plans. Therefore, the Project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, and no impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose Project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? No Impact. The Project site is located within a fully urbanized area of the City of Atwater and is not situated in or adjacent to wildland areas or a Cal Fire-designated Fire Hazard Severity Zone. The site is relatively flat and surrounded by existing urban development, which limits exposure to wildfire ignition sources and spread. There are no significant slopes, wildland fuels, or prevailing wind-driven wildfire pathways that would increase wildfire risk at the site. As such, the Project would not exacerbate wildfire hazards or expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from wildfire or uncontrolled wildfire spread. Therefore, no impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project is located within city limits and is served by existing, maintained urban infrastructure, including roads and utility systems. The Project would include minor onsite improvements such as parking reconfiguration, pedestrian pathways, landscaping modifications, lighting, and a trash enclosure, as well as continued use and connection to existing water, sewer, power, and stormwater systems. These improvements are limited in scope and would connect to an established urban infrastructure network.

The Project does not involve the construction of wildfire-related infrastructure such as fuel breaks, emergency water sources, or new utility corridors that could increase fire risk. In addition, the proposed improvements would not introduce new ignition sources or substantially alter existing conditions in a manner that would exacerbate fire hazards. All onsite improvements would be designed and constructed in compliance with applicable City codes, including fire safety and building code requirements. Therefore, the Project would not require infrastructure that would exacerbate fire risk or result in environmental impacts, and impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
April 2026
CITY OF ATWATER – Castle Family Health Center | 135
Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is located within a fully urbanized area on relatively flat terrain and is not located within or adjacent to state responsibility areas, Fire Hazard Severity Zones, or watercourses that would be susceptible to landslides or post-fire slope instability. The site is not subject to steep slopes or geologic conditions that would increase the risk of downslope hazards.

The Project includes minor onsite improvements and would continue to be served by existing stormwater infrastructure. Any proposed grading or drainage improvements would be required to comply with applicable City standards and building code requirements, including preparation and approval of grading and drainage plans. These requirements ensure that stormwater runoff is adequately managed and that no adverse drainage conditions are created.

Therefore, the Project would not expose people or structures to significant risks related to flooding, landslides, or drainage changes, including risks associated with runoff or post-fire slope instability. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
April 2026
CITY OF ATWATER – Castle Family Health Center | 136

5.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Does the Project have the potential to
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, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or
prehistory?
X
b) Does the Project have impacts that
are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means
that the incremental effects of a
Project are considerable when viewed
in connection with the effects of past
Projects, the effects of other current
Projects, and the effects of probable
future Projects)?
X
c) Does the Project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
X

5.21.1 Impact Assessment
a) Does the Project have the potential to 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, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The analyses of environmental issues contained in this Initial Study indicate that the Project is not expected to have substantial impact on the environment or on any resources identified in the Initial Study. Standard requirements that will be implemented through the entitlement process and the attached mitigation monitoring and reporting program have been incorporated in the project to reduce all potentially significant impacts to less than significant, including Mitigation Measures BIO-1, BIO-2, CULPage 510 of 2046

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
April 2026
CITY OF ATWATER – Castle Family Health Center | 137
1, CUL-2, CUL-3 and GEO-1. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.
b) Does the Project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a Project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past Projects, the effects of other current Projects, and the effects of probable future Projects.)
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(i) states that a Lead Agency shall consider whether the cumulative impact of a project is significant and whether the effects of the project are cumulatively considerable. The assessment of the significance of the cumulative effects of a project must, therefore, be conducted in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects. Due to the nature of the Project and consistency with environmental policies, incremental contributions to impacts are considered less than cumulatively considerable. Standard requirements that will be implemented through the entitlement process and the attached mitigation monitoring and reporting program have been incorporated in the project to reduce all potentially significant impacts to less than significant, including Mitigation Measures BIO-1, BIO-2, CUL-1, CUL-2, CUL-3 and GEO-1. The Project would not contribute substantially to adverse cumulative conditions, or create any substantial indirect impacts (i.e., increase in population could lead to an increased need for housing, increase in traffic, air pollutants, etc.). As such, Project impacts are not considered to be cumulatively considerable given the insignificance of project induced impacts. The impact is therefore less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
c) Does the Project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The analyses of environmental issues contained in this Initial Study indicate that the project is not expected to have substantial impact on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Standard requirements that will be implemented through the entitlement process and the attached mitigation monitoring and reporting program have been incorporated in the project to reduce all potentially significant impacts to less than significant, including Mitigation Measures BIO-1, BIO-2, CUL-1, CUL-2, CUL-3 and GEO-1. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
April 2026
CITY OF ATWATER – Castle Family Health Center | 138
6 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
This mitigation measure monitoring and reporting checklist was prepared pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15097 and Section 21081.6 of the PRC (PRC). The timing of implementing each mitigation measure is identified in the checklist, as well as the entity responsible for verifying that the mitigation measures applied to a Project are performed. Project applicants are responsible for providing evidence that mitigation measures are implemented. As lead agency, the City of Atwater is responsible for verifying that mitigation is performed/completed.

Mitigation Measures
Party
Responsible
for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing of
Verification
Responsible for
Monitoring
Verification
Verification of
Completion
Date Initials
Biological Resources
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Burrowing Owl Preconstruction Survey.

Prior to any ground-disturbing activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct protocol-level burrowing owl surveys in accordance with CDFG's 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation no more than 14 days prior to commencement of ground-disturbing activities. If burrowing owls are detected, the applicant shall immediately notify CDFW and prepare and implement a Burrowing Owl Mitigation Plan, which may include avoidance buffers, passive relocation, and compensatory mitigation for permanent habitat loss, consistent with CESA requirements
Project
Applicant
Prior to issuance
of Construction
Permit
City of Atwater
Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Nesting Bird Surveys. If vegetation removal, tree trimming, demolition, or other ground-disturbing activities are proposed during the nesting bird season (February 1 through August 31), a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction nesting bird survey within 14 days prior to the commencement of such activities. If an active nest is identified, a Project
Applicant
Prior to issuance
of Construction
Permit
City of Atwater

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
April 2026
CITY OF ATWATER – Castle Family Health Center | 139
no-disturbance buffer shall be established around the nest by the qualified biologist, and all construction activities within the buffer shall be suspended until the nest is confirmed inactive by the biologist. Buffer distances shall be determined in coordination with CDFW, consistent with standard protocols.

Cultural Resources
Mitigation Measure CUL-1: In order to avoid the potential for impacts to historic and prehistoric archaeological resources, the following measures shall be implemented in conjunction with the construction of each phase of the Project:

If previously unknown historical, archeological, cultural, or paleontological resources are encountered before or during grading activities, construction shall stop in the immediate vicinity of the find and a qualified archeologist, historical resources specialist, or paleontologist, shall be consulted to determine whether the resource requires further study. Notification of discovery shall be provided to the City Community Development Department.

The qualified archeologist, historical resources specialist, or paleontologist shall make recommendations to the project proponent on the measures that shall be implemented to protect the discovered resources, including but not limited to excavation of the finds and evaluation of the finds in accordance with Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines and City’s policies and procedures related to historical, cultural, and paleontological resources.

Notification of the measures shall be provided to the City Community Development Department.

Project
Applicant
During
construction
City of Atwater

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
April 2026
CITY OF ATWATER – Castle Family Health Center | 140
Mitigation Measure CUL-2: If the resources are determined to be unique historical resources as defined under Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, measures shall be identified by the monitor and recommended to the project proponent, who shall notify the City Community Development Department. Appropriate measures for significant resources could include avoidance or capping, preservation in-place, recordation, additional archeological resting, incorporation of the site in green space, parks, or open space, or data recovery excavations of the finds.

No further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the City Community Development Department approves the measures to protect these resources. Any historical, archeological, cultural, or paleontological artifacts recovered as a result of mitigation shall be provided to a City‐approved institution or person who is capable of providing long‐term preservation to allow future scientific study.

Project
Applicant
During
construction
City of Atwater
Mitigation Measure CUL-3: If human remains are discovered during construction or operational activities, further excavation or disturbance shall be prohibited pursuant to Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. The specific protocol, guidelines, and channels of communication outlined by the Native American Heritage Commission, in accordance with Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code (Chapter 1492, Statutes of 1982, Senate Bill 297), and Senate Bill 447 (Chapter 44, Statutes of 1987), shall be followed. Section 7050.5(c) shall guide the potential Native American involvement in the event of discovery of human remains at the direction of the county coroner.

Project
Applicant
During
construction
City of Atwater
Geology and Soils

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
April 2026
CITY OF ATWATER – Castle Family Health Center | 141
Mitigation Measure GEO-1: The Applicant will incorporate into the construction contract(s) a provision that in the event a fossil or fossil formations are discovered during any subsurface construction activities for the proposed Project (i.e., trenching, grading), all excavations within 50 feet of the find shall be temporarily halted until the find is examined by a qualified paleontologist, in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards. The paleontologist shall notify the Applicant, who shall coordinate with the paleontologist as to any necessary investigation of the find. If the find is determined to be significant under CEQA, the Applicant shall implement those measures, which may include avoidance, preservation in place, or other appropriate measures, as outlined in Public Resources Code Section 21083.2.

Project
Applicant
During
Construction
City of Atwater
Tribal Cultural Resources
See Cultural Resources

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
April 2026
CITY OF ATWATER – Castle Family Health Center | 142
7 REPORT PREPARATION
Names of Persons Who Prepared or Participated in the Initial Study:

Lead Agency
Lead Agency
City of Atwater
1350 Broadway Avenue
Atwater, CA 95301
(209) 357-6201
Chris Hoem, City Manager
Jonnie Hanson Lan, Community Development Director
Initial Study Consultant
Initial Study
Precision Civil Engineering
1234 O Street
Fresno, CA 93721
(559) 449-4500
Bonique Emerson, AICP, VP of Planning
Jenna Chilingerian, AICP, Principal Planner
Shin Tu, AICP, Senior Planner
Ruby Rafeeque, Senior Planner
Sonia Ho, Assistant Planner

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
April 2026
CITY OF ATWATER – Castle Family Health Center | 143
8 APPENDICES

8.1 Appendix A: CalEEMod Output Files

Castle Family Health Center Custom Report, 4/3/2026
1 / 5
Castle Family Health Center Custom Report
Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.3. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

5. Activity Data

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

Castle Family Health Center Custom Report, 4/3/2026
2 / 5

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Castle Family Health Center
Construction Start Date 9/1/2026
Operational Year 2027
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.80000
Precipitation (days) 23.4000
Location 37.35212044852483, -120.60641141835067
County Merced
City Atwater
Air District San Joaquin Valley APCD
Air Basin San Joaquin Valley
TAZ 2329
EDFZ 14
Electric Utility Merced Irrigation District
Gas Utility Pacific Gas & Electric
App Version 2022.1.1.41

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Medical Office
Building

14.8000 1000sqft 1.63000 14,800.0 14,700.0 — — —

Castle Family Health Center Custom Report, 4/3/2026
3 / 5

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 7.00374 6.97963 11.0647 12.1558 0.01986 0.50687 6.32104 6.82791 0.46633 3.01728 3.48360 — 2,127.52 2,127.52 0.08704 0.02499 0.36002 2,135.65 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.74413 1.46957 12.8999 14.4763 0.02266 0.57894 7.15925 7.73819 0.53263 3.44271 3.97533 — 2,529.53 2,529.53 0.10463 0.02499 0.00818 2,539.07 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.66792 0.58820 3.36043 4.13184 0.00796 0.10623 0.12169 0.17907 0.09776 0.05639 0.10920 — 764.887 764.887 0.03072 0.01001 0.05051 768.687 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.12190 0.10735 0.61328 0.75406 0.00145 0.01939 0.02221 0.03268 0.01784 0.01029 0.01993 — 126.636 126.636 0.00509 0.00166 0.00836 127.265

2.3. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 2.66004 2.52054 2.26688 14.0616 0.03097 0.04091 2.35361 2.39452 0.03898 0.59939 0.63837 89.7026 3,631.52 3,721.22 9.15026 0.20973 10.5682 4,023.04

Castle Family Health Center Custom Report, 4/3/2026
4 / 5
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 2.33695 2.19666 2.52986 11.9538 0.02883 0.03981 2.35361 2.39342 0.03815 0.59939 0.63755 89.7026 3,415.42 3,505.12 9.17382 0.22149 0.64240 3,801.12 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.91698 1.80934 1.84619 9.22818 0.02235 0.03295 1.74817 1.78111 0.03156 0.44533 0.47689 89.7026 2,749.52 2,839.22 9.12583 0.16533 3.69545 3,120.33 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.34985 0.33020 0.33693 1.68414 0.00408 0.00601 0.31904 0.32505 0.00576 0.08127 0.08703 14.8513 455.214 470.065 1.51088 0.02737 0.61182 516.606

5. Activity Data

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Medical Office Building 302,745 453.209 0.0330 0.0040 475,394

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Medical Office Building 1,857,112 212,076

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

Castle Family Health Center Custom Report, 4/3/2026
5 / 5
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Medical Office Building 159.840 0.00000

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
April 2026
CITY OF ATWATER – Castle Family Health Center | 144

8.2 Appendix B: Biological Resources Database Results

Buteo swainsoni
Swainson's hawk
Element Code: ABNKC19070
Federal:

State:

None
Threatened
Listing Status: CNDDB Element Ranks: Global:

State:

G5
S4
Other: BLM_S-Sensitive, IUCN_LC-Least Concern
General: BREEDS IN GRASSLANDS WITH SCATTERED TREES, JUNIPER-SAGE FLATS, RIPARIAN AREAS, SAVANNAHS, AND AGRICULTURAL OR RANCH LANDS WITH GROVES OR LINES OF TREES.

Micro: REQUIRES ADJACENT SUITABLE FORAGING AREAS SUCH AS GRASSLANDS, OR ALFALFA OR GRAIN FIELDS SUPPORTING RODENT POPULATIONS.

Habitat:

Occurrence No. 1690 Map Index: 69604 EO Index: 70377 Element Last Seen: 2007-06-28 Occ. Rank: Good Site Last Seen: 2007-06-28
Occ. Type: Natural/Native occurrence
Presence: Presumed Extant
Trend: Unknown Record Last Updated: 2007-07-02
Quad Summary: Atwater (3712035)
County Summary: Merced
Lat/Long: 37.35010 / -120.55762
UTM: Zone-10 N4136510 E716330
PLSS: T07S, R13E, Sec. 04, SW (M)
Accuracy: 80 meters
Elevation (ft): 170
Acres: 0.0

JUST SOUTH OF CANAL CREEK, WHERE IT INTERSECTS WITH SANTA FE ROAD, SOUTH OF CASTLE AIR FORCE BASE AND EAST OF ATWATER.

Location:

NEST TREE IS FOUND WITHIN A GROVE OF MATURE EUCALYPTUS TREES, AT THE EASTERN END. COUNTY AVENUE TWO IS ABOUT 100 YARDS TO THE SOUTH OF THE NEST TREE.

Detailed Location:

NEST TREE IS A EUCALYPTUS; SURROUNDED BY AN IRRIGATION CANAL, SANTA FE RAILROAD, AND SANTA FE DRIVE TO THE NORTH. FALLOW FIELDS TO THE SOUTH AND EAST.

Ecological:

SWHA PAIR ACTIVITY AROUND NEST FIRST OBSERVED IN MAY 2007; 1 FLEDGLING OBSERVED IN NEST ON 28 JUN 2007, WITH FEMALE PERCHED ON NEST EDGE AND MALE PERCHED 50' TO THE SW.

General:

Owner/Manager: MERCED IRRIGATION DISTRICT
Occurrence No. 1759 Map Index: 83231 EO Index: 84236 Element Last Seen: 2008-05-14 Occ. Rank: Fair Site Last Seen: 2008-05-14
Occ. Type: Natural/Native occurrence
Presence: Presumed Extant
Trend: Unknown Record Last Updated: 2011-06-29
Quad Summary: Atwater (3712035)
County Summary: Merced
Lat/Long: 37.30219 / -120.56613
UTM: Zone-10 N4131174 E715712
PLSS: T07S, R13E, Sec. 29, NE (M)
Accuracy: 80 meters
Elevation (ft): 145
Acres: 0.0
Location: ALONG MCSWAIN ROAD (SR 140) ABOUT 0.3 MI EAST OF N GURR RD, AT MCSWAIN SCHOOL.

IN EUCALYPTUS GROVE ABOUT 250 FEET EAST OF PERSIMMON WAY. BLACK RASCAL CREEK TO THE NORTH & BEAR CREEK TO THE SOUTH. MAPPED TO PROVIDED COORDINATES & MAPS.

Detailed Location:

NEST IN TALLEST EUCALYPTUS TREE IN GROVE BORDERING ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. SURROUNDING LANDS ARE MOSAIC OF RESIDENTIAL, ROW CROP, SCHOOL, & PASTURE. VISIBLE DISTURBANCES INCLUDE TRAFFIC ON SR 140, AGRICULTURE ACTIVITIES & SCHOOL YARD CHILDREN.

Ecological:

ONE ADULT OBSERVED SITTING IN NEST WITH ONE ADULT SOARING CLOSE TO NEST TREE ON 14 MAY 2008. ASSUMED TO BE IN INCUBATION STAGE.

General:

Owner/Manager: UNKNOWN
Query Criteria: Quad<span style='color:Red'> IS </span>(Atwater (3712035)) Report Printed on Friday, April 03, 2026
Commercial Version -- Dated March, 1 2026 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 1 of 14 Information Expires 9/1/2026
Multiple Occurrences per Page
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database

Occurrence No. 1760 Map Index: 83232 EO Index: 84238 Element Last Seen: 2008-05-14 Occ. Rank: Fair Site Last Seen: 2008-05-14
Occ. Type: Natural/Native occurrence
Presence: Presumed Extant
Trend: Unknown Record Last Updated: 2011-06-29
Quad Summary: Atwater (3712035)
County Summary: Merced
Lat/Long: 37.32504 / -120.54987
UTM: Zone-10 N4133746 E717088
PLSS: T07S, R13E, Sec. 16 (M)
Accuracy: 80 meters
Elevation (ft): 155
Acres: 0.0
JUST NORTH OF HWY 99, AT ASHBY RD & TRINIDADE RD INTERSECTION, JUST NW OF FERGUS, 4 MI NW OF MERCED POST OFFICE.

Location:

Detailed Location: CENTER OF SECTION 16. MAPPED TO PROVIDED COORDINATES & MAPS.

NEST TREE IN ROW OF EUCALYPTUS TREES ALONG TRINIDADE ROAD. SURROUNDING LANDS ARE MOSAIC OF ROW CROP, RESIDENTIAL, INDUSTRIAL, ORCHARD, AND PASTURE. VISIBLE DISRBANCES: AGRICULTURE RELATED ACTIVITIES.

Ecological:
1 LIGHT MORPH & 1 DARK MORPH ADULTS OBSERVED IN TREE EATING PREY THAT WAS CAUGHT IN FIELD DIRECTLY SOUTH OF HWY 99 ON 14 MAY 2009. NEST WAS IN INCUBATION STAGE AT TIME OF OBSERVATION.

General:

Owner/Manager: UNKNOWN
Occurrence No. 2683 Map Index: A0387 EO Index: 101947 Element Last Seen: 2016-04-13 Occ. Rank: Unknown Site Last Seen: 2016-04-13
Occ. Type: Natural/Native occurrence
Presence: Presumed Extant
Trend: Unknown Record Last Updated: 2016-06-08
Quad Summary: Atwater (3712035)
County Summary: Merced
Lat/Long: 37.28872 / -120.54212
UTM: Zone-10 N4129734 E717881
PLSS: T07S, R13E, Sec. 28, SE (M)
Accuracy: 1/10 mile
Elevation (ft): 147
Acres: 18.0
ALONG BAILEY AVE ABOUT 1 MILE EAST OF GURR RD, ABOUT 1.5 MILES W OF MERCED MUNICPAL AIRPORT, WEST OF THE CITY OF MERCED.

Location:

LOCATION GIVEN AS "TREES AT 3014 BAILEY AVE" AND APPEARS TO BE IN THE VICINITY OF THORNTON LATERAL AT BAILEY AVE.

Detailed Location:

RESIDENCE WITH "PINE AND EUCALYPTUS TREES AT END OF DRIVEWAY" SURROUNDED BY AGRICULTURE.

PHOTOGRAPH SHOWS 2 SWHA PERCHED IN A REDWOOD/SEQUOIA. ADDITIONAL NEST TREES MAY BE ALONG SOUTH SLOUGH & BEAR CREEK. AG LIKELY USED FOR FORAGING.

Ecological:

RESIDENT REPORTS 5 PAIRS SOARING ABOVE FIELDS & "NEST[ING] IN TREES ON PROPERTY" IN APR 2016. ALSO, JUVENILES SEEN WITH ADULTS IN SPRING OF 2015. THOUGH REPORT IS PLAUSIBLE, BIRD NUMBERS & SPECIFIC NEST INFORMATION IS QUESTIONABLE; NIMBY?
General:

Owner/Manager: PVT
Report Printed on Friday, April 03, 2026
Commercial Version -- Dated March, 1 2026 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 2 of 14 Information Expires 9/1/2026
Multiple Occurrences per Page
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database

Buteo regalis
ferruginous hawk
Element Code: ABNKC19120
Federal:

State:

None
None
Listing Status: CNDDB Element Ranks: Global:

State:

G4
S3S4
Other: CDFW_WL-Watch List, IUCN_LC-Least Concern
General: OPEN GRASSLANDS, SAGEBRUSH FLATS, DESERT SCRUB, LOW FOOTHILLS AND FRINGES OF PINYON AND JUNIPER HABITATS.

Micro: EATS MOSTLY LAGOMORPHS, GROUND SQUIRRELS, AND MICE. POPULATION TRENDS MAY FOLLOW LAGOMORPH POPULATION CYCLES.

Habitat:

Occurrence No. 60 Map Index: 67366 EO Index: 67534 Element Last Seen: 2006-10-04 Occ. Rank: Fair Site Last Seen: 2006-10-04
Occ. Type: Natural/Native occurrence
Presence: Presumed Extant
Trend: Unknown Record Last Updated: 2006-12-12
Quad Summary: Atwater (3712035)
County Summary: Merced
Lat/Long: 37.36272 / -120.54352
UTM: Zone-10 N4137942 E717542
PLSS: T06S, R13E, Sec. 33, SE (M)
Accuracy: 1/10 mile
Elevation (ft): 175
Acres: 0.0
Location: NORTH OF W BELLEVUE ROAD AND JUST EAST OF CANAL CREEK, EAST OF CASTLE AIR FORCE BASE.

Detailed Location: LOCATION MAPPED ACCORDING TO UTM COORDINATES AND MAP.

Ecological:
1 ADULT OBSERVED FLYING/FORAGING OVER OPEN HAY FIELD ON 4 OCT 2006. CURRENT/SURROUNDING LAND: LOW DENSITY AGRICULTURAL PROPERTIES WITH HIGHLY DISTURBED LAND. VISIBLE DISTURBANCE: LONG TERM MANIPULATION OF LAND.

General:

Owner/Manager: UNKNOWN
Athene cunicularia
burrowing owl
Element Code: ABNSB10010
Federal:

State:

None
Candidate Endangered
Listing Status: CNDDB Element Ranks: Global:

State:

G4
S2
Other: BLM_S-Sensitive, CDFW_SSC-Species of Special Concern, IUCN_LC-Least Concern, USFWS_BCC-Birds of Conservation Concern
General: OPEN, DRY ANNUAL OR PERENNIAL GRASSLANDS, DESERTS, AND SCRUBLANDS CHARACTERIZED BY LOWGROWING VEGETATION.

Micro: SUBTERRANEAN NESTER, DEPENDENT UPON BURROWING MAMMALS, MOST NOTABLY, THE CALIFORNIA GROUND SQUIRREL.

Habitat:

Report Printed on Friday, April 03, 2026
Commercial Version -- Dated March, 1 2026 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 3 of 14 Information Expires 9/1/2026
Multiple Occurrences per Page
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database

Occurrence No. 812 Map Index: 64827 EO Index: 64906 Element Last Seen: 2006-05-25 Occ. Rank: Unknown Site Last Seen: 2006-05-25
Occ. Type: Natural/Native occurrence
Presence: Presumed Extant
Trend: Unknown Record Last Updated: 2006-06-07
Quad Summary: Atwater (3712035)
County Summary: Merced
Lat/Long: 37.27390 / -120.50677
UTM: Zone-10 N4128172 E721057
PLSS: T07S, R13E, Sec. 35, SE (M)
Accuracy: specific area
Elevation (ft): 150
Acres: 18.4
Location: SE END OF MERCED MUNICIPAL AIRPORT, ON THE SW EDGE OF MERCED.

BURROWS ARE FOUND IN TWO DISTINCT AREAS, ABOUT 0.2 MILE APART. BOTH ARE LOCATED AT SOUTHERN END OF AIRPORT RUNWAY.

Detailed Location:

Ecological: HABITAT CONSISTS OF DISTURBED (MOWED) NON-NATIVE GRASSLAND.

General: 6 ACTIVE BURROWS (WITH 6 ADULTS) OBSERVED ON 25 MAY 2006.

