Coalinga City Council
September 3, 2026

CHAPTER 4C. WATER CONSERVATION
Sec. 6-4C.01. Findings of necessity.

It is necessary to minimize the potential for water shortage through the practice of water conservation pursuant to the provisions of California Water Code § 375 et seq. It is further necessary to reduce the potential effect of a water shortage on the residents, businesses and visitors of Coalinga and to adopt provisions that will significantly reduce the inefficient consumption of water, thereby extending the available water resources necessary for the domestic, sanitation, and fire protection of the community to the greatest extent possible.

Nothing in this chapter shall prevent the City from also declaring a water emergency pursuant to California Water Code Section 350, if circumstances warrant such a declaration. (Ord. No. 746, § 1, eff. March 19, 2009)
Sec. 6-4C.02. Water Customer.

Water customer for the purposes of this chapter, shall mean any person, partnership, business, corporation, special district, public agency, or association or legal entity to which the City of Coalinga (City) supplies water or "user" of water supplied by the City as defined in Subsection 6-4.01(s). (Ord. No. 746, § 1, eff. March 19, 2009)
Sec. 6-4C.03. Application.

This chapter shall be applicable to all water customers. (Ord. No. 746, § 1, eff. March 19, 2009)
Sec. 6-4C.04. Exceptions and exemptions.
(a) Exceptions: The City Manager or his or her designee shall grant an exception from the requirements of this chapter for any of the following reasons:
(1) Water use is necessary to public health and safety or for essential government services; or (2) Recycled water is being used; or
(3) Water use is necessary due to the medical needs of the water customer. (4) An alternative water source/supply is available for use. (b) Exemptions: The City Council may grant an exemption to the requirements of this chapter, with or without conditions, if it determines that a water customer would otherwise experience extreme financial hardship that cannot be mitigated. The City Council shall review any requests for an exemption from compliance with this chapter. A written request for an exemption must be submitted to the City Clerk a minimum of two (2) weeks prior to the regularly scheduled Council meeting at which the exemption is to be considered. If appropriate, the City Council may require the customer granted an exemption to reduce water use by other appropriate alternative methods. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Code, there shall be no right to further administrative review or appeal of the determination of exemption of the City Council. The City Council may establish an "exemption processing fee" by resolution.

Created: 2025-06-23 07:43:04 [EST]
(Supp. No. 17)

(Ord. No. 746, § 1, eff. March 19, 2009)
Sec. 6-4C.05. Authorization
The City Council may declare the conservation stage based on a determination made by the City Manager in conjunction with the Chief Plant Operator of the water treatment plant, or based upon any interruption in water supply or delivery that the City Council determines in its sole discretion necessitates water conservation pursuant to this chapter. The City Council may determine and order water prohibitions and restrictions as outlined herein in the three (3) stages:

Stage 1. Standard Conservation Alert
Stage 2. High Conservation Alert
Stage 3. Emergency Conservation Alert
(Ord. No. 746, § 1, eff. March 19, 2009)
Sec. 6-4C.06. Stage I Prohibitions and restrictions—Standard conservation alert.

The following restrictions shall be applicable throughout the year unless the City Council determines that an increased conservation effort shall be implemented (stage 2 or 3):
(a) There shall be no hose washing of sidewalks, walkways, driveways, parking areas, patios, porches or verandas.
(b) No water shall be used to clean, fill, operate or maintain levels in decorative fountains unless such water is part of a recirculation system.
(c) No water customer shall permit water to leak on his or her premises. Such leak shall be repaired in a timely manner after written notification by the City, but in no case in excess of seventy-two (72) hours after notification.
(d) Designated times and days of irrigation:
(1) No water customer shall sprinkle, water, or irrigate any shrubbery, trees, lawns, grass, groundcovers, plants, vines, gardens, vegetables, flowers, or any other landscaped or vegetated areas between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. This provision shall not apply to equestrian and livestock businesses, dairies, nurseries, athletic fields, golf courses, or other water dependent industries.
(2) The use of a hand held hose with a shut-off valve shall be permitted at any time. (e) The use of water from fire hydrants shall be limited to fire fighting and related activities necessary to maintain the public health, safety, and welfare. An exception may be made for construction use through a proper city-designated meter where recycled water is not available. (Ord. No. 746, § 1, eff. March 19, 2009; Ord. No. 750, § 1, eff. 9-6-2009; Ord. No. 801, § 1, eff. 6-17-2017) Sec. 6-4C.07. Stage II Prohibitions and restrictions—High water conservation alert.

The following restrictions shall be applicable during a high water conservation alert as declared by the City Council and whenever a recommendation has been made by the City Manager in conjunction with the Chief Plant Operator of the water treatment plant based upon a significant reduction or interruption in water supply or delivery that necessitates increased water conservation efforts:

Created: 2025-06-23 07:43:04 [EST]
(Supp. No. 17)

(a) All prohibitions and restrictions in Stage I shall be in effect. (b) Commercial nurseries, golf courses, and other water-dependent industries shall be prohibited from watering lawn, landscape, or other turf areas more than every other day. Irrigation shall occur between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. only, with the exception of usage of recycled water. (c) Designated times and days of irrigation:
(1) No water customer shall sprinkle, water, or irrigate any shrubbery, trees, lawns, grass, groundcovers, plants, vines, gardens, vegetables, flowers, or any other landscaped or vegetated areas on between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. This provision shall not apply to equestrian and livestock businesses, dairies, nurseries, golf courses, or other water-dependent industries.
(2) Residential addresses ending in an even number may use water on Tuesday, and Friday.

Residential addresses ending in an odd numbers and nonresidential (irrespective of address) may use water on Wednesday and Saturday.
(3) No irrigation shall occur on Sundays, Mondays and Thursdays. (d) Swimming pool refilling or new construction swimming pool filling shall not occur without permission from the City Manager or his or her designee. The replenishment of swimming pools shall be limited to the same days as set forth in subsections (a) through (c) above for outdoor use of water. (e) No restaurants or other public place which serves food shall serve drinking water to any customer unless expressly requested by the customer.
(Ord. No. 746, § 1, eff. March 19, 2009)
Sec. 6-4C.08. Stage III Prohibitions and restrictions—Emergency water conservation alert.

In the event of a major earthquake, large-scale fire, or other so called "act of nature" which has or could have serious impacts on the city's total available water storage or delivery capacity, whether storage capacities have been reduced or not, or in the case of an unanticipated significant reduction in City water supply, an emergency water conservation alert shall be declared by the City Council. (a) All previous restrictions noted above in Stage I and Stage II shall be in effect. (b) There shall be no outdoor use of water at any time except the minimal amount by handheld hose equipped with a shut-off nozzle.
(c) Commercial nurseries, golf courses, and other water-dependent industries shall be prohibited from the outdoor use of water except by a hand-held hose equipped with a shut-off nozzle. (d) All nonessential uses of water shall be prohibited including the filling, or refilling of swimming pools, spas, jacuzzis, or other like devices beyond what is necessary for maintenance. (Ord. No. 746, § 1, eff. March 19, 2009)
Sec. 6-4C.09. Penalties.
(a) No water customer of the City shall knowingly use, or permit the use of, water in a manner contrary to any provisions of this chapter, or in an amount in excess of that use permitted by the provisions of this chapter. (b) Unless otherwise provided, any water customer violating any provision of this chapter shall be guilty of an infraction, and each day or portion thereof such violation is in existence shall be a new and separate offense.

Created: 2025-06-23 07:43:04 [EST]
(Supp. No. 17)

(c) Any water customer determined to be guilty of a first time violation shall be given a written reminder for compliance. Second and subsequent violations shall be punishable as follows:
(1) For a second violation during any period of declared water conservation alert: As an infraction, punishable by a fine of not more than fifty dollars ($50.00). (2) For a third violation during any period of declared water conservation alert: As an infraction, punishable by a fine not more than one hundred dollars ($100.00). (3) For a fourth violation during any period of declared water conservation alert: As an infraction, punishable by a fine not more than two hundred fifty dollars ($250.00), and placement of a flow restrictor. In addition, the City may discontinue water services. (d) Notwithstanding the above, the City Attorney or Deputy City Attorney may charge and prosecute second and subsequent offenses as misdemeanors at the City's sole discretion pursuant to California Water Code § 377.

In addition to the above penalties, the City may file an action for civil abatement and, at the discretion of the court, be entitled to reimbursement for all necessary costs and Attorneys fees incurred through investigation, discovery, analysis, inspection, abatement and other actual costs incurred by the City or its agents pertaining to the violation.
(e) The court shall fix the amount of any such reimbursements upon submission of proof of such costs by the City. Payment of any penalty provided in this section shall not relieve a person, firm or corporation, or other entity from the responsibility of correcting the condition resulting from the violation. (f) In addition to the above remedies, the City Manager or his or her designee is empowered, to enforce any or all of the following penalties:
(1) Place a flow restricting device upon the water service; (2) Lock off of a water meter;
(3) Remove a water meter;
(4) Shut off the service connection.
(g) All costs or expenses incurred by the City for enforcement of this section shall be borne by the water customer. No water service shall be limited or discontinued until the City Manager or his or her designee provides a written notice of intent to so limit or discontinue such service and the reasons for such decision, and further, provides such water customer notice of the right to request an administrative review and hearing pursuant to the procedures set forth in Section 6-4.26 of this Code, except that any reference to "citation" in that section shall instead be deemed a reference to a "notice of intent" as described in this section. A written notice of intent shall be provided either by first class mail, by personal service on the water customer, or by posting said notice in a conspicuous place on the property wherein the violation occurred.

Notwithstanding any other provision of this Code, there shall be no right to further administrative review or appeal.
(Ord. No. 746, § 1, eff. March 19, 2009)
Sec. 6-4C.10. Compliance.

The City Code Enforcement Officer and designee from the Community Development Department shall enforce the provisions of this chapter.
(Ord. No. 746, § 1, eff. March 19, 2009)
Created: 2025-06-23 07:43:04 [EST]
(Supp. No. 17)

Sec. 6-4C.11. Drought and water shortage regulations.

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this chapter, and in addition to anything set forth in this chapter, during any declared State of Emergency by the State or City related to drought or potable water conditions that mandate water conservation in the City, State or Federal regulations that mandate water conservation in the City, or during local water shortages, the City Council may by resolution adopt additional water restrictions, including mandatory water usage limits, and impose penalties on the customer for violations of those additional restrictions.

The penalties shall be added to the customer's account. A violation of the additional restrictions shall also be deemed a violation of the Municipal Code.
(Ord. No. 780, § 2, eff. 5-7-2015; Ord. No. 781, § 1, eff. 6-6-2015) City of Coalinga
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
Appendix G – Publication of Notice of Public Hearing

APPENDIX G

PUBLICATION OF NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
City of Coalinga
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
Appendix H – Notice of Public Hearing

APPENDIX H

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
City of Coalinga
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
Appendix I – 2025 UWMP and WSCP Adoption Resolution

APPENDIX I
2025 UWMP AND WSCP ADOPTION RESOLUTION
(NOT INCLUDED IN DRAFT VERSION)
City of Coalinga
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
Appendix I – 2025 UWMP and WSCP Adoption Resolution

APPENDIX J
2025 UWMP CHECKLIST
(NOT INCLUDED IN DRAFT VERSION)
City of Coalinga
2025 Urban Water Management Plan
Appendix J – 2025 UWMP Checklist

STAFF REPORT - CITY COUNCIL/SUCCESSOR AGENCY/PUBLIC FINANCE

AUTHORITY
Subject: Public Hearing and Adoption of the City of Coalinga’s Mitigated Negative Declaration Prepared for the Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project
Meeting Date: Thursday, September 3, 2026
From: Sean Brewer, City Manager
Prepared by: Jesse Barron, Assistant City Manager
I. RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Councilconduct a public hearing to receive and consider public comments regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) prepared for the Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project. Following the public hearing, if no substantive changes are required, adopt Resolution No. 4356 approving the MND.

II. BACKGROUND:

The City owns and operates a citywide sewer collection system and a WWTP under Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) No. 94-184. The current WDRs limit the volume of average monthly discharge to 1.34 million gallons per day. The sewer collection system currently serves 3,369 residences and 318 businesses.

The WWTP site is located approximately one mile east of the City. The WWTP consists of screening, primary clarification, and secondary treatment (aerated facultative lagoons followed by stabilization lagoons).

Undisinfected secondary effluent is pumped year-round to irrigate fodder crops such as alfalfa, Sudan grass, oat hay and pasture. The City maintains sewer assets in accordance with industry standard practices by performing preventive Maintenance on mechanicalequipment and pipelines.

The City’s sewer collection system is aged and some of the older portions of the system experience frequent blockages, overflows and require cleaning or removal of roots. The physicalcondition of some of these sewer lines is believed to be very poor, likely beyond their life expectancy, and needs to be replaced. Beyond the required Maintenance and repair activities, there has not been any major replacement or rehabilitation of the City’s sewer collection system to date.

A condition survey of the sewer collection system was conducted to document the system’s existing condition, identify deficiencies, and estimate the useful life of the sewer mains. The current physicalcondition of the system’s components was assessed through site visits, discussion with City staff, and a comprehensive closed-circuit television (CCTV) inspection. As part of this PER, the City conducted a comprehensive CCTV inspection on the older portions of the sewer collection system.

The City proposes to rehabilitate approximately 30,815 LF of gravity sewer mains using trenchless construction methods, replace approximately 19,801 LF of gravity sewer mains via conventionalconstruction methods, and provide miscellaneous repairs and improvements to the City’s Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). This Project will involve construction and operation of the following components:

1. Sewer Main Replacement: For this proposed Project, it is recommended that approximately 19,801 LF of gravity sewer mains be replaced with new sewer pipes before failure occurs. These replacements are recommended where the sags are greater than 60 percent of pipe diameter, broken pipe sections with visible voids and blockages, and severe pipe offsets. Where possible, replacements are limited to only those sections of pipe where the defects are found rather than replacing the entire stretch of pipe between two manholes.

2. Sewer Main Rehabilitation: Trenchless sewer rehabilitation is recommended for approximately 30,815 LF of sewer mains where applicable in order to reduce surface disturbance over traditional dig and replace methods, reduce the number of traffic and pedestrian detours, spare tree removal, decrease construction noise, and reduce air pollution from construction equipment. Cured-in-Place Pipe (also known as CIPP) rehabilitation is proposed for the pipe stretches that have mild defects and sag less than 60% of pipe diameter.

3. Improvements to Wastewater Treatment Plant: The City’s WWTP will be upgraded to an extended aeration system with biological nutrient removal with filtration and disinfection. The improvements will include a new aeration tank, two clarifiers, and five percolation ponds. The percolation ponds will be developed within the footprints of the facility’s existing ponds, which comprise two aerated lagoons and three stabilization ponds. The existing ponds will be decommissioned and dewatered, following which heavy equipment will be used to remove the clay liners from the bottom of each pond, converting their function to evaporation/percolation. The upgraded WWTP will not require off-site effluent disposal; therefore, current effluent disposal practices on adjacent City-owned property would be discontinued following project implementation. The purpose of upgrading the existing WWTP to an extended aeration activated system with biological nutrient removal facility is to lower the nitrogen concentration of the effluent before it is discharged to percolate the underground aquifer. Currently, the existing WWTP is not protective of the current beneficial use of the groundwater and is not consistent with RWQCB’s policy of beneficial reuse. By upgrading the WWTP to include secondary/tertiary treatment and discharging the higher effluent quality to percolation ponds on site, the City will provide an incidental recharge of the groundwater aquifer, which will ultimately help demonstrate groundwater sustainability. By removing nitrogen, treated effluent will be allowed to percolate and be protective of the groundwater’s beneficial uses.

III. DISCUSSION:

The Project is subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and other regulatory environmental requirements. The City’s Project Engineer (AM Consulting Engineers) retained the services of Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. to prepare the required CEQA documentation and associated studies.

The MND analyzed allenvironmental topics from the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G checklist and included specialized studies for biologicaland cultural resources. It was determined that all impacts were either less than significant or could be mitigated to a less than significant level.

The Project CEQA document will require a public hearing (tonight) and review/approval of a MND. The MND was noticed in the Business Journaland circulated to the State Clearinghouse and other agencies. The MND was circulated for 30 days public review from August 3, 2026 – September 2, 2026.

The Project is expected to be funded by the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) funds administered through the California State Water Resources Control Board (Water Board). One requirement of CWSRF funding is that the City will be required to comply with the Water Board’s environmental requirements including CEQA-Plus. CEQA-Plus involves additionalenvironmentalanalysis of certain topics to include federal thresholds, rules and regulations (for topics such as air, biology, cultural, etc.). In addition to this MND, the City is preparing a separate Environmental Package for submittal to the Water Board which includes the CEQA-Plus analysis.

Once the public hearing occurs and the MND is adopted, the City’s consultants will submit an Environmental Package to the State Water Board which contains all of the documents needed to satisfy the Boards environmental requirements.

IV. ALTERNATIVES:

The City Council may elect not to adopt the MND at this time and may direct staff to make revisions or conduct additionalenvironmentalanalysis, as appropriate. If substantive revisions are required, consideration of the MND may be continued to a subsequent City Council meeting to allow the necessary revisions to be completed in accordance with CEQA requirements.

V. FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact associated with adoption of Resolution No. 4356. The estimated project cost is approximately $29,812,488.00, and the City is pursuing grant funding through the SWRCB Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) Program. The SWRCB has not yet determined whether a loan component will be required. Any required loan component would be administered through a funding agreement with the SWRCB. The $3,093.75 CEQA Department of Fish and Wildlife and Fresno County filing fees will be funded through the CWSRF Planning Grant.

