Agenda, regular meeting, second session — Bakersfield City Council, August 26, 2026 (part 2 of 8)

The State Water Board acknowledges that consolidation is a complex process and stands ready to assist you so that you are successful in delivering safe, affordable and accessible drinking water in a cost-effective manner. Pursuant to Health & Safety Code section 116682, subdivision (b) (6) (A), during the six month negotiation period, the State Water Board will provide technical assistance and work with the City and the South Kern Mutual Water Company to develop an appropriate and necessary financing package. Technical assistance will be available from the State Water Board Division of Drinking Water (DDW) and Division of Financial Assistance (DFA).

If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Mrs. Tricia Wathen, Visalia District Engineer for the State Water Board, DOW, at (559) 447-3398, or me at (559) 447-3132. For funding related questions, please contact the Division of Financial Assistance at (916) 341-5700.

Sincerely,
Carl L. Carlucci, P.E.

Supervising Sanitary Engineer
Central California Section

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA BRANCH

DRINKING WATER FIELD OPERATIONS
Enclosure
cc: Honorable Harvey L. Hall, Mayor, City of Bakersfield Mr. Art Chianello, Water Resources Manager, City of Bakersfield Mr. Jason Meadors, Water Resources Director, City of Bakersfield City Council, City of Bakersfield
Ms. Donna Fenton, Kern County Environmental Health Department Ms. Rebecca Moore, Executive Officer, Kern County LAFCo ,.
a. ,,,o,11n ,.

Water Boards
State Water Resources Control Board
Division ol Drinking Walor
November 10, 2015
Ms. Sherry Seltlemoir, President
South Kern Mutual Water Company - Water System No. 1500344 9612 Beam Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93311
Dear Ms. Settlemoir:

Effective June 24, 2015, Senate Bill 88 (Statutes 2015, Chapter 27) added Sections 116680 - 116684 to California Health & Safety Code, addressing consolidation of public water systems.

Our records indicate that the water delivered by South Kern Mutual Water Company (System No. 1500344) public water system (System) contains uranium at levels that have exceeded the maximum contaminant level (MCL) established in state and federal regulations. However, adequate follow-up sampling was not conducted. The last sample collected in September of 2015 showed a uranium level of 21 picocuries per liter (pCi/L) which exceeds the uranium maximum contaminant level of 20 pCi/L. Since the uranium compliance is determined on a running annual average based on quarterly samples, it will take additional monitoring to determine compliance. If the System is deemed to be out of compliance with the uranium MCL, the System will be required to correct the problem.

It is our understanding that the System's service area is outside the boundaries of City of Bakersfield (City) but within the City's sphere of influence. There is a funding project to connect Lakeside School to the City of Bakersfield with a transmission pipe along Old River Road. It is also our understanding that the proposed transmission main to Lakeside School will pass along your water system. In addition to Lakeside School, there is another small public water system along the proposed transmission pipe alignment - Old River Road Mutual Water Company which has been in non-compliance with the uranium MCL since 2009. According to our records, your System and the Old River Mutual Water Company have distribution systems within 100 feet.

The State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) strongly encourages the System and the City to work out voluntary consolidation of their public water systems. However, if a voluntary consolidation is nol timely achieved, the State Water Board may determine to exercise its authority pursuant to Health & Safety Code section 116682, subdivision (a) to achieve consolidation of System with the City's public water system.

The State Water Board acknowledges that consolidation is a complex process and stands ready to assist you so that you are successful in delivering safe, affordable and accessible drinking water to your community in a cost-effective manner. The State Water Board will provide technical assistance and won< with the City and lakeside School, Old River Water Company and South Ftl ILi'\ MA!ll'IJ.i, r.1 •~1R ( Tttlll,IAC How~ou, c,,~ur,v, DIAECI Oll 1001 I She111. Sncro111en10, CA O!t8I,I I M:ulmg Adrlt1$•1 PO tln.c 100, $.'lc1:t1111'\nlo. CA 958I2-0UlO I w.vw wnlftfl)tln1tk1.cn.gov South Kern Mutual Water Company - 2 -
Kern Mutual Water Company to develop an appropriate and necessary financing package.

Technical assistance will be available from the State Water Board's Division of Drinking Water (DOW) and Division of Financial Assistance (DFA).

In the near future, we will be contacting all the water systems to set up a meeting. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me at (559) 447-3300. For funding related questions, please contact Mr. Joel Greathouse at (559) 447-3300.

Sincerely,
Tricia A. Wathen P.E.

Senior Sanitary Engineer
Visalia District

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA BRANCH

DRINKING WATER FIELD OPERATIONS
cc: Mr. Art Chianello
Water Resources Manager
City of Bakersfield
1000 Buena Vista Road.

Bakersfield, CA 93311
Ms. Donna Fenton, Kern County EHD
2700 M Street. Suite 300
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Ms. Rebecca Moore
Executive Officer
Kern County LAFCo
5300 Lennox Ave, Suite 303
Bakersfield, CA 93309
Ms. Taryn Rickel
Old River Mutual Water Company
6734 Charity Avenue, Bay #8
Bakersfield, CA 93308
Mr. Ty Bryson, Superintendent
Lakeside School
1435 Old River Road
Bakersfield, CA 93311
,,,> '.'I
EoJ.1ur10 G. Bnowf'!f JP\.

C:OYtnNOII
C 4 L1' 0 AN IA ~
Water Boards
State Water Resources Control Board
Division of Drinking Water
November 15, 2016
Mr. Art Chianello, Water Resources Manager
City of Bakersfield -Water System No.: 1510031
1000 Buena Vista Road
Bakersfield, CA 93311
Dear Mr. Chianello:

State Water Resources Control Board Notice Regarding Mandatory Consolidation Effective June 24, 2015, Senate Bill 88 (Statutes 2015, Chapter 27) added Sections 116680 - 116684 to California Health & Safety Code, addressing consolidation of public water systems.

Our records indicate that the water delivered by South Kern Mutual Water Company's public water system (System) contains uranium at levels that exceed the maximum contaminant level established in state and federal regulations. Since approximately October 2016, the System has consistently failed to provide an adequate supply of safe drinking water. According to our records, the City's system and the System have distribution systems within one mile.

The Division issued a pre-consolidation letter dated November 10, 2015 (enclosed) encouraging the System and the City to work out a voluntary consolidation of their public water systems. In addition a meeting was held on January 27, 2016 with both City and the System representatives.

The State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) strongly encourages the System and the City to work out voluntary consolidation of their public water systems. If a voluntary consolidation is not timely achieved, the State Water Board intends to take action pursuant to Health & Safety Code section 116682, subdivision {a) for consolidation of the System with the City's public water system. Please note that as used in the applicable statutory authority, the City is hereby identified as the potentially receiving water system and the System is identified as the potentially subsumed water system.

The State Water Board acknowledges that consolidation is a complex process and stands ready to assist you so that you are successful in delivering safe, affordable and accessible drinking water to your neighboring community in a cost-effective manner. Pursuant to Health & Safety Code section Fwc,,. M~cus, cH,.,R I Tt-toMAs HoWARD, Ex,cuT1v, DIRECTOR 10011 Stfeet, Sacromenlo, CA 9581~ I Mailing Address: P.O. Box 100, &c,~menro, CA 95812·0100 I www.wo1erboo1ds,ca.gov City of Bakersfield
November 15, 2016 - 2 -
116682 subdivision (b) (6) (A), during the six month negotiation period, the State Water Board will provide technical assistance and work with the City and South Kern Mutual Water Company to develop an appropriate and necessary financing package. Technical assistance will be available from the State Water Board's Division of Drinking Water (DOW) and Division of Financial Assistance (DFA).

Sincerely,
Carl L. Carlucci, P.E.

Supervising Sanitary Engineer
Central California Section

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA BRANCH

DRINKING WATER FIELD OPERATIONS
Enclosure
cc: Honorable Harvey L. Hall, Mayor, City of Bakersfield Mr. Jason Meadors, Water Resources Director, City of Bakersfield City Council, City of Bakersfield
Ms. Donna Fenton, Kem County Environmental Health Department Ms. Rebecca Moore, Executive Officer, Kern County LAFCo Mr. Dennis Gaston, McMor Chlorination
Mrs. Sherry Settlemoir, President South Kern MWC
,,>
b 1w-tH1M a H,rnwm .Ju
IM.l\-ltlfu_,11
G A L, , V11t Nl11
Water Boards
State Water Resources Control Board
D 1visfo11 u l D 1111l<1riu vv.,tur
November 10, 2015
Ms. Sherry Settlemoir, President
South Kern Mutual Water Company - Water System No. 1500344 9612 Beam Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93311
Dear Ms. Settlemoir:

Effective June 24, 2015, Senate Bill 88 (Statutes 2015, Chapter 27) added Sections 116680 - 116684 to California Health & Safety Code, addressing consolidation of public water systems.

The State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) strongly encourages the System and the City to work out voluntary consolidation of their public water systems. However, if a voluntary consolidation is not timely achieved, the State Water Board may determine to exercise its authority pursuant to Health & Safety Code section 116682, subdivision (a) to achieve consolidation of System with the City's public water system.

The State Water Board acknowledges that consolidation is a complex process and stands ready to assist you so that you are successful in delivering safe, affordable and accessible drinking water to your community in a cost-effective manner. The State Water Board will provide technical assistance and work with the City and Lakeside School, Old River Water Company and South I 11u, I Sl l ~dl S3c1.1r11•n1t1, CA 0)81J I Mnllln\j A<l,tll!O!I r .o Bvl( 100. 6:JcoaIn,,1110. C A q5s1 1- n11111 I .,,...,.,,, wo 1e11)un1rJo CO,(JIIY South Kern Mutual Water Company - 2 -
l<ern Mutual Water Company to develop an appropriate and necessary financing package.

Technical assistance will be available from the State Water Board's Division of Drinl<ing Water (DOW) and Division of Financial Assistance (DFA}.

Sincerely,
Tricia A Wathen P.E.

Senior Sanitary Engineer
Visalia District

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA BRANCH

DRINKING WATER FIELD OPERATIONS
cc: Mr. Art Chianello
Water Resources Manager
City of Bakersfield
1000 Buena Vista Road.

Bakersfield, CA 93311
Ms. Donna Fenton, Kern County EHD
2700 M Street, Suite 300
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Ms. Rebecca Moore
Executive Officer
Kern County LAFCo
5300 Lennox Ave, Suite 303
Bakersfield, CA 93309
Ms. Taryn Rickel
Old River Mutual Water Company
6734 Charity Avenue, Bay #8
Bakersfield, CA 93308
Mr. Ty Bryson, Superintendent
Lakeside School
1435 Old River Road
Bakersfield, CA 93311
,,,>
C AI. H O fU tlA
Water Boards
State Water iResources Control Board
Division of Drinking Water
June 23, 2017
Mr. Art Chianello, P.E.

Water Resources Manager
City of Bakersfield -Water System No. 1510031
1000 Buena Vista Road
Bakersfield, CA 93311
Dear Mr. Chianello:

This letter is in response to your letter, dated May 4, 2017, regarding the meeting that the Division had with the City of Bakersfield (City) on March 28, 2017, to discuss the potential consolidation of the Old River Mutual Water Company and the South Kern Mutual Water Company (Mutual Water Companies) with the City's water.system.

Your letter states that the extension of domestic water service to the two Mutual Water Companies can occur if the two service areas are annexed to the City and the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) provides full funding for the planning, design, and installation of the necessary water infrastructure. The City also requested that the State Water Board provide the necessary grant funding to reconstruct neighborhood streets and make pedestrian improvements to ensure compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and City standards. Your letter includes cost estimates for annexation, water system improvements, and right-of-way improvements. Since the State Water Board is concerned with addressing the public health risk of the two Mutual Water Companies, it is imperative that quick action is taken. In accordance with the consolidation statutes annexation is not required. Consolidation of the two water systems or an extension of service would address the public health need quickly. The City can pursue annexation at a later time. The Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) is limited to addressing the drinking water issue. It cannot fund right-of-way improvements or street or pedestrian improvements in the neighborhood to ensure compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The City should also be aware that the State Water Board does have a consolidation incentive that would allow the City to receive up to $10 million at 0% interest for any DWSRF eligible project the City may want to pursue elsewhere in the City's system. This funding would be in addition to any funding provided by the State Water Board that is determined necessary for the City to complete the consolidations. Therefore, we recommend that the City submit a funding application to the SWRCB's Division of Financial Assistance (DFA} through the Financial Assistance Application Submittal Tool (FAAST) to initiate the review process by DFA.

FELICIA Mf\RCUS, CI-IAIR I THOMAS H owARO, EXECUTIVE OIIIECTOA 1001 I Strool, ~eramon10. Cl>. 9581~ I ,,falling Addre,s. P.O. Box 100, Saeramon10. CA 95812·0100 I www wJIDrboJrdS.C4 IJC>V Mr. Art Chianello
City of Bakersfield
June 21 , 201 7 - 2 -
The State Water Board is planning to hold a public meeting on July 10, 2017, to provide information, answer questions, and receive public comments on the potential for the City of Bakersfield to supply domestic water to the South Kern Mutual Water Company and the Old River Mutual Water Company. Attached is a copy of the public notice. The date and location of the public meeting are given below:

Date:

Location:

Monday, July 10, 2017 from 6:30 p.m. - 8:30 p.m.

Lakeside Elementary School - Cafeteria
14535 Old River Road Bakersfield, CA 9331 1
Thank you in advance for the City's assistance in finding a solution to address the public health risk associated with the two Mutual Water Companies providing water to customers that does not meet a primary drinking water standard. If you would like to have a meeting or you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Tricia Wathen, Visalia District Engineer for the State Water Board's Division of Drinking Water, at (559) 447-3398, or me at (559) 447-3132.

Sincerely,
~u~
Carl L. Carlucci. P.E~/
Supervising Sanitary Engineer
Central California Section

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA BRANCH

DRINKING WATER FIELD OPERATIONS
Enclosure
cc: Richard lger, Deputy City Attorney, City of Bakersfield Chris Huot, Assistant City Manager, City of Bakersfield Ty Bryson, Superintendent, Lakeside Union School District ,,,,, '
Ent,.UNU G nt1H Jn
, o.,, i,,..,Jf,
ca .. 1,0••••
Water Boards
State Water Resources Control Board
Division of Drinking Water
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING - JULY 10, 2017

PROPOSED CITY OF BAKERSFIELD WATER SUPPLY SERVICE TO

OLD RIVER MWC
The State Water Resources Control Board invites you to attend a public meeting to comment on the potential for the City of Bakersfield to supply domestic water to Old River Mutual Water Company (MWC).

Background:

Old River MWC (Water System) is located in an unincorporated area of Kern County southwest of the City of Bakersfield. The Water System is a community water system that serves domestic water to 19 service connections and approximately 50 people. The Water System utilizes one groundwater well to meet water demands and does not have any storage capacity or redundant sources, to meet water demands in case of well failure or other water quality emergency. Since 2009, the Water System has been in violation of the uranium maximum contaminant level.

With State Water Resources Control Board funding, the nearby Lakeside School has completed plans to construct 4 miles of pipeline to the City of Bakersfield water system. In addition to the School, Old River MWC and South Kern MWC may participate in the proposed interconnection since they are located along the proposed pipeline alignment The State Water Resources Control Board is considering action which would order the City of Bakersfield to provide a supply of domestic water to South Kern MWC, Old River MWC and Lakeside School water systems.

Public Meeting:

The State Water Resources Control Board will host a public meeting to provide information on the Old River MWC water system. the proposed action, answer questions, and receive public comments.

Date: Monday, July 10, 2017 from 6:30 p.m. - 8:30 p.m.

Location: Lakeside Elementary School - Cafeteria
14535 Old River Road Bakersfield, CA 9331 1
*Spanish language interpretation services w,11 be available.

Public Comments/Information
Public comments will be received through July 31, 2017 and can be sent to:

Mail: Tricia Wathen, P.E., Senior Sanitary Engineer
State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Drinking Water 265 W. Bullard Avenue, Suite 101 , Fresno, CA 93704
Email: [email protected] or Fax: (559) 44 7-3304 FHIC,,\ M~ncus, CHAIR I TftOMAS H OIYAAO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 265 w .. , Bullara Aveaue, Suite 101, F,csno, CA 9370~ I www,wa1e,ooora11.ca.ou, ,,,,, EoMUuu G 811vw"" Ju covtllfni~,
C•Ll'DR•I•
Water Boards
State Water Resources Control Board
DIVlsion of Drinking Water
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING~ JULY 10, 2017

PROPOSED CITY OF BAKERSFIELD WATER SUPPLY SERVICE TO

SOUTH KERN MWC
The State Water Resources Control Board invites you to attend a public meeting to comment on the potential for the City of Bakersfield to supply domestic water to South Kern Mutual Water Company (MWC).

Background:

South Kern MWC (Water System) is located in an unincorporated area of Kern County southwest of the City of Bakersfield. The Water System is a community water system that serves domestic water to 15 service connections and approximately 35 people. The Water System utilizes one groundwater well to meet water demands and does not have any storage capacity or redundant sources, to meet water demands in case of well failure or other water quality emergency. Since 2016, the Water System has been in violation of the uranium maximum contaminant level.

With State Water Resources Control Board funding, the nearby Lakeside School has completed plans to construct 4 miles of pipeline to the City of Bakersfield water system. In addition to the School, South Kern MWC and Old River MWC may participate in the proposed interconnection since they are located along the proposed pipeline alignment. The State Water Resources Control Board is considering action which would order the City of Bakersfield to provide a supply of domestic water to South Kern MWC, Old River MWC and Lakeside School water systems.

Public Meeting:

The State Water Resources Control Board will host a public meeting to provide information on the South Kern MWC water system, the proposed action, answer questions, and receive public comments.

Date: Monday, July 10, 2017 from 6:30 p.m. - 8:30 p.m.

Location: Lakeside Elementary School - Cafeteria
14535 Old River Road Bakersfield, CA 93311
*Spanish language interpretation services will be available.

Public Comments/Information
Public comments will be received through July 31, 2017 and can be sent to:

Mail: Tricia Wathen, P.E., Senior Sanitary Engineer
State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Drinking Water 265 W. Bullard Avenue, Suite 101, Fresno, CA 93704
Email: [email protected] or Fax: (559) 447-3304 265 WtH\ Bullard Avenua, Suite- 10 l, FrHno, CA 9.370,1 I www w.1terboord5,c..1.go\l Attachment D
Responses from the City of Bakersfield
/4 ____ ______

BAKERSFIELD -
February 10, 2017
Carl L. Carlucci, P.E.

Supervising Sanitary Engineer
/\Ian Tancly • UIV MdnaQPI
State Wat er Resources Control Board - Division of Drinking Water 265 W. Bullard Avenue. Suite 101
Fresno, CA 93704
Re: South Kern Mutual Water System Consolidation
Dear Mr. Carlucci:

FEB J ~ 2017
On December 9, 2016, City staff met with State Water Resources Control Boord (SWRCB) staff. Lakeside School District staff, Kern County Public Health and Kern County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) to discuss the proposed public water system consolidation of three areas. During the meeting, SWRCB staff requested the City provide written correspondence for each of the three areas, outlining the City's stance on each of the proposed consolidations. This letter is specifically in regards to the South Kern Mutual Water System area.

Since January 2016, City staff has consistently engaged with the SWRCB in an attempt to identify a practical, long-term solution for domestic water service delivery for the existing users within the South Kern Mutual Water System area. From the onset of the discussions, the City has expressed the opportunity for this area to be consolidated with the City's domestic water system by way of annexation. The City has included staff from its Planning Division in multiple meetings to formally begin these discussions.

During the December 9th meeting. City staff indicated the next steps are to coordinate a meeting between SWRCB staff, City Planning staff and representatives from the South Kern Mutual Water System. SWRCB staff indicated they would be reaching out to the City to coordinate this meeting. As of the date of this letter, we have not been contacted regarding potential meeting dates. This meeting is a critical first step to inform the residents of the area about the annexation process and to outline the costs associated with this process to the SWRCB staff.

Upon annexation, the extension of services could occur assuming the SWRCB provides full funding for the planning, design and installation of necessary water infrastructure including looping water mains, laterals, meters and service Cilv or BakersrielcJ • City ManaQer's Ottice • 1600 1ruxIun /\vc>nuc Bakersfield • Calitornla • 93301
(661 l 326-3751 • rax (661l3241850
Re: South Kern Mutual Water Systern Consolic:totion
Feb(uory t 0, 20 t 7

Page 2 ends

connections tor the subsumed area. In addition to bringing the infrastructure within the South Kern Mutual Water System up to City standard, the City will require the SWRCB to reconstruct neighborhood streets and make pedestrian improvements within the neighborhood to ensure compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Under this plan, an agreement outlining the State's financial commitment to make all of these improvements will need to be ratified by both the City Council and SWRCB prior to or concurrent with annexation.

Since our last meeting, there have been additional issues identified regarding the proposed pipeline. Old River Road is not a ligned as it crosses State Route 119 (Taft Highway). City staff is aware that CalTrans has a planned project to make safety improvements to this intersection. Although final design is not yet complete, this project will likely have impacts on all utilities in the area, including the proposed pipeline. If the pipeline is constructed prior to the intersection improvements, it will need to be relocated. If it is constructed after the intersection improvements are complete, it will require redesign and may impact the new roadway. Either path will likely require longitudinal encroachment approval from CalTrans. This has not been taken into consideration by SWRCB staff.

We look fo!Ward to hearing from you regarding potential meeting times and dates to discuss potential opportunities for annexation of this area.

Sincerely,
lfnfyCity Manager
cc: Chris Huot, Assistant City Manager
Richard /ger. Deputy City Attorney
Art Chionello, Water Resources Manager
Jacqui Kitchen, Community Development Director
Thomos M. Berliner, Duane Morris LLP
Felicio Marcus. Stafe Water Resources Control Boord Chair Thomas Howard, State Water Resources Control Boord Executive Director Blair Knox, Kern County Local Agency Formation Commission Executive Director /4--------·-------
..

BAK E RS FIEL D

WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
Art R. Chianello. P.E. • Water Resources Manager
May 4, 2017
Corl L. Carlucci. P.E.

Supervising Sanitary Engineer
state Water Resources Control Board - Division of Drinking Water 265 W. Bullard Avenue. Suite 101
Fresno. CA 93704
Dear Mr. Carlucci:

This letter is the City of Bakersfield's response to the discussion regarding potential consolidation with the Old River and South Kern Mutual Water Companies that was held during our meeting of Morch 28, 201 7. During the meeting, City staff indicated It would provide you with Information as It relates to the estimated costs to annex and make the necessary Improvements to the Old River and South Kern areas.

As discussed, upon annexation, the extension of domestic water services can occur assuming the SWRCB provides full funding for the planning. design and installation of necessary water infrastructure Including looping water moin.s, laterals, meters and service connections for the subsumed area. In addition to bringing the water infrastruc ture within the South Kern/Old River Mutual Water Systems up to City standard, the City requested the SWRCB provided the necessary funding to reconstruct neighborhood streets and make pedestrian improvements within the neighborhood to ensure compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and City standards.

The following are estimates for each component of the process:

Annexation Fees and Costs $34,600
Water System Improvements $2,380.000
Right-of-Way Improvements $1,562,000
Estimated Total $3,976,600
In addition, the extension of sewer service to the area can be accomplished through the extension of a sewer trunk line, which is estimated to cost $1 .36 million and is not included in the estimated costs outline above. Staff can provide more information regarding this component during a future meeting.

As discussed during the last meeting. the next steps will be to engage the Division of Rnancial Assistance to determine the eligibility of these costs as It relates to the goal of extending water service to these areas.

Water Resources Department • 1000 Buena Vista Road • Bakersfield • california 93311 (661) 326-3715 • Fax (661) 852-2127 • E-Mail: [email protected] It may be most beneficial to schedule another face-to-face meeting to discuss these Issues. so please provide us with some available dates and times to meet.

Thank you.

Art Chianello, P.E ..

Water Resources Manager
City of Bakersfield
l 000 Buena Vista Road
Bakersfield. CA 93311
(661) 326-3715
Cc: Tricia Wathan. District Engineer, Visalia District Division of Drinking Water Richard lger, Deputy City Attorney, City of Bakersfield Chris Huot Assistant City Manager, City of Bakersfield
Nick Fidler, Public Works Director, City of Bakersfield Jacquelyn Kitchen. Community Development Director. City of Bakersfield Sherry Settlemorr 9609 Beam Ave, Bakersfield, CA 93311
Water Resources Department • 1000 Buena Vista Road • Bakersfield • california 93311 (661) 326-3715 • Fax (661) 852-2127 • E-Mail: [email protected] City of Bakersfield
Summary of Comments and Concerns Regarding Water Consolidation with Old River Mutual and South Kern Mutual
Public Meeting - July 10, 2017
Since January 2016, City staff has consistently engaged with the SWRCB in an attempt to identify a practical, long-term solution for domestic water service delivery for the existing users within the Old River (ORMWC) and South Kern Mutual Water System {SKMWC) areas. It should be made clear that the City's consideration and evaluation of providing water service to these two areas are distinct and separate from any other consolidation efforts currently being made by the SWRCB, including the proposed Lakeside School consolidation. This distinction is made due to the fact these areas are potentially eligible for annexation to the City and are located in such an area where good engineering practices can be achieved as it relates to the installation and maintenance of the domestic water system.

From the onset of the discussions, the City has expressed the opportunity for these areas to be consolidated with the City's domestic water system by way of annexation. The City has included staff from its Planning Division in multiple meetings in an attempt to formally begin these discussions. Annexation allows these areas to become eligible for domestic water service pursuant to the City's Municipal Code and allows the City to properly manage and enforce water service-related policies, regulations and laws.

Absent annexation, the City would be providing water service outside of its jurisdictional boundaries, which is not authorized pursuant to the City's Municipal Code. Additionally, annexation of the properties would include adjacent right-of-way, which is necessary for the City to have control over so that the City can adequately operate and maintain the domestic water delivery system.

On March 28, 2017, City staff rnet with representatives from the SWRCB in an attempt to initiate the process to annex the ORMWC and SKMWC areas. Subsequent to that meeting and at the request of the SWRCB, City staff sent a letter to the SWRCB outlining the necessary steps to ensure a successful consolidation.

Upon annexation, the extension of services to the ORMWC and SKMWC areas could occur assuming the SWRCB provides full funding for the planning, design and installation of necessary water infrastructure including looping water mains, laterals, meters and service connections for the subsumed area. In addition to bringing the infrastructure within the ORMWC and SKMWC areas up to City standard, the City is requesting the SWRCB provide funding to reconstruct neighborhood streets and make pedestrian improvements within the neighborhood to ensure compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Under this plan, an agreement outlining the State's financial commitment to make all of these improvements wil l need to be ratified by both the City Council and SWRCB prior to or concurrent with annexation.

On June 26, 2017, the City received a response letter from the SWRCB indicating that annexation is not a prerequisite for consolidation under SB 88 and that the SWRCB will not ensure funding is made available for neighborhood improvements, including proper accessibility and drainage improvements.

The City recognizes that 5888 preempts state law as it relates to the customary requirement for a City to annex an area prior to providing municipal services. However, it has been the City's intent to work with the SWRCB and the property owners within the ORMWC and SKMWC areas to address the issue at hand through a cooperative, reasonable approach. As previously mentioned, annexation directly assists the Cit y with operation and maintenance of domestk water infrastructure. Staff believed the SWRCB was supportive of working with the City to create the best possible outcome for the residents within the ORMWC and SKMWC areas. The SWRCB forcing consolidation without assisting the City with annexation reflects poorly on the SWRCB and directly contradicts the findings necessary within SB88. Essentlally, without the SWRCB's support for annexation of t he ORMWC and SKMWC areas, the SWRCB will knowingly and intentionally create a potentially dangerous environment in which to operate a domestic water system,
Additionally, the request for pedestrian and street Improvements are reasonable given that when the City utilizes state and federal monies for projects within the public right-of-way, the City is required to bring these areas up to current ADA standards. It should be no different for a state-sponsored and funded project. The City believes the SWRCB wants to ensure not only the quality of the water delivered to these areas, but that all state and federa l accessibilit y laws are followed. Absent these improvements, the City is potentially liable for all accessibilit y-related issues that may arise in the future.

In summary, the City is open to further discussion in regards to providing the ORMWC and SKMWC areas with domestic water service under the following conditions:

1. Annexation of the properties and any adjacent properties is completed; '2. The SWRCB installs all domestic water delivery infrastructure to City standards, includtng the looping of the main line within Taft Highway to provide for necessary redundancy; and

3. The SWRCB collaborates with the residents and the Cit y by funding the necessary curb, gutter and sidewalk faciHties within the residential areas.

Absent these commitments and assurances, the City remains opposed to the SWRCB's plan to order consolidation with the City's domestic water system. The following comments and supporting documents contained within this packet shall be considered public comments pursuant to the SWRCB's "Notice of Public Meeting'' sent to the City on June 26, 2017.

Required Findings Under SB 88 Not Met
• All reasonable efforts to negotiate consolidation or extension of service between the City of Bakersfield, the State Water Resources Control Board, ORMWC and SKMWC were not made; • Extension of service as currently proposed by the SWRCB, from t he City of Bakersfield's domestic water system to the ORMWC and SKMWC ls not appropriate and technically and economically feasible;
• Concerns regarding water rights and water contracts of the City of Bakersfield have not been adequately addressed;
• The extension of service Is not t he most effective and cost-effective means to provide an adequate supply of safe drinking water;
• The capacity of the proposed interconnection needed to accomplish the consolidation is not limited to serving t he current customers of the subsumed water system; City Municipal Code and Jurisdictional Issues
• Per section 14.04.030 of the City of Bakersfield Municipal Code, "no application for water connection to the city-owned system shall be· approved for an unincorporated area." • The Ctty has no jurisdiction outside of the City limits and no way to enforce its water regulations, including drought-related mandates within the ORMWC and SKMWC areas; • Without annexation, the pipeline is proposed' to be located within right-of-way controlied by the County of Kern; Without an easement or separate agreement, the City does not have a legal right to perform maintenance or routine work on the pipeline outside of its jurisdiction; • Any cost associated with gaining access to the right-of-way will need to be passed on to rate payers, which is not permitted under SB 88;
• The City of Bakersfield is currently working toward meeting State Groundwater Management Act requirements, however the City of Bakersfield, has been provided no clarity has to how a domestic water connections outside of the City's jurisdictional boundaries will be contemplated within SGMA;
• Extending pipelines for many miles outside the City lrmits will encourage disorderly growth, as proposed developments may request to attach on to the new pipelines, which is out of compliance with Senate Bill 375 and Assembly Bi ll 32;
• Cit y of Bakersfield staff believes there may be conflicts with Proposition 218 as it relates to proportionate costs of providing services;
• City of Bakersfield owns pre-1914 water rights and the State Water Resources Control Board has not provided any information to the City as to how the City's concerns associated with the use of this water right is authorized under SB 88;
Inadequate Analysis
• State Water Resources Control Board staff has continuously stonewalled the City's request to perform a study, conducted solely by a third party and financed by the State, to evaluate impacts to the City by extending services to the ORMWC and SKMWC via direct connection to the cityowned water system; • State Wa ter Resources Control Board staff initlally delayed providing information about funding opportunit ies for such a study for nearly four months; • After Crty of Bakersfield staff compiled a significant amount of documentation and completed the state funding application, City staff was told that the State Water Resources Control Board would not fund a study that analyzed anything other than the pipeline; • No prior studies commissioned by State Water Resources Control Board arid/or ORMWC and SKMWC has been completed to determine the most logistically-sound plan of action to install the necessary water delivery infrastructure and all ADA-required improvements; Operational Issues Not Addressed by SWRCB
• As proposed, the pipeline will not be looping or have redundant connections, creating health, safety and engineering Issues;
• Non-looping pipeline requires weekly flushing to maintain water quality standards; • No study has been completed to determine;
• This is in direct conflict with the State Water Resources Control Board recent extension of statewide drought regulations (See tab 4);
• Flushing will create a potentially adverse demand on a number of existing City wells; • The flushed water will have a chlorine residual, and therefore should be dechlorinated before it gets discharged, further increasing costs to operate the pipeline that were not contemplated by the State Water Resources Control Board;
• There is no plan for the discharge of the flushed water and any associated costs have not been identified by the State Water Resources Control Board;
• A non-looped, single point of use connection has significant exposure to damage caused by natural disaster or human error, potentially leaving the ORMWC and SKMWC areas without drinking water for unknown periods of time, which was not considered by the State Water Resources Control Board;
• Extending pipelines for many miles outside the City limits will encourage unauthorized hook ups to the system, creating potential health, safety and costs Issues not contemplated or calculated by the State Water Resources Control Board;
• The pipeline would be installed in existing right-of-way adjacent to undeveloped unincorporated properties, which will necessitate the pipeline be relocated at a point in time when or if part or all of the adjacent property is developed;
• The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has previously made the City aware of a planned project to align Old River Road at the State Route 119 intersection (See Exhibit A), which will impact the timing and the location of the proposed pipeline; • This Cal trans project has not been considered by the State Water Resources Control Board during this process;
• This Caltrans project may result in increased cost to potentially relocate the pipeline should it be constructed prior to the road alignment project;
• The City of Bakersfield has been made aware of a recently completed, federally-funded road project that lncluded complete reconstructlon of the asphalt within the right-of-way of the proposed pipeline;
• The City of Bakersfield understands t hat because the proposed pipeline would follow these recently completed road projects, that the County of Kern would require the State Water Resources Control Board to provide a paved surface similar to t hat of the reconstructed area, which is to mean full lane width paving and no trenches - this cost was not considered in prior cost analysis by State Water Resources Control Board;
Alternatives
• City of Bakersfield staff has, with its own resources, diligently researched various logical alternatives to the proposed non-looping pipeline;
• In the best interest of the residents and the operation and maintenance of the domestic water system, the City has requested a redundant, looping pipeline be installed as part of the project; • The looping pipeline will ensure quality domestic water service is made available to the ORMWC and SKMWC areas;
• The City's p/an includes state funding for the installation of necessary water infrastructure including looping water mains, laterals, meters and service connections for the ORMWC and SKMWC areas;
• To comply with state and federa l accessibility laws, the City is requesting state funding for all necessary access
• For public health and safety reasons, the City is requesting state funding to ensure proper drainage within the streets inside the ORM WC and SKMWC areas.

Exhibit "A"
Old River Road and State Route 119 Current Alignment
Subject to future Ca/trans project
September 11 , 2017
/4 _____ • _____ _

BAKERSFIELD
Alan Tandy • City ManaQer
Kurt Souza, P .E., Assistant Deputy Director
California Water Boards
State Water Resources Control Boord
Division of Drinking Water - So CA DWFOB
1180 Eugenio Place
Carpinteria, CA 93013
Re: City of Bakersfield Water System Consolidation Meeting Recap Dear Mr. Souza,
Thanks to your staff and you for meeting with City staff on August 25th to discuss the opportunities and challenges associated with consolidating Lakeside School, South Kern Mutual and Old River Mutual into the City's domestic water system. We feel the meeting was productive and hope it will lead to mutual, positive outcomes to address the State's concerns for these water systems.

As promised, below are the summary bullets and action items City staff believes exist for the three areas.

Lakeside School
• Concept: City and State Water Resources Control Boord (SWRCB) agree to pursue on-site treatment solution under o voluntary managerial consolidation agreement.
• City to be the lead agency in applying for grant through the SWRCB for funding to fully design and construct on-site treatment facility within the Lakeside School property.
• If the full grant is awarded. City will become domestic water provider for Lakeside School by operating and maintaining an on-site wellhead treatment facility.
• City desires to not own or otherwise maintain or operate the existing on-site well. • School district would maintain and operate the existing well. • City prefers to only operate and maintain future installed on-site wellhead treatment facility.

Citv or Bakersfield • Gtv ManaQer's Ottice • 1600 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield • Calltornia • 93301
(661) 326-3751 • Fax (661) 324-1850
Bakersfield Water System Consolidation Meeting Recap
September 11 , 2017

Page 2 ends

• Under this concept Lakeside School would cease being a public water system as defined by the State of California.
• Upon execution of the agreement. the Lakeside School property would be managerially consolidated into the City of Bakersfield's domestic water service system under the City's existing domestic water supply permit. • SWRCB would fund all necessary improvements including, but not limited to onsite well head treatment vessels. piping, facility screening. security systems, onsite storage tonk, electrical. SCADA systems and other infrastructure as mutually agreed upon by the City, SWRCB and school district.
• City would be lead on competitive bidding process for design and construction for on-site treatment facility within the Lakeside School property. • City would assess school the same rate structure as all other domestic water service customers within the City's system.
• All future rote adjustments for Lakeside School would be pursuant to state law and be applied the same as all other domestic water service customers within the City's system.

South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Systems
• Concept: City and SWRCB to analyze opportunity to physically consolidate two mutual water companies via looping the City's existing domestic water system along Taft Highway at Ashe Road to a new well and storage tank within or adjacent to the two mutual water systems.
• City to be the lead agency in in applying for grant through the SWRCB for funding to fully design and construction of new well and storage tank and looping of mainline along Taft Highway to existing City domestic water system connection point at Ashe Rood.
• SWRCB will provide funding for the installation and/or replacement of all necessary infrastructure within the two mutual water service areas, including, but not limited to mainlines, service lines. and meters for each individual customer. • If the full grant is awarded and all improvements are constructed. City will become domestic water provider for the existing mutual water company customers.
• SWRCB staff to evaluate potential opportunities to fund all necessary infrastructure to loop domestic water system from a new proposed well site and storage tonk near the two mutual areas to existing domestic water system infrastructure at Taft Highway and Ashe Road.

Bakersfield Water System Consolidation Meeting Recap
September 11 , 2017
Poge3
• SWRCB to identify all necessary treatment for new well site, including, but not limited to uranium and TCP treatment facilities.
• City to confirm ultimate right of way widths for Toft Highway and number of parcels necessary for acquisition under this pion.
• City would assess existing mutual cust omers the same rate structure as all other domestic water service customers within the City's system. • All future rate adjustments for the mutual customers would be pursuant to state law and be applied the same as all other domestic water service customers within the City's system.

It may be necessary to meet again soon to discuss in further detail each of the concepts that were outlined during the previous meeting. I om happy to extend an otter to meet again at City Hall North at your staff's convenience. Please contact my office at {661) 326-3751 to coordinate a meeting time and date that works for the group.
cc: Chris Huot, Assistant City Manager
Art Chlanello, Water Resources Manager
Richard lger, Deputy City Attomey
Tricia Wathen. State water Resources Control Board
Attachment E
MWCs Compliance Alternatives Memo
,,,,,
ALl•O A
Water Boards
State Water Resources Control Board
D1v1s1on of Drinking Wate,
September 5, 2018
RE: Old River and South Kern Mutual Water Companies Compliance Alternatives Old River and South Kern Mutual Water Companies
Old River Mutual Water Company (MWC) and South Kern MWC are community water systems that serve residential and commercial properties. Each MWC operates using a single well that is in violation of the uranium maximum contaminant level (MCL). In addition, the South Kern MWC's well also exceeds the 1,2,3-TCP MCL. Both MWCs lack source reliability and storage capacity. The MWCs also lack technical, managerial, and financial (TMF) capacity. In order to solve the MWCs' water quality issues, three alternatives were considered: consolidation, extension of service, and uranium and 1,2,3-TCP treatment.

Alternative 1: Full consolidation with City of Bakersfield • City would own and maintain the pipeline and the MWC's distribution system • Each resident would become an individual customer of the City • No capital costs to the City for construction
• MWCs would no longer be regulated public water systems • Supports regional consolidation project, which would include two community systems, Old River MWC and South Kern MWC, along pipeline alignment Alternative 2: Extension of Service with City of Bakersfield • MWCs would own and maintain the pipeline & distribution system • MW Cs would buy water from the City through a water meter located on City property • No capital costs to the City for construction
• MWCs would remain public water systems
• MWCs do not have adequate Boards to run and manage the water systems Alternative 3: Uranium and 1,2,3-TCP Treatment at the MWCs • Existing wells are 50+ years old
• New well would need to be drilled & treatment installed • Treatment of future contaminants would be the responsibility of the MW Cs • Pilot study required to evaluate treatment alternatives (1-1.5 years) • MWCs would remain public water systems
• MWCs do not have adequate Boards to run and manage the treatment plant f ur• Mu, o !,, C'<AIA j E1LUlol S ::>eECK, UECUTIV[ o,~£CIOR MWCs Compliance Alternatives - 2 - September 5, 2018
Supplies Initial Cost Interest (i) Years (n) Annual Cost (A) Capitalized (P) (A/P,i,n) Cost (A/i)
Pipeline to MWCs (1 mile
of 12 inch @ $125/ft) $660,000 3% 40 ($28,553) ($951,772) Highway and Canal
Crossings $100,000 3% 40 ($4,326) ($144,208)
New Well for Bakersfield $1,000,000 3% 40 ($43,262) ($1,442,079) Storage Tank (100,000
gal) $200,000 3% 30 ($10,204) ($340,128)
Booster Pumps (2) $20,000 3% 10 ($2,345) ($78,154}
Pressure Tank $30,000 3% 20 ($2,016) ($67,216)
Hypochlorinator $5,000 3% 10 ($586) ($19,538)
TOTAL $2,015,000 ($91,292) ($3,043,095}
Table 2: MWC Treatment Costs
Old River & South Kern MWC
Treatment Alternative
Supplies Initial Cost Interest (i) Years (n) Annual Cost (A) Capitalized Cost (P) (A/P,i,n) (A/i)
Uranium
Treatment Plant $500,000 3% 15 ($41,883) ($1,396,110)
Adsorptive Media $10,000 3% 1 ($10,000) ($333,333)
1,2,3-TCP
Treatment Plant $500,000 3% 15 ($41,883) ($1,396,110}
GAC Media $20,000 3% 1 ($20,000) ($666,667)
New Well $500,000 3% 40 ($21,631) ($721,040}
Hypochlorinator $5,000 3% 10 ($586) ($19,538)
Plant Building $100,000 3% 30 ($5,102) ($170,064)
Storage Tank
(100,000 gal) $200,000 3% 30 ($10,204) ($340,128)
Booster Pumps
(2) $20,000 3% 10 ($2,345) ($78,154)
Pressure Tank $30,000 3% 20 ($2,016) ($67,216)
TOTAL $1,885,000 ($155,650) ($5,188,360)
MWCs Compliance Alternatives - 3 - September 5, 2018
Regional Compliance Project
A regional compliance project would benefit the Old River MWC and South Kern MWC. Connecting these two small disadvantaged community water systems into the City of Bakersfield's existing distribution system would serve as the most cost effective long-term solution. Under Alternative 1, the MWCs would no longer be regulated public water systems. The MWC residents would be individually metered and direct customers of the City. The City of Bakersfield offers redundancy, system reliability, and water system expertise.

As shown in Tables 1 and 2 above, the regional pipeline alternative has much lower annual costs and capitalized costs than the regional treatment alternative. The regional pipeline consolidation alternative is the proposed project that is highly preferred by the State Board and the two Mutual Water Companies.

Attachment F
Notification of Receipt

ATTACHMENT F- NOTIFICATION OF RECEIPT
Compliance Order Number: Order No. 03_12_18R_002
Name of Water System: City of Bakersfield
System Number: 1510031
Certification
I certify that I am an authorized representative of the City of Bakesrfield and that Compliance Order No. 03_12_18R_002 was received on ________ . Further I certify that the Order has been reviewed by the appropriate management staff of the City of Bakersfield and it is clearly understood that Compliance Order No. 03_12_18R_002 contains legally enforceable directives with specific due dates.

Signature of Water System Representative Date

THIS FORM MUST BE COMPLETED AND RETURNED TO THE STATE WATER BOARD, DIVISION OF DRINKING WATER, NO LATER THAN OCTOBER 26, 2018 Disclosure: Be advised that the California Health and Safety Code, Sections 116725 and 116730 state that any person who knowingly makes any false statement on any report or document submitted for the purpose of compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act may be liable for, respectively, a civil penalty not to exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000) for each separate violation or, for continuing violations, for each day that violation continues, or be punished by a fine of not more than $25,000 for each day of violation, or by imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed one year, or by both the fine and imprisonment.

ATTACHMENT B:

Consolidation Order No. 03-12-18R-003 (SKMWC)
.,
,,P
E DMUND G. B ROWN J R.

GOVERNOR
CALIFORNIA N~ M ATTHEW R ODRIQUEZ l """"-.._ ~ SECRETARY FOR Water Boards State Water Resources Control Board
Division of Drinking Water
September 27, 2018
Mr. Alan Tandy, City Manager
1600 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
RE: . Mandatory Consolidation of the Old River Mutual Water Company Dear Mr. Tandy:
,_..., ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Enclosed is Consolidation Order No. 03-12-18R-003 (Order) that the State Water Resources Control Board (State Board) Division of Drinking Water is issuing to the City of Bakersfield (City) for mandatory consolidation of the Old River Mutual Water Company's (Old River MWC) water system with the City's water system.

Please note that on or before October 26, 2018, the City is required to submit the Notification of Receipt (Attachment F of the enclosed Order) which certifies that the Order has been reviewed by the appropriate management staff of the Bakersfield and it is clearly understood that the Order contains legally enforceable directives with specific due dates. On or before December 31, 2018, the City is required to submit the Consolidation Plan, required under Directive No. 2 of the Order.

The deadline to achieve consolidation with the Old River MWC's water system is December 31 , 2020.

Any person who is aggrieved by a citation, order or decision issued by the Deputy Director of the Division of Drinking Water under Article 8 ( commencing with California Health and Safety Code (CHSC), Section 116625) or Article 9 (commencing CHSC, Section 116650), of the Safe Drinking Water Act (Chapter 4, Part 12, Divis.ion 104, of the Health and Safety Code) may file a petition with the State Water Board for reconsideration of the citation, order or decision. Attachment A of the enclosed Order contains the relevant statutory provisions for filing the petition for reconsideration (CHSC, Section 116701 ).