Owner/Manager: CITY OF MERCED
Occurrence No. 876 Map Index: 67347 EO Index: 67514 Element Last Seen: 2006-10-06 Occ. Rank: Fair Site Last Seen: 2006-10-06
Occ. Type: Natural/Native occurrence
Presence: Presumed Extant
Trend: Unknown Record Last Updated: 2006-12-11
Quad Summary: Atwater (3712035)
County Summary: Merced
Lat/Long: 37.35908 / -120.53123
UTM: Zone-10 N4137567 E718642
PLSS: T07S, R13E, Sec. 03, NE (M)
Accuracy: 80 meters
Elevation (ft): 175
Acres: 0.0
Location: 0.1 MILE SOUTH OF BELLEVUE ROAD AND 0.5 MILE EAST OF FRANKLIN ROAD, EAST OF CASTLE AIR FORCE BASE.

Detailed Location:

HABITAT CONSISTS OF LOW-DENSITY AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY CONTAINING NUMEROUS DETENTION BASINS; LAND IS HIGHLY DISTURBED/MAINPULATED.

Ecological:

General: 1 ADULT OBSERVED AT BURROW ON 6 OCT 2006 AND DURING TWO OTHER VISITS TO THE PROPERTY.

Owner/Manager: UNKNOWN
Occurrence No. 877 Map Index: 67348 EO Index: 67516 Element Last Seen: 2006-10-24 Occ. Rank: Fair Site Last Seen: 2006-10-24
Occ. Type: Natural/Native occurrence
Presence: Presumed Extant
Trend: Unknown Record Last Updated: 2006-12-11
Quad Summary: Atwater (3712035)
County Summary: Merced
Lat/Long: 37.33611 / -120.56332
UTM: Zone-10 N4134944 E715864
PLSS: T07S, R13E, Sec. 08, SE (M)
Accuracy: 80 meters
Elevation (ft): 160
Acres: 0.0
Location: 0.25 MILE WEST OF GURR ROAD AND 0.4 MILE SOUTH OF AVENUE ONE, SE OF ATWATER.

Detailed Location:

Ecological: HABITAT CONSISTS OF LOW-DENSITY AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY AND RUDERAL FIELD.

General: 1 ADULT OBSERVED ON 24 OCT 2006 AND DURING ONE OTHER VISIT TO THE PROPERTY.

Owner/Manager: UNKNOWN
Report Printed on Friday, April 03, 2026
Commercial Version -- Dated March, 1 2026 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 4 of 14 Information Expires 9/1/2026
Multiple Occurrences per Page
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database

Occurrence No. 988 Map Index: 70100 EO Index: 70964 Element Last Seen: 2007-07-16 Occ. Rank: Excellent Site Last Seen: 2007-07-16
Occ. Type: Natural/Native occurrence
Presence: Presumed Extant
Trend: Unknown Record Last Updated: 2007-10-03
Quad Summary: Atwater (3712035)
County Summary: Merced
Lat/Long: 37.29057 / -120.51700
UTM: Zone-10 N4129998 E720101
PLSS: T07S, R13E, Sec. 26 (M)
Accuracy: non-specific area
Elevation (ft): 154
Acres: 28.0
Location: MERCED MUNICIPAL AIRPORT, SW OF MERCED.

Detailed Location:

HABITAT SURROUNDING BURROW SITES CONSISTS OF DISTURBED ANNUAL GRASSLAND DOMINATED BY PERENNIAL

RYEGRASS (LOLIUM PERENNE), YELLOW STAR THISTLE (CENTAUREA SOLSTITIALIS), CURLY DOCK (RUMEX CRISPUS), AND SPRING VETCH (VICIA SATIVA SSP. SATIVA).

Ecological:

General: 9 INDIVIDUALS OBSERVED ON 16 JUL 2007.

Owner/Manager: CITY OF MERCED
Agelaius tricolor
tricolored blackbird
Element Code: ABPBXB0020
Federal:

State:

None
Threatened
Listing Status: CNDDB Element Ranks: Global:

State:

G3
S2
Other: BLM_S-Sensitive, CDFW_SSC-Species of Special Concern, IUCN_EN-Endangered, USFWS_BCC-Birds of Conservation Concern
General: HIGHLY COLONIAL SPECIES, MOST NUMEROUS IN CENTRAL VALLEY AND VICINITY. LARGELY ENDEMIC TO CALIFORNIA.

Micro: REQUIRES OPEN WATER, PROTECTED NESTING SUBSTRATE, AND FORAGING AREA WITH INSECT PREY WITHIN A FEW KM OF THE COLONY.

Habitat:

Occurrence No. 65 Map Index: 13166 EO Index: 24755 Element Last Seen: 1971-05-09 Occ. Rank: Unknown Site Last Seen: 1971-05-09
Occ. Type: Natural/Native occurrence
Presence: Presumed Extant
Trend: Unknown Record Last Updated: 2016-01-27
Quad Summary: Atwater (3712035)
County Summary: Merced
Lat/Long: 37.29715 / -120.58380
UTM: Zone-10 N4130574 E714161
PLSS: T07S, R13E, Sec. 30 (M)
Accuracy: 1 mile
Elevation (ft): 135
Acres: 0.0
ABOUT 1.8 MI ESE OF HWY 140 & APPLEGATE RD INTERSECTION, 2.6 MI S OF HWY 99 & BUHACH RD INTERSECTION, W OF MERCED.

Location:

LOCATION DESCRIBED AS "SOUTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 140; 4.5 MILES WEST OF MERCED." COLONY DATA STORED IN UC DAVIS TRICOLORED BLACKBIRD PORTAL; SITE NAME "SOUTH BUHACH ROAD AT HIGHWAY 140" & "WEST MERCED." EXACT LOCATION UNKNOWN.

Detailed Location:

BLACKBERRIES IN IRRIGATED PASTURES. COLONY APPROXIMATELY 1/25 ACRE. DOMINANT SURROUNDING LAND USE WAS HALF ALFALFA AND HALF RESIDENTIAL, NO SUITABLE NESTING HABITAT IN 2014. 4.5 MILES MEASURED FROM HWY 99 & HWY 140 INTERSECTION.

Ecological:

ABOUT 1500 BIRDS OBSERVED ON 9 MAY 1971 BY DEHAVEN; PRESUMED NESTING, AREA TOO INACCESSIBLE TO REACH. 0 BIRDS OBSERVED ON 18 APR 2014; UNCLEAR IF THIS SURVEY WAS AT THE SAME LOCATION AS THE 1971 LOCATION.

General:

Owner/Manager: UNKNOWN
Report Printed on Friday, April 03, 2026
Commercial Version -- Dated March, 1 2026 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 5 of 14 Information Expires 9/1/2026
Multiple Occurrences per Page
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database

Occurrence No. 633 Map Index: 97347 EO Index: 98620 Element Last Seen: 1933-04-26 Occ. Rank: Unknown Site Last Seen: 1933-04-26
Occ. Type: Natural/Native occurrence
Presence: Presumed Extant
Trend: Unknown Record Last Updated: 2015-08-27
Quad Summary: Sandy Mush (3712025), Atwater (3712035)
County Summary: Merced
Lat/Long: 37.26050 / -120.51959
UTM: Zone-10 N4126655 E719959
PLSS: T08S, R13E, Sec. 02 (M)
Accuracy: 4/5 mile
Elevation (ft): 150
Acres: 0.0
Location: ABOUT 2.6 MI SW OF HWY 59 & CHILDS AVE INTERSECTION, 5.4 MI NNW OF HWY 59 & SANDY MUSH RD, SW OF MERCED.

LOCATION DESCRIBED ONLY AS "THREE MILES SOUTHWEST OF MERCED." EXACT LOCATION UNKNOWN. MAPPED AS BEST GUESS TO AREA THAT APPEARED TO HISTORICALLY HAVE WATER (HARTLEY SLOUGH) BASED ON A 1918 USGS TOPO MAP FOR ATWATER QUAD.

Detailed Location:

HABITAT ONLY DESCRIBED AS CATTAIL MARSH. COLONY PRESUMED EXTIRPATED BY BEEDY (1991). FURTHER RESEARCH NEEDED TO DETERMINE STATUS OF COLONY.

Ecological:

General: A BREEDING COLONY COMPOSED OF ABOUT 100 NESTS OBSERVED ON 26 APR 1933.

Owner/Manager: UNKNOWN
Occurrence No. 634 Map Index: 97352 EO Index: 98624 Element Last Seen: 1933-05-19 Occ. Rank: None Site Last Seen: 1933-05-19
Occ. Type: Natural/Native occurrence
Presence: Possibly Extirpated
Trend: Unknown Record Last Updated: 2015-08-27
Quad Summary: Merced (3712034), Atwater (3712035)
County Summary: Merced
Lat/Long: 37.28790 / -120.50908
UTM: Zone-10 N4129719 E720811
PLSS: T07S, R13E, Sec. 35 (M)
Accuracy: 1 mile
Elevation (ft): 150
Acres: 0.0
ABOUT 2 MI NW OF HWY 59 & VASSAR AVE INTERSECTION, 2.9 MI W OF HWY 99 & CHILDS AVE INTERSECTION, SW EDGE OF MERCED.

Location:

MAPPED AS BEST GUESS TO CANALS JUST SW OF MERCED CITY PROPER. CANALS IDENTIFIED USING 1917 & 1947-48 USGS TOPO MAPS FOR MERCED & ATWATER QUADS. EL CAPITAN CANAL & MERCED LATERAL WERE POSSIBLE CANALS FOR COLONY LOCATION.

Detailed Location:

HABITAT DESCRIBED AS CATTAILS ALONG CANAL. COLONY PRESUMED EXTIRPATED BY BEEDY (1991). VERY LITTLE TO NO HABITAT VISIBLE IN AERIAL PHOTOS. COLONY DATA STORED IN UC DAVIS TRICOLORED BLACKBIRD PORTAL; SITE NAME "SOUTHWEST MERCED."
Ecological:

General: A BREEDING COLONY COMPOSED OF ABOUT 1500 NESTS OBSERVED ON 19 MAY 1933 (NEFF 1937).

Owner/Manager: UNKNOWN
Report Printed on Friday, April 03, 2026
Commercial Version -- Dated March, 1 2026 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 6 of 14 Information Expires 9/1/2026
Multiple Occurrences per Page
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database

Occurrence No. 635 Map Index: 97354 EO Index: 98627 Element Last Seen: 1933-04-27 Occ. Rank: None Site Last Seen: 1933-04-27
Occ. Type: Natural/Native occurrence
Presence: Possibly Extirpated
Trend: Unknown Record Last Updated: 2015-08-27
Quad Summary: Merced (3712034), Atwater (3712035)
County Summary: Merced
Lat/Long: 37.31620 / -120.48409
UTM: Zone-10 N4132919 E722944
PLSS: T07S, R14E, Sec. 19 (M)
Accuracy: 1 mile
Elevation (ft): 175
Acres: 0.0
ALONG BEAR CREEK, JUST E OF HWY 59 & SANTA FE AVE INTERSECTION, 2.4 MI NW OF HWY 140 & CHILDS AVE INTERSECTION, MERCED.

Location:

MAPPED AS BEST GUESS BY CNDDB TO PROVIDED LOCATION DESCRIPTION OF "NORTH OF MERCED." FEATURE MAPPED ALONG BEAR CREEK ALONG THE NORTHERN SIDE OF MERCED. CREEK HISTORICALLY BOUNDED THE N SIDE OF MERCED (USGS 1917 & 1948 TOPO, MERCED QUAD).

Detailed Location:

HABITAT DESCRIBED AS CATTAIL MARSH. COLONY PRESUMED EXTIRPATED BY BEEDY (1991). AREA APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN HEAVILY DEVELOPED SINCE TIME OF DETECTION BASED ON AERIAL IMAGERY. COLONY DATA STORED IN UC DAVIS TRBL PORTAL; SITE "NORTH MERCED."
Ecological:

General: A BREEDING COLONY COMPOSED OF ABOUT 250 NESTS OBSERVED ON 27 APR 1933 (NEFF 1937).

Owner/Manager: UNKNOWN
Occurrence No. 639 Map Index: 97371 EO Index: 98652 Element Last Seen: 2014-04-19 Occ. Rank: Unknown Site Last Seen: 2014-04-19
Occ. Type: Natural/Native occurrence
Presence: Presumed Extant
Trend: Unknown Record Last Updated: 2015-08-28
Quad Summary: Merced (3712034), Atwater (3712035), Yosemite Lake (3712044), Winton (3712045) County Summary: Merced
Lat/Long: 37.37760 / -120.49598
UTM: Zone-10 N4139704 E721709
PLSS: T06S, R13E, Sec. 25, SW (M)
Accuracy: 2/5 mile
Elevation (ft): 190
Acres: 0.0
JUST E OF HWY 59 & NEVADA ST INTERSECTION, ABOUT 0.6 MI NNE OF BREEZE RD & UTAH ST INTERSECTION, N OF MERCED.

Location:

MAPPED ACCORDING TO PROVIDED LOCATION IN PORTAL. ENTRANCE TO MERCED HORSEMEN'S ARENA VISIBLE IN GOOGLE STREET VIEW. COLONY DATA STORED IN THE UC DAVIS TRICOLORED BLACKBIRD PORTAL; SITE NAME "MERCED HORSEMEN'S ARENA."
Detailed Location:

HABITAT WAS TRITICALE BEFORE BEING HARVESTED ON 22 APR 2014. DISTANCE TO STORED GRAINS WAS "100-500" METERS. DISTANCE TO WATER WAS OVER 100 METERS.

Ecological:

ABOUT 2,000-2,500 BIRDS OBSERVED ON 19 APR 2014; BEHAVIOR CLASSIFIED AS SINGING, BREEDING, AND COLONY QUIET (INCUBATION INFERRED). COLONY WAS DESTROYED DUE TO HARVEST ON 22 APR 2014.

General:

Owner/Manager: UNKNOWN, PVT
Report Printed on Friday, April 03, 2026
Commercial Version -- Dated March, 1 2026 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 7 of 14 Information Expires 9/1/2026
Multiple Occurrences per Page
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database

Vulpes macrotis mutica
San Joaquin kit fox
Element Code: AMAJA03041
Federal:

State:

Endangered
Threatened
Listing Status: CNDDB Element Ranks: Global:

State:

G4T2
S3
Other:

General: ANNUAL GRASSLANDS OR GRASSY OPEN STAGES WITH SCATTERED SHRUBBY VEGETATION.

Micro: NEED LOOSE-TEXTURED SANDY SOILS FOR BURROWING, AND SUITABLE PREY BASE.

Habitat:

Occurrence No. 23 Map Index: 42082 EO Index: 42082 Element Last Seen: 1999-08-20 Occ. Rank: Poor Site Last Seen: 1999-08-20
Occ. Type: Natural/Native occurrence
Presence: Presumed Extant
Trend: Unknown Record Last Updated: 1999-12-27
Quad Summary: Atwater (3712035)
County Summary: Merced
Lat/Long: 37.36666 / -120.60137
UTM: Zone-10 N4138247 E712407
PLSS: T06S, R12E, Sec. 36 (M)
Accuracy: non-specific area
Elevation (ft): 160
Acres: 286.7
Location: LIVINGSTON CANAL, FROM APROXIMATLY BELLEVUE ROAD TO WINTON WAY, ATWATER.

Detailed Location: ALONG CANAL AREA, MERCED COUNTY WATER DISTRICT.

Ecological: AREA IS FLAT WITH SANDY SOILS.
1 OBSERVED IN BACKYARD, THEN TRAVELED WEST ALONG CANAL, 1999. 1 ADULT, 2 JUVENILES OBSERVED IN THE EARLY 1980'S, OVER A MONTH, FREQUENTING AN EXPOSED CONCRETE PIPE OPENING; AREA PREVIOUSLY BORDERED BY AG AND SOME RESIDENTIAL NOW HOUSING.

General:

Owner/Manager: MER COUNTY
Report Printed on Friday, April 03, 2026
Commercial Version -- Dated March, 1 2026 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 8 of 14 Information Expires 9/1/2026
Multiple Occurrences per Page
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database

Actinemys marmorata
northwestern pond turtle
Element Code: ARAAD02031
Federal:

State:

Proposed Threatened
None
Listing Status: CNDDB Element Ranks: Global:

State:

G2
SNR
Other: BLM_S-Sensitive, CDFW_SSC-Species of Special Concern, IUCN_VU-Vulnerable, USFS_S-Sensitive General:

Micro:

Habitat:

Occurrence No. 721 Map Index: 67349 EO Index: 67517 Element Last Seen: 2006-10-13 Occ. Rank: Fair Site Last Seen: 2006-10-13
Occ. Type: Natural/Native occurrence
Presence: Presumed Extant
Trend: Unknown Record Last Updated: 2006-12-11
Quad Summary: Atwater (3712035)
County Summary: Merced
Lat/Long: 37.36083 / -120.55443
UTM: Zone-10 N4137708 E716581
PLSS: T06S, R13E, Sec. 33, SW (M)
Accuracy: 80 meters
Elevation (ft): 175
Acres: 0.0
Location: CANAL CREEK, 0.3 MILE WEST OF FOX ROAD AND 0.3 MILE NORTH OF BRADSHAW ROAD, CASTLE AIR FORCE BASE.

Detailed Location:

HABITAT WITHIN CANAL CREEK CONSISTS OF HERBACEOUS VEGETATION. SURROUNDING LAND CONSISTS OF LOWDENSITY AGRICULTURAL LAND, WHICH IS HIGHLY MANIPULATED FOR AGRICULTURE, DAIRY, AND CASTLE AFB.Ecological:

General: 1 JUVENILE OBSERVED ON THE BANK OF CANAL CREEK ON 13 OCT 2006.

Owner/Manager: UNKNOWN
Branchinecta lynchi
vernal pool fairy shrimp
Element Code: ICBRA03030
Federal:

State:

Threatened
None
Listing Status: CNDDB Element Ranks: Global:

State:

G3
S3
Other: IUCN_VU-Vulnerable
General: ENDEMIC TO THE GRASSLANDS OF THE CENTRAL VALLEY, CENTRAL COAST MOUNTAINS, AND SOUTH COAST MOUNTAINS, IN ASTATIC RAIN-FILLED POOLS.

Micro: INHABIT SMALL, CLEAR-WATER SANDSTONE-DEPRESSION POOLS AND GRASSED SWALE, EARTH SLUMP, OR BASALT-FLOW DEPRESSION POOLS.

Habitat:

Occurrence No. 181 Map Index: 36115 EO Index: 31112 Element Last Seen: 1997-02-13 Occ. Rank: Fair Site Last Seen: 1997-02-13
Occ. Type: Natural/Native occurrence
Presence: Presumed Extant
Trend: Unknown Record Last Updated: 2014-10-02
Quad Summary: Atwater (3712035)
County Summary: Merced
Lat/Long: 37.34685 / -120.55031
UTM: Zone-10 N4136165 E716987
PLSS: T07S, R13E, Sec. 04, SW (M)
Accuracy: 80 meters
Elevation (ft): 165
Acres: 0.0
Location: JUST NW OF THE INTERSECTION OF FOX ROAD AND CARDELLA ROAD, 2 MILES EAST OF ATWATER.

Detailed Location:

Ecological: HABITAT CONSISTED OF A ROADSIDE POOL, ADJACENT TO ATSF RAILROAD TRACKS, SURROUNDED BY AGRICULTURE.

General: 1 ADULT COLLECTED ON 13 FEB 1997 (CASIZ #111133).

Owner/Manager: PVT
Report Printed on Friday, April 03, 2026
Commercial Version -- Dated March, 1 2026 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 9 of 14 Information Expires 9/1/2026
Multiple Occurrences per Page
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database

Occurrence No. 305 Map Index: 46094 EO Index: 46094 Element Last Seen: 2002-01-28 Occ. Rank: Good Site Last Seen: 2002-01-28
Occ. Type: Natural/Native occurrence
Presence: Presumed Extant
Trend: Unknown Record Last Updated: 2014-10-10
Quad Summary: Atwater (3712035)
County Summary: Merced
Lat/Long: 37.35203 / -120.50373
UTM: Zone-10 N4136848 E721098
PLSS: T07S, R13E, Sec. 01, SW (M)
Accuracy: non-specific area
Elevation (ft): 175
Acres: 17.8
ABOUT 5 MILES EAST OF ATWATER, FROM INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY 59 AND TAHOE STREET TO 0.2 MILE SOUTH ON HIGHWAY 59.

Location:

Detailed Location: CALTRANS RIGHT-OF-WAY ADJACENT TO WEST SHOULDER OF HIGHWAY 59. SAMPLE POOLS 5A, 5B, & 5B1.

VERNAL POOLS IN OPEN GRASSLAND; SURROUNDING LAND USES WERE AGRICULTURE AND GRAZING AT TIME OF SURVEY.

Ecological:
8 COLLECTED IN 2000 (CASIZ #154910). 2 POOLS, EACH WITH 100 ADULTS, AND 1 POOL WITH 10 ADULTS OBSERVED FEB 2001; 16 COLLECTED (CASIZ #154907, 154908). 13 COLLECTED ON 28 JAN 2002 (CASIZ #162474, 162487).

General:

Owner/Manager: CALTRANS
Occurrence No. 306 Map Index: 46095 EO Index: 46095 Element Last Seen: 2002-01-11 Occ. Rank: Good Site Last Seen: 2002-01-11
Occ. Type: Natural/Native occurrence
Presence: Presumed Extant
Trend: Unknown Record Last Updated: 2014-10-10
Quad Summary: Atwater (3712035)
County Summary: Merced
Lat/Long: 37.33240 / -120.50482
UTM: Zone-10 N4134668 E721059
PLSS: T07S, R13E, Sec. 11, SE (M)
Accuracy: non-specific area
Elevation (ft): 165
Acres: 31.4
ABOUT 5 MI EAST OF ATWATER; ALONG HIGHWAY 59, FROM 0.2 TO 0.7 MI SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF HWY 59 AND BELCHER AVE.

Location:

Detailed Location: SURVEYED POOLS WERE IN THE CALTRANS RIGHT-OF-WAY ADJACENT TO THE WEST SHOULDER OF HIGHWAY 59.

VERNAL POOLS IN OPEN GRASSLAND SURROUNDED BY LAND USED FOR AGRICULTURE & GRAZING AT TIME OF 2000-01 SURVEYS. SPEA HAMMONDII, LINDERIELLA OCCIDENTALIS, & INDICATOR PLANTS ALSO FOUND. AIR PHOTOS SHOW DEVELOPMENT IN SE PORTION OF OCCURRENCE.

Ecological:

THOUSANDS OF ADULTS IN 2 POOLS & 10 IN 1 POOL, NOV 2000; 24 COLLECTED (IN CAS). HUNDREDS OF ADULTS IN 2 POOLS, FEB 2001; UP TO 51 COLLECTED FEB & DEC 2001 (IN CAS). 7 COLLECTED ON 11 JAN 2002 (CASIZ #162476).

General:

Owner/Manager: CALTRANS
Report Printed on Friday, April 03, 2026
Commercial Version -- Dated March, 1 2026 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 10 of 14 Information Expires 9/1/2026
Multiple Occurrences per Page
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database

Linderiella occidentalis
California linderiella
Element Code: ICBRA06010
Federal:

State:

None
None
Listing Status: CNDDB Element Ranks: Global:

State:

G2G3
S2S3
Other: IUCN_NT-Near Threatened
General: SEASONAL POOLS IN UNPLOWED GRASSLANDS WITH OLD ALLUVIAL SOILS UNDERLAIN BY HARDPAN OR IN SANDSTONE DEPRESSIONS.

Micro: WATER IN THE POOLS HAS VERY LOW ALKALINITY, CONDUCTIVITY, AND TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS.

Habitat:

Occurrence No. 196 Map Index: 47479 EO Index: 47479 Element Last Seen: 2000-11-21 Occ. Rank: Fair Site Last Seen: 2000-11-21
Occ. Type: Natural/Native occurrence
Presence: Presumed Extant
Trend: Unknown Record Last Updated: 2002-03-25
Quad Summary: Atwater (3712035)
County Summary: Merced
Lat/Long: 37.35963 / -120.50374
UTM: Zone-10 N4137692 E721075
PLSS: T07S, R13E, Sec. 02, NE (M)
Accuracy: 80 meters
Elevation (ft): 175
Acres: 0.0
Location: 5 MILES EAST OF ATWATER, 0.1 MILE SOUTH OF INTERSECTION OF WEST BELLEVUE ROAD AND HIGHWAY 59.

Detailed Location: POOL ALONG CULVERT LOCATED ON WEST SHOULDER OF HIGHWAY 59.

Ecological: HABITAT CONSISTS OF A SWALE. SURROUNDING AREA IS RURAL / GRAZING LAND.

General: 21 NOV 2000: 500 ADULTS AND 500 JUVENILES OBSERVED IN SAMPLE POOL 6A.

Owner/Manager: CALTRANS
Report Printed on Friday, April 03, 2026
Commercial Version -- Dated March, 1 2026 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 11 of 14 Information Expires 9/1/2026
Multiple Occurrences per Page
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database

Atriplex persistens
vernal pool smallscale
Element Code: PDCHE042P0
Federal:

State:

None
None
Listing Status: CNDDB Element Ranks: Global:

State:

G2
S2
Other: Rare Plant Rank - 1B.2
General: VERNAL POOLS.

Micro: ALKALINE VERNAL POOLS. 3-115 M.