ATTACHMENTS:

File Name Description
Resolution_No._4356_Adopt_Sewer_CEQA_Draft.pdf Resolution No. 4356 Coalinga_Sewer_CEQA_7-30-26.pdf Mitigated Negative Declaration RESOLUTION NO. 4356

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COALINGA ADOPTING THE COALINGA

SANITARY SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM AND WWTP IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT MITIGATED

NEGATIVE DECLARATION
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Coalinga (the “ City Council” and “City”, respectively) has received and reviewed the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, including the draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration with appendices, and supporting information sources (collectively, the “draft MND”), together with the staff report and any comments received and responded to during the public review and hearing process (collectively, the “Environmental Record”) for the proposed sewer system improvements project (the “Project”), as described in the draft MND; and WHEREAS, the City is the lead agency for purposes of environmental review of the Project under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq., and the State “Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act”; and WHEREAS, the Project could, without mitigation, have resulted in a potential impact to certain areas of environmental concern, including Biological and Cultural Resources; and WHEREAS, the City has prepared mitigation measures to address and mitigate all potential environmental impacts to a “less than significant” level, which is a part of the Environmental Record reviewed and considered by the City; and
WHEREAS, the City has incorporated the mitigation measures described in the Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) of the draft MND as conditions of approval by the City; and WHEREAS, with the exception of the potential impacts stated above, there are no other potentially significant environmental impacts resulting from the Project; and WHEREAS, the City submitted a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration to the State Clearinghouse and distributed it to those agencies which have jurisdiction by law with respect to the Project; and placed the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration concerning the Project in the Business Journal for publication; and
WHEREAS, the draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration with appendices and supporting information sources were duly noticed for public review and comment from August 3, 2026, to September 2, 2026, as provided by law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council received no written comments in response to the draft MND; and WHEREAS, a hearing concerning the City’s intent to adopt a final MND and MMRP was duly noticed and held on September 3, 2026, at which time any interested parties were afforded an opportunity to be heard in addition to the public review and comment period referenced above as part of the Environmental Record; and
WHEREAS, the City has considered, prior to adoption of the final MND, the Environmental Record in support of the final MND.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Coalinga, as follows:

1. The City Council adopts the foregoing recitals as true and correct.

2. The City Council finds that the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration reflect the independent judgment of the City as the lead agency for the Project.

3. The City Council finds that it has independently reviewed and considered the Environmental Record, including the Initial Study and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, as a final Mitigated Negative Declaration, prior to adopting the final Mitigated Negative Declaration.

4. On the basis of the Environmental Record as the whole record before the City Council, including the Initial Study and any comments received, the City Council finds, in its independent judgment and analysis, that there is no substantial evidence the Project will have a significant effect on the environment.

5. The City Council confirms that the mitigation measures described in the Initial Study, have been incorporated into the Project and adopts a Mitigated Negative Declaration, as the final Mitigated Negative Declaration, which documents are a part of the Environmental Record before the City Council for the Project.

6. The City Council approves and adopts the findings set forth herein, and the Mitigated Negative Declaration, based on the Environmental Record.

7. City staff is authorized and directed to cause a Notice of Determination concerning the adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project to be filed in the office of the Fresno County Clerk and with the Office of Planning and Research in accordance with CEQA and State CEQA Guidelines.

The foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Coalinga held on the 3rd day of September 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:
_______________________________
Nathan Vosburg, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Shannon Jensen, City Clerk

MITIGATED NEGATIVE

DECLARATION
City of Coalinga Sanitary Sewer Collection System
and Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements
Project
August 2026
PREPARED BY:

Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc.
113 N. Church Street, Suite 310
Visalia, CA 93291
PREPARED FOR:

City of Coalinga
155 W. Durian
Coalinga, CA 93210
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Project
Prepared for:

City of Coalinga
155 W. Durian
Coalinga, CA 93210
Contact: Anthony Uribe
Phone: (559) 935-1533 ext. 181
Prepared by:

Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc.
113 N. Church Street, Suite 310
Visalia, CA 93291
Contact: Travis Crawford, AICP
(559) 840-4414
August 2026

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER ONE - INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Summary 1-1

1.2 Document Format 1-1
CHAPTER TWO – PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 Project Background 2-1

2.2 Location 2-2

2.3 Setting and Surrounding Land Uses 2-2

2.4 Project Description 2-5

2.5 Objectives 2-6

2.6 Other Required Approvals 2-6
CHAPTER THREE – INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST 3-1

3.1 Environmental Checklist Form 3-1

3.2 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected 3-3

3.3 Determination 3-3
CHAPTER FOUR - MMRP 4-1
CHAPTER FIVE – PREPARERS 5-1

LIST OF FIGURES
1 – Regional Location Map 2-3
2 – Project Site Map 2-4

LIST OF TABLES
1 – Proposed Project Construction Emissions 3-12
2 – Typical Construction Noise Levels 3-59
3 – Typical Construction Vibration Levels 3-60

APPENDICES
A- Draft Preliminary Engineering Report – City of Coalinga Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements
B- Air Emission Output Files
C- Biological Evaluation
D- Phase I Cultural Resource Survey (Confidential portions under separate cover) Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION
Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 1 CITY OF COALINGA| Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 1-1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Summary
This document is the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration describing the potential environmental effects of a sanitary sewer collection system and WWTP improvements Project, which will replace or rehabilitate deteriorated gravity sewer mains throughout the City in order to provide adequate sewer services to all customers within the City’s service area. More specifically, the proposed Project intends to rehabilitate approximately 30,815 LF (linear feet) of gravity sewer mains using trenchless construction methods, replace approximately 19,801 LF of gravity sewer mains via conventional construction methods, and make miscellaneous repairs and improvements to the City’s Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). Refer to Chapter Two – Project Description for more information.

The City of Coalinga (City) will act as the Lead Agency for this project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines.

The Project is expected to be funded with Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) funds administered through the California State Water Resources Control Board (Water Board). One requirement of CWSRF funding is that the CSD will be required to comply with the Water Board’s environmental requirements, including CEQA-Plus. CEQA-Plus involves additional environmental analysis of certain topics to include federal thresholds, rules and regulations (for topics such as air, biology, cultural, etc.). In addition to this Mitigated Negative Declaration, the CSD is preparing a separate Environmental Package for submittal to the Water Board which includes the CEQA-Plus analysis.

1.2 Document Format
This IS/MND contains five chapters, and appendices. Section 1, Introduction, provides an overview of the project and the CEQA environmental documentation process. Chapter 2, Project Description, provides a detailed description of project objectives and components. Chapter 3, Initial Study Checklist, presents the CEQA checklist and environmental analysis for all impact areas, mandatory findings of significance, and feasible mitigation measures. If the proposed Project does not have the potential to significantly impact a given issue area, the relevant section provides a brief discussion of the reasons why no impacts are expected. If the Project could have a potentially significant impact on a resource, the issue area discussion provides a description of potential impacts, and appropriate mitigation measures and/or permit requirements that would Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 1 CITY OF COALINGA| Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 1-2
reduce those impacts to a less than significant level. Chapter 4, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, provides the proposed mitigation measures, completion timeline, and person/agency responsible for implementation and Chapter 5, List of Preparers, provides a list of key personnel involved in the preparation of the IS/MND.

Environmental impacts are separated into the following categories:

Potentially Significant Impact. This category is applicable if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant, and no feasible mitigation measures can be identified to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

Less Than Significant After Mitigation Incorporated. This category applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures would reduce an effect from a “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measure(s), and briefly explain how they would reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from earlier analyses may be cross-referenced).

Less Than Significant Impact. This category is identified when the project would result in impacts below the threshold of significance, and no mitigation measures are required.

No Impact. This category applies when a project would not create an impact in the specific environmental issue area. “No Impact” answers do not require a detailed explanation if they are adequately supported by the information sources cited by the lead agency, which show that the impact does not apply to the specific project (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 will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis.)
Regardless of the type of CEQA document that must be prepared, the basic purpose of the CEQA process as set forth in the CEQA Guidelines Section 15002(a) is to:
(1) Inform governmental decision makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of proposed activities.
(2) Identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced. (3) Prevent significant, avoidable damage to the environment by requiring changes in projects through the use of alternatives or mitigation measures when the governmental agency finds the changes to be feasible.

Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 1 CITY OF COALINGA| Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 1-3
(4) Disclose to the public the reasons why a governmental agency approved the project in the manner the agency chose if significant environmental effects are involved.

According to Section 15070(b), a Mitigated Negative Declaration is appropriate if it is determined that:
(1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the applicant before a proposed mitigated negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and
(2) There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment.

The Initial Study contained in Section Three of this document has determined that with mitigation measures and features incorporated into the Project design and operation, the environmental impacts are less than significant and therefore a Mitigated Negative Declaration will be adopted.

Chapter 2

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 2 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 2-1
Project Description

2.1 Project Background
The City of Coalinga (City) is located near the eastern foothills of the Diablo Range and to the west of the Central San Joaquin Valley in western Fresno County. The City is generally bounded by Lucile Avenue to the south, West Gale Avenue to the north, Monterey Street to the west and Springbrook Street to the East. The City of Fresno is located approximately 60 miles to the northeast and the City of Avenal is located approximately 18 miles to the southeast.

As a public agency, the City provides sewer service to residential, commercial, and industrial customers within their service area. The City’s boundary encompasses approximately 6 square miles, of which 2.1 square miles are urbanized. The Sphere of Influence (SOI) encompasses 3.6 square miles.

The City owns and operates a citywide sewer collection system and a WWTP under Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) No. 94-184. The current WDRs limit the volume of average monthly discharge to 1.34 million gallons per day. The sewer collection system currently serves 3,369 residences and 318 businesses. The WWTP site is located approximately one mile east of the City. The WWTP consists of screening, primary clarification, and secondary treatment (aerated facultative lagoons followed by stabilization lagoons). Undisinfected secondary effluent is pumped year-round to irrigate fodder crops such as alfalfa, Sudan grass, oat hay and pasture.

The City maintains sewer assets in accordance with industry standard practices by performing preventive Maintenance on mechanical equipment and pipelines.

The City’s sewer collection system is aged and some of the older portions of the system experience frequent blockages, overflows and require cleaning or removal of roots. The physical condition of some of these sewer lines is believed to be very poor, likely beyond their life expectancy, and needs to be replaced. Beyond the required Maintenance and repair activities, there has not been any major replacement or rehabilitation of the City’s sewer collection system to date.

A condition survey of the sewer collection system was conducted to document the system’s existing condition, identify deficiencies, and estimate the useful life of the sewer mains. The current physical condition of the system’s components was assessed through site visits, discussion with City staff, and a comprehensive closed-circuit television (CCTV) inspection. As part of this PER, the City conducted a comprehensive CCTV inspection on the older portions of the sewer collection system.

Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 2 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 2-2
The Project is being partially funded by the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF).

2.2 Location
Coalinga is located near the eastern foothills of the Diablo Range and to the west of the Central San Joaquin Valley in western Fresno County (See Figure 1). The City is generally bounded by Lucile Avenue to the south, West Gale Avenue to the north, Monterey Street to the west and Springbrook Street to the East. The City of Fresno is located approximately 60 miles to the northeast and the City of Avenal is located approximately 18 miles to the southeast. The sewer pipeline improvements will occur within the City boundaries.

The segments of the sewer collection system recommended for replacement have been selected based on sorted NASSCO ratings and the condition of the existing sewer mains. It is recommended that the City rehabilitate approximately 30,815 LF of gravity sewer mains using trenchless construction methods, replace approximately 19,801 LF of gravity sewer mains via conventional construction methods before failure occurs. See Figure 2 for the specific locations of the sewer pipe segment replacements and rehabilitation.

In addition to the sewer collection system, several miscellaneous improvements and repairs are needed at the City’s WWTP in order to improve treatment operations. Existing WWTP facilities are located approximately one mile east of the City at 30500 Jayne Avenue, Coalinga, CA 93210.

2.3 Setting and Surrounding Land Use
The Project site related to sewer pipe improvements consists of the City’s existing public rightof-way, which are primarily paved streets throughout the residential neighborhoods, commercial and industrial areas of Coalinga. The Project site related to existing WWTP improvements consists of agriculture to the east, south and west, and Los Gatos Creek to the north.

Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 2 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 2-3
Figure 1 – Regional Location Map
Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 2 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 2-4
Figure 2 – Project Site Map
Proposed Sewer Collection System Improvements to be Replaced and Rehabilitated Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 2 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 2-5

2.4 Project Description
AM Consulting Engineers, Inc. prepared the City of Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Preliminary Engineering Report (December 2023) to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the Coalinga existing sewer collection system and provide recommendations that will address the needed sewer and WWTP improvements for the City.

Please refer to that document, in Appendix A for specific project characteristics. A summary of Project activities is included herein.

The City proposes to rehabilitate approximately 30,815 LF of gravity sewer mains using trenchless construction methods, replace approximately 19,801 LF of gravity sewer mains via conventional construction methods, and provide miscellaneous repairs and improvements to the District’s Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). This Project will involve construction and operation of the following components:

1. Sewer Main Replacement: For this proposed Project, it is recommended that approximately 19,801 LF of gravity sewer mains be replaced with new sewer pipes before failure occurs. These replacements are recommended where the sags are greater than 60 percent of pipe diameter, broken pipe sections with visible voids and blockages, and severe pipe offsets. Where possible, replacements are limited to only those sections of pipe where the defects are found rather than replacing the entire stretch of pipe between two manholes. See Figure 2 for locations of pipe replacement.

2. Sewer Main Rehabilitation: Trenchless sewer rehabilitation is recommended for approximately 30,815 LF of sewer mains where applicable in order to reduce surface disturbance over traditional dig and replace methods, reduce the number of traffic and pedestrian detours, spare tree removal, decrease construction noise, and reduce air pollution from construction equipment. Cured-in-Place Pipe (also known as CIPP) rehabilitation is proposed for the pipe stretches that have mild defects and sag less than 60% of pipe diameter. See Figure 2 for locations of pipe rehabilitation.

3. Improvements to Wastewater Treatment Plant: The City’s WWTP will be upgraded to an extended aeration system with biological nutrient removal with filtration and disinfection.

The improvements will include a new aeration tank, two clarifiers, and five percolation ponds.

The percolation ponds will be developed within the footprints of the facility’s existing ponds, which comprise two aerated lagoons and three stabilization ponds. The existing ponds will be decommissioned and dewatered, following which heavy equipment will be used to remove Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 2 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 2-6
the clay liners from the bottom of each pond, converting their function to evaporation/percolation. The upgraded WWTP will not require off-site effluent disposal; therefore, current effluent disposal practices on adjacent City-owned property would be discontinued following project implementation. The purpose of upgrading the existing WWTP to an extended aeration activated system with biological nutrient removal facility is to lower the nitrogen concentration of the effluent before it is discharged to percolate the underground aquifer. Currently, the existing WWTP is not protective of the current beneficial use of the groundwater and is not consistent with RWQCB’s policy of beneficial reuse. By upgrading the WWTP to include secondary/tertiary treatment and discharging the higher effluent quality to percolation ponds on site, the City will provide an incidental recharge of the groundwater aquifer, which will ultimately help demonstrate groundwater sustainability. By removing nitrogen, treated effluent will be allowed to percolate and be protective of the groundwater’s beneficial uses.

Project Schedule
Approval of the CWSRF construction application is expected to take at nine months after submission to the SWRCB. After approval, the Project engineer can begin the Project design. Once the plans and specifications and construction documents have been prepared, bidding can begin, followed by construction. Construction time is expected to be one year.

2.5 Objectives
The primary objectives of the proposed Project are as follows:
• To provide adequate and safe sewer services to its customers. • To prevent system failures and potential contamination associated with significant deterioration of the existing sewer infrastructure.
• To improve existing wastewater treatment abilities in the City’s system with the most cost-effective methods available that meet the City’s overall system performance and regulatory compliance requirements, but also to accommodate potential population growth in the Coalinga area.

2.6 Other Required Approvals
The proposed Project will include, but not be limited to, the following regulatory requirements:

Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 2 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 2-7
• The adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration by the City of Coalinga. • Regional Water Quality Control Board approval.
• State Water Board approval.

Chapter 3

IMPACT ANALYSIS
Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 3 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-1
Initial Study Checklist

3.1 Environmental Checklist Form
Project title:

City of Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Project
Lead agency name and address:

City of Coalinga
155 W. Durian
Coalinga, CA 93210
Contact person and phone number:

Anthony Uribe
(559) 935-1533 ext. 181
Project location:

See Section 2.1
Project sponsor’s name/address:

City of Coalinga
155 W. Durian
Coalinga, CA 93210
General plan designation:

Various, area-wide sewer improvement project
Zoning:

Various, area-wide sewer improvement project
Description of project:

See Section 2.3
Surrounding land uses/setting:

See Section 2.2
Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 3 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-2
Other public agencies whose approval or consultation is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, participation agreements):

See Section 2.5
California Native American Tribal Consultation:

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, has consultation begun or is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.?
In accordance with Assembly Bill (AB) 52, potentially affected Tribes were formally notified of this Project and were given the opportunity to request consultation on the Project. The Native American Heritage Commission was contacted, requesting a contact list of applicable Native American Tribes, which was provided. Letters were provided to the listed Tribes, notifying them of the Project and requesting consultation, if desired. See Section 3.17 – Tribal Cultural Resources for more information.

Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 3 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-3

3.2 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” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics Agriculture Resources
and Forest Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology / Soils Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Hazards &
Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology / Water
Quality
Land Use / Planning Mineral Resources
Noise Population / Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural
Resources
Utilities / Service
Systems
Wildfire Mandatory
Findings of
Significance

3.3 Determination
Based on 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 Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 3 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-4
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 1) 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.

July 31, 2026
Travis Crawford, AICP
Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc.

Environmental Consultant for the City of Coalinga
Date
Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 3 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-5
I. AESTHETICS
Except as provided in Public Resources
Code Section 21099, would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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. In non-urbanized areas, ssubstantially
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 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?

RESPONSES
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?
Less Than SignificantImpact. A scenic vista is defined as a viewpoint that provides expansive views of highly valued landscape for the benefit of the general public. The Coastal Range and foothills are the primary natural and visual resources in the proposed Project region. Views of the mountains and hills are afforded only during clear conditions due to poor air quality in the valley. Distant views of the mountains and hills would largely be unaffected by the development of the Project because of the Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 3 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-6
nature of the Project, distance and limited visibility of these features from the Project site. The Project will not impact views of a protected scenic vista or resource from surrounding vantage points.