Petitions must be received by the State Board within 30 days of the issuance of the citation, order or decision by the Deputy Director. The date of issuance is the date when the Division of Drinking Water mails a copy of the citation, order or decision. If the 30th day falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or a state holiday, the petition is due the following business day. Petitions must be received by 5:00 p.m. Information regarding filing petitions may be found at:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinkinq water/proqrams/petitions/index.shtml

F ELICIA M ARCUS, CHAIR I EILEEN SOBECK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 1180 Eugenia Place, Suite 200, Carpinteria, CA 93013 I www.waterboards.ca.gov 0 RECYCLED PAPER
Mr. Alan Tandy - 2 - September 27, 2018
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at (805) 566-4745, Carl Carlucci at (559) 447-3132, or Tricia Wathen at (559) 447-3398.

Sincerely,
Kurt Souza, P.E. ,
Southern California Branch Chief
SWRCB - Division of Drinking Water
cc: Karen Gho, Mayor, City of Bakersfield
Nick Fidler, Public Works Director, City of Bakersfield Art Chianello, Water Resources Manager, City of Bakersfield (via email) Richard lger, City Attorney, City of Bakersfield (via email) City Council, City of Bakersfield (via email)
Donna Fenton, Kern County Environmental Health (via email) Blair Knox, Executive Officer, Kern County Local Agency Formation Agency (via email) McMor Chlorination, Inc. - Old River MWC Operator (via email) Carl Carlucci, SWRCB - Regional Engineer (via email)
Tricia Wathen, SWRCB - District Engineer (via email)
Caitlin Juarez, SWRCB - Consolidation Coordinator (via email) "
~
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 Order No. 03_12_18R_003

CALIFORNIA

STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD

DIVISION OF DRINKING WATER
Name of Public Water System: City of Bakersfield
Water System No.: 1510031
Attention: Mr. Alan Tandy, City Manager
1600 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Issued: Septem , er 27, 2018
ORDER NO. 03_12_18R_003

FOR MANDATORY CONSOLIDATION
The State Water Resources Control Board (hereinafter "State Board"), acting by and through its Division of Drinking Water (hereinafter "Division") and the Deputy Director for the Division hereby issues this Order pursuant to Section 116682 of the California Health and Safety Code (hereinafter "CHSC") to the City of Bakersfield (hereinafter "City").

APPLICABLE AUTHORITIES
This Order is issued pursuant to authority granted to the State Board, and its Division and Deputy Director, pursuant to CHSC, Sections 116680 - 116684 and 116271. As used in this Order, a term defined in CHSC, Section 116681 shall have the meaning set forth in said section. -1-
..
•
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 Order No. 03-12-1 BR-003
References in the applicable law to 'Receiving Water System' or 'Potentially Receiving Water System' refer in this Order to the City of Bakersfield's public water system; and references to 'Subsumed Water System' or 'Potentially Subsumed Water System' to the Old River Mutual Water Company's (hereinafter "Old River MWC") public water system. Said authorities are provided in their entirety in Attachment A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
The Old River MWC is classified as a community water system, as defined in Health and Safety Code section 116275, located in an unincorporated area Kern County approximately one mile southwest of the City of Bakersfield's water system. The Old River MWC supplies water for domestic purposes to approximately 48 individuals through fourteen service connections. The Old River MWC operates under Revised Domestic Water Supply Permit (Permit No. 03-12-15P022), issued on September 25, 2015 by the State Water Resources Control Board Division of Drinking Water. The Old River MWC utilizes one groundwater well that was drilled in 1962 to supply water to the distribution system. The Old River MWC lacks a redundant source and storage capacity.

The City of Bakersfield owns a community water system, which supplies domestic water to approximately 144,000 individuals through approximately 44,500 service connections. The City operates under a Revised Domestic Water Supply Permit (Permit No. 03-12-01 0P-002), issued by the Department of Public Health, the State Board's predecessor in the regulation of public -2-
'
•
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 Order No. 03-12-1 SR-003
water systems, on March 9, 20101. The City uses approximately 55 active groundwater wells, treated surface water from Kern County Water Agency's water treatment plant, and treated surface water froin Northwest water treatment plant that is jointly owned by California Water Service and the City of Bakersfield as the sources of domestic water. The operation and maintenance of the City's water system is provided under contract by California Water Service.

In May 2009, the Department of Public Health issued the Old River MWC a compliance order for failure to meet the uranium maximum contaminant level (MCL), set forth in CCR, Title 22, Section 64442. The Old River MWC was directed to comply the MCL.

In June 2015, new legislation became effective that allowed the State Water Board to order consolidations of public water systems or state small water systems serving a disadvantaged community that consistently failed to provide an adequate supply of safe drinking water. As a prerequisite to ordering consolidation, that legislation required the Water Board to first encourage voluntary consolidation. On November 10, 2015, the State Board sent letters to the Old River MWC and the City that strongly encouraged them to work out voluntary consolidation of their public water systems.

On multiple occasions subsequently, the State Board was informed by the City that the City was unable to connect Old River MWC to the City's distribution system.

As more fully discussed in the findings set forth below, the State Board took additional action to uthority for regulation of public water systems pursuant to the California Safe Drinking Water Act (CHSC, Section 6270 et seq.) was transferred from the Department to the State Board effective July 1, 2014. (See CHSC, Section 6271)
-3-
•
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 Order No. 03-12-18R-003
encourage a voluntary agreement between the City and Old River MWC in order to secure an adequate supply of safe drinking water for persons served by the Old River MWC, including the following:
a) Held a meeting with the City, Lakeside School, Kern County LAFCO, and Kern County Environmental Health on January 27, 2016.
b) Held a meeting with the City, Lakeside School, Kern County LAFCO, and Kern County Environmental Health on December 9, 2016 to discuss the potential regional consolidation of Lakeside School and the two MWCs with the City.
c) Held a meeting with the City on March 28, 2017.
d) Held a noticed public meeting on July 10, 2017 to take public comment and testimony. A copy of the notice for said meeting is attached hereto as Attachment B. e) Held a meeting with the City on August 25, 2017.
f) Held a noticed public hearing on September 7, 2017 to take public comment and testimony.

A copy of said notice is attached hereto as Attachment B.

Representatives from the Old River MWC and the City attended each of the said public forums with the exception of City representation at the public hearing on September 7, 2017. Despite these efforts, the State Board has been unable to achieve voluntary consolidation of the City and Old River MWC.

FINDINGS
Consistent with the requirements of Health and Safety Code section 116682( d), the State Board has made the following findings supporting this order of consolidation of the Old River MWC and.the City of Bakersfield:
-4-
•
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 Order No. 03-12-18R-003

1. The Old River MWC has consistently failed to provide an adequate supply of safe drinking water.

Discussion:

The Old River MWC initially exceeded the gross alpha particle activity maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 15 pico curies per liter (pCi/L) in a sample collected ori January 31, 2008 from Well 01 with a concentration of 19.0 pCi/L. The sample was further analyzed for uranium and detected a uranium concentration of 18 pCi/L. Old River MWC was instructed to increase the monitoring for gross alpha and uranium to a quarterly basis in order to determine compliance with the gross alpha and uranium MCLs. The MCL for uranium is 20 pCi/L. Compliance with the gross alpha particle activity and uranium MCLs is based on a running annual average (RAA) of four (4) consecutive quarterly samples. The Old River MWC has completed four (4) quarters of gross alpha and uranium monitoring. The samples from the 3rd quarter in 2018 shows that the RAA of uranium in Well 01 is 27.2 pCi/L. This level exceeds the uranium MCL of 20 pCi/L.

Old River MWC was issued Compliance Order No. 03_19_09_045 on May 13, 2009.

2. All reasonable efforts to negotiate consolidation of Old River's water system with the City's water system were made by the State Board.

Discussion:

The State Board sent letters, dated November 15, 2016, (Attachment C) to Old River MWC and the City, strongly encouraging them to work out voluntary consolidation of their water systems.

The letters also directed the Old River MWC and the City to complete the negotiations and report the outcome to the State Board no later than six months following the date of the letter.

The State Board has received responses from the City (Attachment D) indicating they are unable to work out a voluntary consolidation agreement. No written response has been received by Old River MWC; however, they have indicated verbally they are willing to consolidate with -5-
•
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 Order No. 03-12-18R-003
the City. A voluntary consolidation agreement between the City and Old River MWC has not been achieved. The State Board also met with the City on: January 27, 2016; December 9, 2016; March 28, 2017 and August 25, 2017, to discuss the consolidation project but no progress was made. Furthermore, the State Board offered to provide technical assistance to aide in submitting an application to the State Board Division of Financial Assistance for a planning study to develop a water master plan for the City's water system. The City did not submit the planning application.

3. Consolidation of the City's water system and Old River's water system is appropriate and technically and economically feasible.

Discussion:

The Old River MWC has been out of compliance for the uranium MCL since 2009. The Water System has three options for reaching compliance; drilling a new wel l, installing treatment, or consolidation. It would be unlikely that a water system would be able to drill a new well in this area and find water meeting all drinking water standards.

Installing, operating, and maintaining a water treatment facility for uranium removal is not a preferred alternative for a small disadvantaged community water system with no active Board.

There are several costs associated with running a treatment facility including operation, maintenance, and filter replacement costs that would be a significant burden to the small disadvantaged community. Furthermore, Old River MWC would be required to contract a treatment plant operator, properly dispose of waste, and comply with additional testing, reporting, and water system administration.
-6-
•
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 Order No. 03-12-18R-003
The Old River MWC is within the sphere of influence of the City of Bakersfield, roughly one mile away from the City's distribution system. Consolidation with the City will provide reliable water service, meeting the drinking water standards for present and future needs of the community.

A cost comparison shown in the MWCs Compliance Alternatives Memo in Attachment E shows the initial and long-term costs associated with each alternative and demonstrates that consolidation is the most cost-effective option.

In addition to Old River MWC, there is another small community, South Kern MWC, with violations of the uranium and 1,2,3-trichloropropane MCLs. These two small community water systems can be connected to the City as part of a regional consolidation project, which is the most technically and economically feasible solution to solve the drinking water compliance issues found in each water system.

4. There is no pending local agency formation commission process that is likely to resolve the problem in a reasonable amount of time.

Discussion:

The Old River MWC is located in an unincorporated area of Kern County south of the City of Bakersfield. The Old River MWC is outside the City Limits but within the City's Sphere of Influence. The State Board has consulted with the Kern County Local Agency Formation Commission and has confirmed there is no pending Kern County Local Agency Formation Commission process that is likely to resolve the problem in a reasonable amount of time.

5. Concerns regarding water rights and water contracts of the subsumed and receiving water systems have been adequately addressed.

Discussion:
-7-
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 Order No. 03-12-1 BR-003
The source of water supply for Old River MWC's water system and the City's water system is groundwater. The local groundwater basin is unadjudicated; therefore, there are no concerns regarding water rights and water contracts of Old River MWC's water system and the City's water system. Both the City and the Old River MWC water systems are within the Kern River Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA).

6. Consolidation or extension of service is the most effective and cost-effective means to provide an adequate supply of safe drinking water.

Discussion:

As described in Finding No. 3 above, consolidation of Old River's water system with the City's water system is the most effective and feasible means to provide an adequate supply of safe drinking water to Old River MWC. The infrastructure needed to extend service from the City's water system to the Old River's water system is eligible to be constructed with grant monies provided by the State Board. There would not be any capital cost to the City for the construction of the infrastructure.

In the 2015 Inspection Report, the Division acknowledged that the Old River MWC water system operates with no storage and lacks a redundant source should their single well fail. Therefore, even if Old River MWC were to remain a water system the improvements listed in the inspection report would need to be implemented in addition to the installation of a new well and/or treatment for uranium. Further cost analysis can be found in Attachment E.

7. The capacity of the proposed interconnection needed to accomplish the consolidation is limited to serving the current customers of the subsumed water system.

Discussion:
-8-
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 Order No. 03-12-18R-003
The capacity of the interconnection that will be installed between the City's water system and Old River MWC's water system to accomplish the consolidation is limited to serving the current customers of the Old River MWC. Although this will be part of a regional project, the interconnection to South Kern MWC will go through the mandatory consolidation process with a separate consolidation order.

DIRECTIVES
The City of Bakersfield is hereby directed to take the following actions:

1. On or before October 26, 2018, complete and return to the State Water Board the "Notification of Receipt" form attached to this Order as Attachment F. Completion of this form confirms that City has received this Order and understands that it contains legally enforceable directives with due dates.

2. On or before December 31 , 2018, prepare and submit for State Board review and approval, a draft plan for consolidation of the Old River's water system with the City's water system that ensures Old River MWC an adequate supply of safe drinking water; such plan (hereinafter "Consolidation Plan") shall:
a) Identify tasks necessary to achieve consolidation of the Old River MWC's water system with the City's water system - including but not limited to: entering into a water service agreement, between the City and Old River MWC.
b) Involvement with the funding application process for the project. c) Involvement with the design of the pipeline connection to the City's water system. d) Include a time schedule for completion of each task identified in the plan. e) Ensure consolidation of Old River MW C's water system with the City's water system, not later than December 31, 2020.
-9-
•
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 Order No. 03-12-18R-003

3. If the State Board does not approve the plan, revise according to the comments received and resubmit the Consolidation Plan within fifteen (15) days, unless otherwise specified.

4. Timely perform each element of the State Board's approved Consolidation Plan according to the time schedule set forth therein.

5. Submit quarterly progress reports to the State Board. The first quarterly progress report shall describe progress made in the fourth quarter of 2018 and shall be submitted to the State Board by January 10, 2019 using the form provided in Attachment G.

6. Notify the State Board in writing no later than five (5) days prior to any deadline within the Consolidation Plan that the City anticipates it will not timely meet.

All submittals required by this Order shall be addressed to:

Tricia Wathen, P.E., Senior Sanitary Engineer
State Water Resources Control Board
Division of Drinking Water, Visalia District
265 W. Bullard Avenue, Suite 101
Fresno, CA 93704
[email protected]
The Division reserves the right to make such modifications to this Order and/or to issue such further order(s) as it may deem necessary to protect public health and safety and to achieve the consolidation addressed by this Order. Such modifications may be issued as amendments to this Order and shall be deemed effective upon issuance. -10-
•
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 Order No. 03-12-18R-003
Nothing in this Order relieves the City of Bakersfield of its obligation to meet the requirements of the California Safe Drinking Water Act, CHSC, Division 104, Part 12, Chapter 4 (hereinafter "SOWA"), or any regulation, standard, permit or order issued thereunder.

PARTIES BOUND
This Order shall apply to and be binding upon the City of Bakersfield, its officers, directors, agents, employees, contractors, successors, and assignees.

SEVERABILITY
The requirements of this Order are severable, and the City of Bakersfield shall comply with each and every provision hereof notwithstanding the effectiveness of any other provision.

FURTHER ENFORCEMENT ACTION
The California SOWA authorizes the Division to issue orders and citations with assessment of administrative penalties to a public water system for violation or continued violation of the requirements of the California SOWA or any regulation, permit or order issued or adopted thereunder including, but not limited to, failure to correct a violation identified in a citation or order. The California SOWA also authorizes the Division to take action to suspend or revoke a permit that has been issued to a public water system if the system has violated applicable law or regulations or has failed to comply with an order of the Division; and to petition the superior court to take various enforcement measures against a public water system that has failed to comply with an order of the Division. The Division does not waive any further enforcement action by issuance of this order.
-11-
•
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 @

COURT PAPER

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
STD. 113 (REV. 3-95)
~ OSP 05 90192
Order No. 03-12-18R-003
Date I
Southern California Branch Chief
SWRCB - Division of Drinking Water
Certified Mail No.: 7018 0040 0000 3159 7469
Attachments:

Attachment A: Applicable Authorities
Attachment B: Notices for Public Meeting and Public Hearing Attachment C: State Board Letters to the City and Old River MWC Attachment D: Responses from the City
Attachment E: MWCs Compliance Alternatives Memo
Attachment F: Notification of Receipt
Attachment G: Quarterly Progress Report
Attachment A
Applicable Authorities
SB 88 Consolidation Language
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1.

Section 116680 is added to the Health and Safety Code, to read:
116680.

The Legislature tinds and declares as follows:
(a) It is the policy of the state to encourage orderly growth and development. whid1 arc essential to the social. tiscal, and economic well-being of the state. The Legislature recogni7.es that the logical formation. consolidation. and operation of water systems is an important factor in promoting orckrly develop1m:nt and in balancing that development against sometimes competing state inten;sts of discouraging urban sprawl. preserving open space and prime agricultural lands. and etfo.:iently extending other government services. Therefore, the policy of the state should be affocted by the logical formation. consolidation. and operation of wakr systems.
(b) The powers set forth in Section 116682 for consolidation of wakr systems an.: consisknt with the intent of promoting ordc.:rly growth.

SEC. 2.

Section 116681 is added to the Health and Safety Code. to read:
116681.

The following definitions shall apply to this section and Sections 116682 and 116684:
(a) "Adcquate supply" means sufficient water to mect rcsidents' health and safoty nceds. (b) ··Affected residence" means a residence reliant on a water supply that is either inackquate or unsafe. (c) '"Consistently foils" means a failure to provide an adequatc supply of safe drinking water. (d) ··Consolidatcd water system·• means the public water system resulting from the consolidation ofa public water system with another public water systcm, state small water system, or afti..:cted rcsidcm:es not served by a public watcr system. (e) '"Consolidation" means joining two or more public water systems. state small water systems. or affected residences not servc:d by a public water system. into a single public water system. (t) '"Disadvantaged community" mc.:ans a disadvantaged community. as de tined in Section 79505.5 of the Water Code, that is in an unincorporatc:d area or is served by a mutual water company. (g) '"Extension of service" means thc provision of service through any physical or operational infrastructure arrangc::ment other than consolidation.
(h) '"Receiving water systt.:m'" means the public wata system that provides service to a subsumcd water system through consolidation or extension of service.
(i) '"Safo drinking water'' means water that meets all primary and secondary drinking wawr standards. lil ··Subsumed water system'" means the public watcr system. state small water system. or affected residences not served by a public water systcm consolidated into or rcceiving service from the receiving water system.

SEC. 3.

Scctiun I I 66X2 is addcd to the Health and Safcty Code. to read:
116682.
(a) \Vhere a public water system. or a state small vvatcr system within a disadvantaged community. consistently fails to provide an adequate supply of safc drinking 1,atcr. the State Water Resources Control Bllard may order eon,Plidation with a recciving water systcm as provided in this scction and Section 11668--1-. The consolidation may be physical or ,iperational. The State \Nater Resourcc:s Control Board may also order the extension of service to an area that does not have access to an adequate supply of safe drinking water so long as the extension of servicc is an interim cxtension of service in preparation for consolidation. The State Water Resources Control Board may set timdinc:s ;md performance mcasures to facilitate completion of consolidation. (b) Prior to ordering consolidation or extension of service as provided in this section. the State Water Resources Control Board shall do all of the following:
( l) Encourage voluntary consolidation or extension of service. (2) Consider other enforcement remedies specified in this article. (3) Consult with. and fully consider input from. the relevant local agency formation commission regarding the provision ofwatcr service in the affected area. the recommendations for improving service in a municipal service review. and any other relevant in formation.
(4) Consult with. and fully consider input from. the Public Utilities Commission when the consolidation would involve a water corporation subject to the commission ·s jurisdiction.
(5) Consult with. and ti.illy consider input from. the local government with land use planning authority over the affectc:d area. particularly regarding any information in the general plan required by Section 65302. l O of the Government Code. (6) Notify the potentially receiving water system and the potentially subsumed water system. if any. and establish a rcasonabk deadline ofno less than six months. unless a shorter period is justified. for the potentially receiving water system and the potentially subsumed water system. if any. to negotiate consolidation or another means of providing an adequate supply of safe drinking water.
(A) During this period. the State Water Resources Control Board shall provide technical assistance and work with the potentially receiving water system and the potentially subsumc:d water system to develop a financing package that benefits both the receiving water system and the subsumed watc:r system.
(B) Upon a showing of good cause. the deadline may be extendc:d by the: State Water Resources Control Board at the request of the potentially receiving water system, potentially subsumed water system. or the: local agency formation commission with jurisdiction over the potentially subsumc:d water system. (7) Obtain written consent from any domestic well owner for consolidation or extension of service. Any affected resident within the consolidation or extended service area who does not provide written consent shall be ineligible. until the consent is provided. for any future water-related grant funding from the state other than funding to mitigate a well failure. disaster. or other cn1crgcncy.
(8) Hold c1t least one public meeting at the initiation of this process in a place as close: as foasible to the affected areas. The State Water Resources Control Board shall make rc:asonable efforts to provide a 30-day notice of the meeting to the ratepayers. rc:nters. and property owners to receive water service through sc,rvice extension or in the an.:a of the subsumed water system and all affected local government agencies and drinking watc:r service providcrs. The meeting shc1II provide representatives of the potentially subsumed water system, affected ratepayers. renters. property ownl!rs. and the potentially receiving water system an opportunity to present testimony. The meeting shall prnvide an opportunity for public comment. (c) Upon expiration of the deadline set by the State \,\later Resources Cl,ntrol Board pursuant to paragraph (6) of subdivision (b). the State Water Resoun.:es Control Board shall dll the following:
(I) Consult with the potentially receiving water system and the potcntially subsumed water systc:m. if any. (2) Conduct a public hearing. in a location as close as feasible to the affected communities. (A) The State \,\later Resources Control Board shall rnakl! reasl,nablc efforts to provide a 30-day notice: of the hem·ing to the ratcpayl!rs. renters. and property owners to receive water servicl! through sc:rvice extc:nsion or in the area of the subsumed water system and to all affected local gl,vernment agencies and drinking water service providers. (B) The hearing shall provide rc:presentati\es of the potentially subsumed water system. affected ratepayers. rentcrs. pwpe11y. o\vner,. and the pokntial ly recei, ing water system an opportunity t() present testimony. (C) Tlw hearing shall provide an opportunity for public comment. (d) Prior to ordering consolidation or extension of service, the State Water Resources Control Board shall find all of the following:
(I) The potentially subsumed water system has consistently failed to provide an adequate supply of safe drinking water. (2) All reasonable c:fforts to negotiate consolidation or extension of service were: 111adt;. (3) Consolidation of tl1t; receiving water system and subsumed water system or <.:xtension of service: is appropriate and technically and economically feasible.
(4) There is no pending local agency formation commission process that is likely to resolve: the probkm in a reasonable amount oftirne.
(5) Concerns regarding water rights and water contracts of the subsumed and recei\·ing water syste111s have been adequately addressed.
(6) Consolidation or extension of service is the most effective and cost-effective means to provide an adcquatc supply of safe drinking water.
(7) The capacity of the proposcd intcn;onncction needed to accomplish the consolidation is limited to serving the current customers of the subsumed water system.
(e) Upon ordering consolidation or extension of service, the State Water Resomces Control Board shall do all of the following:
(I) As necessary and appropriate, make funds available, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to the recc:iving water syskm for the: costs of completing the consolidation or extension of service, including, but not limited to, replacing any capacity lost as a result of the consolidation or extension of service, providing additional capacity needed as a result of the consolidation or extension of service, and legal foes. Funding pursuant to this paragraph is available for the general purpose of providing financ:ial assistance for the: infrastructure needed for the consolidation or extension of service and does not need to be specific to each individual consolidation projc:c:t. The State Water Resources Control Board shall provide appropriate financial assistance for the infrastructure ne.:ded for the consolidation or extension of service. The State Water Resources Control Board's existing financial assistance guidelines and policies shall be the basis for the financial assistance. (2) Ensure payment of standard local agency formation commission fees caused by State Water Resources Control Board-ordered con,mlidation or extension of service.
(3) Adequately compensate the owners of a privately owned subsumed water system for the fair market value of the system as determined by the Public Utilities Commission for water corporations subject to the commission's jurisdiction or the State \Nater Resources Control Board for all other water systems.
( 4) Coordinate with the appropriate local agency formation commission and other relevant local agencies to facilitate the change of organization or reorganization.
(fl For the purposes of this section, the consolidated water system shall not increase charges on existing customers of the rec.:iving water system solely as a consequence of the consolidation or extension of service unless the customas receive a corresponding benefit.
(g) Division 3 (eornrnencing with Section 56000) of Title 5 of the Government Code shall not apply to the consolidation or extension of service required pursuant to this secti,,n.

SEC. 4.

Section 116684 is added to the Hc:alth and Safety Code, to read:
116684.
(a) Liability ofa consolidated v"ater system, wholesale,-, or any other agency in the chain of distribution that delivers \1,ater to a consolidated water system shall be limited as described in this section. (b) (I) The c,,nsolidated water syst-.:m, wholesaler, or any other agency in the chain of distribution that delivers water to a consolidated \vater system, shall not be held liable for claims by past or existing customers or those who consumed water provided through the subsumed water system concerning the operation and supply of water from the subsumed water system during the interim operation reriod specified in ,ubdivision (d) for any good faith, reasonable effort using ordinary care to assume pussessiun uL to operate. or tu supply water tu the subsumed water system. (2) Thl! consolidated water system. wh(1ic:salc:r. or any other agency in the chain of distribution that delivers watl!r to a consolidated watl!r systl!m. shall not bl! held liabk frir claims by past or existing customers or by those who consumed \vatl!r providl!d through the subsumed water system for any injury that occurred prior to the comnH:ncement of the interim operation period specified in subdivision (d).
(c) (I) The consolidated watc1· system. whoksakr. or any othe1· agl!ncy in thl! chain of distribution that dl!livers water to a consolidated water system. shall not be held liabk for claims by past or existing customers or by those who consumed water provided through the subsumed w,1ter system conel!rning the provision of supplemental imported water supplies to the subsumed water system during the interim operation period specified in subdivision (d) for any good faith. reasonable dfort using ordinary care to supply water to the subsumed water system.
(2) The consolidated water system. wholesaler. or any other agency in the chain of distribution that delivers water to a consolidated water system. shall not be held liable: for claims by past or existing customers or by those who consumed wakr provided through the subsumed water system concerning the operation and supply of water from the subsumed water system for any injury that occurrl!d prior to the! commencement of the interim operation period sp,xified in subdivision (d). (3) This subdivision shall only apply if the water supplied by the consolidated water system through a temporary potable: sen ice pipc:linc: to the: subsumed watc:r system meets or exccc::ds tixkral and state drinking water quality standards. (d) (I) The interim operation pc:riod shall commc:nce upon the connection of a temporary potable Sl!rvice pipclinl! by the consolidated water system to the subsumed water system. or upon the: execution of an agrc:emc:nt between the: consolidated wakr system. subsumed water system. and any other signatoric:s to provide service to the customl!rs of the: subsumed water system, whichever occurs first.
(2) (A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B). the interim operation period slwll last until permanent rcplacemc:nt facilities arc accc:pted by the consolidated water system with the concurrence of the State Water Resources Control Board and the facilities and water supply meet drinking water and water quality standards. (B) Upon the showing of good cause. the interim opc:ration period shall be extc:nded by the: State Watl!r Resources Control Board for up to three successive one-year periods at the request of the consolidated water system. (3) The acceptance date of permanent rcplacemc:nt faci I ities shall be publicly noticed by the consolidatl!d water system. (c) Subdivision (b) shall only apply if the consolidated water system providc:s wziter to the: subsumed water system in accordance with all of the following conditions:
(I) Water provided by thl! consolidated water system through a temporary potable service pipdine to the subsumed watc:r systl!m shall meet or excc;ed federal and stall! drinking water quality standards. (2) Reasonable water system flow and pressure through a temporary potable: service pipeline shall be maintained during thl! interim operation period based upon the condition and inkgrity of the c::xisting subsumed watc:r system. and any disruptions to water delivery resulting from construction-rc:lakd activities associatc:d with the installation of permanent replacement fac:ilities shall bl! minimal.
(3) The: consolidatc:d water system shall notify tire oftic:ials sen ing the subsumed water system sl!rvict! area of the! condition and firefighting support capabilities ofthl! subsumed wawr system and planned improvt!m<:nts with the installation of permanent rcplacernc:nt facilities thc:rcto. The: cons()lidatc:d water system shall maintain or improve: the condition and tirdighting support capabilities ot'thc: subsurnl!d water system during the interim opc:ration period. ( 4) Customers of the subsumed water system sh al I rc:cc:ive writtc:n notice: upon any change in possession. contrn I. or opc:ration of the \vatc:r system.
(t) Nothing in this sc:ction shall bl! construed to do any of the following:
(I) Relic:w any water district. water 1-vhuksakr. or any other entity from complying with any provision of fcder:il or state! law pertaining to drinking watc:r quality.
(2) Impair any cause of:1ction by the: Attornc:y General, a district attornl!y. a city attorney. or any other public prosecutor. or impair any other action ('r pmc:ec:ding brought by ,iron behalf of a regulat(,ry agency. (3) Impair any claim alleging the taking of property\\ ithllut compensation within the: mc:aning ot· either the: Fifth Amc:ndmc:nt to the United States Constitution or Sc:ction 19 ofA11ick I of the: California Constitution.

NOTE: The following language is provided for the convenience of the recipient, and cannot be relied upon as the State of California's representation of the law. The published codes are the only official representation of the law.

Regulations related to drinking water are in Titles 22 and 17 of the California Code of Regulations. Statutes related to drinking water are in the Health & Safety Code, the Water Code, and other codes.

California Health and Safety Code (CHSC):

Section 116271. Transition of CDPH duties to State Board states in relevant part:
(a) The state board succeeds to and is vested with all of the authority, duties, powers, purposes, functions, responsibilities, and jurisdiction of the State Department of Public Health, its predecessors, and its director for purposes of all of the following:
(1) The Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Act (Article 3 (commencing with Section 100825) of Chapter 4 of Part 1 of Division 101 ).
(2) Article 3 ( commencing with Section 106875) of Chapter 4 of Part 1. (3) Article 1 ( commencing with Section 115825) of Chapter 5 of Part 10. (4) This chapter and the Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Law of 1997 (Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 116760)).
(5) Article 2 (commencing with Section 116800), Article 3 (commencing with Section 116825), and Article 4 (commencing with Section 116875) of Chapter 5.
(6) Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 116975).
(7) The Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2006 (Division 43 (commencing with Section 75001) of the Public Resources Code). (8) The Water Recycling Law (Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 13500) of Division 7 of the Water Code). (9) Chapter 7 .3 ( commencing with Section 13560) of Division 7 of the Water Code. (10) The California Safe Drinking Water Bond Law of 1976 (Chapter 10.5 (commencing with Section 13850) of Division 7 of the Water Code).
(11) Wholesale Regional Water System Security and Reliability Act (Division 20.5 (commencing with Section 73500) of the Water Code).
(12) Water Security, Clean Drinking Water, Coastal and Beach Protection Act of 2002 (Division 26.5 (commencing with Section 79500) of the Water Code).
(b) The state board shall maintain a drinking water program and carry out the duties, responsibilities, and functions described in this section. Statutory reference to "department," "state department," or "director" regarding a function transferred to the state board shall refer to the state board. This section does not impair the authority of a local health officer to enforce this chapter or a county's election not to enforce this chapter, as provided in Section 116500 ... (k)
(1) The state board shall appoint a deputy director who reports to the executive director to oversee the issuance and enforcement of public water system permits and other duties as appropriate. The deputy director shall have public health expertise.
(2) The deputy director is delegated the state board's authority to provide notice, approve notice content, approve emergency notification plans, and take other action pursuant to Article 5 ( commencing with Section 116450), to issue, renew, reissue, revise, amend, or deny any public water system permits pursuant to Article 7 (commencing with Section 116525), to suspend or revoke any public water system permit pursuant to Article 8 ( commencing with Section 116625), and to issue citations, assess penalties, or issue orders pursuant to Article 9 (commencing with Section 116650). Decisions and actions of the deputy director taken pursuant to Article 5 (commencing with Section 116450) or Article 7 (commencing with Section 116525) are deemed decisions and actions taken by the state board, but are not subject to reconsideration by the state board except as provided in Section 116540. Decisions and actions of the deputy director taken pursuant to Article 8 (commencing with Section 116625) and Article 9 (commencing with Section 116650) are deemed decisions and actions taken by the state board, but any aggrieved person may petition the state board for reconsideration of the decision or action. This subdivision is not a limitation on the state board's authority to delegate any other powers and duties.

Section 116275. Definitions states in relevant part:
(c) "Primary drinking water standards" means:
(1) Maximum levels of contaminants that, in the judgment of the state board, may have an adverse effect on the health of persons.
(2) Specific treatment techniques adopted by the state board in lieu of maximum contaminant levels pursuant to subdivision U) of Section 116365.
(3) The monitoring and reporting requirements as specified in regulations adopted by the state board that pertain to maximum contaminant levels.

Section 116555. Operational requirements states in relevant part:
(a) Any person who owns a public water system shall ensure that the system does all of the following:
(1) Complies with primary and secondary drinking water standards. (2) Will not be subject to backflow under normal operating conditions. (3) Provides a reliable and adequate supply of pure, wholesome, healthful, and potable water.

Section 116577. Enforcementfee states:
(a) Each public water system shall reimburse the state board for actual costs incurred by the state board for any of the following enforcement activities related to that water system:
(1) Preparing, issuing, and monitoring compliance with, an order or a citation. (2) Preparing and issuing public notification.
(3) Conducting a hearing pursuant to Section 116625.
(b) The state board shall submit an invoice for these enforcement costs to the publicwater system that requires payment before September 1 of the fiscal year following the fiscal year in which the costs were incurred. The invoice shall indicate the total hours expended, the reasons for the expenditure, and the hourly cost rate of the state board. The costs set forth in the invoice shall not exceed the total actual costs to the state board of enforcement activities specified in this section. (c) Notwithstanding the reimbursement of enforcement costs of the local primacy agency pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 116595 by a public water system under the jurisdiction of the local primacy agency, a public water system shall also reimburse enforcement costs, if any, incurred by the state board pursuant to this section. (d) "Enforcement costs," as used in this section, does not include "litigation costs" pursuant to Section 116585. (e) The state board shall not be entitled to enforcement costs pursuant to this section if a court determines that enforcement activities were in error.
(f) Payment of the invoice shall be made within 90 days of the date of the invoice. Failure to pay the invoice within 90 days shall result in a 10-percent late penalty that shall be paid in addition to the invoiced amount. (g) The state board may, at its sole discretion, waive payment by a public water system of all or any part of the invoice or penalty.

Section 116625. Revocation and suspension of permits states:
(a) The state board, after providing notice to the permittee and opportunity for a hearing, may suspend or revoke any permit issued pursuant to this chapter if the state board determines pursuant to the hearing that the permittee is not complying with the permit, this chapter, or any regulation, standard, or order issued or adopted thereunder, or that the permittee has made a false statement or representation on any application, record, or report maintained or submitted for purposes of compliance with this chapter. If the permittee does not request a hearing within the period specified in the notice, the state board may suspend or revoke the permit without a hearing. If the permittee submits a timely request for a hearing, the hearing shall be before the state board or a member of the state board, in accordance with Section 183 of the Water Code and the rules for adjudicative proceedings adopted under Section 185 of the Water Code. If the permit at issue has been temporarily suspended pursuant to subdivision (b ), the notice shall be provided within 15 days of the effective date of the temporary suspension order. The commencement of the hearing under this subdivision shall be as soon as practicable, but no later than 60 days after the effective date of the temporary suspension order, unless the state board grants an extension of the 60 day period upon request of the permittee.
(b) The state board may temporarily suspend any permit issued pursuant to this chapter before any hearing when the action is necessary to prevent an imminent or substantial danger to health. The state board shall notify the permittee of the temporary suspension and the effective date of the temporary suspension and, at the same time, notify the permittee that a hearing has been scheduled. The hearing shall be held as soon as possible, but not later than 15 days after the effective date of the temporary suspension unless the state board grants an extension of the 15 day period upon request of the permittee, and shall deal only with the issue of whether the temporary suspension shall remain in place pending a hearing under subdivision (a). The hearing shall be conducted under the rules for adjudicative proceedings adopted by the state board under Section 185 of the Water Code.

The temporary suspension shall remain in effect until the hearing under this subdivision is completed and the state board has made a final determination on the temporary suspension, which shall be made within 15 days after the completion of the hearing unless the state board grants an extension of the 15 day period upon request of the permittee. If the determination is not transmitted within 15 days after the hearing is completed, or any extension of this period requested by the permittee, the temporary suspension shall be of no further effect. Dissolution of the temporary suspension does not deprive the state board of jurisdiction to proceed with a hearing on the merits under subdivision (a).

Section 116650. Citations states:
(a) If the state board determines that a public water system is in violation of this chapter or any regulation, permit, standard, citation, or order issued or adopted thereunder, the state board may issue a citation to the public water system. The citation shall be served upon the public water system personally or by certified mail. Service shall be deemed effective as of the date of personal service or the date of receipt of the certified mail. If a person to whom a citation is directed refuses to accept delivery of the certified mail, the date of service shall be deemed to be the date of mailing. (b) Each citation shall be in writing and shall describe the nature of the violation or violations, including a reference to the statutory provision, standard, order, citation, permit, or regulation alleged to have been violated. (c) A citation may specify a date for elimination or correction of the condition constituting the violation. (d) A citation may include the assessment of a penalty as specified in subdivision (e). (e) The state board may assess a penalty in an amount not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000) per day for each day that a violation occurred, and for each day that a violation continues to occur. A separate penalty may be assessed for each violation and shall be in addition to any liability or penalty imposed under any other law.

Section 116655. Orders states:
(a) Whenever the state board determines that any person has violated or is violating this chapter, or any order, permit, regulation, or standard issued or adopted pursuant to this chapter, the state board may issue an order doing any of the following:
(1) Directing compliance forthwith.
(2) Directing compliance in accordance with a time schedule set by the state board. (3) Directing that appropriate preventive action be taken in the case of a threatened violation. (b) An order issued pursuant to this section may include, but shall not be limited to, any or all of the following requirements:
(1) That the existing plant, works, or system be repaired, altered, or added to. (2) That purification or treatment works be installed.
(3) That the source of the water supply be changed.
(4) That no additional service connection be made to the system. (5) That the water supply, the plant, or the system be monitored. (6) That a report on the condition and operation of the plant, works, system, or water supply be submitted to the state board.

Section 116701. Petitions to Orders and Decisions states:
(a)
(1) Within 30 days of issuance of an order or decision under authority delegated to an officer or employee of the state board under Article 8 (commencing with Section 116625) or Article 9 (commencing with Section 116650), an aggrieved person may petition the state board for reconsideration.
(2) Within 30 days of issuance of an order or decision under authority delegated to an officer or employee of the state board under Section 116540, the applicant may petition the state board for reconsideration. (3) Within 30 days of final action by an officer or employee of the state board acting under delegated authority, the owner of a laboratory that was the subject of the final action may petition the state board for reconsideration of any of the following actions:
(A) Denial of an application for certification or accreditation under Section 100855. (B) Issuance of an order directing compliance under Section 100875. (C) Issuance of a citation under Section 100880.
(D) Assessment of a penalty under subdivision (e) of Section 100880. (b) The petition shall include the name and address of the petitioner, a copy of the order or decision for which the petitioner seeks reconsideration, identification of the reason the petitioner alleges the issuance of the order was inappropriate or improper, the specific action the petitioner requests, and other information as the state board may prescribe. The petition shall be accompanied by a statement of points and authorities of the legal issues raised by the petition. (c) The evidence before the state board shall consist of the record before the officer or employee who issued the order or decision and any other relevant evidence that, in the judgment of the state board, should be considered to implement the policies of this chapter. The state board may, in its discretion, hold a hearing for receipt of additional evidence. (d) The state board may refuse to reconsider the order or decision if the petition fails to raise substantial issues that are appropriate for review, may deny the petition upon a determination that the issuance of the order or decision was appropriate and proper, may set aside or modify the order or decision, or take other appropriate action. The state board's action pursuant to this subdivision shall constitute the state board's completion of its reconsideration. (e) The state board, upon notice and hearing, if a hearing is held, may stay in whole or in part the effect of the order or decision subject to the petition for reconsideration.
(f) If an order or decision is subject to reconsideration under this section, the filing of a petition for reconsideration is an administrative remedy that must be exhausted before filing a petition for writ of mandate under Section 100920.5 or 116700.

Attachment B
Notices for Public Meeting and Public Hearing
,,P
Eo\1utm G . S HOW~ JA. Gf> '-: Hl
CA Ll• OIIIN t A
Water Boards
State Water Resources Control Board
Division of Drinkin;;:i Water
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING - JULY 10, 2017

PROPOSED CITY OF BAKERSFIELD WATER SUPPLY SERVICE TO

Background:

With State Water Resources Control Board funding, the nearby Lakeside School has completed plans to construct 4 miles of pipeline to the City of Bakersfield water system. In addition to the School, Old River MWC and South Kern MWC may participate in the proposed interconnection since they are located along the proposed pipeline alignment. The State Water Resources Control Board is considering action which would order the City of Bakersfield to provide a supply of domestic water to South Kern MWC, Old River MWC and Lakeside School water systems.

Public Meeting:

The State Water Resources Control Board will host a public meeting to provide information on the Old River MWC water system, the proposed action, answer questions, and receive public comments.

Date:

Location:

Monday, July 10, 2017 from 6:30 p.m. - 8:30 p.m.

Lakeside Elementary School - Cafeteria
14535 Old River Road Bakersfield, CA 93311
*Spanish language interpretation services will be available.

Public Comments/Information
Public comments will be received through July 31, 2017 and can be sent to:

Mail: Tricia Wathen, P.E., Senior Sanitary Engineer
State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Drinking Water 265 W. Bullard Avenue, Suite 101, Fresno, CA 93704
Email: [email protected] or Fax: (559) 447-3304 Fu 1c 1/\ MN<•~us, CHAIR I THOMAS HOWARD. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 265 West Bullard Avenue. Suite 101 . Fresno, CA 93704 I www.waterboards.co.gov - E o VltJ NI) G. S HOW:".! Jtt. G()VI fl \Hll1
CAL l ,O .. N I A
Water Boards
State Water Resources Control Board
Division of Drinking Water
AVISO SOBRE REUNION PUBLICA para el 10 de julio de 2017

PROPUESTA PARA QUE LA CIUDAD DE BAKERSFIELD PROVEA

SERVICIO DE AGUA A OLD RIVER MWC
La Junta Estatal de Agua, en ingles conocida como la State Water Resources Control Board o SWRCB, los invita a una reunion publica para que den sus comentarios sabre el potencial de que la Ciudad de Bakersfield provea agua domestica para la compania de agua mutua llamada Old River Mutual Water Company (MWC). lnformaci6n de Fondo:

Old River MWC (el Sistema de Agua), esta ubicado en un area no incorporada del Condado de Kern, al sureste de la Ciudad de Bakersfield. El Sistema de Agua es un sistema de agua comunitario que da servicio de agua domestica a 19 conexiones de servicio y a aproximadamente 50 personas. El Sistema de Agua usa un pozo de agua subterranea para satisfacer la demanda de agua y no tiene ninguna capacidad de almacenamiento o fuentes redundantes, para satisfacer la demanda de agua en caso de que falle el pozo o en una emergencia de calidad de agua. Desde el 2009, el Sistema de Agua ha estado en violaci6n del nivel maxima de contaminantes (MCL) para uranio.

Con fondos de la Junta Estatal de Agua (SWRCB), Lakeside School que esta cercana, ha completado planes para construir 4 millas de tuberia que conecta al sistema de agua de la Ciudad de Bakersfield. Ademas de la Escuela, puede que los sistemas de agua publica Old River MWC y South Kern MWC participen en la interconexi6n propuesta; ya que estan ubicados a lo largo de la alineaci6n de tuberia propuesta. La SWRCB esta considerando tomar acci6n que le ordenaria a la Ciudad de Bakersfield proveer agua domestica a los sistemas de agua de Lakeside School, South Kern MWC y Old River MWC.

Reunion Publica:

La Junta Estatal de Agua (SWRCB), tendra una reunion publica para dar informaci6n sabre el sistema de agua Old River MWC, la acci6n propuesta, contestar preguntas, y recibir comentarios publicos.

Fecha: Lunes, 10 de julio de 2017 de 6:30 p.m. a 8:30 p.m.

Lugar: Lakeside Elementary School - en la Cafeteria
14535 Old River Road Bakersfield, CA 93311
*Habra servicio de interprete en espanol.

Comentarios del publico/mas informaci6n
Se estaran recibiendo comentarios del publico hasta el 31 de julio de 2017 y pueden ser enviados a:

Correo postal: Tricia Wathen, P.E., lngeniera Sanitaria Senior State Water Resources Control Board, Division de Agua Potable 265 W. Bullard Avenue, Suite 101 , Fresno, CA 93704
Correo electr6nico: [email protected] Fax: (559) 447-3304 F 1 L-<.:IA M A«,;us. C><AIR I THoM~s HowARD. EXECUTIVE 01RECTOR 265 West Bull;:ird Avenue. Suit e 101 , Fresno, CA 93704 I WW\'.'.w::t terboards.ca.gov Water Boards
State Water Resources Control Board
Division of Drinking Water
E o \1tt N E) G S HOWN J H .
:.::o·,1 •i-.:1n.

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING- SEPTEMBER 7, 2017

PROPOSED CITY OF BAKERSFIELD WATER SUPPLY SERVICE TO

OLD RIVER MWC
The State Water Resources Control Board invites you to attend a public hearing to comment on the potential for the City of Bakersfield to supply domestic water to Old River Mutual Water Company (MWC).

Background:

With State Water Resources Control Board funding, the nearby Lakeside School has completed plans to construct 4 miles of pipeline to the City of Bakersfield water system. In addition to the School, Old River MWC and South Kern MWC may participate in the proposed interconnection since they are located along the proposed pipeline alignment. The State Water Resources Control Board is considering action which would order the City of Bakersfield to provide a supply of domestic water to South Kern MWC, Old River MWC and Lakeside School water systems.

Public Hearing:

The State Water Resources Control Board will host a public hearing to provide information on the Old River MWC water system, the proposed action, answer questions, receive public comments, and accept public testimony.

Date:

Location:

Thursday, September 7, 2017 from 6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m.