Habitat:

Occurrence No. 4 Map Index: 36774 EO Index: 31771 Element Last Seen: 2011-10-15 Occ. Rank: Excellent Site Last Seen: 2011-10-15
Occ. Type: Natural/Native occurrence
Presence: Presumed Extant
Trend: Unknown Record Last Updated: 2013-06-03
Quad Summary: Sandy Mush (3712025), Atwater (3712035)
County Summary: Merced
Lat/Long: 37.24727 / -120.62010
UTM: Zone-10 N4124958 E711081
PLSS: T08S, R12E, Sec. 11, E (M)
Accuracy: specific area
Elevation (ft): 110
Acres: 18.0
Location: NORTHWEST OF WHERE VENTURA ROAD GOES FROM E-W TO N-S, 6 MILES SOUTHWEST OF MERCED.

RANGE ROAD/VENTURA ROAD ALSO NAMED JOHN SANDERS ROAD. SEVERAL POLYGONS MAPPED ACCORDING TO 2013 WITHAM DIGITAL DATA.

Detailed Location:

ALKALI GRASSLAND WITH SHALLOW VERNAL POOLS. ASSOCIATED WITH HORDEUM MARINUM SSP. GUSSONEANUM,

NEOSTAPFIA COLUSANA, AMARANTHUS ALBUS, FRANKENIA GRANDIFOLIA, CRYPSIS SCHOENOIDES, CRESSA TRUXILLENSIS, ERYNGIUM VASEYI, AND DISTICHLIS SPICATA.

Ecological:

UNKNOWN NUMBER OF PLANTS SEEN IN 1987. 100'S OF PLANTS SEEN IN 2009. 100,000S OF PLANTS SEEN IN 2011. 1989 TAYLOR COLLECTION AND 1994 & 1995 STUTZ COLLECTIONS ALSO ATTRIBUTED HERE. ONE OF THE MOST OUTSTANDING ATPE OCCURRENCES.

General:

Owner/Manager: PVT
Occurrence No. 7 Map Index: 36783 EO Index: 31780 Element Last Seen: 1926-06-18 Occ. Rank: None Site Last Seen: 1926-06-18
Occ. Type: Natural/Native occurrence
Presence: Possibly Extirpated
Trend: Unknown Record Last Updated: 1998-04-29
Quad Summary: Atwater (3712035)
County Summary: Merced
Lat/Long: 37.26480 / -120.53386
UTM: Zone-10 N4127099 E718682
PLSS: T08S, R13E, Sec. 03 (M)
Accuracy: 1 mile
Elevation (ft): 140
Acres: 0.0
Location: 3 MILES SOUTHWEST OF MERCED.

Detailed Location:

Ecological:

MAIN SOURCE OF INFORMATION FOR THIS SITE IS 1926 COLLECTION BY HOWELL. OCCURRENCE EXTIRPATED ACCORDING TO D. TAYLOR.

General:

Owner/Manager: UNKNOWN
Report Printed on Friday, April 03, 2026
Commercial Version -- Dated March, 1 2026 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 12 of 14 Information Expires 9/1/2026
Multiple Occurrences per Page
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database

Sagittaria sanfordii
Sanford's arrowhead
Element Code: PMALI040Q0
Federal:

State:

None
None
Listing Status: CNDDB Element Ranks: Global:

State:

G3
S3
Other: Rare Plant Rank - 1B.2, BLM_S-Sensitive
General: MARSHES AND SWAMPS.

Micro: IN STANDING OR SLOW-MOVING FRESHWATER PONDS, MARSHES, AND DITCHES. 0-605 M.

Habitat:

Occurrence No. 75 Map Index: 83260 EO Index: 84280 Element Last Seen: 2010-05-25 Occ. Rank: Good Site Last Seen: 2010-05-25
Occ. Type: Natural/Native occurrence
Presence: Presumed Extant
Trend: Unknown Record Last Updated: 2011-06-30
Quad Summary: Atwater (3712035)
County Summary: Merced
Lat/Long: 37.32415 / -120.54171
UTM: Zone-10 N4133667 E717814
PLSS: T07S, R13E, Sec. 16, E (M)
Accuracy: specific area
Elevation (ft): 150
Acres: 1.0
Location: CANAL WEST OF FRANKLIN ROAD ACROSS FROM LOBO AVE, ABOUT 0.2 MILE NORTH OF STATE ROUTE 99, MERCED.

Detailed Location: TWO COLONIES MAPPED ACCORDING TO 2010 COORDINATES PROVIDED BY GRAENING.

AGRICULTURAL CANAL; OCCASIONAL INUNDATION. ASSOCIATED WITH POLYGONUM HYDROPIPEROIDES, SORGHUM

HALEPENSE, JUNCUS BALTICUS, LYTHRUM HYSSOPIFOLIA, AVENA BARBATA, ERODIUM BOTRYS, PLANTAGO LANCEOLATA, ETC.

Ecological:

General: ABOUT 750 PLANTS OBSERVED IN EASTERN COLONY AND 96 PLANTS OBSERVED IN WESTERN COLONY IN 2010.

Owner/Manager: UNKNOWN
Report Printed on Friday, April 03, 2026
Commercial Version -- Dated March, 1 2026 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 13 of 14 Information Expires 9/1/2026
Multiple Occurrences per Page
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database

Neostapfia colusana
Colusa grass
Element Code: PMPOA4C010
Federal:

State:

Threatened
Endangered
Listing Status: CNDDB Element Ranks: Global:

State:

G1
S1
Other: Rare Plant Rank - 1B.1
General: VERNAL POOLS.

Micro: USUALLY IN THE BOTTOMS OF LARGE, OR DEEP VERNAL POOLS; ADOBE SOILS. 5-125 M.

Habitat:

Occurrence No. 40 Map Index: 13099 EO Index: 6295 Element Last Seen: 2011-10-15 Occ. Rank: Fair Site Last Seen: 2011-10-15
Occ. Type: Natural/Native occurrence
Presence: Presumed Extant
Trend: Decreasing Record Last Updated: 2013-05-20
Quad Summary: Sandy Mush (3712025), Atwater (3712035)
County Summary: Merced
Lat/Long: 37.24933 / -120.61933
UTM: Zone-10 N4125188 E711145
PLSS: T08S, R12E, Sec. 11, E (M)
Accuracy: specific area
Elevation (ft): 110
Acres: 19.0
NORTHWEST OF JUNCTION OF RANGE ROAD AND VENTURA ROAD, 4.5 MILES NORTH OF THE MERCED NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE.

Location:

SEVERAL POLYGONS MAPPED ACCORDING TO A 1982 MAP WITH AERIAL PHOTO, A 1988 MAP BY BIOSYSTEMS ANALYSIS, AND 2013 WITHAM DIGITAL DATA.

Detailed Location:

VERNAL POOLS APPARENTLY FORMED OVER LEWIS SALINE-ALKALINE SOILS. POOLS SURROUNDED BY VALLEY GRASSLAND. POOL ASSOCIATES INCLUDE AMARANTHUS ALBUS, POLYPOGON, CRYPSIS, ATRIPLEX, FRANKENIA, CRESSA, ERYNGIUM, DISTICHLIS, SIDA, NAVARRETIA, ETC.

Ecological:

General: >10,000 PLANTS IN 1982, 13,000+ IN 1986, 23,000 IN 1987, 1300 IN 1988, NONE IN 2009 & 2010, ~600 PLANTS IN 2011.

Owner/Manager: PVT
Report Printed on Friday, April 03, 2026
Commercial Version -- Dated March, 1 2026 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 14 of 14 Information Expires 9/1/2026
Multiple Occurrences per Page
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database

IPaC resource list
This report is an automatically generated list of species and other resources such as critical habitat (collectively referred to as trust resources) under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) jurisdiction that are known or expected to be on or near the project area referenced below. The list may also include trust resources that occur outside of the project area, but that could potentially be directly or indirectly affected by activities in the project area. However, determining the likelihood and extent of effects a project may have on trust resources typically requires gathering additional site-specific (e.g., vegetation/species surveys) and project-specific (e.g., magnitude and timing of proposed activities) information.

Below is a summary of the project information you provided and contact information for the USFWS office(s) with jurisdiction in the defined project area. Please read the introduction to each section that follows (Endangered Species, Migratory Birds, USFWS Facilities, and NWI Wetlands) for additional information applicable to the trust resources addressed in that section.

Location
Merced County, California
Local office
Sacramento Fish And Wildlife Office
 (916) 414-6600
 (916) 414-6713
Federal Building
2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605
Sacramento, CA 95825-1846
IPaC U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
4/2/26, 11:26 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/56LJ3UMWLREFNIUJNXY42DIOGM/resources 1/9

Endangered species
This resource list is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an analysis of project level impacts.

The primary information used to generate this list is the known or expected range of each species. Additional areas of influence (AOI) for species are also considered. An AOI includes areas outside of the species range if the species could be indirectly affected by activities in that area (e.g., placing a dam upstream of a fish population even if that fish does not occur at the dam site, may indirectly impact the species by reducing or eliminating water flow downstream). Because species can move, and site conditions can change, the species on this list are not guaranteed to be found on or near the project area. To fully determine any potential effects to species, additional site-specific and project-specific information is often required.

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of such proposed action" for any project that is conducted, permitted, funded, or licensed by any Federal agency. A letter from the local office and a species list which fulfills this requirement can only be obtained by requesting an official species list from either the Regulatory Review section in IPaC (see directions below) or from the local field office directly.

For project evaluations that require USFWS concurrence/review, please return to the IPaC website and request an official species list by doing the following:

1. Draw the project location and click CONTINUE.

2. Click DEFINE PROJECT.

3. Log in (if directed to do so).

4. Provide a name and description for your project.

5. Click REQUEST SPECIES LIST.

Listed species and their critical habitats are managed by the Ecological Services Program of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the fisheries division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA Fisheries ).

Species and critical habitats under the sole responsibility of NOAA Fisheries are not shown on this list. Please contact NOAA Fisheries for species under their jurisdiction.

1. Species listed under the Endangered Species Act are threatened or endangered; IPaC also shows species that are candidates, or proposed, for listing. See the listing status page for more information. IPaC only shows species that are regulated by USFWS (see FAQ).

2. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce.

The following species are potentially affected by activities in this location:

Mammals
Reptiles
Amphibians
1 2

NAME STATUS
San Joaquin Kit Fox Vulpes macrotis mutica
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2873
Endangered

NAME STATUS
Northwestern Pond Turtle Actinemys marmorata
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1111
Proposed Threatened

NAME STATUS
California Tiger Salamander Ambystoma californiense
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2076
Threatened
Western Spadefoot Spea hammondii
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5425
Proposed Threatened
4/2/26, 11:26 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/56LJ3UMWLREFNIUJNXY42DIOGM/resources 2/9

Insects
Crustaceans
Flowering Plants
Critical habitats
Potential effects to critical habitat(s) in this location must be analyzed along with the endangered species themselves.

There are no critical habitats at this location.

You are still required to determine if your project(s) may have effects on all above listed species.

Bald & Golden Eagles

NAME STATUS
Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus
Wherever found
There is proposed critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743
Proposed Threatened
Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle Desmocerus californicus dimorphus Wherever found
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7850
Threatened

NAME STATUS
Conservancy Fairy Shrimp Branchinecta conservatio
Wherever found
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8246
Endangered
Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp Branchinecta lynchi
Wherever found
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/498
Threatened
Vernal Pool Tadpole Shrimp Lepidurus packardi
Wherever found
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2246
Endangered

NAME STATUS
Colusa Grass Neostapfia colusana
Wherever found
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5690
Threatened
Bald and Golden Eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) .

Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to Bald or Golden Eagles, or their nests, should follow appropriate regulations and implement required avoidance and minimization measures, as described in the various links on this page.

The data in this location indicates that no eagles have been observed in this area. This does not mean eagles are not present in your project area, especially if the area is difficult to survey. Please review the 'Steps to Take When No Results Are Returned' section of the Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles document to determine if your project is in a poorly surveyed area. If it is, you may need to rely on other resources to determine if eagles may be present (e.g. your local FWS field office, state surveys, your own surveys).

Additional information can be found using the following links:
2 1
4/2/26, 11:26 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/56LJ3UMWLREFNIUJNXY42DIOGM/resources 3/9

Bald & Golden Eagles FAQs
What does IPaC use to generate the potential presence of bald and golden eagles in my specified location? The potential for eagle presence is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets and is queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identified as warranting special attention because they are an eagle (Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act requirements may apply).

Proper interpretation and use of your eagle report
On the graphs provided, please look carefully at the survey effort (indicated by the black vertical line) and for the existence of the "no data" indicator (a red horizontal line). A high survey effort is the key component. If the survey effort is high, then the probability of presence score can be viewed as more dependable. In contrast, a low survey effort line or no data line (red horizontal) means a lack of data and, therefore, a lack of certainty about presence of the species. This list is not perfect; it is simply a starting point for identifying what birds have the potential to be in your project area, when they might be there, and if they might be breeding (which means nests might be present). The list and associated information help you know what to look for to confirm presence and helps guide you in knowing when to implement avoidance and minimization measures to eliminate or reduce potential impacts from your project activities or get the appropriate permits should presence be confirmed.

How do I know if eagles are breeding, wintering, or migrating in my area? To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding, wintering, migrating, or resident), you may query your location using the RAIL Tool and view the range maps provided for birds in your area at the bottom of the profiles provided for each bird in your results. If an eagle on your IPaC migratory bird species list has a breeding season associated with it (indicated by yellow vertical bars on the phenology graph in your “IPaC PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY” at the top of your results list), there may be nests present at some point within the timeframe specified. If "Breeds elsewhere" is indicated, then the bird likely does not breed in your project area.

Interpreting the Probability of Presence Graphs
Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project overlaps during a particular week of the year. A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey effort can be used to establish a level of confidence in the presence score.

How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps:

The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in the week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events for that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted Towhee was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is 0.25.

To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of presence is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence in week 20 for the Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week 12 (0.25) is the maximum of any week of the year. The relative probability of presence on week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is 0.05/0.25 = 0.2.

The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical conversion so that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the probability of presence score.

Breeding Season ()
Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time-frame inside which the bird breeds across its entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project area.

Survey Effort ()
Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps.

No Data ()
A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week.

Survey Timeframe
Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant information. The exception to this is areas off the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse.

Migratory birds
Eagle Management https://www.fws.gov/program/eagle-management Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/avoiding-and-minimizing-incidentaltake-migratory-birds Nationwide avoidance and minimization measures for birds https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/nationwide-standardconservation-measures.pdf Supplemental Information for Migratory Birds and Eagles in IPaC https://www.fws.gov/media/supplemental-information-migratorybirds-and-bald-and-golden-eagles-may-occur-project-action The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) prohibits the take (including killing, capturing, selling, trading, and transport) of protected migratory bird species without prior authorization by the Department of Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service).

1. The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918.

2. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940.
1 4/2/26, 11:26 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/56LJ3UMWLREFNIUJNXY42DIOGM/resources 4/9

Measures for Proactively Minimizing Migratory Bird Impacts Your IPaC Migratory Bird list showcases birds of concern, including Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC), in your project location. This is not a comprehensive list of all birds found in your project area. However, you can help proactively minimize significant impacts to all birds at your project location by implementing the measures in the Nationwide avoidance and minimization measures for birds document, and any other project-specific avoidance and minimization measures suggested at the link Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds for the birds of concern on your list below.

Ensure Your Migratory Bird List is Accurate and Complete If your project area is in a poorly surveyed area, your list may not be complete and you may need to rely on other resources to determine what species may be present (e.g. your local FWS field office, state surveys, your own surveys). Please review the Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles document, to help you properly interpret the report for your specified location, including determining if there is sufficient data to ensure your list is accurate.

For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, see the "Probability of Presence Summary" below to see when these birds are most likely to be present and breeding in your project area.

Review the FAQs
The FAQs below provide important additional information and resources.

BREEDING SEASON
Additional information can be found using the following links:

Eagle Management https://www.fws.gov/program/eagle-management Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/avoiding-and-minimizing-incidentaltake-migratory-birds Nationwide avoidance and minimization measures for birds Supplemental Information for Migratory Birds and Eagles in IPaC https://www.fws.gov/media/supplemental-information-migratorybirds-and-bald-and-golden-eagles-may-occur-project-action NAME
Belding's Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8
Breeds Apr 1 to Aug 15
Bullock's Oriole Icterus bullockii
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA
Breeds Mar 21 to Jul 25
California Gull Larus californicus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.

Breeds Mar 1 to Jul 31
Lawrence's Goldfinch Spinus lawrencei
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9464
Breeds Mar 20 to Sep 20
Nuttall's Woodpecker Dryobates nuttallii
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9410
Breeds Apr 1 to Jul 20
Oak Titmouse Baeolophus inornatus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9656
Breeds Mar 15 to Jul 15
Santa Barbara Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia graminea
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5513
Breeds Mar 1 to Sep 5
Yellow-billed Magpie Pica nuttalli
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9726
Breeds Apr 1 to Jul 31
4/2/26, 11:26 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/56LJ3UMWLREFNIUJNXY42DIOGM/resources 5/9

probability of presence breeding season survey effort no data Probability of Presence Summary
The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read "Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles", specifically the FAQ section titled "Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting to interpret this report.

Probability of Presence ( )
Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project overlaps during a particular week of the year. (A year is represented as 12 4-week months.) A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey effort (see below) can be used to establish a level of confidence in the presence score. One can have higher confidence in the presence score if the corresponding survey effort is also high.

How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps:

1. The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in the week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events for that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted Towhee was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is 0.25.

2. To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of presence is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence in week 20 for the Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week 12 (0.25) is the maximum of any week of the year. The relative probability of presence on week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is 0.05/0.25 = 0.2.

3. The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical conversion so that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the probability of presence score.

To see a bar's probability of presence score, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.

Breeding Season ( )
Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time-frame inside which the bird breeds across its entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project area.

Survey Effort ( )
Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. The number of surveys is expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys.

To see a bar's survey effort range, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.

No Data ( )
A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week.

Survey Timeframe
Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant information. The exception to this is areas off the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse.

SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Belding's Savannah
Sparrow

BCC - BCR
Bullock's Oriole

BCC - BCR
California Gull
BCC Rangewide (CON)
Lawrence's Goldfinch
BCC Rangewide (CON)
Nuttall's Woodpecker

BCC - BCR
Oak Titmouse
BCC Rangewide (CON)
Santa Barbara Song
Sparrow

BCC - BCR
Yellow-billed Magpie
BCC Rangewide (CON)
Migratory Bird FAQs
Tell me more about avoidance and minimization measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds. 4/2/26, 11:26 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/56LJ3UMWLREFNIUJNXY42DIOGM/resources 6/9

Nationwide Avoidance & Minimization Measures for Birds describes measures that can help avoid and minimize impacts to all birds at any location yearround. When birds may be breeding in the area, identifying the locations of any active nests and avoiding their destruction is one of the most effective ways to minimize impacts. To see when birds are most likely to occur and breed in your project area, view the Probability of Presence Summary. Additional measures or permits may be advisable depending on the type of activity you are conducting and the type of infrastructure or bird species present on your project site.

What does IPaC use to generate the list of migratory birds that potentially occur in my specified location? The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) and other species that may warrant special attention in your project location, such as those listed under the Endangered Species Act or the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and those species marked as “Vulnerable”.

See the FAQ “What are the levels of concern for migratory birds?” for more information on the levels of concern covered in the IPaC migratory bird species list.

The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets and is queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) with which your project intersects. These species have been identified as warranting special attention because they are BCC species in that area, an eagle (Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act requirements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to offshore activities or development.

Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your project area. It is not representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list of all birds potentially present in your project area, and to verify survey effort when no results present, please visit the Rapid Avian Information Locator (RAIL) Tool.

Why are subspecies showing up on my list?
Subspecies profiles are included on the list of species present in your project area because observations in the AKN for the species are being detected. If the species are present, that means that the subspecies may also be present. If a subspecies shows up on your list, you may need to rely on other resources to determine if that subspecies may be present (e.g. your local FWS field office, state surveys, your own surveys).

What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs for the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location? The probability of presence graphs associated with your migratory bird list are based on data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). This data is derived from a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets.

Probability of presence data is continuously being updated as new and better information becomes available. To learn more about how the probability of presence graphs are produced and how to interpret them, go to the Probability of Presence Summary and then click on the "Tell me about these graphs" link.

How do I know if a bird is breeding, wintering, or migrating in my area? To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding, wintering, migrating, or resident), you may query your location using the RAIL Tool and view the range maps provided for birds in your area at the bottom of the profiles provided for each bird in your results. If a bird on your IPaC migratory bird species list has a breeding season associated with it (indicated by yellow vertical bars on the phenology graph in your “IPaC PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY” at the top of your results list), there may be nests present at some point within the timeframe specified. If "Breeds elsewhere" is indicated, then the bird likely does not breed in your project area.

What are the levels of concern for migratory birds?
Migratory birds delivered through IPaC fall into the following distinct categories of concern:

1. "BCC Rangewide" birds are Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) that are of concern throughout their range anywhere within the USA (including Hawaii, the Pacific Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands);

2. "BCC - BCR" birds are BCCs that are of concern only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA; and

3. "Non-BCC - Vulnerable" birds are not BCC species in your project area, but appear on your list either because of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act requirements (for eagles) or (for non-eagles) potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities (e.g. offshore energy development or longline fishing).

Although it is important to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, efforts should be made, in particular, to avoid and minimize impacts to the birds on this list, especially BCC species. For more information on avoidance and minimization measures you can implement to help avoid and minimize migratory bird impacts, please see the FAQ “Tell me more about avoidance and minimization measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds”.

Details about birds that are potentially affected by offshore projects For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species and groups of bird species within your project area off the Atlantic Coast, please visit the Northeast Ocean Data Portal. The Portal also offers data and information about other taxa besides birds that may be helpful to you in your project review. Alternately, you may download the bird model results files underlying the portal maps through the NOAA NCCOS Integrative Statistical Modeling and Predictive Mapping of Marine Bird Distributions and Abundance on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf project webpage.

Proper interpretation and use of your migratory bird report The migratory bird list generated is not a list of all birds in your project area, only a subset of birds of priority concern. To learn more about how your list is generated and see options for identifying what other birds may be in your project area, please see the FAQ "What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location". Please be aware this report provides the "probability of presence" of birds within the 10 km grid cell(s) that overlap your project; not your exact project footprint. On the graphs provided, please look carefully at the survey effort (indicated by the black vertical line) and for the existence of the "no data" indicator (a red horizontal line). A high survey effort is the key component. If the survey effort is high, then the probability of presence score can be viewed as more dependable. In contrast, a low survey effort bar or no data bar means a lack of data and, therefore, a lack of certainty about presence of the species. This list does not represent all birds present in your project area. It is simply a starting point for identifying what birds of concern have the potential to be in your project area, when they might be there, and if they might be breeding (which means nests might be 4/2/26, 11:26 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/56LJ3UMWLREFNIUJNXY42DIOGM/resources 7/9

present). The list and associated information help you know what to look for to confirm presence and helps guide implementation of avoidance and minimization measures to eliminate or reduce potential impacts from your project activities, should presence be confirmed. To learn more about avoidance and minimization measures, visit the FAQ "Tell me about avoidance and minimization measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds".

Interpreting the Probability of Presence Graphs
Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project overlaps during a particular week of the year. A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey effort can be used to establish a level of confidence in the presence score.

How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps:

The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in the week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events for that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted Towhee was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is 0.25.

To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of presence is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence in week 20 for the Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week 12 (0.25) is the maximum of any week of the year. The relative probability of presence on week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is 0.05/0.25 = 0.2.

The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical conversion so that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the probability of presence score.

Breeding Season ()
Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time-frame inside which the bird breeds across its entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project area.

Survey Effort ()
Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps.

No Data ()
A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week.

Survey Timeframe
Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant information. The exception to this is areas off the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse.

Facilities
National Wildlife Refuge lands
Any activity proposed on lands managed by the National Wildlife Refuge system must undergo a 'Compatibility Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the individual Refuges to discuss any questions or concerns.

There are no refuge lands at this location.

Fish hatcheries
There are no fish hatcheries at this location.

Wetlands in the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI)
Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes.

For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District.

This location did not intersect any wetlands mapped by NWI.

NOTE: This initial screening does not replace an on-site delineation to determine whether wetlands occur. Additional information on the NWI data is provided below.

Data limitations
The Service's objective of mapping wetlands and deepwater habitats is to produce reconnaissance level information on the location, type and size of these resources. The maps are prepared from the analysis of high altitude imagery. Wetlands are identified based on vegetation, visible hydrology and geography.

A margin of error is inherent in the use of imagery; thus, detailed on-the-ground inspection of any particular site may result in revision of the wetland 4/2/26, 11:26 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/56LJ3UMWLREFNIUJNXY42DIOGM/resources 8/9

boundaries or classification established through image analysis.

The accuracy of image interpretation depends on the quality of the imagery, the experience of the image analysts, the amount and quality of the collateral data and the amount of ground truth verification work conducted. Metadata should be consulted to determine the date of the source imagery used and any mapping problems.

Wetlands or other mapped features may have changed since the date of the imagery or field work. There may be occasional differences in polygon boundaries or classifications between the information depicted on the map and the actual conditions on site.