The proposed Project would not damage any trees, rock outcroppings or historic buildings within a State scenic highway corridor. Therefore, there is a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.
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 regulations governing scenic quality? Less than Significant Impact. Improvements proposed by the City consist of the rehabilitation of approximately 30,815 linear feet (LF) of gravity sewer mains using trenchless construction methods, replacement of approximately 19,801 LF of gravity sewer mains via conventional construction methods, and provision of miscellaneous repairs and improvements to the City’s Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP), see Chapter Two – Project Description. Views of surrounding areas associated with the sewer mains will not be impacted by the Project, since all of the finished work will be below grade or at-grade. The proposed WWTP improvements will be constructed or implemented on the current WWTP site, which is surrounded by fencing. There are no residences or businesses adjacent to the site, however, the WWTP will be viewable from travelers on surrounding roadways. Implementation of the proposed Project will alter the visual character of the existing WWTP site through the construction of additional buildings or structures as proposed by the City.

The previously described improvements to the WWTP are not expected to create a visually degraded character or quality to the Project site or to the properties near and around the Project site, as the site has previously been developed with WWTP structures.

Construction activities will be seen by the residences and businesses within the immediate vicinity and by vehicles driving in the City; however, construction activities will be temporary.

As such, the proposed Project will not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the area or its surroundings and will not conflict with applicable zoning and regulations governing scenic quality. The impact will be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 3 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-7
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less Than Significant Impact. Currently the sources of light in the Project area are from security lights and vehicles traveling along surrounding roads. The Project will not introduce new lighting beyond the lighting types that currently exist at the WWTP. Additional night lighting sources on the Project site, especially any unshielded light, would result in spillover light that could impact surrounding adjacent uses. The City will require lighting systems to be shielded to direct light to ground surfaces and orient light away from adjacent properties. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not create substantial new sources of light or glare. There is a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 3 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-8
II. AGRICULTURE AND

FOREST RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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 nonagricultural 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?
Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 3 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-9

RESPONSES
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 nonforest use? No Impact. Improvements proposed by the City consist of the rehabilitation of approximately 30,815 linear feet (LF) of gravity sewer mains using trenchless construction methods, replacement of approximately 19,801 LF of gravity sewer mains via conventional construction methods, and provision of miscellaneous repairs and improvements to the City’s WWTP. The sewer mains and associated infrastructure will largely occur within the existing right of way and will be installed underground. The Project areas where the sewer main replacements and repairs will occur are characterized as Urban / Built Up Land by the Department of Conservation’s Farmland Mapping & Monitoring Program (FMMP). The area associated with the proposed WWTP improvements is also characterized as Urban / Built Up Land by the FMMP. There are no farmlands on or adjacent to the site that would be impacted and no Williamson Act parcels will be affected. No conversion of forestland, as defined under Public Resource Code or General Code, as referenced above, would occur as a result of the proposed Project.

All improvements will take place within an area that is built up with rural and urban uses or is otherwise not characterized as farmland. As such, the proposed Project does not have the potential to result in the conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural uses or forestland uses to non-forestland.

There is no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 3 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-10 III. AIR QUALITY
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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 or adversely affecting a
substantial number of people)?

RESPONSES
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 non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than Significant Impact. The San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB) is designated nonattainment of state and federal health-based air quality standards for ozone and PM2.5. The SJVAB is designated nonattainment of state PM10.
1 To meet Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements, the SJVAPCD has multiple air quality attainment plan (AQAP) documents, including:
1 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. Ambient Air Quality Standards & Attainment Status. https://www.valleyair.org/airquality-information/ambient-air-quality-standards-valley-attainmnet-status/. Accessed July 2026.

Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 3 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-11 Ozone Plans such as 2022 Ozone Plan for the San Joaquin Valley, 2016 Plan for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard, 1-Hour Ozone Attainment Request, 2013 Plan for the Revoked 1-Hour Ozone Standard, 2007 Plan for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard, and 2004 Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan.

As well as Particulate Matter Plans such as, Particulate Matter (PM) Sources, 2024 Plan for the 2012 PM2.5 Standard, 2018 PM2.5 Plan for the San Joaquin Valley, 2016 Moderate Area Plan for the 2012 PM2.5 Standard, 2015 Plan for the 1997 PM2.5 Standard, 2012 PM2.5 Plan, 2008 PM2.5 Plan, 2006 PM2.5 Plan and 2003 PM2.5 Plan.

Because of the region’s non-attainment status for ozone, PM2.5, and PM10, if the project-generated emissions of either of the ozone precursor pollutants (ROG or NOx), PM10, or PM2.5 were to exceed the SJVAPCD’s significance thresholds, then the project uses would be considered to conflict with the attainment plans. In addition, if the project uses were to result in a change in land use and corresponding increases in vehicle miles traveled, they may result in an increase in vehicle miles traveled that is unaccounted for in regional emissions inventories contained in regional air quality control plans.

As discussed below, predicted construction and operational emissions would not exceed the SJVAPCD’s significance thresholds for ROG, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5. As a result, the Project uses would not conflict with emissions inventories contained in regional air quality attainment plans, and would not result in a significant contribution to the region’s air quality non-attainment status. Additionally, the Project would comply with all applicable rules and regulations.

The nonattainment pollutants for the SJVAPCD are ozone, PM10 and PM2.5. Therefore, the pollutants of concern for this impact are ozone precursors, regional PM10, and PM2.5. Ozone is a regional pollutant formed by chemical reactions in the atmosphere, and the Project’s incremental increase in ozone precursor generation is used to determine the potential air quality impacts, as set forth in the GAMAQI.

The annual significance thresholds to be used for the Project emissions are as follows2:

Pollutant/
Precursor
Construction
Emissions (tpy)
Operational
Emissions
(permitted) (tpy)
Operational
Emissions (nonpermitted) (tpy)
CO 100 100 100
NOx 10 10 10
ROG 10 10 10
SOx 27 27 27
PM10 15 15 15
PM2.5 15 15 15
2 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. March 19, 2015. Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. https://www.valleyair.org/media/g4nl3p0g/gamaqi.pdf. Page 80. Accessed March 2026.

Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 3 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-12 The proposed WWTP and sewer main improvements will generate minimal emissions once they are constructed. The estimated annual construction emissions are shown below. The Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District’s Road Construction Emissions Model was utilized to estimate emissions generated from Project construction. Modeling results are summarized in Table 1 and the full Road Construction Emissions Model output files are provided in Appendix B.

Table 1
Proposed Project Construction Emissions
Pollutant/
Precursor
Construction
Emissions (tpy)
Threshold/
Exceed?
CO 2.00 100/N
NOx 1.41 10/N
ROG 0.19 10/N
SOx 0.01 27/N
PM10 0.09 15/N
PM2.5 0.06 15/N
CO2e 372.73 n/a
As shown in Table 1, construction emissions would be below the SJVAPCD’s threshold for annual construction emissions. However, the SJVAPCD has implemented Regulation VIII measures for dust control related to construction projects, which are applicable to the Project and will be enforced by the City and the City’s contractor.

The nearest sensitive receptors to the proposed Project site are the residential houses located along the proposed pipeline alignments. Construction would take place within the vicinity of sensitive receptors, however, construction emissions would be below SJVAPCD thresholds and would be temporary in nature. Therefore, the relatively small amount of emissions generated and the short duration of the construction period would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

Because the Project will not exceed any established air emission thresholds, does not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant, and does not significantly impact sensitive receptors, the impact is determined to be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.
d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less Than SignificantImpact. During construction, the various diesel-powered vehicles and equipment in use on-site could create localized odors. These odors would be temporary and are not likely to be Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 3 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-13 noticeable for extended periods of time beyond the Project site. In addition, once the Project is operational, there would be no new source of odors from the Project since all sewer disposal will occur via underground pipelines. Therefore, the impact is less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 3 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-14 IV. BIOLOGICAL

RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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 Game 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 Game
or U.S. 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?
Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 3 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-15 IV. BIOLOGICAL

RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?

RESPONSES
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 Game 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 Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation. A Biological Evaluation (BE) was prepared for the proposed Project in May 2026 by Live Oak Associates, Inc. (LOA). The BE is included as Appendix C. As part of the BE, the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB), the California Native Plant Society’s Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants, and the USFWS special status species lists were queried for records of special-status plant and animal species in the Project area. In addition, field surveys were conducted as described herein. The results of the BE are summarized as follows:

Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 3 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-16 Environmental Setting
Urban
The sewer main work area is largely confined to municipal Coalinga and includes portions of streets, alleys, parking lots, residential and commercial properties, ruderal areas, and park lands that are collectively classified as “urban.” The streets, alleys, and parking lots are developed features that are in most cases paved and entirely barren of vegetation. The residential properties are characterized by homes, outbuildings, and ornamental vegetation including trees, shrubs, turf, and other landscaping features. The project site’s one commercial property is a motel; the portion of the property that falls within project boundaries is a landscaped strip with densely-spaced ornamental trees. The ruderal areas are disturbed roadside habitats that, at the time of LOA’s survey, were characterized by unmaintained turf and/or common weeds. The park land is a portion of George E. Olsen Memorial Park that, at the time of the survey, contained maintained turf, ornamental trees, and fencing.

The project site’s urban lands are of low habitat value for most native wildlife, given high levels of ambient disturbance and, in most areas, a lack of vegetative cover. Wildlife species expected to be found here would be those that are attracted to urban areas and/or tolerate disturbance, and those that are associated with adjacent lands and use or pass through urban areas incidentally.

Reptiles that could be found in the project site’s urban lands include the western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalisi), California alligator lizard (Elgaria multicarinata multicarinata), and gopher snake (Pituophis melanoleucus). Amphibians are unlikely due to an absence of nearby breeding habitat.

A number of disturbance-tolerant avian species are likely to forage and nest in the site’s urban lands.

Trees and shrubs could support nesting by American robins (Turdus migratorius), Anna’s hummingbirds (Calypte anna), northern mockingbirds (Mimus polyglottos), and mourning doves (Zenaida macroura), among other species. Mourning doves may also nest in ground vegetation. The site’s residential structures could potentially be used for nesting by the house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus). All of the aforementioned birds may also forage in the site’s urban lands, as could winter migrants such as the savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis) and yellow-rumped warbler (Dendroica coronata).

Small mammal species likely to occur in the project site’s urban lands include the deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus), house mouse (Mus musculus), and Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus), among others. Burrowing rodent activity is expected to be limited due to the preponderance of pavement in this land use type, as well as regular maintenance practices in most of the unpaved areas. Less-maintained areas could support California ground squirrels (Otospermophilus beecheyi) and Botta’s pocket gophers (Thomomys bottae).

Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 3 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-17 Disturbance-tolerant mammalian predators such as raccoons (Procyon lotor) and striped skunks (Mephitis mephitis) are expected to occasionally forage on or pass through the site’s urban lands. Various bat species may roost in trees and buildings within this land use type and may forage on or over these areas.

Rural
The sewer main work area also includes lands outside of municipal Coalinga that, while all humanaltered in some form, experience lower levels of ambient disturbance than the urban land use type and are of higher value for native wildlife species. These include portions of ruderal or fallow fields, unpaved roads, an irrigation ditch, and the minimally maintained margins of these uses. While the roads were barren of vegetation, the fields and margins were characterized by sparse to dense growth of common weeds such as foxtail barley (Hordeum murinum), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), red-stemmed filaree (Erodium cicutarium), and cheeseweed (Malva parviflora), among others. Where the sewer main alignment crossed and then paralleled an irrigation ditch between urban Coalinga and the WWTP, several native trees including valley oak (Quercus lobata) and willow (Salix sp.) overhung the work area.

The project site’s rural lands may be used by a variety of native wildlife species associated with agricultural and other open habitats. Reptiles that could be found in the project site’s rural areas include the side-blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana), western whiptail (Aspidoscelis tigris), common kingsnake (Lampropeltis californiae), and gopher snake. Common amphibians such as the Sierran treefrog (Pseudacris sierra) and western toad (Anaxyrus boreas) may breed in nearby irrigation ditches and subsequently disperse through the site’s rural lands.

Birds expected to nest within the project site’s rural lands include common ground-nesting species such as the western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta), killdeer (Charadrius vociferus), and mourning dove.

Foraging species would include the western kingbird (Tyrannus verticalis) in the summer, savannah sparrow and American pipit (Anthus rubescens) in the winter, and American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), and Brewer’s blackbird (Euphagus cyanocephalus) throughout the year. The site’s rural lands are also likely to be used for foraging by open country raptors such as the red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) and American kestrel (Falco sparverius). Trees within which these raptors could nest, while absent from the site’s rural lands, are found immediately outside of project boundaries in some of these areas.

Small mammal species likely to occur in the site’s rural lands include the deer mouse, California ground squirrel, Botta’s pocket gopher, California vole (Microtus californicus), and Audubon’s cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii). Raccoons, striped skunks, and coyotes (Canis latrans) are likely to occur here from time to time. Various bat species may forage on or over the site’s rural lands; however, roosting habitat is absent.

Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 3 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-18 Wastewater Treatment Plant
The WWTP work area consists of lands and facilities used for wastewater treatment. It includes two aerated lagoons, each approximately 3 acres in size; three stabilization ponds collectively encompassing approximately 13 acres; two asphalt-bottomed sludge drying beds; a network of access roads around the pond perimeters; and other ruderal upland areas. At the time of LOA’s field survey, most of these lands were highly maintained and barren of vegetation. Where present, vegetation consisted of patches of bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) and other non-native grasses and forbs. A small portion of the work area is outside of the fenced facility and appears infrequently maintained; this area, located immediately to the west of the aerated lagoons, supported dense cover of non-native grasses and forbs including ripgut brome, foxtail barley, and Russian thistle (Salsola tragus).

The WWTP’s stabilization ponds are perennially inundated and support various wildlife species associated with aquatic environments. At the time of LOA’s field survey, southwestern pond turtles (Actinemys pallida) were detected in all three stabilization ponds; this is a California Species of Special Concern that is also proposed for federal listing as threatened. Several amphibian species are likely to occur in the stabilization ponds; these include the Sierran treefrog, western toad, and American bullfrog (Lithobates catesbeianus). The stabilization ponds support both waterfowl and shorebirds. Examples of the former observed during LOA’s survey include the ruddy duck (Oxyura amicensis), green-winged teal (Anas crecca), and mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), while examples of the latter include the great egret (Ardea alba), greater yellowlegs (Tringa melanoleuca), and black-necked stilt (Himantopus mexicanus). The ponds may serve as a source of mud for black phoebes and cliff swallows (Petrochelidon pyrrhonata) during nestbuilding, and black phoebes may also forage in flight over the ponds.

Upland areas of the WWTP may be utilized by basking turtles of the aforementioned species. Killdeer and black-necked stilts could nest on the ground in these areas. California ground squirrels were observed in upland areas of the WWTP at the time of LOA’s survey, and other small mammals such as Botta’s pocket gophers, deer mice, and California voles may also occur here. Raccoons and striped skunks are likely to use or pass through these areas from time to time.

Desktop Review
Many species of plants and animals within the state of California have low populations, limited distributions, or both. Such species may be considered “rare” and are vulnerable to extirpation as the state’s human population grows and the habitats these species occupy are converted to agricultural and urban uses. As described more fully in Section 3.0, state and federal laws have provided California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) with a mechanism for conserving and protecting the diversity of plant and animal species native to the state. A Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 3 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-19 sizable number of native plants and animals have been formally designated as threatened or endangered under state and federal endangered species legislation. Others have been designated as “candidates” for such listing. Still others have been designated as “species of special concern” by the CDFW. The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) has developed its own set of lists (i.e., California Rare Plant Ranks, or CRPR) of native plants considered rare, threatened, or endangered (CNPS 2025). Collectively, these plants and animals are referred to as “special status species.” The California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) was queried for special status plant and animal occurrences in the nine USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles containing and surrounding the project site (Joaquin Rocks, Domengine Ranch, Harris Ranch, Alcalde Hills, Coalinga, Guijarral Hills, Curry Mountain, Kreyenhagen Hills, and Avenal). A number of special status plants and animals were returned in the query and are summarized below in Table 1. Sources of information for this table included California’s Wildlife, Volumes I, II, and III (Zeiner et. al 1988-1990), California Natural Diversity Data Base (CDFW 2025), The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, second edition (Baldwin et al 2012), the California Native Plant Society’s Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (CNPS 2025), Calflora.org, iNaturalist.org, and eBird.org.

Reconnaissance Survey
A reconnaissance-level field survey of the project site was conducted on March 20 and 21, 2025 by LOA biologist Natalie Neff. The survey consisted of a meandering walk and drive through the project site while identifying its principal land uses and the constituent plants and animals of each land use. The field survey conducted for this study was sufficient to assess the significance of possible biological impacts associated with the development plans for the project site.

LOA conducted an analysis of potential project impacts based on the known and potential biotic resources of the project site. Sources of information used in the preparation of this analysis included: (1) results of the March 2025 reconnaissance-level surveys, (2) the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CDFW 2025), (3) the Online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (CNPS 2025), and (4) manuals, reports, and references related to plants and animals of the San Joaquin Valley region.

LOA’s field investigation did not include an aquatic resources delineation or focused surveys for special status species. The field survey was sufficient to generally describe those features of the project site that could be subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and/or the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and to assess the significance of possible biological impacts associated with development of the project site.

Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 3 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-20 Effects Determinations
Critical Habitat
Critical habitat is a specific geographic area(s) that contains features essential for the conservation of a threatened or endangered species and that may require special management and protection.

Designated critical habitat is absent from the project site and surrounding lands. The nearest units of critical habitat are located some 30 miles from project boundaries in the Inner Coast Range, and are designated for the protection of the vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi) and California redlegged frog (Rana draytonii).

Special-Status Species
As identified in the BE, the Project may affect but is not likely to adversely affect protected species consisting of Monarch Butterfly, Southwestern Pond Turtle, Temblor Legless Lizard, California Glossy Snake, San Joaquin Coachwhip, Swainson’s Hawk, Burrowing Owl, San Joaquin Kit Fox, American Badger, and Nesting Migratory Birds and Raptors. The Project is not expected to affect any other specialstatus species due to the lack of habitat or known occurrence records for those species near the Project site.