Lakeside Elementary School - Cafeteria
14535 Old River Road Bakersfield, CA 93311
*Spanish language interpretation services will be available.

Public Comments/Information
Public comments will be received through September 31, 2017 and can be sent to:

Mail: Tricia Wathen, P.E., Senior Sanitary Engineer
State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Drinking Water 265 W. Bullard Avenue, Suite 101, Fresno, CA 93704
Email: [email protected] or Fax: (559) 447-3304 F t I ,CII\ M A'!•JJS. CHAIR I T HOMAS H OWARD. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 265 West Bull:1rd Avenue, Suite 101 , Fresno. CA 93704 I www.w:1terbo.:1rds.ca.gov - E r>\4t llm G Buvw~ J ti .
f.:OVlf<'-1 ( 111
- .

C&L l f:0.N I A
Water Boards
State Water Resources Control Board
Division of Drinkin9 Water
AVISO DE AUDIENCIA PUBLICA para el 7 de septiembre de 2017

PROPUESTA PARA QUE LA CIUDAD DE BAKERSFIELD PROVEA

SERVICIO DE AGUA A OLD RIVER MWC
La Junta Estatal de Agua, en ingles conocida como la State Water Resources Control Board o SWRCB, los invita a una audiencia publica para que den sus comentarios sobre el potencial de que la Ciudad de Bakersfield provea agua domestica para la compaiifa de agua mutua llamada Old River Mutual Water Company (MWC). lnformaci6n de Fondo:

Old River MWC (el Sistema de Agua), esta ubicado en un area no incorporada del Condado de Kern, al sureste de la Ciudad de Bakersfield. El Sistema de Agua es un sistema de agua comun.itario que da servicio de agua domestica a 19 conexiones de servicio y a aproximadamente 50 personas. El Sistema de Agua usa un pozo de agua subterranea para satisfacer la demanda de agua y no tiene nrnguna capacidad de almacenamiento o fuentes redundantes, para satisfacer la demanda de agua en caso de que falle el pozo o en una emergencia de calidad de agua. Desde el 2009, el Sistema de Agua ha estado en violaci6n del nivel maxima de contaminantes (MCL) para uranio.

Con fondos de la Junta Estatal de Agua (SWRCB), Lakeside School que esta cercana, ha completado planes para construir 4 millas de tuberfa que conecta al sistema de agua de la Ciudad de Bakersfield. Ademas de la Escuela, puede que los sistemas de agua publica Old River MWC y South Kern MWC participen en la interconexi6n propuesta; ya que estan ubicados a lo largo de la alineaci6n de tuber[ a propuesta. La SWRCB esta considerando tomar acci6n que le ordenarf a a la Ciudad de Bakersfield proveer agua domestica a los sistemas de agua de Lakeside School, South Kern MWC y Old River MWC.

Audiencia Publica:

La Junta Estatal de Agua (SWRCB), tendra una audiencia publica para dar informaci6n sobre el sistema de agua Old River MWC, la acci6n propuesta, contestar preguntas, y recibir comentarios publicos.

Fecha:

Lugar:

Jueves, 7 de septiembre de 2017 de 6:00 p.m. a 8:00 p.m.

Lakeside Elementary School - en la Cafeteria
14535 Old River Road Bakersfield, CA 93311
*Habra servicio de interprete en espanol.

Comentarios del publico/mas informaci6n
Se estaran recibiendo comentarios del publico hasta el 31 de septiembre de 2017 y pueden ser enviados a:

Correo postal: Tricia Wathen, P.E., lngeniera Sanitaria Senior State Water Resources Control Board, Division de Agua Potable 265 W. Bullard Avenue, Suite 101, Fresno, CA 93704
Correo electr6nico: [email protected] Fax: (559) 447-3304 , Ft\ .{.;I,\ M A' !•,-US. C~AIR I THOMAS H OWARD. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 265 West Bullard Avenue, Suite 101 , Fresno. CA 93704 I www.waterboords.ca .gov Attachment C
State Board Letters to the City and Old River MWC
, Eot.HJNo G . 8 How:.. J ;::.

G011E Ru u 11
CA L IFO RHJ •
Water Boards
State Water Resources Control Board
Division of Drinking Water
November 10, 2015
Ms. Taryn Rickel
Old River Mutual Water Company - Water System No. 1500096 6734 Charity Avenue, Bay #8
Bakersfield, CA 93308
Dear Ms. Rickel:

Effective June 24, 2015, Senate Bill 88 (Statutes 2015, Chapter 27) added Sections 116680 - 116684 to California Health & Safety Code, addressing consolidation of public water systems.

Our records indicate that the water delivered by Old River Mutual Water Company (System No. 1500096) pJ.Jblic water systen:L(System) contains uranium at levels that exceed the maximum contaminant level (MCL) established in state and federal regulations. Since approximately 2009, the System has consistently failed to provide safe drinking water.due to the uranium levels. It is our understanding that the System's service area is outside the boundaries of City of Bakersfield (City) but within the City's sphere of influence.

There is a funding project to connect Lakeside School to the City of Bakersfield with a transmission pipe along Old River Road. It is also our understanding that the proposed transmission main to Lakeside School will pass along your water system. In addition to Lakeside School, there is another small public water system along the proposed transmission pipe alignment - South Kern Mutual Water Company which has elevated uranium levels but has not yet completed the required monitoring to determine compliance with the uranium MCL. According to our records, your System and the Old River Mutual Water Company have distribution systems within 100 feet.

The State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) strongly encourages the System and the City to work out voluntary consolidation of their public water systems. However, if a voluntary consolidation is not timely achieved, the State Water Board may determine to exercise its authority pursuant to Health & Safety Code section 116682, subdivision (a) to achieve consolidation of System with the City's public water system.

The State Water Board acknowledges that consolidation is a complex process and stands ready to assist you so that you are successful in delivering safe, affordable and accessible drinking water to your community in a cost-effective manner. The State Water Board will provide technical assistance and work with the City and Lakeside School, Old River Water Company and South Kern Mutual Water Company to develop an appropriate and necessary financing package.

Technical assistance will be availab.le from the State Water Board's Division of Drinking Water (DOW) and Division of Financial Assistance (DFA).

Fu 1c1A M A1tu1s , c 1-1A1R I T HOM AS H owARD, rxecurivE rnRccroA 1001 I Siree1, Socramenlo, CA 95814 I Ma,liny Ad,hess. P.O. Box 100. Sacrnmento, CA 9581 2-0 100 I www.w.1 1erboard s.ca.gov Old River Mutual Water Company - 2 -
In the near future, we will be contacting all the water systems to set up a meeting. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me at (559) 447-3300. For funding related questions, please contact Mr. Joel Greathouse at (559) 447-3300.

Sincerely,
Tricia A. Wathen P.E.

Senior Sanitary Engineer
Visalia District

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA BRANCH

DRINKING WATER FIELD OPERATIONS
cc: Mr. Art Chianello
Water Resources Manager
City of Bakersfield
1000 Buena Vista Road.

Bakersfield, CA 93311
Ms. Donna Fenton, Kern County EHD
2700 M Street, Suite 300
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Ms. Rebecca Moore
Executive Officer
Kern County LAFCo
5300 Lennox Ave, Suite 303
Bakersfield, CA 93309
Mr. Ty Bryson, Superintendent
Lakeside School
1435 Old River Road
Bakersfield, CA 93311
Ms. Sherry Settlemoir, President
South Kern Mutual Water Company
9612 Beam Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93311
p EoMutm G. BROWN Jn. GOV(RtJOR
CALIFO'INI A N,o~ M ATTHEW R ODRIQUEZ l "---~ S£CR£T ARY FOR Water Boards State Water Resources Control Board
Division of Drinking Water
June 15, 2016
Ms. Kylie Moore, Accounts Manager
Old River Mutual Water Company - Water System No. 1500096 6734 Charity Avenue, Bay #8
Bakersfield, CA 93308
Dear Ms. Moore:
,_.., ENVIRONMENfAL PAOtEC nON
State Water Resources Control Board Notice Regarding Mandatory Consolidation Effective June 24, 2015, Senate Bill 88 (Statutes 2015, Chapter 27) added Sections 116680 - 116684 to California Health & Safety Code, addressing consolidation of public water systems.

Our records indicate that the water delivered by Old River Mutual Water Company public water system (System) contains uranium at levels that exceed the maximum contaminant level established in state and federal regulations. Since approximately 2009, the System has consistently failed to provide safe drinking water due to the high uranium levels. It is our understanding that the System's service area is just outside the boundaries of City of Bakersfield (City). According to our records, the City's distribution system and the Old River MWC's distribution system are within 1 00 feet.

The System seemed willing for consolidation or interconnection with the City. The City indicated that it may be willing to provide to the System if the City's service boundaries are changed which requires approval from Kern County LafCO.

The State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) strongly encourages the System and the City to work out voluntary consolidation of their public water systems. If a voluntary consolidation is not timely achieved, the State Water Board intends to take action pursuant to Health & Safety Code section 116682, subdivision (a) for consolidation of the System with the City's public water system. Please note that as used in the applicable statutory authority, the City is hereby identified as the potentially receiving water system and the Old River MWC Water System is identified as the potentially subsumed water system.

This letter serves as official notification that, pursuant to Health & Safety Code section 116682, subdivision (b) (6), the Old River MWC Water System, the potentially subsumed water system, is directed to negotiate consolidation with the City, the potentially receiving water system. The System is further directed to complete such negotiations and report the outcome to the State

FELICIA MARCUS, CHAIR I THOMAS H OWARD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 265 West Bullard Avenue, Suile IOI , Fresno, CA 93704 I www.waterboards.ca.gov 0 F'IEC 'l' ClEO PA P[R
Old River MWC
June 15, 2016

Page 2 ends

Water Board Division of Drinking Water - Visalia District Office not later than six (6) months following the date of this letter.

The State Water Board acknowledges that consolidation is a complex process and stands ready to assist you so that you are successful in delivering safe, affordable and accessible drinking water in a cost-effective manner. Pursuant to Health & Safety Code section 116682, subdivision (b) (6) (A), during the six month negotiation period, the State Water Board will provide technical assistance and work with the City and the Old River MWC to develop an appropriate and necessary financing package. Technical assistance will be available from the State Water Board Division of Drinking Water (DOW) and Division of Financial Assistance (DFA).

Sincerely,
Carl L. Carlucci, P.E.

Supervising Sanitary Engineer
Central California Section

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA BRANCH

DRINKING WATER FIELD OPERATIONS
Enclosure
cc: Honorable Harvey L. Hall, Mayor, City of Bakersfield Mr. Jason Meadors, Water Resources Director, City of Bakersfield City Council, City of Bakersfield
Ms. Donna Fenton, Kern County Environmental Health Department Ms. Rebecca Moore, Executive Officer, Kern County LAFCo Water Boards
State Water n esourccs Control Bo.ird
Division nl rinnkino Wair>,
November 10, 2015
Ms. Taryn Ricl<el
Old River Mutual Water Company - Water System No. 1500096 6734 Charity Avenue, Bay #8
Bakersfield, CA 93308
Dear Ms. Ricl<el:

Effective June 24, 2015, Senate Bill 88 (Statutes 2015, Chapter 27) added Sections 116680 - 116684 to California Health & Safety Code, addressing consolidation of public water systems.

Our records indicate that the water delivered by Old River Mutual Water Company (System No. 1500096) public water syste.m (System) contai11s uranium at lev~ls that exceed the maximum contaminant level (MCL) established in state and federal regulations. Since approximately 2009, the System has consistently failed to provide safe drinking water due to the uranium levels. It is our understanding that the System's service area is outside the boundaries of City of Bakersfield (City) but within the City's sphere of influence.

The State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) strongly encourages tile System and the City to work out voluntary consolidation of their public water systems. However, if a voluntary consolidation is not timely achieved, the State Water Board may determine to exercise its authority pursuant to Health & Safety Code section 116682, subdivision (a) to achieve consolidation of System with the City's public water system.

The State Water Board acknowledges that consolidation is a complex process and stands ready to assist you so that you are successful in delivering safe, affordable and accessible drinking water to your community in a cost-effective manner. The State Water Board will provide technical assistance and work with the City and Lakeside School, Old River Water Company and South Kern Mutual Water Company to develop an appropriate and necessary financing package.

Technical assistance will be available from the State Water Board's Division of Drinking Water (DOW) and Division of Financial Assistance (OFA).
rt 1,u l\ ~' ' "111 ,N, c 11 11. IR I Ttto ~1Ac tlow"11u. Ex l cu11,·r. 11111tc1 0 11 \.,) !11 1 \ i l lll l' ... 1' !11
Old River Mutual Water Company -2·
In the near future, we will be contacting all the water systems to set up a meeting. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me at (559) 447-3300. For funding related questions, please contact Mr. Joel Greathouse at (559) 447-3300.

Sincerely,
Tricia A. Wathen P.E.

Senior Sanitary Engineer
Visalia District

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA BRANCH

DRINKING WATER FIELD OPERATIONS
cc: Mr. Art Chianello
Water Resources Manager
City of Bakersfield
1000 Buena Vista Road.

E DMUUO G . BROWN JH.

GCV(fU~OR
CALl,ORNIA N,..~ M ATTHEW Roomoucz l ~ ~ Sl;CRETARV FO~ Water Boards
State Water Resources Control Board
Division of Drinking Water
June 15, 2016
Mr. Art Chianello, Water Resources Manager
City of Bakersfield - Water System No.: 1510031
1000 Buena Vista Road
Baker~field, CA 93311
Dear Mr. Chianello:
~ f NVIR0NM£Hl1'L PROIECTIO~
State Water Resources Control Board Notice Regarding Mandatory Effective June 24, 2015, Senate Bill 88 (Statutes 2015, Chapter 27) added Sections 116680 - 116684 to California Health & Safety Code, addressing consolidation of public water systems.

Our records indicate that the water delivered by Old River Mutual Water Company's public water system (System) contains uranium at levels that exceed the maximum contaminant level established in state and federal regulations. Since approximately December 2008, the System has consistently failed to provide an adequate supply of safe drinking water. According to our records, the City's system and the System have distribution systems within 100 feet.

The System seemed willing to consolidation or interconnection with the City. The City indicated that it would be necessary to evaluate the source water capacity of the City's system prior to evaluating the possibility of a consolidation or interconnection.

The State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) strongly encourages the System and the City to work out voluntary consolidation of their public water systems. If a voluntary consolidation is not timely achieved, the State Water Board intends to take action pursuant to Health & Safety Code section 116682, subdivision (a) for consolidation of the System with the City's public water system. Please note that as used in the applicable statutory authority, the City is hereby identified as the potentially receiving water system and the System is identified as the potentially subsumed water system.

This letter serves as official notification that, pursuant to Health & Safety Code section 116682, subdivision (b) (6), the City, the potentially receiving water system, is directed to negotiate consolidation with Lakeside School, the potentially subsumed water system. The City is further directed to complete such negotiations and report the outcome to State Water Board Division of Drinking Water, Visalia District Office not later than six (6) months following the date of this letter. f(I.ICIA MARCUS, CHAIR I THOMAS HOWARD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 1001 I Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 I Malling Address : P.O. Box 100, Sacramento, CA 95812-0100 I www.waterboards .ca.gov 0 JUCY CLED PAP (R
City of Bakersfield - 2 -
The State Water Board acknowledges that consolidation is a complex process and stands ready to assist you so that you are successful in delivering safe, affordable and accessible drinking water to your neighboring community in a cost-effective manner. Pursuant to Health & Safety Code section 116682 subdivision (b) (6) (A), during the six month negotiation period, the State Water Board will provide technical assistance and work with the City and Lakeside School to develop an appropriate and necessary financing package. Technical assistance will be available from the State Water Board's Division of Drinking Water (DOW) and Division of Financial Assistance (DFA).

Sincerely,
Carl L. Carlucci, P.E.

Supervising Sanitary Engineer
Central California Section

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA BRANCH

DRINKING WATER FIELD OPERATIONS
Enclosure
cc: Honorable Harvey L. Hall, Mayor, City of Bakersfield Mr. Jason Meadors, Water Resources Director, City of Bakersfield City Council, City of Bakersfield
Ms. Donna Fenton, Kern County Environmental Health Department Ms. Rebecca Moore, Executive Officer, Kern County LAFCo Mr. Dennis Gaston, McMor Chlorination
Ms. Kylie Moore, McMor Chlorination
..
,
C ALU Ol'tMHI
Water Boards
State Water Resources Control Board
Division of Drinking Waler
November 10, 2015
Ms. Taryn Rickel
Old River Mutual Water Company - Water System No. 1500096 6734 Charity Avenue, Bay #8
Bakersfield, CA 93308
Dear Ms. Rickel:

Effective June 24, 2015, Senate Bill 88 (Statutes 2015, Chapter 27) added Sections 116680 - 116684 to California Health & Safety Code, addressing consolidation of public water systems.

Our records indicate that the water delivered by Old River Mutual Water Company (System No. 1500096) public water system (System) contains uranium at levels__lllat excee-9 the maximurr:i contaminant level (MCL) established in state and federal regulations. Since approximately 2009, the System has consistently failed to provide safe drinking water due lo the uranium levels. It is our understanding that the System's service area is outside the boundaries of City of Bakersfield (City) but within the City's sphere of influence.

The State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) strongly encourages the System and the City to work out voluntary consolidation of their public water systems. However, if a voluntary consolidation is not timely achieved, the State Water Board may determine to exercise its authority pursuant to Health & Safety Code section 116682, subdivision (a) to achieve consolidation of System with the City's public water system.

The State Water Board acknowledges that consolidation is a complex process and stands ready to assist you so that you are successful in delivering safe, affordable and accessible drinking water to your community in a cost-effective manner. The State Water Board will provide technical assistance and work with the City and Lakeside School, Old River Water Company and South Kern Mutual Water Company to develop an appropriate and necessary financing package.

Technical assistance will be available from the State Water Board's Division of Drinking Water (DOW) and Division of Financial Assistance (DFA).
r , 1 ic11, tvl,\IK 11=->. c 11Am I T ~lf) M A::. HowAku, Ex1;.cur 1v1: 0111Ec 10H 100 1 I s,,~P.f , S:u r:Jn lf'IIIO, CA 'J!\8 1;t I M ,1,lu1g J\ddrt'!,!O. PO 801( 100 s ._, , , .,r(l t_> I I I O, CA 9 58 12- 0100 j WWW wnl er t,omd.s.,:n.g m .. , 10 I •• 1 1 0 "'"' ''I•
Old River Mutual Water Company - 2 -
In the near future, we will be contacting all the water systems to set up a meeting. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me at (559) 447-3300. For funding related questions, please contact Mr. Joel Greathouse at (559) 447-3300.

Sincerely,
Tricia A. Wathen P.E.

Senior Sanitary Engineer
Visalia .District

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA BRANCH

DRINKING WATER FIELD OPERATIONS
cc: - Mr. Art Chianello
Water Resources Manager
City of Bakersfield
1000 Buena Vista Road.

Water Resources Manager
City of Bakersfield - Water System No. 1510031
1000 Buena Vista Road
Bakersfield, CA,93311
Dear Mr. Chianello:

EoMuuo G . 8 AOWN JR. C-,C>vERNOA
N,~ MAllHt:VI R OOAIOUEZ l.
~
............... ~ ScCREfA.R'I' FOR
£HYIRON,A£NTAl PRO JECTKlN
This letter is in response to your letter, dated May 4, 2017, regarding the meeting that the Division had with the City of Bakersfield (City) on March 28, 2017, to discuss the potential consolidation of the Old River Mutual Water Company and the South Kern Mutual Water Company (Mutual Water Companies) with the City's water.system.

Your letter states that the extension of domestic water service to the two Mutual Water Companies can occur if the two service areas are annexed to the City and the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board} provides full funding for the planning, design, and installation of the necessary water infrastructure. The City also requested that the State Water Board provide the necessary grant funding to reconstruct neighborhood streets and make pedestrian improvements to ensure compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and City standards. Your letter includes cost estimates for annexation, water system improvements, and right-of-way improvements. Since the State Water Board is concerned with addressing the public health risk of the two Mutual Water Companies, it is imperative that quick action is taken. In accordance with the consolidation statutes annexation is not required. Consolidation of the two water systems or an extension of service would address the public health need quickly. The City can pursue annexation at a later time. The Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) is limited to addressing the drinking water issue. It cannot fund right-of-way improvements or street or pedestrian improvements in the neighborhood to ensure compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The City should also be aware that the State Water Board does have a consolidation incentive that would allow the City to receive up to $10 million at 0% interest for any DWSRF eligible project the City may want to pursue elsewhere in the City's system. This funding would be in addition to any funding provided by the State Water Board that is determined necessary for the City to complete the consolidations. Therefore, we recommend that the City submit a funding application to the SWRCB's Division of Financial Assistance (DFA) through the Financial Assistance Application Submittal Tool (FAAST) to initiate the review process by DFA.

FELICIA M~RCUS. CHAIR I THOMAS HOWARD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 1001 I Stree t, Sacramento, CA 95814 I Mai ling Address: P.O. Box 100, Sacramento, CA 95812-0100 I www .walerboards.ca.gov 0 A.ECVCLEll PAl'En
Mr. Art Chianello
City of Bakersfield
June 21, 2017 - 2 -
The State Water Board is planning to hold a public meeting on July 10, 2017, to provide information, answer questions, and receive public comments on the potential for the City of Bakersfield to supply domestic water to the South Kern Mutual Water Company and the Old River Mutual Water Company. Attached is a copy of the public notice. The date and location of the public meeting are given below:

Date:

Location:

Monday, July 10, 2017 from 6:30 p.m. - 8:30 p.m.

Lakeside Elementary School - Cafeteria
14535 Old River Road Bakersfield, CA 9331 1
Thank you in advance for the City's assistance in finding a solution to address the public health risk associated with the two Mutual Water Companies providing water to customers that does not meet a primary drinking water standard. If you would like to have a meeting or you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Tricia Wathen, Visalia District "Engineer for the State Water Board's Division of Drinking Water, at (559) 447-3398, or me at (559) 447-3132.

Sincerely,
~~
Carl L. Carlucci, P.E~ 1
Supervising Sanitary Engineer
Central California Section

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA BRANCH

Water Boards
State Water Resources Control Board
Division of Drinking Water
N,..~ MArrHEW R OORIOUE2
'-
~
"'~ SECR£!AO'f fOR ENVlnQloi.,tENl"L PA01.ECt10N
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING - JULY 10, 2017

PROPOSED CITY OF BAKERSFIELD WATER SUPPLY SERVICE TO

Background:

With State Water Resources Control Board funding, the. nearby Lakeside School has completed plans to construct 4 miles of pipeline to the City of Bakersfield water system. In addition to the School, Old River MWC and South Kern MWC may participate in the proposed interconnection since they are located along the proposed pipeline alignment. The State Water Resources Control Board is considering action which would order the City of Bakersfield to provide a supply of domestic water to South Kern MWC, Old River MWC and Lakeside School water systems.

Public Meeting:

The State Water Resources Control Board will host a public meeting to provide information on the Old River MWC water system, the proposed action, answer questions, and receive public comments.

Date: Monday, July 10, 2017 from 6:30 p.m. - 8:30 p.m.

Location: Lakeside Elementary School - Cafeteria
14535 Old River Road Bakersfield, CA 93311
*Spanish language interpretation services will be available.

Public Comments/Information
Public comments will be received through July 31, 2017 and can be sent to:

FELICIA MIIRCUS, CHAIR I T HOMAS HOWARD, EXEC UTIVE DIRECTOR 265 West Bullard Avenue, Suite 101, Fresno, CA 93704 I www.wa1erboards .c;:i.gov Water Boards
State Water Resources Control Board
Division of Drinking Water
E oMUND G. 8 Hcvm Jn.

GO'IERNl)r1
N.,.~ M .-,:ntlE\'I R OOfl lOUEZ
l_
~
"'-......~ SE-Cn ET AnY r:on •
f N\IJAOHM ENTAt PRO TECI ION
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING - JULY 10, 2017

PROPOSED CITY OF BAKERSFIELD WATER SUPPLY SERVICE TO

Background:

With State Water Resources Control Board funding, the nearby Lakeside School has completed plans to construct 4 miles of pipeline to the City of Bakersfield water system. In addition to the School, South Kern MWC and Old River MWC may participate in the proposed interconnection since they are located along the proposed pipeline alignment. The State Water Resources Control Board is considering action which would order the City of Bakersfield to provide a supply of domestic water to South Kern MWC, Old River MWC and Lakeside School water systems.

Public Meeting:

The State Water Resources Control Board will host a public meeting to provide information on the South Kern MWC water system, the proposed action, answer questions, and receive public comments.

Date: Monday, July 10, 2017 from 6:30 p.m. -8:30 p.m.

Location: Lakeside Elementary School - Cafeteria
14535 Old River Road Bakersfield, CA 93311
*Spanish language interpretation services will be available.

Public Comments/Information
Public comments will be received through July 31, 2017 and can be sent to:

Mail: Tricia Wathen, P.E., Senior Sanitary Engineer
State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Drinking Water 265 W. Bullard Avenue, Suite 101, Fresno, CA 93704
Email: [email protected] or Fax: (559) 447-3304 FELICIA M ARCVS, CHAIR I THOMAS HOWARD, EXECUTIVE 01REcroA 265 West Bull:ud Avenue, Suite 101 , Fresno, CA 93704 I www.waterbonrds.c a.901,1 Attachment D
Responses from the City of Bakersfield
/4 _____
• _____ __

BAKERSFIELD
Alan Tandy • City ManaQer
February l 0, 2017
FEB l ~ 2017
Carl L. Carlucci, P.E.

Supervising Sanitary Engineer
BY.· _____ _
State Water Resources Control Board - Division of Drinking Water 265 W. Bullard Avenue, Suite 101
Fresno, CA 93704
Re: Old River Mutual Water System Consolidation
Dear Mr. Carlucci:

On December 9, 2016, City staff met with State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) staff, Lakeside School District staff, Kern County Public Health and Kern County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) to discuss the proposed public water system consolidation of three areas. During the meeting, SWRCB staff requested the City provide written correspondence for each of the three areas, outlining the City's stance on each of the proposed consolidations. This letter is specifically in regards to the Old River Mutual Water System area.

Since January 2016, City staff has consistently engaged with the SWRCB in an attempt to identify a practical, long-term solution for domestic water service delivery for the existing users within the Old River Mutual Water System area. From the onset of the discussions, the City has expressed the opportunity for this area to be consolidated with the City's domestic water system by way of annexation. The City has included staff from its Planning Division in multiple meetings to formally begin these discussions.

During the December 9th meeting, City staff indicated the next steps are to coordinate a meeting between SWRCB staff, City Planning staff and representatives from the Old River Mutual Water System. SWRCB staff indicated they would be reaching out to the City to coordinate this meeting. As of the date of this letter. we have not been contacted regarding potential meeting dates. This meeting is a critical first step to inform the residents of the area about the annexation process and to outline the costs associated with this process to the SWRCB staff.

Upon annexation. the extension of services could occur assuming the SWRCB provides full funding for the planning, design and installation of necessary water infrastructure including looping water mains. laterals. meters and service City of Bakersfield • City ManaQer's Oftice • 1600 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield • California • 93301
(661)326-3751 • Fax(661)324-1850
Re: Old River Mutual Water System Consolidation
February l 0, 2017

Page 2 ends

connections for the subsumed area. In addition to bringing the infrastructure within the Old River Mutual Water System up to City standard, the City will require the SWRCB to reconstruct neighborhood streets and make pedestrian improvements within the neighborhood to ensure compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Under this plan, an agreement outlining the State's financial commitment to make all of these improvements will need to be ratified by both the City Council and SWRCB prior to or concurrent with annexation.

Since our last meeting, there have been additional issues identified regarding the proposed pipeline. Old River Road is not aligned as it crosses State Route 119 (Taft Highway). City staff is aware that CalTrans has a planned project to make safety improvements to this intersection. Although final design is not yet complete, this project will likely have impacts on all utilities in the area, including the proposed pipeline. If the pipeline is constructed prior to the intersection improvements, it will need to be relocated. If it is constructed after the intersection improvements are complete, it will require redesign and may impact the new roadway. Either path will likely require longitudinal encroachment approval from CalTrans. This has not been taken into consideration by SWRCB staff.

We look forward to hearing from you regarding potential meeting times and dates to discuss potential opportunities for annexation of this area. (
Tandy
City Manager
cc: Chris Huot, Assistant City Manager
Richard lger, Deputy City Attorney
Art Chianef/o, Water Resources Manager
Jacqui Kitchen, Community Development Director
Thomas M. Berliner, Duane Morris LLP
Felicia Marcus, State Water Resources Control Board Chair Thomas Howard, State Water Resources Control Board Executive Director Blair Knox, Executive Director, Kern County Local Agency Formation Commission /4 _____
•---------~

BAKERSFIELD

WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
Art R. Chianello, P.E. • Water Resources Manager
May 4, 2017
Carl L. Carlucci, P.E.

SupeNising Sanitary Engineer
State Water Resources Control .Board - Division of Drinking Water 265 W. Bullard Avenue, Suite 101
Fresno, CA 93704
Dear Mr. Carlucci:

This letter Is the City of Bakersfield's response to the discussion regarding potential consolidation with the Old River and South Kern Mutual Water Companies that was held during our meeting of March 28, 2017. During the meeting, City staff indicated it would provide you with information as it relates to the estimated costs to annex and make the necessary improvements to the Old River and South Kern areas.

As discussed, upon annexation, the extension of domestic water seNices can occur assuming the SWRCB provides full funding for the planning, design and installation of necessary water infrastructure Including looping water mains, laterals, meters and seNice connections for the subsumed area. In addition to bringing the water infrastructure within the South Kern/Old River Mutual Water Systems up to City standard, the City requested the SWRCB provided the necessary funding to reconstruct neighborhood streets and make pedestrian improvements within the neighborhood to ensure compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and City standards.

The following are estimates for each component of the process:

Annexation Fees and Costs $34,600
Water System Improvements $2,380,000
Right-of-Way Improvements $1,562,000
Estimated Total $3,976,600
In addition, the extension of sewer service to the area can be accomplished through the extension of a sewer trunk line, which is estimated to cost $1.36 million and is not included in the estimated costs outline above. Staff can provide more information regarding this component during a future meeting.

As discussed during the last meeting. the next steps will be to engage the Division of Financial Assistance to determine the eligibility of these costs as it relates to the goal of extending water seNice to these areas.

Water Resources Department• 1000 Buena Vista Road • Bakersfield • catifornia 93311 (661) 326-3715 • Fax (661) 852-2127 • E-Mail: [email protected] It may be most beneficial to schedule another face-to-face meeting to discuss these issues, so please provide us with some available dates and times to meet.

Thank you,
Art Chianello, P.E.

Water Resources Manager
City of Bakersfield
1000 Buena Vista Road
Bakersfield, CA 9331 1
(661) 326-3715
Cc: Tricia Wathan, District Engineer, Visalia District Division of Drinking Water Richard lger, Deputy City Attorney, City of Bakersfield Chris Huot Assistant City Manager, City of Bakersfield
Nick Fidler, Public Works Director, City of Bakersfield Jacquelyn Kitchen. Community Development Director, City of Bakersfield Sherry Settlemoir 9609 Beam Ave, Bakersfield, CA 93311
Water Resources Department• 1000 Buena Vista Road • Bakersfield • california 93311 (661) 326-3715 • Fax (661) 852-2127 • E-Mail: [email protected] City of Bakersfield
Summary of Comments and Concerns Regarding Water Consolidation with Old River Mutual and South Kern Mutual
Public Meeting - July 10, 2017
Since January 2016, City staff has consistently engaged with the SWRCB in an attempt to identify a practical, long-term solution for domestic water service delivery for the existing users within the Old River (ORMWC) and South Kern Mutual Water System (SKMWC) areas. It should be made clear that the City's consideration and evaluation of providing water service to these two areas are distinct and separate from any other consolidation efforts currently being made by the SWRCB, including the proposed Lakeside School consolidation. This distinction is made due to the fact these areas are potentially eligible for annexation to the City and are located in such an area where good engineering practices can be achieved as it relates to the installation and maintenance of the domestic water system.

On March 28, 2017, City staff met with representatives from the SWRCB in an attempt to initiate the process to annex the ORMWC and SKMWC areas. Subsequent to that meeting and at the request of the SWRCB, City staff sent a letter to the SWRCB outlining the necessary steps to ensure a successful consolidation.

Under this plan, an agreement outlining the State's financial commitment to make all of these improvements will need to be ratified by both the City Council and SWRCB prior to or concurrent with annexation.

The City recognizes that SB88 preempts state law as it relates to the customary requirement for a City to annex an area prior to providing municipal services. However, it has been the City's intent to work with the SWRCB and the property owners within the ORMWC and SKMWC areas to address the issue at hand through a cooperative, reasonable approach. As previously mentioned, annexation directly assists the City with operation and maintenance of domestic water infrastructure. Staff believed the SWRCB was supportive of working with the City to create the best possible outcome for the residents within the ORMWC and SKMWC areas. The SWRCB forcing consolidation without assisting the City with annexation reflects poorly on the SWRCB and directly contradicts the findings necessary within 5B88. Essentially, without the SWRCB's support for annexation of the ORMWC and SKMWC areas, the SWRCB will knowingly and intentionally create a potentially dangerous environment in which to operate a domestic water system.

Additionally, the request for pedestrian and street improvements are reasonable given that when the City utilizes state and federal monies for projects within the public right-of-way, the City is required to bring these areas up to current ADA standards. It should be no different for a state-sponsored and funded project. The City believes the SWRCB wants to ensure not only the quality of the water delivered to these areas, but that all state and federal accessibility laws are followed. Absent these improvements, the City is potentially liable for all accessibility-related issues that may arise in the future.

In summary, the City is open to further discussion in regards to providing the ORMWC and SKMWC areas with domestic water service under the following conditions:

1. Annexation of the properties and any adjacent properties is completed;

2. The SWRCB installs all domestic water delivery infrastructure to City standards, including the looping of the main line within Taft Highway to provide for necessary redundancy; and

3. The SWRCB collaborates with the residents and the City by funding the necessary curb, gutter and sidewalk facilities within the residential areas.

Required Findings Under SB 88 Not Met
• All reasonable efforts to negotiate consolidation or extension of service between the City of Bakersfield, the State Water Resources Control Board, ORMWC and SKMWC were not made; • Extension of service as currently proposed by the SWRCB, from the City of Bakersfield's domestic water system to the ORMWC and SKMWC is not appropriate and technically and economically feasible;
• Concerns regarding water rights and water contracts of the City of Bakersfield have not been adequately addressed;
• The extension of service is not the most effective and cost-effective means to provide an adequate supply of safe drinking water;
• The capacity of the proposed interconnection needed to accomplish the consolidation is not limited to serving the current customers of the subsumed water system; City Municipal Code and Jurisdictional Issues
• Per section 14.04.030 of the City of Bakersfield Municipal Code, "no application for water connection to the city-owned system shall be approved for an unincorporated area." • The City has no jurisdiction outside of the City limits and no way to enforce its water regulations, including drought-related mandates within the ORMWC and SKMWC areas; • Without annexation, the pipeline is proposed to be located within right-of-way controlled by the County of Kern; Without an easement or separate agreement, the City does not have a legal right to perform maintenance or routine work on the pipeline outside of its jurisdiction; • Any cost associated with gaining access to the right-of-way will need to be passed on to rate payers, which is not permitted under SB 88;
• The City of Bakersfield is currently working toward meeting State Groundwater Management Act requirements, however the City of Bakersfield has been provided no clarity has to how a domestic water connections outside of the City's jurisdictional boundaries will be contemplated within SGMA;
• Extending pipelines for many miles outside the City limits will encourage disorderly growth, as proposed developments may request to attach on to the new pipelines, which is out of compliance with Senate Bill 375 and Assembly Bill 32;
• City of Bakersfield staff believes there may be conflicts with Proposition 218 as it relates to proportionate costs of providing services;
• City of Bakersfield owns pre-1914 water rights and the State Water Resources Control Board has not provided any information to the City as to how the City's concerns associated with the use of this water right is authorized under SB 88;
Inadequate Analysis
• State Water Resources Control Board staff has continuously stonewalled the City's request to perform a study, conducted solely by a third party and financed by the State, to evaluate impacts to the City by extending services to the ORMWC and SKMWC via direct connection to the cityowned water system; • State Water Resources Control Board staff initially delayed providing information about funding opportunities for such a study for nearly four months;
• After City of Bakersfield staff compiled a significant amount of documentation and completed the state funding application, City staff was told that the State Water Resources Control Board would not fund a study that analyzed anything other than the pipeline; • No prior studies commissioned by State Water Resources Control Board and/or ORMWC and SKMWC has been completed to determine the most logistically-sound plan of action to install the necessary water delivery infrastructure and all ADA-required improvements; Operational Issues Not Addressed by SWRCB
• As proposed, the pipeline will not be looping or have redundant connections, creating health, safety and engineering issues;
• Non-looping pipeline requires weekly flushing to maintain water quality standards; • No study has been completed to determine;
• This is in direct conflict with the State Water Resources Control Board recent extension of statewide drought regulations (See tab 4);
• Flushing will create a potentially adverse demand on a number of existing City wells; • The flushed water will have a chlorine residual, and therefore should be dechlorinated before it gets discharged, further increasing costs to operate the pipeline that were not contemplated by the State Water Resources Control Board;
• There is no plan for the discharge of the flushed water and any associated costs have not been identified by the State Water Resources Control Board;
• A non-looped, single point of use connection has significant exposure to damage caused by natural disaster or human error, potentially leaving the ORMWC and SKMWC areas without drinking water for unknown periods of time, which was not considered by the State Water Resources Control Board;
• Extending pipelines for many miles outside the City limits will encourage unauthorized hook ups to the system, creating potential health, safety and costs issues not contemplated or calculated by the State Water Resources Control Board;
• The pipeline would be installed in existing right-of-way adjacent to undeveloped unincorporated properties, which will necessitate the pipeline be relocated at a point in time when or if part or all of the adjacent property is developed;
• The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has previously made the City aware of a planned project to align Old River Road at the State Route 119 intersection (See Exhibit A), which will impact the timing and the location of the proposed pipeline; • This Caltrans project has not been considered by the State Water Resources Control Board during this process;
• This Caltrans project may result in increased cost to potentially relocate the pipeline should it be constructed prior to the road alignment project;
• The City of Bakersfield has been made aware of a recently completed, federally-funded road project that included complete reconstruction of the asphalt within the right-of-way of the proposed pipeline;
• The City of Bakersfield understands that because the proposed pipeline would follow these recently completed road projects, that the County of Kern would require the State Water Resources Control Board to provide a paved surface similar to that of the reconstructed area, which is to mean full lane width paving and no trenches - this cost was not considered in prior cost analysis by State Water Resources Control Board;
Alternatives
• City of Bakersfield staff has, with its own resources, diligently researched various logical alternatives to the proposed non-looping pipeline;
• In the best interest of the residents and the operation and maintenance of the domestic water system, the City has requested a redundant, looping pipeline be installed as part of the project; • The looping pipeline will ensure quality domestic water service is made available to the ORMWC and SKMWC areas;
• The City's plan includes state funding for the installation of necessary water infrastructure including looping water mains, laterals, meters and service connections for the ORMWC and SKMWC areas;
• To comply with state and federal accessibility laws, the City is requesting state funding for all necessary access
• For public health and safety reasons, the City is requesting state funding to ensure proper drainage within the streets inside the ORMWC and SKMWC areas.

Exhibit "A"
Old River Road and State Route 119 Current Alignment
Subject to future Ca/trans project
/4 ____
•----~

BAKERS F I E L D
Alan Tandy • City Manaqer
September l l, 2017
Kurt Souza, P .E., Assistant Deputy Director
California Water Boards
State Water Resources Control Board
Division of Drinking Water - So CA DWFOB
l 180 Eugenia Place
Carpinteria, CA 93013
Re: City of Bakersfield Water System Consolidation Meeting Recap Dear Mr. Souza,
Thanks to your staff and you for meeting with City staff on August 25th to discuss the opportunities and challenges associated with consolidating Lakeside School, South Kern Mutual and Old River Mutual into the City's domestic water system. We feel the meeting was productive and hope it will lead to mutual, positive outcomes to address the State's concerns for these water systems.

As promised, below are the summary bullets and action items City staff believes exist for the three areas.

Lakeside School
• Concept: City and State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) agree to pursue on-site treatment solution under a voluntary managerial consolidation agreement.
• City to be the lead agency in applying for grant through the SWRCB for funding to fully design and construct on-site treatment facility within the Lakeside School property.
• If the full grant is awarded, City will become domestic water provider for Lakeside School by operating and maintaining an on-site wellhead treatment · facility.
• City desires to not own or otherwise maintain or operate the existing on-site well. • School district would maintain and operate the existing well. • City prefers to only operate and maintain future installed on-site wellhead treatment facility.

Citv of Bakersfield • City ManaQer's Oftice • 1600 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield • California • 93301
(661) 326-3751 • Fax (661) 324-1850
Bakersfield Water System Consolidation Meeting Recap
September 11 , 2017
Page2
• Under this concept Lakeside School would cease being a public water system as defined by the State of California.
• Upon execution of the agreement, the Lakeside School property would be managerially consolidated into the City of Bakersfield's domestic water service system under the City's existing domestic water supply permit. • SWRCB would fund all necessary improvements including, but not limited to onsite well head treatment vessels, piping, facility screening, security systems, onsite storage tank, electrical, SCADA systems and other infrastructure as mutually agreed upon by the City, SWRCB and school district.
• City would be lead on competitive bidding process for design and construction for on-site treatment facility within the Lakeside School property. • City would assess school the same rate structure as all other domestic water service customers within the City's system.
• All future rate adjustments for Lakeside School would be pursuant to state law and be applied the same as all other domestic water service customers within the City's system.

South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Systems
• Concept: City and SWRCB to analyze opportunity to physically consolidate two mutual water companies via looping the City's existing domestic water system along Taft Highway at Ashe Road to a new well and storage tank within or adjacent to the two mutual water systems.
• City to be the lead agency in in applying for grant through the SWRCB for funding to fully design and construction of new well and storage tank and looping of mainline along Taft Highway to existing City domestic water system connection point at Ashe Road.
• SWRCB will provide funding for the installation and/or replacement of all necessary infrastructure within the two mutual water service areas, including, but not limited to mainlines, service lines, and meters for each individual customer. • If the full grant is awarded and all improvements are constructed, City will become domestic water provider for the existing mutual water company customers.
• SWRCB staff to evaluate potential opportunities to fund all . necessary infrastructure to loop domestic water system from a new proposed well site and storage tank near the two mutual areas to existing domestic water system infrastructure at Taft Highway and Ashe Road.

Bakersfield Water System Consolidation Meeting Recap
September 11 , 2017
Page3
• SWRCB to identify all necessary treatment for new well site, including, but not limited to uranium and TCP treatment facilities.
• City to confirm ultimate right of way widths for Taft Highway and number of parcels necessary for acquisition under this plan.
• City would assess existing mutual customers the same rate structure as all other domestic water service customers within the City's system. • All future rate adjustments for the mutual customers would be pursuant to state law and be applied the same as all other domestic water service customers within the City's system.

It may be necessary to meet again soon to discuss in further detail each of the concepts that were outlined during the previous meeting. I am happy to extend an offer to meet again at City Hall North at your staff's convenience. Please contact my office at ( 661 ) 326-37 51 to coordinate a meeting time and date that works for the group.
cc: Chris Huot, Assistant City Manager
Art Chianello, Water Resources Manager
Richard lger, Deputy City Attorney
Tricia Wathen, State Water Resources Control Board
Attachment E
MWCs Compliance Alternatives Memo
p E i>MUNll G. S HOWN J H ,
(;O VI H '-4 011
CAL l ,ORNIA
Water Boards
State Water Resources Control Board
Division of Drinking Water
September 5, 2018
RE: Old River and South Kern Mutual Water Companies Compliance Alternatives Old River and South Kern Mutual Water Companies
Old River Mutual Water Company (MWC) and South Kern MWC are community water systems that serve residential and commercial properties. Each MWC operates using a single well that is in violation of the uranium maximum contaminant level (MCL). In addition, the South Kern MWC's well also exceeds the 1,2,3-TCP MCL. Both MWCs lack source reliability and storage capacity. The MWCs also lack technical, managerial, and financial (TMF) capacity. In order to solve the MWCs' water quality issues, three alternatives were considered: consolidation, extension of service, and uranium and 1,2,3-TCP treatment.

F ELICIA M ARCUS, CHAIR I E ILEEN S OBECK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 265 Wesi Bullard Avenue. Suite 101, Fresno. CA 93704 I www.waterboards.ca.gov y A EC VCL EO PAPER
MWCs Compliance Alternatives - 2 - September 5, 2018
. . . • I .. .. e
Old River MWC & South Kern MWC
Pipeline Alternative
Supplies Initial Cost Interest (i) Years (n) Annual Cost (A) (P) (A/P,i,n)
Pipeline to MWCs (1 mile
of 12 inch @ $125/ft) $660,000 3% 40 ($28,553)
Highway anci Canal
Crossings $100,000 3% 40 ($4,326)
New Well for Bakersfield $1,000,000 3% 40 ($43,262)
Storage Tank (100,000
gal) $200,000 3% 30 ($10,204)
Booster Pumps (2) $20,000 3% 10 ($2,345)
Pressure Tank $30,000 3% 20 ($2,016)
Hypochlorinator $5,000 3% 10 ($586)
TOTAL $2,015,000 ($91,292)
Table 2: MWC Treatment Costs
Old River & South Kern MWC
Treatment Alternative
Capitalized
Cost (A/i)
($951,772)
($144,208)
($1,442,079)
($340,128)
($78,154)
($67,216)
($19,538)
($3,043,095)
Supplies Initial Cost Interest (i) Years (n) Annual Cost (A) Capitalized Cost (P) (A/P,i,n) (A/i)
Uranium
Treatment Plant $500,000 3% 15 ($41,883) ($1,396,110)
Adsorptive Media $10,000 3% 1 ($10,000) ($333,333)
1,2,3-TCP
Treatment Plant $500,000 3% 15 ($41,883) ($1,396,110)
GAC Media $20,000 3% 1 ($20,000) ($666,667)
New Well $500,000 3% 40 ($21,631) ($721,040)
Hypochlorinator $5,000 3% 10 ($586) ($19,538)
Plant Building $100,000 3% 30 ($5,102) ($170,064)
Storage Tank
(100,000 gal) $200,000 3% 30 ($10,204) ($340,128)
Booster Pumps
(2) $20,000 3% 10 ($2,345) ($78,154)
Pressure Tank $30,000 3% 20 ($2,016) ($67,216)
TOTAL $1,885,000 ($155,650) ($5,188,360)
MWCs Compliance Alternatives - 3 - September 5, 2018
Regional Compliance Project
A regional compliance project would benefit the Old River MWC and South Kern MWC. Connecting these two small disadvantaged community water systems into the City of Bakersfield's existing distribution system would serve as the most cost effective long-term solution. Under Alternative 1, the MWCs would no longer be regulated public water systems. The MWC residents would be individually metered and direct customers of the City. The City of Bakersfield offers redundancy, system reliability, and water system expertise.