Data exclusions
Certain wetland habitats are excluded from the National mapping program because of the limitations of aerial imagery as the primary data source used to detect wetlands. These habitats include seagrasses or submerged aquatic vegetation that are found in the intertidal and subtidal zones of estuaries and nearshore coastal waters. Some deepwater reef communities (coral or tuberficid worm reefs) have also been excluded from the inventory. These habitats, because of their depth, go undetected by aerial imagery.

Data precautions
Federal, state, and local regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands may define and describe wetlands in a different manner than that used in this inventory. There is no attempt, in either the design or products of this inventory, to define the limits of proprietary jurisdiction of any Federal, state, or local government or to establish the geographical scope of the regulatory programs of government agencies. Persons intending to engage in activities involving modifications within or adjacent to wetland areas should seek the advice of appropriate Federal, state, or local agencies concerning specified agency regulatory programs and proprietary jurisdictions that may affect such activities. 4/2/26, 11:26 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/56LJ3UMWLREFNIUJNXY42DIOGM/resources 9/9

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
April 2026
CITY OF ATWATER – Castle Family Health Center | 145

8.3 Appendix C: CHRIS Search Results

Date: 4/7/2026 Records Search File #: 13711I
Project: 23-326.13 Castle Family Health
Center (Atwater Clinic), CEQA, 1775
Third Street, Atwater, CA 93721
Ruby Rafeeque, Senior Planner
Precision Civil Engineering, Inc.
1234 O Street
Fresno, CA 93721
559-449-4500 [email protected]
We have conducted a non-confidential extended records search as per your request for the abovereferenced project area located on the Atwater USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle map in Merced County.

Search of our files includes review of our maps for the specific project area and the immediate vicinity of the project area, and review of the following:

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)
California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR)
California Inventory of Historic Resources (1976)
California Historical Landmarks
California Points of Historical Interest listing
Office of Historic Preservation Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD) and the Archaeological Resources Directory (ARD)
Survey of Surveys (1989)
Caltrans State and Local Bridges Inventory
General Land Office Plats
Other pertinent historic data available at the CCaIC for each specific county The following details the results of the records search:

Prehistoric or historic resources within the project area:
• There are no formally recorded prehistoric or historic archaeological resources or historic buildings or structures within the project area.
• The area does fall within the proposed overall boundary of the Merced Irrigation District (P-24-001909), listed in the Office of Historic Preservation Built Environment Resource

CENTRAL CALIFORNIA INFORMATION CENTER
California Historical Resources Information System
Department of Anthropology – California State University, Stanislaus One University Circle, Turlock, California 95382
(209) 667-3307
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Alpine, Calaveras, Mariposa, Merced, Mono, San Joaquin, Stanislaus & Tuolumne Counties

Directory (BERD) with an evaluation rating of 6Y, determined ineligible for the National Register of Historic Places by consensus through the Section 106 process, not evaluated for the California Register of Historical Resources or for Local Listing. No contributing element water features for this proposed district appear to fall within the project area. • The General Land Office survey plat for T7S R12E (dated 1855) shows Section 1 divided into various parcels, with the SW ¼ shown as a 160-acre parcel. • The 1918 and 1948 editions of the Atwater USGS quadrangle reference street alignments with the City of Atwater in the SW ¼ of Section 1, T7S R12E. The 1960 edition of the Atwater quadrangle shows the growth of the City of Atwater throughout Section 1 and beyond.

Prehistoric or historic resources within the immediate vicinity of the project area: None has been formally reported to the Information Center.

Resources that are known to have value to local cultural groups: None has been formally reported to the Information Center.

Previous investigations within the project area: No project-specific investigation has been conducted, but the project area does fall within the overall boundary of one overview document prepared for the City of Atwater, referenced as follows:

Holman, M. and R. Hellmann (Holman & Associates, for Jerry Haag, Environmental Consultant, Berkeley, CA)
2008 An Archival Study to Identify Potential Cultural Resources Located in the City of Atwater General Plan and Program EIR Project Area, Merced County, California.

CCaIC Report ME-06858
Recommendations/Comments:

Please be advised that a historical resource is defined as a building, structure, object, prehistoric or historic archaeological site, or district possessing physical evidence of human activities over 45 years old. Since the project area has not been subject to previous investigations, there may be unidentified features involved in your project that are 45 years or older and considered as historical resources requiring further study and evaluation by a qualified professional of the appropriate discipline.

If the current project does not include ground disturbance, further study for archaeological resources is not recommended at this time. If ground disturbance is considered a part of the current project, we recommend further review for the possibility of identifying prehistoric or historic-era archaeological resources.

If the proposed project contains buildings or structures that meet the minimum age requirement (45 years in age or older) it is recommended that the resource/s be assessed by a professional familiar with architecture and history of the county. Review of the available historic building/structure data has included only those sources listed above and should not be considered comprehensive.

If at any time you might require the services of a qualified professional the Statewide Referral List for Historical Resources Consultants is posted for your use on the internet at http://chrisinfo.org
If archaeological resources are encountered during project-related activities, work should be temporarily halted in the vicinity of the discovered materials and workers should avoid altering the materials and their context until a qualified professional archaeologist has evaluated the situation and provided appropriate recommendations. Project personnel should not collect cultural resources.

If human remains are discovered, California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires you to protect the discovery and notify the county coroner, who will determine if the find is Native American. If the remains are recognized as Native American, the coroner shall then notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 authorizes the NAHC to appoint a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) who will make recommendations for the treatment of the discovery.

Due to processing delays and other factors, not all of the historical resource reports and resource records that have been submitted to the State Office of Historic Preservation are available via this records search. Additional information may be available through the federal, state, and local agencies that produced or paid for historical resource management work in the search area.

Additionally, Native American tribes have historical resource information not in the CHRIS Inventory, and you should contact the California Native American Heritage Commission for information on local/regional tribal contacts.

The California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) contracts with the California Historical Resources Information System’s (CHRIS) regional Information Centers (ICs) to maintain information in the CHRIS inventory and make it available to local, state, and federal agencies, cultural resource professionals, Native American tribes, researchers, and the public.

Recommendations made by IC coordinators or their staff regarding the interpretation and application of this information are advisory only. Such recommendations do not necessarily represent the evaluation or opinion of the State Historic Preservation Officer in carrying out the OHP’s regulatory authority under federal and state law.

We thank you for contacting this office regarding historical resource preservation. Please let us know when we can be of further service. Thank you for sending the Access Agreement Short Form.

Note: Billing will be transmitted separately via email from the Financial Services office ($150.00), payable within 60 days of receipt of the invoice.

If you wish to include payment by Credit Card, you must wait to receive the official invoice from Financial Services so that you can reference the CMP # (Invoice Number), and then contact the link below:
https://commerce.cashnet.com/ANTHROPOLOGY
Sincerely,
E. A. Greathouse
E. A. Greathouse, Coordinator
Central California Information Center
California Historical Resources Information System
* Invoice Request sent to: [email protected], CSU Stanislaus Financial Services

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
April 2026
CITY OF ATWATER – Castle Family Health Center | 146

8.4 Appendix D: NAHC Correspondence

STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor

NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION

April 9, 2026
Ruby Rafeeque
Precision Civil Engineering Inc.

Via Email to: [email protected]
Re: Tribal Consultation Under CEQA, Castle Family Health Center (“Atwater Clinic”) Project, Merced County
To Whom It May Concern:

Pursuant to your request, attached is a consultation list of tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the above-listed project. Additionally, a search of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) was completed based on the information submitted for the above referenced project. The results were negative. Be aware that tribes do not always record their sacred sites in the SLF, nor are they required to do so. As such, an SLF search is not a substitute for consultation with all tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with a project’s geographic area. Please contact all of the listed tribes as they may have information about sacred sites within the project area that is not listed with the NAHC.

Additionally, the NAHC recommends that agencies include with their notification letters, information regarding any cultural resources assessment that has been completed on the Area of Potential Effect (APE), such as:

1. The results of any record search that may have been conducted at an Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), including, but not limited to:
• A listing of any and all known cultural resources that have already been recorded on or adjacent to the APE, such as known archaeological sites; • Copies of any and all cultural resource records and study reports that may have been provided by the Information Center as part of the records search response; • Whether the records search indicates a low, moderate, or high probability that unrecorded cultural resources are located in the APE; and • If a survey is recommended by the Information Center to determine whether previously unrecorded cultural resources are present.

2. The results of any archaeological inventory survey that was conducted, including:
• Any report that may contain site forms, site significance, and suggested mitigation measures.

All information regarding site locations, Native American human remains, and associated funerary objects should be in a separate confidential addendum, and not be made available for public disclosure in accordance with Government Code section 6254.10.

3. The result of the Sacred Lands File check conducted through the Native American Heritage Commission.

CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagaling
Chumash

VICE-CHAIRPERSON
Buffy McQuillen
Yokayo Pomo, Yuki,
Nomlaki

SECRETARY
Isaac Bojorquez
Ohlone-Costanoan

PARLIAMENTARIAN
Wayne Nelson
Luiseño

COMMISSIONER
Sara Dutschke
Miwok

COMMISSIONER
Stanley Rodriguez
Kumeyaay

COMMISSIONER
Bennae Calac
Pauma-Yuima Band of
Luiseño Indians

COMMISSIONER
Vacant

COMMISSIONER
Vacant

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Andrew Alejandre
Paskenta Band of
Nomlaki Indians

NAHC HEADQUARTERS
1550 Harbor Boulevard
Suite 100
West Sacramento,
California 95691
(916) 373-3710
[email protected]

4. Any ethnographic studies conducted for any area including all or part of the APE; and

5. Any geotechnical reports regarding all or part of the APE.

Lead agencies should be aware that records maintained by the NAHC and CHRIS are not exhaustive and a negative response to these searches does not preclude the existence of a tribal cultural resource. A tribe may be the only source of information regarding the existence of a tribal cultural resource, which is why consultation is vital.

This information will aid tribes in determining whether to request formal consultation. If consultation is requested, having the information beforehand will help to facilitate the process.

If you receive notification of a change of address or phone number from a tribe, please inform the NAHC. With your assistance, we can assure that our consultation list remains current.

If you have any questions, please contact me at my email address: [email protected] Sincerely,
Mathew Lin, MPP
Cultural Resources Analyst
Attachment

6 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
This mitigation measure monitoring and reporting checklist was prepared pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEOA) Guidelines Section 15097 and Section 21081.6 of the PRC (PRC}. The timing of implementing each mitigation measure is identified in the checklist, as well as the entity responsible for verifying that the mitigation measures applied to a Project are performed. Project applicants are responsible for providing evidence that mitigation measures are implemented. As lead agency, the City of Atwater is responsible for verifying that mitigation is performed/completed.

Mitigation Measures
Party
Responsible
for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing of
Verification
Responsible for
Monitoring
Verification
Verification of
Completion
Date Initials
Biological Resources
Mitigation Measure 810-1: Burrowing Owl Preconstruction Survey. I Project . . . . . . . . . _ A licant Prior to any ground-dtsturbmg actraties, a qualified b1olog1st shall PP conduct protocol-level burrowing owl surveys in accordance with CDFG's 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation no more than 14 days prior to commencement of ground-disturbing activities. If burrowing owls are detected, the applicant shall immediately notify CDFW and prepare and implement a Burrowing Owl Mitigation Plan, which may include avoidance buffers, passive relocation, and compensatory mitigation for permanent habitat loss, consistent with CESA requirements
Prior to issuance I City of Atwater
of Construction
Permit
Mitigation Measure 810-2: Nesting Bird Surveys. If vegetation I Project . . . . . . licant
removal, tree trimminq, demolition. or other ground-d1sturbmg App activities are proposed during the nesting bird season (February 1 through August 31), a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction nesting bird survey within 14 days prior to the commencement of such activities. If on active nest is identified, a Prior to issuance I City of Atwater
of Construction
Permit
)>
-I
~
(")
:c
s:
m
z
-I
u,
s:
!:!':
cc
I»
!:!':
0 :l
s:
0 :l
....
0 ::::!.
:l
cc
I»
:l
a.
;;o
(D
"O
0 a
:l
cc
"'tJ .,
0 cc .,
I»
3 - s:
s:
;;o
"'tJ
-
""CJ
O.l
(0
co
N
.j::,.
0 --+,
N
~

INITIAL STU DY/ MITI GATE D NEGATIVE OECLA AATION
Ap ril 202 6
no-disturbance buffer shall be established around the nest by the qualified biologist, and all construction activities within the buffer shall be suspended until the nest is confirmed inactive by the biologist. Buffer distances shall be determined in coordination with CDFW, consistent with standard protocols.

Cultural Resources
Mitigation Measure CUL-1: In order to avoid the potential for I Project Applicant impacts to historic and prehistoric archaeological resources, the following measures shall be implemented in conjunction with the construction of each phase of the Project:

If previously unknown historical, archeological, cultural, or paleontological resources are encountered before or during grading activities, construction shall stop in the immediate vicinity of the find and a qualified archeo/ogist, historical resources specialist, or paleontologist, shall be consulted to determine whether the resource requires further study. Notification of discovery shall be provided to the Qty Community Development Department.

The qualified archeologist, historical resources specialist, or paleontologist shall make recommendations to the project proponent on the measures that shall be implemented to protect the discovered resources, including but not limited to excavation of the finds and evaluation of the finds in accordance with Section 15064.5 of the CEOA Guidelines and City's policies and procedures related to historical, cultural, and paleontological resources.

Notification of the measures shall be provided to the Qty Community Development Department.

During
construction
City of Atwater
-0
Q)
co
Cl)
I\.)
CJ1
0 -.J
I\.) -

INITI AL STU DY/ MITI GA TED NEGATIVE DECLA RA TION
Ap ril 2026
""CJ
!lJ
co
Cl)
N
0)
0 ---+,
N
-.J
Mitigation Measure CUL-2: If the resources are determined to be I Project unique historical resources as defined under Section 15064.5 of the Applicant CEOA Guidelines, measures shall be identified by the monitor and recommended to the project proponent, who shall notify the Oty Community Development Department. Appropriate measures for significant resources could include avoidance or capping, preservation in-place, recordation, additional archeological resting, incorporation of the site in green space, porks, or open space, or data recovery excavations of the finds.

No further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the City Community Development Department approves the measures to protect these resources. Any historical, archeological, cultural, or paleontological artifacts recovered as a result of mitigation shall be provided to a City-approved institution or person who is capable of providing long-term preservation to allow future scientific study.

During
construction
City of Atwater
Mitigation Measure CUL-3: If human remains are discovered during I Project construction or operational activities, further excavation or Applicant disturbance shall be prohibited pursuant to Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. The specific protocol, guidelines, and channels of communication outlined by the Native American Heritage Commission, in accordance with Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code (Chapter 1492, Statutes of 1982, Senate Bill 297), and Senate Bill 447 (Chapter 44, Statutes of 1987), shall be followed. Section 7050.5{c) shall guide the potential Native American involvement in the event of discovery of human remains at the direction of the county coroner.

During
construction
City of Atwater
Geology and Soils

INITIAL ST UDY/ MITI GATE D NEGATIVE DECLAAA TION
April 2026
Mitigation Measure GE0-1: The Applicant will incorporate into the Project During City of Atwater
construction contract(s) a provision that in the event a fossil or fossil Applicant Construction formations are discovered during any subsurface construction activities for the proposed Project (i.e., trenching, grading), all excavations within 50 feet of the find shall be temporarily halted until the find is examined by a qualified paleontologist, in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards. The paleontologist shall notify the Applicant, who shall coordinate with the paleontologist as to any necessary investigation of the find. If the find is determined to be significant under CEQA, the Applicant shall implement those measures, which may include avoidance, preservation in place, or other appropriate measures, as outlined in Public Resources Code Section 21083.2.

Tribal Cultural Resources
See Cultural Resources
lJ
Q)
cc
(1)
N
-.J
a
N
-.J

AGENDA REPORT

MEETING
DATE:

June 22, 2026
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Justin Vinson, Public Works Director

PREPARED
BY:

Justin Vinson, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Adopting Resolutions Approving 2025 Urban Water Management Plan and Water Shortage Contingency Plan (Public Works Director Vinson)

RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION
Open the public hearing and take any testimony given;
Close the public hearing;
Motion to adopt Resolution No. 3635-26 adopting the City of Atwater 2025 Urban Water Management Plan in accordance with the Urban Water Management Planning Act including amendments made by the Water Conservation Act of 2009 and Water Conservation Legislation of 2018; and
Motion to adopt Resolution No. 3636-26 adopting the City of Atwater Water Shortage Contingency Plan; and authorizes and directs the City Manager, or designee, to make any necessary changes prior to submission to the California Department of Water Resources; or
Motion to approve staff's recommendation as presented.

I. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS:

The adoption of the 2025 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and the Water Contingency Plan are a state requirement to be submitted to the California Department of Water Resources every five years. This UWMP and Water Contingency Plan have been prepared in accordance with California Water Code (CWC), Div. 6, Part 2.6, Sections 10610-10656.

The UWMP requires a City Council resolution adopting the 2025 Urban Water Management Plan to be submitted to the Department of Water Resources (DWR).The Water Contingency Plan also requires a City Council resolution adopting the Water Contingency Plan to be submitted to DWR. Proof of public notice and public hearing are

CITY COUNCIL
Mike Nelson
John Cale Brian Raymond
Danny Ambriz Kalisa Rochester

Agenda Report - Adopting Resolutions Approving 2025 Urban Water Management Plan and Water Shortage Contingency Plan (Public Works Director Vinson) Page 2

also required for both the 2025 UWMP and Water Contingency Plan. The Water Contingency Plan is provided to DWR in addition to the 2025 UWMP for approval by DWR.

The 2025 UWMP and Water Contingency Plan was prepared by Black Water Consulting Engineers, Inc. over the course of the past year and electronic copies of the 2025 UWMP have been provided to the city.

II. FISCAL IMPACTS:

There are no fiscal impacts associated with the adoption of the 2025 Urban Water Management Plan and Water Contingency Plan.

This item has been reviewed by the Finance Department.

III. LEGAL REVIEW:

This item has been reviewed by the City Attorney’s Office.

IV. EXISTING POLICY:

This item is consistent with goal number two of the City’s 2026-2030 Strategic Plan to support emergency preparedness throughout the community.

V. ALTERNATIVES:

N/A
VI. INTERDEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION:

This item has been reviewed by relevant departments.

VII. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:

The Public Hearing notice was adequately noticed and advertised. The public will have an opportunity to provide comments on this item prior to City Council action.

VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

This item is exempt under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Control Act (CEQA) guidelines under section(s) 15282(v) The preparation and adoption of Urban Water Management Plans pursuant to the provisions of Section 10652 of the Water Code, and Section 15308 Class 8 categorical exemption “Actions by regulatory agencies for protection of the environment.”
IX. STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL:

Upon adoption of the resolutions, staff will send the resolutions to the California Department of Water Resources along with the 2025 Urban Water Management Plan.

Submitted by:

Agenda Report - Adopting Resolutions Approving 2025 Urban Water Management Plan and Water Shortage Contingency Plan (Public Works Director Vinson) Page 3

Justin Vinson, Public Works Director
Attachments:

1. Resolution No. XXXX-26 Adopts 2025 Water Shortage Contingency Plan

2. Resolution No. XXXX-26 Adopts 2020 Urban Water Management Plan

3. City of Atwater 2025 UWMP

4. Atwater 2025 WSCP

CITY COUNCIL
OF THE

CITY OF ATWATER
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-26

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF ATWATER ADOPTING A WATER

SHORTAGE CONTINGENCY PLAN
WHEREAS, the California Urban Water Management Planning Act, (Wat. Code §10610, et seq. (the Act), mandates that every urban supplier of water providing water for municipal purposes to more than 3,000 customers or supplying more than 3,000 acre feet of water annually, prepare and adopt, in accordance with prescribed requirements, a Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) as part of its 2025 Urban Water Management Plan (2025 Plan); and
WHEREAS, the Act specifies the requirements and procedures for adopting such WSCPs; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to recent amendments to the Act, urban water suppliers are required to adopt and electronically submit their WSCPs to the California Department of Water Resources (DWR); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Act, “urban water supplier” means a supplier, either publicly or privately owned, providing water for municipal purposes either directly or indirectly to more than 3,000 customers or supplying more than 3,000 acre-feet of water annually. An urban water supplier includes a supplier or contractor for water, regardless of the basis of right, which distributes or sells for ultimate resale to customers; and WHEREAS, the City of Atwater meets the definition of an urban water supplier for purposes of the Act and is required to prepare and adopt and WSCP as part of its 2025 Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City of Atwater has prepared a WSCP in accordance with the Act, and in accordance with applicable legal requirements, has undertaken certain coordination, notice, public involvement, public comment, and other procedures in relation to its WSCP; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the Act, City of Atwater has prepared its WSCP with its own staff, with the assistance of consulting professionals, and in cooperation with other governmental agencies, and has utilized and relied upon industry standards and the

Resolution No. XXXX-26 Page 2
expertise of industry professionals in preparing its WSCP, and has also utilized DWR’s Urban Water Management Plan Guidebook 2025, including its related appendices, in preparing its WSCP; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with applicable law, including Water Code section 10642, and Government Code section 6066, a Notice of a Public Hearing regarding City of Atwater’s WSCP was published within the jurisdiction of City of Atwater on June 1, 2026 and June 8, 2026; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with applicable law, including but not limited to Water Code section 10642, a public hearing was held on June 22, 2026 at 6:00 P.M., or soon thereafter, in City of Atwater Council Chambers in order to provide members of the public and other interested entities with the opportunity to be heard in connection with proposed adoption of the WSCP and issues related thereto; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to said public hearing on City of Atwater’s WSCP, City of Atwater, among other things, encouraged the active involvement of diverse social, cultural, and economic members of the community within City of Atwater’s service area with regard to the WSCP, and encouraged community input regarding City of Atwater’s WSCP; and WHEREAS, the City of Atwater has reviewed and considered the purposes and requirements of the Act, the contents of the WSCP, and the documentation contained in the administrative record in support of the WSCP, and has determined that the factual analyses and conclusions set forth in the WSCP are legally sufficient; and WHEREAS, the City of Atwater desires to adopt the WSCP and to incorporate it as part of its 2025 Plan in order to comply with the Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 10652 of the California Water Code provides that the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code) (CEQA) does not apply to the preparation and adoption of a WSCP as part of an UWMP.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Atwater does hereby resolve, determine, and order as follows:

SECTION 1: All of the above recitals are true.

SECTION 2: The Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP), attached hereto as EXHIBIT “A,” is hereby adopted as amended by changes incorporated by the City Council as a result of input received (if any) at the public hearing and ordered filed with the Clerk of the City of Atwater and shall be incorporated into City of Atwater’s 2025 Plan.

SECTION 3: The City Manager, or her designee, is hereby authorized and directed to include a copy of this Resolution in City of Atwater’s WSCP and/or in City of Atwater’s 2025 Plan.

Resolution No. XXXX-26 Page 3
SECTION 4: The City Manager, or her designee, is hereby authorized and directed, in accordance with Water Code sections 10621(d) and 10644(a)(1)-(2), to electronically submit a copy of the WSCP, as part of its 2025 Plan, to DWR.

SECTION 5: The City Manager, or her designee, is hereby authorized and directed, in accordance with Water Code section 10644(a), to submit a copy of the WSCP, as part of its 2025 Plan, to the California State Library, and to any city or county within which City of Atwater provides water supplies no later than thirty (30) days after this adoption date.

SECTION 6: The City Manager, or her designee, is hereby authorized and directed, in accordance with Water Code section 10645, to make the WSCP available for public review at City of Atwater’s offices during normal business hours and on its website at www.atwater.org no later than thirty (30) days after filing a copy of the WSCP, as part of its 2025 Plan, with DWR.

SECTION 7: The City Manager, or her designee, is hereby authorized and directed to implement the WSCP in accordance with the Act and to provide recommendations to the City Council regarding the necessary budgets, procedures, rules, regulations, or further actions to carry out the effective and equitable implementation of the WSCP.

SECTION 8: The City of Atwater finds and determines that this resolution is not subject to CEQA pursuant to Water Code Section 10652 because CEQA does not apply to the preparation and adoption of a WSCP or to the implementation of the actions taken pursuant to such plans. Because this resolution comprises City of Atwater’s adoption of its WSCP and involves its implementation, no CEQA review is required.

SECTION 9: Pursuant to CEQA, the City Council directs staff to file a Notice of Exemption with the City Clerk’s Office within five (5) working days of adoption of this resolution.

SECTION 10: The document and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which this resolution and the above findings have been based are located at 470 Aviator Drive, Atwater, CA 95301. The custodian for these records is the Office of the City Clerk.