Migratory Birds
The BE concludes the Project may affect but is not likely to adversely affect nesting migratory birds.

Regulated Habitats
The BE concludes the Project will have no effect on regulated habitats as no impacts to such habitats are expected.

Direct and Indirect Impacts
The Project could adversely affect, either directly or through habitat modifications, several special-status animal species that occurs or may occur on or near the Project site. Construction activities such as excavating, trenching, or using other heavy equipment that disturbs or harms a special-status species or substantially modifies its habitat could constitute a significant impact. Therefore, Mitigation Measures identified below will be included in the conditions of approval to reduce the potential impacts to lessthan-significant levels. A brief description of each potentially impacted protected species, followed by the corresponding mitigation is provided below.

Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 3 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-21 Project Impacts to Monarch Butterfly
Potential Impacts. As discussed, the monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) has some potential to reproduce, forage, and roost within the project site (see Table 2). Reproduction takes place solely on milkweed (Asclepias sp.) plants, which could conceivably be found in those portions of the sewer main work area that pass through residential yards or park land (urban land use type) or ruderal/fallow fields (rural land use type). Milkweed, and by extension breeding, is not expected in the highly degraded habitats of the WWTP work area. Foraging may take place in any vegetated portion of the project site; this includes portions of the WWTP work area that do not experience regular vegetation management.

Finally, roosting is a possibility in the few trees of the sewer main work area.

If milkweed occurs in portions of the project site that are planned for impact, the project may result in mortality of monarch eggs, larvae, and pupae, as well as loss of monarch reproductive habitat. These are considered potentially significant impacts under CEQA and NEPA.

Project construction is not expected to adversely affect foraging or roosting monarchs. Monarchs are highly mobile while foraging and would presumably have the ability to avoid active construction zones.

After construction, any habitats that provide nectar resources for monarchs under existing conditions would be expected to naturally revegetate and return to their pre-project level of suitability for this species. Because the project will not remove any trees, it will not impact any monarchs that happen to be roosting on site at the time of construction and will not result in loss of monarch roosting habitat.

Mitigation. The following measures will be implemented to reduce the magnitude of potential project impacts to the monarch butterfly.

Mitigation Measure BIO – 1A (Milkweed Survey). Prior to the start of construction, a qualified biologist will conduct a survey for milkweed plants in any portion of the sewer main work area that passes through residential yards, park land, ruderal/fallow fields, or other potentially suitable habitats. The survey will be conducted at a time of year when milkweed is readily identifiable. The objective of the survey will be to tally and map all milkweed plants that could potentially be impacted by project activities.

Mitigation Measure BIO – 1B (Construction Timing). If feasible, no milkweed plants will be removed during the period when monarchs may be breeding in the project vicinity, March 15- October 31 (The Xerces Society 2019).

Mitigation Measure BIO – 1C (Compensatory Mitigation). Any milkweed plants located within areas proposed for impact will be replaced at a 3:1 ratio in accordance with a revegetation plan prepared by a qualified biologist. The planting site(s) must be in similar or higher quality habitat to the habitat that was impacted, in area(s) that will not be treated with pesticides or herbicides.

Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 3 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-22 Implementation of the above measures will reduce impacts to the monarch butterfly to a less than significant level under CEQA and NEPA.

Potential Project Impacts to the Southwestern Pond Turtle Potential Impacts. As discussed, the southwestern pond turtle (Actinemys pallida) is present at the WWTP. At the time of LOA’s survey, 36 individuals of this species were observed, evenly distributed among the three stabilization ponds. The turtles were of various growth stages, indicating that this is a breeding population. No turtles were observed in the aerated lagoons, and these features are presumably not suitable for this species due to surface turbulence and reduced water quality; the aerated lagoons represent an earlier stage of water treatment than the stabilization ponds. Pond turtles are likely to regularly bask in upland areas surrounding the three occupied ponds and may even nest within the fenced facility, as has been documented at wastewater treatment facilities elsewhere in California (Davidson and Alvarez 2020; M. Jennings, Rana Resources, pers. comm.). Water temperatures at the WWTP are likely warm enough that pond turtles would be able to remain active through much of the winter; however, during the coldest periods individuals may brumate underwater (M. Jennings, Rana Resources, pers. comm.).

During construction activities at the WWTP, resident pond turtles will be at considerable risk of direct injury or mortality, as well as disturbance leading to indirect mortality. Direct injury or mortality may result from heavy equipment operation in and around the occupied ponds. Subterranean eggs or hatchlings may be crushed, and migrating turtles may be struck and killed. Turtles may also respond to pond dewatering and construction-related noise and vibration by attempting to leave the area, making them vulnerable to predation and vehicle strikes. Construction-related injury and mortality of southwestern pond turtles, both direct and indirect, is a potentially significant impact of this project under CEQA and NEPA.

During operation of the upgraded WWTP, pond turtles would not be at heightened risk of direct injury or mortality because operational activities will be similar to existing. However, indirect mortality is likely to be higher than under baseline conditions due to periodic dry-down of the percolation ponds.

Following construction, any given percolation pond will receive treated effluent until percolation rates drop, at which point the pond will be allowed to dry down and will be disked prior to being placed back in service. Pond dry-down will force turtles on to land and potentially out of the WWTP facility altogether, increasing their vulnerability to predation and vehicle strikes. Indirect mortality of southwestern pond turtles during the operations phase is also a potentially significant impact of the project under CEQA and NEPA.

Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 3 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-23 Proposed WWTP upgrades will increase the extent of potential aquatic habitat for the western pond turtle while decreasing its habitat value. Specifically, the project will convert approximately 12.5 acres of suitable, occupied ponds and approximately 6 acres of unsuitable, unoccupied ponds to approximately

18.5 acres of ponds with fluctuating suitability for southwestern pond turtles. On the one hand, the percolation ponds will have higher water quality than existing, with lower levels of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), total suspended solids (NSS), and nitrogen. Improved water quality in the future percolation ponds may boost invertebrate prey populations (M. Jennings, Rana Resources, pers. comm.) and otherwise benefit pond turtle fitness. On the other hand, unlike the stabilization ponds, the percolation ponds will not have a perennial inundation regime, but will cycle through inundated and dry periods based on percolation rates. At present, it is unknown how many months of the year any given pond will retain water. Habitat impacts are expected to have a net negative effect on southwestern pond turtles and are potentially significant under CEQA and NEPA.

Mitigation. The following measures will be implemented to reduce the magnitude of project-related impacts to the southwestern pond turtle.

Mitigation Measure BIO – 2A (Construction Timing). Construction activities at the WWTP will take place entirely between the months of November and March to avoid the typical timeframe for southwestern pond turtle nesting and egg incubation in this locality.

Mitigation Measure BIO – 2B (Preconstruction Survey). Within 24 hours prior to the start of construction at the WWTP, a qualified biologist will survey the WWTP work area to identify any locations of possible underground nests, as would be indicated by eggshells on the surface from predation. Because hatchlings sometimes overwinter underground in their nests, this survey is required even with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.1.2a above.

Mitigation Measure BIO – 2C (Environmental Awareness Training). Prior to the start of construction at the WWTP, construction personnel will be trained on the identification, behavior, and ecology of the southwestern pond turtle, and the project-specific measures adopted for its protection. Attendees will be given a handout that summarizes the training material and provides a photographic key to differentiating between the southwestern pond turtle and the common non-native red-eared slider. Attendance at all training sessions will be documented on sign-in sheets.

Mitigation Measure BIO – 2D (Refuge Ponds). Construction activities at the WWTP will be staged so that, at any given time, at least two ponds suitable for the southwestern pond turtles will be inundated to their full operational depth (“refuge ponds”). In the first stage, at least two of the existing stabilization ponds will remain inundated, as these (and not the aerated lagoons) are presently occupied by pond turtles. Construction activities may proceed at the remaining features. As any given feature is converted to a percolation pond and inundated to its full Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 3 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-24 operational depth, it will become a refuge pond and one of the previous refuge ponds may be released for dewatering and construction.

Mitigation Measure BIO – 2D (Construction Monitoring). One or more qualified biologists will continuously monitor construction activities at the WWTP for the protection of southwestern pond turtles. The biologist(s) will look for pond turtles attempting to leave the ponds or otherwise traveling through upland areas of the WWTP, and will hand-capture and relocate these individuals to the nearest refuge pond. Any red-eared sliders or other introduced turtles that are discovered during this effort will be removed from the WWTP and either permanently rehomed or humanely dispatched. The biologist(s) will monitor all ground-disturbing activities in upland areas, looking for any subterranean nests or hatchlings that may be unearthed. The biologist(s) will have the authority to stop work if any nests or hatchlings are detected, and will appropriately secure the area before construction resumes. The number of biologists on site at any given time will be determined by the scope and extent of construction activities.

Mitigation Measure BIO – 2E (WWTP Operational Practices to Ensure No Net Loss of Aquatic Habitat). During operation of the upgraded WWTP, periodic dry-down and disking of the percolation ponds will be staged so that, at any given time, at least three ponds encompassing a minimum of 12.5 acres will be inundated to their full operational depth.

Mitigation Measure BIO – 2F (Habitat Enhancement). When inundated, each percolation pond will be equipped with at least three turtle basking structures. Such devices may consist of logs or floating boards, anchored with chains and weights, that can be removed during periods of drydown and reinstalled once the pond is ready to be placed back in service.

Mitigation Measure BIO – 2G (Annual Monitoring). For the first five years post-construction, a qualified biologist will conduct annual monitoring of the WWTP’s southwestern pond turtle population. Monitoring surveys will be conducted between May and July, when pond turtles are most active, and will target favorable weather conditions for basking. The biologist will assess aquatic habitat suitability by noting inundation levels, recording the species composition and cover of any emergent vegetation, conducting a dipnet survey for invertebrate food sources, and evaluating other parameters as appropriate. The biologist will record the number of all turtles observed by species and age class. An attempt will be made to capture any red-eared sliders or other introduced turtles that are discovered during annual monitoring; captured individuals will be removed from the WWTP and either permanently rehomed or humanely dispatched. The biologist will document their findings in an annual report, to be submitted to the City of Coalinga and other agencies as necessary. If any corrective actions are needed, they will be identified in the annual report and promptly implemented by the City.

Implementation of the above measures will reduce potential project impacts to the southwestern pond turtle to a less than significant level under CEQA and NEPA.

Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 3 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-25 Potential Project Impacts to the Temblor Legless Lizard, California Glossy Snake, and San Joaquin Coachwhip
Potential Impacts. As discussed, three special status terrestrial reptiles, the Temblor legless lizard (Anniella alexanderae), California glossy snake (Arizona elegans occidentalis), and San Joaquin coachwhip (Masticophis flagellum ruddocki), have some potential to occur along the Warthan and Los Gatos Creek corridors in the immediate project vicinity, and to wander onto the WWTP work area and/or rural portions of the sewer main work area from time to time. If any individuals of these species are present at the time of construction, they could be injured or killed by project activities. Construction-related injury or mortality of these three species is a potentially significant impact under CEQA and NEPA.

The project will not adversely affect the Temblor legless lizard, California glossy snake, or San Joaquin coachwhip through loss of habitat. The site consists of highly modified lands that do not constitute habitat for these special status reptiles but may nevertheless experience occasional use based on these species’ potential presence along the adjoining creek corridors. Nearly all project impacts will be temporary, with the sewer mains located belowground and any disturbed surface habitats expected to return to their pre-project level of suitability following project implementation. Considerable habitat of similar or higher quality for these species will remain available in the project vicinity. Project-related loss of habitat for the Temblor legless lizard, California glossy snake, and San Joaquin coachwhip is not considered a significant impact under CEQA and NEPA.

Mitigation. The following measures will be implemented to avoid and minimize construction-related impacts to the Temblor legless lizard, California glossy snake, and San Joaquin coachwhip.

Mitigation Measure BIO – 3A (Preconstruction Surveys). Within 24 hours prior to the start of construction activities at the WWTP and in rural portions of the sewer main work area, a qualified biologist will conduct preconstruction surveys for the Temblor legless lizard, California glossy snake, and San Joaquin coachwhip. The biologist will make an attempt to hand-capture any individuals of these species that are found and relocate them to suitable alternative habitat away from the work area.

Mitigation Measure BIO – 3B (Environmental Awareness Training). Prior to the start of construction at the WWTP and in rural portions of the sewer main work area, construction personnel will be trained on the identification, behavior, and ecology of the Temblor legless lizard, California glossy snake, and San Joaquin coachwhip, and the project-specific measures adopted for its protection. Attendees will be given a handout that summarizes the training material. Attendance at all training sessions will be documented on sign-in sheets.

Mitigation Measure BIO – 3C (Protective Measures During Construction). Workers will regularly inspect the work area for reptiles. At a minimum, this will include (1) checking for reptiles under and around any parked vehicles or equipment prior to their operation, (2) scanning Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 3 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-26 the ground for reptiles while operating vehicles or equipment, and (3) checking any open trenches or other excavations for trapped reptiles at the beginning and end of each work day. Any reptiles found during these inspections will be allowed to leave the area of their own volition, or will be captured and relocated out of harm’s way.

Implementation of these measures will reduce project-related impacts to the Temblor legless lizard, California glossy snake, and San Joaquin coachwhip to a less than significant level under CEQA and NEPA.

Potential Project Impacts to the Swainson’s Hawk
Potential Impacts. The Swainson’s hawk, a California Threatened species, is likely to forage in rural portions of the project site from time to time, and may also nest in mature trees on or near the site, particularly outside of the urban core of Coalinga. No trees will be removed by the project; therefore, there is no appreciable potential for direct injury or mortality of nesting Swainson’s hawks or their young. However, construction activities proximate to active nests may disturb the nests to the extent that the nests could fail or have reduced success. Project activities that injure, kill, or reduce the nesting success of Swainson’s hawks would violate state and federal laws and be considered a significant impact under CEQA and NEPA.

Swainson’s hawks would not be vulnerable to construction-related injury or mortality while foraging because they are highly mobile during this activity and are expected to avoid active work areas. The project is not expected to adversely affect this species through loss of foraging habitat. All impacts to potential Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat will be temporary, as the sewer mains will be buried and surface habitats will be allowed to return to pre-project conditions. Loss of habitat for the Swainson’s hawk is considered a less than significant impact of the project under CEQA and NEPA.

Mitigation. The following measures will be implemented to avoid and minimize construction-related impacts to Swainson’s hawk.

Mitigation Measure BIO – 4A (Construction Timing). If feasible, project construction will occur entirely outside of the March -September 15 Swainson’s hawk nesting season.

Mitigation Measure BIO – 4B (Protocol Nesting Surveys). If construction activities must occur between March 1 and September 15, then a qualified biologist will conduct protocol nesting surveys in accordance with the Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee (SHTAC) 2000 Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s Central Valley. Surveys will be conducted in at least the two SHTAC-defined survey periods immediately preceding construction. The survey periods are Period 1: January-March 20, Period II: March 20- April 5, Period III: April 5-20, Period IV: April 21-June 10, Period V: June 10-July 30.

Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 3 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-27 Mitigation Measure BIO – 4C (Avoidance of Active Nests). Should any active nests be discovered within the survey area, an appropriate disturbance-free buffer will be established by the biologist based on local conditions and agency guidelines. Disturbance free buffers will be identified on the ground with flagging, fencing, or by other easily visible means and will be maintained until a qualified biologist has determined that the young have fledged and are capable of foraging independently.

Implementation of these measures will reduce project-related impacts to the Swainson’s hawk to a less than significant level under CEQA and NEPA and facilitate compliance with state and federal laws protecting this species.

Potential Project Impacts to the Burrowing Owl
Potential Impacts. Although LOA is not aware of any recent, nearby sightings of the burrowing owl, rural portions of the sewer main work area could potentially be used by individuals of this species if it occurs in the vicinity. Burrowing owls are particularly vulnerable to construction-related impacts while occupying underground burrows, either for nesting or roosting. In the unlikely event that one or more burrowing owls were to be occupying burrows within the project site at the time of construction, they could be injured or killed by construction activities, or, if nesting, could be disturbed such that they would abandon their eggs or young. Such an event would constitute a violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Endangered Species Act, and would represent a significant impact of the project under CEQA and NEPA. Individuals of this species would not be vulnerable to constructionrelated injury or mortality while foraging because they are highly mobile foragers and would presumably avoid active work areas.

The project will not result in the loss of burrowing owl nesting or foraging habitat. All impacts to such habitats will be temporary, as the sewer mains will be buried and surface habitats will be allowed to return to pre-project conditions. Loss of habitat for the burrowing owl is considered a less than significant impact of the project under CEQA and NEPA.

Mitigation. The following measures will be implemented to avoid and minimize construction-related impacts to burrowing owls.

Mitigation Measure BIO – 5A (Take Avoidance Survey). A take avoidance survey for burrowing owls will be conducted by a qualified biologist within 14 days prior to the start of construction, following methods described in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG 2012). The survey area will include all potential roosting and nesting habitat on or within 200 meters of the project site.

Mitigation Measure BIO – 5B (Avoidance of Active Burrows). If project activities are undertaken during the breeding season (February 1-August 31) and active nest burrows are identified within Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 3 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-28 or near project impact areas, a 200-meter disturbance-free buffer will be established around these burrows. The buffers will be enclosed with temporary fencing to prevent construction equipment and workers from entering the setback area. Buffers will remain in place for the duration of the breeding season. During the non-breeding season (September 1-January 31), active burrowing owl burrows will be avoided by a minimum distance of 50 meters.

Mitigation Measure BIO – 5C (CDFW Consultation). If it is not feasible to avoid burrows by the setback distances specified above, the applicant will develop other measures to fully avoid take of burrowing owls in consultation with CDFW. If full take avoidance is not possible, the applicant will obtain a Section 2081 Incidental Take Permit (ITP) for this species. If an ITP is required, it would include minimization and mitigation measures including a passive relocation effort, construction monitoring, replacement burrow creation/enhancement, and/or other forms of compensatory mitigation.