Attachment F
Notification of Receipt

ATTACHMENT F - NOTIFICATION OF RECEIPT
Compliance Order Number: Order No. 03_12_18R_003
Name of Water System: City of Bakersfield
System Number: 1510031
Certification
I certify that I am an authorized representative of the City of Bakesrfield and that Compliance Order No. 03_12_18R_003 was received on ________ . Further I certify that the Order has been reviewed by the appropriate management staff of the City of Bakersfield and it is clearly understood that Compliance Order No. 03_ 12_ 18R_003 contains legally enforceable directives with specific due dates.

Signature of Water System Representative Date

Attachment G
Quarterly Progress Report
ATTACHMENT H: QUARTERLY PROGRESS REPORT
Water System: City of Bakersfield Water System No: 1510031 Calendar Quarter: Date:

This form should be prepared and signed by City of Bakersfield personnel with appropriate authority to implement the directives of the Compliance Order and the Corrective Action Plan. Please attach additional sheets as necessary. The quarterly progress report must be submitted by the 10th day of each subsequent quarter, to the Division of Drinking Water, Visalia District 12 Office to the following email address:
[email protected] titled appropriately.

Summary of Compliance Plan:

Tasks completed in the reporting Quarter:

Tasks remaining to complete:

Anticipated compliance date:

Printed Name Signature
Title Date
ATTACHMENT C:

Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System AR 6060 Prop 1 Project, Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (EIR Document)
Consolidation of South Kern
and Old River Mutual Water
Companies into the City of
Bakersfield Water System
AR 6060 Prop 1 Project
Final
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 2025 | Project No. 02632.00014.001
Prepared for:

City of Bakersfield
1715 Chester Ave
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Prepared by:

HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
1180 Iron Point Road, Suite 130
Folsom, CA 95630
On behalf of:

Carollo Engineers
1401 Fulton St, Suite 802
Fresno, CA 93721
HELIX Environmental Planning
This page intentionally left blank
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Initial Study Information Sheet........................................................................................... 1

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION........................................................................................................... 3

2.1 Project Location .................................................................................................................. 3

2.2 Project Background............................................................................................................. 3

2.3 Project Components........................................................................................................... 3

2.4 Construction Equipment and Schedule .............................................................................. 4

2.5 Required permits and approvals......................................................................................... 4

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED.............................................................. 6

3.1 Determination..................................................................................................................... 7

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST........................................................................... 8 I. AESTHETICS......................................................................................................................... 9 II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES...................................................................... 11 III. AIR QUALITY...................................................................................................................... 13 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .................................................................................................. 24 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES ..................................................................................................... 32 VI. ENERGY ............................................................................................................................. 39 VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS ........................................................................................................ 41 VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ......................................................................................... 46 IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.......................................................................... 53 X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY.................................................................................. 57 XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING................................................................................................ 63 XII. MINERAL RESOURCES ....................................................................................................... 65 XIII. NOISE ................................................................................................................................ 67 XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING............................................................................................ 72 XV. PUBLIC SERVICES............................................................................................................... 74 XVI. RECREATION...................................................................................................................... 77 XVII. TRANSPORTATION ............................................................................................................ 79 XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ......................................................................................... 82 XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ..................................................................................... 86 ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
Section Page
XX. WILDFIRE........................................................................................................................... 89 XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE....................................................................... 91

5.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................93

6.0 PREPARERS..........................................................................................................................99

LIST OF FIGURES
No. Title Follows Page
1 Regional Location............................................................................................................................. 3 2 Project Location ............................................................................................................................... 3 3 Site Plan ........................................................................................................................................... 5

LIST OF TABLES
No. Title Page
1 San Joaquin Valley Air Basin – Attainment Status.........................................................................15 2 Project Construction Schedule.......................................................................................................18 3 Project Construction Equipment ...................................................................................................18 4 SJVAPCD Air Quality Significance Thresholds ................................................................................20 5 Annual Construction Criteria Pollutant and Precursor Emissions .................................................22 6 California Electricity Sources 2020.................................................................................................39 7 Construction GHG Emissions .........................................................................................................51

LIST OF APPENDICES
A Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Letter Report B Biological Resources Technical Letter Report
C Cultural Resources Technical Letter Report
D Roadway Construction Noise Model Outputs
E Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
iii

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AB Assembly Bill
APE Area of Potential Effect
bcf billion cubic feet
BMP best management practices
BPS best performance standards
bgs below ground surface
CAA Clean Air Act
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CAP Climate Action Plan
CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association CARB California Air Resources Board
CBC California Building Code
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CH4 methane
CGP Construction General Permit
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent
CRHR California Register of Historic Places
CVRWQCB Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board dB decibel
dBA A-weighted decibel
DOC California Department of Conservation
DPM diesel particulate matter
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
EO executive order
F Fahrenheit
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FGC Fish and Game Code
GHG greenhouse gas
GWP global warming potential
HFC hydrofluorocarbons
Hz hertz
iv
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (cont.)
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
KCFD Kern County Fire Department
KCSO Kern County Sheriff’s Office
KDWD Kern Delta Water District
KRGSA Kern River Groundwater Sustainability Agency
LEQ hourly sound level
LMAX maximum noise level
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MCL maximum contaminant level
µg/L micrograms per liter
MLD most likely descendant
MT metric tons
MWC Mutual Water Company
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NOX nitrogen oxides
N2O nitrous oxide
NRCS National Resources Conservation Service
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NSLU Noise-sensitive land use
OEHHA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
OPR Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PFC perfluorocarbons
PM10 particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter
PM2.5 particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter PPV peak particle velocity
PRC Public Resources Code
RCNM roadway construction noise model
ROG reactive organic gas
ROW right-of-way
SF6 sulfur hexafluoride
SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer
SJVAB San Joaquin Valley Air Basin
SJVAPCD San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District v
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (cont.)
SLF Sacred Lands File
SO2 sulfur dioxide
SR State Route
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TAC toxic air contaminant
TCP trichloropropane
USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
VMT vehicle miles traveled
VOC volatile organic compound
vi
This page intentionally left blank
Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 INITIAL STUDY INFORMATION SHEET

1. Project title: Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water
System Project

2. Lead agency name and address: City of Bakersfield
1000 Buena Vista Rd.

Bakersfield, CA 93311

3. Contact person and phone number: Kristina Budak, P.E.

Water Director
City of Bakersfield
(661) 326-3715

4. Project location: Along Old River Road between McCutchen Road and State Route (SR)-119, as well as in the community of
Old River located southeast of the intersection of
SR-119 and Old River Road

5. General plan designation: Low-density residential; resource-intensive agricultural; general commercial; estate residential;
heavy commercial

6. Zoning: Residential (R-1); Planned Unit Development
(P.U.D.); Exclusive Agriculture (A); Highway
Commercial (CH); General Commercial (C-2);
Medium Density Residential (R-2)

7. Description of project:

Old River Mutual Water Company (MWC) and South Kern MWC provide water service to residential and commercial customers located in the community of Old River in unincorporated Kern County. Each MWC operates using a single well, and both wells produce water that exceeds allowable levels of uranium. Therefore, the proposed project includes the abandonment of the two wells and the extension of the City of Bakersfield’s water system to consolidate both MWCs into the City of Bakersfield’s water system.

The proposed project would involve the construction of approximately 6,000 linear feet of a new 10- inch water main, 1,600 linear feet of 8-inch lateral pipelines, and 29 household connections. Three fire hydrants would also be installed, and two wells would be abandoned as part of the project. The new 16- inch water main would be located within the disturbed portions of Old River Road and SR-119. The proposed 8-inch lateral pipelines and household connections would be located within disturbed portions of Par Street, Beam Street, and front yards of existing residences.

Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 2 8. Surrounding land uses and setting:

The proposed project is located partially within the City of Bakersfield city limits and partially within unincorporated Kern County. The land adjacent to the proposed project to the west of Old River Road is within the Bakersfield city limits. The land uses in this area are primarily agricultural and residential, with some commercial uses near the intersection of Old River Road and SR-119. The land to the east of Old River Road and to the south of SR-119, including the community of Old River, is located in unincorporated Kern County, and the land uses are primarily agricultural, with some commercial uses near the intersection of SR-119 and Old River Road. Land uses in the community of Old River are primarily residential, with some commercial uses along SR-119. Land surrounding the community of Old River to the north, west, south, and east is primarily used for agricultural purposes, with some commercial uses to the north directly across SR-119. The character of the community and surrounding areas is rural.

9. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement):
• State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB)
• California Air Resources Board (CARB)
• California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)
• California Department of Public Health
• Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC)
• Office of Historic Preservation
• Kern County
• Kern River Groundwater Sustainability Agency (KRGSA)
• Kern Delta Water District

10. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.? On August 1, 2024, letters inviting tribes to consult under Assembly Bill (AB) 52 were sent to the following 15tribes: Big Pine Paiute Tribe of Owens Valley, Chumash Council of Bakersfield, Coastal Band of the Chumash Nation, Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians, Kern Valley Indian Community, Kitanemuk & Yowlumne Teion Indians, San Fernando Band of Mission Indians, San Manuel, Band of Mission Indians, Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe, Teion Indian Tribe, Tubatulabals of Kern County, Tule River Indian Tribe, Wuksache Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band, and the yak tityu tityu yak tiłhini Northern Chumash Tribe. As of the date of this report, two responses from tribes have been received, neither of which requested consultation. No additional responses or requests for consultation have been received.

Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 3 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The proposed project is located in Kern County southwest of the City of Bakersfield (Figure 1, Regional Location). Old River MWC currently serves an approximately 10.7-acre area at the southeast corner of Old River Road and SR-119 (Taft Highway). South Kern MWC serves an approximately 9.7-acre area east of Old River Road and immediately south of the Old River MWC service area (Figure 2, Mutual Water Company Site Locations). Both service areas are located in unincorporated Kern County, just outside of Bakersfield city limits.

2.2 PROJECT BACKGROUND
Old River MWC and South Kern MWC currently provide water service to residential and commercial customers located in the community of Old River in unincorporated Kern County. Each MWC operates using a single well located within their respective service areas, which provides water to adjacent parcels and nearby customers.

Water from this well also exceeds the 1, 2, 3-trichloropropane (TCP) MCL of 0.005 µg/L. The Old River MWC well lacks source reliability and storage capacity to serve the customers. The MWC also lacks technical, managerial, and financial capacity.

South Kern MWC provides water to 32 residents via 15 service connections in its 9.7-acre service area.

Water is provided by a single well in the northeast corner of the service area. The South Kern MWC well was constructed in 1959 and has a ten-inch diameter steel casing perforated from 230 to 337 feet bgs.

The well currently produces water that exceeds the uranium MCL of 30 µg/L. Water from this well also exceeds the 1, 2, 3- TCP MCL of 0.005 µg/L. The South Kern MWC well also lacks source reliability and storage capacity to serve the customers. The MWC also lacks technical, managerial, and financial capacity.

The proposed project would abandon the Old River MWC well and the South Kern MWC well and extend the City of Bakersfield’s water system to serve the areas previously served by these two MWCs, thereby consolidating both MWCs into the City of Bakersfield’s water system. Based on water supply information provided by the City and predicted MWC demands, the City has sufficient capacity to service the MWCs.

2.3 PROJECT COMPONENTS
Old River MWC and South Kern MWC provide water service to residential and commercial customers.

Each MWC operates using a single well, and both wells produce water that exceeds allowable levels of uranium and 1, 2, 3-TCP. Therefore, the proposed project would abandon the two wells and extend the City of Bakersfield’s water system to consolidate both MWCs into the City of Bakersfield’s water system.

Bakersfield
District Blvd
S Allen Rd
Berkshire Rd
Shafter Rd
Old River Rd Old River Rd
McCutchen Rd
Harris Rd
Houghton Rd
Buena Vista Rd
Panama Ln
Ashe Rd
Gosford Rd
Stine Rd
Figure 1
Site and Vicinity Map
T:\PROJECTS\C\CarolloEngineers_02632\00014_SouthKernOldRiverMunicipalISMND\Map\Map\South Kern Old River MWC.aprx 4/3/2024 Source: Base Map Layers (Esri, USGS, NGA, NASA)
Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System Los Angeles
San
Luis
Obispo
Santa
Barbara Ventura
Kern
USGS 7.5 Min. Gosford Quad
Township 31S, Range 27E, Section 5
Approximate Location:
-119.1086875 35.2652880
NAD 1983 State Plane CA Zone V (US Feet)
Approximate Acreage: ±20.35 Acres
0 1 Miles
Old River MWC
South Kern MWC
Project Location
10" Water Main
N
A
H Env,~ Eo Lnme'n!anning
(
I
I
Old River Rd
0 800 Feet
Figure 2
Project Location and Mutual
Water Company Site Locations
T:\PROJECTS\C\CarolloEngineers_02632\00014_SouthKernOldRiverMunicipalISMND\Map\Map\South Kern Old River MWC.aprx 8x11P 4/4/2024 Source: Aerial (Maxar, 2022)
Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System Old River Mutual Water Company
South Kern Mutual Water Company
10" Water Main
8" Water Main
CJ
E---3 E---3
HELIX
Environmenta/Planning -------------------------------------------------- Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 4 To extend service from the City of Bakersfield’s water system to the areas currently served by Old River MWC and South Kern MWC, the proposed project would construct approximately 6,000 linear feet of new 10-inch water main, 1,600 linear feet of 8-inch lateral pipelines with connections to 29 households.

Three fire hydrants would also be installed for use in case of emergency. The point of connection to the City of Bakersfield’s water system would be the existing 16-inch diameter water main at McCutchen Road and Old River Road (Figure 3, Site Plan). Once the connection to the City of Bakersfield water system is complete, the Old River MWC and the South Kern MWC wells would be abandoned and no longer provide water to the community.

2.4 CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT AND SCHEDULE
Project construction is anticipated to begin as early as April 2026 and continue for approximately nine months. Construction of the pipeline would take place within disturbed portions of Old River Road, SR119, Par Street, and Beam Street. Pipeline trench depth is expected to be between four and ten feet, with a total excavation width of five feet. It is anticipated that construction of the pipeline would proceed at a rate of approximately 200 linear feet per day.

During construction, approximately 4,000 cubic yards of soil would be excavated and backfilled once the pipe has been installed. An excavator, trencher, and pipe layer would be used to create a trench and lay pipe within it, as well as trench shoring equipment to keep the trench open while work is being performed. A steel auger would be used to cut through soil as pipe is advanced using trenchless installation for portions of the pipe that would be installed under roads and culverts. Once pipe installation is completed, soil would be backfilled, and a compactor would be used to compact the soil above the pipe. A short portion of the 10-inch pipeline would be installed underneath an existing irrigation canal/culvert using trenchless tunneling and installation of pipe commonly known as “jack and bore”.

In accordance with the City of Bakersfield and Kern County noise ordinances and to minimize disruptions to the local community, construction and equipment maintenance would be limited to between 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. on weekdays and between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. for any work taking place on weekends.

2.5 REQUIRED PERMITS AND APPROVALS
A listing and brief description of the permits and approvals required to implement the proposed project are provided below.

City of Bakersfield
• Consideration of the Environmental Document: The City of Bakersfield will act as the Lead Agency as defined by California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and will have authority to determine if the environmental document is adequate under CEQA and State CEQA Guidelines. • Project Approval: The City of Bakersfield will consider approval of the project and entitlements described above.

Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 5 Agencies
• Kern County: The CEQA environmental document will be posted with Kern County Clerk and State Clearinghouse.
• Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB): The State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Water Quality, requires that a Construction General Permit be obtained for projects that disturb more than 1 acre of soil. Typical conditions issued with such a permit include the submittal of and adherence to a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), as well as prohibitions on the release of oils, grease, or other hazardous materials during construction. The project applicant and/or construction contractor would be required to file a Notice of Intent with the CVRWQCB.
• California Department of Transportation (Caltrans): An encroachment permit will be required for work performed within the Caltrans rights-of-way.
• Kern Delta Water District (KDWD): An encroachment permit or easement may be required to have the 10-inch line under their canal/within their rights-of-way. • Kern River Groundwater Sustainability Agency (KRGSA): Coordination may be needed with KRGSA as the project is located within KRGSA’s boundaries.

Old River Rd
0 1,200 Feet
Figure 3
Site Plan
T:\PROJECTS\C\CarolloEngineers_02632\00014_SouthKernOldRiverMunicipalISMND\Map\Map\South Kern Old River MWC.aprx Fig3_Site Plan 4/4/2024 Source: Aerial (Maxar, 2022)
Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System Fire Hydrant Location
1" Water Main
8" Water Main
Prop. 10" Water Line (Extends up to
McCutchen Rd and Ties-In to Existing 10"
Water Line, approx 1.0 Mile North)
Prop. Trenchless Installations Under Old
River Road, Stine Canal 3-48" Diameter
Culvert, and Taft Hwy 119
Prop. 8" Water Line
Extends in to Old River
MWC Streets
O
dl River Rd
HELIX
Environmental Planning----------------------------------------------------- Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 6 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY

AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” or “Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ☐ Aesthetics ☐ Agriculture and Forestry
Resources
☐ Air Quality
☒ Biological Resources ☒ Cultural Resources ☐ Energy
☒ Geology and Soils ☐ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ☒ Hazards and Hazardous Materials
☒ Hydrology and Water
Quality
☐ Land Use and Planning ☐ Mineral Resources
☐ Noise ☐ Population and Housing ☐ Public Services
☐ Recreation ☐ Transportation ☒ Tribal Cultural Resources ☒ Utilities and Service
Systems
☐ Wildfire ☒ Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 7 3.1 DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
☐ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
☒ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
☐ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
☐ I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect I) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
☐ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Signature Date
Printed Name For
Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 8 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
The lead agency has defined the column headings in the environmental checklist as follows:

A. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

B. “Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the inclusion of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” All mitigation measures are described, including a brief explanation of how the measures reduce the effect to a less than significant level. Mitigation measures from earlier analyses may be cross-referenced.

C. “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where the project does not create an impact that exceeds a stated significance threshold.

D. “No Impact” applies where a project does not create an impact in that category. “No Impact” answers do not require an explanation if they are adequately supported by the information sources cited by the lead agency which show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project would not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project specific screening analysis).

The explanation of each issue identifies the significance criteria or threshold used to evaluate each question; and the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.

Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration [CEQA Guidelines Section 15063(c)(3)(D)]. Where appropriate, the discussion identifies the following:
a) Earlier Analyses Used. Identifies where earlier analyses are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identifies which effects from the checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and states whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,” describes the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.

Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 9 I. AESTHETICS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Environmental Setting
The proposed project is located in unincorporated Kern County immediately south of the city limits of Bakersfield. There are no designated scenic vistas within the City of Bakersfield or in the vicinity of the proposed project. Kern County has three designated scenic highways within the County, but these scenic highways are not located in the vicinity of the project (County 2009). The closest scenic routes in the County are located approximately 70 miles southeast of the project site. The region surrounding the project site is visually characterized by agricultural and rural residential land as well as SR-119. The landform in the area is naturally flat, but parts of it have been leveled for agricultural production.

Impact Analysis
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Impact. The proposed project is located immediately south of the Bakersfield city limits along Old River Road and SR-119. The existing visual environment in the area adjacent to the proposed project is single family residences and agricultural land. The area is not regarded or designated within the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan or the Kern County General Plan as visually important or “scenic.” During construction, equipment would be visible in the project area but would be located there temporarily and removed upon completion of construction. The proposed project would install water infrastructure, which would be located entirely underground after construction activities are complete.

Therefore, no permanent changes to scenic vistas would occur due to the proposed project. No impact would occur.

Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 10 b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
No Impact. The only state designated scenic highway in Kern County is from SR-58 near Mojave to SR395 near Little Lake (Caltrans 2024). The Kern County General Plan describes three scenic highways, which includes SR-14 and SR-395, SR-58 between Mojave and Boron, and five miles of SR-41 in northwestern Kern County. All scenic highways are over 70 miles from the proposed project, and the proposed project would not be visible from any of these highways. As discussed above under question a), permanent project components would be located underground and construction activities that would occur above ground would be temporary in nature. Thus, the proposed project would not result in damage to scenic resources in a state scenic highway, and no impact would occur. c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? Less Than Significant Impact. Public Resources Code 21071 defines the term “urbanized area” for the purposes of CEQA to mean an incorporated city that has a population of at least 100,000 persons or has a population of less than 100,000 persons if the population of that city and not more than two contiguous incorporated cities combined equals at least 100,000 persons. U.S. Census Bureau data from 2020 indicates that the City of Bakersfield has a population of 403,455 persons (U.S. Census Bureau 2024). The project site is located immediately south of the Bakersfield city limits (an urbanized area) and therefore, is evaluated relative to applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality.

Following construction, the proposed project would operate entirely underground and would not be visible to the public nor subject to regulations that govern visual character. The only visible aspect of the proposed project during operation would be three fire hydrants along Par Street, which would be consistent with the residential character of the neighborhood. While installation equipment may be visible during construction, any disruption to the visual character of the area would be temporary in nature. Impacts would be less than significant.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less Than Significant Impact. In accordance with the City of Bakersfield and Kern County noise ordinances, construction and maintenance activities for the proposed project will be limited to between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. on weekdays and between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. for any work taking place on weekends. Since construction would primarily occur during daylight hours and no major light sources would be required for project operation, no permanent new sources of light would be introduced by the proposed project. Once operational, project components would be located underground and would not be a source of light or glare. Impacts would be less than significant.

Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 11 II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,
to non-agricultural use?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code
Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code
Section 51104(g))?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of
forest land to non- forest use?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Environmental Setting
According to the California Department of Conservation (DOC) Important Farmland Mapper, the project site is mapped as Urban and Built-Up Land (DOC 2024a). The proposed project consists of the installation of a water pipe along Old River Road and into the community of Old River. While there is agricultural land on both sides of Old River Road, installation of the proposed project would take place within the existing road right-of-way (ROW) and would not disturb the adjacent agricultural areas. None of the land adjacent to the project site is under a Williamson Act contract.

Impact Analysis
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. The project site consists of existing road ROW and land developed for residential and commercial uses. According to the California Important Farmland Finder, land surrounding the proposed project site is designated as Urban and Built-up Land (DOC 2024). While land to the east of Old River Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 12 Road is zoned for agricultural use, none of the areas adjacent to the project site are under Williamson Act contracts. The proposed project would be constructed in existing road ROW and would not disturb adjacent agricultural areas. The proposed project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to a non-agricultural use. No impact would occur for questions a) and b).
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? No Impact. The project site consists of developed roadways and residential and commercial properties, which are not zoned for or used as forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production.

These uses are not present, and no rezoning would be required. Therefore, no impact would occur. d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. The project site consists of developed roadways and properties, which are not used as forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the conversion of forest land to a non-forest use. No impact would occur. e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No Impact. As discussed under questions a) through d) above, the project site does not contain agricultural or forest land uses. The proposed project would not result in conversion of these uses, and no impact would occur.

Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 13 III. AIR QUALITY
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ The discussion below is based on an Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Letter Report prepared by HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. and attached to this Initial Study as Appendix A.

Environmental Setting
The proposed project is located in unincorporated Kern County, which lies within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB). Air quality in the SJVAB is regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) at the federal level, by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) at the State level, and by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) at the regional level.

The SJVAB comprises all or part of eight counties: San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Fresno, Merced, Madera, Kings, Tulare, and Kern. The distinctive climate of the SJVAB is determined by its terrain and geographic location. The SJVAB is in the southern half of California’s Central Valley and is 250 miles long and averages 35 miles wide. The SJVAB is bounded by the Sierra Nevada Mountains to the east, the Coast Ranges to the west, the Tehachapi Mountains to the south, and is open to the Sacramento Valley and San Francisco Bay Area to the north.

The SJVAB is in a Mediterranean climate zone which is characterized by typically hot and dry summers and sparse rainfall mainly during the winter. Especially in summer, winds in the SJVAB most frequently blow from the northwesterly direction. The region’s topographic features restrict air movement and channel the air mass towards the southeastern end of the basin. A secondary but significant summer wind pattern is from the southeasterly direction and can be associated with nighttime drainage winds from the Sierra Nevada Mountains, and prefrontal conditions. Many days in the winter are marked by stagnation events where winds are very weak. Transport of pollutants during winter can be very limited.

The vertical dispersion of air pollutants in the SJVAB can be limited by persistent temperature inversions. Temperature inversions that occur on the summer days are usually encountered 2,000 to Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 14 2,500 feet above the valley floor. In winter months, overnight inversions occur 500 to 1,500 feet above the valley floor. The mountains surrounding the basin are mostly above the typical summer height of inversion layers, restricting dispersion of pollutants (SJVAPCD 2015).

Solar radiation and temperature are particularly important in the chemistry of ozone formation. The SJVAB averages over 260 sunny days per year. Generally, the higher the temperature, the more ozone formed, since reaction rates increase with temperature. From 1937 through 2016 annual average maximum daily temperature as measured at the Bakersfield Airport climatic station, approximately 7 miles northeast of the project site, was 77.8 degrees Fahrenheit (°F). The highest monthly average maximum daily temperature (98.6°F) occurs in July, and the lowest monthly average minimum daily temperature (38.5°F) occurs in December and January. The average annual precipitation is approximately 6.2 inches (Western Regional Climate Center 2016).

Regulatory Setting
Criteria Pollutants
Criteria pollutants are defined and regulated by State and federal law as a risk to the health and welfare of the public and are categorized into primary and secondary pollutants. Primary air pollutants are those that are emitted directly from sources, including carbon monoxide (CO); reactive organic gases ([ROGs] also known as volatile organic compounds [VOCs]); 1 nitrogen oxides (NOX); sulfur dioxide (SO2); coarse particulate matter (PM10); fine particulate matter (PM2.5); and lead. Of these primary pollutants, CO, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and lead are criteria pollutants. ROGs and NOX are criteria pollutant precursors and go on to form secondary criteria pollutants through chemical and photochemical reactions in the atmosphere.

Ambient air quality is described in terms of compliance with State and national standards, and the levels of air pollutant concentrations considered safe, to protect the public health and welfare. These standards are designed to protect people most sensitive to respiratory distress, such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness, and people engaged in strenuous work or exercise. The USEPA has established national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for criteria pollutants. As permitted by the Clean Air Act (CAA), California has adopted the more stringent California ambient air quality standards (CAAQS) and expanded the number of regulated air pollutant constituents.

CARB is required to designate areas of the State as in attainment, nonattainment, or unclassified for any State standard. An “attainment” designation for an area signifies that pollutant concentrations do not violate the standard for that pollutant in that area. A “nonattainment” designation indicates that a pollutant concentration violated the standard at least once.

The project site is located in unincorporated Kern County that lies within the SJVAB and, as such, is in an area designated as “nonattainment” for certain pollutants that are regulated under the CAA. Table 1, San Joaquin Valley Air Basin – Attainment Status, lists the federal and State attainment status of the 1 CARB defines and uses the term ROGs while the USEPA defines and uses the term VOCs. The compounds included in the lists of ROGs and VOCs and the methods of calculation are slightly different. However, for the purposes of estimating criteria pollutant precursor emissions, the two terms are often used interchangeably.

Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 15 SJVAB (including Kern County and the project site) for the NAAQS and CAAQS. As shown in Table 1, the SJVAB is designated as attainment for PM10; attainment/unclassified for CO, NO2, SO2; extreme nonattainment for 8-hour ozone; and nonattainment for PM2.5 with respect to the NAAQS. The SJVAB is designated as attainment for CO, NO2, SO2, and lead; severe nonattainment for 1-hour ozone; and as nonattainment for 8-hour ozone, PM2.5, and PM10 with respect to the CAAQS (SJVAPCD 2024a).

Table 1
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR BASIN – ATTAINMENT STATUS
Pollutant Federal Standards State Standards
Ozone – One hour No Federal Standard Nonattainment/Severe Ozone – Eight hour Nonattainment/Extreme Nonattainment
PM10 Attainment Nonattainment
PM2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment
CO Attainment/Unclassified Attainment/Unclassified
NO2 Attainment/Unclassified Attainment
SO2 Attainment/Unclassified Attainment
Lead (Particulate) No Designation/Unclassified Attainment Hydrogen Sulfide No Federal Standard Unclassified
Sulfates No Federal Standard Attainment
Visibility Reducing Particles No Federal Standard Unclassified Vinyl Chloride No Federal Standard Attainment
Source: SJVAPCD 2024a
Toxic Air Contaminants
The Health and Safety Code (§39655, subd. (a).) defines a toxic air contaminant (TAC) as “an air pollutant which may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or in serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health.” A substance that is listed as a hazardous air pollutant pursuant to subsection (b) of Section 112 of the Federal CAA (42 United States Code Section 7412[b]) is a TAC. Under State law, the California Environmental Protection Agency, acting through CARB, is authorized to identify a substance as a TAC if it determines the substance is an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious illness, or that may pose a present or potential hazard to human health.

Diesel engines emit a complex mixture of air pollutants, including both gaseous and solid material. The solid material in diesel exhaust is referred to as diesel particulate matter (DPM). Almost all DPM is 10 microns or less in diameter, and 90 percent of DPM is less than 2.5 microns in diameter (CARB 2024).

Because of their extremely small size, these particles can be inhaled and eventually trapped in the bronchial and alveolar regions of the lung. In 1998, CARB identified DPM as a TAC based on published evidence of a relationship between diesel exhaust exposure and lung cancer and other adverse health effects. DPM has a notable effect on California’s population—it is estimated that about 70 percent of total known cancer risk related to air toxins in California is attributable to DPM (CARB 2024).

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
The proposed project is located in unincorporated Kern County, which lies within the SJVAB. Air quality in the SJVAB is regulated by the USEPA at the federal level, by the CARB at the state level, and by SJVAPCD at the regional level. As a regional agency, the SJVAPCD works directly with local governments I I
Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 16 and cooperates actively with all federal and State government agencies. The SJVAPCD develops rules and regulations; establishes permitting requirements for stationary sources; inspects emissions sources; and enforces such measures through educational programs or fines, when necessary.

Air Quality Plans
The SJVAPCD has developed plans to attain State and federal standards for ozone and particulate matter. The SJVAPCD’s air quality plans include emissions inventories to measure the sources of air pollutants, to evaluate how well different control methods have worked, and to show how air pollution will be reduced. The plans also use computer modeling to estimate future levels of pollution and make sure that the San Joaquin Valley will meet air quality goals. 1-Hour Ozone Plan – Although the USEPA revoked its 1979 1-hour ozone standard in June 2005, many planning requirements remain in place, and the SJVAB must still attain this standard before it can rescind CAA Section 185 fees. The SJVAPCD’s 2013 Plan for the Revoked 1-hour Ozone Standard demonstrated attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard by 2017 (SJVAPCD 2015). On July 18, 2016, the USEPA published in the Federal Register the final action to determine that the SJVAB has attained the 1- hour ozone standard (USEPA 2016). On June 15, 2023, the SJVAPCD adopted the 2023 Maintenance Plan and Redesignation Request for the Revoked 1-hour Ozone Standard that includes provisions for a maintenance plan and requirements for meeting all five criteria of Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA (SJVAPCD 2023).
8-Hour Ozone Plan – The SJVAPCD’s 2007 Ozone Plan demonstrates attainment of the 1997 NAAQS 8- hour ozone standard by 2023. The USEPA approved the 2007 Ozone Plan effective April 30, 2012. (SJVAPCD 2015). In June 2016, the SJVAPCD adopted the 2016 Plan for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard to map strategies for attainment of the updated NAAQS 8-hour ozone standard (SJVAPCD 2016a). The SJVAPCD adopted the 2022 Plan for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone Standard in December 2022. This Plan satisfies Clean Air Act requirements and ensures expeditious attainment of the 70 parts per billion 8- hour ozone standard (SJVAPCD 2022). On April 24, 2024, the SJVAPCD adopted the Ozone Contingency State Implementation Plan Revision for the 2008 and 2015 8-Hour Ozone Standards to address the contingency provisions for the 2008 and 2015 8-hour ozone standards (SJVAPCD 2024b).

PM10 Plan – Based on PM10 measurements from 2003-2006, USEPA found that the SJVAB has reached Federal PM10 standards. On September 21, 2007, the SJVAPCD adopted the 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan and Request for Redesignation. On September 25, 2008, the SJVAB was redesignated to attainment/maintenance (SJVAPCD 2015).

PM2.5 Plan – The SJVAPCD’s 2008 PM2.5 Plan demonstrated 2014 attainment of USEPA’s first PM2.5 standard, set in 1997. The USEPA lowered the PM2.5 standard in 2006, and the SJVAPCD’s 2012 PM2.5 Plan showed attainment of this standard by 2019, with the majority of the SJVAB seeing attainment much sooner (SJVAPCD 2015). The SJVAPCD adopted the 2016 Moderate Area Plan for the 2012 PM2.5 Standard on September 15, 2016. This plan addresses the updated NAAQS 2012 annual PM2.5 standard and includes an attainment impracticability demonstration and request for reclassification of the SJVAB from moderate nonattainment to serious nonattainment (SJVAPCD 2016b). These plans came together when the SJVAPCD adopted the 2018 Plan for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5 Standards on November 15, 2018. This plan addresses the federal standards for each of those years (SJVAPCD 2018).

The SJVAPCD adopted the 2024 Plan for the 2012 Annual PM2.5 Standard on June 20, 2024, to fulfill the remaining CAA requirements, including the final modeling analysis, attainment strategy and emission Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 17 reduction commitments, reasonable further progress/quantitative milestones, and contingency measures. This Plan demonstrates expeditious attainment of the 2012 PM2.5 standard by 2030 (SJVAPCD 2024c).

Rules and Regulations
The following rules promulgated by the SJVAPCD would be applicable to construction of the proposed project (SJVAPCD 2024d):

Rule 4101 Visible Emissions: prohibit the emissions of visible air contaminants to the atmosphere.

Rule 4102 Nuisance: protect the health and safety of the public.

Rule 8021 Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and other Earth Moving Activities: limit fugitive dust emissions from construction, demolition, excavation, extraction, and other earthmoving activities.

Sensitive Receptors
CARB and the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) have identified the following groups of individuals as the most likely to be affected by air pollution: adults over 65, children under 14, infants (including in utero in the third trimester of pregnancy), and persons with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases such as asthma, emphysema, and bronchitis (CARB 2005; OEHHA 2015).

Some land uses are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others due to the types of population groups or activities involved and are referred to as sensitive receptors. Examples of these sensitive receptors are residences, schools, hospitals, and daycare centers.

The closest existing sensitive receptors to the project site are single-family residential homes located 50- feet from the proposed water mains. The closest school is Independence High School located approximately 350 feet northwest of the northern terminus of the proposed 10-inch water main along Old River Road.

Methodology and Assumptions
Criteria pollutant and precursor emissions, and GHG emissions for the proposed project construction activities were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version 2022.1.

CalEEMod is a Statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify potential criteria pollutant emissions associated with both construction and operations from a variety of land use projects. The model was developed for the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) in collaboration with the California air districts. CalEEMod allows for the use of default data (e.g., emission factors, trip lengths, meteorology, source inventory) provided by the various California air districts to account for local requirements and conditions, and/or user-defined inputs. The model calculates emissions of criteria pollutants, ozone precursors, and GHGs, including PM10, PM2.5, ROGs, NOX, and CO2e. The calculation methodology and input data used in CalEEMod can be found in the CalEEMod User’s Guide Appendices C, D, and G (CAPCOA 2022). The input data and subsequent construction emission estimates for the proposed project are discussed below. The CalEEMod output files are included in Attachment B to Appendix A.

Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 18 Construction Assumptions
As described above, construction emissions were estimated using CalEEMod. Construction input data for CalEEMod include, but are not limited to, (1) the anticipated start and finish dates of construction activity; (2) inventories of construction equipment to be used; (3) areas to be excavated and graded; and (4) volumes of materials to be exported from and imported to the project area.

Construction of the proposed project is anticipated to begin April 1, 2026, and be completed on December 31, 2026. Most of the pipeline would be installed using convention trenching, commonly known as “cut-and-cover”. A short portion of the 10-inch pipeline would be installed underneath an existing irrigation canal/culvert using trenchless tunneling and installation of pipe commonly known as “jack and bore”. The total 1.4-acre disturbed area was estimated based on information provided by the project engineer, and it was assumed that the total paved area would be 100 percent asphalt. The construction activity schedule was provided by the project engineer and is outlined in Table 2, Project Construction Schedule, below. It was assumed that all construction activities would occur concurrently.

Table 2

PROJECT CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
Construction Activity Construction Start Date Construction End Date Number of Working Days Pavement Demolition 4/1/2026 12/31/2026 197
Trenching-Cut 4/1/2026 12/31/2026 197
Trenching-Cover 4/1/2026 12/31/2026 197
Pipeline Installation 4/1/2026 12/31/2026 197
Pavement Repair 4/1/2026 12/31/2026 197
Jack and Bore Preparation 7/1/2026 7/2/2026 2
Jack and Bore 7/3/2026 7/9/2026 5
Jack and Bore Cleanup 7/10/2026 7/13/2026 2
Restriping 12/1/2026 12/5/2026 4
Source: CalEEMod Output (Attachment B to Appendix A)
Construction equipment for each construction activity was provided by the project engineer and was based on CalEEMod defaults. Table 3, Project Construction Equipment, below, presents a summary of the assumed equipment that would be involved in each activity of construction. For this project, a crawler tractor is a Caterpillar PL61 Pipelayer and an off-highway truck is a water truck.

Table 3

PROJECT CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
Construction Activity Equipment Number
Pavement Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2
Concrete/Industrial Saws 2
Off-Highway Trucks 1
Trenching-Cut Excavators 2
Trenching-Cover Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2
Rollers 2
Pipeline Installation Crawler Tractors 2
Pavement Repair Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2
Pavers 2
Rollers 2
I I
I I
Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 19 Construction Activity Equipment Number
Jack and Bore Preparation Excavators 1
Skid Steer Loaders 1
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1
Jack and Bore Bore/Drill Rigs 1
Excavators 1
Pumps 1
Jack and Bore Cleanup Skid Steer Loaders 1
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1
Restriping Air Compressors 2
Source: CalEEMod Output (Attachment B to Appendix A)
Per the project engineer, 210 tons of old asphalt would be exported during pavement demolition.

Emissions calculations assume application of water during pavement demolition and a 15 miles per hour (mph) speed limit on unpaved surfaces in compliance with SJVAPCD Rule 8021, Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving Activities.

Construction trips were estimated based on information provided by the project engineer and CalEEMod defaults. It was assumed that the proposed project would require five, one-way worker trips per day and one, one-way vendor trip per day for installation of the pipeline. It was also assumed that the proposed project would require one, one-way truckload per day for pavement imports and two, one-way worker trips per day for restriping.

Operational Assumptions
Operation of the proposed project would not result in a population increase and would not generate new vehicle trips beyond occasional maintenance activities. Operation of the proposed project would not require new backup pumps or backup generators. Therefore, changes in project operational emissions would be negligible compared to operational emissions from the existing water systems.

Therefore, project operational emissions were not quantified.

Standards of Significance
According to Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, a project would have a significant air quality environmental impact if it would:

1. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan; or

2. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard; or

3. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or

4. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.

Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines states that the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the above determinations. The SJVAPCD has established significant thresholds to assess the impacts of projectrelated air pollutant emissions. The significance thresholds are updated, as needed, to appropriately I I
Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 20 represent the most current technical information and attainment status in the SJVAB. Table 4, SJVAPCD Air Quality Significance Thresholds, presents the most current significance thresholds, including thresholds for construction and operational emissions and maximum incremental cancer risk and hazard indices for TACs. A project with emission rates and risk values below these thresholds is generally considered to have a less than significant impact on air quality.

Table 4

SJVAPCD AIR QUALITY SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS
Mass Daily Thresholds (tons per year)
Pollutant Construction Operation
ROG 10 10
NOX 10 10
CO 100 100
PM10 15 15
PM2.5 15 15
SOX 27 27
Toxic Air Contaminants
TACs Maximum Incremental Cancer Risk ≥ 10 in 1 million
Chronic & Acute Hazard Index ≥ 1.0 (project increment)
Source: SJVAPCD 2015
ROG: reactive organic gas; NOx: nitrogen oxides; CO: carbon monoxide; PM10: coarse particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less; PM2.5: fine particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less; SOX: sulfur oxides; TACs: toxic air contaminants; NO2: nitrogen dioxide; ppm: parts per million; µg/m3: micrograms per cubic meter.

As set forth in the SJVAPCD Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts, any proposed project that would individually have a significant air quality impact would also be considered to have a significant cumulative air quality impact. Impacts of local pollutants (CO, TACs) are cumulatively significant when modeling shows that the combined emissions from the project and other existing and planned projects would exceed air quality standards.

Impact Analysis
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less Than Significant Impact. The SJVAPCD has established thresholds of significance for a project’s criteria pollutant and precursor emissions for both temporary construction-related emissions and longterm operational-related emissions, which are shown above in Table 4. According to the SJVAPCD, these significant thresholds have been established to assist lead agencies in determining whether a project may have a significant air quality impact. A project with emissions lower than the thresholds would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the district’s air quality plans for attainment of the applicable NAAQS and CAAQS (SJVAPCD 2015). As discussed below, the proposed project would not exceed the temporary construction-related thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants and precursor emissions. Additionally, the proposed project would not result in a population increase and would not generate new vehicle trips, and occasional project maintenance activities would be similar to maintenance activated for the exiting water systems. Operation of the proposed project would not require new pumps or backup generators. Therefore, operational emissions would be negligible.

I I
Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 21 In addition, control measures in the air quality plans adopted by the SJVAPCD are based in part on growth projections in local planning documents such as the County and City General Plans. The proposed project would not require a change of General Plan land use designation, and the proposed project would not result in population or employment growth in the County or City. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plans, and the impact would be less than significant.
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Less Than Significant Impact. The SJVAB is designated as attainment for PM10; attainment/unclassified for CO, NO2, SO2; extreme nonattainment for 8-hour ozone; and in nonattainment for PM2.5 with respect to federal air quality standards. The SJVAB is designated as attainment for CO, NO2, SO2, and lead; severe nonattainment for 1-hour ozone; and as nonattainment for 8-hour ozone, PM2.5, and PM10 with respect to State air quality standards. The proposed project’s emissions of these criteria pollutants and precursors during construction and operation are evaluated below.

Construction Emissions
CalEEMod was used to quantify project-generated construction emissions, as discussed in Methodology and Assumptions, above. The model output sheets are included in Attachment B of Appendix A.

Construction of the proposed project is anticipated to start April 1, 2026, and be completed on December 31, 2026. The quantity, duration, and intensity of construction activity influence the amount of construction emissions and related pollutant concentrations that occur at any one time. As such, the emission forecasts provided herein reflect a specific set of conservative assumptions based on the expected construction scenario wherein a relatively large amount of construction activity is occurring in a relatively intensive manner. Because of this conservative assumption, actual emissions could be less than those forecasted. If construction is delayed or occurs over a longer time period, emissions could be reduced because of: (1) a more modern and cleaner-burning construction equipment fleet mix than assumed in CalEEMod; and/or (2) a less intensive buildout schedule (i.e., fewer daily emissions occurring over a longer time interval).

The proposed project’s construction period emissions of ROG, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5 were compared to the SJVAPCD construction thresholds in Table 5, Annual Construction Criteria Pollutant and Precursor Emissions. Table 4 presents the most current significance thresholds, including thresholds for construction and operational emissions and maximum incremental cancer risk and hazard indices for TACs. As shown in Table 5, the proposed project’s construction period emissions of ROG, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5 would not exceed the SJVAPCD thresholds. Therefore, impacts related to constructiongenerated emissions of ROG, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5 would be less than significant.

Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 22 Table 5

ANNUAL CONSTRUCTION CRITERIA POLLUTANT AND PRECURSOR EMISSIONS Construction Activities Pollutant Emissions (tons per year) ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Pavement Demolition, Trenching-Cut,
Trenching-Cover, Pipeline Installation,
Pavement Repair, Jack and Bore
Preparation, Jack and Bore, Jack and
Bore Cleanup, Restriping

0.30 2.37 3.55 0.01 0.23 0.11
SJVAPCD Threshold 10 10 100 27 15 15
Significant Impact? No No No No No No
Source: CalEEMod (output data is provided in Attachment B to Appendix A).

Impact Conclusion
Construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment, and the impact would be less than significant.
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in Sensitive Receptors, the closest existing sensitive receptors to the project site are single-family residential homes located 50-feet from the proposed water laterals in the Old River community. The closest school is Independence High School, which is located approximately 350 feet northwest of the northern terminus of the proposed 10-inch water main along Old River Road.

The dose (of TAC) to which receptors are exposed is the primary factor used to determine health risk.