The foregoing resolution is hereby adopted this 22th day of June 2026.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

Resolution No. XXXX-26 Page 4
APPROVED:

________________________________

MIKE NELSON, MAYOR
ATTEST:
_______________________________

KORY BILLINGS, CITY CLERK

CITY COUNCIL
OF THE

CITY OF ATWATER
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-26

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ATWATER ADOPTING THE 2025 URBAN

WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
WHEREAS, the California Urban Water Management Planning Act, (Wat. Code § 10610, et seq. (the Act), mandates that every urban supplier of water providing water for municipal purposes to more than 3,000 customers or supplying more than 3,000 acre feet of water annually, prepare, and adopt an Urban Water Management Plan (Plan); and WHEREAS, the Act generally requires that said Plan be updated and adopted at least once every five years, in years ending in six and one; and WHEREAS, pursuant to recent amendments to the Act, urban water suppliers are required to update and electronically submit their 2025 Plans to the California Department of Water Resources (DWR); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Water Conservation Act of 2009, also referred to as SB X7-7 (Wat. Code § 10608 et seq.), an “urban retail water supplier” is defined as a water supplier that directly provides potable municipal water to more than 3,000 end users or that supplies more than 3,000 acre feet of potable water annually at retail for municipal purposes, and an “urban wholesale water supplier” is defined as a water supplier that provides more than 3,000 acre feet of water annually at wholesale for potable municipal purposes; and
WHEREAS, City of Atwater meets the definition of an urban retail water supplier for purposes of the Act and SB X7-7; and
WHEREAS, City Of Atwater has prepared a 2025 Plan in accordance with the Act and SB X7-7, and in accordance with applicable legal requirements, has undertaken certain coordination, notice, public involvement, public comment, and other procedures in relation to its 2025 Plan; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the Act and SB X7-7, City of Atwater has prepared its 2025 Plan with its own staff, with the assistance of consulting professionals, and in cooperation with other governmental agencies, and has utilized and relied upon industry standards and the expertise of industry professionals in preparing its 2025 Plan, and has

Resolution No. XXXX-26 Page 2
also utilized DWR’s Urban Water Management Plan Guidebook 2025, including its related appendices, in preparing its 2025 Plan; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with applicable law, including Water Code sections 10608.26 and 10642, and Government Code section 6066, a Notice of a Public Hearing regarding City of Atwater’s 2025 Plan was published within the jurisdiction of City of Atwater on June 1, 2026 and June 8, 2026; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with applicable law, including but not limited to Water Code sections 10608.26 and 10642, a public hearing was held on June 22, 2026 at 6:00 P.M., or soon thereafter, in the City of Atwater Council Chambers, in order to provide members of the public and other interested entities with the opportunity to be heard in connection with proposed adoption of the 2025 Plan and issues related thereto; and WHEREAS, pursuant to said public hearing on City of Atwater’s 2025 Plan, City of Atwater among other things, encouraged the active involvement of diverse social, cultural, and economic members of the community within City of Atwater’s service area with regard to the 2025 Plan and encouraged community input regarding City of Atwater’s 2025 Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City of Atwater has reviewed and considered the purposes and requirements of the Act and SB X7-7, the contents of the 2025 Plan, and the documentation contained in the administrative record in support of the 2025 Plan, and has determined that the factual analyses and conclusions set forth in the 2025 Plan are legally sufficient; and
WHEREAS, the City of Atwater desires to adopt the 2025 Plan in order to comply with the Act and SB X7-7; and
WHEREAS, Section 10652 of the California Water Code provides that the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code) (CEQA) does not apply to the preparation and adoption of the 2025 Plan.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Atwater does hereby resolve, determine, and order as follows:

SECTION 1: All of the above recitals are true.

SECTION 2: The City of Atwater’s 2025 Plan, attached hereto as EXHIBIT A,” is hereby adopted as amended by changes incorporated by the City Council as a result of input received (if any) at the public hearing and ordered filed with the Clerk of the City of Atwater.

SECTION 3: The City Manager, or her designee, is hereby authorized and directed to include a copy of this Resolution in City of Atwater’s 2025 Plan.

Resolution No. XXXX-26 Page 3
SECTION 4: The City Manager, or her designee, is hereby authorized and directed, in accordance with Water Code sections 10621(d) and 10644(a)(1)-(2), to electronically submit a copy of the 2025 Plan to DWR.

SECTION 5: The City Manager, or her designee, is hereby authorized and directed, in accordance with Water Code section 10644(a), to submit a copy of the 2025 Plan to the California State Library, and any city of county within which City of Atwater provides water supplies no later than thirty (30) days after this adoption date.

SECTION 6: The City Manager, or her designee, is hereby authorized and directed, in accordance with Water Code section 10645, to make the 2025 Plan available for public review at the City of Atwater’s offices during normal business hours or on the City of Atwater website no later than thirty (30) days after filing a copy of the Plan with DWR.

SECTION 7: The City Manager, or her designee, is hereby authorized and directed, in accordance with Water Code Section 10635(c), to provide that portion of the 2025 Plan prepared pursuant to Water Code Section 10635(a)-(b) to any city or county within which City of Atwater provides water supplies no later than sixty (60) days after submitting a copy of the Plan with DWR.

SECTION 8: The City Manager, or her designee, is hereby authorized and directed to implement the 2025 Plan in accordance with the Act and SB X7-7 and to provide recommendations to the City Council regarding the necessary budgets, procedures, rules, regulations, or further actions to carry out the effective and equitable implementation of the 2025 Plan.

SECTION 9: The City of Atwater finds and determines that this resolution is not subject to CEQA pursuant to Water Code Section 10652 because CEQA does not apply to the preparation and adoption, including addenda thereto, of an urban water management plan or to the implementation of the actions taken pursuant to such plans. Because this resolution comprises City of Atwater’s adoption of its 2025 Plan and involves its implementation, no CEQA review is required.

SECTION 10: Pursuant to CEQA, the City Council directs staff to file a Notice of Exemption with the City Clerk within five (5) working days of adoption of this resolution.

SECTION 11: The document and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which this resolution and the above findings have been based are located at 470 Aviator Drive, Atwater, CA 95301. The custodian for these records is the Office of the City Clerk.

The foregoing resolution is hereby adopted this 22th day of June 2026.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

Resolution No. XXXX-26 Page 4
APPROVED:

________________________________

MIKE NELSON, MAYOR
ATTEST:
_______________________________

KORY BILLINGS, CITY CLERK

09957.00000\45036778.1
City of Atwater
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
DRAFT
JUNE 2026
Prepared for:

CITY OF ATWATER
1350 Broadway Avenue
Atwater, CA 95301
(209) 357-6310
Prepared by:

BLACK WATER CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
602 Lyell Drive
Modesto, CA 95356
(209) 322-1820

City of Atwater
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
June 2026
i

CITY OF ATWATER
2025 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

CONTACT SHEET
Date plan adopted: June 22, 2026
Justin Vinson, Public Works Superintendent
City of Atwater
Phone: (209) 777-0273
Email: [email protected]
Aja Verburg, P.E., Vice President
Black Water Consulting Engineers, Inc.

Phone: (209) 753-0078
Email: [email protected]
Ryen Simpson, P.E., Project Engineer
Black Water Consulting Engineers, Inc.

Phone: (559) 895-0493
Email: [email protected]
Andrew Ruiz, E.I.T., Assistant Engineer
Black Water Consulting Engineers, Inc.

Phone: (209) 488-4051
Email: [email protected]

City of Atwater
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
June 2026
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 UWMP Introduction and Lay Description .......................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Background and Purpose ........................................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 Previous Urban Water Management Plan ................................................................................. 1-1

1.3 Urban Water Management Planning and the California Water Code ....................................... 1-1

1.3.1 Urban Water Management Planning Act of 1983 ............................................................. 1-1

1.3.2 Applicable Changes to the Water Code Since the 2020 UWMP ........................................ 1-2

1.4 UWMPs in Relation to Other Planning Efforts ........................................................................... 1-3

1.5 UWMP Organization .................................................................................................................. 1-3

1.6 Lay Description ........................................................................................................................... 1-4 2 UWMP Preparation ............................................................................................................................ 2-1

2.1 Basis for Preparing a Plan .......................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1.1 Public Water Systems......................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 Individual Planning and Compliance .......................................................................................... 2-2

2.3 Fiscal or Calendar Year and Units of Measure ........................................................................... 2-2

2.4 Coordination and Outreach ....................................................................................................... 2-3

2.4.1 Wholesale and Retail Coordination ................................................................................... 2-4

2.4.2 Coordination with Other Agencies and the Community .................................................... 2-4

2.4.3 Notice to Cities and Counties ............................................................................................. 2-5 3 Service Area Description .................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 General Description ................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.2 Service Area Boundary Maps ..................................................................................................... 3-2

3.3 Service Area Climate .................................................................................................................. 3-5

3.4 Service Area Population and Demographics .............................................................................. 3-6

3.4.1 Service Area Population ..................................................................................................... 3-6

3.4.2 Other Social, Economic, and Demographic Factors ........................................................... 3-6

3.5 Land Uses within Service Area ................................................................................................... 3-7 4 Water Use Characterization............................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Non-Potable Versus Potable Water Use .................................................................................... 4-1

4.2 Past, Current, and Projected Water Use by Sector .................................................................... 4-1

4.2.1 Water Use Sectors Listed in Water Code ........................................................................... 4-2

4.2.2 Water Use Sectors in Addition to Those Listed in Water Code ......................................... 4-3

4.2.3 Past Water Use ................................................................................................................... 4-3

4.2.4 Current Water Use ............................................................................................................. 4-3

4.2.5 Projected Water Use .......................................................................................................... 4-4

4.2.6 Water Use for Lower Income Households ......................................................................... 4-7

4.2.7 Climate Change Considerations ......................................................................................... 4-8

4.3 Distribution System Water Losses ............................................................................................. 4-9

4.4 Progress Toward Meeting the Water Loss Performance Standard ......................................... 4-10 5 SB X7-7 Baselines, 2020 Targets, and 2025 Targeting ....................................................................... 5-1

5.1 Baseline and Target Calculations for 2025 UWMPs ................................................................... 5-1

5.2 Funding Eligibility ....................................................................................................................... 5-2 6 Water Supply Characterization .......................................................................................................... 6-1

6.1 UWMP Water Supply Characterization ...................................................................................... 6-1

6.1.1 Purchased or Imported Water ........................................................................................... 6-2

City of Atwater
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
June 2026
iii

6.1.2 Groundwater ...................................................................................................................... 6-2

6.1.3 Surface Water .................................................................................................................... 6-6

6.1.4 Stormwater ........................................................................................................................ 6-6

6.1.5 Wastewater and Recycled Water ...................................................................................... 6-7

6.1.6 Desalinated Water Opportunities .................................................................................... 6-14

6.1.7 Water Exchanges and Transfers ....................................................................................... 6-14

6.1.8 Supply from Storage ......................................................................................................... 6-14

6.1.9 Future Water Projects ...................................................................................................... 6-15

6.1.10 Summary of Existing and Planned Sources of Water ....................................................... 6-16

6.1.11 Special Conditions ............................................................................................................ 6-19

6.2 Energy Use ............................................................................................................................... 6-19 7 Water Service Reliability and Drought Risk Assessment ................................................................... 7-1

7.1 Constraints on Water Sources ................................................................................................... 7-1

7.1.1 Legal ................................................................................................................................... 7-1

7.1.2 Environmental .................................................................................................................... 7-2

7.1.3 Water Quality ..................................................................................................................... 7-2

7.1.4 Climatic Factors .................................................................................................................. 7-2

7.2 Water Service Reliability Assessment (WSRA) ........................................................................... 7-2

7.2.1 WSRA Year-Type Characterization ..................................................................................... 7-2

7.2.2 Service Reliability – Supply and Demand Comparison ....................................................... 7-4

7.2.3 Description of Management Tools and Options ................................................................ 7-6

7.3 Drought Risk Assessment ........................................................................................................... 7-7

7.3.1 DRA Data, Methods, and Basis for Water Shortage Conditions ........................................ 7-7

7.3.2 DRA Water Source Reliability ............................................................................................. 7-7

7.3.3 Total Water Supply and Use Comparison .......................................................................... 7-8 8 Water Shortage Contingency Plan ..................................................................................................... 8-1 9 Demand Management Measures ...................................................................................................... 9-1

9.1 Report Implementation ............................................................................................................. 9-1

9.1.1 Implementation over the Past Five Years .......................................................................... 9-1

9.1.2 Implementation to Achieve Water Use Targets ................................................................ 9-1

9.2 Existing Demand Management Measures for Retail Suppliers.................................................. 9-2

9.2.1 Water-Waste Prevention Ordinances ................................................................................ 9-2

9.2.2 Metering............................................................................................................................. 9-3

9.2.3 Conservation Pricing .......................................................................................................... 9-4

9.2.4 Public Education and Outreach .......................................................................................... 9-4

9.2.5 Programs to Assess and Manage Distribution System Real Loss ....................................... 9-5

9.2.6 Water Conservation Program Coordination and Staffing Support .................................... 9-5

9.2.7 Other Demand Management Measures ............................................................................ 9-5 10 UWMP Adoption, Submittal, and Implementation ......................................................................... 10-1

10.1 Inclusion of All 2025 Data ........................................................................................................ 10-1

10.2 Notice of Plan Preparation ....................................................................................................... 10-1

10.3 Notice of Public Hearing .......................................................................................................... 10-1

10.4 Public Hearing and Adoption ................................................................................................... 10-3

10.4.1 Public Hearing .................................................................................................................. 10-3

10.4.2 Adoption .......................................................................................................................... 10-3

10.5 Plan Submittal .......................................................................................................................... 10-3

City of Atwater
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
June 2026
iv

10.5.1 Submitting a UWMP and Water Shortage Contingency Plan to DWR ............................. 10-4

10.5.2 Electronic Data Submittal ................................................................................................ 10-4

10.5.3 Submitting a UWMP, including WSCP, to the California State Library ............................ 10-4

10.5.4 Submitting a UWMP to Cities and Counties .................................................................... 10-4

10.6 Public Availability ..................................................................................................................... 10-4

10.7 Notification to Public Utilities Commission ............................................................................. 10-4

10.8 Plan Implementation ............................................................................................................... 10-5

10.9 Amending an Adopted UWMP or Water Shortage Contingency Plan ..................................... 10-5

10.9.1 Amending a UWMP .......................................................................................................... 10-5

10.9.2 Amending a Water Shortage Contingency Plan ............................................................... 10-5 11 References ....................................................................................................................................... 11-1

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1 – Public Water Systems (DWR Table 2-1 Retail) ........................................................................ 2-2 Table 2-2 – Plan Identification (DWR Table 2-2) ........................................................................................ 2-2 Table 2-3 – Supplier Identification (DWR Table 2-3) ................................................................................. 2-3 Table 2-4 – Water Supplier Information Exchange (DWR Table 2-4 Retail) .............................................. 2-4 Table 2-5 – UWMP Coordination ............................................................................................................... 2-4 Table 3-1 – City of Atwater Climate Data .................................................................................................. 3-5 Table 3-2 – Population - Current and Projected (DWR Table 3-1 Retail) ................................................... 3-6 Table 3-3 – Demographic Factors .............................................................................................................. 3-7 Table 4-1 – Past Water Use (2021-2024) ................................................................................................... 4-3 Table 4-2 – Total Uses for Potable and Non-Potable Water – Actual (DWR Table 4-1 Retail) .................. 4-4 Table 4-3 – Total Uses for Potable and Non-Potable Water – Projected (DWR Table 4-2 Retail) ............. 4-6 Table 4-4 – Inclusion in Water Use Projections (DWR Table 4-3 Retail) .................................................... 4-7 Table 4-5 – City of Atwater Low Income Projected Water Demand .......................................................... 4-8 Table 4-6 – Water Loss Audit Reporting (DWR Table 4-5 Retail) ............................................................. 4-10 Table 4-7 – Progress Towards 2028 Water Loss Standard (DWR Table 4-6 Retail) ................................. 4-11 Table 5-1 – SBX7-7 2020 Target Progress (DWR Table 5-1 Retail) ............................................................. 5-2 Table 6-1 – Well Capacity ........................................................................................................................... 6-3 Table 6-2 – Groundwater Volume Pumped (DWR Table 6-1 Retail).......................................................... 6-6 Table 6-3 – Wastewater Collected within Service Area (DWR Table 6-2 Retail) ....................................... 6-9 Table 6-4 – Wastewater Treatment and Discharge within UWMP Service Area (DWR Table 6-3 Retail) ... 6- 10 Table 6-5 – Recycled Water Direct Beneficial Uses Within Service Area (DWR Table 6-4 Retail) ........... 6-12 Table 6-6 – 2020 UWMP Recycled Water Use Projection Compared to 2025 Actual (DWR Table 6-5 Retail) ................................................................................................................................................................. 6-13 Table 6-7 – Methods to Encourage Future Recycled Water Use (DWR Table 6-6 Retail) ....................... 6-14 Table 6-8 – Expected Future Water Supply Projects or Programs (DWR Table 6-7 Retail) ..................... 6-16 Table 6-9 – Water Supplies – Actual (DWR Table 6-8 Retail) ................................................................... 6-17 Table 6-10 – Water Supplies – Projected (DWR Table 6-9 Retail) ........................................................... 6-18 Table 7-1 – Basis of Water Year Data (DWR Table 7-1 Retail) ................................................................... 7-3 Table 7-2 – Normal Year Supply and Use Comparison (DWR Table 7-2 Retail) ......................................... 7-4 Table 7-3 – Single Dry Year Supply and Use Comparison (DWR Table 7-3 Retail) ..................................... 7-5

City of Atwater
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
June 2026
v
Table 7-4 – Multiple Dry Years Supply and Use Comparison (DWR Table 7-4 Retail) ............................... 7-6 Table 7-5 – Five-Year Drought Risk Assessment (DWR Table 7-5 Retail)................................................... 7-8 Table 10-1 – Notification to Cities and Counties (DWR Table 10-1 Retail) .............................................. 10-2

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3-1 – Service Area Map ................................................................................................................... 3-3 Figure 3-2 – City of Atwater Water System Map ....................................................................................... 3-4 Figure 3-3 – Land Use Diagram .................................................................................................................. 3-8 Figure 6-1 – Merced Groundwater Basin Location and Boundaries .......................................................... 6-5

APPENDICES
Appendix A – DWR UWMP Tables
Appendix B – DWR UWMP Checklist
Appendix C – Agency and Public Notices
Appendix D – Water Loss Audits (2020-2024)
Appendix E – Energy Use Tables
Appendix F – Consumer Confidence Reports (2021-2024)
Appendix G – Water Shortage Contingency Plan
Appendix H – City of Atwater Municipal Code
Appendix I – Water and Wastewater Rate Study
Appendix J – UWMP Adoption Resolution

City of Atwater
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
June 2026
vi

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AB Assembly Bill
AF Acre-feet
AFY Acre-feet per year
CIMIS California Irrigation Management Information System City City of Atwater
CWC California Water Code
DMM Demand Management Measures
DOF California Department of Finance
DPR Direct Potable Reuse
DRA Drought Risk Assessment
DWR California Department of Water Resources
ET Evapotranspiration
gpm gallons per minute
gpcd, GPCD gallons per capita per day
GSA Groundwater Sustainability Agency
GSP Groundwater Sustainability Plan
Legislature State of California Legislature
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level
MG Million gallons
mgd, MGD Million gallons per day
MID Merced Irrigation District
MIRWMP 2018 Merced Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Update PWS Public Water System
RUWMP Regional Urban Water Management Plan
SB Senate Bill
SGMA Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
TCP 1,2,3-Trichloropropane
T-Gal thousand gallons
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
UWMPA Urban Water Management Plan Act
UWMP Guidebook 2025 Urban Water Management Plan Guidebook for Urban Water Suppliers Water Master Plan 2007 Atwater Water Master Plan Update WSCP Water Shortage Contingency Plan
WSRA Water Service Reliability Assessment
WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant
2019 Rate Study Water and Wastewater Rate Study

City of Atwater
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
June 2026
1-1
1 UWMP Introduction and Lay Description

1.1 Background and Purpose
Legal Requirements:

CWC Section 10615:
“Plan” means an urban water management plan prepared pursuant to this part. A plan shall describe and evaluate sources of supply, reasonable and practical efficient uses, reclamation and demand management activities. The components of the plan may vary according to an individual community or area's characteristics and its capabilities to efficiently use and conserve water. The plan shall address measures for residential, commercial, governmental, and industrial water demand management as set forth in Article 2 (commencing with Section 10630) of Chapter 3. In addition, a strategy and time schedule for implementation shall be included in the plan.

The California Water Code (CWC) requires urban water suppliers within the state to prepare and adopt Urban Water Management Plans (UWMPs) for submission to the California Department of Water Resources (DWR). The UWMPs, which must be filed every five years, must satisfy the requirements of the Urban Water Management Planning Act (UWMPA) of 1983 including amendments that have been made to the UWMPA and other applicable regulations. The UWMPA requires urban water suppliers servicing 3,000 or more connections or supplying more than 3,000 acre-feet (AF) of water annually, to prepare a UWMP.

The purpose of the UWMP is to maintain efficient use of urban water supplies, continue to promote conservation programs and policies, ensure that sufficient water supplies are available for future beneficial use, and provide a mechanism for response during water drought conditions. This plan, which was prepared in compliance with the CWC, and as set forth in the 2025 Urban Water Management Plan Guidebook for Urban Water Suppliers (January 2026) established by DWR (UWMP Guidebook), constitutes the City of Atwater (City) 2025 UWMP. This 2025 UWMP was prepared in compliance with the UWMPA and the Water Conservation Bill of 2009 (Senate Bill [SB] X7-7) by Black Water Consulting Engineers, Inc. and the City.

1.2 Previous Urban Water Management Plan
The City previously updated its 2020 UWMP in March 2022. Following adoption, the 2020 UWMP was submitted to and approved by DWR. This 2025 UWMP serves as an update to the 2020 UWMP and complies with all new UWMP requirements and regulations.

1.3 Urban Water Management Planning and the California Water Code This section summarizes the CWC sections that are applicable to UWMPs.

1.3.1 Urban Water Management Planning Act of 1983
In 1983, State Assembly Bill (AB) 797 modified the CWC Division 6, by creating the UWMPA. Several amendments to the original UWMPA, which were introduced since 1983, have increased the data requirements and planning elements to be included in UWMPs. Initial amendments to the UWMPA required that total projected water use be compared to water supply sources over the next 20 years, in

City of Atwater
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
June 2026
1-2
5-year increments. Recent DWR guidelines also suggest projecting through a 25-year planning horizon to maintain a 20-year timeframe until the next UWMP update has been completed. This is merely a guideline and not a requirement of the UWMPA. Therefore, the use of a 25-year planning horizon as opposed to a 20-year planning horizon is left up to the discretion of the agency. The City has opted to use a 20-year planning horizon in this 2025 UWMP.

1.3.2 Applicable Changes to the Water Code Since the 2020 UWMP Since the UWMPA was enacted, the CWC has continued to evolve in response to statewide water management challenges such as prolonged drought, groundwater overdraft, regulatory updates, and changing climatic conditions. These factors influence each Supplier’s water reliability determinations as well as the broader statewide reliability framework overseen by DWR, the State Water Resources Control Board, and the State of California Legislature (Legislature).

Summarized below are the major additions and changes to the UWMP requirements since the 2020 UWMP as per the DWR’s 2025 UWMP guidance documents:
• Changes in Water Code – There have been minor changes to the Water Code since the 2020 UWMPs were submitted; primarily, several definitions have been added. None of these change UWMP requirements for 2025 UWMPs.
• Suppliers with Multiple Public Water Systems (PWSs) – For consistency among State agencies, DWR and the State Water Board are using the same criteria to determine when a Supplier with multiple PWSs is considered an Urban Water Supplier subject to UWMP requirements. Refer to Chapter 2, Section 2.1.1 of the guidance document for details. • DWR Submittal Tables – Submittal tables have been updated to reflect the current reporting year, improve accuracy of reporting, and more clearly identify information required by Water Code and optional information.
• Water Loss Standard Reporting – There has been no change to the Water Code regarding water loss standard reporting since 2020 UWMPs were submitted. However, the existing Water Code requires Suppliers to demonstrate compliance with the 2028 Water Loss Standard. The Water Loss Standards were not available when the 2020 UWMPs were being submitted but are now available for 2025 UWMPs. Therefore, guidance has been added about how Suppliers can now report progress toward compliance with their Water Loss Standard in 2025 UWMPs. Refer to Submittal Table 4-6 and related guidance in Chapter 4 of the guidance document. • Direct Potable Reuse – The State Water Board has adopted regulations for the use of direct potable reuse (DPR) since 2020 UWMP reporting. To allow for reporting of DPR, minor changes have been made to supply and demand tables. Refer to guidance in Chapters 4 and 6. • Lower-Income Housing – While projections for lower-income housing were required in 2020 UWMPs, additional guidance has been provided for optional reporting of the method used to project water use for lower-income housing. This optional guidance incorporates RHNA into projected land uses and water demands. Refer to Chapter 4 and Appendix K for more information. • Reporting Groundwater Recharge and Other Water Storage – In previous years, the guidance for reporting water placed into storage did not differentiate between long-term storage (i.e., water placed into storage one year but extracted in a future year) and short-term storage (i.e., water that is placed into storage and extracted the same year). When a Supplier reports water placed into storage and then reports it was retrieved in the same year (short-term storage) it can cause

City of Atwater
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
June 2026
1-3
a double counting error. Additional guidance recommending that Suppliers do not report water into and out of short-term storage is provided in Chapter 4 and Chapter 6.