Implementation of these measures will reduce potential project impacts to the burrowing owl to a less than significant level under CEQA and NEPA and facilitate compliance with state and federal laws protecting this species.

Potential Project Impacts to the San Joaquin Kit Fox
Potential Impacts. Coalinga is known to support an urban-adapted population of the SJKF (Cypher et al. 2012). Individuals of this species have some potential to forage and den in both urban and rural portions of the sewer main work area, particularly outside of residential neighborhoods. SJKF are unlikely to occur within the fenced WWTP, but may occur within those portions of the WWTP work area outside of the fenceline. In the event that one or more SJKF individuals were to be occupying the project site at the time of construction, they could be injured or killed by construction activities. Such an event would constitute a violation of federal and state law and would represent a significant impact of the project under CEQA and NEPA.

The project will not result in the loss of denning or foraging habitat for this species. All impacts to such habitats will be temporary, as the sewer mains will be buried and surface habitats will be allowed to return to pre-project conditions. Loss of habitat for the SJKF is considered a less than significant impact of the project under CEQA and NEPA.

Mitigation. The applicant will implement the following measures derived from the USFWS 2011 Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance.

Mitigation Measure BIO – 6A (Pre-construction Surveys). Between 14 and 30 days prior to the start of any project activity that could potentially affect the SJKF, a qualified biologist will conduct preconstruction surveys for this species following the USFWS 2011 Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or during Ground Disturbance Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 3 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-29 (“Standardized Recommendations”). The primary objective will be to identify potential SJKF habitat features and evaluate their use by kit foxes.

Mitigation Measure BIO – 6B (Avoidance). Should one or more active kit fox dens be detected during preconstruction surveys, the USFWS and CDFW will be notified immediately. A disturbance-free buffer will be established around the dens in consultation with the USFWS and CDFW, to be maintained until an agency-approved biologist has determined that the dens have been abandoned.

Mitigation Measure BIO – 6C (Minimization). The applicant will implement all minimization measures presented in the USFWS Standardized Recommendations. Such measures include, but are not limited to: restriction of project-related vehicle traffic to established roads, construction areas, and other designated areas; measures to prevent the inadvertent entrapment of kit foxes in holes, trenches, and pipes; restriction of rodenticide and herbicide use; and proper disposal of food items and trash.

Mitigation Measure BIO – 6D (Environmental Awareness Training). A qualified biologist will provide training to all personnel who will be working on site. The training will include a description of the kit fox and its habitat needs; a report of the occurrence of kit fox in the project vicinity; an explanation of the status of the species and its protection under the Endangered Species Act; and a list of the measures being taken to reduce impacts to the species during project construction and implementation. A handout will be provided to all attendees that summarizes the information presented in the training and presents the contact name and number of a designated representative to contact in case SJKF individuals are observed in or near the work area during construction.

Implementation of these measures will reduce potential project impacts to the SJKF to a less than significant level under CEQA and NEPA and facilitate compliance with state and federal laws protecting this species.

Potential Project Impacts to the American Badger
Potential Impacts. Although badgers do not appear to be regularly sighted in the project vicinity, this wide-ranging species has some potential to pass through the area from time to time. If present in the vicinity, then individuals could potentially forage and den in rural portions of the sewer main work area and/or in that portion of the WWTP work area outside of the fenceline. Badgers are particularly vulnerable to construction-related impacts while in their dens. In the unlikely event that one or more badgers were to be occupying dens within the project site at the time of construction, they could be injured or killed by construction activities. Construction mortality of denning badgers is considered a potentially significant impact of the project under CEQA and NEPA. Individuals of this species would not be vulnerable to construction-related injury or mortality while foraging because they would Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 3 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-30 presumably avoid foraging within active work areas, and because their nocturnal foraging behavior should prevent them from overlapping temporally with construction activities.

The project will not result in the loss of American badger denning or foraging habitat. All impacts to such habitats will be temporary, as the sewer mains will be buried and surface habitats will be allowed to return to pre-project conditions. Loss of habitat for the badger is considered a less than significant impact of the project under CEQA and NEPA.

Mitigation. The following measures will be implemented to avoid and minimize construction-related impacts to American badgers.

Mitigation Measure BIO – 7A (Preconstruction Surveys). A preconstruction survey for American badgers will be conducted by a qualified biologist within 7 days prior to the start of construction activities in rural portions of the sewer main work area and at the WWTP. The surveys will target all potential denning habitat on or within 50 feet of these areas.

Mitigation Measure BIO – 7B (Avoidance). Should an active sleeping den be identified during the preconstruction surveys, the den shall be identified in the field with brightly-colored fencing or flagging, and avoided until a qualified biologist has determined that it has been abandoned.

Should an active natal den be identified during the preconstruction surveys, a suitable disturbance-free buffer will be established around the den and maintained until a qualified biologist has determined that the cubs have dispersed or the den has been abandoned.

Implementation of the above measures will reduce potential project impacts to the American badger to a less than significant level under CEQA and NEPA.
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. No wetlands were present in the proposed Project area and as such, there would be no impacts associated with the proposed improvements.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 3 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-31 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?
Less Than Significant with Mitigation. No marine or estuarine fishery resources or migratory routes to and from anadromous fish spawning grounds were present in the survey area. In addition, no EFH, defined by the Magnuson-Stevens Act as those resources necessary for fish spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity, were present in the survey area.

The project site and adjoining lands have the potential to be used for nesting by a variety of migratory birds and raptors protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and related state laws. This includes common species such as the mourning dove, killdeer, and American robin, but may also include several uncommon species. An example of the latter is the special status long-eared owl (Asio otus), which could nest immediately adjacent to the WWTP work area along the riparian corridor associated with Los Gatos Creek. If project construction takes place during the nesting season, birds nesting on the site could be injured or killed by construction activities, while birds nesting on or adjacent to the site could be disturbed such that they would abandon their nests. Construction-related mortality of nesting birds and disturbance leading to nest abandonment would violate state and federal laws and be considered a significant impact of the project under CEQA and NEPA.

The special status long-eared owl also has the potential to forage in rural portions of the project site.

Individuals of this species would not be vulnerable to construction-related injury or mortality while foraging because they are highly mobile during this activity and because their nocturnal foraging behavior should prevent them from overlapping temporally with construction. The project is not expected to adversely affect this species through loss of foraging habitat. All impacts to such habitats will be temporary, as the sewer mains will be buried and surface habitats will be allowed to return to preproject conditions. Loss of habitat for the long-eared owl is considered a less than significant impact of the project under CEQA and NEPA.

Mitigation. The following measures will be implemented to avoid and minimize construction-related impacts to nesting migratory birds and raptors including the long-eared owl.

Measure BIO – 8A (Construction Timing). If feasible, project construction will occur entirely outside of the February 1-August 31 general avian nesting season.

Measure BIO – 8B (Preconstruction Surveys). If construction must occur between February 1 and August 31, a qualified biologist will conduct pre-construction surveys for active bird nests within 7 days prior to the start of any work within this period. The survey area will encompass the work area and surrounding lands within 250 feet for nesting migratory birds and 500 feet for raptors.

Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 3 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-32 Measure BIO – 8C (Avoidance of Active Nests). Should any active nests be discovered in or near proposed construction zones, the biologist will identify a suitable construction-free buffer around the nest. The buffer distance will be determined based on species biology, site-specific conditions, and the level of project-related disturbance that is anticipated near the nest(s) in question. Buffers will be identified on the ground with flagging or fencing and will be maintained until the biologist has determined that the young have fledged and are capable of foraging independently.

Implementation of the above measures will reduce project impacts to nesting migratory birds and raptors, including the special status long-eared owl, to a less than significant level under CEQA and NEPA and facilitate compliance with state and federal laws. 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? No Impact. There are no local policies or ordinances that the Project will conflict with. Additionally, there are no adopted local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans adopted for the area. As such, there is no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 3 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-33 V. CULTURAL

RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
c. Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?

RESPONSES
The Project is subject to CEQA, which holds municipal and state agencies accountable for impacts to the cultural environment. If a project has the potential to cause substantial adverse change in the characteristics of an important cultural resource, known as a “historical resource” under CEQA—either through demolition, destruction, relocation, alteration, or other means—then the project is judged to have a significant impact on the environment (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5[b]). Given that the project will involve ground-disturbing activities and demolition, it has the potential to impact historical resources, if present, within the Project area.

In addition, because the proposed Project will be funded through the State Water Resources Control Board’s Clean Water State Revolving Fund, a joint federal-state program, it is federal undertaking per Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 800.16(y) subject to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended (Title 54, U.S. Code, Section 306108). As such, the lead federal agency must consider whether a project will have an adverse effect on historic properties (i.e., resources that are eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places) within the Project Area of Potential Effects (APE).

Human Remains
Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 3 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-34 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 whether or not the remains are subject to the coroner’s authority. If the human remains are of Native American origin, the coroner must notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours of this identification.

The Native American Heritage Commission will identify a Native American Most Likely Descendant (MLD) to inspect the site and provide recommendations for the proper and dignified treatment of the remains and associated grave artifacts.

Paleontological Resources
Paleontological resources are the fossilized remains of plants and animals and associated deposits. The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology has identified vertebrate fossils, their taphonomic and associated environmental indicators, and fossiliferous deposits as significant nonrenewable paleontological resources.

Botanical and invertebrate fossils and assemblages may also be considered significant resources.

CEQA requires that a determination be made as to whether a project would directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature (CEQA Appendix G(v)(c)). If an impact is significant, CEQA requires feasible measures to minimize the impact (CCR Title 14(3) §15126.4 (a)(1)). California Public Resources Code §5097.5 (see above) also applies to paleontological resources.

Methodology
To meet State and federal requirements, the City retained ASM Affiliates, Inc. to conduct background research, complete a records search, request a search of the Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File and reach out to appropriate Native American contacts, conduct a cultural resources survey, and prepare a technical report, dated July 2026. The Class III Inventory / Phase I Survey, Coalinga Sewer Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Project (Cultural Study) is included as Appendix D. The results of the Cultural Study are summarized herein and were used to support the determinations made in this CEQA document.

Native American Outreach
As part of the CEQA process, a search of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File was completed on May 9, 2024. Based on the NAHC records, the APE is negative for sacred sites or traditional cultural places. Outreach letters were sent on July 23, 2024, to tribal organizations on the NAHC contact list. Follow-up emails were sent on August 30, 2024. On August 12, 2024, Table Mountain Rancheria responded stating the Project was out of their area of interest. No other responses Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 3 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-35 were received as a result of this outreach. NAHC requests, NAHC results, Tribal outreach letters, and Tribal responses can be found in Confidential Appendix B of Appendix D.

Records Search and Site-Specific Research
To determine whether the Project APE had been previously surveyed for cultural resources, and/or whether any such resources were known to exist within or near to it, staff of the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center (SSJVIC) conducted an archival records search on May 29, 2024. The records search was completed to determine: (i) if pre-contact or historic-era cultural resources had previously been recorded within the Project APE; (ii) if the Project APE had been systematically surveyed by archaeologists prior to the initiation of this fieldwork; and/or (iii) whether the area surrounding the proposed Project was known to contain archaeological sites or built environment resources and to thereby be culturally sensitive. Records examined included archaeological site files and maps, the NRHP, Historic Property Data File, California Inventory of Historic Resources, and the California Points of Historic Interest. The records search included the Project APE and a 0.5-mi. buffer.

According to the SSJVIC, six previous studies have been conducted within the Project APE, and 31 previous studies were identified within the 0.5-mi. buffer (Table 4 of Appendix D). Based on SSJVIC data, approximately 30 percent of the Project APE has been previously surveyed. Dates for previous studies in the APE range from 1974 to 2021.

The SSJVIC results identified a single previously recorded cultural resource (P-10-003930) within the APE (Table 5). An additional 17 resources were identified within the 0.5-mi. buffer. The results of the SSJVIC records search are available in Confidential Appendix A of Appendix D.

Pedestrian Survey
The Class III inventory/Phase I survey of the Project APE was conducted from August to September 2024.

ASM Associate Archaeologist Robert Azpitarte, BA, conducted the survey with assistance from Assistant Archaeologist Margarita Medina Lemus, BA. Parallel survey transects spaced at maximum intervals of 15 meters (m) apart were employed for pedestrian survey. The Class III inventory/Phase I survey included a review of the Project APE for the presence of built environment features. The field methods employed also included intensive pedestrian examination of the ground surface for evidence of archaeological sites in the form of artifacts, surface features (such as bedrock mortars or historical mining equipment), and archaeological indicators (e.g., organically enriched midden soil or burnt animal bone); the identification and location of any discovered sites, should they be present; tabulation and recording of surface diagnostic artifacts; site sketch mapping; preliminary evaluation of site integrity; and site recording, following the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Instructions for Recording Historic Resources using California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 forms. Parallel Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 3 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-36 survey transects spaced at maximum intervals of 15 m. apart were employed for pedestrian survey of the 174.7 ac. Project APE.

Effects Determinations
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. A Class III inventory/Phase I survey was conducted for the Coalinga Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project, Fresno County, California. A records search was conducted at the SSJVIC. This search indicated that the portions of the Project APE had been previously surveyed, and a single previously recorded cultural resource (P-10- 003930) was observed within the Project APE; however, there are no extant features related to the resource within the current Project APE. An NAHC SLF search was conducted for the Project APE and the NAHC responded with negative SLF results. Geoarchaeological review of the project APE indicates that the pipeline portion of the APE is potentially likely to contain buried deposits; however, historic aerial and topographic map review indicates the APE has been heavily disturbed by development as far back as the mid-twentieth century.

A Class III inventory/Phase I survey fieldwork of the Project APE was conducted in August and September 2024, with parallel transects spaced at 15-m intervals. A single refuse scatter was observed along the northwestern edges of the existing aerator ponds. This refuse scatter was recommended not eligible for the NRHP/CRHR. No other archaeological resources of any kind were identified within the Project APE.

ASM considered the potential for a historic district associated the Coalinga WWTP with six primary buildings and structures, and additional ponds, lagoons, and sludge beds associated with the operations of Coalinga WWTP identified within the APE. ASM evaluated Coalinga WWTP for eligibility for listing in the NRHP/CRHR as a potential historic district and evaluated all buildings and structures associated with the WWTP within the APE. ASM recommended that a potential Coalinga WWTP historic district within the APE is not eligible for listing in the NRHP/CRHR under any criteria. ASM also recommended that none of the buildings, structures, lagoons, or ponds associated with the WWTP are individually eligible for listing in the NRHP/CRHR under any criteria.

A single previously recorded historic-era archaeological site and an unrecorded historic-era archaeological site and a historic-era built structure were recorded during the Class III inventory/Phase I survey. All 3 have been evaluated for eligibility to the NRHP/CRHR as a result of this study and previous studies and are recommended not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP/CRHR. As such, none of these resources are considered historic properties under NHPA nor historical resources under CEQA. and there will be no adverse effect or significant impact.

Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 3 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-37 No cultural resources identified within the APE were recommended eligible for inclusion in the NRHP/CRHR under any criteria. Therefore, ASM recommends that there are no adverse effects or significant impacts as a result of the Project.

Unidentified cultural or historical resources could be uncovered during proposed Project construction which could result in a potentially significant impact; however, implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would ensure that significant impacts remain less than significant with mitigation incorporation.

Mitigation Measures:

CUL – 1 In the event that archaeological remains are encountered at any time during development or ground-moving activities within the entire Project area, all work in the vicinity of the find should be halted until a qualified archaeologist can assess the discovery and take appropriate actions as necessary.
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The possibility exists that subsurface construction activities may encounter undiscovered archaeological resources. This would be a potentially significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would require inadvertently discovery practices to be implemented should previously undiscovered archeological resources be located. As such, impacts to undiscovered archeological resources would be less than significant with mitigation incorporation.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.
c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less than Significant Impact. Although unlikely given the highly disturbed nature of the site and the records search did not indicate the presence of such resources, subsurface construction activities associated with the proposed Project could potentially disturb previously undiscovered human burial sites. Accordingly, this is a potentially significant impact. The California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that if human remains are discovered on-site, no further disturbance shall occur until the Fresno County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition. If the Coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority and if the Coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American, or has reason to believe that they are those of a Native American, he Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 3 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-38 or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the NAHC. The NAHC shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the “most likely descendant” (MLD) of the deceased Native American. The MLD may make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in Public Resource Code Section 5097.98.

Although considered unlikely subsurface construction activities could cause a potentially significant impact to previously undiscovered human burial sites, however compliance with regulations would reduce this impact to less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 3 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-39 VI. ENERGY
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?

RESPONSES
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? Less Than Significant Impact. Improvements proposed by the City consist of the rehabilitation of approximately 30,815 linear feet (LF) of gravity sewer mains using trenchless construction methods, replacement of approximately 19,801 LF of gravity sewer mains via conventional construction methods, and provision of miscellaneous repairs and improvements to the City’s WWTP. During construction, the Project would consume energy in two general forms: (1) the fuel energy consumed by construction vehicles and equipment; and (2) bound energy in construction materials, such as asphalt, steel, concrete, pipes, and manufactured or processed materials such as lumber and glass. Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards would provide guidance on construction techniques for the plant house to maximize energy conservation and it is expected that contractors and the City have a strong financial incentive to use recycled materials and products originating from nearby sources in order to reduce materials costs. As such, it is anticipated that materials used in construction and construction vehicle fuel energy would not involve the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy.

Operational Project energy consumption would be minimal, as the sewer mains do not require energy once they are installed. Operational energy would also be consumed during the WWTP processing and during each vehicle trip associated with the proposed use for maintenance or otherwise.

Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 3 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-40 As discussed in Impact XVII – Transportation/Traffic, the proposed Project would not generate on-going daily vehicle trips, other than for maintenance. The length of these trips and the individual vehicle fuel efficiencies are not known; therefore, the resulting energy consumption cannot be accurately calculated.