Dose is a function of the concentration of a substance in the environment and the extent of exposure a person has to the substance; a longer exposure period to a fixed quantity of emissions would result in higher health risks. Current models and methodologies for conducting cancer health risk assessments are associated with longer-term exposure periods (typically 30 years for individual residents based on guidance from OEHHA) and are best suited for evaluation of long-duration TAC emissions with predictable schedules and locations. These assessment models and methodologies do not correlate well with the temporary and highly variable nature of construction activities. Cancer potency factors are based on animal lifetime studies or worker studies where there is long-term exposure to the carcinogenic agent. There is considerable uncertainty in trying to evaluate the cancer risk from projects that will only last a small fraction of a lifetime (OEHHA 2015). Concentrations of mobile source DPM emissions disperse rapidly and are typically reduced by 70 percent at approximately 500 feet (CARB I I
I
Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 23 2005). Considering the highly dispersive nature of DPM and the fact that construction activities would occur for short durations at various locations in the project area, it is not anticipated that construction of the proposed project would expose sensitive receptors to substantial DPM concentrations.

The SJVAPCD has developed screening distances for common sources of operational odors, including Wastewater Treatment Facility; Sanitary Landfill; Transfer Station; Composting Facility; Petroleum Refinery; Asphalt Batch Plant; Chemical Manufacturing; Fiberglass Manufacturing; Painting/Coating Operations (e.g., auto body shops); Food Processing Facility; Feed Lot/Dairy; and Rendering Plant (SJVAPCD 2015a). As the proposed project would install water pipelines and fire hydrants, operation of the proposed project would not result in odors affecting a substantial number of people.

Neither construction nor operation of the proposed project would result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people, and the impact would be less than significant.

Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 24 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
The discussion below is based on a Biological Resources Technical Letter Report prepared by HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. and attached to this Initial Study as Appendix B.

Environmental Setting
The approximately 27-acre project site is comprised of a developed agricultural road corridor and a small rural community. Several houses and paved roads are found throughout the project site as well as barren areas. Agricultural uses along the road corridor support orchards, annual crops, and some fallowed lands. Based on historical aerial imagery, the project site has been primarily an agricultural community since at least 1952 with the current neighborhood complex served by both water districts having been built between 1956 and 1968 (NETR 2024).

Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 25 Soils
The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has mapped three soil units within the project site:

Granoso sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, overwash; Kimberlina fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes MLRA 17; and Bakersfield fine sandy loam, drained, 0 to 1 percent slopes (NRCS 2024). These soil types are briefly discussed below.

Granoso sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, overwash has a parent material of alluvium derived from mixed rock sources. A typical soil profile is sandy loam (0 - 10 inches), loamy sand (10 - 20 inches) then sand (20 - 62 inches). This soil is somewhat excessively drained, has a very low runoff class, a rare frequency of flooding, and no frequency of ponding.

Kimberlina fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes MLRA 17 has a parent material of alluvium derived from igneous and sedimentary rock. A typical soil profile is fine sandy loam (0 - 45 inches) and silt loam (45 - 71 inches). This soil is well drained, has a very low runoff class, a rare frequency of flooding, and no frequency of ponding.

Bakersfield fine sandy loam, drained, 0 to 1 percent slopes has a parent material of alluvium derived from granitoid rock. A typical soil profile is fine sandy loam (0 - 16 inches), stratified sand to loam (19 - 45 inches), loam (45 - 51 inches), stratified sandy loam to silt loam (51 – 58 inches), and stratified sand to loam (58 - 66 inches). This soil is somewhat poorly drained, has a negligible class, a rare frequency of flooding, and no frequency of ponding.

Habitat Types
Vegetation communities within the project site include ruderal, barren, and urban. These communities are described in more detail below.

Ruderal. Ruderal habitat is land that retains a soil substrate but is subject to recent or on-going disturbance that prevents the formation of natural vegetation communities. Vegetation in ruderal areas is dominated by naturalized and/or invasive non-native species and ruderal native annuals. The species composition is determined by local colonization potential or past introductions. Ruderal habitat on the project site is dominated by a variety of non-native herbs and forbs, including black mustard (Brassica nigra), puncturevine (Tribulus terrestris), and medusa head (Elymus caput-medusae) as well as nonnative shrubs such as big saltbush (Atriplex lentiformis). Approximately 0.54 acre of the project site is composed of ruderal habitat and is present along the borders of fallowed farmlands.

Barren. Barren habitat is defined by its absence of vegetation. Approximately 1.94 acres of the project site is barren and has been stripped of vegetation along roadsides and the margins of agricultural operations. The barren areas found within the project site did not show signs of mammal burrows that may serve as suitable habitat for special-status wildlife and nesting birds.

Urban. Urban habitat is land that has been modified for human use and vegetation communities are those planted for aesthetic purposes, unmaintained areas will be colonized by similar vegetation as found in ruderal habitats. Urban habitat found within the project site includes the roads within the project site and the communities served by the Old River MWC and South Kern MWC. Ornamental trees found throughout this habitat include fruitless mulberry (Morus alba), Italian cypress (Cupressus sempervirens), and California black walnut (Juglans californica). Approximately 24.61 acres of the project Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 26 site was classified as Urban. Ornamental trees found within the neighborhood complex may serve as suitable habitat for nesting birds.

Methodology
The section below outlines the survey objectives and methodology for determining potential impacts to biological resources associated with the proposed project.

Analysis Objectives
• Identify and describe the vegetation communities in the project site; • Evaluate and identify sensitive biological resources and special-status plant and animal species that could occur on the project site or be affected by any project-related activities, and; • Provide conclusions and recommendations for surveys or permits that may be required before site development.

Database Queries
HELIX conducted a review of special-status species records for the Lamontolor, Gosford, Oil Center, Oildale, Rosedale, Stevens, Weed Patch, Conner, and Millux, California, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)

7.5-minute quadrangles (quad) from the following databases:
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service IPaC (USFWS 2024);
• CDFW California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (CDFW 2024); • California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (CNPS 2024); • National Wetlands Inventory (NWI); and
• NRCS.

Species listed were analyzed for their potential to occur in the project site based on habitat affinities, elevation range, and geographic range. For the purposes of this assessment, special-status species and other protected biological resources are those that fall into one or more of the following categories:
• Species listed as rare, threatened, or endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) or California Endangered Species Act (CESA), including candidates and species proposed for listing;
• Species designated as rare, protected, or fully protected pursuant to the California Fish and Game Code (FGC);
• Species considered a Species of Special Concern (SSC) by the CDFW; • Species meeting the definition of rare or endangered under Section 15380 of CEQA; Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 27 • Plants having a California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) of 1, 2, or 3; • Nesting bird species protected by FGC; and
• Aquatic resources or other sensitive habitats potentially regulated by federal, state, and/or local agencies,
Field Reconnaissance
A biological reconnaissance survey was conducted by HELIX biologist Dave Pfuhler on June 19, 2024. The project site was assessed for plant communities, habitat types, aquatic resources, and wildlife present at the time of the survey, as well as for the potential for the project site to support special-status species.

To classify the habitat types occurring on the project site, HELIX consulted the generalized plant community classification schemes of CDFW’s California Wildlife Habitat Relationship Habitat Classification Scheme (Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988). Our final classification and characterization of the habitat types within the project site were based on field observations.

Preliminary wetland boundaries within the project site were mapped as part of the reconnaissance surveys. While a formal aquatic resources delineation was not performed, the extent of aquatic resources mapped are believed to be reflective of wetland conditions at the project site in an average rainfall year.

Species Observations
There were no special-status plant or wildlife species observed in the project site during the field reconnaissance on June 19, 2024. The field reconnaissance was conducted outside of the bloom period when some annual plants would be identifiable, but due to the frequent disturbance activities along Old River Road by vehicular and agricultural operations, special-status plants are not anticipated to be found within the project site. Other wildlife species observed on the project site and in the vicinity of the project site include red winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus), house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus), house sparrow (Passer domesticus), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), black chinned hummingbird (Archilochus alexandri), Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte anna), and mourning dove (Zenaida macroura).

Special-Status Plant Species
According to the database query, 22 listed and/or special-status plants have the potential to occur in the vicinity of the project site (CDFW 2024; CNPS 2024; USFWS 2024). Based on field observations, published information, and literature review, no special-status plants have potential to occur within the project site. The frequent disturbance and herbicide application implemented by agricultural activities, and the continued maintenance of urbanized areas do not present suitable habitat for special statusplants.

Special-Status Wildlife Species
According to the database query, 41 listed and/or special-status wildlife have the potential to occur in the vicinity of the project site (CDFW 2024; USFWS 2024). Based on field observations, published information, and literature review, one special-status animal has potential to occur within the project site: Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni). This species has the potential to utilize ornamental trees found Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 28 within the margins of the urbanized habitat for nesting due to their proximity to suitable foraging habitat. In addition to this special-status wildlife species, other migratory birds and raptors protected under federal, State, and local laws/policies also have the potential to occur within the project site. No other critical, or sensitive habitats that would host special-status species were identified within the project site.

Sensitive Habitats
Sensitive habitats include those that are of special concern to resource agencies or those that are protected under CEQA, Section 1600 of the FGC (i.e., riparian areas) and/or Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act, which include wetlands and other waters of the U.S. Additionally, sensitive habitats, including native trees and oak woodland habitat, are protected under the specific policies outlined in the Kern County General Plan. Sensitive habitats were not identified within the project site.

Impact Analysis
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated.

Special-Status Plants
Based on field observations, published information, and literature review, no special-status plants have potential to occur within the project site. The frequent disturbance and herbicide application implemented by agricultural activities, and the continued maintenance of urbanized areas do not present suitable habitat for special status-plants. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on special-status plants.

Special-Status Wildlife Species
Based on field observations, published information, and literature review, one special-status animal has potential to occur within the project site: Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni). This species has the potential to utilize ornamental trees found within the margins of the urbanized habitat for nesting due to their proximity to suitable foraging habitat. In addition to this special-status wildlife species, other migratory birds and raptors protected under federal, State, and local laws/policies also have the potential to occur within the project site.

Project construction activities have the potential to affect Swainson’s hawk if it were to nest within the project site. If Swainson’s hawk were to nest within or adjacent to the site, impacts to nesting could occur through noise, vibration, and the presence of construction equipment and personnel. Eggs and young still dependent on the nest would be susceptible to injury or mortality through physical contact or through nest abandonment caused by displacement of adults. Needless destruction of eggs or young would be a violation of the Fish and Game Code. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would be implemented to reduce potential impacts to Swainson’s hawk. With implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, the impact would be less than significant.

Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 29 Migratory birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 (16 U.S.C. 703-711).

The MBTA makes it unlawful to take, possess, buy, sell, purchase, or barter any migratory bird listed under 50 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 10; this also includes feathers or other parts, nests, eggs, or products, except as allowed by implementing regulations (50 CFR 21). Additionally, Section 3503 of the California Fish and Game Code states that it is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird. Section 3503.5 specifically states that it is unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any raptors (i.e., hawks, owls, eagles, and falcons), including their nests or eggs; Section 3513 specifically states that it is unlawful to take or possess any migratory nongame bird as designated in the MBTA or any part of such migratory nongame bird except as provided by rules and regulations adopted by the Secretary of the Interior under provisions of the MBTA.

A number of migratory birds and raptors have the potential to nest in or adjacent to the project site.

Suitable nest locations within and adjacent to the project site include trees, housing eaves, other artificial structures, and bare ground. There is potential for direct and indirect impacts to nesting birds if they were to nest within or adjacent to the project site. Eggs and young still dependent on the nest would be susceptible to injury or mortality through physical contact or through nest abandonment caused by the displacement of adults. Needless destruction of eggs or young would be a violation of the Fish and Game Code. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would be implemented to reduce potential impacts to nesting and migratory birds and raptors. With implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, the impact would be less than significant.

Impact Conclusion
No special-status plants have potential to occur within the project site, and the impact would be less than significant. One special-status animal has potential to occur within the project site: Swainson’s hawk. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would be implemented to reduce potential impacts to Swainson’s hawk. Additionally, a number of migratory birds and raptors have the potential to nest in or adjacent to the project site. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would be implemented to reduce potential impacts to nesting and migratory birds and raptors. With implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, the impact would be less than significant.

BIO-1 Pre-Construction Surveys and Worker Environmental Awareness Training. To avoid impacts to nesting birds, all ground disturbing activity and all vegetation clearing, including removal of trees and shrubs, shall be completed between September 1 and January 31, if feasible.

If vegetation removal and grading activities begin during the nesting season (February 1 to August 31), a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey of the project footprint for active nests. Additionally, the surrounding 500 feet should be surveyed for active raptor nests, where accessible. A windshield survey for potential Swainson’s hawk nests shall be conducted within 0.25 mile of the footprint as part of the survey. The pre-construction survey shall be conducted within 14 days before the commencement of ground-disturbing activities. If the pre-construction survey shows that there is no evidence of active nests, a letter report shall be prepared to document the survey, and no additional measures are recommended. If construction does not commence within 14 days of the pre-construction survey, or halts for more than 14 days, an additional survey is required before starting work. If active nests are identified, the following measure shall be implemented:

Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 30 • A species-specific buffer shall be established by a qualified biologist around active nests and no construction activities within the buffer shall be allowed until a qualified biologist has determined that the nest is no longer active (i.e., the nestlings have fledged and are no longer reliant on the nest, or the nest has failed). Encroachment into the buffer may occur at the discretion of a qualified biologist. Any encroachment into the buffer shall be monitored by a qualified biologist to determine whether nesting birds are being impacted.

A qualified biologist shall conduct environmental awareness training to all project-related personnel before the initiation of work within the nesting season (February 1-August 31). b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No Impact. No riparian habitats, sensitive natural communities, or other protected habitats are located on or adjacent to the project site. Therefore, no impact would occur. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
No Impact. There are no potential waters of the U.S. or state on the site. Therefore, there would be no impact to potential waters of the U.S. or state.
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
No Impact. The project site is comprised of a developed agricultural road corridor and a small rural community. Several houses and paved roads are found throughout the project site as well as barren areas. Agricultural uses along the road corridor support orchards, annual crops, and some fallowed lands. Although birds may use trees on-site, the project site does not function as a wildlife corridor or nursery site. In addition, the proposed project’s aboveground impacts would be limited to the construction period and would not result in permanent aboveground changes impeding wildlife movement. The proposed project would not substantially interfere with wildlife movement or nursery sites, and no impact would occur.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
No Impact. The proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. No trees would be removed and therefore there would be no impact. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is within the area for the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (MBHCP; City 1994). However, the proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of the MBHCP because the project-specific Mitigation Measure BIO-1 outlined in the Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 31 discussion of impact a) would address impacts to special-status wildlife species with potential to occur in the project area. Therefore, as the proposed project does not conflict with the provisions of the MBHCP, the impact would be less than significant.

Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 32 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of dedicated cemeteries? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
The discussion below is based on a Cultural Resources Letter Report prepared by HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX 2024) and attached to this Initial Study as Appendix C.

Methodology
Records Searches
HELIX Archaeologists conducted a records search at the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center on May 15, 2024, which revealed that 26 cultural resource surveys have been conducted within a 0.5- mile radius of the project’s Area of Potential Effect (APE), and that 11 of these studies included the APE as part of their survey area. One cultural resource had been previously recorded within the proposed project’s APE, and 17 cultural resources have been previously recorded within a 0.5-mile radius of the APE. None of the resources are anticipated to be affected by the proposed project.

On May 15, 2024, HELIX requested that the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) conduct a search of their Sacred Lands File (SLF) for the presence of Native American sacred sites or human remains in the vicinity of the proposed project area. A written response received from the NAHC on May 30, 2024, stated that the results of the SLF search were negative. Subsequently, on June 17, 2024, HELIX sent letters to eight (8) Native American contacts that were recommended by the NAHC as potential sources of information related to cultural resources in the vicinity of the project area. The letters described the proposed project, provided location maps, and requested information regarding cultural resources in the immediate area, as well as any feedback or concerns they may have related to the proposed project, for informational purposes only. On July 2, 2024, HELIX received a written response from Robert Pennell, the Cultural Resource Director for the Table Mountain Rancheria. The letter stated that the proposed project was beyond the Table Mountain Rancheria’s area of interest. As of the date of this report, no other responses have been received from the Native American contacts.

For information about tribal consultation under the CEQA (AB 52 consultation) between the tribes and the Lead Agency, see Section 7.XVIII, Tribal Cultural Resources.

Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 33 Regulatory Framework
Federal Laws, Regulations, and Policies
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 USC 470) The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 USC 470), enacted in 1966, declared a national policy of historic preservation, and instituted a multifaceted program, administered by the Secretary of the Interior, to encourage the achievement of preservation goals at the federal, state, and local levels. The NHPA authorized the expansion and maintenance of the NRHP, established the position of State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and provided for the designation of State Review Boards, set up a mechanism to certify local governments to carry out the purposes of the NHPA, assisted Native American tribes in preserving their cultural heritage, and created the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP).

National Register of Historic Places
The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) was established by the National Historic Preservation Act (HPA) of 1966 as “an authoritative guide to be used by federal, state, and local governments, private groups, and citizens to identify the Nation’s cultural resources and to indicate what properties should be considered for protection from destruction or impairment” (36 CFR Part 60.2).

The NRHP recognizes properties that are significant at the national, state, and local levels. To be eligible for listing in the NRHP, a resource must be significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture. Districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects of potential significance must also possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. A property is eligible for the NRHP if it is significant under one or more of the following criteria:
• Criterion A: It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history.
• Criterion B: It is associated with the lives of persons who are significant in our past. • Criterion C: It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction; represents the work of a master; possesses high artistic values; or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. • Criterion D: It has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history (36 CFR 60.4).

Cemeteries, birthplaces, graves of historic figures, properties owned by religious institutions or used for religious purposes, structures that have been moved from their original locations, reconstructed historic buildings, and properties that are primarily commemorative in nature are not considered eligible for the NRHP unless they satisfy certain conditions. In general, a resource must be at least 50 years old to be considered for the NRHP, unless it satisfies a standard of exceptional importance.

Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 34 State Laws, Regulations, and Policies
California Environmental Quality Act
Pursuant to CEQA, a historical resource is a resource listed in, or eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). In addition, resources included in a local register of historic resources or identified as significant in a local survey conducted in accordance with State guidelines, are also considered historic resources under CEQA, unless a preponderance of the facts demonstrates otherwise. According to CEQA, the fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined eligible for listing in, the CRHR, or is not included in a local register or survey, shall not preclude a Lead Agency, as defined by CEQA, from determining that the resource may be a historic resource as defined in California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5024.1.7.

CEQA applies to archaeological resources when (1) the historic or prehistoric archaeological resource satisfies the definition of a historical resource, or (2) the historic or prehistoric archaeological resource satisfies the definition of a “unique archaeological resource.” A unique archaeological resource is an archaeological artifact, object, or site that has a high probability of meeting any of the following criteria (PRC Section 21083.2(g)):

1. The archaeological resource contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions, and there is a demonstrable public interest in that information.

2. The archaeological resource has a special and particular quality, such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type.

3. The archaeological resource is directly associated with a scientifically-recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.

California Register of Historical Resources
Created in 1992 and implemented in 1998, the CRHR is “an authoritative guide in California to be used by state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens to identify the state’s historical resources and to indicate what properties are to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change” (PRC Section 5024.1(a)). Certain properties, including those listed in or formally determined eligible for listing in the NRHP and California Historical Landmarks, numbered 770 and higher, are automatically included in the CRHR. Other properties recognized under the California Points of Historical Interest program, identified as significant in historic resources surveys, or designated by local landmarks programs may be nominated for inclusion in the CRHR.

A resource, either an individual property or a contributor to a historic district, may be listed in the CRHR if the State Historical Resources Commission determines that it meets one or more of the following criteria, which are modeled on NRHP criteria (PRC Section 5024.1(c)):

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

Criterion 2: It is associated with the lives of persons important in our past.

Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 35 Criterion 3: It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction; represents the work of an important creative individual; or possesses high artistic values.

Criterion 4: It has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory.

Resources nominated to the CRHR must retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as historic resources and to convey the reasons for their significance. It is possible that a resource whose integrity does not satisfy NRHP criteria may still be eligible for listing in the CRHR. A resource that has lost its historic character or appearance may still have sufficient integrity for the CRHR if, under Criterion 4, it maintains the potential to yield significant scientific or historical information or specific data. Resources that have achieved significance within the past 50 years also may be eligible for inclusion in the CRHR, provided that enough time has lapsed to obtain a scholarly perspective on the events or individuals associated with the resource.

California Health and Safety Code 7050.5
Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code states that in the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of the county in which the remains are discovered has determined if the remains are subject to the coroner’s authority. If the human remains are of Native American origin, the coroner must notify the NAHC within 24 hours of this identification.

Native American Heritage Commission
PRC Section 5097.91 established the NAHC, whose duties include the inventory of places of religious or social significance to Native Americans and the identification of known graves and cemeteries of Native Americans on private lands (PRC Section 5097.94). The NAHC is responsible for bring forth actions regarding the prohibition or mitigation of severe or irreparable damage to Native American sanctified cemeteries, places of worship, religious or ceremonial sites, or sacred shrines located on public property. PRC Section 5097.94 and Section 5097.98 specify steps to be followed when the NAHC receives notification of a discovery of Native American human remains from a county coroner, including repatriation under the Native American Graves and Repatriation Act of 2001 and assisting landowners with developing agreements with appropriate Native American groups for the dignified treatment of Native American burials and associated cultural material.

California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98
Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code states that the NAHC, upon notification of the discovery of Native American human remains pursuant to Health and Safety Code Part 7050.5, shall immediately notify those persons (i.e., the Most Likely Descendant or “MLD”) it believes to be descended from the deceased. With permission of the landowner or a designated representative, the MLD may inspect the remains and any associated cultural materials and make recommendations for treatment or disposition of the remains and associated grave goods. The MLD shall provide recommendations or preferences for treatment of the remains and associated cultural materials within 48 hours of being granted access to the site.

Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 36 Impact Analysis
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The records search conducted by HELIX on May 15, 2024, determined that 17 previously recorded cultural resources are located within 0.5 mile of the current APE, but outside of the APE itself, and that one additional cultural resource was located within the APE. According to SSJCIV records, the Stine Canal was recommended as ineligible for inclusion in the NRHP on May 7, 1996, by Bryan Apper, AICP, of the California Department of Transportation office in Fresno, California. In a response letter dated May 24, 1996, Ms. Cherilyn Widell, California SHPO, concurred with the recommendation that the Stine Canal was not eligible for inclusion on the NRHP under any of the criteria established by 36 CFR 60.4, and that the canal does not have strong association with historic events or persons, nor does it possess significance as an architectural or engineering structure. As this was the only potential historical resource identified within the APE and has been deemed ineligible for inclusion on the NRHP, the proposed project is not anticipated to cause a substantial change in the significance of a historic resource. No archaeological resources within the APE or in the project vicinity have been previously documented and listed within the SSJCIV records system.

On May 15, 2024, HELIX requested that the NAHC conduct a search of their Sacred Lands File for the presence of Native American sacred sites or human remains in the vicinity of the proposed project site.

A written response received from the NAHC on May 30, 2024, stated that the results of the Sacred Lands File search were negative. On June 17, 2024, HELIX sent letters to 8 Native American contacts that were recommended by the NAHC as potential sources of information related to cultural resources in the vicinity of the project site. The letters advised the tribes and specific individuals of the proposed project and requested information regarding cultural resources in the immediate area, as well as any feedback or concerns related to the proposed project. The letters were sent to the following individuals:
• Delia Dominguez, Chairperson, Kitanemuk & Yowlumne Tejon Indians • Violet Walker, Chairperson, Northern Chuman Tribal Council • Bob Pennell, Cultural Resource Director, Table Mountain Rancheria • Michelle Heredia-Cordova, Chairperson, Table Mountain Rancheria • Candice Garza, CRM Scheduler, Tejon Indian Tribe
• Kerri Vera, Environmental Department, Tule River Indian Tribe • Joey Garfield, Tribal Archaeologist, Tule River Indian Tribe • Neil Peyron, Chairperson, Tule River Indian Tribe
On July 2, 2024, HELIX received a written response from Robert Pennell, the Cultural Resource Director for the Table Mountain Rancheria. The letter stated that the proposed project was beyond the Table Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 37 Mountain Rancheria’s area of interest. No other responses have been received from these Native American points of contact. For information about tribal consultation under CEQA (AB 52 consultation) between tribes and the Lead Agency, see Section 7.XVIII, Tribal Cultural Resources.

The results of records searches have led HELIX to recommend that there would be no effect on historical resources or historic properties, including archaeological and built-environment resources, as a result of project implementation. No additional studies or archaeological work are recommended at this time.

However, HELIX recommends that the Accidental Discovery of Cultural Resources protocol (Mitigation Measure CUL-1) be implemented to prepare the project team for the unlikely event that cultural resources are encountered during excavation and construction activities. Without mitigation, the impact is potentially significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 would reduce the impact to less than significant. Therefore, the impact on historical and archaeological resources pursuant to PRC Section 15064.5 would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated for questions a) and b).

CUL-1 Accidental Discovery of Cultural Resources. In the event that cultural resources are exposed during ground-disturbing activities, construction activities should be halted within 100 feet of the discovery. Cultural resources could consist of but are not limited to stone, bone, wood, or shell artifacts, or features including hearths, structural remains, or historic dumpsites. If the resources cannot be avoided during the remainder of construction, an archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards should then be retained, in coordination with the City to assess the resource and provide appropriate management recommendations. If the discovery proves to be CRHR- or NRHP-eligible, additional work, such as data recovery excavation, may be warranted and should be discussed in consultation with the City.
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Records searches conducted by HELIX staff did not find indications of precontact cultural resources within the APE. However, the possibility exists that ground-disturbing activities during construction may inadvertently uncover previously unknown buried human remains or cultural resources. Although it is highly unlikely that there would be an impact to human remains from construction or operation of the proposed project, there is always the possibility that ground-disturbing activities during construction may uncover previously unknown buried human remains. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-2, Accidental Discovery of Human Remains, would ensure that impacts related to the inadvertent discovery of human remains remain less than significant. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

CUL-2 Accidental Discovery of Human Remains. Although considered highly unlikely, there is always the possibility that ground disturbing activities during construction may uncover previously unknown human remains. In the event of an accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, PRC Section 5097.98 must be followed. Once project-related earthmoving begins and if there is a discovery or recognition of human remains, the following steps shall be taken:

1. There shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the specific location or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the County Coroner is contacted to determine if the remains are Native American and if an investigation of the cause of death is required. If the coroner determines the remains are Native American, the coroner shall contact the NAHC within 24 hours, and the NAHC Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 38 shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the “most likely descendant” of the deceased Native American. The most likely descendant may make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains, and any associated grave goods as provided in PRC Section 5097.98, or

2. Where the following conditions occur, the landowner or their authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity either in accordance with the recommendations of the most likely descendent or on the project area in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance:
a. The NAHC is unable to identify a most likely descendent or the most likely descendent failed to make a recommendation within 48 hours after being notified by the commission;
b. The descendent identified fails to make a recommendation; or The landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendent, and the mediation by the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.

Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 39 VI. ENERGY
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
The discussion below is based on an Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Letter Report prepared by HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. and attached to this Initial Study as Appendix A.

Environmental Setting
California’s electricity needs are satisfied by a variety of entities, including investor-owned utilities, publicly owned utilities, electric service providers and community choice aggregators. In 2020, the California power mix totaled 272,576 gigawatt hours. In-state generation accounted for 51 percent of the state’s power mix. The remaining electricity came from out-of-state imports (CEC 2021a). Table 6, California Electricity Sources 2020, provides a summary of California’s electricity sources as of 2020.

Table 1
CALIFORNIA ELECTRICITY SOURCES 2020
Fuel Type Percent of California Power
Coal 2.74
Large Hydro 12.21
Natural Gas 37.06
Nuclear 9.33
Oil 0.01
Other (Petroleum Coke/Waste Heat) 0.19
Renewables (Excluding Large Hydro) 33.09
Unspecified 5.36
Source: CEC 2021a
Natural gas provides the largest portion of the total in-state capacity and electricity generation in California, with nearly 45 percent of the natural gas burned in California used for electricity generation in a typical year. Much of the remainder is consumed in the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors for uses such as cooking, space heating, and as an alternative transportation fuel. In 2012, total natural gas demand in California for industrial, residential, commercial, and electric power generation was 2,313 billion cubic feet per year (bcf/year), up from 2,196 bcf/year in 2010 (CEC 2021b).

I I
Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 40 Transportation accounts for a major portion of California’s energy budget. Automobiles and trucks consume gasoline and diesel fuel, which are nonrenewable energy products derived from crude oil.

Gasoline is the most used transportation fuel in California, with 97 percent of all gasoline being consumed by light-duty cars, pickup trucks, and sport utility vehicles (SUVs). In 2015, 15.1 billion gallons of gasoline were sold in California (CEC 2021c). Diesel fuel is the second most consumed fuel in California, used by heavy-duty trucks, delivery vehicles, buses, trains, ships, boats, and farm and construction equipment. In 2015, 4.2-billion gallons of diesel were sold in California (CEC 2021d).

The project site is serviced by Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) for electricity and is serviced by Southern California Gas for gas.

Impact Analysis
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Less than Significant Impact. Construction of the proposed project would consume energy, primarily in the form of petroleum-based fuels (i.e., gasoline and diesel). Heavy-duty off-road construction equipment, on-road trucks, vendor trips, and worker maintenance trips would consume these fuels.

Project-related consumption of such energy resources for construction would be temporary, typical for this type of construction, and cease upon the completion of construction. No inefficient or unnecessary construction methods are proposed such that excessive energy resources would be consumed during project construction. During project operation, no energy resources would be required since the proposed project would not require new backup pumps or generators. Therefore, the project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, and impacts would be less than significant.
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Less than Significant Impact. See discussion under question a) above. The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy efficiency. The project would conform to all applicable State, federal, and local laws, and codes. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 41 VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated
on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of a known
fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iv. Landslides? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project,
and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial
direct or indirect risks to life or property?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Environmental Setting
The project site is located within the Great Valley Geomorphic Province of California, which is an alluvial plain about 50 miles wide and 400 miles long between the Coast Ranges and the Sierra Nevada. The Great Valley is drained by the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers, which join and enter San Francisco Bay (County 2004). The major faults and faulting systems in the County include the San Andreas Fault, Garlock Fault, White Wolf Fault, Pond-Poso Creek Fault, Kern Front Fault, Owens Valley Fault, and Buena Vista Fault.

Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 42 The mapped soil types within the project site are described below (NRCS 2024):
• Granoso sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, overwash. This soil has a parent material of alluvium derived from mixed rock sources. A typical soil profile is sandy loam (0 - 10 inches), loamy sand (10 - 20 inches) then sand (20 - 62 inches). This soil is somewhat excessively drained, has a very low runoff class, a rare frequency of flooding, and no frequency of ponding. • Kimberlina fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes MLRA 17. This soil has a parent material of alluvium derived from igneous and sedimentary rock. A typical soil profile is fine sandy loam (0 - 45 inches) and silt loam (45 - 71 inches). This soil is well drained, has a very low runoff class, a rare frequency of flooding, and no frequency of ponding. • Bakersfield fine sandy loam, drained, 0 to 1 percent slopes. This soil has a parent material of alluvium derived from granitoid rock. A typical soil profile is fine sandy loam (0 - 16 inches), stratified sand to loam (19 - 45 inches), loam (45 - 51 inches), stratified sandy loam to silt loam (51 – 58 inches), and stratified sand to loam (58 - 66 inches). This soil is somewhat poorly drained, has a negligible class, a rare frequency of flooding, and no frequency of ponding.

Impact Analysis
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is not located on or near an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (DOC 2024b). The nearest active fault to the project site is the White Wolf Fault located approximately 20 miles southeast of the project site (DOC 2024c). As there are no faults mapped within or near the project site, ground rupture as a result of the proposed project would be unlikely. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would install approximately 6,000 linear feet of a new 10-inch water main, 1,600 linear feet of 8-inch lateral pipelines, and 29 household connections.

Three fire hydrants would also be installed, and two wells would be abandoned as part of the proposed project. There is always potential in California for seismic ground shaking; however, the proposed project would not construct new buildings, residences, or other aboveground structures that have the potential to be inhabitable or hazardous to humans or other structures in a ground-shaking event.

The proposed pipeline alignments and fire hydrants would be constructed in compliance with current codes and standards, including California Building Code (CBC) requirements to reduce potential hazards resulting from strong seismic ground shaking. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.

Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 43 iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less Than Significant Impact. Seismic ground shaking of relatively loose, granular soils that are saturated or submerged can cause the soil to liquefy and temporarily behave as a dense fluid.

Liquefaction is caused by a sudden temporary increase in pore water pressure due to seismic densification or other displacement of submerged granular soils. Liquefaction most often occurs in areas underlain by young alluvium where the groundwater table is higher than 50 feet below the ground surface (County 2004).

The project site is not located on or near the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and is not located within a liquefaction zone (DOC 2024b). As the proposed project would not construct habitable structures, it is not expected that implementation of the proposed project would expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving liquefaction. The proposed pipeline alignments and fire hydrants would be constructed in compliance with current codes and standards, including CBC requirements to reduce potential hazards resulting from liquefaction. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. iv. Landslides?
Less Than Significant Impact. Areas in Kern County subject to landslides are primarily located in the Coast Range, San Emidio Mountains, and in the vicinity of Bear Mountain (County 2004). The proposed project would be located within the ROW of Old River Road, SR-119, Par Street, Beam Street, and front yards of existing residences. The project area is generally flat with elevations that range from 338 feet to 346 feet above mean sea level (amsl). Additionally, the project site is not located within a landslide zone (DOC 2024b).

Due to the natural topography of the proposed project area and the small scale of required construction activities, it is not expected that implementation of the proposed project would expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would install approximately 6,000 linear feet of a new 10-inch water main, 1,600 linear feet of 8-inch lateral pipelines, and 29 household connections.

Three fire hydrants would also be installed, and two wells would be abandoned as part of the proposed project. The new 10-inch water main would be located within the disturbed portions of Old River Road and SR-119, and the proposed 8-inch lateral pipelines and household connections would be located within disturbed portions of Par Street, Beam Street, and front yards of existing residences.

Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 44 c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project site includes the following soil types: Granoso sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, overwash; Kimberlina fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes MLRA 17; and Bakersfield fine sandy loam, drained, 0 to 1 percent slopes (NRCS 2024). As described above in the impact analysis for question a.iv) above, the proposed project would not result in adverse effects related to landslides. The potential for lateral spreading and subsidence is related to a site’s potential for liquefaction. As described in question a.iii), the project site is not located within a liquefaction zone and the potential adverse effects related to liquefaction would be less than significant. Therefore, it is not anticipated that lateral spreading or subsidence would occur at the project site.

Additionally, the proposed pipeline and fire hydrants would be constructed in compliance with current codes and standards, including CBC requirements to reduce potential hazards resulting from landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Less Than Significant Impact. Expansive soils are fine-grained soils (generally high plasticity clays) that can undergo a significant increase in volume with an increase in water content, and a significant decrease in volume with a decrease in water content. Changes in the water content of a highly expansive soil can result in severe distress to structures constructed on or against the soil. The shrink swell behavior of expansive soils can lead to damage of project improvements over time if not addressed appropriately before construction. Expansive soils generally consist of clay type soils such as smectite, bentonite, montmorillonite, beidellite, vermiculite, and others are known to expand with changes in moisture content.

The project site is comprised of sandy loam soils, including Granoso sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, overwash; Kimberlina fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes MLRA 17; and Bakersfield fine sandy loam, drained, 0 to 1 percent slopes (NRCS 2024). Granoso sandy loam and Kimberline fine sandy loam are well drained soils that have very low runoff classes, while Bakersfield fine sandy loam is somewhat poorly drained. All soil types present on the project site have a rare frequency of flooding and no frequency of ponding, and are not considered to be expansive. The project would not construct habitable structures and would thereby not create risks to life or property. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No Impact. The proposed project does not propose septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, no impact would occur.
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. No previous surveys conducted in the proposed project area have identified the proposed project site as sensitive for paleontological Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 45 resources or other geologically sensitive resources, nor have testing or ground disturbing activities performed to date uncovered any paleontological resources or geologically sensitive resources. The new 10-inch water main would be located within the disturbed portions of Old River Road and SR-119, and the proposed 8-inch lateral pipelines and household connections would be located within disturbed portions of Par Street, Beam Street, and front yards of existing residences. While the likelihood of encountering paleontological resources and other geologically sensitive resources is considered low, project-related ground disturbing activities could affect the integrity of a previously unknown paleontological or other geologically sensitive resource. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would reduce potentially significant impacts to a level of less than significant.

GEO-1 Avoid and Minimize Impacts to Paleontological Resources. In the event paleontological or other geologically sensitive resources (such as fossils or fossil formations) are identified during any phase of project construction, all excavations within 100 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 appropriate representative at the City 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 City shall implement those measures which may include avoidance, preservation in place, or other appropriate measures, as outlined in Public Resources Code Section 21083.2.

Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 46 VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
The discussion below is based on an Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Letter Report prepared by HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. and attached to this Initial Study as Appendix A.

Environmental Analysis
The proposed project is located in unincorporated Kern County, which lies within the SJVAB. Air quality in the SJVAB is regulated by the USEPA at the federal level, by CARB at the state level, and by the SJVAPCD at the regional level.

The vertical dispersion of air pollutants in the SJVAB can be limited by persistent temperature inversions. Temperature inversions that occur on the summer days are usually encountered 2,000 to 2,500 feet above the valley floor. In winter months, overnight inversions occur 500 to 1,500 feet above the valley floor. The mountains surrounding the basin are mostly above the typical summer height of inversion layers, restricting dispersion of pollutants (SJVAPCD 2015).

Solar radiation and temperature are particularly important in the chemistry of ozone formation. The SJVAB averages over 260 sunny days per year. Generally, the higher the temperature, the more ozone formed, since reaction rates increase with temperature. The 1937 through 2016 annual average maximum daily temperature as measured at the Bakersfield Airport climatic station, Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 47 approximately 7 miles northeast of the project site, is 77.8 degrees °F. The highest monthly average maximum daily temperature (98.6°F) occurs in July, and the lowest monthly average minimum daily temperature (38.5°F) occurs in December and January. The average annual precipitation is approximately 6.2 inches (Western Regional Climate Center 2016).

Regulatory Setting
Global climate change refers to changes in average climatic conditions on Earth including temperature, wind patterns, precipitation, and storms. Global temperatures are moderated by atmospheric gases.

These gases are commonly referred to as GHGs because they function like a greenhouse by letting sunlight in but preventing heat from escaping, thus warming the Earth’s atmosphere.

GHGs are emitted by natural processes and human (anthropogenic) activities. Anthropogenic GHG emissions are primarily associated with: (1) the burning of fossil fuels during motorized transport, electricity generation, natural gas consumption, industrial activity, manufacturing, and other activities; (2) deforestation; (3) agricultural activity; and (4) solid waste decomposition.

The GHGs defined under California’s AB 32, described below, include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Each GHG differs in its ability to absorb heat in the atmosphere based on the lifetime, or persistence, of the gas molecule in the atmosphere. Estimates of GHG emissions are commonly presented in carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e), which weigh each gas by its global warming potential (GWP). Expressing GHG emissions in CO2e takes the contribution of all GHG emissions to the greenhouse effect and converts them to a single unit equivalent to the effect that would occur if only CO2 were being emitted. GHG emissions quantities in this analysis are presented in metric tons (MT) of CO2e. For consistency with United Nations Standards, modeling, and reporting of GHGs in California and the U.S. use the GWPs defined in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC 2007): CO2 – 1; CH4 – 25; N2O – 298.

GHG Reduction Regulations and Plans
The primary GHG reduction regulatory legislation and plans (applicable to the project) at the State and levels are described below. Implementation of California’s GHG reduction mandates are primarily under the authority of CARB at the State level, and under the authority of the SJVAPCD at the regional level.

Executive Order S-3-05: On June 1, 2005, Executive Order (EO) S-3-05 proclaimed that California is vulnerable to climate change impacts. It declared that increased temperatures could reduce snowpack in the Sierra Nevada, further exacerbate California’s air quality problems, and potentially cause a rise in sea levels. To avoid or reduce climate change impacts, EO S-3-05 calls for a reduction in GHG emissions to the year 2000 level by 2010, to year 1990 levels by 2020, and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Executive Orders are not laws and can only provide the governor’s direction to State agencies to act within their authority to reinforce existing laws.

Assembly Bill 32 – Global Warming Solution Act of 2006: The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, widely known as AB 32, requires that CARB develop and enforce regulations for the reporting and verification of Statewide GHG emissions. CARB is directed by AB 32 to set a GHG emission limit, based on 1990 levels, to be achieved by 2020. The bill requires CARB to adopt rules and regulations in an open public process to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective GHG emission reductions.

Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 48 Executive Order B-30-15: On April 29, 2015, EO B-30-15 established a California GHG emission reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. The EO aligns California’s GHG emission reduction targets with those of leading international governments, including the 28-nation European Union.

California is on track to meet or exceed the target of reducing GHGs emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, as established in AB 32. California’s new emission reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 will make it possible to reach the goal established by EO S-3-05 of reducing emissions to 80 percent under 1990 levels by 2050.

Executive Order S-01-07: This EO, signed by Governor Schwarzenegger on January 18, 2007, directs that a Statewide goal be established to reduce the carbon intensity of California’s transportation fuels by at least 10 percent by the year 2020. It orders that a Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) for transportation fuels be established for California and directs CARB to determine whether a LCFS can be adopted as a discrete early action measure pursuant to AB 32. CARB approved the LCFS as a discrete early action item with a regulation adopted and implemented in April 2010.

Although challenged in 2011, the Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court’s opinion and rejected arguments that implementing LCFS violates the interstate commerce clause in September 2013. CARB is therefore continuing to implement the LCFS Statewide.

Senate Bill 100: Approved by Governor Brown on September 10, 2018, SB 100 requires that all retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers be procured from 100 percent eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources by the end of 2045.

Executive Order N-79-20: EO N-79-20, signed by Governor Newsom on September 23, 2020, establishes three goals for the implementation of zero emissions vehicles in California: first, 100 percent of in-State sales of new passenger cars and trucks will be zero-emissions by 2035; second, 100 percent of mediumand heavy-duty vehicles in the State will be zero-emissions vehicles by 2045 for all operations where feasible, and by 2035 for drayage trucks; and third, 100 percent of off-road vehicles and equipment will be zero emissions by 2035 where feasible.

Assembly Bill 1279: Approved by Governor Newsom on September 16, 2022, AB 1279, the California Climate Crisis Act, declares the policy of the State to achieve net zero GHG emissions as soon as possible, but no later than 2045, and achieve and maintain net negative GHG emissions thereafter, and to ensure that by 2045, statewide anthropogenic GHG emissions are reduced to at least 85 percent below the 1990 levels. AB 1279 anticipates achieving these policies through direct GHG emissions reductions, removal of CO2 from the atmosphere (carbon capture), and an almost complete transition away from fossil fuels.

California Air Resources Board Scoping Plan: The Scoping Plan is a strategy CARB develops and updates at least once every five years, as required by AB 32. It lays out the transformations needed across our society and economy to reduce emissions and reach our climate targets. The current 2022 Scoping Plan Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 49 is the third update to the original plan that was adopted in 2008. The initial 2008 Scoping Plan laid out a path to achieve the AB 32 mandate of returning to 1990 levels of GHG emissions by 2020, a reduction of approximately 15 percent below business as usual. The 2008 Scoping Plan included a mix of incentives, regulations, and carbon pricing, laying out the portfolio approach to addressing climate change and clearly making the case for using multiple tools to meet California’s GHG targets. The 2013 Scoping Plan assessed progress toward achieving the 2020 mandate and made the case for addressing short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs). The 2017 Scoping Plan also assessed the progress toward achieving the 2020 limit and provided a technologically feasible and cost-effective path to achieving the SB 32 mandate of reducing GHGs by at least 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. On December 15, 2022, CARB approved the 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (2022 Scoping Plan). The 2022 Scoping Plan lays out a path to achieve targets for carbon neutrality and reduce anthropogenic GHG emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels no later than 2045, as directed by AB 1279. The actions and outcomes in the plan will achieve significant reductions in fossil fuel combustion by deploying clean technologies and fuels; further reductions in SLCPs; support for sustainable development; increased action on natural and working lands to reduce emissions and sequester carbon; and the capture and storage of carbon (CARB 2022).

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District: In December 2009, the SJVAPCD adopted the following guidance documents applicable to the project:
• Guidance for Valley Land-use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA (SJVAPCD 2009a), and
• District Policy: Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for Stationary Source Projects Under CEQA When Serving as the Lead Agency (SJVAPCD 2009b).

This guidance and policy are the documents referenced in the SJVAPCD’s Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts, adopted in March 2015 (SJVAPCD 2015). Consistent with the District Guidance and District Policy above, SJVAPCD acknowledges the current absence of numerical thresholds, and recommends a tiered approach to establish the significance of the GHG impacts on the environment:

1. If a project complies with an approved GHG emission reduction plan or GHG mitigation program which avoids or substantially reduces GHG emissions within the geographic area in which the project is located, then the project would be determined to have a less than significant individual and cumulative impact for GHG emissions;

2. If a project does not comply with an approved GHG emission reduction plan or mitigation program, then it would be required to implement best performance standards (BPS); and

3. If a project is not implementing BPS, then it should demonstrate that its GHG emissions would be reduced or mitigated by at least 29 percent, compared to business-as-usual.

The SJVAPCD adopted a Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP) in 2008 and issued guidance for development project compliance with the plan in 2009. The guidance adopted an approach that relies on the use of BPS to reduce GHG emissions. Projects implementing BPS would be determined to have a less than cumulatively significant impact. For projects not implementing BPS, demonstration of a 29 percent reduction in project-specific (i.e., operational) GHG emissions from business-as-usual conditions is required to determine that a project would have a less than cumulatively significant impact (SJVAPCD Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 50 2009a). Both the SJVAPCD CCAP and the guidance for development project compliance are limited to achieving the State 2020 GHG reduction goals mandated by AB 32. The SJVAPCD CCAP and the guidance for development project compliance do not address California’s post-2020 GHG reduction goals. Kern County currently does not have a CAP or other GHG reduction plan which addresses post-2020 GHG reductions mandated by SB 32 and AB 1279.The City of Bakersfield is currently in the process of preparing its first Climate Action Plan (CAP), and released a draft CAP for public comment in 2023; however, at the time of this analysis, the City has not adopted the CAP (City 2024a).