1.4 UWMPs in Relation to Other Planning Efforts
The City is committed to providing a reliable and high-quality water supply to its customers. To ensure that the City will be able to continue to reliably serve the residents of Atwater in the future, the City has conducted/participated in several important planning efforts that relate to water supply planning and are related to the UWMP. Some of the most recent water planning efforts are summarized below:
• Atwater General Plan [1]: In 2022, the City adopted an update to its General Plan that governs all City actions related to Atwater’s physical development throughout the next 20 years. The General Plan outlines the City’s long-term physical and economic development and community enhancement so future planning efforts can align with the City’s goals. Additionally, the City is in the process of preparing an update to the General Plan to be implemented at the end of 2026 or early 2027.
• 2007 Atwater Water Master Plan Update (Water Master Plan) [2]: The City published its Water Master Plan in 2007. The Master Plan sets the foundation for the City to expand its water system to meet the needs of its growing population through buildout. • Merced Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan [3]: The Merced Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA), Merced Irrigation-Urban GSA, and the Turner Island Water District GSA developed a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) for the Merced Subbasin and was adopted/revised in July 2022. The GSP outlines how groundwater in the sub-basin will be managed and regulated to ensure long-term sustainable use, prevent water quality in compliance with California’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA).

1.5 UWMP Organization
This 2025 UWMP contains the appropriate sections and tables required per the UWMPA and has been prepared based on guidance provided by the UWMP Guidebook. The required tables are included in the relevant sections and in Appendix A.

DWR’s UWMP Checklist, as provided in the UWMP Guidebook, has been completed to demonstrate the UWMP’s compliance with applicable requirements. A copy of the completed checklist is included in Appendix B. This plan is organized according to the recommended format provided in the UWMP Guidebook. The UWMP contains ten chapters as outlined below, followed by appendices that provide supporting documentation for the information presented in the plan.

• Chapter 1 – UWMP Introduction and Lay Description: This chapter provides background information for the 2025 UWMP and provides a description of the purpose of the plan. • Chapter 2 – UWMP Preparation: This chapter includes information on the development of the 2025 UWMP and efforts in coordination and outreach.
• Chapter 3 – Service Area Description: This chapter describes the service area, population, and climate; presents an overview of the City’s water distribution system; and describes the City's organizational structure and history.
• Chapter 4 – Water Use Characterization: This chapter describes and quantifies the current and projected water uses within the City’s service area.

City of Atwater
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
June 2026
1-4
• Chapter 5 – SB X7-7 Baseline, 2020 Targets, and 2025 Reporting: This chapter describes the methods for calculating baseline and target water use consumption in the City. It also includes a calculation of the City’s 2025 water use and determination of compliance with the 2025 target water use.
• Chapter 6 – Normal-Year Water Supply Characterization: This chapter describes the current and projected sources of water available to the City. A description of potential recycled water use and supply availability is also included in this chapter.
• Chapter 7 - Water Service Reliability and Drought Risk Assessment: This chapter describes the reliability of the City’s current supply and evaluates the reliability 20 years out, including normal, single-dry years, and five consecutive dry years.
• Chapter 8 – Water Shortage Contingency Plan: This chapter references the City’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) which is provided in Appendix G. • Chapter 9 – Demand Management Measures: This chapter describes the City's efforts to promote conservation, reduce water demand, and describes the City's demand management measures. • Chapter 10 – UWMP Adoption, Submittal, and Implementation: This chapter describes the steps taken to adopt and submit the 2025 UWMP and make it publicly available. This chapter will also describe the City's plan to implement the UWMP.

1.6 Lay Description
Legal Requirements:

CWC Section 10630.5:

Each plan shall include a simple lay description of how much water the agency has on a reliable basis, how much it needs for the foreseeable future, what the agency’s strategy is for meeting its water needs, the challenges facing the agency, and any other information necessary to provide a general understanding of the agency’s plan.

The City’s 2025 UWMP describes the City’s water supply, how water is used today, how demand is expected to change in the future, and how the City will continue to provide reliable water service under normal conditions and during droughts.

As per the California Department of Finance’s (DOF) Population Estimate Table, the City currently serves as population of approximately 31,862 people through its municipal water system [4]. The City currently provides water service to approximately 7,821 connections. In 2025, the City delivered 6,812 AF of water to residential, commercial, and public customers. The City’s water supply comes entirely from groundwater. Atwater operates nine active groundwater wells with a combined capacity of approximately 15,000 gallons per minute (gpm). These well supply all of the City’s potable water needs.

Water demand in Atwater is projected to decrease over the next 20 years, with total demand expected to reach approximately 3,991 AF by 2045. This decrease is primarily attributed to reductions in system water loss and continued improvements in water use efficiency.

The UWMP demonstrates that the City has sufficient water supply to meet projected demands through 2045 under normal, single-dry year, and multiple dry-year conditions. Groundwater supplies are expected to remain reliable because well capacity exceeds projected demands, and the City operates wells only as needed to meet demand.

City of Atwater
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
June 2026
1-5
A key challenge for the City is its complete reliance on groundwater from the Merced Subbasin. This basin is classified as a high-priority basin under the SGMA and is considered critically overdrafted. Long-term water supply reliability will depend on regional groundwater management efforts, including coordination with the Merced Subbasin GSA and implementation of the GSP.

To address future needs and maintain reliability, the City plans to continue developing its groundwater system by adding new wells and implementing groundwater treatment improvements. The City also participates in regional water management efforts and will continue to evaluate additional water supply options as needed.

Water conservation is an important part of the City’s strategy for managing water resources. In accordance with the SB X7-7, the City established a 2020 water use target of 254 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) and successfully achieved this target, with actual 2020 water use of 241 gpcd. The City continues to implement Demand Management Measures (DMMs) including system-wide metering, water conservation programs, and efforts to reduce water loss. These measures help reduce overall demand and improve long-term sustainability.

The City also maintains a WSCP that outlines how water use would be reduced and managed during periods of limited supply. This plan includes stages of water shortage response and actions to protect public health and maintain essential services.

The 2025 UWMP and WSCP were prepared in accordance with California Water Code Requirements and included opportunities for public review and participation. The City provided required public notices, conducted a public hearing, and formally adopted the UWMP and WSCP in 2026. Following adoption, the plans will be submitted to the California DWR, the California State Library, and applicable local agencies, and will remain available for public review on the City’s website and at City offices.

In summary, the City’s 2025 UWMP shows that the City currently has adequate water supplies to meet future demands. By continuing to invest in groundwater infrastructure, participating in regional groundwater management, and promoting water conservation, the City is working to ensure a reliable and sustainable water supply for its customers now and into the future.

City of Atwater
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
June 2026
2-1
2 UWMP Preparation
This chapter provides information on the processes used for developing the 2025 UWMP, including coordination and outreach efforts.

2.1 Basis for Preparing a Plan
Legal Requirements:

CWC Section 10617:
“Urban water supplier” means a supplier, either publicly or privately owned, providing water for municipal purposes either directly or indirectly to more than 3,000 customers or supplying more than 3,000 acre-feet of water annually. An urban water supplier includes a supplier or contractor for water, regardless of the basis of right, which distributes or sells for ultimate resale to customers. This part applies only to water supplied from public water systems.

Water Code Section 10608.12
(t) “Urban retail water supplier” means a water supplier, either publicly or privately owned, that directly provides potable municipal water to more than 3,000 end users or that supplies more than 3,000 acrefeet of potable water annually at retail for municipal purposes. (w) “Urban wholesale water supplier” means a water supplier, either publicly or privately owned, that provides more than 3,000 acre-feet of water annually at wholesale for potable municipal purposes.

CWC Section 10620:
(b) Every person that becomes an urban water supplier shall adopt an urban water management plan within one year after it has become an urban water supplier.

CWC Section 10621:
(a) Each urban water supplier shall update its plan at least once every five years on or before July 1, in years ending in six and one, incorporating updated and new information from the five years preceding each update.

2.1.1 Public Water Systems
The CWC defines an urban water supplier as “a water supplier, either publicly or privately owned, that directly provides potable municipal water to more than 3,000 end users or supplies more than 3,000 AF of potable water annually at retail for municipal purposes.” Table 2-1 (DWR Table 2-1 Retail) documents the number of municipal connections and the volume of water supplied in 2025. The City is considered an urban retail water supplier.

City of Atwater
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
June 2026
2-2
Table 2-1 – Public Water Systems (DWR Table 2-1 Retail) Submittal Table 2-1 Retail: Public Water Systems
Public Water System
Number
Public Water System
Name
Number of Municipal
Connections 2025
Volume of Water
Supplied 2025
Add additional rows as needed
CA2410001 City of Atwater 7,821 6,812
Total 7,821 6,812
DWR NOTES:

Units of measure (AF, CCF, MG) must remain consistent throughout the UWMP as reported in Submittal Table 2-3. This table identifies the unit of measure selected in Table 2-3.

NOTES: Unit of measure for volumes are in AF.

2.2 Individual Planning and Compliance
Water agencies are given the option to develop UWMPs individually or collectively as a regional group.

While efforts to prepare the UWMP were coordinated with appropriate agencies, this 2025 UWMP was developed for the City service area only, and the City is not participating in a Regional UWMP as specified in Table 2-2 (DWR Table 2-2).

Table 2-2 – Plan Identification (DWR Table 2-2)
Submittal Table 2-2: Plan Identification
Select
One or
Both
Type of Plan Name of Regional Alliance or
RUWMP (Drop Down List)
Individual UWMP

If Water Supplier is also a member of a SB X7-7
Regional Alliance, select name from the drop-down.

Regional Urban Water Management Plan (RUWMP)

If Supplier selected RUWMP, select name from the
drop-down.

NOTES: No additional notes.

2.3 Fiscal or Calendar Year and Units of Measure
Legal Requirements:

CWC Section 10608.20:
(a)(1) Urban retail water suppliers…may determine the targets on a fiscal year or calendar year basis.

The City’s 2025 UWMP has been prepared on a calendar year basis and includes planning data for the entire year of 2025. The City’s reporting of water volumes in this 2025 UWMP is reported in acre-feet per year (AFY). Table 2-3 (DWR Table 2-3) summarizes the City’s reporting methods for this 2025 UWMP.

City of Atwater
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
June 2026
2-3
Table 2-3 – Supplier Identification (DWR Table 2-3)
Submittal Table 2-3: Supplier Identification
Type of Supplier (select one or both)
Supplier is a wholesale supplier
Supplier is a retail supplier
Fiscal or Calendar Year (select one)
UWMP Tables are in calendar years
UWMP Tables are in fiscal years
If using fiscal years provide month and date that the fiscal year begins (mm/dd)

Units of measure used in UWMP
(Select from the drop down list).

Unit AF
DWR NOTES:

Units of measure (AF, CCF, MG) must remain consistent
throughout the UWMP as reported in Submittal Table 2-3.

NOTES: No additional notes.

2.4 Coordination and Outreach
Legal Requirements:

CWC Section 10631:
(h) An urban water supplier that relies upon a wholesale agency for a source of water shall provide the wholesale agency with water use projections from that agency for that source of water in five-year increments to 20 years or as far as data is available. The wholesale agency shall provide information to the urban water supplier for inclusion in the urban water supplier’s plan that identifies and quantifies, to the extent practicable, the existing and planned sources of water as required by subdivision (b), available from the wholesale agency to the urban water supplier over the same five-year increments, and during various water-year types in accordance with subdivision (f). An urban water supplier may rely upon water supply information provided by the wholesale agency in fulfilling the plan informational requirements of subdivisions (b) and (f).

The UWMPA requires that the UWMP identify the water agency’s coordination with appropriate nearby agencies. While preparing the 2025 UWMP, the City coordinated its efforts with relevant agencies to ensure that the data and issues are presented accurately.

City of Atwater
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
June 2026
2-4

2.4.1 Wholesale and Retail Coordination
The City does not receive wholesale water, nor does it plan to in the future (Table 2-4 (DWR Table 2-4 Retail)).

Table 2-4 – Water Supplier Information Exchange (DWR Table 2-4 Retail) Submittal Table 2-4 Retail: Water Supplier Information Exchange Water Code Section 10631(h)
The retail Supplier has informed the following wholesale supplier(s) of projected water use.

Wholesale Water Supplier Name
Add additional rows as needed
N/A
NOTES: No additional notes.

2.4.2 Coordination with Other Agencies and the Community Legal Requirements:

CWC Section 10620:
(d)(3) Each urban water supplier shall coordinate the preparation of its plan with other appropriate agencies in the area, including other water suppliers that share a common source, water management agencies, and relevant public agencies, to the extent practicable.

CWC Section 10642:

Each urban water supplier shall encourage the active involvement of diverse social, cultural, and economic elements of the population within the service area prior to and during the preparation of the plan...

The City coordinated the preparation of its UWMP and WSCP with numerous local and regional agencies, including public agencies that rely on related or interconnected water supplies. Table 2-5 provides a list of agencies consulted during the development of this Plan.

Table 2-5 – UWMP Coordination
Agencies
County of Merced
Merced Irrigation District
Merced County Farm Bureau
Atwater Elementary School District
Merced Unified School District
The City also maintains an ongoing commitment to public involvement in water resource planning. Public participation is encouraged through a variety of methods, including direct mailings, public meetings, and web-based communications. The City website provides updates on ongoing water system projects, public notices, and proposed rate adjustments related to water system improvements.

City of Atwater
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
June 2026
2-5
A public hearing was held for review and comment on the draft UWMP before City Council approval.

Additionally, copies of the draft and final UWMP were posted on the City’s website homepage.

2.4.3 Notice to Cities and Counties
Legal Requirements:

CWC Section 10621(b):

Every urban water supplier required to prepare a plan pursuant to this part shall, at least 60 days before the public hearing on the plan required by Section 10642, notify any city or county within which the supplier provides water supplies that the urban water supplier will be reviewing the plan and considering amendments or changes to the plan.

In accordance with CWC Section 10621, a notice of preparation was sent to Merced County 60 days prior to the public hearing date, June 22, 2026. Noticing for the public hearing was conducted pursuant to Section 6066 of the Government Code prior to commencement of the public comment period. This notification is reported in Table 10-1. Copies of the public hearing notices and notices to the city and county entities served by the City, as well as other agencies, are included in Appendix C. The notices included the UWMP update schedule and contact information.

City of Atwater
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
June 2026
3-1
3 Service Area Description
The UWMPA requires that the UWMP include a description of the water purveyor’s service area and various aspects of the area served, including climate, population, and other demographic factors.

3.1 General Description
Legal Requirements:

CWC Section 10631:
(a) Describe the service area of the supplier, including current and projected population, climate, and other social, economic, and demographic factors affecting the supplier’s water management planning.

The projected population estimates shall be based upon data from the state, regional, or local service agency population projections within the service area of the urban water supplier and shall be in fiveyear increments to 20 years or as far as data is available. The description shall include the current and projected land uses within the existing or anticipated service area affecting the supplier’s water management planning. Urban water suppliers shall coordinate with local or regional land use authorities to determine the most appropriate land use information, including, where appropriate, land use information obtained from local or regional land use authorities, as developed pursuant to Article 5 (commencing with Section 65300) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code.

The City was incorporated on August 16, 1922, and is located in the Central San Joaquin Valley along State Route 99 in Merced County. The City is situated approximately 8 miles northwest of the City of Merced and about 105 miles south of Sacramento. Atwater is situated east of the San Joaquin River and is surrounded primarily by agricultural lands characteristic of the northern San Joaquin Valley. The City functions as a regional residential and employment center within northern Merced County.

The City is a full-service City providing police and fire protection, emergency services, parks and recreation, street maintenance, water distribution, wastewater collection, and general governmental services. The City’s water service area is generally contiguous with the City limits, though limited areas adjacent to the City boundaries may be served by other water purveyors or private wells. The City also provides water service to select customers located outside the incorporated City limits through existing agreements.

The distribution system includes an extensive network of water mains, storage facilities, and booster pump stations designed to meet domestic, commercial, industrial, and fire protection demands. The City maintains water storage reservoirs that provide operational and emergency supply capacity. Long-term planning for the water system, including system improvements and capacity expansion, is addressed in the City’s adopted water planning and master planning documents.

The Atwater water system serves its population of about 31,862 people through nine active wells. The distribution system consists of approximately 97 miles of water lines. The City has three tank storage reservoirs available within the service area, with a combined storage capacity of 2.0 million gallons (MG):
one 1 MG elevated tank and two 0.5 MG tanks. However, since 2020 the 1 MG elevated tank has been offline due to lack of use. The water system has one booster pump station with six booster pumps rated

City of Atwater
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
June 2026
3-2
at 1,350 gpm each. More information about the water system can be found in the City’s Water Master Plan, adopted in March 2007 [2].

3.2 Service Area Boundary Maps
The City’s water service area encompasses approximately 4,986 acres, or 7.79 square miles. While the City's existing service area is generally contiguous with the City limit, certain newly developing areas may be incorporated into the service area as buildout progresses in accordance with land use plans and infrastructure phasing.

Figure 3-1 presents a location map of the City’s service area. And Figure 3-2 depicts the existing water distribution system.

City of Atwater
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
June 2026
3-5

3.3 Service Area Climate
Legal Requirements:

CWC Section 10631(a):

A plan shall… Describe the service area of the supplier, including … “climate”… CWC Section 10630:

It is the intention of the Legislature, in enacting this part, to permit levels of water management planning… while accounting for impacts of climate change.

Water use within the City’s service area depends on various climate factors, including temperature, precipitation, and evapotranspiration (ET). ET is a term which refers to the amount of water transferred from the Earth’s surface to the atmosphere through evaporation from the soil and surface water bodies and plant transpiration. Climate data, including temperature and precipitation estimates, were obtained from the California Irrigation Management Information System (CIMIS) Station #148, located in Merced, for the period from January 1988 to September 2025. The climatic data for the City is summarized in Table 3-1.

Table 3-1 – City of Atwater Climate Data
Month
Monthly Average
Temperature (F)a
Total Monthly
Precipitation
(inches)
Total Monthly ET
(inches) Maximum Minimum b
January 54.9 36.0 2.46 1.30
February 61.6 38.7 2.17 2.09
March 67.2 41.2 1.96 3.65
April 74.3 44.9 1.09 5.10
May 82.6 50.6 0.44 7.02
June 90.8 56.4 0.10 7.96
July 97.1 60.9 0.01 7.90
August 95.3 58.9 0.02 7.51
September 90.0 54.8 0.15 5.52
October 79.8 47.2 0.60 3.60
November 66.2 39.6 1.37 1.80
December 55.7 35.6 1.89 1.08
Annual Average 76.3 47.1 1.02 4.54
Total - - 12.26 54.53
(a) Source: NCEI: ncei.noaa.gov, Merced AP, California (045532), Monthly Climate Summary, 1899 - 2016. (b) Source: CIMIS Website: www.cimis.water.ca.gov, Station 148 Merced, California, Monthly Average Et Report, Printed on September 2025). [5]
These climate characteristics influence the City’s water use. As described in Chapter 4, the City’s water use in the summer months is significantly higher than that in the winter, reflecting increased water use for irrigation purposes during the hot, dry summers.

City of Atwater
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
June 2026
3-6

3.4 Service Area Population and Demographics

3.4.1 Service Area Population
Legal Requirements:

CWC Section 10631(a):

Describe the service area of the supplier, including current and projected population …The projected population estimates shall be based upon data from the state, regional, or local service agency population projections within the service area of the urban water supplier and shall be in five-year increments to 20 years or as far as data is available.

The City’s current (2025) service area population is 31,862 [4]. The City’s population has grown at an average annual rate of 0.135 percent from 2020 through 2025 according to population estimates from the DOF. The DOF estimates that households in the City have an average of 3.1 persons per household with approximately 10,296 total households in 2025.

Per the average annual population growth rate, the projected service area population from 2025 – 2050 is summarized in Table 3-2 (DWR Table 3-1 Retail).

Table 3-2 – Population - Current and Projected (DWR Table 3-1 Retail) Submittal Table 3-1 Retail: Population - Current and Projected Water Code Section 10631(a)
Population
Served
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050(opt)
31,862 32,077 32,294 32,512 32,732
NOTES: 2025 population served is from DOF, Report E-5, Table 2 for 1/1/2025.

Projected populations assume a growth rate of 0.677% every five years, based on the 5-year growth rate from 2020 - 2025 where population increased from 31,648 to 31,862.

3.4.2 Other Social, Economic, and Demographic Factors
Legal Requirements:

CWC Section 10631:
(a) Describe the service area of the supplier, including… other social, economic and demographic factors affecting the supplier’s water management planning.

According to data available through the US Census Bureau American Community Survey [6], the median household income in the City is $63,945. The percent of the population below the poverty level is 20.0%.

The median age in the City is 34 years old. 73.9% of the population have attained a high school diploma, and 13.1% have a bachelor’s degree or higher. Table 3-3 provides additional information pertaining to Atwater’s demographic factors.

City of Atwater
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
June 2026
3-7
Table 3-3 – Demographic Factors
Parameter Value
Age and Sex
Persons under 5 years, percent 6.1%
Persons under 18 years, percent 28.4%
Persons 65 years and over, percent 12.8%
Female persons, percent 51.1%
Race and Hispanic Origin
White alone, percent 40.1%
Black or African American alone, percent 3.5%
American Indian and Alaska Native alone, percent 1.3%
Asian alone, percent 5.6%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone, percent 1.0% Two or More Races, percent 11.4%
Hispanic or Latino, percent 57.5%
White alone, not Hispanic or Latino, percent 29.3%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau for City of Atwater, California (American Community Survey for 2024)

3.5 Land Uses within Service Area
Legal Requirements:

CWC Section 10631(a):

The description shall include the current and projected land uses within the existing or anticipated service area affecting the supplier’s water management planning. Urban water suppliers shall coordinate with local or regional land use authorities to determine the most appropriate land use information, including, where appropriate, land use information obtained from local or regional land use authorities…
The City is predominantly comprised of single-family residential, multi-family residential, commercial, institutional and landscape irrigation. Figure 3-3 shows a map of existing and buildout general land use distribution within the City. The Atwater General Plan [1] provides detailed land use designations and future development patterns.

City of Atwater
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
June 2026
3-8
Figure 3-3 – Land Use Diagram

City of Atwater
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
June 2026
4-1
4 Water Use Characterization
This chapter describes and quantifies the current and projected water demands within the City’s service area.

4.1 Non-Potable Versus Potable Water Use
Potable water is defined as water that is safe for human consumption and has been treated and disinfected in accordance with applicable federal and State drinking water standards. The City meets its water demands using groundwater supplies.

Raw water, another type of non-potable supply, consists of untreated water used in its natural condition or with minimal treatment. The City does not currently utilize raw water and has no future plans for the usage of raw water.

4.2 Past, Current, and Projected Water Use by Sector
Legal Requirements:

CWC Section 10635:
(a) Every urban water Supplier shall include, as part of its urban water management plan, an assessment of the reliability of its water service to its customers during normal, dry, and multiple dry water years.

This water supply and demand assessment shall compare the total water supply sources available to the water supplier with the long-term total projected water use over the next 20 years, in five-year increments, for a normal water year, a single dry water year, and a drought lasting five consecutive water years. The water service reliability assessment shall be based upon the information compiled pursuant to Section 10631, including available data from state, regional, or local agency population projections within the service area of the urban water supplier.

CWC Section 10631(d):
(1) For an urban retail water supplier, quantify, to the extent records are available, past and current water use, over the same five-year increments described in subdivision (a), and projected water use, based upon information developed pursuant to subdivision (a), identifying the uses among water use sectors, including, but not necessarily limited to, all of the following… (2) The water use projections shall be in the same five-year increments described in subdivision (a). (4)(A) Water use projections, where available, shall display and account for the water savings estimated to result from adopted codes, standards, ordinances, or transportation and land use plans identified by the urban water supplier, as applicable to the service area. (B) To the extent that an urban water supplier reports the information described in subparagraph (A), an urban water supplier shall do both of the following: (i) Provide citations of the various codes, standards, ordinances, or transportation and land use plans utilized in making the projections. (ii) Indicate the extent that the water use projections consider savings from codes, standards, ordinances, or transportation and land use plans. Water use projections that do not account for these water savings shall be noted of that fact.

The following sections describe past, current, and projected water use within the City for each of the 10 water use sectors identified in CWC Section 10631(d).

City of Atwater
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
June 2026
4-2

4.2.1 Water Use Sectors Listed in Water Code
Legal Requirements:

CWC Section 10631(d):
(1) For an urban retail water supplier, quantify, to the extent records are available, past and current water use, over the same five-year increments described in subdivision (a), and projected water use, based upon information developed pursuant to subdivision (a), identifying the uses among water use sectors, including, but not necessarily limited to, all of the following:
(A) Single-family residential.
(B) Multifamily.
(C) Commercial.
(D) Industrial.
(E) Institutional and governmental.
(F) Landscape.
(G) Sales to other agencies.
(H) Saline water intrusion barriers, groundwater recharge, or conjunctive use, or any combination thereof.
(I) Agricultural.
(J) Distribution system water loss.