Adopted federal vehicle fuel standards have continually improved since their original adoption in 1975 and assists in avoiding the inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary use of energy by vehicles.

As discussed previously, the proposed Project would be required to implement and be consistent with existing energy design standards at the local and state level, such as Title 24. The Project would also be subject to energy conservation requirements in the California Energy Code and CALGreen for the new structures associates with the WWTP improvements. Adherence to state code requirements would ensure that the Project would not result in wasteful and inefficient use of non-renewable resources due to operation.

Therefore, any impacts are less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 3 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-41 VII. GEOLOGY AND
SOILS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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 most recently
Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 3 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-42 VII. GEOLOGY AND
SOILS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
adopted Uniform Building Code
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?

RESPONSES
a-i. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving 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. Coalinga is located in a seismically active area. According to the Fault Rupture Zones Map prepared by the California Department of Conservation in 2018, the Project site is not located within a Fault‐Rupture Hazard Area. Moreover, no active faults have been identified within Coalinga. The nearest fault to Coalinga is a portion of the San Andreas Fault, located approximately 15-20 miles east of Coalinga. The Project Area could be subjected to strong ground shaking during an earthquake on a nearby fault. However, the proposed Project does not include the installation of any habitable structures. The Project will be required to adhere to all relevant building codes, including the California Building Code (CBC) requirements. Adherence to local and State regulations would result in a less than significant impact.

Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 3 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-43 Mitigation Measures: None are required.
a (ii-iv). Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking, liquefaction or landslides? Less than Significant Impact. It is anticipated that the proposed Project site would be subject to some ground acceleration and ground shaking associated with seismic activity during its design life.

However, the Project is not proposing any habitable structures that would be subject to risk of injury from strong seismic ground shaking or liquefaction. In addition, the site is relatively flat, which precludes the risk of landslides. The Project will be required to adhere to all relevant building codes, including the California Building Code (CBC) requirements. Adherence to local and State regulations would result in a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project site has relatively flat topography and does not include any Project features that would result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. Most of the Project components will be located below grade. Once construction is completed, the sewer main trenches will be returned to pre-construction conditions and will not result in soil erosion greater than existing conditions. Therefore, the impact is less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.
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. As described in Impact VI (aii-aiv), the potential for landslides, liquefaction, settlement or other seismically related hazards is less than significant. As such, the Project will not be constructed on unstable soil and any impacts will be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 3 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-44 d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the most recently adopted Uniform Building Code creating substantial risks to life or property? Less than Significant Impact. As described above, the potential for hazards from landslide and liquefaction in the Project area is less than significant. Therefore, the potential for liquefaction induced lateral spreading is also less than significant. Causes of soil instability include, but are not limited to, withdrawal of groundwater, pumping of oil and gas from underground, liquefaction, and hydro-compaction.3 The proposed Project does not include the on-site withdrawal of groundwater and the Project site is not located in an area that has been subjected to activities that might cause soil instability. Because the Project site has not been subject to activities that may cause soil instability, the risk of subsidence or collapse is expected to be low. Any impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.
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? Less Than Significant Impact. The Project itself is a sewer main rehabilitation and replacement and WWTP improvement Project in the Project Area. No septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems are included in the proposed Project. The Project has been designed to work with the soil types in the City. Therefore, there would be a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Less Than Significant Impact. Paleontological resources are the fossilized remains of plants and animals and associated deposits. The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology has identified vertebrate fossils, their taphonomic and associated environmental indicators, and fossiliferous deposits as significant nonrenewable paleontological resources. Botanical and invertebrate fossils and assemblages may also be considered significant resources. 3 USGS. California Water Science Center. Land Subsidence: Cause & Effect. https://ca.water.usgs.gov/land_subsidence/california-subsidencecause-effect.html. Accessed March 2026.

Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 3 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-45 CEQA requires that a determination be made as to whether a project would directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature (CEQA Appendix G(v)(c)). If an impact is significant, CEQA requires feasible measures to minimize the impact (CCR Title 14(3) §15126.4 (a)(1)). California Public Resources Code §5097.5 (see above) also applies to paleontological resources.

There are no unique geological features or known fossil-bearing sediments in the vicinity of the proposed Project site. However, there remains the possibility for previously unknown, buried paleontological resources or unique geological sites to be uncovered during subsurface construction activities. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 (See Section V – Cultural Resources) would require inadvertently discovery practices to be implemented should previously undiscovered paleontological resources be located. As such, impacts to undiscovered paleontological resources would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: Implement Mitigation Measure CUL – 1.

Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 3 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-46 VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS

EMISSIONS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?

RESPONSES
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?
Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would generate exhaust-related GHG emissions during construction resulting from construction equipment operation, material haul and delivery trucks, and by trips by construction worker vehicles. Construction-related GHG emissions are estimated to begin in Year 2027 and end in 2028. Emissions would cease following completion of the Project. The proposed Project is not a land-use development project that would generate vehicle trips and is not a roadway capacity increasing project that could carry additional VMT. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in a net increase in operational GHG emissions. As such, the proposed Project would not interfere or obstruct implementation of an applicable GHG emissions reduction plan. The proposed Project would be consistent with all applicable local plans, policies, and regulations for reducing GHG emissions. Any impacts related to GHG emissions would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 3 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-47 IX. HAZARDS AND

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
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
Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 3 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-48 IX. HAZARDS AND

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?

RESPONSES
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?
Less than Significant Impact. While trenching, grading and construction activities may involve the limited transport, storage, use or disposal of hazardous materials, such as the fueling/servicing of construction equipment onsite, the activities would be short-term or one-time in nature and would be subject to federal, state, and local health and safety regulations.

Long-term operation of the proposed Project would involve transport, storage, use or disposal of hazardous materials. Water treatment chemicals may be utilized at the WWTP treatment site. Small quantities of petroleum products, thinners, and paints would also likely be used on-site. There are several federal, state and local requirements and regulations that are designed to minimize risks from accidental releases of hazardous materials and the proposed Project will be in compliance with all applicable requirements and regulations. Hazardous material storage and use areas at the WWTP will be built and operated in compliance with the minimum requirements of the Uniform Fire Code and the California Fire Code. Additionally, improvements to the WWTP will be constructed in compliance with the California Building Code, which requires design features to resist forces generated by a major earthquake with limited architectural or structural damage and to provide adequate fire protection that precludes accidental releases of hazardous chemicals due to fire. The WWTP improvements are also subject to review and approval by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Since the Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 3 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-49 Project is intended to improve the existing deteriorated sewer system, it is assumed to have a positive impact by reducing the number of sewer breaks/leaks or other issues that may result in the release of hazardous materials.

With implementation of the proposed Project, there are no reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions that would create a significant hazard to the public due to the release of hazardous materials. Impacts are considered less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.
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. There are several schools within ¼ mile of the proposed pipelines including elementary schools, a middle school, a high school and a community college.. As previously described, long-term operation of the proposed Project would involve little or no hazardous materials (see previous responses). Once operational, the sewer mains are sealed and will not emit hazardous materials. The WWTP is located more than ¼ mile from the school. Since the Project is intended to improve the existing deteriorated sewer system, it is assumed to have a positive impact by reducing the number of sewer breaks/leaks or other issues that may result in the release of hazardous materials.

Therefore, there is a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.
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?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would occur throughout the City of Coalinga.

There are five sites on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.4 These sites consist of two Historical Sites, a School Cleanup Site, a Voluntary Cleanup Site and an Evaluation Site. The proposed Project will not impede on these sites and none 4 California Department of Toxic Substance Control. EnviroStor. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=delrey.

Accessed July 2026.

Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 3 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-50 of the sites are considered a Federal Superfund or State Response site. As such, there is a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.
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? Less Than Significant Impact. There are no airports or airstrips within two miles of the Project. The nearest airport is the Coalinga Municipal Airport located approximately 2 ¼ miles northeast of the Project sites. Therefore, the Project has no impact on any airport operations.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.
f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. Sewer main replacement and rehabilitation will be temporary in nature and will not cause any road closures that could interfere with any adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. Construction schedules pertaining to pipelines within roadways will be coordinated with police/fire/emergency services. Adequate emergency access will be maintained at all times. As such, any impacts will be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.
g. Expose people or structures either directly or indirectly to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
No Impact. Implementation of the Project would not change the degree of exposure to wildfires because no new housing or businesses or other habitable structures will be constructed. Therefore, there is no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 3 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-51 X. HYDROLOGY AND

WATER QUALITY
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
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 off- site;
ii. substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on- or
offsite;
iii. create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff; or
iv. impede or redirect flood flows?
Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 3 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-52 X. HYDROLOGY AND

WATER QUALITY
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
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?

RESPONSES
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Less than Significant Impact. Improvements proposed by the City consist of the rehabilitation of approximately 30,815 linear feet (LF) of gravity sewer mains using trenchless construction methods, replacement of approximately 19,801 LF of gravity sewer mains via conventional construction methods, and provision of miscellaneous repairs and improvements to the City’s WWTP.

The primary need for a sewer collection system improvement project is due to the significant deterioration of the sewer infrastructure in the current City area. Inspection revealed poor condition of some of the City’s older sewer lines. Defects observed included deformation, root intrusion, cracked pipes, collapsed and broken pipes, sags, intruding laterals, defective lateral break-ins, attached deposits, and medium to large joint displacements. There have been no formal Notices of Violation (NOV) from regulatory agencies concerning the City’s sewer collection system; however, numerous health and safety threats may arise from sewer system overflows because of sewer line disrepair, which would ultimately result in dangerous conditions on the City’s streets and residential properties.

Construction
Excavation, trenching and soil-impacting activities associated with construction of the Project could temporarily increase runoff, erosion, and sedimentation. Construction activities also could result in soil compaction and wind erosion effects that could adversely affect soils and reduce the revegetation potential at construction sites and staging areas.

Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 3 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-53 Three general sources of potential short-term construction-related stormwater pollution associated with the proposed Project are: 1) the handling, storage, and disposal of construction materials containing pollutants; 2) the maintenance and operation of construction equipment; and 3) earth moving activities which, when not controlled, may generate soil erosion and transportation, via storm runoff or mechanical equipment. Generally, routine safety precautions for handling and storing construction materials may effectively mitigate the potential pollution of stormwater by these materials. These same types of common sense, “good housekeeping” procedures can be extended to non-hazardous stormwater pollutants such as sawdust and other solid wastes.

Poorly maintained vehicles and heavy equipment leaking fuel, oil, antifreeze, or other fluids on the construction site are also common sources of stormwater pollution and soil contamination. In addition, grading activities can greatly increase erosion processes. Two general strategies are recommended to prevent construction silt from entering local storm drains. First, erosion control procedures should be implemented for those areas that must be exposed. Secondly, the area should be secured to control offsite migration of pollutants. These best management practices (BMPs) would be required in the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to be prepared prior to commencement of Project construction activities. When properly designed and implemented, these “good-housekeeping” practices are expected to reduce short-term construction-related impacts to less than significant.

In accordance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Stormwater Program, the Project will be required to comply with existing regulatory requirements to prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) designed to control erosion and the loss of topsoil to the extent practicable using BMPs that the RWQCB has deemed effective in controlling erosion, sedimentation, runoff during construction activities. The specific controls are subject to the review and approval by the RWQCB and are an existing regulatory requirement. Preparation of a SWPPP is a regulatory requirement of the Project and thus is not listed as a mitigation measure. Compliance with the NPDES and SWPPP would ensure that the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.

Operation
The proposed Project includes several miscellaneous improvements to the existing City-operated WWTP. The WWTP improvements and implementation will be performed under the regulatory requirements of the County of Fresno, the State Water Resources Control Board, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Compliance with such regulations will ensure that water quality and waste discharge standards are met. The wastewater characteristics will be typical of urban development and will not result in any additional water releases that could potentially impact groundwater or water quality. Because the Project provides long-needed upgrades to sewer mains currently experiencing blockages and leaks, the Project will likely have a beneficial impact on water quality because of the Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 3 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-54 elimination of existing leaking or damaged sewer pipelines that currently exist. Compliance with the regulatory requirements of the County of Fresno, the State Water Resources Control Board, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board would result in a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.
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. Improvements proposed by the City consist of the rehabilitation of and replacement of gravity sewer mains and improvements to the City’s WWTP. The Project will not use additional groundwater beyond what is already being used in the Project Area. Additionally, the proposed Project will not significantly interfere with groundwater recharge as it will not introduce significant new impermeable surfaces. As such, any impacts to groundwater supplies will be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.
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 on- or offsite;
iii. create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or iv. impede or redirect flood flows?
Less than Significant Impact. The proposed upgrades to the sewer collection system will introduce a minimal amount of new non-permeable surfaces. The pipelines and other improvements will be installed within the existing road right-of-way, or other easements and will not alter any existing drainage patterns. All areas where the improvements are made will be restored to pre-construction conditions.

There are no waterways that will be impacted in the immediate vicinity of the proposed Project. Any impacts would be less than significant.

Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 3 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-55 Mitigation Measures: None are required.
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?
No Impact. The Project is not within a regulatory floodway or within a base floodplain (100 year) elevation. In addition, the Project does not include any housing or structures that would be subject to flooding either from a watercourse or from dam inundation. There are no bodies of water near the site that would create a potential risk of hazards from seiche, tsunami or mudflow. The Project will not conflict with any water quality control plans or sustainable groundwater management plan. Therefore, there are no impacts.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 3 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-56 XI. LAND USE AND

PLANNING
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Physically divide an established
community?
b. Cause a 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?

RESPONSES
a. Physically divide an established community?
b. Cause a 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? No Impact. Improvements proposed by the City consist of the rehabilitation and replacement of gravity sewer mains and provision of miscellaneous repairs and improvements to the City’s WWTP. The proposed Project pipelines are located largely within the existing streetscape within the City as presented in Figure 2 in Chapter Two – Project Description. The rehabilitation and replacement of the sewer mains would not cause any land use changes in the surrounding vicinity nor would it divide an established community. Once construction is completed, disturbed ground around the pipelines will be restored to pre-construction conditions. The WWTP improvements would be located on-site where the current WWTP has been constructed. This area is not surrounded by any urban uses and thus would not cause an established community to divide. The proposed Project involves improvements to the existing sewer infrastructure system and does not conflict with any land use plans, policies or regulations. No impacts would occur as a result of Project implementation.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 3 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-57 XI. MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?

RESPONSES
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. Improvements proposed by the City consist of the rehabilitation and replacement of gravity sewer mains and provision of miscellaneous repairs and improvements to the City’s WWTP.

Construction will primarily take place within the existing streetscape and on the existing WWTP site and not in an area with known mineral resources. Therefore, there is no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 3 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-58 XII. NOISE
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?

RESPONSES
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? Less than Significant Impact. The nearest sensitive receptors to the proposed Project would be the residences along the existing pipeline alignment, as presented in Figure 2. Project construction would involve temporary, short-term noise sources including site preparation and installation of the sewer mains. Construction-related short-term, temporary noise levels would be higher than existing ambient noise levels in the Project area, but is temporary and would not occur after construction is completed.

Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 3 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-59 Operations-related noise would be similar to existing conditions. The pipelines themselves do not emit noise, nor do the related improvements. The proposed WWTP improvements would be located on the existing WWTP site, in an area without adjacent residences or businesses. As such, any on-going noise impacts to sensitive receptors would be less than significant.

During the proposed Project construction, noise from construction related activities will contribute to the noise environment in the immediate vicinity. Activities involved in construction will generate maximum noise levels, as indicated in Table 2, ranging from 79 to 91 dBA at a distance of 50 feet, without feasible noise control (e.g., mufflers) and ranging from 75 to 80 dBA at a distance of 50 feet, with feasible noise controls.

Table 2
Typical Construction Noise Levels
Type of Equipment dBA at 50 ft
Without Feasible Noise Control With Feasible Noise Control Dozer or Tractor 80 75
Excavator 88 80
Scraper 88 80
Front End Loader 79 75
Backhoe 85 75
Grader 85 75
Truck 91 75
The distinction between short-term construction noise impacts and long-term operational noise impacts is a typical one in both CEQA documents and local noise ordinances, which generally recognize the reality that short-term noise from construction is inevitable and cannot be mitigated beyond a certain level. Thus, local agencies frequently tolerate short-term noise at levels that they would not accept for permanent noise sources. A more severe approach would be impractical and might preclude the kind of construction activities that are to be expected from time to time. Most residents recognize this reality and expect to hear construction activities on occasion.

The City’s General Plan states that noise associated with construction shall be exempted, as long as construction activities take place between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. on any day except Saturday or Sunday, or between the hours of 8:00 a.m. or after 5:00 p.m. on Saturday or Sunday. Adherence to the City’s Noise Ordinance will result in less than significant impacts associated with this topic.

Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 3 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-60 Vibration
Typical outdoor sources of perceptible ground borne vibration are construction equipment, steelwheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads. Construction vibrations can be transient, random, or continuous. Construction associated with the proposed Project is earthmoving activities associated with the replacement and rehabilitation of the sewer mains.

The approximate threshold of vibration perception is 65 VdB, while 85 VdB is the vibration acceptable only if there are an infrequent number of events per day.5 Table 3 describes the typical construction equipment vibration levels.

Table 3
Typical Construction Vibration Levels
Equipment VdB at 25 ft
Small Bulldozer 58
Jackhammer 79
Vibration from construction activities will be temporary and not exceed the Federal Transit Authority threshold for the nearest sensitive receptors. As such, any impacts resulting from an increase in noise levels or from groundborne noise levels is less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.
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?
Less Than Significant Impact. As there are no airports or airstrips in the vicinity, there is no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.
5 Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. Final Report No. FTA-VA-90-1003 prepared for the U.S. Federal Transit Administration by Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc., May 2006. Page 7-5. https://www.transit.dot.gov/research-innovation/transit-noise-and-vibration-impactassessment-manual-report-0123. Accessed March 2026.

Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 3 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-61 XIV. POPULATION AND

HOUSING
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?

RESPONSES
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?
Less Than Significant Impact. There are no new homes or businesses associated with the proposed Project, nor would Project implementation displace people or housing. The proposed Project is needed to improve existing sewer infrastructure. There is a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 3 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-62 XV. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. 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:

Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?