Sensitive Receptors
CARB and the OEHHA have identified the following groups of individuals as the most likely to be affected by air pollution: adults over 65, children under 14, infants (including in utero in the third trimester of pregnancy), and persons with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases such as asthma, emphysema, and bronchitis (CARB 2005; OEHHA 2015). Some land uses are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others due to the types of population groups or activities involved and are referred to as sensitive receptors. Examples of these sensitive receptors are residences, schools, hospitals, and daycare centers.

The closest existing sensitive receptors to the project site are single-family residential homes located 50- feet from the proposed water laterals. The closest school is Independence High School located approximately 350 feet northwest of the northern terminus of the proposed 10-inch water main along Old River Road.

Methodology and Assumptions
For the methodology and assumptions for GHG emissions, please see Section 4.III, Air Quality.

Standards of Significance
Given the relatively small levels of emissions generated by a project in relationship to the total amount of GHG emissions generated on a national or global basis, individual projects are not expected to result in significant, direct impacts with respect to climate change. However, given the magnitude of the impact of GHG emissions on the global climate, GHG emissions from new development could result in significant, cumulative impacts with respect to climate change. Thus, the potential for a significant GHG impact is limited to cumulative impacts. According to Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, the following criteria may be considered in establishing the significance of GHG emissions:

Would the project:

1. Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?

2. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs?
The SJVAPCD has adopted the guidance in Guidance for Valley Land-use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA and the policy, Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for Stationary Source Projects Under CEQA When Serving as the Lead Agency. The guidance and policy rely on the use of BPS to assess the significance of project-specific GHG emissions on global climate change Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 51 during the environmental review process. However, SJVAPCD’s adopted BPS are specifically directed at reducing GHG emissions from stationary sources; therefore, the adopted BPS would not generally be applicable to the proposed project as construction of the pipelines would not be a stationary source of emissions. The SJVAPCD guidance does not limit a lead agency’s authority in establishing its own process and guidance for determining significance of project-related impacts on global climate change.

Neither the County, City, nor the SJVAPCD has adopted a GHG emissions threshold for construction and operational emissions. In the event that a local air district’s guidance for addressing GHG impacts does not use numerical GHG emissions thresholds, at the lead agency’s discretion, GHG thresholds adopted by neighboring California air districts may be used to determine impacts. The Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) has adopted a GHG construction threshold of 1,100 MT CO2e per year for a project’s construction emissions (SMAQMD 2021). A project with an emission rate below this threshold is generally considered to have a less than significant impact on GHG emissions.

Impact Analysis
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact.

Construction Emissions
GHG emissions would be generated by the proposed project during construction from vehicle engine exhaust from construction equipment, on-road trucks, vendor trips, and worker maintenance trips.

Construction GHG emissions were calculated using CalEEMod, as described in Methodology and Assumptions. The results of the construction GHG emissions calculations were compared to the SMAQMD threshold in Table 7, Construction GHG Emissions. As shown in Table 7, the construction GHG emissions would not exceed the SMAQMD construction GHG threshold, and the impact would be less than significant.

Table 7

CONSTRUCTION GHG EMISSIONS
Year of Emissions Emissions
(MT CO2e)
2026 567
SMAQMD Construction Threshold (per year) 1,100
Exceed Threshold? No
Source: CalEEMod (output data is provided in Attachment B to Appendix A).

Operational Emissions
As discussed in Methodology and Assumptions, operational emissions were not quantified. Operation of the proposed project would not result in a population increase and would not generate new vehicle trips, and occasional project maintenance activities would be similar to maintenance activated for the exiting water systems. Operation of the proposed project would not require new pumps or backup generators. The proposed project would not result in changes in water use, and the electricity used by the proposed project to treat and divide water to customers would be similar to the electricity used by Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 52 the existing water systems. Therefore, operational GHG emissions would be negligible, and the impact would be less than significant.

Impact Conclusion
Construction and operation of the proposed project would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. The impact would be less than significant.
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less Than Significant Impact. There are numerous State plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. The principal overall State plan and policy is AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. The quantitative goal of AB 32 is to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. SB 32 requires further reductions of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. AB 1279 requires the State to achieve net zero GHG emissions no later than 2045. The mandates of AB 32, SB 32, and AB 1279 are implemented at the State level by the CARB’s Scoping Plan. Because the proposed project’s operational year is post-2020, the project aims to reach the quantitative goals set by SB 32 and AB 1279. Statewide plans and regulations such as GHG emissions standards for vehicles and transportation fuels, and regulations requiring an increasing fraction of electricity to be generated from renewable sources are being implemented at the Statewide level; as such, compliance at the project level is not addressed. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with those plans and regulations.

As noted in impact question a) above, construction GHG emissions would not exceed the GHG thresholds, and would be less than significant. In addition, operation of the proposed project would not result in a population increase and would not result in substantial changes in GHG emissions compared to operation of the existing water systems. As a result, the proposed project would not conflict with the GHG reduction objectives of the State’s Scoping Plan, including net zero GHG emissions by 2045, mandated by AB 1279, or the SJVAPCD’s CCAP. The impact would be less than significant.

Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 53 IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within onequarter mile of an existing or proposed school? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Environmental Setting
The proposed project is located in Kern County southwest of the City of Bakersfield. The nearest school to the project site is Independence High School, located approximately 350 feet northwest of the project site. The nearest public airport is the Bakersfield Municipal Airport located approximately 7 miles east of the project site.

The following databases were reviewed for the project site and surrounding area to identify potential hazardous contamination sites: the State Water Resources Control Board’s GeoTracker tool (SWRCB 2024), California Department of Toxic Substance Control’s (DTSC) EnviroStor online tool (DTSC 2024); and the USEPA’s Superfund National Priorities List (USEPA 2024). Based on the results of the databases reviewed, no hazardous waste sites are on the proposed project site.

Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 54 Federal and State laws include provisions for the safe handling of hazardous substances. The federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) administers requirements to ensure worker safety. Construction activity must also be in compliance with the California OSHA regulations (Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970).

Impact Analysis
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Less Than Significant Impact. Construction activities may involve the limited transport, storage, use, and/or disposal of hazardous materials, such as for the fueling and servicing of construction equipment on-site. These activities would be short-term or one-time in nature and would be subject to federal, State, and local health and safety regulations, which would minimize hazards related to the use of these materials.

Long-term operation of the proposed project would involve little or no hazardous materials since the proposed project would be mainly subterranean and would not emit hazardous materials. The proposed project would not result in a significant hazard related to the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, and impacts would be less than significant.
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Less Than Significant Impact. Old River MWC provides water to 46 residents via 14 connections in its

10.7-acre service area. Water is provided by a single well, located within the service area. Water delivered by the Old River MWC system contains uranium levels that exceed the MCL of 30 µg/L established by State and federal regulations. Water from this well also exceeds the 1, 2, 3-TCP MCL of

0.005 µg/L. South Kern MWC provides water to 32 residents via 15 service connections in its 9.7-acre service area. Water is provided by a single well in the northeast corner of the service area. The well currently produces water that exceeds the uranium MCL of 30 µg/L. Water from this well also exceeds the 1, 2, 3-TCP MCL of 0.005 µg/L. The proposed project would abandon the Old River MWC well and the South Kern MWC well and extend the City of Bakersfield’s water system to serve the areas previously served by these two MWCs, thereby consolidating both MWCs into the City of Bakersfield’s water system. Operation of the proposed project would replace the contaminated wells, thereby reducing the community residents’ potential exposure to hazardous materials.

As discussed in the analysis of impact a), limited amounts of hazardous materials would be used during construction; however, these materials would be used and stored in accordance with applicable regulations that would limit the potential for their accidental release. As the proposed pipeline would be mainly subterranean and would not involve the use of hazardous materials, there are no reasonably foreseeable upset or accident conditions that would result in the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Less Than Significant Impact. The nearest school to the project site is Independence High School, located approximately 350 feet northwest of the northern terminus of the water main to be installed Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 55 along Old River Road. As discussed under question a), construction activities may involve the limited transport, storage, use, and/or disposal of hazardous materials, such as for the fueling and servicing of construction equipment on-site. These activities would be short-term or one-time in nature and would be subject to federal, State, and local health and safety regulations, which would minimize hazards related to the use of these materials. Long-term operation of the proposed project would involve little or no hazardous materials since the proposed project would be mainly subterranean and would not emit hazardous materials. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
No Impact. As noted above, the following databases were reviewed for the project site and surrounding area to identify potential hazardous contamination sites: the SWRCB GeoTracker tool (SWRCB 2024), DTSC EnviroStor online tool (DTSC 2024); and the USEPA’s Superfund National Priorities List (USEPA 2024). Based on the results of the databases reviewed, no hazardous waste sites are on the proposed project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment and no impact would occur.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The proposed project is not located within an airport land use plan and is not located within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. The nearest public airport is the Bakersfield Municipal Airport located approximately 7 miles east of the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area and no impact would occur.
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project would construct approximately 6,000 linear feet of new 10-inch water main, 1,600 linear feet of 8-inch lateral pipelines with connections to 29 households. Three fire hydrants would also be installed for use in case of emergency. The majority of the proposed project would be subterranean, and the proposed pipelines would run underneath Old River Road, SR-119, Par Street, and Beam Street.

Project construction is anticipated to begin as early as April 2026 and continue for approximately nine months. Construction of the pipeline would take place within the ROW of Old River Road, SR-119, Par Street, and Beam Street. Old River Road is categorized as an arterial roadway, while SR-119 is a highway.

Both roads would likely be used by local residents in the event of an evacuation or emergency. The proposed construction along Old River Road, SR-119, Par Street, and Beam Street may result in temporary disturbance to traffic or lane closures along these roads. Full closure of these roads is not anticipated, but individual lanes may be temporarily closed during construction. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would require the preparation of Traffic Management Plan before construction to address potential disruption to or re-routing of traffic that might be needed during project construction. With implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, the impact would be less than significant.

Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 56 HAZ-1 Traffic Management Plan. If lane closures or speed restrictions are necessary to allow adequate space for project construction, a Traffic Management Plan shall be developed for the proposed project to manage traffic during temporary lane closures along Old River Road, SR-119, and Beam Street. The Traffic Management Plan shall be prepared by the applicant and shall be reviewed and approved by the City before the commencement of construction activities. g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would construct approximately 6,000 linear feet of new 10-inch water main, 1,600 linear feet of 8-inch lateral pipelines with connections to 29 households.

Three fire hydrants would also be installed for use in case of emergency. As the majority of the proposed project would be subterranean, impacts associated with wildland fires would not be anticipated.

Additionally, according to California Department Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map, the project site is located within a Local Responsibility Area (LRA; CAL FIRE 2024).

The project site is not located on or near the Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ; CAL FIRE 2024). Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to people or structures to significant risk, and the impact would be less than significant.

Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 57 X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding onor off-site? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional resources of polluted runoff?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Environmental Setting
Surface Water
The project area is within the South Valley Floor Watershed with Region 5 – Tulare Lake Hydrologic Basin (CVRWQCB 2018). The SWRCB publishes updates to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin (Basin Plan) to improve water quality and maintain beneficial uses in the drainage area of the San Joaquin Valley south of the San Joaquin River. The Basin Plan describes water quality concerns for the area that include agriculture, forestry, urban land uses, and stormwater runoff (CVRWQCB 2018).

The proposed project is located adjacent to the Stine Canal, which crosses underneath SR-119 just east of its intersection with Old River Road.

Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 58 Groundwater
Old River MWC and South Kern MWC currently provide water service to residential and commercial customers in the project area. Each MWC operates using a single well, located within their respective service areas, which provides water to adjacent parcels and nearby customers.

Old River MWC provides water to 46 residents via 14 connections in its 10.7-acre service area. Water is provided by a single well, located within the service area. The Old River MWC well was constructed in 1962 and has a ten-inch diameter steel casing perforated from 189 to 291 feet bgs. Water delivered by the Old River MWC system contains uranium levels that exceed the MCL of 30 µg/L established by State and federal regulations. Water from this well also exceeds the 1, 2, 3-TCP MCL of 0.005 µg/L. The Old River MWC well lacks source reliability and storage capacity to serve the customers. The MWC also lacks technical, managerial, and financial capacity.

South Kern MWC provides water to 32 residents via 15 service connections in its 9.7-acre service area.

The well currently produces water that exceeds the uranium MCL of 30 µg/L. Water from this well also exceeds the 1, 2, 3-TCP MCL of 0.005 µg/L. The South Kern MWC well also lacks source reliability and storage capacity to serve the customers. The MWC also lacks technical, managerial, and financial capacity.

Floodplain
The proposed project is located on Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) panel 06029C2300E effective September 26, 2008 (FEMA 2024). The proposed project is not located within a 100-year floodplain.

Impact Analysis
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project would abandon the Old River MWC well and South Kern MWC well and extend the City of Bakersfield’s water system to serve the areas previously served by these two MWCs. To extend service from the City of Bakersfield’s water system to the areas currently served by Old River MWC and South Kern MWC, the proposed project would construct approximately 6,000 linear feet of new 10-inch water main, 1,600 linear feet of 8-inch lateral pipelines with connections to 29 households. Three fire hydrants would also be installed, and two wells would be abandoned as part of the proposed project. Construction of the proposed project would require surface disturbance, which may include the removal of stabilizing surfaces, excavation, and backfill. Potential water quality impacts associated with the proposed project could include short-term construction-related discharge of pollutants in the Stine Canal.

Projects that disturb one acre of soil or more are required to obtain NPDES coverage under the NPDES Construction General Permit (CGP). Construction activities subject to the CGP include clearing, grading, and other ground disturbances such as stockpiling or excavation. The CGP requires the development and implementation of a SWPPP, which would include construction and operational BMPs to reduce on-site soil erosion and subsequent pollution of stormwater runoff, ultimately protecting California’s surface Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 59 water resources. As the proposed project would disturb greater than one acre, a SWPPP would be prepared and BMPs would be implemented. Development and implementation of a site-specific SWPPP, as well as construction and operational BMPs, would reduce the proposed project’s potential to violate any water quality standards, waste discharge requirements, or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality. Where the proposed project would cross the Stine Canal, jack and bore construction would be used to install the pipeline underneath the canal. Project construction would take place primarily during agricultural season, during which it is anticipated that the canal could have flow.

The Stine Canal is an earthen canal, and there is potential for groundwater intrusion during jack and bore construction. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD-1 would require detailed dewatering methods and coordination with the Kern Delta Water District. Any potential shoring activities required for the jack and bore operation to connect the pipeline under the Stine Canal would be prepared in accordance with local engineering standards.

Upon completion of construction, project components would be located underground and would not result in runoff that could degrade water quality. With implementation of construction BMPs required by the project-specific SWPPP, and implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD-1, impacts related to water quality would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

HYD-1 Prepare and Implement Dewatering and Shoring Plans. In the event that dewatering activities are implemented for any construction activities, a dewatering plan shall be submitted to the City for approval before the issuance of a grading permit. At a minimum, the dewatering plan shall include dewatering methods, location of dewatering activities, equipment, groundwater sampling, disposal, and discharge point in accordance with the applicable waste discharge requirements of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. In the event that shoring methods are implemented for any excavations, shoring plans shall be prepared and submitted to the City for approval before the issuance of a grading permit. Shoring activities required for the jack and bore operations to connect utility lines under the Stine Canal shall be prepared in accordance with the City engineering standards. Additionally, the project applicant shall coordinate with the Kern Delta Water District regarding boring under Stine Canal, and any applicable recommendations shall be implemented.
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? Less Than Significant Impact. Old River MWC and South Kern MWC currently provide water service to residential and commercial customers in the project area. Each MWC operates using a single well, located within their respective service areas, which provides water to adjacent parcels and nearby customers. The proposed project would extend water service from the City of Bakersfield to this area and the South Kern and Old River wells would be abandoned.

Construction of the pipelines would be mainly subterranean and would take place within the ROW of Old River Road, SR-119, Par Street, and Beam Street. The pipeline trench depth is expected to be between four and ten feet, with a total excavation width of five feet. The proposed project would require a trenchless crossing underneath Old River Road, the Stine Canal, SR-119, and an existing culvert.

After completion of the proposed construction, the roadways would return to their existing condition.

As the proposed pipelines would be constructed within existing road ROW, there would be minimal Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 60 increase in the amount of impervious surface at the project site. Additionally, the proposed project would not require the withdrawal of groundwater. Once the project is implemented, operation of the South Kern and Old River MWC wells will cease and they will no longer draw from local groundwater.

Therefore, the proposed project would not decrease groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge, and the impact would be less than significant. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would install approximately 6,000 linear feet of a new 10-inch water main, 1,600 linear feet of 8-inch lateral pipelines, and 29 household connections.

Three fire hydrants would also be installed, and two wells would be abandoned as part of the proposed project. The new 10-inch water main would be located within the disturbed portions of Old River Road and Taft Highway, and the proposed 8-inch lateral pipelines and household connections would be located within disturbed portions of Par Street, Beam Street, and front yards of existing residences. The proposed project would require a jack and bore crossing underneath Old River Road, the Stine Canal, SR119, and an existing culvert.

Construction of the proposed project would require surface disturbance, which may include the removal of stabilizing surfaces, excavation, and backfill. However, after completion of construction activities, these surfaces would be restabilized, and there would be no change of erosion potential in the project area. Additionally, as the majority of the proposed project would be subterranean and within existing road ROW, the potential for erosion would be minimized. As outlined in question a), potential shortterm impacts from construction would be addressed through conformance with applicable elements of the NPDES CGP, including preparation and implementation of a SWPPP. The SWPPP would implement BMPs during construction to reduce on-site erosion of disturbed soil. Therefore, with implementation of the SWPPP and BMPs, the proposed project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil, and impacts would be less than significant.
ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
Less Than Significant Impact. As described in question b), construction of the pipelines would be mainly subterranean and would take place within the ROW of Old River Road, SR-119, Par Street, and Beam Street. The pipeline trench depth is expected to be between four and ten feet, with a total excavation width of five feet. The proposed project would require a trenchless crossing underneath Old River Road, the Stine Canal, SR-119, and an existing culvert.

After completion of the proposed construction, the roadways would return to their existing condition.

As the proposed pipelines would be constructed within existing road ROW and roads would remain the same width, there would be no increase in the amount of impervious surface at the project site.

Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff that would result in flooding on- or off-site and the impact would be less than significant.

Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 61 iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional resources of polluted runoff? Less Than Significant Impact. As described in question b), construction of the pipelines would be mainly subterranean and would take place within the ROW of Old River Road, SR-119, Par Street, and Beam Street. The pipeline trench depth is expected to be between four and ten feet, with a total excavation width of five feet. The proposed project would require a trenchless crossing underneath Old River Road, the Stine Canal, SR-119, and an existing culvert. As the proposed pipelines would be constructed within existing roadways and roadways would return to their existing conditions after construction, there would be no increase in the amount of impervious surface at the project site.

Additionally, as described in question a), potential short-term impacts from construction would be addressed through conformance with applicable elements of the NPDES CGP, including preparation and implementation of a SWPPP. The SWPPP would implement BMPs during construction to reduce on-site erosion of disturbed soil and to prevent substantial polluted runoff from entering the stormwater drainage system. Therefore, the proposed project would not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of stormwater drainage systems and the impact would be less than significant.
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
Less Than Significant Impact. As described in question b), construction of the pipelines would be mainly subterranean and would take place within the ROW of Old River Road, SR-119, Par Street, and Beam Street. The pipeline trench depth is expected to be between four and ten feet, with a total excavation width of five feet. The proposed project would require a trenchless crossing underneath Old River Road, the Stine Canal, SR-119, and an existing culvert. After completion of the proposed construction, the roadways would return to their existing condition. As the proposed pipelines would be constructed within existing road ROW, there would be minimal increase in the amount of impervious surface at the project site.

Additionally, the proposed project is located on FEMA panel 06029C2300E effective September 26, 2008 (FEMA 2024). The proposed project is not located within a 100-year floodplain. Therefore, the proposed project would not impede or redirect potential flood flows and the impact would be less than significant. d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? Less Than Significant Impact. As described in question c.iv), the proposed project is not located within a 100-year floodplain. The proposed project site is not at risk of inundation due to a tsunami as it is located approximately 70 miles east of the Pacific Ocean. Additionally, the proposed project site is not subject to seiche as the nearest lake or reservoir, Lake Webb, is located approximately 8 miles southwest of the project site. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would comply with the Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin and NPDES Stormwater Program by implementing a SWPPP and BMPs to prevent construction pollutants from violating any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Additionally, the proposed project is within the Kern County Subbasin of the San Joaquin Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 62 Valley Groundwater Basin Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP; County 2024a). The proposed project does not involve pumping or extraction of groundwater, and following construction of the pipeline, the roadways would return to their existing condition. Therefore, the proposed project would comply with the Kern County Subbasin GSP, and the impact would be less than significant.

Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 63 XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Cause significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Environmental Setting
The proposed project is located partially within the City of Bakersfield city limits and partially within unincorporated Kern County. The proposed project consists of the construction of a water main and laterals which would connect the City of Bakersfield water system to the unincorporated community of Old River in Kern County. The proposed water main would connect to an existing water main located at the intersection of McCutcheon Road and Old River Road within the City limits. The new pipeline would then run approximately one mile south along Old River Road to its intersection with SR-119, where the proposed pipeline would run east and connect to the Old River community. The land adjacent to the proposed project to the west of Old River Road is within the Bakersfield city limits. The land to the east of Old River Road and to the south of SR-119, including the community of Old River, is located in unincorporated Kern County.

General Plan Land Use Designation
The proposed pipeline extension would begin at the intersection of McCutchen Road and Old River Road and would run approximately one mile south along Old River Road to the Old River community. Land along the western side of Old River Road falls within the city limits and is designated primarily as low density residential and resource-intensive agricultural, with some parcels designated as general commercial and estate residential near the intersection with SR-119 (City 2024b). Land to the east of Old River Road lies within County jurisdiction and is designated primarily as resource-intensive agricultural, with a few parcels designated as heavy commercial and general commercial near the intersection with SR-119. Land in the community of Old River lies in the County jurisdiction and is designated as low density residential and consists mainly of single-family residential units and some commercial development (County 2024b).

Zoning Classification
Land to the west of Old River Road in the City of Bakersfield is primarily zoned for residential development (R-1 One Family Dwelling and P.U.D. Planned Unit Development), with an area zoned for commercial activities at the northwest corner of SR-119 and Old River Road. Land to the east of Old River Road in unincorporated Kern County is primarily zoned for agricultural activities (A, Exclusive Agriculture), with a small area at the northeast corner of the intersection of SR-119 and Old River Road zoned for commercial activities (CH, Highway Commercial, and C-2, General Commercial). In the Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 64 community of Old River, the parcels bordering SR-119 are zoned for commercial use (CH, Highway Commercial, and C-2, General Commercial). The rest of the community is zoned for residential use (R-2, Medium Density Residential). South of SR-119, the areas surrounding the community of Old River to the west, south, and east are zoned for agricultural use (County 2024b).

Impact Analysis
a) Physically divide an established community?
No Impact. The proposed project would provide new water service connections from the Bakersfield water system to the existing residential and commercial users within the unincorporated Old River community. The proposed project would involve the construction of a 10-inch water main within the disturbed portions of Old River Road and SR-119, three fire hydrants, 8-inch lateral pipelines within the residential portion of the site, and 29 household connections. The proposed fire hydrants, 8-inch lateral pipelines, and household connections would be located within disturbed portions of Par Street, Beam Street, and front yards of existing residences. The pipelines would operate passively underground and would not physically divide an existing community. No impact would occur. b) Cause significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Less Than Significant Impact. As mentioned above in question a), the proposed project would be installed underground within the road ROW and front yards of existing residences and would not result in changes to land use types in the project area. During construction, staging would occur along the road ROW and would not result in changes to land uses. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in changes to land use and would not result in other land use policy conflicts, and impacts would be less than significant.

Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 65 XII. MINERAL RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Environmental Setting
Mineral resources in Kern County include borax, cement production, petroleum, and construction aggregates (County 2004). The Kern County General Plan Land Use, Open Space, and Conservation Element (General Plan) outlines policies to protect the current and future extraction of mineral resources that provide value to Kern County (County 2009). The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA) was enacted in response to land use conflicts between urban growth and essential mineral production. It requires the California Geological Survey to classify California lands into mineral resource zones (MRZs), defined as follows:
• MRZ-1: areas where adequate information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present or where it is judged that little likelihood exists for their presence. • MRZ-2: areas where adequate information indicates that significant mineral deposits are present or where it is judged that a high likelihood for their presence exists. • MRZ-3: areas containing mineral deposits, the significance of which cannot be evaluated from available data.
• MRZ-4: areas where available information is inadequate for assignment into any other MRZ.

Kern County contains MRZs designated as MRZ-1 and MRZ-2. Policy 17 of The General Plan Land Use, Conservation, and Open Space Element states that lands classified as MRZ-2 should be protected from encroachment of incompatible land uses. The project site is located approximately four miles north of a designated MRZ-1 and approximately six miles southwest of a designated MRZ-2. Policy 25 aims to discourage incompatible land use adjacent to map code 8.4 (Mineral and Petroleum areas). The proposed project site is located approximately eight miles east of a Mineral and Petroleum area. No mining activity occurs on the project site, and the nearest mine is located approximately 15 miles from the project site (County 2024c).

Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 66 Impact Analysis
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? No Impact. The proposed project site is not located within the immediate vicinity of a designated mineral resource zone and would not encroach upon Mineral and Petroleum land use designations. The construction and operation of the proposed project would occur primarily within the disturbed areas of existing roadways. Therefore, there is little to no potential for mineral resource recovery to occur within the project site. The proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of mineral resources or a delineated mineral resource recovery site. No impact to mineral resources would occur.

Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 67 XIII. NOISE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
HELIX conducted quantitative modeling related to noise generated by the proposed project using the Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM). The RCNM output files are attached to this Initial Study as Appendix D.

Noise Metrics
All noise-level and sound-level values presented herein are expressed in terms of decibels (dB), with A weighting, abbreviated “dBA,” to approximate the hearing sensitivity of humans. Time averaged noise levels of one hour are expressed by the symbol “LEQ” unless a different time period is specified.

Maximum noise levels are expressed by the symbol “LMAX.” Because decibels are logarithmic units, SPL cannot be added or subtracted through standard arithmetic.

Under the decibel scale, a doubling of sound energy corresponds to a 3 dBA increase. In other words, when two identical sources are each producing sound of the same loudness, the resulting sound level at a given distance would be 3 dBA higher than from one source under the same conditions. For example, if one automobile produces an SPL of 70 dBA when it passes an observer, two cars passing simultaneously would not produce 140 dBA—rather, they would combine to produce 73 dBA. Under the decibel scale, three sources of equal loudness together produce a sound level 5 dBA louder than one source.

Under controlled conditions in an acoustical laboratory, the trained, healthy human ear is able to discern 1 dBA changes in sound levels, when exposed to steady, single-frequency (“pure-tone”) signals in the mid-frequency (1,000 Hertz [Hz]–8,000 Hz) range. In typical noisy environments, changes in noise of 1 to 2 dBA are generally not perceptible. It is widely accepted, however, that people begin to detect sound level increases of 3 dB in typical noisy environments. Further, a 5 dBA increase is generally Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 68 perceived as a distinctly noticeable increase, and a 10 dBA increase is generally perceived as a doubling of loudness.

Vibration Metrics
Groundborne vibration consists of rapidly fluctuating motions or waves transmitted through the ground with an average motion of zero. Sources of groundborne vibrations include natural phenomena and anthropogenic causes (e.g., explosions, machinery, traffic, trains, construction equipment). Vibration sources may be continuous (e.g., factory machinery) or transient (e.g., explosions). Peak particle velocity (PPV) is commonly used to quantify vibration amplitude. The PPV, with units of inches per second (in/sec), is defined as the maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of the vibration wave.

Noise and Vibration Sensitive Land Uses
Noise-sensitive land uses (NSLU) are land uses that may be subject to stress and/or interference from excessive noise, such as residential dwellings, schools, transient lodgings (hotels), hospitals, educational facilities, and libraries. Industrial and commercial land uses are generally not considered sensitive to noise. Noise receptors are individual locations within an NSLU that may be affected by noise. The nearest existing NSLU to the proposed project are single-family residential homes located 50-feet from the proposed water mains. The closest school is Independence High School located approximately 350 feet northwest of the northern terminus of the proposed 10-inch water main along Old River Road.

Land uses in which ground-borne vibration could potentially interfere with operations or equipment, such as research, hospitals, and university research operations are considered “vibration-sensitive.” The degree of sensitivity depends on the specific equipment that would be affected by the ground-borne vibration. In addition, excessive levels of ground-borne vibration of either a regular or an intermittent nature can result in annoyance to residential uses, schools, or transient lodging. Land uses in the project area that are subject to annoyance from vibration include the residences described above. Groundborne vibration can also cause structural damage or architectural damage (e.g., cracking plaster) to buildings.

Regulatory Framework
Kern County Code of Ordinances
The Kern County code of ordinances contains the following section applicable to project construction noise:

8.36.020 Prohibited sounds.

It is unlawful for any person to do, or cause to be done, any of the following acts within the unincorporated areas of the county:

H. Create noise from construction, between the hours of nine (9:00) p.m. and six (6:00) a.m. on weekdays and nine (9:00) p.m. and eight (8:00) a.m. on weekends, which is audible to a person with average hearing faculties or capacity at a distance of one hundred fifty (150) feet from the construction site, if the construction site is within one thousand (1,000) feet of an occupied residential dwelling except as provided below:

Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 69 1. The development services agency director or his designated representative may for good cause exempt some construction work for a limited time.

2. Emergency work is exempt from this section.

City of Bakersfield Municipal Code
The City of Bakersfield municipal code contains the following section applicable to project construction noise:

9.22.050 Noise during construction.

A. Except as provided herein or in subsection B, C or D of this section, it is unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to erect, demolish, alter or repair any building, or to grade or excavate land, streets or highways, other than between the hours of six a.m. and nine p.m. on weekdays, and between eight a.m. and nine p.m. on weekends; provided, however, that city crews and those of the city’s contractors performing street work between nine p.m. and six a.m. are exempt here from if the city engineer has directed that work be performed between such hours to alleviate potential traffic congestion.

B. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, if the city manager determines that the public health and safety will not be impaired by the erection, demolition, alteration or repair of any building or the excavating and grading of land, streets or highways between the hours of nine p.m. and six a.m., and if he or she further determines that loss or inconvenience would result to any party in interest by virtue of the requirements provided in subsection A of this section, he or she may grant a permit for such work to be done between the hours of nine p.m. and six a.m., upon application being made at the time the permit for the work is awarded or during the progress of the work. Such permit may be granted for a period not to exceed three days, and may be extended by the city manager for a period not to exceed three days.

C. The provisions of this section shall not apply to any work of construction performed one thousand feet or more from the nearest residential dwelling.

D. The provisions of this section shall not apply to performance of emergency work as defined in this chapter.

Impact Analysis
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Less Than Significant Impact. Proposed project construction work would occur outside the City limits, however, some noise sensitive land uses along the pipeline alignments are within the City limits.

Therefore, both the Kern County code of ordinances and the City municipal code are considered in evaluation of project construction noise impacts.

Construction of the proposed project is anticipated to begin April 1, 2026, and be completed on December 31, 2026. Most of the pipeline would be installed using convention trenching, commonly Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 70 known as “cut-and-cover”. A short portion of the 10-inch pipeline would be installed underneath an existing irrigation canal/culvert using trenchless tunneling and installation of pipe commonly known as “jack-and-bore”. Construction equipment would include backhoes, concrete saws, excavators, pipelayers, trenchless tunneling machines, pavers, vibratory rollers, and water trucks. Construction equipment would not all operate at the same time or location and would not be in constant use during the 8-hour operating day. Noise produced by the construction equipment was calculated using the RCNM Version 1.1 (US Department of Transportation [USDOT] 2008). The loudest anticipated construction equipment would be a concrete saw which could be used 50 feet from single-family residences during pavement demolition. The calculated noise from a concrete saw at a distance of 50 feet would be 82.6 dBA LEQ. The RCNM results are attached to this Initial Study as Appendix D. Per the both the County ordinance Section 8.36.020 and City ordinance section 9.22.050, there are no standards for allowable construction noise levels, however construction work is unlawful except between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. on weekdays, and between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. on weekends. Both ordinance sections provided that, if the Kern County development services agency or City manager have determined that, for good cause, construction work may be exempted from the above construction hours limitation for a limited time. Compliance with the Kern County and City ordinances for construction noise hours would ensure that disturbance of nearby NSLUs would be minimized and less than significant.

The proposed project would not install any new operational noise generating equipment such as new pumps or new emergency backup generators. Project periodic maintenance activities would be similar to activities currently conducted for the existing water systems and would not result in any new operational noise.

Therefore, the construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in the generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the proposed project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance. The impact would be less than significant.
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact. Construction activities would result in groundborne vibration from the use of heavy construction equipment, but it is not anticipated that project construction would require blasting or pile drivers. The largest potential source of vibration during project construction would be a vibratory roller primarily used to achieve soil compaction and pavement compaction, which could be used as close as 50 feet from the nearest vibration sensitive land uses (single-family residences). Per the Federal Transit Administration’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, a large vibratory roller could create approximately 0.210 in/sec PPV at a distance of 25 feet (FTA 2018). A vibratory roller producing a 0.210 in/sec PPV vibration level could result in vibrations as high as 0.10 in/sec PPV at a distance of 50 feet2
, below the FTA’s building damage threshold for groundborne vibration of 0.2 in/sec PPV for non-engineered timber and masonry buildings (FTA 2018). Therefore, project construction activities would not result in groundborne vibration exceeding the FTA standards at the closest vibration sensitive land uses. Once operational, the proposed project would not be a source of ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise. Therefore, construction and operation of the 2 Equipment PPV = Reference PPV * (25/D)n (in/sec), where Reference PPV is PPV at 25 feet, D is distance from equipment to the receiver in feet, and n = 1.1 (the value related to the attenuation rate through the ground); formula from FTA 2018.

Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 71 proposed project would not result in excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels.

The impact would be less than significant.
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The nearest airport or private airstrip to the project site is the Bakersfield Municipal Airport located approximately 7 miles to the east. The project site is not with the Bakersfield Municipal Airport influence area or any of the airport noise contours (County 2012). Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels from aircraft or airport operations. There would be no impact.

Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 72 XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Environmental Setting
The proposed project is in unincorporated Kern County immediately adjacent to the City of Bakersfield.

The proposed project would provide the unincorporated Old River community with water supply from the City of Bakersfield water system.

In 2021, the population of Kern County as a whole was 905,644, with 398,756 of those residents living in the City of Bakersfield (County 2024d). The current population of the Old River community is approximately 78. The County of Kern Draft 2024-2031 Housing Element Update and Kern Council of Government’s 2022 Regional Transportation Plan anticipates a projected County population of 1,025,700 in 2030, which is a 13.2 percent increase from the U.S. Census Bureau population count of 905,644 in 2021 (County 2022; County 2024b).

Impact Analysis
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Less Than Significant Impact. Construction of the proposed project is expected to continue for approximately nine months and would likely draw from the existing labor pool in Kern County. The presence of construction workers at the project site would be temporary and would not require workers to relocate their households. Therefore, short-term increased employment of construction workers at the project site would not result in a substantial increase in population in the vicinity of the proposed project. Upon completion of construction, the extension of the Bakersfield water system and associated operational and maintenance would be handled by existing City staff. Construction and operation of the proposed project is not expected to generate an increase in employment that would increase the City or County population.

The Old River community is comprised of mostly single-family residences and some commercial uses, which would be served by the Bakersfield water system under the proposed project. The proposed project would consolidate the existing MWCs into the Bakersfield water system to provide the residents Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 73 in the Old River community area with a reliable, uncontaminated water supply. The proposed project would install 29 household connections in the unincorporated community of Old River and would not extend infrastructure beyond the existing households. As discussed above, the County of Kern Draft 2024-2031 Housing Element anticipates a countywide population increase of approximately 13.2 percent by 2030. The Old River area is a small community bordered by land zoned for agricultural use, and therefore it is unlikely that the extension of City water service to this area would induce substantial population growth beyond what has been anticipated in the General Plan. The proposed project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in the Old River community or surrounding areas, and the impact would be less than significant.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. The proposed project would install approximately 6,000 linear feet of 10-inch water main and 1,600 linear feet of 8-inch lateral pipelines with connections to 29 households underground within disturbed areas of Old River Road, SR-119, Par Street, Beam Street, and the front yards of existing residences. Construction staging would occur within the road ROW and would not displace existing people or housing or necessitate the construction replacement housing. No impact would occur.

Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 74 XV. PUBLIC SERVICES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Police protection? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Schools? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Parks? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e) Other public facilities? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Environmental Setting
The proposed project would install a water main along the border of the Bakersfield city limits which would provide water service to the community of Old River in unincorporated Kern County. This community receives public services provided by both Kern County and the City of Bakersfield, discussed in greater detail below.

The project site falls within the fire protection authority of Kern County Fire Department (KCFD). KCFD has 47 full-time fire stations. The nearest KCFD fire station to the project site is Kern County Fire Station 53, located in the Old River community (County 2024e).

The Kern County Sheriff’s Office (KCSO) provides police protection services to the unincorporated areas of the County. KCSO headquarters are in the City of Bakersfield and include 15 substations. The nearest KCSO station to the project site is the Lamont Substation, located approximately 11 miles to the east (County 2024f).

Kern County is served by 46 K-12 school districts, and the project site is within the Kern High School District and Lakeside Union School District boundaries. The nearest schools to the project site in these districts are Independence High School, located approximately 350 feet northwest of the northern terminus of the proposed water main, and Donald E. Suburu Elementary School, located approximately 3 miles northeast (County 2024g).

Kern County Parks and Recreation manages eight regional parks and 40 neighborhood parks (County 2024h). The City of Bakersfield Recreation and Parks Department manages 63 public parks (City 2024c).

Existing parks within the vicinity of the project site include Greystone Park, located approximately 2.5 miles northwest of the site; Wilderness Park and Tradewinds Park, each located approximately 2.7 miles northeast of the site; Silver Creek Park, located approximately 3 miles northeast of the site; Coral Keys Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 75 Park, located approximately 3.3 miles northeast of the site; Stone Creek Park, located approximately 3.4 miles east of the site; Seasons Park, located approximately 3.5 miles northeast of the site; and Tevis Park, located approximately 3.8 miles north of the site.

Impact Analysis
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection?
b) Police protection?
c) Schools?
d) Parks?
e) Other public facilities?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project site receives fire and police protection services from the Kern County Fire Department and Kern County Sheriff’s Office. As discussed in Section 4.XIV, Population and Housing, the proposed extension of the Bakersfield water system services to the Old River community may result in indirect, less than significant impacts to population growth in the community due to the provision of reliable, uncontaminated water services. The proposed project would operate passively underground and would not require the installation of aboveground structures that would require fire or police protection during operation. However, there may be potential for a minimal increase in fire or police protection during the nine-month construction period due to increased construction personnel and risk for accidents on-site. These potential public service demands would be minimal and could be served by the existing staff of the KCFD and KCSO.

The project site is served by the Kern High School District and Lakeside Union School District. As discussed in Section 4.XIV, Population and Housing, the proposed extension of Bakersfield water system services to the Old River community area may result in indirect, less than significant impacts to population growth in the community due to the provision of reliable, uncontaminated water services.

However, the potential for population growth would be minimal and would not overburden the surrounding school districts or schools.

The project site is located within four miles of eight public parks managed by the City of Bakersfield Recreation and Parks Department which are all located roughly north and east of the site within Bakersfield city limits. As discussed in Section 4.XIV, Population and Housing, the proposed extension of Bakersfield water system services to the Old River community area may result in indirect, less than significant impacts to population growth in the community due to the provision of reliable, uncontaminated water services. However, the potential for population growth would be minimal and would not overburden the existing park facilities.

Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 76 As detailed above and in Section 4.XIV, Population and Housing, the proposed project may indirectly induce less than significant impacts to population growth in the Old River community area due to the provision of reliable, uncontaminated water services from the proposed extension to the Bakersfield water system. This potential for less than significant increases in the population of the Old River community area may result in minor demand increases for the aforementioned public services, but not beyond their existing capacity. Therefore, impacts to public services would be less than significant.

Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 77 XVI. RECREATION
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Environmental Setting
Kern County Parks and Recreation and the City of Bakersfield Recreation and Parks Department manage regional and community parks in the vicinity of the proposed project. According to the 2010 Kern County Parks and Recreation Master Plan, Kern County contains 4,726 acres of park land with 4,282 acres of regional parks and 389 acres of local neighborhood parks, both leased and owned by the County (County 2010). As described in Section 4.XV, Public Services, the project site is located within four miles of eight neighborhood parks, including: Greystone Park, located approximately 2.5 miles northwest of the site; Wilderness Park and Tradewinds Park, each located approximately 2.7 miles northeast of the site; Silver Creek Park, located approximately 3 miles northeast of the site; Coral Keys Park, located approximately 3.3 miles northeast of the site; Stone Creek Park, located approximately 3.4 miles east of the site; Seasons Park, located approximately 3.5 miles northeast of the site; and Tevis Park, located approximately 3.8 miles north of the site.

Impact Analysis
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in Section 4.XIV, Population and Housing, proposed project construction would be temporary and is not expected to require the relocation of construction workers to the project site area. Once constructed, the proposed project would provide residents in the Old River community with a reliable, uncontaminated water supply. The project area is adequately served by parks in the vicinity, and construction of the proposed project would not result in a substantial increase in the use of the existing parks such that deterioration would occur. The impact would be less than significant.

Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 78 b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact. The proposed project would include the extension of a water main from the Old River community to the existing water main in the City of Bakersfield and would not construct any recreational facilities. Additionally, the proposed project would not substantially induce population growth that would require the construction or expansion of park or recreational facilities, as discussed above, such that an adverse physical effect on the environment would occur. No impact would occur.

Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 79 XVII. TRANSPORTATION
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Environmental Setting
The following roadways provide primary circulation within the vicinity of the proposed project:
• Old River Road is a major north-south 2-lane arterial roadway that traverses unincorporated Kern County and the City of Bakersfield from SR-38 (Stockdale Highway) in the City of Bakersfield to Highway 166 (Maricopa Highway).
• SR-119 (Taft Highway) is an east-west 2-lane arterial highway that traverses unincorporated Kern County and the City of Bakersfield from SR-33 in the City of Taft to SR-99 in the City of Bakersfield.
• Par Street is a local north-south residential roadway that traverses the unincorporated Old River community from SR-119 to Beam Street.
• Beam Street is a local east-west residential roadway that traverses the unincorporated Old River community from Old River Road to Par Street.

According to the current transit routes and schedules posted by Kern Regional Transit, the proposed project would not be located along an existing bus route and the roadways discussed above that are expected to be used during construction and operation of the proposed project do not have bus stops (County 2024i). Passenger rail service in Kern County is provided from Bakersfield north to Sacramento via Amtrak’s San Joaquin Train Service; however, a direct route from the project site or immediate vicinity is not available (Amtrak 2024).

The Kern Council of Governments 2022 Regional Transportation Plan defines the following bikeway and pedestrian facilities in the Kern County (County 2022):

Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 80 • Class I facilities are paved right-of-way for exclusive use by bicyclists, pedestrians, and those using non-motorized modes of travel.
• Class II bike lanes are defined by pavement striping and signage used to allocate a portion of a roadway for bicycle travel. Several jurisdictions have variations on Class II facilities, which provide optional striping scenarios to allow on-street parking. • Class III facilities include sign markings for bicycle routes. There are no pavement markings. The County also has a Class III variation that provides a 4-foot delineated shoulder and bicycle route signage in rural areas.

The Kern County Interactive County Map identifies existing and future bikeways within and in the vicinity of the project site (County 2024b). No existing Class I, II, or III bikeways are identified within the project site; however, a series of future Class II bikeways are identified along SR-119, Old River Road, and other roadways in the vicinity of the project site. According to the Kern County Public Works “Walk Kern” project, no existing pedestrian facilities are identified or proposed for improvement in the vicinity of the project site (County 2024j).

Impact Analysis
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed 10-inch water main would run approximately one mile along Old River Road from the intersection at Old River Road and McCutchen Road in the City of Bakersfield to the intersection of Old River Road and SR-119 in the unincorporated Old River community. From there, the water main would run approximately 500 feet east along SR-119 to the intersection of SR-119 and Par Street and would then run approximately 800 feet south along Par Street to the intersection at Par Street and Beam Street. Sixteen household connections would branch off from Par Street to the east and west to the existing residences. The proposed water main would run approximately 450 feet west along Beam Street from the intersection at Beam Street and Old River Road. Thirteen household connections would branch off from Beam Street to the north and south to the existing residences. Construction of the pipeline would take place within the front yards of existing residences and within disturbed portions of Old River Road, SR-119, Par Street, and Beam Street, which may result in temporary disturbance to traffic or lane closures along these roads due to interference from construction vehicles.

The proposed project is not located in the immediate vicinity of existing public transit, bikeways, or pedestrian facilities. Construction of the proposed project would not interfere with local circulation patterns because construction would be taking place along the shoulder of the roads. Any roadway interference during construction would be short-term and temporary. Full closure of these roads is not anticipated, but individual lanes may be temporarily closed during construction. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would require the development and implementation of a Traffic Management Plan which would manage any changes to traffic patterns during construction activities. After construction, the roads would be returned to their pre-project conditions. Operations of the proposed project would not affect the local street network because all infrastructure related to the proposed project would be underground, with the exception of the three fire hydrants which would not interfere with local roads.

Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 81 Therefore, the proposed project would not interfere with local policies or plans addressing circulation, and the impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? Less Than Significant Impact. According to the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, small land use projects that would generate or attract fewer than 110 trips per day generally may be assumed to cause a less than significant impact related to vehicle miles traveled (VMT) (OPR 2018). Operation of the proposed project would occur passively underground and may require occasional trips by City employees for maintenance activities; however, these trips are expected to occur on an as-needed-basis and would not generate substantial VMT. Installation of the pipeline would require the excavation and backfill of approximately 4,000 cubic yards of soil, and no soil or other construction waste is expected to be transported off-site.