The water use sectors that are served by the City’s water system include single-family residential, multifamily residential, commercial, industrial, institutional/governmental, landscape irrigation, other, and distribution system water losses. These classifications were used to analyze current consumption patterns among various types of customers. These classifications are defined by the UWMP Guidebook as follows:
• Single-family residential – A single-family dwelling unit. A lot with a free-standing building containing one dwelling unit that may include a detached secondary dwelling. • Multi-family residential – Multiple dwelling units contained within one building or several buildings within one complex.
• Commercial – A water user that provides or distributes a product or service. • Institutional/Governmental – A water user dedicated to public service. This type of user includes, among other users, higher-education institutions, schools, courts, churches, hospitals, government facilities, and nonprofit research institutions. • Landscape – Water connections supplying water solely for landscape irrigation. Such landscapes may be associated with single-family residential, multi-family residential, commercial, industrial, or institutional/governmental sites, but are considered a separate water-use sector if the connection is solely for landscape irrigation.
• Other – Any water use that is not adequately described by the water sectors defined above or water uses that are not separately classified.
• Distribution System Water Losses – Water losses which occur due to distribution system leaks and other unmetered water uses (such as firefighting, main flushing, etc.).

Additional sectors that are not applicable to the City’s water system include: industrial, sales to other agencies, groundwater recharge, saline water intrusion barriers, or conjunctive use, and agricultural.

City of Atwater
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
June 2026
4-3

4.2.2 Water Use Sectors in Addition to Those Listed in Water Code The water system does not serve additional water use sectors.

4.2.3 Past Water Use
Legal Requirements:

CWC Section 10631(d):
(1) For an urban retail water supplier, quantify, to the extent records are available, past… water use… based upon information developed pursuant to subdivision (a), identifying the uses among water use sectors…
The City’s past water use for 2021-2024 is shown in Table 4-1. 2021-2024 water use is based on consumption and production data provided by the City. Water losses are estimated as the difference between total consumption and total production. Variations in water use during this period reflect a combination of climate variability, conservation measures, and changes in customer behavior.

Table 4-1 – Past Water Use (2021-2024)
Water Use Category
Actual Demand, AFY
2021 2022 2023 2024
Single Family 1,948 1,954 1,861 2,409
Multi-Family 98 101 100 118
Commercial 98 106 123 193
Institutional/Governmental 42 43 93 116
Landscape 6 9 9 11
Other 5 6 5 7
Losses 5,859 5,129 4,928 3,947
Total Water Demand 8,056 7,348 7,121 6,801
Note: The "Other" water use category accounts for unbilled unmetered water consumption and is estimated as 0.25% of the total billed consumption, in accordance with the AWWA water loss audit form.

4.2.4 Current Water Use
Legal Requirements:

CWC Section 10631(d):
(1) For an urban retail water supplier, quantify, to the extent records are available, … current water use… based upon information developed pursuant to subdivision (a), identifying the uses among water use sectors…
Water demand by land use type is presented in Table 4-2 (DWR Table 4-1 Retail). As shown, all water deliveries in 2025 were treated to drinking water standards. The City did not supply water to retail water suppliers in 2025 and does not anticipate providing wholesale service in the future. Total water demand for 2025 was 6,812 acre-feet, which includes system losses. The City uses water loss audits to identify system inefficiencies and prioritize maintenance and capital improvements to reduce real and apparent losses over time.

City of Atwater
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
June 2026
4-4
Table 4-2 – Total Uses for Potable and Non-Potable Water – Actual (DWR Table 4-1 Retail) Submittal Table 4-1 Retail: Total Uses for Potable and Non-Potable Water — Actual Water Code Section 10631(d)(1)
Use Type
Additional Description
(as needed)
2025 Actual Water Use
Drop down list
May select each use multiple times
These are the only use types that will be
recognized by the WUEdata online
submittal tool
Potable or NonPotable
(OPTIONAL)
Drop down list
Volume
Add additional rows as needed
Single Family Potable 3,092
Multi-Family Potable 334
Commercial
Builder; Commercial;
Utilities; Construction;
Manufacturing; Mining
Potable 160
Institutional/Governmental Schools; City facilities Potable 124 Landscape City landscape irrigation Potable 11
Other Unbilled Unmetered
Consumption Potable 9
Distribution System Water Loss Potable 3,082
Subtotal Potable 6,812
Subtotal Non-Potable 0
Total 6,812
DWR NOTES: Units of measure (AF, CCF, MG) must remain consistent throughout the UWMP as reported in Submittal Table 2-3. This table identifies the unit of measure selected in Submittal Table 2-3.

NOTES: Volume of Water Loss for 2025 was estimated based on water supplied and billed meter data and has not been audited. The "Other" water use category accounts for unbilled unmetered water consumption and is estimated as 0.25% of the total billed consumption, in accordance with the AWWA water loss audit form.

4.2.5 Projected Water Use
Legal Requirements:

CWC Section 10631(d):
(1) For an urban retail water supplier, quantify, to the extent records are available, … projected water use, based upon information developed pursuant to subdivision (a), identifying the uses among water use sectors…
CWC Section 10633 (e):

The projected use of recycled water within the supplier’s service area at the end of 5, 10, 15, and 20 years, and a description of the actual use of recycled water in comparison to uses previously projected pursuant to this subdivision...

CWC Section 10635 (a)

City of Atwater
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
June 2026
4-5
Every urban water supplier shall include, as part of its urban water management plan, an assessment of the reliability of its water service to its customers during normal, dry, and multiple dry water years.

This water supply and demand assessment shall compare the total water supply sources available to the water supplier with the long-term total projected water use over the next 20 years, in five-year increments, for a normal water year, a single dry water year, and a drought lasting five consecutive water years. The water service reliability assessment shall be based upon the information compiled pursuant to Section 10631, including available data from state, regional, or local agency population projections within the service area of the urban water supplier.

Water Code Section 10631:
(h) An urban water supplier that relies upon a wholesale agency for a source of water shall provide the wholesale agency with water use projections from that agency for that source of water in five-year increments to 20 years or as far as data is available…
If a Retail Supplier receives water from a Wholesale Supplier, the Retail Supplier must provide their projected use of that supply to the Wholesale Supplier. Suppliers will report which wholesale suppliers were informed of their projected use using Submittal Table 2-4 R.

CWC Section 10631(d)(4):
(A) Water use projections, where available, shall display and account for the water savings estimated to result from adopted codes, standards, ordinances, or transportation and land use plans identified by the urban water supplier, as applicable to the service area. (B) To the extent that an urban water supplier reports the information described in subparagraph (A), an urban water supplier shall do both of the following:
(i) Provide citations of the various codes, standards, ordinances, or transportation and land use plans utilized in making the projections.
(ii) Indicate the extent that the water use projections consider savings from codes, standards, ordinances, or transportation and land use plans. Water use projections that do not account for these water savings shall be noted of that fact.

Table 4-3 (DWR Table 4-2 Retail) summarizes the projected water use by type for 2030 through 2050.

These projections were developed using the following assumptions:
• Population projections presented in Table 3-2 (DWR Table 3-1 Retail); • Future water use distribution by category remains consistent with 2025 percentages; and • Water Shortage Level 2 and its restrictions on water usage are in affect as per the City’s Municipal Code Chapter 13.13 included in Appendix H.

City of Atwater
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
June 2026
4-6
Table 4-3 – Total Uses for Potable and Non-Potable Water – Projected (DWR Table 4-2 Retail) Submittal Table 4-2 Retail: Total Uses for Potable, and Non-PotableWater — Projected Water Code Section 10631(d)(1)
Use Type
Additional Description
(as needed)
Projected Water Use
(Report To the Extent that Records are Available)
Drop down list
May select each use
multiple times
These are the only
Use Types that will be
recognized by the
WUEdata online
submittal tool
Potable or
NonPotable
(OPTIONAL)
Drop down
list
2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
opt
Add additional rows as needed.

Single Family Potable 3,113 3,134 3,156 3,177 -
Multi-Family Potable 336 339 341 343 -
Commercial
Builder; Commercial;
Utilities; Construction;
Manufacturing; Mining
Potable 161 162 163 164 -
Institutional /
Governmental Schools; City facilities Potable 124 125 126 127 - Landscape City landscape
irrigation Potable 11 11 11 11 -
Other Unbilled Unmetered
Consumption Potable 9 9 9 10
Distribution System
Water Loss Potable 160 160 160 160 -
Subtotal Potable 3,915 3,940 3,966 3,991 0
Subtotal Non-Potable 0 0 0 0 0
Total 3,915 3,940 3,966 3,991 0
DWR NOTES: Units of measure (AF, CCF, MG) must remain consistent throughout the UWMP as reported in Submittal Table 2-3. This table identifies the unit of measure selected in Submittal Table 2-3.

NOTES: Similar to projected population increases, the projected water use values are based on the same percentage increase of 0.677% increase per every 5 years, except to distribution system water loss. For projected future water loss, the City is expecting to meet the 2028 Water Loss Standard set by the state and as such the maximum amount of water loss from the city is 160 AF per year by 2028. The "Other" water use category accounts for unbilled unmetered water consumption and is estimated as 0.25% of the total billed consumption, in accordance with the AWWA water loss audit form.

City of Atwater
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
June 2026
4-7

4.2.6 Water Use for Lower Income Households
Legal Requirements:

CWC Section 10631.1:
(a) The water use projections required by Section 10631 shall include projected water use for singlefamily and multifamily residential housing needed for lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, as identified in the housing element of any city, county, or city and county in the service area of the supplier.
(b) It is the intent of the Legislature that the identification of projected water use for single-family and multifamily residential housing for lower income households will assist a supplier in complying with the requirement under Section 65589.7 of the Government Code to grant a priority for the provision of service to housing units affordable to lower income households.

California Health and Safety Code Section 50079.5 (a):
“Lower income households” means persons and families whose income does not exceed the qualifying limits for lower income families… In the event the federal standards are discontinued, the department shall, by regulation, establish income limits for lower income households for all geographic areas of the state at 80 percent of area median income, adjusted for family size and revised annually.

The City has included an estimation of water demand for low-income housing in this plan, as indicated in Table 4-4 (DWR Table 4-3 Retail). This section includes a discussion of projected water use for low-income households in the City’s service area.

Table 4-4 – Inclusion in Water Use Projections (DWR Table 4-3 Retail) Submittal Table 4-3 Retail: Inclusion in Water Use Projections Water Code Section 10631 (a), 10631 (d)(4)(A), and 10631 (d)(4)(B) Are Future Water Savings Included in Projections?
Drop down list (y/n)
Yes
If "Yes" to above, state the section or page number, in the cell to the right, where citations of the codes, ordinances, or otherwise are utilized in demand projections are found.

Optional Suppliers may complete Optional Submittal Table 4-4 R to quantify the expected savings.
4-6
Are Lower Income Residential Demands Included In Projections? Drop down list (y/n) Yes
Optional If the method for accounting Lower Income Residential Demands has been included, provide page number where this accounting can be found. 4-8 DWR NOTES: Additional guidance is provided in Appendix K.

NOTES: No additional notes.

SB 1087 approved on October 7, 2005 added certain provisions to the Government Code and amended a portion of the UWMPA. As it relates to the UWMPA, SB 1087 requires the water use projections of a UWMP to include the projected demands for single-family and multi-family residential housing needed for lower income households as identified in the housing element of any city or county in the service area

City of Atwater
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
June 2026
4-8
of the supplier (CWC § 10631(a).) A lower income household is any household that has an income below 80 percent of the area median income, adjusted for family size.

U.S. Census data from the 2024 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table S2503 indicate that in 2025 approximately 14,504 residents, assuming 3.8 persons per household, live in lower income households in the City [7]. Lower income households are classified as households which earn below 80% of the median income. Projected water demands associated with lower income residential water users through year 2045 are presented in Table 4-5. The projections assume the proportion of lower income residents to total residents remains constant and per capita water demands of 254 gpcd for 2025 and beyond.

Table 4-5 – City of Atwater Low Income Projected Water Demand Description
Year
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Total water use, AF 6,812 3,915 3,940 3,966 3,991
Total population 31,862 32,077 32,294 32,512 32,732
Lower income population 14,504 14,602 14,701 14,800 14,900 Lower income water demand, AF 3,101 1,782 1,794 1,805 1,817 a) Total water use is from Table 4-2 and 4-3.
b) Total population is from Table 3-2.
c) Lower income population estimated using US Census Bureau, American Community Survey, Table S2503 data for 2024. Ratio of lower income population to total population was assumed to be the same for 2025 through 2045.

4.2.7 Climate Change Considerations
Legal Requirements:

CWC Section 10630:

It is the intention of the Legislature, in enacting this part, to permit levels of water management planning commensurate with the numbers of customers served and the volume of water supplied, while accounting for impacts from climate change.

CWC Section 10635(b):

Every urban water supplier shall include, as part of its urban water management plan, a drought risk assessment … (and) shall include each of the following… (4) Considerations of the historical drought hydrology, plausible changes on projected supplies and demands under climate change conditions, anticipated regulatory changes, and other locally applicable criteria.

The 2018 Merced Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Update, adopted in February 2019 [8] (MIRWMP), addressed adaptation to the effects of climate change and mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions. Potential effects of climate change in the region of the City may include warmer temperatures, an increase in the uncertainty of future precipitation conditions, increases in extreme precipitation events, and increased wildfire frequency and severity. According to climate scientists, increases in global greenhouse gas levels are changing climate patterns around the world and, it is speculated, may begin to change at an accelerated pace from what has occurred in the past. An accelerated rate of change could potentially result in impacts to the local climate of the City in the form of higher temperatures, increased

City of Atwater
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
June 2026
4-9
droughts and floods, decreased snowpack amounts and durations, and other extreme variations in weather.

Previous City documents, such as the MIRWMP identified several resource management strategies to mitigate potential impacts on water supply on reliability. The resource management strategies include:
• Reducing water demand
• Improving operational efficiency and transfers
• Increasing water supply through implementation of conjunctive management of surface and groundwater supplies as well as through groundwater storage, recycled water use, and increased surface water storage, as appropriate
• Improving water quality
• Improving flood management
• Practicing resource stewardship
• Public outreach

4.3 Distribution System Water Losses
Legal Requirements:

CWC Section 10631(d)(3):
(A) The distribution system water loss shall be quantified for each of the five years preceding the plan update, in accordance with rules adopted pursuant to Section 10608.34. (B) The distribution system water loss quantification shall be reported in accordance with a worksheet approved or developed by the department through a public process. The water loss quantification worksheet shall be based on the water system balance methodology developed by the American Water Works Association.
(C) In the plan due July 1, 2021, and in each update thereafter, data shall be included to show whether the urban retail water supplier met the distribution loss standards enacted by the board pursuant to Section 10608.34.

The last five years of water loss audit reporting submittals are summarized in Table 4-6 (DWR Table 4-5 Retail). The water loss audits for 2020-2024 are in Appendix D.

City of Atwater
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
June 2026
4-10
Table 4-6 – Water Loss Audit Reporting (DWR Table 4-5 Retail) Submittal Table 4-5 Retail: Water Loss Audit Reporting
Water Code Section 10631(d)(3)(A)
Public Water System ID #
Reported in Table 2-1 R
Reporting
Period
Submitted to DWR Water Loss
Audit Program (yes/no)
Report submittal status for all five years for each Public Water System as available.

Add rows as needed
CA2410001
2020 Yes
2021 Yes
2022 Yes
2023 Yes
2024 Yes
DWR NOTES: Suppliers will provide a link to the WUEdata submittals of their Water Loss Audit Reports.

NOTES: Water Loss Audits provided in Appendix D.

4.4 Progress Toward Meeting the Water Loss Performance Standard Pursuant to Water Code Section 10631(d)(3)(C), the City is required to provide data demonstrating whether the City met its State Water Board Water Loss Performance Standard in 23 California Code of Regulations Section 980.

The Water Loss Performance Standards do not have to be met until 2028. However, Water Code Section 10631(d)(3)(C) still requires that the City includes data in its 2025 UWMP to show whether it met the requirement. Table 4-7 (DWR Table 4-6 Retail) provides an overview of the City’s progress towards meeting the 2028 water loss standards.

City of Atwater
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
June 2026
4-11
Table 4-7 – Progress Towards 2028 Water Loss Standard (DWR Table 4-6 Retail) Submittal Table 4-6 Retail: Progress Towards 2028 Water Loss Standard Water Code Section 10631(d)(3)(C) Public Water
System ID #
Reported in
Submittal Table
2-1 R
Did the Water Board
Calculate a Water Loss
Standard for this Public
Water System? (y/n)
If no, Supplier will not
complete this row.

Real Water Loss Apparent Water Loss
State Water Board Standard Most Recent AWWA Water Loss Audit Real Water
Loss Per Unit per
Day
State Water Board Standard Most Recent AWWA Water Loss Audit Apparent
Water Loss Per
Unit per Day
2028 Real Water
Loss Standard per
Unit per day
Units for Real
Water Loss
Drop down list
Number of Units
(Connections or
Miles
corresponding
with units
selected)
Volume of Total
Real Loss (from
AWWA Water Loss
Audit)
2028 Apparent
Water Loss
Standard per Unit
per Day
Units for
Apparent
Water Loss
Number of
Connections
Volume of Total
Apparent Loss
(from AWWA
Water Loss Audit)
Add additional rows as needed.

CA2410001 Yes 12.82
Gallons per
Service
Connection
per Day
(GPSCD)
7,885 1301.76 147.39 5.45
Gallons per
Service
Connection
per Day
(GPSCD)
7,885 73.27 8.30
Water Board’s Calculated Water Loss Standards
DWR NOTES: Units of measure (AF, CCF, MG) for Water Loss MUST remain consistent with units reported in Submittal Table 2-3. The units reported in Submittal Table 2-3 are used in this table’s calculations. NOTES: Fiscal Year 2024 Water Loss Audit is the most Recent AWWA Water Loss Audit submitted. As such, the Fiscal Year 2024 Water Loss Audit was used to document the number of connections, real water loss, and apparent water loss.

City of Atwater
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
June 2026
5-1
5 SB X7-7 Baselines, 2020 Targets, and 2025 Targeting
With the adoption of the Water Conservation Act of 2009, also known as the SB X7-7, the State of California was required to reduce urban per capita water use by 20 percent by the year 2020 (i.e., “20 by 2020”). CWC Section 10608.16(a) states: “The state shall achieve a 20-percent reduction in urban per capita water use in California on or before December 31, 2020.” To achieve this statewide objective, the California Legislature required each urban retail water supplier subject to the UWMPA to develop an urban water use target to help the state collectively achieve a 20-percent reduction.

This chapter provides a description of the methodology used to calculate the City’s compliance with SB X7-7 requirements.

5.1 Baseline and Target Calculations for 2025 UWMPs
Legal Requirements:

CWC Section 10608.40:

Urban water retail suppliers shall report to the department on their progress in meeting their urban water use targets as part of their urban water management plans submitted pursuant to Section 10631.

CWC Section 10608.12:
(af) “Urban retail water supplier” means a water supplier, either publicly or privately owned, that directly provides potable municipal water to more than 3,000 end users or that supplies The City is required under the CWC to report its progress toward achieving the 2020 water use reduction target. In its 2020 UWMP, the City established SB X7-7 baselines and a 2020 target of 254 gpcd. The City did meet this target in 2020.

Table 5-1 (DWR Table 5-1 Retail) summarizes the targeted water use value as well as the actual water use in 2020 to confirm the target was achieved.

City of Atwater
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
June 2026
5-2
Table 5-1 – SBX7-7 2020 Target Progress (DWR Table 5-1 Retail) Submittal Table 5-1 Retail: SB X7-7 2020 Target Progress Water Code Section 10608.40
Check the box if the Supplier was not an Urban Water Supplier during or before the 2020 UWMP reporting cycle. Proceed to the next table.

Was Supplier
part of a
merger or
consolidation
since 2020?
Regional
Alliance
Target or
Individual
Target?
Drop down
list
2020 Target Actual
2020 GPCD
Did
Supplier
Achieve
Targeted
Reduction
for 2020?
Only for suppliers that did
not meet the Target in 2020
See DWR NOTES below.

Actual 2025
GPCD
(From SB X7-
7 Compliance
Form)
Did Supplier
meet the
2020 Target
in 2025?
No Individual 254 241 Yes NA
DWR NOTES:

Suppliers calculating a 2025 GPCD will need to complete and submit SB X 7-7 Compliance Tables to verify the use of SB X7-7 Methodologies.

Suppliers that were part of a merger or consolidation since 2020 see Chapter 5 and Appendix P for guidance.

NA=Not Applicable
NOTES: 2020 Target GPCD value was met in 2020. 2025 GPCD is not needed to be analyzed.

5.2 Funding Eligibility
Legal Requirements:

CWC Section 10608.56:

On and after July 1, 2016, an urban retail water supplier is not eligible for a water grant or loan awarded or administered by the state unless the supplier complies with this part.

The City has met the 2020 Target and is therefore eligible to receive water-related grants or loans from the State of California.

City of Atwater
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
June 2026
6-1
6 Water Supply Characterization
Legal Requirements:

CWC Section 10631(b):

Identify and quantify, to the extent practicable, the existing and planned sources of water available to the supplier as described in subdivision (a) [in five-year increments to 20 years or as far as data is available] 1, providing supporting and related information, including all of the following:
(1) A detailed discussion of anticipated supply availability under a normal water year, single dry year, and droughts lasting at least five years, as well as more frequent and severe periods of drought, as described in the drought risk assessment. For each source of water supply, consider any information pertinent to the reliability analysis conducted pursuant to Section 10635, including changes in supply due to climate change.
(2) When multiple sources of water supply are identified, a description of the management of each supply in correlation with the other identified supplies. (3) For any planned sources of water supply, a description of the measures that are being undertaken to acquire and develop those water supplies.

CWC 10631 (h):
... The wholesale agency shall provide information to the urban water supplier for inclusion in the urban water supplier’s plan that identifies and quantifies, to the extent practicable, the existing and planned sources of water as required by subdivision (b), available from the wholesale agency to the urban water supplier over the same five-year increments, and during various water-year types in accordance with subdivision (f). An urban water supplier may rely upon water supply information provided by the wholesale agency in fulfilling the plan informational requirements of subdivisions (b) and (f).

The UWMPA requires that the UWMP include a description of the agency’s existing and future water supply sources for the next 20 years. This chapter will provide the following information:
• Existing and planned sources of water;
• Projections of the water supplies over five-year increments through 2045; • Description of anticipated availability under normal, single dry, and five-year droughts; • Description of the management of each supply in correlation; and • Description of information pertinent to the reliability of the supplies, including considerations for climate change effects.

6.1 UWMP Water Supply Characterization
The following sections of this chapter discuss the varying water supply availability based on the supply type which includes:
• Purchased or Imported Water
• Groundwater
• Surface Water
• Stormwater

City of Atwater
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
June 2026
6-2
• Wastewater and Recycled Water
• Desalinated Water
• Water Exchanges and Transfers
• Supply from Storage
• Other Water Supplies
• Future Water Projects

6.1.1 Purchased or Imported Water
The City does not currently purchase or import water from any other water supply or entity.

6.1.2 Groundwater
Legal Requirements:

CWC Section 10631(b)(4):

If groundwater is identified as an existing or planned source of water available to the supplier, all of the following information:
(A) The current version of any groundwater sustainability plan or alternative adopted pursuant to Part

2.74 (commencing with Section 10720), any groundwater management plan adopted by the urban water supplier, including plans adopted pursuant to Part 2.75 (commencing with Section 10750), or any other specific authorization for groundwater management for basins underlying the urban water supplier’s service area.
(B) A description of any groundwater basin or basins from which the urban water supplier pumps groundwater. For basins that a court or the board has adjudicated the rights to pump groundwater, a copy of the order or decree adopted by the court or the board and a description of the amount of groundwater the urban water supplier has the legal right to pump under the order or decree. For a basin that has not been adjudicated, information as to whether the department has identified the basin as a high- or medium-priority basin in the most current official departmental bulletin that characterizes the condition of the groundwater basin, and a detailed description of the efforts being undertaken by the urban water supplier to coordinate with groundwater sustainability agencies or groundwater management agencies listed in subdivision (c) of Section 10723 to maintain or achieve sustainable groundwater conditions in accordance with a groundwater sustainability plan or alternative adopted pursuant to Part 2.74 (commencing with Section 10720).
€ A detailed description and analysis of the location, amount, and sufficiency of groundwater pumped by the urban water supplier for the past five years. The description and analysis shall be based on information that is reasonably available, including, but not limited to, historic use records. (D) A detailed description and analysis of the amount and location of groundwater that is projected to be pumped by the urban water supplier. The description and analysis shall be based on information that is reasonably available, including, but not limited to, historic use records.

Through 2025, groundwater supplies were used to meet all water needs in the City. The local groundwater source is the Merced Subbasin. The Merced Subbasin is designated as a DWR high priority basin.

The City currently operates 9 active wells (Wells 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20-A, and 21) with a total rated pumping capacity of approximately 17,167 gpm. The capacities of wells currently in service are provided in Table 6-1. To calculate the available water supply from groundwater, it is calculated that the total production rate is only 80% of all active wells capacity to conservatively estimate the reliability of wells

City of Atwater
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
June 2026
6-3
performing as intended. Based on this methodology, the estimated peak groundwater supply capacity available to the City is approximately 13,700 gpm.

Table 6-1 – Well Capacity
Well Name Well Capacity (gpm)
Well 13 1,524
Well 14 2,568
Well 15 2,575
Well 16 2,000
Well 17 2,000
Well 18 1,300
Well 19 1,500
Well 20-A 2,000
Well 21 1,700
Peak Well Capacity 17,167
80% Peak Capacity 13,700
(a) Well pump capacity as reported in the Water Master Plan [2] The wells are operated by individual pressure switches at the wellheads, which regulates pressure to be between 45 and 65 pounds per square inch. On average, 6.08 MG of water is pumped per day with a total annual production volume of 2,219 MG (6,810 AF).