RESPONSES
a. 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:

Fire Protection?
No Impact. The proposed Project would improve the existing Project Area sewer system. The proposed Project would not directly or indirectly induce population growth and the City’s fire suppression services would continue to provide service to the site. There is no impact.

Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 3 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-63 Police Protection?
No Impact. The proposed Project would improve the existing Project Area sewer system. The proposed Project would not directly or indirectly induce population growth and the City’s Police Department would continue to provide service to the site. There is no impact.

Schools, Parks, Other Public Facilities?
No Impact. The proposed Project would not increase the number of residents in the City, as the Project does not include residential units. Because the demand for schools, parks, and other public facilities is driven by population, the proposed Project would not increase demand for those services. As such, the proposed Project would result in no impacts.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 3 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-64 XVI. RECREATION
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Would the project 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?

RESPONSES
a. Would the project 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? No Impact. The proposed Project does not include the construction of residential uses and would not directly or indirectly induce population growth. Therefore, the proposed Project would not cause physical deterioration of existing recreational facilities from increased usage or result in the need for new or expanded recreational facilities. The Project would have no impact to existing parks.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 3 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-65 XVII. TRANSPORTATION/

TRAFFIC
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?

RESPONSES
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?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would not cause a substantial increase in traffic, reduce the existing level of service, create any additional congestion at any intersections, or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3. Once completed, the replaced and rehabilitated sewer mains, as well as the necessary WWTP upgrades, will not generate any substantial additional daily traffic (beyond routine maintenance traffic trips) and as such, level of service standards would not be Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 3 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-66 exceeded. There are no components of the proposed Project that would increase hazards due to a geometric design feature. As traffic due to construction activities would be temporary in nature, the proposed Project would not cause a substantial increase in traffic or result in inadequate emergency access. Construction schedules pertaining to pipelines within roadways will be coordinated with police/fire/emergency services. Adequate emergency access will be maintained at all times.

Once installed, the proposed Project would not generate significant additional traffic trips per day, other than as needed for periodic maintenance. The Project would not conflict with a program plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system and as such, impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 3 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-67 XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL

RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Would the project cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of a
tribal cultural resource, defined in Public
Resources Code section 21074 as either a
site, feature, place, cultural landscape
that is geographically defined in terms of
the size and scope of the landscape,
sacred place, or object with cultural
value to a California Native American
tribe, and that is:
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
Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead
agency shall consider the significance of
the resource to a California Native
American tribe.

Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 3 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-68

RESPONSES
a).Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
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 Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Less Than Significant Impact. In accordance with Assembly Bill (AB) 52, potentially affected Tribes were formally notified of this Project and were given the opportunity to request consultation on the Project.

As part of the CEQA process, a search of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File was completed on May 9, 2024. Based on the NAHC records, the APE is negative for sacred sites or traditional cultural places. Outreach letters were sent on July 23, 2024, to tribal organizations on the NAHC contact list. Follow-up emails were sent on August 30, 2024. On August 12, 2024, Table Mountain Rancheria responded stating the Project was out of their area of interest. No other responses were received as a result of this outreach. NAHC requests, NAHC results, Tribal outreach letters, and Tribal responses can be found in Confidential Appendix B of Appendix D. Therefore, there is a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 3 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-69 XIX. UTILITIES AND

SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could
cause significant environmental 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?
Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 3 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-70

RESPONSES
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. Improvements proposed by the City consist of the rehabilitation and replacement of gravity sewer mains and provision of miscellaneous repairs and improvements to the City’s WWTP.

The primary need for a sewer collection system improvement project is due to the significant deterioration of the sewer infrastructure in the current City area. Inspection revealed poor condition of some of the City’s older sewer lines. Defects observed included deformation, root intrusion, cracked pipes, collapsed and broken pipes, sags, intruding laterals, defective lateral break-ins, attached deposits, and medium to large joint displacements. There have been no formal Notices of Violation (NOV) from regulatory agencies concerning the City’s sewer collection system; however, numerous health and safety threats may arise from sewer system overflows because of sewer line disrepair, which would ultimately result in dangerous conditions on the City’s streets and residential properties.

The proposed Project includes several miscellaneous improvements to the existing City-operated WWTP. The WWTP improvements and implementation will be performed under the regulatory requirements of the County of Fresno, the State Water Resources Control Board, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Compliance with such regulations will ensure that water quality and waste discharge standards are met. The wastewater characteristics will be typical of urban development and will not result in any additional water releases that could potentially impact groundwater or water quality. Because the Project provides long-needed upgrades to sewer mains currently experiencing blockages and leaks, the Project will likely have a beneficial impact on water quality because of the elimination of existing leaking or damaged sewer pipelines that currently exist. Compliance with the regulatory requirements of the County of Fresno, the State Water Resources Control Board, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board would result in a less than significant impact. There are no other utility expansions that would be needed for the Project.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.
b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 3 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-71 No Impact. Improvements proposed by the City consist of the rehabilitation and replacement of gravity sewer mains and provision of miscellaneous repairs and improvements to the City’s WWTP. No new water supplies would be required as a result of this Project. There is no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.
c. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Less Than Significant Impact. See Response XIX (a) above. The Project itself consists of improvements to the City’s sewer system and WWTP. The City’s existing commitments to its users will remain unaffected. Compliance with the regulatory requirements of the County of Fresno, the State Water Resources Control Board, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board would result in a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.
d. Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? e. Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Less Than Significant Impact. Proposed Project construction and operation will generate minimal amounts of solid waste. The proposed Project will not generate waste on an on-going basis and will comply with all federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Any impacts will be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 3 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-72 XX. WILDFIRE
If located in or near state responsibility
areas or lands classified as very high fire
hazard severity zones, would the
project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?

RESPONSES
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?
Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 3 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-73 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? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project is located in areas that have been developed with urban uses/agricultural and there are no areas within or adjacent to the Project Area that have a significant wildfire risk. The Project will include WWTP improvements, underground sewer mains and minor related improvements. There is no increased risk or on-going risk of wildfire beyond existing conditions associated with the Project.

As such, any wildfire risk to the project structures or people would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 3 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-74 XXI. MANDATORY

FINDINGS OF

SIGNIFICANCE
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
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 considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of
past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future
projects)?
c. Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 3 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3-75

RESPONSES
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below selfsustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
Less than Significant Impact With Mitigation. The analyses of environmental issues contained in this Initial Study indicate that the proposed Project is not expected to have substantial impact on the environment or on any resources identified in the Initial Study. Mitigation measures have been incorporated in the Project to reduce all potentially significant impacts to less than significant. b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
Less than Significant Impact. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(i) states that a Lead Agency shall consider whether the cumulative impact of a project is significant and whether the effects of the project are cumulatively considerable. The assessment of the significance of the cumulative effects of a project must, therefore, be conducted in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects. Due to the nature of the Project and consistency with environmental policies, incremental contributions to impacts are considered less than cumulatively considerable. The proposed Project would not contribute substantially to adverse cumulative conditions, or create any substantial indirect impacts (i.e., increase in population could lead to an increase need for housing, increase in traffic, air pollutants, etc.). The impact is less than significant. c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less than Significant Impact With Mitigation. The analyses of environmental issues contained in this Initial Study indicate that the project is not expected to have substantial impact on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Mitigation measures have been incorporated in the Project to reduce all potentially significant impacts to less than significant.

Chapter 4

MITIGATION MONITORING
& REPORTING PROGRAM
Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 4 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 4-1

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING

PROGRAM
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been formulated based upon the findings of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the City of Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project. The MMRP lists mitigation measures recommended in the IS/MND for the proposed Project and identifies monitoring and reporting requirements as well as conditions recommended by responsible agencies who commented on the project.

The first column of the Table identifies the mitigation measure. The second column, entitled “Party Responsible for Implementing Mitigation,” names the party responsible for carrying out the required action. The third column, “Implementation Timing,” identifies the time the mitigation measure should be initiated. The fourth column, “Party Responsible for Monitoring,” names the party ultimately responsible for ensuring that the mitigation measure is implemented.

The last column will be used by the City to ensure that individual mitigation measures have been monitored.

Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 4 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 4-2
Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Implementation
Timing
Party
responsible
for Monitoring
Verification
(name/date)
Biological Resources
Protection of Monarch Butterfly
Mitigation Measure BIO – 1A (Milkweed Survey). Prior
to the start of construction, a qualified biologist will conduct a survey for milkweed plants in any portion
of the sewer main work area that passes through
residential yards, park land, ruderal/fallow fields, or other potentially suitable habitats. The survey will
be conducted at a time of year when milkweed is
readily identifiable. The objective of the survey will
be to tally and map all milkweed plants that could
potentially be impacted by project activities.

Mitigation Measure BIO – 1B (Construction Timing). If
feasible, no milkweed plants will be removed
during the period when monarchs may be breeding
in the project vicinity, March 15-October 31 (The
Xerces Society 2019).

Mitigation Measure BIO – 1C (Compensatory
Mitigation). Any milkweed plants located within
areas proposed for impact will be replaced at a 3:1
ratio in accordance with a revegetation plan
prepared by a qualified biologist. The planting site(s) must be in similar or higher quality habitat to the
City of
Coalinga
Prior to and/or
during
construction
City of
Coalinga and
construction
contractor
Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 4 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 4-3
Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Implementation
Timing
Party
responsible
for Monitoring
Verification
(name/date)
habitat that was impacted, in area(s) that will not be
treated with pesticides or herbicides.

Protection of Southwestern Pond Turtle
Mitigation Measure BIO – 2A (Construction Timing).

Construction activities at the WWTP will take place
entirely between the months of November and
March to avoid the typical timeframe for
southwestern pond turtle nesting and egg
incubation in this locality.

Mitigation Measure BIO – 2B (Preconstruction Survey).

Within 24 hours prior to the start of construction at
the WWTP, a qualified biologist will survey the
WWTP work area to identify any locations of
possible underground nests, as would be indicated
by eggshells on the surface from predation. Because
hatchlings sometimes overwinter underground in
their nests, this survey is required even with the
implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.1.2a above.

Mitigation Measure BIO – 2C (Environmental
Awareness Training). Prior to the start of
construction at the WWTP, construction personnel
will be trained on the identification, behavior, and
ecology of the southwestern pond turtle, and the
project-specific measures adopted for its protection.

Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 4 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 4-4
Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Implementation
Timing
Party
responsible
for Monitoring
Verification
(name/date)
Attendees will be given a handout that summarizes
the training material and provides a photographic
key to differentiating between the southwestern
pond turtle and the common non-native red-eared
slider. Attendance at all training sessions will be
documented on sign-in sheets.

Mitigation Measure BIO – 2D (Refuge Ponds).

Construction activities at the WWTP will be staged
so that, at any given time, at least two ponds suitable for the southwestern pond turtles will be inundated
to their full operational depth (“refuge ponds”). In
the first stage, at least two of the existing
stabilization ponds will remain inundated, as these
(and not the aerated lagoons) are presently occupied
by pond turtles. Construction activities may
proceed at the remaining features. As any given
feature is converted to a percolation pond and
inundated to its full operational depth, it will
become a refuge pond and one of the previous
refuge ponds may be released for dewatering and
construction.

Mitigation Measure BIO – 2D (Construction
Monitoring). One or more qualified biologists will
continuously monitor construction activities at the
WWTP for the protection of southwestern pond
turtles. The biologist(s) will look for pond turtles
Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 4 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 4-5
Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Implementation
Timing
Party
responsible
for Monitoring
Verification
(name/date)
attempting to leave the ponds or otherwise traveling
through upland areas of the WWTP, and will handcapture and relocate these individuals to the nearest refuge pond. Any red-eared sliders or other
introduced turtles that are discovered during this
effort will be removed from the WWTP and either
permanently rehomed or humanely dispatched. The
biologist(s) will monitor all ground-disturbing
activities in upland areas, looking for any
subterranean nests or hatchlings that may be
unearthed. The biologist(s) will have the authority
to stop work if any nests or hatchlings are detected,
and will appropriately secure the area before
construction resumes. The number of biologists on
site at any given time will be determined by the
scope and extent of construction activities.

Mitigation Measure BIO – 2E (WWTP Operational
Practices to Ensure No Net Loss of Aquatic Habitat).

During operation of the upgraded WWTP, periodic
dry-down and disking of the percolation ponds will
be staged so that, at any given time, at least three
ponds encompassing a minimum of 12.5 acres will
be inundated to their full operational depth.

Mitigation Measure BIO – 2F (Habitat Enhancement).

When inundated, each percolation pond will be
equipped with at least three turtle basking
Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 4 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 4-6
Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Implementation
Timing
Party
responsible
for Monitoring
Verification
(name/date)
structures. Such devices may consist of logs or
floating boards, anchored with chains and weights,
that can be removed during periods of dry-down
and reinstalled once the pond is ready to be placed
back in service.

Mitigation Measure BIO – 2G (Annual Monitoring).

For the first five years post-construction, a qualified biologist will conduct annual monitoring of the
WWTP’s southwestern pond turtle population.

Monitoring surveys will be conducted between May
and July, when pond turtles are most active, and
will target favorable weather conditions for basking.

The biologist will assess aquatic habitat suitability
by noting inundation levels, recording the species
composition and cover of any emergent vegetation,
conducting a dipnet survey for invertebrate food
sources, and evaluating other parameters as
appropriate. The biologist will record the number of
all turtles observed by species and age class. An
attempt will be made to capture any red-eared
sliders or other introduced turtles that are
discovered during annual monitoring; captured
individuals will be removed from the WWTP and
either permanently rehomed or humanely
dispatched. The biologist will document their
findings in an annual report, to be submitted to the
City of Coalinga and other agencies as necessary. If
Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 4 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 4-7
Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Implementation
Timing
Party
responsible
for Monitoring
Verification
(name/date)
any corrective actions are needed, they will be
identified in the annual report and promptly
implemented by the City.

Protection of Temblor Legless Lizard, California
Glossy Snake, and San Joaquin Coachwhip
Mitigation Measure BIO – 3A (Preconstruction
Surveys). Within 24 hours prior to the start of
construction activities at the WWTP and in rural
portions of the sewer main work area, a qualified
biologist will conduct preconstruction surveys for
the Temblor legless lizard, California glossy snake,
and San Joaquin coachwhip. The biologist will make
an attempt to hand-capture any individuals of these
species that are found and relocate them to suitable
alternative habitat away from the work area.

Mitigation Measure BIO – 3B (Environmental
Awareness Training). Prior to the start of
construction at the WWTP and in rural portions of
the sewer main work area, construction personnel
will be trained on the identification, behavior, and
ecology of the Temblor legless lizard, California
glossy snake, and San Joaquin coachwhip, and the
project-specific measures adopted for its protection.

Attendees will be given a handout that summarizes
Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 4 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 4-8
Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Implementation
Timing
Party
responsible
for Monitoring
Verification
(name/date)
the training material. Attendance at all training
sessions will be documented on sign-in sheets.

Mitigation Measure BIO – 3C (Protective Measures
During Construction). Workers will regularly inspect
the work area for reptiles. At a minimum, this will
include (1) checking for reptiles under and around
any parked vehicles or equipment prior to their
operation, (2) scanning the ground for reptiles while
operating vehicles or equipment, and (3) checking
any open trenches or other excavations for trapped
reptiles at the beginning and end of each work day.

Any reptiles found during these inspections will be
allowed to leave the area of their own volition, or
will be captured and relocated out of harm’s way.

Protection of Swainson’s Hawk
Mitigation Measure BIO – 4A (Construction Timing). If
feasible, project construction will occur entirely
outside of the March -September 15 Swainson’s
hawk nesting season.

Mitigation Measure BIO – 4B (Protocol Nesting
Surveys). If construction activities must occur
between March 1 and September 15, then a qualified
biologist will conduct protocol nesting surveys in
accordance with the Swainson’s Hawk Technical
Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 4 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 4-9
Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Implementation
Timing
Party
responsible
for Monitoring
Verification
(name/date)
Advisory Committee (SHTAC) 2000 Recommended
Timing and Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting
Surveys in California’s Central Valley. Surveys will be conducted in at least the two SHTAC-defined
survey periods immediately preceding
construction. The survey periods are Period 1:

January-March 20, Period II: March 20-April 5,
Period III: April 5-20, Period IV: April 21-June 10,
Period V: June 10-July 30.

Mitigation Measure BIO – 4C (Avoidance of Active
Nests). Should any active nests be discovered within
the survey area, an appropriate disturbance-free
buffer will be established by the biologist based on
local conditions and agency guidelines. Disturbance
free buffers will be identified on the ground with
flagging, fencing, or by other easily visible means
and will be maintained until a qualified biologist
has determined that the young have fledged and are
capable of foraging independently.

Protection of Burrowing Owl
Mitigation Measure BIO – 5A (Take Avoidance Survey).

A take avoidance survey for burrowing owls will be
conducted by a qualified biologist within 14 days
prior to the start of construction, following methods
described in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl
Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 4 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 4-10 Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Implementation
Timing
Party
responsible
for Monitoring
Verification
(name/date)
Mitigation (CDFG 2012). The survey area will
include all potential roosting and nesting habitat on
or within 200 meters of the project site.

Mitigation Measure BIO – 5B (Avoidance of Active
Burrows). If project activities are undertaken during
the breeding season (February 1-August 31) and
active nest burrows are identified within or near
project impact areas, a 200-meter disturbance-free
buffer will be established around these burrows.

The buffers will be enclosed with temporary fencing
to prevent construction equipment and workers
from entering the setback area. Buffers will remain
in place for the duration of the breeding season.

During the non-breeding season (September 1-
January 31), active burrowing owl burrows will be
avoided by a minimum distance of 50 meters.

Mitigation Measure BIO – 5C (CDFW Consultation). If
it is not feasible to avoid burrows by the setback
distances specified above, the applicant will
develop other measures to fully avoid take of
burrowing owls in consultation with CDFW. If full
take avoidance is not possible, the applicant will
obtain a Section 2081 Incidental Take Permit (ITP)
for this species. If an ITP is required, it would
include minimization and mitigation measures
including a passive relocation effort, construction
Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 4 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 4-11 Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Implementation
Timing
Party
responsible
for Monitoring
Verification
(name/date)
monitoring, replacement burrow
creation/enhancement, and/or other forms of
compensatory mitigation.