Proposed project construction would require heavy construction equipment that would be transported to the project site, and it is expected that the majority of this equipment would remain on-site until construction is completed. Total project construction time is estimated to be nine months. Because the trips generated by the proposed project during construction and operation of the proposed project would be less than the 110 trips per day threshold established by OPR, the impact related to VMT would be less than significant.
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No Impact. The proposed project would include the installation of water mains and household connections underground and does not propose the construction of new roadways or reconfiguration of existing roadways. Therefore, the project would not increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible use. No impact would occur.
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Less Than Significant Impact. Proposed project construction is anticipated to continue for approximately nine months and would require the use of heavy construction vehicle equipment including excavators, trenchers, compactors, and pipe layers. As discussed in question a), construction of the pipeline would take place within disturbed portions of Old River Road, SR-119, Par Street, and Beam Street, which may result in less than significant impacts due to temporary disturbance to traffic or lane closures along these roads from construction vehicle interference. At the conclusion of construction, the roads would return to their pre-project conditions and would accommodate emergency vehicle access. Operation of the project would not interfere with the local street network because all infrastructure would be located underground, with the exception of the three proposed fire hydrants, which would be located in the road shoulders and would not interfere with circulation. Impacts would be less than significant.

Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 82 XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in Public Resources
Code Section 5020.1(k), or
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to
be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe.
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Environmental Setting
According to PRC Section 21074, a resource is a tribal cultural resource if it is either:
1) Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either of the following:
a. Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources; or
b. Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k). 2) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in PRC Section 5024.1(c). In applying the criteria set forth in PRC Section 5024.1(c), the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
3) A cultural landscape that meets the criteria of PRC Section 21074(a) to the extent that the landscape is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape.

Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 83 4) A historical resource described in PRC Section 21084.1, a unique archaeological resource as defined in PRC Section 21083.2(g), or a “non-unique archaeological resource”, as defined in PRC Section 21083.2(h), if it conforms with the criteria of PRC Section 21074(a).

In accordance with PRC Section 21084.2, lead agencies are required to consider Tribal Cultural Resources (TCR) including a site feature, place, cultural landscape, sacred place or object, of cultural value to the tribe and is listed on the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR) or a local register, or the Lead agency, at its discretion, chooses to treat resources as such.

In accordance with PRC Section 21080.3.1(b)(1), the following tribal contacts were informed by the City of the proposed project through formal notification on August 1, 2024:
• James Rambeau, Senior Chairperson; Big Pine Paiute Tribe of the Owens Valley • Sally Manning, Environmental Director; Big Pine Paiute Tribe of the Owens Valley • Danelle Gutierrez, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer; Big Pine Paiute Tribe of the Owens Valley • Julio Quair, Chairperson; Chumash Council of Bakersfield • Mariza Sullivan, Chairperson; Coastal Band of the Chumash Nation • Jairo F. Avila, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer; Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians • Julie Turner, Secretary; Kern Valley Indian Community • Robert Robinson, Chairperson; Kern Valley Indian Community • Brandy Kendricks, Kern Valley Indian Community
• Delia Dominguez, Chairperson; Kitanemuk & Yowlumne Teion Indians • Donna Yocum, Chairperson; San Fernando Band of Mission Indians • Jessica Mauck, Director – CRM Department for the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians • Leo Sisco, Chairperson; Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe • Octavio Escobedo III, Chairperson; Teion Indian Tribe • Colin Rambo, CRM Tech; Teion Indian Tribe
• Robert L. Gomez, Jr., Tribal Chairperson; Tubatulabals of Kern Valley • Neil Pevron, Chairperson; Tule River Indian Tribe
• Kenneth Woodrow, Chairperson; Wuksache Indian Tribe/ Eshom Valley Band • Mona Olivas Tucker, Chairwoman; yak tityu tityu yak tiłhini – Northern Chumash Tribe Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 84 As of the date of this report, the City has received responses from two tribes, neither of which requested consultation. No additional responses or requests for additional tribal coordination have been received.

Regulatory Framework
Federal Laws, Regulations, and Policies
No federal laws, regulations, or policies apply to Tribal Cultural Resources.

State Laws, Regulations, and Policies
Assembly Bill 52
AB 52, which was approved in September 2014 and effective on July 1, 2015, requires that CEQA lead agencies consult with California Native American tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of a proposed project, if so requested by the tribe. The bill, chaptered in CEQA Section 21084.2, also specifies that a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a TCR is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.

Defined in Section 21074(a) of the Public Resources Code, TCRs are:

1. Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either of the following:
a. Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources; or
b. Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1.

2. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1 for the purposes of this paragraph, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

TCRs are further defined under Section 21074 as follows:
• A cultural landscape that meets the criteria of subdivision (a) is a TCR to the extent that the landscape is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape; and • A historical resource described in Section 21084.1, a unique archaeological resource as defined in subdivision (g) of Section 21083.2, or a “nonunique archaeological resource” as defined in subdivision (h) of Section 21083.2 may also be a TCR if it conforms with the criteria of subdivision (a).

Mitigation measures for TCRs must be developed in consultation with the affected California Native American tribe pursuant to newly chaptered Section 21080.3.2, or according to Section 21084.3. Section 21084.3 identifies mitigation measures that include avoidance and preservation of TCRs and treating Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 85 TRCs with culturally appropriate dignity, considering the tribal cultural values and meaning of the resource.

Impact Analysis
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)? ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources 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. The City of Bakersfield sent letters inviting tribes to consultation under AB 52 on August 1, 2024. As of the date of this report there has been no response.

While there is no record of tribal cultural resources in the vicinity of or on the project site, there is still potential for discovery as there would be ground -disturbing activities. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1, Accidental Discovery of Cultural Resources, and CUL-2, Accidental Discovery of Human Remains, impacts would be less than significant for impacts ai) and aii).

Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 86 XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development
during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
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?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ Environmental Setting
Water
The project area is within the South Valley Floor Watershed with Region 5 – Tulare Lake Hydrologic Basin (CVRWQCB 2018). The SWRCB publishes updates to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin (Basin Plan) to improve water quality and maintain beneficial uses in the drainage area of the San Joaquin Valley south of the San Joaquin River. The Basin Plan describes water quality concerns for the area that include agriculture, forestry, urban land uses, and stormwater runoff (CVRWQCB 2018).

Old River MWC and South Kern MWC currently provide water service to residential and commercial customers in the project area. Each MWC operates using a single well, located within their respective service areas, which provides water to adjacent parcels and nearby customers.

Old River MWC provides water to 46 residents via 14 connections in its 10.7-acre service area. Water is provided by a single well, located within the service area. The Old River MWC well was constructed in 1962 and has a ten-inch diameter steel casing perforated from 189 to 291 feet bgs. Water delivered by the Old River MWC system contains uranium levels that exceed the MCL of 30 µg/L established by State and federal regulations. Water from this well also exceeds the 1, 2, 3-TCP MCL of 0.005 µg/L. The Old Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 87 River MWC well lacks source reliability and storage capacity to serve the customers. The MWC also lacks technical, managerial, and financial capacity.

South Kern MWC provides water to 32 residents via 15 service connections in its 9.7-acre service area.

The well currently produces water that exceeds the uranium MCL of 30 µg/L. Water from this well also exceeds the 1, 2, 3-TCP MCL of 0.005 µg/L. The South Kern Old River MWC well also lacks source reliability and storage capacity to serve the customers. The MWC also lacks technical, managerial, and financial capacity.

Wastewater or Stormwater
Sewage disposal is handled by both public and private agencies and by private individual systems.

Disposal of waste by public agencies is through County Service Areas, Community Services Districts and Public Utility Districts. Individual private disposal generally occurs through a septic tank and leach line or cesspool system (County 2004).

The County also typically requires developing sites to provide for their own on-site retention or show that existing facilities have sufficient capacity to carry the additional runoff (County 2004).

Electrical and Natural Gas
The project site is serviced by PG&E for electricity and is serviced by Southern California Gas for gas.

Impact Analysis
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 with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project would install approximately 6,000linear feet of a new 10-inch water main, 1,600 linear feet of 8-inch lateral pipelines, and 29 household connections. Three fire hydrants would also be installed, and two wells would be abandoned as part of the proposed project. The proposed project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities. However, the project does consist of the construction of new water facilities. The potential environmental effects of the proposed water main pipelines were evaluated in this Initial Study, and it was found that there would be potential impacts related to biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards, tribal cultural resources which would be mitigated to a less than significant level with the implementation of mitigation measures BIO-1, CUL-1, CUL-2, GEO-1, and HAZ-1. No expansion of water facilities would be required beyond what has been evaluated in this Initial Study. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 88 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. The proposed project would install approximately 6,000 linear feet of a new 10-inch water main, 1,600 linear feet of 8-inch lateral pipelines, and 29 household connections.

Three fire hydrants would also be installed, and two wells would be abandoned as part of the proposed project. Based on water supply information provided by the City and predicted MWC demands, the City has sufficient capacity to service the MWCs. Therefore, sufficient water supplies would be available to serve the proposed project during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. The impact would be less than significant.
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?
No Impact. The proposed project would install approximately 6,000 linear feet of a new 10-inch water main, 1,600 linear feet of 8-inch lateral pipelines, and 29 household connections. Three fire hydrants would also be installed, and two wells would be abandoned as part of the proposed project. The project site is not served by a wastewater treatment provider and the proposed project would not generate wastewater that requires treatment. Therefore, no impact would occur. 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? e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not create substantial amounts of solid waste, and as such would not exceed the capacity of local infrastructure. Minimal waste would be generated during construction and would likely be disposed of at the Bena Landfill. The Bena Landfill is permitted through 2046 and can receive 4,500 tons/day (CalRecycle 2024). Additionally, the proposed project would comply with federal, State, and local management and reduction statues and regulations related to solid waste. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.

Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 89 XX. WILDFIRE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
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?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
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?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
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?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Environmental Setting
To extend service from the City of Bakersfield’s water system to the areas currently served by Old River MWC and South Kern MWC, the proposed project would construct approximately 6,000 linear feet of new 10-inch water main and 1,600 linear feet of 8-inch lateral pipelines. The water service area of the proposed project is the unincorporated community of Old River, located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Old River Road and SR-119. The community is surrounded by agricultural land uses to the west, south, and east, with some commercial land uses to the north along SR-119. According to California Department Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map, the project site is located within a Local Responsibility Area (LRA; CAL FIRE 2024). The project site is not located on or near the Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ; CAL FIRE 2024). The nearest fire department to the project site is the Kern County Fire Station 53, located within the community of Old River.

Impact Analysis
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Operation of the proposed project would occur passively underground and would not have the potential to interfere with emergency response or evacuation. Construction of the proposed project may temporarily interfere with roadway traffic, which may have the potential to affect emergency response or evacuation plans. Adherence to conditions of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, which would require the preparation and adoption of a traffic demand Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 90 management plan, would ensure the proposed project would not interfere with emergency response or evacuation plans. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. 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?
Less Than Significant Impact. As described above, the proposed project site is not located in a FHSZ or CAL FIRE State Responsibility Area. Operation of the proposed project would not result in an exacerbation of wildfire risk as it would operate passively underground. Construction of the proposed project would take place along the existing shoulders of Old River Road and SR-119, which are generally barren and pose a minimal risk of wildfire. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. 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 proposed project would include the installation of water infrastructure that would operate passively underground and would not require maintenance that would exacerbate fire risk. Temporary and ongoing impacts to the environment related that would occur as a result of this infrastructure installation are analyzed throughout this Initial Study. Impacts would be less than significant.
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? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not create habitable or aboveground structures that could be exposed to significant wildfire risks and would not alter drainage patterns on the project site. The project site is generally flat and the proposed project is not anticipated to result in risks to nearby people or structures, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. Impacts would be less than significant.

Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 91 XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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 a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively
considerable” means that the incremental effects of a
project are significant when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of past, present and probable future projects)?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
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 a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project has the potential to result in impacts to Swainson’s hawk; however, implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. No special status plant species would be impacted by project implementation. The proposed project also has the potential to impact cultural and tribal cultural resources during construction. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 would ensure these impacts are reduced to a less than significant level. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially degrade the environment, decrease the number or habitat of special status plant or animal species, or eliminate major periods of California history. Impacts would be less than significant 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 significant when Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 92 viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of past, present and probable future projects)? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 requires a discussion of the cumulative impacts of a project when the project’s incremental effect is “cumulatively considerable,” meaning that the project’s incremental effects are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past, current, and probable future projects.

The majority of the potential impacts related to the proposed project could occur during construction.

However, all impacts related to construction are temporary and short-term and would not cause a significant impact, as detailed in this Initial Study. Key areas of concern addressed in this Initial Study include biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, hazards and hazardous materials, tribal cultural resources, and utilities and service systems. However, impacts relating to these key areas of concern would be mitigated to a less than significant level. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a cumulatively considerable impact, and no additional mitigation is required.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project would not include any construction activities or operational components that would negatively affect any persons in the vicinity. In addition, all resource topics have been analyzed in accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines or associated thresholds and found to pose no impact, a less than significant impact, or a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. As discussed in Section 4.III, Air Quality, no violations of air quality thresholds would occur and no significant impacts to sensitive receptors related to pollutants would occur. As discussed in Section 4.IX, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of this Initial Study, there are no concerns from past activities at the project site and no hazardous materials and/or wastes would be generated by the proposed project. As detailed in Section 4.XIII, Noise, the proposed project would not generate excessive noise that would conflict with local noise ordinances and cause disturbances to local residents. During construction, temporarily altered traffic conditions may occur; however, implementation of a TMP as described in mitigation measure HAZ-1 would ensure emergency access and evacuation routes are maintained. Consequently, the proposed project would not result in any environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings directly or indirectly.

Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 93 5.0 REFERENCES
Amtrak. 2024. California Train Routes. San Joaquins. Available at: https://www.amtrak.com/californiatrain-routes. Accessed July 12, 2024.

Bakersfield, City of (City). 2024a. The City of Bakersfield's Draft Climate Action Plan is now available for public review. Available at: https://www.bakersfieldcity.us/1088/Climate-Action-Plan-CAP.

Accessed July 15, 2024.
2024b. The City of Bakersfield Land Use and Planning Viewer. GIS Map. Available at:
https://bakersfielddatalibrarycob.opendata.arcgis.com/apps/9fbb25e825e3425a84e7dea631e42f7b/explore. Accessed July 17, 2024.
2024c. The City of Bakersfield Recreation and Parks Department. Available at:
https://www.bakersfieldcity.us/297/Recreation-Parks. Accessed July 17, 2024. 1994. Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan. Available at:
https://docs.bakersfieldcity.us/weblink/0/edoc/625001/Metropolitan%20Bakersfield%20Habita t%20Conservation%20Plan.pdf
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2022. User’s Guide for CalEEMod Version 2022.1. Available at: http://www.caleemod.com/.

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2024. Overview: Diesel Exhaust and Health. Available at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/overview-diesel-exhaust-and-health. 2022. Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality. Accessed July 9, 2024 and available at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/ab-32-climate-change-scoping-plan/2022-scopingplan-documents. 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. Available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/california-air-resources-board-airquality-and-land-use-handbook-a-community-health-perspective.pdf.

California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2024a. California Important Farmland Finder. Available at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/. Accessed July 19, 2024. 2024b. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. Available at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/. Accessed May 30, 2024 2024c. Fault Activity Map of California. Available at: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/fam/.

Accessed May 30, 2024.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2024. Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map.

Available at: https://calfireforestry.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=988d431a42b242b29d89597ab69 3d008. Accessed June 20, 2024.

Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 94 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2024. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) RareFind 5. July 16, 2024.

California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2024. SWIS Facility/ Site Activity Details. Available at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/3931?siteID=742. Accessed July 15, 2024.

California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2024. Envirostor. Available at:
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/. Accessed June 20, 2024.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2024. Scenic Highways. Available at:
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community-livability/lapliv-i-scenic-highways. Accessed June 3, 2024.

California Energy Commission (CEC). 2021a. 2020 Total System Electric Generation. Available at:
https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/2019-totalsystem-electric-generation. 2021b. Supply and Demand of Natural Gas in California. Available at:
https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/californias-natural-gasmarket/supply-and-demand-natural-gas-california. 2021c. California Gasoline Data, Facts, and Statistics. Available at:
https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/transportation-energy/californiagasoline-data-facts-and-statistics. 2021d. Diesel Fuel Data, Facts, and Statistics. Available at: https://www.energy.ca.gov/datareports/energy-almanac/transportation-energy/diesel-fuel-data-facts-and-statistics.

California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2024. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v8-03 0.39). Website http://www.rareplants.cnps.org. Dated July 16, 2024.

Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB). 2018. Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin Third Edition. Available at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/basin_plans/tularelakebp_201805 .pdf. Accessed July 2, 2024.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2024. FEMA’s National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) Viewer. Available at: https://hazardsfema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8b0adb51996444d4879338b5529aa 9cd. Accessed July 10, 2024.

Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual.

Available at: https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/researchinnovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no0123_0.pdf.

Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 95 Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). 2013. Transportation Impacts (SB 743). Available at:

CEQA: Transportation Impacts (SB 743) - Office of Planning and Research (ca.gov). Accessed July 17, 2024.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Summary for Policymakers. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. February. Available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar4/wg1/.

Kern County (County). 2024a. Kern County Subbasin of the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin Groundwater Sustainability Plan. Available at: http://www.kernrivergsa.org/?page_id=966#.

Accessed July 2, 2024.
2024b. Kern County Interactive GIS Map. Available at:
https://maps.kerncounty.com/H5/index.html?viewer=KCPublic. Accessed July 17, 2024 2024c. Kern County Gateway. Interactive Data Map. Available at: Maps | Kern County Gateway (databasin.org). Accessed July 17, 2024.
2024d. Kern County 2024-2031 Housing Element Draft. Volume I Revised. Available at:
https://psbweb.kerncounty.com/planning/pdfs/he/KCHE_2024-2031_vol1_redline_draft.pdf Accessed July 6, 2024
2024e. Kern County Fire Department. Department Profile. Available at: About KCFD – Kern County Fire Department. Accessed July 17, 2024.
2024f. Kern County Sheriff’s Department. Substations. Available at: Substations | KCSO (kernsheriff.org). Accessed July 17, 2024.
2024g. Kern County Board of Education. Interactive District Map. Available at: Kern County Board of Ed 2021/2022 Redistricting (arcgis.com). Accessed July 17, 2024. 2024h. Kern County Parks and Recreation. Available at:
https://www.visitbakersfield.com/directory/kern-county-parks-andrecreation/#:~:text=The%20Kern%20County%20Parks%20and,and%20landscapes%2076%20cou nty%20buildings. Accessed July 17, 2024.
2024i. Kern Transit. Routes & Schedules. Available at: https://kerntransit.org/routes-andschedules/. Accessed July 12, 2024. 2024j. Kern County Public Works – Transportation Division. “Walk Kern” Project. Interactive GIS Map. Available at: WALK KERN - A Kern County Public Works Project (arcgis.com). Accessed July 17, 2024.
2022. Kern County Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. Available at: https://www.kerncog.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/2022_RTP.pdf. Accessed July 6, 2024.

Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 96 Kern County (County) (cont.)
2012. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. November 13. Available at:
https://content.civicplus.com/api/assets/80f886a4-6789-4248-a3cb-1e267dd7c634. Accessed July 6, 2024.
2010. Kern County. Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Available at:
https://www.kerncounty.com/home/showpublisheddocument/2148/637127126894370000.

Accessed July 18, 2024.
2009. Kern County Land Use, Open Space, and Conservation Element. Available at:
https://psbweb.kerncounty.com/planning/pdfs/kcgp/KCGPChp1LandUse.pdf. Accessed June 26, 2024.
2004. Revised Update of the Kern County General Plan. Volume I Recirculated Draft Program Environmental Impact Report. Available at:
https://psbweb.kerncounty.com/planning/pdfs/kcgp/KCGP_RPEIR_vol1.pdf. Accessed May 30, 2024
Mayer, K.E. and W.F. Laudenslayer. 1988. A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California. State of California, Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA 166pp.

National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2024. Web Soil Survey. Available at:
https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed May 31, 2024 NETR Online. 2024. Aerial Imagery 1947-2020. Accessed July 2024 at https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer.

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. Available at:
https://oehha.ca.gov/air/crnr/notice-adoption-air-toxics-hot-spots-program-guidance-manualpreparation-health-risk-0.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2024a. Ambient Air Quality Standards & Valley Attainment Status. Available at: https://www.valleyair.org/aqinfo/attainment.htm. 2024b. Ozone Contingency State Implementation Plan Revision for the 2008 and 2015 8-Hour Ozone Standards. Available at: https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/ovgo2gku/2_-ozonecontingency-sip-update_final-adopted.pdf 2024c. 2024 Plan for the 2012 Annual PM2.5 Standard. Available at:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/gw5bacvj/2024-pm25-plan.pdf 2024d. Current District Rules and Regulations. Available at: https://ww2.valleyair.org/rules-andplanning/current-district-rules-and-regulations/.

Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 97 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) (cont.) 2023. 2023 Maintenance Plan and Redesignation Request for the Revoked 1-hour Ozone Standard. Available at: https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/itoegkch/03-adopted-2023- maintenance-plan-and-redesignation-request-for-the-revoked-1-hour-ozone-standard.pdf 2022. 2022 Plan for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone Standard. Available at:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/rules-and-planning/air-quality-plans/ozone-plans/2022-ozone-planfor-the-san-joaquin-valley/ 2018. 2018 Plan for 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5 Standards. Available at:
http://www.valleyair.org/pmplans/documents/2018/pm-plan-adopted/2018-Plan-for-the-1997- 2006-and-2012-PM2.5-Standards.pdf.
2016a. 2016 Ozone Plane. June 16. Available at: http://valleyair.org/Air_Quality_Plans/OzonePlan-2016/Adopted-Plan.pdf. 2016b. 2016 Moderate Area Plan for the 2012 PM2.5 Standard. September 15. Available at:
http://www.valleyair.org/Air_Quality_Plans/docs/PM25-2016/2016-Plan.pdf. 2015. Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. Available at:
https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI-2015/FINAL-DRAFT-GAMAQI.PDF. 2009a. Guidance for Valley Land-use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA. Available at: https://www.valleyair.org/Programs/CCAP/12-17- 09/3%20CCAP%20-%20FINAL%20LU%20Guidance%20-%20Dec%2017%202009.pdf. 2009b. District Policy: Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for Stationary Source Projects Under CEQA When Serving as the Lead Agency. Available at:
https://www.valleyair.org/Programs/CCAP/12-17-09/2%20CCAP%20- %20FINAL%20District%20Policy%20CEQA%20GHG%20-%20Dec%2017%202009.pdf.

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD). 2021. CEQA Guide Chapter 6:

Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Revised February. Available at:
https://www.airquality.org/LandUseTransportation/Documents/Ch6GHG2-26-2021.pdf.

State Water Resources Control Board. 2024. Geotracker. Available at:
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/. Accessed June 20, 2024.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2024. QuickFacts, Bakersfield city, California. Available at:
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/bakersfieldcitycalifornia/PST045223#PST045223.

Accessed June 3, 2024.

U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). 2008. Roadway Construction Noise Model Version 1.1.

Available at: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/construction_noise/rcnm/.

Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 98 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2024. Superfund National Priorities List. Available at:
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=33cebcdfdd1b4c3a8b51d416956c 41f1. Accessed June 20, 2024
2016. Determination of Attainment of the 1-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard in the San Joaquin Valley Nonattainment Area in California. July. Available at:
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/07/18/2016-16792/determination-ofattainment-of-the-1-hour-ozone-national-ambient-air-quality-standard-in-the-san.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2024. Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) Trust Resource Report. Generated January 12, 2024 at https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/.

Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC). 2019. 1937-2016 Monthly Climate Summary, Bakersfield Airport, California (040442). Accessed July 15, 2024 and available at: https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgibin/cliMAIN.pl?ca0442.

Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System 99 6.0 PREPARERS
City of Bakersfield
Kristina Budak, Water Director
Paul Johnson, Planning Director
Matthew Collom, Deputy City Attorney
Solomon Sackett, Water Planner
Carollo Engineers
Sri Varadaraj, Project Manager/Associate Vice President HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.

Erin Gustafson, AICP, Project Manager
Lesley Owning, Principal Planner
Martin Rolph, Noise Specialist
Julia Pano, Environmental Planner
Anviti Singh, Environmental Planner
Emmaline deBecker, Environmental Planner
Appendix A
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Letter Report
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
1180 Iron Point Road, Suite 130
Folsom, CA 95630
916.435.1205 tel
619.462.0552 fax
www.helixepi.com
July 22, 2024 02632.00014.001
Sri Varadaraj, P.E.

Carollo Engineers
1401 Fulton Street, Suite 802
Fresno, CA 93721
Subject: Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System Project Air Quality And Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis Dear Mr. Varadaraj:

HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX) has assessed the air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions impacts associated with the construction and operation of the proposed Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Municipal Water Companies into Bakersfield Water System Project (project) located in Kern County (County), southwest of the City of Bakersfield. Analysis within this report was prepared to support impact analysis pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.), CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, Section 15000 et seq. of the California Code of Regulations).

PROJECT LOCATION
The project is located in Kern County (County) southwest of the City of Bakersfield (City). Old River Mutual Water Company (MWC) currently serves an approximately 10.7-acre area at the southeast corner of Old River Road and State Route (SR) -119. South Kern MWC serves an approximately 9.7-acre area east of Old River Road and immediately south of the Old River MWC service area. Both service areas are located in unincorporated Kern County, just outside of City limits. See Figure 1 for a regional location map and see Figure 2 for the Mutual Water Company site locations (Note: All Figures are located in Attachment A).

PROJECT BACKGROUND
Old River MWC and South Kern MWC currently provide water service to residential and commercial customers in the project area. Each MWC operates using a single well, located within their respective service areas, which provides water to adjacent parcels and nearby customers. Old River MWC provides water to 46 residents via 14 connections in its 10.7-acre service area. Water is provided by a single well, located within the service area. The Old River MWC well was constructed in 1962 and has a 10-inch diameter steel casing perforated from 189 to 291 feet below ground surface (bgs). Water delivered HELIX
Environmental Planning
Letter to Sri Varadaraj Page 2 of 21
July 22, 2024
by the Old River MWC system contains uranium levels that exceed the maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 30 micrograms per liter (µg/L) established by state and federal regulations. Water from this well also exceeds the 1, 2, 3-trichloropropane (TCP) MCL of 0.005 µg/L. The Old River MWC well lacks source reliability and storage capacity to serve the customers. The MWC also lacks technical, managerial, and financial capacity.

South Kern MWC provides water to 32 residents via 15 service connections in its 9.7-acre service area.

The well currently produces water that exceeds the uranium MCL of 30 µg/L. Water from this well also exceeds the 1, 2, 3-TCP MCL of 0.005 µg/L. The South Kern MWC well also lacks source reliability and storage capacity to serve the customers. The MWC also lacks technical, managerial, and financial capacity.

As the MWCs would be consolidated into the City’s water system, the City of Bakersfield would be the Lead Agency, even though the project site is located just outside the City limits.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Old River MWC and South Kern MWC provide water service to residential and commercial customers.

In order to extend service from the City of Bakersfield’s water system to the areas currently served by Old River MWC and South Kern MWC, the project would construct approximately 6,000 linear feet of new 10-inch water main, and 1,600 linear feet of 8-inch lateral pipelines with connections to 29 households. Three fire hydrants would also be installed for use in case of emergency. The point of connection to the City of Bakersfield’s water system would be the existing 16-inch diameter water main at McCutchen Road and Old River Road. See Figure 3 for the site plan (Attachment A). Once the connection to the City of Bakersfield water system is complete, the Old River MWC and the South Kern MWC wells would be abandoned and no longer provide water to the community.

AIR QUALITY/GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ANALYSIS
The proposed project is located in unincorporated Kern County, which lies within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB). Air quality in the SJVAB is regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) at the federal level, by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) at the state level, and by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) at the regional level.

The SJVAB comprises all or part of eight counties: San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Fresno, Merced, Madera, Kings, Tulare, and Kern. The distinctive climate of the SJVAB is determined by its terrain and geographic location. The SJVAB is the southern half California’s Central Valley and is 250 miles long and averages 35 miles wide. The SJVAB is bounded by the Sierra Nevada Mountains to the east, the Coast Ranges -----------
HELIX Environmental Planning
Letter to Sri Varadaraj Page 3 of 21
July 22, 2024
to the west, the Tehachapi Mountains to the south, and is open to the Sacramento Valley and San Francisco Bay Area to the north.

The vertical dispersion of air pollutants in the SJVAB can be limited by persistent temperature inversions. Temperature inversions that occur on the summer days are usually encountered 2,000 to 2,500 feet above the valley floor. In winter months, overnight inversions occur 500 to 1,500 feet above the valley floor. The mountains surrounding the basin are mostly above the typical summer height of inversion layers, restricting dispersion of pollutants (SJVAPCD 2015).

Solar radiation and temperature are particularly important in the chemistry of ozone formation. The SJVAB averages over 260 sunny days per year. Generally, the higher the temperature, the more ozone formed, since reaction rates increase with temperature. The 1937 through 2016 annual average maximum daily temperature as measured at the Bakersfield Airport climatic station, approximately 7 miles northeast of the project site, is 77.8 degrees Fahrenheit (°F). The highest monthly average maximum daily temperature (98.6°F) occurs in July, and the lowest monthly average minimum daily temperature (38.5°F) occurs in December and January. The average annual precipitation is approximately 6.2 inches (Western Regional Climate Center 2016).

REGULATORY SETTING
Air Quality
Criteria Pollutants
Criteria pollutants are defined and regulated by State and federal law as a risk to the health and welfare of the public and are categorized into primary and secondary pollutants. Primary air pollutants are those that are emitted directly from sources, including carbon monoxide (CO); reactive organic gases ([ROGs] also known as volatile organic compounds [VOCs]); 1 nitrogen oxides (NOX); sulfur dioxide (SO2); coarse particulate matter (PM10); fine particulate matter (PM2.5); and lead. Of these primary pollutants, CO, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and lead are criteria pollutants. ROGs and NOX are criteria pollutant precursors and go on to form secondary criteria pollutants through chemical and photochemical reactions in the atmosphere.

The principal secondary criteria pollutants are ozone and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). In addition to being primary pollutants, PM10 and PM2.5 can be secondary pollutants formed by chemical reactions in the atmosphere.
1 CARB defines and uses the term ROGs while the USEPA defines and uses the term VOCs. The compounds included in the lists of ROGs and VOCs and the methods of calculation are slightly different. However, for the purposes of estimating criteria pollutant precursor emissions, the two terms are often used interchangeably.

HELIX
Environmental Planning
Letter to Sri Varadaraj Page 4 of 21
July 22, 2024
Ambient air quality is described in terms of compliance with State and national standards, and the levels of air pollutant concentrations considered safe, to protect the public health and welfare. These standards are designed to protect people most sensitive to respiratory distress, such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness, and people engaged in strenuous work or exercise. The USEPA has established national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for criteria pollutants. As permitted by the Clean Air Act (CAA), California has adopted the more stringent California ambient air quality standards (CAAQS) and expanded the number of regulated air pollutant constituents.

CARB is required to designate areas of the State as attainment, nonattainment, or unclassified for any State standard. An “attainment” designation for an area signifies that pollutant concentrations do not violate the standard for that pollutant in that area. A “nonattainment” designation indicates that a pollutant concentration violated the standard at least once.

The project site is located in unincorporated Kern County that lies within the SJVAB and, as such, is in an area designated as “nonattainment” for certain pollutants that are regulated under the CAA. Table 1, San Joaquin Valley Air Basin – Attainment Status, lists the federal and State attainment status of the SJVAB (including Kern County and the project site) for the NAAQS and CAAQS. As shown in Table 1, the SJVAB is designated as attainment for PM10; attainment/unclassified for CO, NO2, SO2; extreme nonattainment for 8-hour ozone; and nonattainment for PM2.5 with respect to the NAAQS. The SJVAB is designated as attainment for CO, NO2, SO2, and lead; severe nonattainment for 1-hour ozone; and as nonattainment for 8-hour ozone, PM2.5, and PM10 with respect to the CAAQS (SJVAPCD 2024a).

I I
HELIX
Environmental Planning
Letter to Sri Varadaraj Page 5 of 21
July 22, 2024
Under State law, the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), acting through CARB, is authorized to identify a substance as a TAC if it determines the substance is an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious illness, or that may pose a present or potential hazard to human health.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
The proposed project is located in unincorporated Kern County, which lies within the SJVAB. Air quality in the SJVAB is regulated by the USEPA at the federal level, by the CARB at the state level, and by SJVAPCD at the regional level. As a regional agency, the SJVAPCD works directly with local governments and cooperates actively with all federal and State government agencies. The SJVAPCD develops rules and regulations; establishes permitting requirements for stationary sources; inspects emissions sources; and enforces such measures through educational programs or fines, when necessary.

Air Quality Plans
The SJVAPCD has developed plans to attain State and federal standards for ozone and particulate matter. The SJVAPCD’s air quality plans include emissions inventories to measure the sources of air pollutants, to evaluate how well different control methods have worked, and to show how air pollution will be reduced. The plans also use computer modeling to estimate future levels of pollution and make sure that the San Joaquin Valley will meet air quality goals. 1-Hour Ozone Plan – Although the USEPA revoked its 1979 1-hour ozone standard in June 2005, many planning requirements remain in place, and the SJVAB must still attain this standard before it can rescind CAA Section 185 fees. The SJVAPCD’s 2013 Plan for the Revoked 1-hour Ozone Standard demonstrated attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard by 2017 (SJVAPCD 2015). On July 18, 2016, the USEPA published in the Federal Register the final action to determine that the SJVAB has attained the 1-hour ozone standard (USEPA 2016).On June 15, 2023, the SJVAPCD adopted the 2023 Maintenance Plan and Redesignation Request for the Revoked 1-hour Ozone Standard that includes provisions for a maintenance plan and requirements for meeting all five criteria of Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA (SJVAPCD 2023).
8-Hour Ozone Plan – The SJVAPCD’s 2007 Ozone Plan demonstrates attainment of the 1997 NAAQS 8-hour ozone standard by 2023. The USEPA approved the 2007 Ozone Plan effective April 30, 2012. (SJVAPCD 2015). In June 2016, the SJVAPCD adopted the 2016 Plan for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard to map strategies for attainment of the updated NAAQS 8-hour ozone standard (SJVAPCD 2016a). The SJVAPCD adopted the 2022 Plan for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone Standard in December 2022. This Plan satisfies Clean Air Act requirements and ensures expeditious attainment of the 70 parts per billion HELIX
Environmental Planning
Letter to Sri Varadaraj Page 6 of 21
July 22, 2024
8-hour ozone standard (SJVAPCD 2022). On April 24, 2024, the SJVAPCD adopted the Ozone Contingency State Implementation Plan Revision for the 2008 and 2015 8-Hour Ozone Standards to address the contingency provisions for the 2008 and 2015 8-hour ozone standards (SJVAPCD 2024b).

The SJVAPCD adopted the 2024 Plan for the 2012 Annual PM2.5 Standard on June 20, 2024, to fulfill the remaining CAA requirements, including the final modeling analysis, attainment strategy and emission reduction commitments, reasonable further progress/quantitative milestones, and contingency measures. This Plan demonstrates expeditious attainment of the 2012 PM2.5 standard by 2030 (SJVAPCD 2024c).

Rules and Regulations
The following rules promulgated by the SJVAPCD would be applicable to construction of the proposed project (SJVAPCD 2024d):

Rule 4101 Visible Emissions: prohibit the emissions of visible air contaminants to the atmosphere.

Rule 4102 Nuisance: protect the health and safety of the public.

Greenhouse Gases
Global climate change refers to changes in average climatic conditions on Earth including temperature, wind patterns, precipitation, and storms. Global temperatures are moderated by atmospheric gases.

These gases are commonly referred to as GHGs because they function like a greenhouse by letting sunlight in but preventing heat from escaping, thus warming the Earth’s atmosphere.

HELIX
Environmental Planning
Letter to Sri Varadaraj Page 7 of 21
July 22, 2024
The GHGs defined under California’s Assembly Bill (AB) 32, described below, include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Each GHG differs in its ability to absorb heat in the atmosphere based on the lifetime, or persistence, of the gas molecule in the atmosphere. Estimates of GHG emissions are commonly presented in carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e), which weigh each gas by its global warming potential (GWP). Expressing GHG emissions in CO2e takes the contribution of all GHG emissions to the greenhouse effect and converts them to a single unit equivalent to the effect that would occur if only CO2 were being emitted. GHG emissions quantities in this analysis are presented in metric tons (MT) of CO2e. For consistency with United Nations Standards, modeling, and reporting of GHGs in California and the U.S. use the GWPs defined in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC 2007): CO2 – 1; CH4 – 25; N2O – 298.

Greenhouse Gas Reduction Regulations and Plans
The primary GHG reduction regulatory legislation and plans (applicable to the project) at the State and levels are described below. Implementation of California’s GHG reduction mandates are primarily under the authority of CARB at the State level, and under the authority of the SJVAPCD at the regional level.

Executive Order B-30-15: On April 29, 2015, EO B-30-15 established a California GHG emission reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. The EO aligns California’s GHG emission reduction targets with those of leading international governments, including the 28-nation European Union.

Senate Bill 32: Signed into law by Governor Brown on September 8, 2016, Senate Bill (SB) 32 (Amendments to the California Global Warming Solutions Action of 2006) extends California’s GHG reduction programs beyond 2020. SB 32 amended the Health and Safety Code to include Section 38566, which contains language to authorize CARB to achieve a Statewide GHG emission reduction of at least 40 percent below 1990 levels by no later than December 31, 2030. SB 32 codified the targets established by EO B-30-15 for 2030, which set the next interim step in the State’s continuing efforts to pursue the long-term target expressed in EO B-30-15 of 80 percent below 1990 emissions levels by 2050. -----------
HELIX Environmental Planning
Letter to Sri Varadaraj Page 8 of 21
July 22, 2024
Executive Order S-01-07: This EO, signed by Governor Schwarzenegger on January 18, 2007, directs that a Statewide goal be established to reduce the carbon intensity of California’s transportation fuels by at least 10 percent by the year 2020. It orders that a Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) for transportation fuels be established for California and directs CARB to determine whether a LCFS can be adopted as a discrete early action measure pursuant to AB 32. CARB approved the LCFS as a discrete early action item with a regulation adopted and implemented in April 2010. Although challenged in 2011, the Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court’s opinion and rejected arguments that implementing LCFS violates the interstate commerce clause in September 2013. CARB is therefore continuing to implement the LCFS Statewide.

California Air Resources Board Scoping Plan: The Scoping Plan is a strategy CARB develops and updates at least once every five years, as required by AB 32. It lays out the transformations needed across our society and economy to reduce emissions and reach our climate targets. The current 2022 Scoping Plan is the third update to the original plan that was adopted in 2008. The initial 2008 Scoping Plan laid out a path to achieve the AB 32 mandate of returning to 1990 levels of GHG emissions by 2020, a reduction of approximately 15 percent below business as usual. The 2008 Scoping Plan included a mix of incentives, regulations, and carbon pricing, laying out the portfolio approach to addressing climate change and clearly making the case for using multiple tools to meet California’s GHG targets. The 2013 Scoping Plan assessed progress toward achieving the 2020 mandate and made the case for addressing short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs). The 2017 Scoping Plan also assessed the progress toward achieving the 2020 limit and provided a technologically feasible and cost-effective path to achieving the SB 32 mandate of reducing GHGs by at least 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. On December 15, 2022, CARB approved the 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (2022 Scoping Plan). The 2022 Scoping Plan lays out a path to achieve targets for carbon neutrality and reduce anthropogenic GHG emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels no later than 2045, as directed by AB 1279. The actions and outcomes in the plan will achieve significant reductions in fossil fuel combustion by deploying clean technologies and fuels; further reductions in SLCPs; support for sustainable development; increased action on natural and working lands to reduce emissions and sequester carbon; and the capture and storage of carbon (CARB 2022).
-----------
HELIX Environmental Planning
Letter to Sri Varadaraj Page 9 of 21
July 22, 2024
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District: In December 2009, the SJVAPCD adopted the following guidance documents applicable to the project:
• Guidance for Valley Land-use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA (SJVAPCD 2009a), and
• District Policy: Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for Stationary Source Projects Under CEQA When Serving as the Lead Agency (SJVAPCD 2009b).

2. If a project does not comply with an approved GHG emission reduction plan or mitigation program, then it would be required to implement best performance standards (BPS); and

3. If a project is not implementing BPS, then it should demonstrate that its GHG emissions would be reduced or mitigated by at least 29 percent, compared to business-as-usual.

The SJVAPCD adopted a Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP) in 2008 and issued guidance for development project compliance with the plan in 2009. The guidance adopted an approach that relies on the use of BPS to reduce GHG emissions. Projects implementing BPS would be determined to have a less than cumulatively significant impact. For projects not implementing BPS, demonstration of a 29 percent reduction in project-specific (i.e., operational) GHG emissions from business-as-usual conditions is required to determine that a project would have a less than cumulatively significant impact (SJVAPCD 2009a). Both the SJVAPCD CCAP and the guidance for development project compliance are limited to achieving the State 2020 GHG reduction goals mandated by AB 32. The SJVAPCD CCAP and the guidance for development project compliance do not address California’s post-2020 GHG reduction goals. Kern County currently does not have a CAP or other GHG reduction plan which addresses post2020 GHG reductions mandated by SB 32 and AB 1279. The City of Bakersfield is currently in the process of preparing its first Climate Action Plan (CAP), and released a draft CAP for public comment in 2023; however, at the time of this analysis, the City had not adopted the CAP (City 2024).

SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
CARB and the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) have identified the following groups of individuals as the most likely to be affected by air pollution: adults over 65, children under 14, infants (including in utero in the third trimester of pregnancy), and persons with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases such as asthma, emphysema, and bronchitis (CARB 2005; OEHHA 2015). -----------
HELIX Environmental Planning
Letter to Sri Varadaraj Page 10 of 21
July 22, 2024
Some land uses are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others due to the types of population groups or activities involved and are referred to as sensitive receptors. Examples of these sensitive receptors are residences, schools, hospitals, and daycare centers. The closest existing sensitive receptor to the project site is single-family residential homes located 50 feet from the proposed water mains. The closest school is Independence High School located approximately 350 feet northwest of the proposed 10-inch water main along Old River Road.

METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS
Criteria pollutant and precursor emissions, and GHG emissions for the project construction activities were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version 2022.1. CalEEMod is a Statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify potential criteria pollutant emissions associated with both construction and operations from a variety of land use projects. The model was developed for the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) in collaboration with the California air districts. CalEEMod allows for the use of default data (e.g., emission factors, trip lengths, meteorology, source inventory) provided by the various California air districts to account for local requirements and conditions, and/or user-defined inputs. The model calculates emissions of criteria pollutants, ozone precursors, and GHGs, including PM10, PM2.5, ROGs, NOX, and CO2e. The calculation methodology and input data used in CalEEMod can be found in the CalEEMod User’s Guide Appendices C, D, and G (CAPCOA 2022). The input data and subsequent construction emission estimates for the proposed project are discussed below. The CalEEMod output files are included in Attachment B to this report.

Construction Assumptions
As described above, construction emissions were estimated using CalEEMod. Construction input data for CalEEMod include, but are not limited to, (1) the anticipated start and finish dates of construction activity; (2) inventories of construction equipment to be used; (3) areas to be excavated and graded; and (4) volumes of materials to be exported from and imported to the project area.

Construction of the project is anticipated to begin April 1, 2026, and be completed on December 31, 2026. Most of the pipeline would be installed using convention trenching, commonly known as “cutand-cover”. A short portion of the 10-inch pipeline would be installed underneath an existing irrigation canal/culvert using trenchless tunneling and installation of pipe commonly known as “jack-and-bore”.

The total 1.4-acre disturbed area was estimated based on information provided by the project engineer and it was assumed that the total paved area would be 100 percent asphalt. The construction activity schedule was provided by the project engineer and is outlined in Table 2, Project Construction Schedule, below. It was assumed that all construction activities would occur concurrently. All activities except for jack-and-bore include both the 10-inch pipeline and 8-inch pipeline. -----------
HELIX Environmental Planning
Letter to Sri Varadaraj Page 11 of 21
July 22, 2024
Table 2

PROJECT CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
Construction Activity Construction
Start Date
Construction
End Date
Number of
Working Days
Pavement Demolition 4/1/2026 12/31/2026 197
Trenching-Cut 4/1/2026 12/31/2026 197
Trenching-Cover 4/1/2026 12/31/2026 197
Pipeline Installation 4/1/2026 12/31/2026 197
Pavement Repair 4/1/2026 12/31/2026 197
Jack and Bore Preparation 7/1/2026 7/2/2026 2
Jack and Bore 7/3/2026 7/9/2026 5
Jack and Bore Cleanup 7/10/2026 7/13/2026 2
Restriping 12/1/2026 12/5/2026 4
Source: CalEEMod Output (Attachment B)
Construction equipment for each construction activity was provided by the project engineer and was based on CalEEMod defaults. Table 3, Project Construction Equipment, below, presents a summary of the assumed equipment that would be involved in each activity of construction. For this project, a crawler tractor is a Caterpillar PL61 Pipelayer and an off-highway truck is a water truck.

Table 3

PROJECT CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
Construction Activity Equipment Number
Pavement Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2
Concrete/Industrial Saws 2
Off-Highway Trucks 1
Trenching-Cut Excavators 2
Trenching-Cover Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2
Rollers 2
Pipeline Installation Crawler Tractors 2
Pavement Repair Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2
Pavers 2
Rollers 2
Jack and Bore Preparation Excavators 1
Skid Steer Loaders 1
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1
Jack and Bore Bore/Drill Rigs 1
Excavators 1
Pumps 1
Jack and Bore Cleanup Skid Steer Loaders 1
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1
Restriping Air Compressors 2
Source: CalEEMod Output (Attachment B)
Per the project engineer, 210 tons of old asphalt would be exported during pavement demolition.