Since preparation of the 2020 UWMP, no new groundwater supply sources have been added to the City’s water system, with the exception of the reactivation of Well No. 20, which had not been in regular service since 2011. The return of Well No. 20 to active service enhances the City’s ability to meet projected increases in water demand associated with planned growth and buildout. Groundwater quality constraints and their potential effects on water supply reliability are discussed further in Chapter 7.

6.1.2.1 Groundwater Basin Description
The Merced Subbasin is located on the eastern side of California’s San Joaquin Valley and lies entirely within Merced County. The subbasin is bound by the Tuolumne River to the north, the Chowchilla River to the south, the San Joaquin River to the west, and the western extent of the Sierra Nevada foothills and crystalline basement rock outcrops to the east. The subbasin underlies a region characterized by a combination of agricultural, urban, and rural land uses distributed throughout the basin.

The Merced Subbasin encompasses approximately 460,000 acres [3]. Agricultural land uses account for a substantial portion of water consumption within the subbasin and are comprised primarily of irrigated cropland, orchards, vineyards, and pasturelands. Native vegetation and open space areas are present primarily along river corridors and in foothill areas, while urban development is concentrated within incorporated cities, including the City of Atwater, as well as in surrounding unincorporated communities.

Over time, the subbasin has experienced a gradual increase in urban land uses, largely associated with population growth within city boundaries and along major transportation corridors.

City of Atwater
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
June 2026
6-4
Agricultural development within the Merced Subbasin expanded significantly during the mid-20th century with the conversion of non-irrigated lands to irrigated agriculture. While agricultural land use has generally stabilized in recent decades, changes in crop types and irrigation practices continue to influence groundwater demand. Urban land uses have increased steadily, particularly within incorporated cities and adjacent areas, resulting in increased municipal and industrial groundwater pumping in localized areas.

Groundwater is a critical water supply source for municipal, industrial, and agricultural users throughout the Merced Subbasin. Many urban water systems, including the City of Atwater, rely primarily on groundwater to meet existing and projected demands. The groundwater aquifer from which the City obtains its water is not adjudicated. An adjudication consists of a groundwater basin in which all rights to water could be defined by a court. As a non-adjudicated basin, there are no defined legal pumping rights for the City and there are no legal constraints on groundwater pumping.

As urban growth and agricultural water needs continue, coordinated groundwater management and continued evaluation of groundwater conditions are essential to ensure the long-term sustainability of the Merced Subbasin. In September 2014, Governor Brown signed the SGMA into law. This legislation is intended to provide a framework for local agencies to manage groundwater supplies and to restrict state intervention, if required. The three legislative bills that make up the SGMA are AB 1739, SB 1319, and SB 1168. The SGMA requires local agencies with basins classified as high-priority to form GSAs and to prepare and implement a GSP to achieve long-term groundwater sustainability and avoid undesirable results. The Merced Subbasin was classified as a high-priority basin in the SGMA 2019 Basin Prioritization, completed in December 2019. In response to SGMA, eligible local agencies within the Merced Subbasin coordinated to form multiple GSAs covering the entire Subbasin, known as the Merced Subbasin GSA, Merced Irrigation-Urban GSA, and the Turner Island Water District GSA.

The Merced Irrigation-Urban GSA is a joint powers authority composed of multiple local agencies, including City of Atwater, City of Livingston, City of Merced, Le Grand Community Services District, Merced Irrigation District, Planada Community Services District, and Winton Water and Sanitary District. The Merced Irrigation-Urban GSA is responsible for implementing SGMA requirements and managing groundwater resources in the subbasin in a coordinated and sustainable manner.

A map displaying the boundaries of the Merced Subbasin and the GSA agency breakdown is displayed in Figure 6-1.

City of Atwater
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
June 2026
6-5
Figure 6-1 – Merced Groundwater Basin Location and Boundaries Source: Merced Subbasin GSA Member Agencies Figure from Merced Subbasin GSA Website in March 2026.

The Merced Subbasin GSA, Merced Irrigation-Urban GSA, and the Turner Island Water District GSA collaborated together and have prepared a single GSP for the entire Merced Subbasin to guide groundwater management through the SGMA planning horizon of at least 2042. The GSP was submitted to the DWR and has since been updated to incorporate additional data, stakeholder input, and regulatory feedback. The GSP establishes basin-specific sustainable management criteria and identifies projects and management actions intended to avoid undesirable results, including chronic lowering of groundwater levels, reductions in groundwater storage, seawater intrusion, degraded water quality, land subsidence, and depletions of interconnected surface waters.

Work completed to date under the GSP includes development of a hydrogeologic conceptual model, basin water budget analyses, monitoring networks, and the establishment of measurable objectives and minimum thresholds to support long-term groundwater sustainability within the Merced Subbasin.

6.1.2.2 Past Five Years
Table 6-2 (DWR Table 6-1 Retail) lists the groundwater volume pumped by the City from the Merced Subbasin for the past five years.

City of Atwater
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
June 2026
6-6
Table 6-2 – Groundwater Volume Pumped (DWR Table 6-1 Retail) Submittal Table 6-1 Retail: Groundwater Volume Pumped
Water Code Section 10631(4) and 10631(4)(c)
Check the box if the Supplier does not pump groundwater.

Proceed to the next table.

Check the box if all or part of the groundwater described below is desalinated. (OPTIONAL)
Groundwater Type
Drop Down List
May use each category
multiple times
Potable or
NonPotable
(OPTIONAL)
Drop down
list
Location or Basin
Name 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Add additional rows as needed
Alluvial Basin Potable Merced Subbasin 8,056 7,348 7,121 6,801 6,812 Total 8,056 7,348 7,121 6,801 6,812
DWR NOTES:

Units of measure (AF, CCF, MG) must remain consistent throughout the UWMP as reported in Submittal Table 2-3. This table identifies the unit of measure selected in Submittal Table 2-3.

NOTES: No additional notes.

6.1.2.3 Projected
With implementation of the 2028 Water Loss Standard, as discussed in Section 4, the City plans to implement additional practices and operational measures to further reduce water losses within the distribution system. As these measures are implemented, groundwater production required to meet overall water demand is anticipated to decrease in the near term.

Over the longer term, as water loss levels stabilize and the City continues to grow, population increases and expansion of the water system are expected to result in higher overall water demand. Consequently, groundwater production is projected to increase to meet future demands. Additional details regarding projected groundwater demand and usage are provided in Section 6.1.10.

6.1.3 Surface Water
The City does not currently receive any water supply from surface water.

6.1.4 Stormwater
The City’s storm drainage system primarily consists of man-made irrigation canals that carry storm runoff and two drainage canals that provide drainage from the City. The canals transport stormwater from the City, and the stormwater eventually drains to the San Joaquin River. In addition, the system consists of catch basins that collect runoff water from the street, pump stations that are used to remove stormwater from sections of road that cannot be drained by gravity, pipes of various sizes, as well as a detention basin

City of Atwater
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
June 2026
6-7
to prevent flooding. Stormwater is not currently captured or used by the City as a potable supplemental water supply source.

Atwater covers all costs of maintaining drainage facilities and infrastructure except in the case of the Merced Irrigation District (MID) facilities used by the City. Discharge from within the City flows to MID facilities. The maintenance costs of these shared facilities are borne by Atwater and MID based on percentage of usage. In 2010, Atwater provided 60 percent of maintenance costs and the MID supplies 40 percent.

6.1.5 Wastewater and Recycled Water
Legal Requirements:

CWC Section 10633:

The plan shall provide, to the extent available, information on recycled water and its potential for use as a water source in the service area of the urban water supplier. The preparation of the plan shall be coordinated with local water, wastewater, groundwater, and planning agencies that operate within the supplier’s service area, and shall include all of the following:
(a) A description of the wastewater collection and treatment systems in the supplier’s service area, including a quantification of the amount of wastewater collected and treated and the methods of wastewater disposal.
(b) A description of the quantity of treated wastewater that meets recycled water standards, is being discharged, and is otherwise available for use in a recycled water project. (c) A description of the recycled water currently being used in the supplier’s service area, including, but not limited to, the type, place, and quantity of use.
(d) A description and quantification of the potential uses of recycled water, including, but not limited to, agricultural irrigation, landscape irrigation, wildlife habitat enhancement, wetlands, industrial reuse, groundwater recharge, indirect potable reuse, and other appropriate uses, and a determination with regard to the technical and economic feasibility of serving those uses. (e) The projected use of recycled water within the supplier’s service area at the end of 5, 10, 15, and 20 years, and a description of the actual use of recycled water in comparison to uses previously projected pursuant to this subdivision.
(f) A description of actions, including financial incentives, which may be taken to encourage the use of recycled water, and the projected results of these actions in terms of acre-feet of recycled water used per year.
(g) A plan for optimizing the use of recycled water in the supplier’s service area, including actions to facilitate the installation of dual distribution systems, to promote recirculating uses, to facilitate the increased use of treated wastewater that meets recycled water standards, and to overcome any obstacles to achieving that increased use.

The UWMPA requires that the UWMP address the opportunities for development of recycled water, including the description of existing recycled water applications, quantities of wastewater currently being treated to recycled water standards, limitations on the use of available recycled water, an estimate of projected recycled water use, the feasibility of said projected uses, and practices to encourage the use of recycled water.

City of Atwater
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
June 2026
6-8

6.1.5.1 Recycled Water Coordination
Legal Requirements:

CWC Section 10633:

The plan shall provide, to the extent available, information on recycled water and its potential for use as a water source in the service area of the urban water supplier. The preparation of the plan shall be coordinated with local water, wastewater, groundwater, and planning agencies that operate within the supplier’s service area…
At present, the City does not offer recycled water service to its customers. As the City serves as both the potable water provider and the wastewater collection and treatment agency, coordination of any changes related to recycled water use would occur internally within the City and in consultation with the contracted operators of the water and wastewater treatment systems.

6.1.5.2 Wastewater Collection, Treatment, and Disposal
Legal Requirements:

CWC Section 10633(a):

A description of the wastewater collection and treatment systems in the supplier’s service area, including a quantification of the amount of wastewater collected and treated and the methods of wastewater disposal.

In 2012, construction of a new regional wastewater treatment plant on Bert Crane Road, approximately 6 miles south from the previous facility, was completed. The new treatment plant has a capacity of 6 million gallons per day (mgd). The quality of treatment was improved to enable the City to meet the California Regional Water Quality Control Board’s discharge requirements. The updated treatment plant is also designed to allow for expansion, when needed, to handle flows from future development.

The wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) is owned by the City but operated by a private contractor, Veolia Water North America, West. The 2025 average daily flow was 3.11 mgd. This value corresponds to approximately 52 percent of the current average daily permitted flow.

The WWTP receives and treats wastewater from the City as well as the Winton Water and Sanitary District and Castle Airport. Castle Airport includes the entire old Castle Air Force Base, which is now Castle Airport, the federal prison, Castle Gardens, and the old Air Force off-base housing (redeveloped for single-family residential land use).

Tables 6-3 (DWR Table 6-2 Retail) summarize wastewater flow volumes collected within the service area during 2025.

City of Atwater
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
June 2026
6-9
Table 6-3 – Wastewater Collected within Service Area (DWR Table 6-2 Retail) Submittal Table 6-2 Retail: Wastewater Collected Within Service Area Water Code Section 10633(a)

Check the box if there is no wastewater collection system.

Proceed to the next table.

Percentage of 2025 service area served by wastewater collection system (OPTIONAL)

Percentage of 2025 service area population served by wastewater collection system (OPTIONAL)
Wastewater Collection Recipient of Collected Wastewater Name of Wastewater
Collection Agency
Wastewater
Volume
Metered or
Estimated?

OPTIONAL
Drop Down
List
Volume of
Wastewater
Collected from
UWMP Service
Area 2025
Name of Wastewater
Treatment Plant
(WWTP) and Place ID
Number
Drop down list
Is WWTP
Located
Within
UWMP
Area?
Drop Down
List
Add additional rows as needed
City of Atwater Metered 3,504 Atwater Regional
WWTF, Place ID 747519 No
Total Wastewater Received from
UWMP Service Area in 2025: 3,504
DWR NOTES: Units of measure (AF, CCF, MG) must remain consistent throughout the UWMP as reported in Submittal Table 2-3. This table identifies the unit of measure selected in Submittal Table 2-3.

Additional Guidance. See Appendix M, Section M.21 for detailed guidance on this table.

NOTES: Volume of wastewater collected includes wastewater from City of Atwater, Castle Airport, and the Winton Water and Sanitary District (WWSD).

The City’s volume of wastewater treated and disposed of in their service area is documented in Table 6-4 (DWR Table 6-3 Retail).

City of Atwater
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
June 2026
6-10
Table 6-4 – Wastewater Treatment and Discharge within UWMP Service Area (DWR Table 6-3 Retail) Submittal Table 6-3 Retail: Wastewater Treatment and Outcomes Within UWMP Service Area Water Code Section 10633(a) Check the box if no wastewater is treated or disposed of within the UWMP service area.Proceed to the next table.

Wastewater
Treatment Plant
Name and Place ID
Number
Drop down list
Does This
Plant Treat
Wastewater
Generated
Outside the
UWMP
Service Area?
(OPTIONAL)
Drop down list
2025 Volume
of
Wastewater
Received
from UWMP
Service Area
(As Reported
in Submittal
Table 6-2 R)
Total
2025
Volume
of Water
Treated
2025 Outcomes of Treated Wastewater
Water Recycled Within
UWMP Service Area
(enter data as applicable)
Water Recycled
Outside of UWMP
Service Area
(enter data as applicable)
Effluent Discharge that
is not a Permitted
Recycled Water Use
(enter data as applicable)
Required Discharge for
Instream Flow
(enter data as applicable)
Delivered to Another Entity for Additional
Treatment
(enter data as applicable)
Treatment
Level
Drop down list
Volume
Treatment
Level
Drop down list
Volume
Treatment
Level
Drop down list
Volume
Treatment
Level
Drop down list
Volume
Treatment
Level
Drop down list
Volume Name of other entity
Add additional rows as needed
Total 0
-
0 0 0 0 0
DWR NOTES:

Units of measure (AF, CCF, MG) must remain consistent throughout the UWMP as reported in Submittal Table 2-3. This table identifies the unit of measure selected in Submittal Table 2-3. IPR: Indirect Potable Reuse would have the treatment level of its end use requirement in the Level of Treatment drop-down. Additional Guidance. See Appendix M, Section M.21 for detailed guidance on this table.

NOTES: Volume of wastewater treated includes wastewater from City of Atwater, Castle Airport, and the Winton Water and Sanitary District. Disinfected tertiary treated effluent is discharged into the Atwater Drain, which leads to various farming operations and a wildlife refuge area.

City of Atwater
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
June 2026
6-11

6.1.5.3 Recycled Water System Description
Legal Requirements:

CWC Section 10633 (c):

A description of the recycled water currently being used in the supplier’s service area, including, but not limited to, the type, place, and quantity of use.

No recycled water is currently being used in the City’s service area.

6.1.5.4 Current, Potential, and Projected Recycled Water Uses Legal Requirements:

CWC Section 10633:
(b) A description of the quantity of treated wastewater that meets recycled water standards, is being discharged, and is otherwise available for use in a recycled water project. (d) A description and quantification of the potential uses of recycled water, including, but not limited to, agricultural irrigation, landscape irrigation, wildlife habitat enhancement, wetlands, industrial reuse, groundwater recharge, indirect potable reuse, and other appropriate uses, and a determination with regard to the technical and economic feasibility of serving those uses. (e) The projected use of recycled water within the supplier’s service area at the end of 5, 10, 15, and 20 years, and a description of the actual use of recycled water in comparison to uses previously projected pursuant to this subdivision.

In 1978, Joseph Gallo and the City of Atwater entered into an agreement where Gallo Farms agreed to accept and use up to 6 mgd of treated wastewater from the WWTP. Currently, about 90 percent of all treated wastewater is discharged into the Atwater Drain and disposed of through land application or disposal. The treated wastewater travels approximately 5 miles downstream to the Joseph Gallo Ranch.

During the irrigation season, 100 percent of the treated wastewater from the Atwater Drain is used to irrigate crops on the Gallo Ranch. Unused treated wastewater travels through the Gallo Ranch to the Bert Crane Sunshine Ranch that was purchased by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and converted back to wetland habitat. The majority of the treated wastewater reaching the Gallo Ranch during the winter months is diverted to the USFWS wetland habitat.

Currently, approximately 10 percent of the treated wastewater is recycled back into the treatment plant for utility water use. Chlorinated water is pumped from the head of the chlorine contact chambers to the plant utility water supply system. Utility water is used for chlorine makeup water, sprayer water, landscape irrigation, and washdown water. All utility water eventually ends up being disposed of through land application or disposal.

Because all treated wastewater is used downstream of the service area, it is not technically or economically feasible to use recycled water within the City’s service area. Therefore, Tables 6-5 (DWR Table 6-4 Retail) and 6-6 (DWR Table 6-5 Retail) show that there are no current or projected beneficial uses of recycled water within the service area.

City of Atwater
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
June 2026
6-12
Table 6-5 – Recycled Water Direct Beneficial Uses Within Service Area (DWR Table 6-4 Retail) Submittal Table 6-4 Retail: Recycled Water Direct Beneficial Uses Within Service Area Water Code Section 10633 (c),(€(e) Check box if recycled water is not used and is not planned for use within the service area of the supplier. The supplier will only complete the column on "Potential Recycled Water Use" and submit an accompanying narrative on the feasibility of that potential recycled water use.

Name(s) of Facility/ies Producing (Treating) the Recycled Water (OPTIONAL) : Name of Supplier Operating the Recycled Water Distribution System (OPTIONAL) : Supplemental Water Added in 2025 (volume) Include units (OPTIONAL) : Source of 2025 Supplemental Water (OPTIONAL) :

Use Type
Drop down list
Potable or Non-Potable
(after treatment if treated)
(OPTIONAL)
Drop down list
Additional Information
(as needed) 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Potential Recycled Water Use
Volume Narrative page number (OPTIONAL)
Add additional rows as needed
0 6-11; Section 6.1.5.4
Subtotal Potable 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Subtotal Non-Potable 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
DWR NOTES: Units of measure (AF, CCF, MG) must remain consistent throughout the UWMP as reported in Submittal Table 2-3. This table identifies the unit of measure selected in Submittal Table 2-3.

Additional Guidance: See Appendix M, Section M.21 for detailed guidance on this table. Potential recycled water use: a description of the feasibility of these uses must be included in the narrative. Multiple Producers: If you have multiple recycled water producers, submit a separate table for each.

NOTES: No additional notes.

City of Atwater
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
June 2026
6-13
Table 6-6 – 2020 UWMP Recycled Water Use Projection Compared to 2025 Actual (DWR Table 6-5 Retail)
Submittal Table 6-5 Retail: 2020 UWMP Recycled Water Use Projection Compared to 2025 Actual
Water Code Section 10633 (e)

Check the box if recycled water was not used in 2025 nor previously projected for use in 2020.

Proceed to the next table.

Use Type
Drop Down list
2020 Projection
for 2025
2025 Actual
Use
Add additional rows as needed

Total 0 0
DWR NOTES:

Units of measure (AF, CCF, MG) must remain consistent throughout the UWMP as reported in Submittal Table 2-3. This table identifies the unit of measure reported in Submittal Table 2-3
Additional Guidance. See Appendix M, Section M.21 for detailed guidance on this table.

NOTES: No additional notes.

6.1.5.5 Actions to Encourage and Optimize Future Recycled Water Use Legal Requirements:

CWC Section 10633:

The plan shall provide, to the extent available, information on recycled water and its potential for use as a water source in the service area of the urban water supplier… and shall include the following:
(g) A plan for optimizing the use of recycled water in the supplier’s service area, including actions to facilitate the installation of dual distribution systems, to promote recirculating uses, to facilitate the increased use of treated wastewater that meets recycled water standards, and to overcome any obstacles to achieving that increased use.

The City is currently in the environmental review process for a project determined to provide the City the ability to discharge the treated water into Black Rascal Creek for beneficial use for farming and other surface water needs outside the service area. Other than this planned project, all other treated wastewater is currently being completely, beneficially used, there are no plans to recycle water for any other purposes. Table 6-7 (DWR Table 6-6 Retail) summarizes methods to expand future recycled water use.

City of Atwater
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
June 2026
6-14
Table 6-7 – Methods to Encourage Future Recycled Water Use (DWR Table 6-6 Retail) Submittal Table 6-6 Retail: Methods to Encourage Future Recycled Water Use Water Code Section 10633 (f)

Check the box if the Supplier does not plan to expand recycled water use in the future. Supplier will not complete the table below but will provide narrative explanation.
6-11 Provide page location of narrative in the UWMP
Name of Action Description
Planned
Implementation
Year
Expected Increase in
Recycled Water Use
Add additional rows as needed

Total 0
Unit Conversion to AF 0
DWR NOTES:

Units of measure (AF, CCF, MG) MUST remain consistent with units reported in Submittal Table 2-3.

The units reported in Submittal Table 2-3 are used in this table's calculations.

The unit conversion to Acre Feet addresses the Water Code's requirement that this value be provided in acre-feet.

NOTES: No additional notes.

6.1.6 Desalinated Water Opportunities
Legal Requirements:

CWC Section 10631(g):

Describe the opportunities for development of desalinated water, including, but not limited to, ocean water, brackish water, and groundwater, as a long-term supply.

The City is located inland and does not have access to coastal waters; therefore, seawater desalination is not applicable and is not currently considered a technically or economically feasible water supply option.

Additionally, desalination of brackish surface water or groundwater is not presently required to meet municipal demands.

6.1.7 Water Exchanges and Transfers
Legal Requirements:

CWC Section 10631(c):

Describe the opportunities for exchanges or transfers of water on a short-term or long-term basis.

The City is not in close proximity to other water producers to make exchanges or transfers of water practical.

6.1.8 Supply from Storage
The City does not currently or plan to in the future use water from storage or underground storage as part of the City’s water supply.

City of Atwater
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
June 2026
6-15

6.1.9 Future Water Projects
Legal Requirements:

CWC Section 10631 (f):

Include a description of all water supply projects and water supply programs that may be undertaken by the urban water supplier to meet the total projected water use, as established pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 10635. The urban water supplier shall include a detailed description of expected future projects and programs that the urban water supplier may implement to increase the amount of the water supply available to the urban water supplier in normal and single dry water years and for a period of drought lasting five consecutive water years. The description shall identify specific projects and include a description of the increase in water supply that is expected to be available from each project.

The description shall include an estimate with regard to the implementation timeline for each project or program.

Since adoption of the 2020 UWMP, the City successfully returned Well No. 20-A to active service in October 2025. The well had been offline since 2011, and its reactivation provides additional system redundancy to better accommodate future development and increased water demands within the City.

In addition, all municipal well sites, with the exception of Well No. 21, have been equipped with treatment systems to address 1,2,3-trichloropropane (TCP).

At this time, the City is proposing the construction of new water pipelines to serve the existing and future development surrounding Phase 1 of the Atwater-Merced Expressway project. This project includes approximately 1 mile of water main from Gurr Road to Buhach Road along the South side of Green Sands Avenue. As such the project is called Green Sands Utility Extension.

In regards to future water supply projects, there are currently none planned for in the near future as specified in Table 6-8 (DWR Table 6-7 Retail).

City of Atwater
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
June 2026
6-16
Table 6-8 – Expected Future Water Supply Projects or Programs (DWR Table 6-7 Retail) Submittal Table 6-7 Retail: Expected Future Water Supply Projects or Programs Water Code Section 10631 (f)

Check the box if there are no expected future water supply projects or programs that provide a quantifiable increase to the agency's water supply.

Proceed to the next table.

Check the box if some or all of the supplier's future water supply projects or programs are not compatible with this table and are described in a narrative format.

Provide page location of narrative in the UWMP
Name of
Future
Projects
or
Programs
Joint Project with
other suppliers?
Additional
Description
(as
needed)
Potable or
Non-Potable
(after
treatment if
treated)
(OPTIONAL)
Drop Down
list
Planned
Implementation
Year
Planned
for Use
in Year
Type
Drop
Down List
Expected
Increase
in
Water
Supply
to
Supplier
(This may
be a
range)
Drop
Down
List
(yes/no)
If Yes,
Supplier
Name
Add additional rows as needed

DWR NOTES:

Units of measure (AF, CCF, MG) must remain consistent throughout the UWMP as reported in Submittal Table 2-3. This table identifies the unit of measure reported in Submittal Table 2-3.

NOTES: No additional notes.

6.1.10 Summary of Existing and Planned Sources of Water This section describes the types of water that is supplied to the City and the quantity supplied by each water source.

6.1.10.1 Description of Supplies
The City’s water supply portfolio relies primarily on local groundwater and does not currently include any purchased or imported water supplies or surface water sources. Through 2025, municipal demands were met entirely through groundwater production from nine active wells (Wells 13–21) with a total rated capacity of approximately 17,167 gpm (about 13,700 gpm at 80 percent reliability). Groundwater is produced from the Merced Subbasin which is managed under SGMA by the Merced Subbasin GSA through a single GSP intended to guide sustainable basin management through at least 2042.