Emissions calculations assume application of water during pavement demolition and a 15-mph speed limit on unpaved surfaces in compliance with SJVAPCD Rule 8021, Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving Activities.

I I
I I
HELIX
Environmental Planning
Letter to Sri Varadaraj Page 12 of 21
July 22, 2024
Construction trips were estimated based on information provided by the project engineer and CalEEMod defaults. It was assumed that the project would require five, one-way worker trips per day and one, one-way vendor trip per day for installation of the pipeline. It was also assumed that the project would require one, one-way truckload per day for pavement imports and two, one-way worker trips per day for restriping.

Operational Assumptions
Operation of the proposed project would not result in a population increase and would not generate new vehicle trips beyond occasional maintenance activities. Operation of the project would not require new backup pumps or backup generators. Therefore, changes in project operational emissions would be negligible compared to operational emissions from the existing water systems. Therefore, project operational emissions were not quantified.

STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Air Quality
According to Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, a project would have a significant air quality environmental impact if it would:

1. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan; or

2. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard; or

3. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or

4. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.

Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines states that the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the above determinations. The SJVAPCD has established significant thresholds to assess the impacts of projectrelated air pollutant emissions. The significance thresholds are updated, as needed, to appropriately represent the most current technical information and attainment status in the SJVAB. Table 4, SJVAPCD Air Quality Significance Thresholds, presents the most current significance thresholds, including thresholds for construction and operational emissions and maximum incremental cancer risk and hazard indices for TACs. A project with emission rates and risk values below these thresholds is generally considered to have a less than significant impact on air quality. -----------
HELIX Environmental Planning
Letter to Sri Varadaraj Page 13 of 21
July 22, 2024
Table 4

SJVAPCD AIR QUALITY SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS
Mass Daily Thresholds (tons per year)
Pollutant Construction Operation
ROG 10 10
NOX 10 10
CO 100 100
PM10 15 15
PM2.5 15 15
SOX 27 27
Toxic Air Contaminants
TACs Maximum Incremental Cancer Risk ≥ 10 in 1 million
Chronic & Acute Hazard Index ≥ 1.0 (project increment)
Source: SJVAPCD 2015
ROG = reactive organic gas; NOX = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; PM10 = coarse particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter with a diameter of

2.5 microns or less; SOX = sulfur oxides; TACs = toxic air contaminants; NO2 = nitrogen dioxide; ppm = parts per million; µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter As set forth in the SJVAPCD Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts, any proposed project that would individually have a significant air quality impact would also be considered to have a significant cumulative air quality impact. Impacts of local pollutants (CO, TACs) are cumulatively significant when modeling shows that the combined emissions from the project and other existing and planned projects would exceed air quality standards.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Given the relatively small levels of emissions generated by a project in relationship to the total amount of GHG emissions generated on a national or global basis, individual projects are not expected to result in significant, direct impacts with respect to climate change. However, given the magnitude of the impact of GHG emissions on the global climate, GHG emissions from new development could result in significant, cumulative impacts with respect to climate change. Thus, the potential for a significant GHG impact is limited to cumulative impacts. According to Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, the following criteria may be considered in establishing the significance of GHG emissions:

Would the project:

1. Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?

I I
HELIX
Environmental Planning
Letter to Sri Varadaraj Page 14 of 21
July 22, 2024
However, SJVAPCD’s adopted BPS are specifically directed at reducing GHG emissions from stationary sources; therefore, the adopted BPS would not generally be applicable to the proposed project as construction of the pipelines would not be a stationary source of emissions. The SJVAPCD guidance does not limit a lead agency’s authority in establishing its own process and guidance for determining significance of project-related impacts on global climate change.

AIR QUALITY IMPACT ANALYSIS
(1) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less than Significant Impact. As discussed in Table 4, the SJVAPCD has established thresholds of significance for a project’s criteria pollutant and precursor emissions for both temporary constructionrelated emissions and long-term operational-related emissions. According to the SJVAPCD, these significant thresholds have been established to assist lead agencies in determining whether a project may have a significant air quality impact. A project with emissions lower than the thresholds would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the district’s air quality plans for attainment of the applicable NAAQS and CAAQS (SJVAPCD 2015). As discussed below, the project would not exceed the temporary construction-related thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants and precursor emissions. Additionally, the project would not result in a population increase and would not generate new vehicle trips, and occasional project maintenance activities would be similar to maintenance activated for the exiting water systems. Operation of the project would not require new pumps or backup generators. Therefore, operational emissions would be negligible.

In addition, control measures in the air quality plans adopted by the SJVAPCD are based in part on growth projections in local planning documents such as the County and City General Plans. The project would not require a change of General Plan land use designation and the project would not result in population or employment growth in the County or City. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plans and the impact would be less than significant.
(2) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard? Less than Significant Impact. The SJVAB is designated as attainment for PM10; attainment/unclassified for CO, NO2, SO2; extreme nonattainment for 8-hour ozone; and in nonattainment for PM2.5 with respect to federal air quality standards. The SJVAB is designated as attainment for CO, NO2, SO2, and lead; severe nonattainment for 1-hour ozone; and as nonattainment for 8-hour ozone, PM2.5, and PM10 with respect to State air quality standards. The project’s emissions of these criteria pollutants and precursors during construction and operation are evaluated below.
-----------
HELIX Environmental Planning
Letter to Sri Varadaraj Page 15 of 21
July 22, 2024
Construction Emissions
CalEEMod was used to quantify project-generated construction emissions, as discussed in Methodology and Assumptions, above. The model output sheets are included in Attachment B. Construction of the project is anticipated to start April 1, 2026, and be completed on December 31, 2026. The quantity, duration, and intensity of construction activity influence the amount of construction emissions and related pollutant concentrations that occur at any one time. As such, the emission forecasts provided herein reflect a specific set of conservative assumptions based on the expected construction scenario wherein a relatively large amount of construction activity is occurring in a relatively intensive manner.

Because of this conservative assumption, actual emissions could be less than those forecasted. If construction is delayed or occurs over a longer time period, emissions could be reduced because of:
(1) a more modern and cleaner-burning construction equipment fleet mix than assumed in CalEEMod; and/or (2) a less intensive buildout schedule (i.e., fewer daily emissions occurring over a longer time interval).

The project’s construction period emissions of ROG, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5 were compared to the SJVAPCD construction thresholds in Table 5, Annual Construction Criteria Pollutant and Precursor Emissions. Table 4 presents the most current significance thresholds, including thresholds for construction and operational emissions and maximum incremental cancer risk and hazard indices for TACs. As shown in Table 5, the proposed project’s construction period emissions of ROG, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5 would not exceed the SJVAPCD thresholds. Therefore, impacts related to constructiongenerated emissions of ROG, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5 would be less than significant.

Table 5

ANNUAL CONSTRUCTION CRITERIA POLLUTANT AND PRECURSOR EMISSIONS Pollutant Emissions (tons per year)
Construction Activities ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Pavement Demolition, Trenching-Cut, TrenchingCover, Pipeline Installation, Pavement Repair, Jack and Bore Preparation, Jack and Bore, Jack
and Bore Cleanup, Restriping

0.30 2.37 3.55 0.01 0.23 0.11
SJVAPCD Threshold 10 10 100 27 15 15
Significant Impact? No No No No No No
Source: CalEEMod (output data is provided in Attachment B).

ROG = reactive organic gas; NOX = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; SOX = sulfur oxides; PM10 = coarse particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less; Operational Emissions
As discussed in Methodology and Assumptions, operational emissions were not quantified. Operation of the proposed project would not result in a population increase and would not generate new vehicle trips, and occasional project maintenance activities would be similar to maintenance activated for the exiting water systems. Operation of the project would not require new pumps or backup generators.

Therefore, operational emissions would be negligible, and the impact would be less than significant.

I
I
I
HELIX
Environmental Planning
Letter to Sri Varadaraj Page 16 of 21
July 22, 2024
Impact Conclusion
Construction and operation of the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment, and the impact would be less than significant.
(3) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than Significant Impact. As discussed in Sensitive Receptors, the closest existing sensitive receptor to the project site is single-family residential homes located 50-feet from the proposed water mains. The closest school is Independence High School located approximately 350 feet northwest of the proposed 10-inch water main along Old River Road.

The dose (of TAC) to which receptors are exposed is the primary factor used to determine health risk.

Dose is a function of the concentration of a substance in the environment and the extent of exposure a person has to the substance; a longer exposure period to a fixed quantity of emissions would result in higher health risks. Current models and methodologies for conducting cancer health risk assessments are associated with longer-term exposure periods (typically 30 years for individual residents based on guidance from OEHHA) and are best suited for evaluation of long-duration TAC emissions with predictable schedules and locations. These assessment models and methodologies do not correlate well with the temporary and highly variable nature of construction activities. Cancer potency factors are based on animal lifetime studies or worker studies where there is long-term exposure to the carcinogenic agent. There is considerable uncertainty in trying to evaluate the cancer risk from projects that will only last a small fraction of a lifetime (OEHHA 2015). Concentrations of mobile source DPM emissions disperse rapidly and are typically reduced by 70 percent at approximately 500 feet (CARB 2005). Considering the highly dispersive nature of DPM and the fact that construction activities would occur for short durations at various locations in the project area, it is not anticipated that construction of the project would expose sensitive receptors to substantial DPM concentrations.

The use of diesel-powered equipment for occasional project operational maintenance would be similar maintenance equipment use for the existing water system. Operation of the project would not require the use of new stationary sources of TACs, such as backup generators. Therefore, construction and operation of the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, and the impact would be less than significant.
(4) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less than Significant Impact. The project could produce odors during construction activities resulting from heavy diesel equipment exhaust and VOC released during application of asphalt. The odor of these emissions is objectionable to some; however, emissions would disperse rapidly from the project site and therefore should not be at a level that would affect a substantial number of people. Any odors emitted during construction activities would be temporary, short-term, and intermittent in nature, and would cease upon the facility maintenance. As a result, impacts associated with temporary odors during construction are not considered significant.
-----------
HELIX Environmental Planning
Letter to Sri Varadaraj Page 17 of 21
July 22, 2024
The SJVAPCD has developed screening distances for common sources of operational odors, including Wastewater Treatment Facility; Sanitary Landfill; Transfer Station; Composting Facility; Petroleum Refinery; Asphalt Batch Plant; Chemical Manufacturing; Fiberglass Manufacturing; Painting/Coating Operations (e.g., auto body shops); Food Processing Facility; Feed Lot/Dairy; and Rendering Plant (SJVAPCD 2015a). As the project would install water pipelines and fire hydrants, operation of the project would not result in odors affecting a substantial number of people.

Neither construction nor operation of the project would result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people, and the impact would be less than significant.

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS IMPACT ANALYSIS
(1) Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less than Significant Impact.

Construction Emissions
GHG emissions would be generated by the project during construction from vehicle engine exhaust from construction equipment, on-road trucks, vendor trips, and worker maintenance trips. Construction GHG emissions were calculated using CalEEMod, as described in Methodology and Assumptions. The results of the construction GHG emissions calculations were compared to the SMAQMD threshold in Table 6, Construction GHG Emissions. As shown in Table 6, the construction GHG emissions would not exceed the SMAQMD construction GHG threshold and the impact would be less than significant.

Table 6

MT = metric tons; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent
Operational Emissions
As discussed in Methodology and Assumptions, operational emissions were not quantified. Operation of the proposed project would not result in a population increase and would not generate new vehicle trips, and occasional project maintenance activities would be similar to maintenance activated for the exiting water systems. Operation of the project would not require new pumps or backup generators.

The project would not result in changes in water use, and the electricity used by the project to treat and divide water to customers would be similar to the electricity used by the existing water systems.

Therefore, operational GHG emissions would be negligible, and the impact would be less than significant.

HELIX
Environmental Planning
Letter to Sri Varadaraj Page 18 of 21
July 22, 2024
Impact Conclusion
Construction and operation of the project would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. The impact would be less than significant.
(2) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs?
Less than Significant Impact. There are numerous State plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. The principal overall State plan and policy is AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. The quantitative goal of AB 32 is to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. SB 32 requires further reductions of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. AB 1279 requires the State to achieve net zero GHG emissions no later than 2045. The mandates of AB 32, SB 32, and AB 1279 are implemented at the State level by the CARB’s Scoping Plan. Because the project’s operational year is post-2020, the project aims to reach the quantitative goals set by SB 32 and AB 1279.

Statewide plans and regulations such as GHG emissions standards for vehicles and transportation fuels, and regulations requiring an increasing fraction of electricity to be generated from renewable sources are being implemented at the Statewide level; as such, compliance at the project level is not addressed.

Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with those plans and regulations.

As noted in impact question (1) above, construction GHG emissions would not exceed the GHG thresholds, and would be less than significant. In addition, operation of the proposed project would not result in a population increase and would not result in substantial changes in GHG emissions compared to operation of the existing water systems. As a result, the project would not conflict with the GHG reduction objectives of the State’s Scoping Plan, including net zero GHG emissions by 2045, mandated by AB 1279, or the SJVAPCD’s CCAP. The impact would be less than significant.

CONCLUSION
As described above, the project would not conflict with the SJVAPCD’s air quality attainment and maintenance plans. Project construction emissions of criteria pollutants would be below SJVAPCD construction thresholds. Operation of the proposed project would not result in a population increase, would not require new pumps or backup generators, and would not result in substantial changes in operation criteria pollutant emissions compared to operation of the existing water systems.

Additionally, sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial concentrations of TACs or odors.

Therefore, air quality impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures would be required.
-----------
HELIX Environmental Planning
Letter to Sri Varadaraj Page 19 of 21
July 22, 2024
As also described above, construction emissions of GHGs would be below SMAQMD construction threshold. Operation of the proposed project would not result in a population increase and would not result in substantial changes in GHG emissions compared to operation of the existing water systems.

Therefore, GHG emission impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures would be required.

Sincerely,
Martin Rolph Julia Pano
Air Quality Specialist Environmental Planner
Attachments:

Attachment A: Figures
Attachment B: CalEEMod Output

REFERENCES
Bakersfield, City of. 2024. The City of Bakersfield's Draft Climate Action Plan is now available for public review. Available at: https://www.bakersfieldcity.us/1088/Climate-Action-Plan-CAP. Accessed July 15, 2024.

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2022. User’s Guide for CalEEMod Version 2022.1. Available at: http://www.caleemod.com/.

HELIX
Environmental Planning
Letter to Sri Varadaraj Page 20 of 21
July 22, 2024
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2024a. Ambient Air Quality Standards & Valley Attainment Status. Available at: https://www.valleyair.org/aqinfo/attainment.htm. 2024b. Ozone Contingency State Implementation Plan Revision for the 2008 and 2015 8-Hour Ozone Standards. Available at: https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/ovgo2gku/2_-ozonecontingency-sip-update_final-adopted.pdf. 2024c. 2024 Plan for the 2012 Annual PM2.5 Standard. Available at:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/gw5bacvj/2024-pm25-plan.pdf. 2024d. Current District Rules and Regulations. Available at: https://ww2.valleyair.org/rules-andplanning/current-district-rules-and-regulations/. 2023. 2023 Maintenance Plan and Redesignation Request for the Revoked 1-hour Ozone Standard. Available at: https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/itoegkch/03-adopted-2023- maintenance-plan-and-redesignation-request-for-the-revoked-1-hour-ozone-standard.pdf. 2022. 2022 Plan for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone Standard. Available at:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/rules-and-planning/air-quality-plans/ozone-plans/2022-ozone-planfor-the-san-joaquin-valley/. 2018. 2018 Plan for 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5 Standards. Available at:
http://www.valleyair.org/pmplans/documents/2018/pm-plan-adopted/2018-Plan-for-the-1997- 2006-and-2012-PM2.5-Standards.pdf.
2016a. 2016 Ozone Plane. June 16. Available at: http://valleyair.org/Air_Quality_Plans/OzonePlan-2016/Adopted-Plan.pdf. 2016b. 2016 Moderate Area Plan for the 2012 PM2.5 Standard. September 15. Available at:
http://www.valleyair.org/Air_Quality_Plans/docs/PM25-2016/2016-Plan.pdf. 2015. Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. Available at:
https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI-2015/FINAL-DRAFT-GAMAQI.PDF. 2009a. Guidance for Valley Land-use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA. Available at: https://www.valleyair.org/Programs/CCAP/12-17- 09/3%20CCAP%20-%20FINAL%20LU%20Guidance%20-%20Dec%2017%202009.pdf. 2009b. District Policy: Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for Stationary Source Projects Under CEQA When Serving as the Lead Agency. Available at:
https://www.valleyair.org/Programs/CCAP/12-17-
09/2%20CCAP%20-%20FINAL%20District%20Policy%20CEQA%20GHG%20-%20Dec%2017%2020

09.pdf.

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD). 2021. CEQA Guide Chapter 6:

Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Revised February. Available at:
https://www.airquality.org/LandUseTransportation/Documents/Ch6GHG2-26-2021.pdf.

HELIX
Environmental Planning
Letter to Sri Varadaraj Page 21 of 21
July 22, 2024
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2016. Determination of Attainment of the 1-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard in the San Joaquin Valley Nonattainment Area in California. July. Available at: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/07/18/2016- 16792/determination-of-attainment-of-the-1-hour-ozone-national-ambient-air-qualitystandard-in-the-san.

HELIX
Environmental Planning
Attachment A
Figures
Bakersfield
District Blvd
S Allen Rd
Berkshire Rd
Shafter Rd
Old River Rd Old River Rd
McCutchen Rd
Harris Rd
Houghton Rd
Buena Vista Rd
Panama Ln
Ashe Rd
Gosford Rd
Stine Rd
Figure 1
Site and Vicinity Map
T:\PROJECTS\C\CarolloEngineers_02632\00014_SouthKernOldRiverMunicipalISMND\Map\Map\South Kern Old River MWC.aprx 4/3/2024 Source: Base Map Layers (Esri, USGS, NGA, NASA)
Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System Los Angeles
San
Luis
Obispo
Santa
Barbara Ventura
Kern
USGS 7.5 Min. Gosford Quad
Township 31S, Range 27E, Section 5
Approximate Location:
-119.1086875 35.2652880
NAD 1983 State Plane CA Zone V (US Feet)
Approximate Acreage: ±20.35 Acres
0 1 Miles
Old River MWC
South Kern MWC
Project Location
10" Water Main
N
A
H Env,~ Eo Lnme'n!anning
(
I
I
Old River Rd
0 800 Feet
Figure 2
Project Location and Mutual
Water Company Site Locations
T:\PROJECTS\C\CarolloEngineers_02632\00014_SouthKernOldRiverMunicipalISMND\Map\Map\South Kern Old River MWC.aprx 8x11P 4/4/2024 Source: Aerial (Maxar, 2022)
Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System Old River Mutual Water Company
South Kern Mutual Water Company
10" Water Main
8" Water Main
CJ
E---3 E---3
HELIX
Environmenta/Planning ----------------------------------- Old River Rd
0 1,200 Feet
Figure 3
Site Plan
T:\PROJECTS\C\CarolloEngineers_02632\00014_SouthKernOldRiverMunicipalISMND\Map\Map\South Kern Old River MWC.aprx Fig3_Site Plan 4/4/2024 Source: Aerial (Maxar, 2022)
Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Mutual Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System Fire Hydrant Location
1" Water Main
8" Water Main
Prop. 10" Water Line (Extends up to
McCutchen Rd and Ties-In to Existing 10"
Water Line, approx 1.0 Mile North)
Prop. Trenchless Installations Under Old
River Road, Stine Canal 3-48" Diameter
Culvert, and Taft Hwy 119
Prop. 8" Water Line
Extends in to Old River
MWC Streets
O
dl River Rd
HELIX
Environmental Planning----------------------------------------------------- Attachment B
CalEEMod Output
South Kern Detailed Report, 7/11/2024
South Kern Detailed 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

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Pavement Demolition (2026) - Unmitigated

3.3. Pipe Installation (2026) - Unmitigated

3.5. Pavement Repair (2026) - Unmitigated

3.7. Restriping (2026) - Unmitigated

3.9. Trenching-Cut (2026) - Unmitigated

3.11. Trenching-Cover (2026) - Unmitigated

3.13. Jack and Bore Prep (2026) - Unmitigated
1 / 33
South Kern Detailed Report, 7/11/2024

3.15. Jack and Bore (2026) - Unmitigated

3.17. Jack and Bore Cleanup (2026) - Unmitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
2 / 33
South Kern Detailed Report, 7/11/2024

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
3 / 33
South Kern Detailed Report, 7/11/2024

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores

7.4. Health & Equity Measures

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

8. User Changes to Default Data
4 / 33
South Kern Detailed Report, 7/11/2024

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name South Kern
Construction Start Date 4/1/2026
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.70
Precipitation (days) 18.0
Location 8227 Old River Rd, Bakersfield, CA 93311, USA
County Kern-San Joaquin
City Bakersfield
Air District San Joaquin Valley APCD
Air Basin San Joaquin Valley
TAZ 2811
EDFZ 5
Electric Utility Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.26

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
Other Asphalt
Surfaces

1.40 Acre 1.40 0.00 0.00 — — —
5 / 33
South Kern Detailed Report, 7/11/2024

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 CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 3.89 3.28 26.6 41.7 0.06 1.03 1.54 2.58 0.95 0.26 1.21 7,150 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 8.05 7.45 25.7 38.0 0.06 0.99 1.50 2.50 0.92 0.25 1.17 6,598 Average
Daily (Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.95 1.65 13.0 19.5 0.03 0.51 0.76 1.28 0.47 0.13 0.60 3,425 Annual (Max) — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.36 0.30 2.37 3.55 0.01 0.09 0.14 0.23 0.09 0.02 0.11 567

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 6 / 33
Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 3.89 3.28 26.6 41.7 0.06 1.03 1.54 2.58 0.95 0.26 1.21 7,150 Daily -
Winter (Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 8.05 7.45 25.7 38.0 0.06 0.99 1.50 2.50 0.92 0.25 1.17 6,598 -------------
-------------
South Kern Detailed Report, 7/11/2024
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 1.95 1.65 13.0 19.5 0.03 0.51 0.76 1.28 0.47 0.13 0.60 3,425 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.36 0.30 2.37 3.55 0.01 0.09 0.14 0.23 0.09 0.02 0.11 567

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Pavement Demolition (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.93 0.77 6.34 8.97 0.02 0.19 — 0.19 0.17 — 0.17 1,741
Demolition — — — — — — 0.01 0.01 — < 0.005 < 0.005 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.93 0.77 6.34 8.97 0.02 0.19 — 0.19 0.17 — 0.17 1,741
Demolition — — — — — — 0.01 0.01 — < 0.005 < 0.005 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.50 0.42 3.42 4.84 0.01 0.10 — 0.10 0.09 — 0.09 940
Demolition — — — — — — 0.01 0.01 — < 0.005 < 0.005 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7 / 33
-------------
South Kern Detailed Report, 7/11/2024
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.09 0.08 0.62 0.88 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 156 Demolition — — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.87 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.04 0.04 167 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 19.1 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.59 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.04 0.04 147 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 19.1 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 82.3 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 10.3 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 13.6 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.71

3.3. Pipe Installation (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e -------------
8 / 33
South Kern Detailed Report, 7/11/2024
Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.65 0.55 4.82 6.32 0.01 0.27 — 0.27 0.25 — 0.25 1,043
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.65 0.55 4.82 6.32 0.01 0.27 — 0.27 0.25 — 0.25 1,043
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.35 0.30 2.60 3.41 0.01 0.14 — 0.14 0.13 — 0.13 563
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.06 0.05 0.47 0.62 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.02 — 0.02 93.2 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.69 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 134 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 67.3 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 117 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 67.2 9 / 33
South Kern Detailed Report, 7/11/2024
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.02 0.02 65.8 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 36.3 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 10.9 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 6.01 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.5. Pavement Repair (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.89 0.75 6.85 9.91 0.01 0.30 — 0.30 0.27 — 0.27 1,500
Paving 0.02 0.02 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.89 0.75 6.85 9.91 0.01 0.30 — 0.30 0.27 — 0.27 1,500
Paving 0.02 0.02 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — —
10 / 33
-------------
South Kern Detailed Report, 7/11/2024
Off-Road
Equipment

0.48 0.40 3.70 5.35 0.01 0.16 — 0.16 0.15 — 0.15 810
Paving 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.09 0.07 0.67 0.98 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 134 Paving < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.07 0.06 1.04 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.04 0.04 201 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.16 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 142 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.71 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.04 0.04 176 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.17 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 142 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 98.7 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 76.7 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 16.3 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 12.7 11 / 33
South Kern Detailed Report, 7/11/2024

3.7. Restriping (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 12 / 33
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.29 0.24 1.71 2.27 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.04 — 0.04 268 Architectural
Coatings

4.24 4.24 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 2.94 Architectural
Coatings

0.05 0.05 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.49 Architectural
Coatings

0.01 0.01 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — —
-------------
South Kern Detailed Report, 7/11/2024
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 46.9 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.53 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.9. Trenching-Cut (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.23 0.19 1.64 2.04 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.04 — 0.04 284 Onsite truck < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.74 0.74 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 3.61 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.23 0.19 1.64 2.04 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.04 — 0.04 284 Onsite truck < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.74 0.74 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 3.66 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — —
13 / 33
-------------
South Kern Detailed Report, 7/11/2024
Off-Road
Equipment

0.12 0.10 0.89 1.10 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.02 — 0.02 153 Onsite truck < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.38 0.38 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 1.96 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.02 0.16 0.20 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 25.4 Onsite truck < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.32 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 66.9 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 58.6 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 32.9 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 5.45 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.11. Trenching-Cover (2026) - Unmitigated
14 / 33
South Kern Detailed Report, 7/11/2024
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 15 / 33
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Off-Road 0.55 0.46 3.81 5.79 0.01 0.14 — 0.14 0.13 — 0.13 867 Equipment
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter — — — — — — — — — — — —
(Max)
Off-Road 0.55 0.46 3.81 5.79 0.01 0.14 — 0.14 0.13 — 0.13 867 Equipment
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily
Off-Road 0.30 0.25 2.06 3.13 < 0.005 0.08 — 0.08 0.07 — 0.07 468 Equipment
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road 0.05 0.05 0.38 0.57 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 77.5 Equipment
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Worker 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.69 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 134 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter — — — — — — — — — — — —
(Max)
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 117 -------------
South Kern Detailed Report, 7/11/2024
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.02 0.02 65.8 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 10.9 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.13. Jack and Bore Prep (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.31 0.26 2.69 4.43 0.01 0.08 — 0.08 0.08 — 0.08 679
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 3.72 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — —
16 / 33
-------------
South Kern Detailed Report, 7/11/2024
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.62 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.02 100 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.50 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.15. Jack and Bore (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.32 0.27 2.64 3.83 0.01 0.08 — 0.08 0.07 — 0.07 610
17 / 33
-------------
South Kern Detailed Report, 7/11/2024
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 8.35 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 1.38 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.02 100 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.25 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.21 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 18 / 33
South Kern Detailed Report, 7/11/2024

3.17. Jack and Bore Cleanup (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.19 0.16 1.87 3.41 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.05 — 0.05 537 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 2.94 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.49 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 66.9 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — —
19 / 33
-------------
South Kern Detailed Report, 7/11/2024
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.33 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetation TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e 20 / 33
-------------
-------------
South Kern Detailed Report, 7/11/2024
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — — —
21 / 33
-------------
South Kern Detailed Report, 7/11/2024
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — —

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Pavement Demolition Demolition 4/1/2026 12/31/2026 5.00 197 — Pipe Installation Building Construction 4/1/2026 12/31/2026 5.00 197 — Pavement Repair Paving 4/1/2026 12/31/2026 5.00 197 —
Restriping Architectural Coating 12/1/2026 12/5/2026 5.00 4.00 — Trenching-Cut Trenching 4/1/2026 12/31/2026 5.00 197 —
Trenching-Cover Trenching 4/1/2026 12/31/2026 5.00 197 — Jack and Bore Prep Trenching 7/1/2026 7/2/2026 5.00 2.00 — Jack and Bore Trenching 7/3/2026 7/9/2026 5.00 5.00 —
Jack and Bore Cleanup Trenching 7/10/2026 7/13/2026 5.00 2.00 —

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
22 / 33
South Kern Detailed Report, 7/11/2024
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Pavement Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Pavement Demolition Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Pavement Demolition Off-Highway Trucks Diesel Average 1.00 4.00 376 0.38 Pipe Installation Crawler Tractors Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 130 0.43 Pavement Repair Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Pavement Repair Pavers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42 Pavement Repair Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Restriping Air Compressors Diesel Average 2.00 6.00 37.0 0.48 Trenching-Cut Excavators Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Trenching-Cover Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Trenching-Cover Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Jack and Bore Prep Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Jack and Bore Prep Skid Steer Loaders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 71.0 0.37 Jack and Bore Prep Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Jack and Bore Bore/Drill Rigs Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 83.0 0.50 Jack and Bore Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Jack and Bore Pumps Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 11.0 0.74
Jack and Bore
Cleanup
Skid Steer Loaders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 71.0 0.37
Jack and Bore
Cleanup
Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
23 / 33
South Kern Detailed Report, 7/11/2024
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Pavement Demolition — — — —
Pavement Demolition Worker 12.5 17.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Pavement Demolition Vendor — 10.6 HHDT,MHDT
Pavement Demolition Hauling 0.27 20.0 HHDT
Pavement Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT
Pipe Installation — — — —
Pipe Installation Worker 10.0 17.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Pipe Installation Vendor 2.00 10.6 HHDT,MHDT
Pipe Installation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Pipe Installation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Pavement Repair — — — —
Pavement Repair Worker 15.0 17.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Pavement Repair Vendor — 10.6 HHDT,MHDT
Pavement Repair Hauling 2.00 20.0 HHDT
Pavement Repair Onsite truck — — HHDT
Restriping — — — —
Restriping Worker 4.00 17.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Restriping Vendor — 10.6 HHDT,MHDT
Restriping Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Restriping Onsite truck — — HHDT
Trenching-Cut — — — —
Trenching-Cut Worker 5.00 17.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Trenching-Cut Vendor — 10.6 HHDT,MHDT
Trenching-Cut Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Trenching-Cut Onsite truck 1.00 0.50 HHDT
Trenching-Cover — — — —
Trenching-Cover Worker 10.0 17.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
24 / 33
South Kern Detailed Report, 7/11/2024
Trenching-Cover Vendor — 10.6 HHDT,MHDT
Trenching-Cover Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Trenching-Cover Onsite truck — — HHDT
Jack and Bore Prep — — — —
Jack and Bore Prep Worker 7.50 17.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Jack and Bore Prep Vendor — 10.6 HHDT,MHDT
Jack and Bore Prep Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Jack and Bore Prep Onsite truck — — HHDT
Jack and Bore — — — —
Jack and Bore Worker 7.50 17.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Jack and Bore Vendor — 10.6 HHDT,MHDT
Jack and Bore Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Jack and Bore Onsite truck — — HHDT
Jack and Bore Cleanup — — — —
Jack and Bore Cleanup Worker 5.00 17.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Jack and Bore Cleanup Vendor — 10.6 HHDT,MHDT
Jack and Bore Cleanup Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Jack and Bore Cleanup Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.

5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area Residential Exterior Area Non-Residential Interior Area Non-Residential Exterior Area Parking Area Coated (sq ft) Coated (sq ft) Coated (sq ft) Coated (sq ft) Coated (sq ft) Restriping 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,659
25 / 33
South Kern Detailed Report, 7/11/2024

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (cy) Material Exported (cy) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (Ton of Debris)
Acres Paved (acres)
Pavement Demolition 0.00 0.00 0.00 210 —
Pavement Repair 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.40

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied Frequency (per day) PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water Exposed Area 2 61% 61%
Water Demolished Area 2 36% 36%

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Other Asphalt Surfaces 1.40 100%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2026 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
26 / 33
South Kern Detailed Report, 7/11/2024
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.

Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 22.0 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 0.00 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 0.00 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters 27 / 33
South Kern Detailed Report, 7/11/2024
Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 1 0 0 N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding 0 0 0 N/A
Drought 0 0 0 N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 0 0 0 N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 1 1 1 2
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding 1 1 1 2
Drought 1 1 1 2
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 1 1 1 2
28 / 33
South Kern Detailed Report, 7/11/2024
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 95.3
AQ-PM 98.7
AQ-DPM 56.3
Drinking Water 98.0
Lead Risk Housing 15.2
Pesticides 98.6
Toxic Releases 22.2
Traffic 9.69
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 58.2
Groundwater 14.5
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 58.8
Impaired Water Bodies 0.00
Solid Waste 75.7
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 63.5
29 / 33
South Kern Detailed Report, 7/11/2024
Cardio-vascular 83.3
Low Birth Weights 54.6
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 66.8
Housing 5.48
Linguistic 58.6
Poverty 52.3
Unemployment 47.0

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 48.59489285
Employed 60.23354292
Median HI 62.9026049
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 22.22507378
High school enrollment 6.313358142
Preschool enrollment 20.76222251
Transportation —
Auto Access 82.44578468
Active commuting 11.21519312
Social —
2-parent households 46.65725651
Voting 39.65096882
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 87.9892211
30 / 33
South Kern Detailed Report, 7/11/2024
Park access 21.21134351
Retail density 7.994353907
Supermarket access 16.66880534
Tree canopy 0.82124984
Housing —
Homeownership 86.01308867
Housing habitability 67.71461568
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 47.78647504 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 44.18067496
Uncrowded housing 36.04516874
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 34.59514949
Arthritis 88.7
Asthma ER Admissions 43.2
High Blood Pressure 73.3
Cancer (excluding skin) 85.3
Asthma 46.1
Coronary Heart Disease 88.8
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 71.2
Diagnosed Diabetes 68.9
Life Expectancy at Birth 17.4
Cognitively Disabled 56.3
Physically Disabled 49.3
Heart Attack ER Admissions 13.6
Mental Health Not Good 38.2
Chronic Kidney Disease 73.0
Obesity 30.3
Pedestrian Injuries 73.8
31 / 33
South Kern Detailed Report, 7/11/2024
Physical Health Not Good 52.6
Stroke 84.7
Health Risk Behaviors —
Binge Drinking 15.4
Current Smoker 29.7
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 36.8
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 3.5
Elderly 90.4
English Speaking 47.8
Foreign-born 50.7
Outdoor Workers 14.5
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 72.3
Traffic Density 16.9
Traffic Access 0.0
Other Indices —
Hardship 67.1
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 29.0

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 74.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 33.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) Yes 32 / 33
South Kern Detailed Report, 7/11/2024
Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) No Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Construction: Construction Phases Schedule per project engineer.

Construction: Off-Road Equipment Equipment per project engineer. Crawler tractor= Caterpillar PL61 Pipelayer. Off highway Truck= water truck.

Construction: Trips and VMT Assumed 5 workers per day and one vendor per day for pipe installation. Assumed 2 workers per day for restriping. Up to 1 truckload per day of pavement import. 33 / 33
Appendix B
Biological Resources Technical Letter
Report
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
1677 Eureka Road, Suite 100
Roseville, CA 95661
916.435.1202 tel
619.462.0552 fax
www.helixepi.com
July 24, 2024
Sri Varadaraj, PE
Carollo Engineers
1401 Fulton Street, Suite 802
Fresno, CA 93721
Subject: Biological Technical Letter for the Consolidation of South Kern and Old River Municipal Water Companies into the City of Bakersfield Water System, Kern County, California Dear Mr. Varadaraj:

HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX) has prepared this Biological Resources Technical Letter for the Consolidation of the South Kern and Old River Municipal Water Companies (MWCs) into the City of Bakersfield Water System (proposed project) in unincorporated Kern County, CA. The purpose of this assessment is to evaluate the potential for regionally occurring special-status plant and animal species, wetlands or other waters of the U.S. or waters of the State, and/or other sensitive biological resources to occur in the proposed project area and/or be impacted by site development. This technical letter includes a description of the location, setting, and existing condition of the project site, and an assessment of the potential for sensitive biological resources to occur on the project site.

LOCATION AND SETTING
The ±27.09-acre Study Area is located in Kern County southwest of the City of Bakersfield (Figure 1, Site and Vicinity Map). Old River MWC currently serves an approximately 10.7-acre area at the southeast corner of Old River Road and SR-119. South Kern MWC serves an approximately 9.7-acre area east of Old River Road and immediately south of the Old River MWC service area (Figure 2, Project Location and Mutual Water Company Site Locations). Both service areas are located in unincorporated Kern County, just outside of the City of Bakersfield limits.

PROPOSED PROJECT
Old River MWC and South Kern MWC provide water service to residential and commercial customers.

Each MWC operates using a single well, and both wells produce water that exceeds allowable levels of uranium and 1, 2, 3-TCP. Therefore, the proposed project would abandon the two wells that supply water to customers and extend the City of Bakersfield’s water system to consolidate both MWCs into the City of Bakersfield’s water system.

In order to extend service from the City of Bakersfield’s water system to the areas currently served by Old River MWC and South Kern MWC, the project would construct approximately 6,000 linear feet of new 10-inch water main along with1,600 linear feet of 8-inch lateral pipelines with connections to 29 HELIX
Environmental Planning
Letter to Sri Varadaraj Page 2 of 16
July 24, 2024
households. Three fire hydrants would also be installed for use in case of emergency. The point of connection to the City of Bakersfield’s water system would be the existing 16-inch diameter water main at McCutchen Road and Old River Road (Figure 3, Site Plan). Once the connection to the City of Bakersfield’s water system is complete, the Old River MWC and the South Kern MWC wells would be abandoned and no longer provide water to the community.

REGULATORY SETTING
Federal, state, and local environmental laws, regulations, and policies concerning biological resources relevant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review process are summarized below. The applicable CEQA significance criteria are also included in this section.

Federal Regulations
Federal Endangered Species Act
The U.S. Congress passed the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) in 1973 to protect those species that are endangered or threatened with extinction. FESA is intended to operate in conjunction with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to help protect the ecosystems upon which endangered and threatened species depend.

FESA prohibits the “take” of endangered or threatened wildlife species. “Take” is defined to include harassing, harming, pursuing, hunting, shooting, wounding, killing, trapping, capturing, or collecting wildlife species or any attempt to engage in such conduct (FESA Section 3 [(3) (19)]). Harm is further defined to include significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing behavioral patterns (50 CFR §17.3). Harass is defined as actions that create the likelihood of injury to listed species to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns (50 CFR §17.3). Actions that result in take can result in civil or criminal penalties.

In the context of the proposed project, FESA consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) would be initiated if development resulted in take of a threatened or endangered species or if issuance of a Section 404 permit or other federal agency action could result in take of an endangered species or adversely modify critical habitat of such a species.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act
Raptors (birds of prey), migratory birds, and other avian species are protected by several state and federal laws. The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) prohibits the killing, possessing, or trading of migratory birds except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Interior.

The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (Eagle Act) prohibits the taking or possession of and commerce in bald and golden eagles with limited exceptions. Under the Eagle Act, it is a violation to “take, possess, sell, purchase, barter, offer to sell, transport, export or import, at any time or in any manner, any bald eagle commonly known as the American eagle, or golden eagle, alive or dead, or any part, nest, or egg, thereof.” Take is defined to include pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, destroy, molest, and disturb. Disturb is further defined in 50 CFR Part 22.3 as “to agitate or bother a bald or golden eagle to a degree that causes, or is likely to cause, based on the best HELIX
Environmental Planning
Letter to Sri Varadaraj Page 3 of 16
July 24, 2024
scientific information available (1) injury to an eagle, (2) a decrease in its productivity, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior, or (3) nest abandonment, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior.” State Jurisdiction
California Endangered Species Act
The State of California enacted the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) in 1984. CESA is similar to the FESA but pertains to State-listed endangered and threatened species. CESA requires state agencies to consult with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), when preparing CEQA documents. The purpose is to ensure that the State lead agency actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or result in the destruction, or adverse modification of habitat essential to the continued existence of those species, if there are reasonable and prudent alternatives available (Fish and Game Code (FGC) §2080). CESA directs agencies to consult with CDFW on projects or actions that could affect listed species, directs CDFW to determine whether jeopardy would occur, and allows CDFW to identify “reasonable and prudent alternatives” to the project consistent with conserving the species.

CESA allows CDFW to authorize exceptions to the State’s prohibition against take of a listed species if the "take" of a listed species is incidental to carrying out an otherwise lawful project that has been approved under CEQA (Fish & Game Code § 2081).

California Department of Fish and Game Codes
California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503 and 3800 prohibit the possession, take, or needless destruction of birds, their nests, and eggs, and the salvage of dead nongame birds. California Fish and Game Code Subsection 3503.5 protects all birds in the orders of Falconiformes and Strigiformes (birds of prey). Fish and Game Code Section 3513 states that it is unlawful to take or possess any migratory nongame bird as designated in the Migratory Bird Treaty Act or any part of such migratory nongame bird except as provided by rules and regulations adopted by the Secretary of the Interior under provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The Attorney General of California has released an opinion that the Fish and Game Code prohibits incidental take.

Native Plant Protection Act
The Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA), enacted in 1977, allows the Fish and Game Commission to designate plants as rare or endangered. There are 64 species, subspecies, and varieties of plants protected under the NPPA. The NPPA prohibits take of endangered or rare native plants, with some exceptions for agricultural and nursery operations and emergencies. Vegetation removal from canals, roads, and other sites, changes in land use, and certain other situations require proper advance notification to CDFW.

California Environmental Quality Act
Under the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA; Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), lead agencies analyze whether projects would have a substantial adverse effect on a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species (Public Resources Code Section 21001(c)). These “special-status” species generally include those listed under FESA and CESA, and species that are not currently protected by statute or regulation but would be considered rare, threatened, or endangered under the criteria included in CEQA Guidelines Section 15380. Therefore, species that are considered rare are addressed HELIX
Environmental Planning
Letter to Sri Varadaraj Page 4 of 16
July 24, 2024
under CEQA regardless of whether they are afforded protection through any other statute or regulation.

The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) inventories the native flora of California and ranks species according to rarity; plants ranked as 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, and 3 are generally considered special-status species under CEQA.1
Although threatened and endangered species are protected by specific federal and state statutes, CEQA Guidelines Section 15380(d) provides that a species not listed on the federal or state list of protected species may be considered rare if it can be shown to meet certain specified criteria. These criteria have been modeled after the definition in FESA and the section of the California Fish and Game Code dealing with rare or endangered plants and animals.

Nesting Birds
California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503 and 3800 prohibit the possession, take, or needless destruction of birds, their nests, and eggs, and the salvage of dead nongame birds. California Fish and Game Code Subsection 3503.5 protects all birds in the orders of Falconiformes and Strigiformes (birds of prey). Fish and Game Code Section 3513 states that it is unlawful to take or possess any migratory nongame bird as designated in the Migratory Bird Treaty Act or any part of such migratory nongame bird except as provided by rules and regulations adopted by the Secretary of the Interior under provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The Attorney General of California has released an opinion that the Fish and Game Code prohibits incidental take.

Jurisdictional Waters
Federal Jurisdiction
On May 25, 2023, the United States (U.S.) Supreme Court issued a decision in the case of Sackett v.

Environmental Protection Agency (Supreme Court of the United States 2023), which will ultimately influence how federal waters are defined under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The May 25, 2023, Supreme Court decision in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency determined that “the CWA extends to only those ‘wetlands with a continuous surface connection to bodies that are “waters of the U.S.” in their own right,’ so that they are ‘indistinguishable’ from those waters.” The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) after review of the decision issued a final rule to replace the 2023 rule that amends the "Revised Definition of “Waters of the U.S.” to conform key aspects of the regulatory text to the U.S. Supreme Court's May 25, 2023 decision in the case of Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency.

Unless considered an exempt activity under Section 404(f) of the Federal Clean Water Act, any person, firm, or agency planning to alter or work in “waters of the U.S.,” including the discharge of dredged or fill material, must first obtain authorization from the USACE under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA; 33 USC 1344). Permits, licenses, variances, or similar authorization may also be required by other federal, state, and local statutes. Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act prohibits the obstruction or alteration of navigable waters of the U.S. without a permit from USACE (33 USC 403). Activities exempted under Section 404(f) are not exempted within navigable waters under Section 10. 1 The California Rare Plant Rank system can be found at: http://www.cnps.org/cnps/rareplants/ranking.php.

HELIX
Environmental Planning
Letter to Sri Varadaraj Page 5 of 16
July 24, 2024
The Clean Water Act (33 United States Code [USC] 1251-1376) provides guidance for the restoration and maintenance of the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters.

Section 401 requires that an applicant for a federal license or permit that allows activities resulting in a discharge to waters of the U.S. obtain a state certification that the discharge complies with other provisions of CWA. The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) administers the certification program in California and may require State Water Quality Certification before other permits are issued.

Section 402 establishes a permitting system for the discharge of any pollutant (except dredged or fill material) into waters of the U.S.

Section 404 establishes a permit program administered by USACE that regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S. (including wetlands). Implementing regulations by USACE are found at 33 CFR Parts 320-332. The Section 404 (b)(1) Guidelines were developed by the USEPA in conjunction with USACE (40 CFR Part 230), allowing the discharge of dredged or fill material for nonwater dependent uses into special aquatic sites only if there were no practicable alternative that would have less adverse impacts.

State Jurisdiction
Regional Water Quality Control Board
Any action requiring a CWA Section 404 permit, or a Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 permit, must also obtain a CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification. The State of California Water Quality Certification (WQC) Program was formally initiated by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) in 1990 under the requirements stipulated by section 401 of the Federal CWA. Although the CWA is a Federal law, Section 401 of the CWA recognizes that states have the primary authority and responsibility for setting water quality standards. In California, under Section 401, the State and Regional Water Boards are the authorities that certify that the issuance of a federal license or permit does not violate California’s water quality standards (i.e., that they do not violate Porter-Cologne and the Water Code).

Bakersfield City CouncilAugust 26, 2026

Bakersfield City Council
August 26, 2026