Protection of San Joaquin Kit Fox
Mitigation Measure BIO – 6A (Pre-construction
Surveys). Between 14 and 30 days prior to the start
of any project activity that could potentially affect
the SJKF, a qualified biologist will conduct
preconstruction surveys for this species following
the USFWS 2011 Standardized Recommendations for
Protection of the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior
to or during Ground Disturbance (“Standardized
Recommendations”). The primary objective will be
to identify potential SJKF habitat features and
evaluate their use by kit foxes.

Mitigation Measure BIO – 6B (Avoidance). Should one
or more active kit fox dens be detected during
preconstruction surveys, the USFWS and CDFW
will be notified immediately. A disturbance-free
buffer will be established around the dens in
consultation with the USFWS and CDFW, to be
maintained until an agency-approved biologist has
determined that the dens have been abandoned.

Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 4 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 4-12 Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Implementation
Timing
Party
responsible
for Monitoring
Verification
(name/date)
Mitigation Measure BIO – 6C (Minimization). The
applicant will implement all minimization measures
presented in the USFWS Standardized
Recommendations. Such measures include, but are
not limited to: restriction of project-related vehicle
traffic to established roads, construction areas, and
other designated areas; measures to prevent the
inadvertent entrapment of kit foxes in holes,
trenches, and pipes; restriction of rodenticide and
herbicide use; and proper disposal of food items and
trash.

Mitigation Measure BIO – 6D (Environmental
Awareness Training). A qualified biologist will
provide training to all personnel who will be
working on site. The training will include a
description of the kit fox and its habitat needs; a
report of the occurrence of kit fox in the project
vicinity; an explanation of the status of the species
and its protection under the Endangered Species
Act; and a list of the measures being taken to reduce
impacts to the species during project construction
and implementation. A handout will be provided to
all attendees that summarizes the information
presented in the training and presents the contact
name and number of a designated representative to
Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 4 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 4-13 Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Implementation
Timing
Party
responsible
for Monitoring
Verification
(name/date)
contact in case SJKF individuals are observed in or
near the work area during construction.

Protection of American Badger
Mitigation Measure BIO – 7A (Preconstruction
Surveys). A preconstruction survey for American
badgers will be conducted by a qualified
biologist within 7 days prior to the start of
construction activities in rural portions of the
sewer main work area and at the WWTP. The
surveys will target all potential denning habitat
on or within 50 feet of these areas.

Mitigation Measure BIO – 7B (Avoidance). Should
an active sleeping den be identified during the
preconstruction surveys, the den shall be
identified in the field with brightly-colored
fencing or flagging, and avoided until a
qualified biologist has determined that it has
been abandoned. Should an active natal den be
identified during the preconstruction surveys, a
suitable disturbance-free buffer will be
established around the den and maintained until
a qualified biologist has determined that the
cubs have dispersed or the den has been
abandoned.

Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 4 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 4-14 Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Implementation
Timing
Party
responsible
for Monitoring
Verification
(name/date)
Protection of Nesting Migratory Birds Including
Long-Eared Owl
Measure BIO – 8A (Construction Timing). If feasible,
project construction will occur entirely outside of
the February 1-August 31 general avian nesting
season.

Measure BIO – 8B (Preconstruction Surveys). If
construction must occur between February 1 and
August 31, a qualified biologist will conduct preconstruction surveys for active bird nests within 7 days prior to the start of any work within this
period. The survey area will encompass the work
area and surrounding lands within 250 feet for
nesting migratory birds and 500 feet for raptors.

Measure BIO – 8C (Avoidance of Active Nests). Should
any active nests be discovered in or near proposed
construction zones, the biologist will identify a
suitable construction-free buffer around the nest.

The buffer distance will be determined based on
species biology, site-specific conditions, and the
level of project-related disturbance that is
anticipated near the nest(s) in question. Buffers will
be identified on the ground with flagging or fencing
and will be maintained until the biologist has
Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 4 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 4-15 Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Implementation
Timing
Party
responsible
for Monitoring
Verification
(name/date)
determined that the young have fledged and are
capable of foraging independently.

Cultural Resources
Measure CUL – 1 (Protect Undiscovered Cultural
Resources) In the event that archaeological remains
are encountered at any time during development
or ground-moving activities within the entire Project
area, all work in the vicinity of the find should be
halted until a qualified archaeologist can assess the
discovery and take appropriate actions as
necessary.

City of
Coalinga
Prior to and/or
during
construction
City of
Coalinga and
construction
contractor
Chapter 5

PREPARERS
Coalinga – Sanitary Sewer Collection System and WWTP Improvements Project | Chapter 5 CITY OF COALINGA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 5-1

LIST OF PREPARERS
Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc.
• Travis Crawford, AICP, Principal Environmental Planner • Emily Bowen, Principal Environmental Planner
Live Oak Associates, Inc. (Biological Firm)
ASM Affiliates, Inc. (Cultural Firm)
AM Consulting Engineers
Appendices
Appendix A
Preliminary Engineering Report
AM Consulting Engineers, Inc. − 5150 N Sixth Street, Suite 124 − Fresno, CA 93711 − P: 559.473.1371 − F: 559.513.8449

CITY OF COALINGA

SANITARY SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM AND

WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENTS

DRAFT PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
December 2023
Prepared by:

City of Coalinga Sanitary Sewer Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Preliminary Engineering Report
Table of Contents
ii
Table of Contents
SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 1

1.1. Purpose of Preliminary Engineering Report ................................................................................. 1

1.2. Study Area Characteristics............................................................................................................ 1

1.2.1. Location................................................................................................................................. 1

1.2.2. Environmental Resources ..................................................................................................... 4

1.2.3. Land Use and Population ...................................................................................................... 4

1.2.4. Soils....................................................................................................................................... 4

1.2.5. Climate .................................................................................................................................. 4 SECTION 2 - MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY...................................................................................................... 6

2.1. Water Supply Source..................................................................................................................... 6

2.2. Water Facilities ............................................................................................................................. 6 SECTION 3 - WASTEWATER FLOWS AND CHARACTERISTICS ........................................................................ 8

3.1. Wastewater Flows......................................................................................................................... 8

3.2. Wastewater Flow Characteristics ...............................................................................................11

3.3. Salinity.........................................................................................................................................11

3.4. Effluent Quality Requirements ...................................................................................................14

3.5. Discharge Violations....................................................................................................................14 SECTION 4 - EXISTING FACILITIES AND PROJECT NEED...............................................................................16

4.1. Overview .....................................................................................................................................16

4.2. Existing Wastewater Treatment Plant........................................................................................16

4.2.1. Background .........................................................................................................................16

4.2.2. Existing Treatment..............................................................................................................17

4.2.3. Existing Effluent Disposal....................................................................................................19

4.3. Project Need ...............................................................................................................................19

4.3.1. System O&M .......................................................................................................................19

4.3.2. Current O&M Expenses.......................................................................................................19

4.4. Sewer Collection System.............................................................................................................21 City of Coalinga Sanitary Sewer Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Preliminary Engineering Report
Table of Contents
iii

4.5. Condition of Sewer Collection System........................................................................................23

4.5.1. CCTV Inspection ..................................................................................................................23

4.6. Project Need ...............................................................................................................................24

4.6.1. Health and Safety................................................................................................................26

4.6.2. System O&M .......................................................................................................................26 SECTION 5 - IMPROVEMENTS TO SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM ................................................................28

5.1. Alternatives Considered..............................................................................................................28

5.2. Alternative No. I: No Project.......................................................................................................28

5.3. Alternative No. II: Convention Construction Method................................................................. 28

5.3.1. Sewer Main Replacement...................................................................................................29

5.3.2. Probable Construction Costs...............................................................................................34

5.3.3. Annual O&M Costs..............................................................................................................34

5.4. Alternative No. III Conventional and Trenchless Construction Methods ...................................36

5.4.1. Pipe Bursting .......................................................................................................................36

5.4.2. CIPP .....................................................................................................................................36

5.4.3. Sewer Main Replacement and Rehabilitation ....................................................................37

5.4.4. Probable Construction Costs...............................................................................................42

5.4.5. Annual O&M Costs..............................................................................................................43

5.5. Alternative Evaluation.................................................................................................................45

5.5.1. Design Criteria/Compliance Issues......................................................................................45

5.5.2. Annual O&M Costs..............................................................................................................45

5.5.3. Life-Cycle Costs ...................................................................................................................46

5.6. Recommended Alternative.........................................................................................................46 SECTION 6 - WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENTS ............................................................47

6.1. Alternatives Considered..............................................................................................................47

6.2. Alternative I: No Project..............................................................................................................47

6.3. Alternative II: Existing Treatment with Offsite Disposal through Agricultural Irrigation (NonHuman Crops) .........................................................................................................................................47

6.3.1. Overview .............................................................................................................................47

6.3.2. Potential User Survey..........................................................................................................47 City of Coalinga Sanitary Sewer Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Preliminary Engineering Report
Table of Contents
iv

6.3.3. Water Balance.....................................................................................................................48

6.3.4. Storage Requirements ........................................................................................................48

6.3.5. Capital Construction Costs..................................................................................................48

6.3.6. Estimated O&M Costs.........................................................................................................49

6.4. Alternative III: Upgrading WWTP to Extended Aeration with Biological Nutrient Removal and Onsite Disposal through percolation (Groundwater Recharge) .............................................................51

6.4.1. Overview .............................................................................................................................51

6.4.2. Improvements to WWTP ....................................................................................................51

6.4.3. Improvements to Percolation Ponds..................................................................................52

6.4.4. Capital Construction Costs..................................................................................................53

6.4.5. Estimated O&M Costs.........................................................................................................54

6.5. Alternative IV: Upgrading WW Treatment Facility to Tertiary Treatment ................................. 55

6.5.1. Overview .............................................................................................................................55

6.5.2. Improvements to WWTP ....................................................................................................55

6.5.3. Alternative IV-A Offsite Disposal through Agricultural Irrigation (Human Crops)..............58

6.5.4. Alternative IV-B Offsite Disposal through Landscape Irrigation .........................................61 SECTION 7 - PROPOSED PROJECT................................................................................................................67

7.1. Project Overview.........................................................................................................................67

7.2. Proposed Improvements to Sewer Collection System................................................................67

7.2.1. Sewer Main Replacement...................................................................................................67

7.2.2. Sewer Main Rehabilitation..................................................................................................67

7.2.3. Potential Construction Problems........................................................................................68

7.3. Proposed Improvements to Wastewater Treatment Plant........................................................70

7.3.1. Extended Aeration and Biological Nutrient Removal .........................................................70

7.3.2. Clarifier................................................................................................................................70

7.3.3. Effluent Disposal .................................................................................................................70

7.4. Climate Change Considerations..................................................................................................71

7.5. Permitting Requirements............................................................................................................71

7.6. Opinions of Probable Construction Costs...................................................................................72

7.6.1. Capital Construction Costs..................................................................................................72 City of Coalinga Sanitary Sewer Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Preliminary Engineering Report
Table of Contents
v

7.6.2. Operation and Maintenance...............................................................................................73

7.6.3. Present Worth Analysis.......................................................................................................75

7.6.4. Life Cycle Costs....................................................................................................................77

7.7. Project Schedule .........................................................................................................................77 APPENDIX A SOILS REPORT......................................................................................................................79 APPENDIX B WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS ORDER NO. 94-184.................................................139 APPENDIX C ANNUAL WATER BALANCE................................................................................................158 APPENDIX D ANNUAL WATER BALANCE................................................................................................162 APPENDIX E ANNUAL WATER BALANCE ................................................................................................166 APPENDIX F ANNUAL WATER BALANCE ................................................................................................170

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1 City of Coalinga Projected Population .......................................................................................... 4 Table 1-2 City of Coalinga Average Precipitaion........................................................................................... 5 Table 3-1 Average and Maximum Daily Flows.............................................................................................. 8 Table 3-2 Projected Wastewater Flows......................................................................................................11 Table 3-3 Average Influent and Effluent BOD.............................................................................................11 Table 3-4 Specific Conductivity ...................................................................................................................14 Table 3-5 WWTP Discharge Constituents and Limits..................................................................................14 Table 4-1 Summary of Sewer Pipelines.......................................................................................................21 Table 4-2 NASSCO PACP Ratings................................................................................................................. 23 Table 4-3 Summary of PACP Defects ..........................................................................................................24 Table 4-1 Current O&M Expenses...............................................................................................................26 Table 5-1 Sewer Mains Recommended to be Replaced .............................................................................29 Table 5-2 Alternative No. II Probable Construction Costs ..........................................................................34 Table 5-3 Alternative No. III Sewer Mains Recommended to be Rehabilitated/Replaced.........................37 Table 5-4 Alternative No. III Probable Construction Costs .........................................................................43 Table 5-5 Average Annual O&M Costs........................................................................................................46 Table 5-6 Life Cycle Cost Estimates.............................................................................................................46 Table 6-1 Potential Recycled Water Users..................................................................................................47 City of Coalinga Sanitary Sewer Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Preliminary Engineering Report
Table of Contents
vi
Table 6-2 Alternative II – Water Balance Design Data................................................................................48 Table 6-3 Alternative II – Water Balance Calculation Summary................................................................. 48 Table 6-4 Alternative II – Capital Construction Costs .................................................................................49 Table 6-5 Alternative II – Estimated Annual O&M......................................................................................49 Table 6-6 Alternative III – Extended Aeration Activated Sludge Parameters.............................................51 Table 6-7 Alternative III – Circular Clarifier Design Parameters ................................................................. 52 Table 6-8 Alternative III – Water Balance Design Data...............................................................................53 ATable 6-9 Alternative III – Capital Construction Costs..............................................................................53 Table 6-10 Alternative III – Estimated O&M Costs.....................................................................................54 Table 6-11 Alternative IV A – Water Balance Design Data .........................................................................58 Table 6-12 Alternative IV A – Water Balance Calculation Summary ..........................................................58 Table 6-13 Alternative IV A – Capital Construction Costs...........................................................................59 Table 6-14 Alternative IV A – Estimated O&M Costs..................................................................................60 Table 6-15 Alternative IV B– Potential Landscapre Irrigation Customers ..................................................61 Table 6-16 Alternative IV B– Water Balance Design Data .......................................................................... 62 Table 6-17 Alternative IV B– Water Balance Calculation Summary ...........................................................62 Table 6-18 Alternative IV B– Capital Construction Costs............................................................................63 Table 6-19 Alternative IV B– Estimated O&M Costs...................................................................................61 Table 7-1 Proposed Sewer Main Replacement...........................................................................................67 Table 7-2 Proposed Sewer Main Rehabilitation .........................................................................................68 Table 7-3 Proposed Evaporation/Percolation Pond Characteristics...........................................................71 Table 7-4 Capital Construction Costs..........................................................................................................72 Table 7-5 Estimated O&M Costs.................................................................................................................74 Table 7-6 Estimated Salvage Value .............................................................................................................76 Table 7-7 Present Worth Cost Analysis.......................................................................................................76 Table 7-8 Proposed Project Life Cycle Costs...............................................................................................77 Table 7-9 Estimated Project Schedule ........................................................................................................78 City of Coalinga Sanitary Sewer Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Preliminary Engineering Report
Table of Contents
vii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1 Regional Location and Vicinity Map ............................................................................................ 2 Figure 1-2 Service Area Boundary................................................................................................................. 3 Figure 3-1 Monthly Wastewater Flows.......................................................................................................10 Figure 3-2 Influent BOD Frequency Diagram..............................................................................................14 Figure 4-1 Wastewater Treatment Plant Site Layout .................................................................................20 Figure 4-2 Existing Sanitary Sewer Collection System ................................................................................22 Figure 4-3 Sewer Collection System Condition Assessment.......................................................................25 Figure 5-1 Alternative No. II – Sewer Mains to be Replaced ......................................................................35 Figure 5-2 Alternative No. III – Sewer Mains to be Replaced/Rehabilitated..............................................44 Figure 6-1 Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements – Potential Recycled Water Users.....................48 Figure 6-2 Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements – Porposed Alternative II Layout.......................49 Figure 6-3 Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements – Proposed Alternative III Layout...................... 53 Figure 6-4 Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements – Recycled Water User Survey ..........................57 Figure 6-5 Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements – Proposed Alternative IV A Layout ..................60 Figure 6-5 Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements – Alternative IV B Layout...................................66 Figure 7-1 Proposed Sewer Collection System Improvements...................................................................69 Figure 7-2 Proposed Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements – Alternative III ..................................69 City of Coalinga
Sanitary Sewer Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Preliminary Engineering Report
Abbreviations
viii

ABBREVIATIONS
ac-ft Acre-Feet
ACS American Community Survey
AFL Aerated Facultative Lagoons
BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand
CDC California Department of Corrections
CIMIS California Irrigation Management Information System City City of Coalinga
CVP Central Valley Project
CWSRF Clean Water State Revolving Fund
CCTV Closed-Circuit Television
CIPP Cured-In-Place
EC Electric Conductivity
ETo Evapotranspiration
ft Feet
gpcd Gallons per Capita Day
in Inch
LF Linear Feet
MHI Median Household Income
μmhos/cm Micromhos per Centimeter
MG Million Gallons
MGD Million Gallons per Day
mg/L Milligrams per Liter
MLSS Mixed Liquor Suspended Solids
NASSCO National Association of Sewer Service Companies
VIS Video Inspection Specialists, Inc.

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
NOV Notices of Violation
O&M Operation and Maintenance
PACP Pipeline Assessment Conditions Program
PER Preliminary Engineering Report
City of Coalinga
Sanitary Sewer Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Preliminary Engineering Report
Abbreviations
ix
Prison Coalinga State Prison
PV Photovoltaic
RAS Recirculated Activated Sludge
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
ROW Right-of-Way
RAS Recirculating Activated Sludge
SDAC Severely Disadvantaged Community
SSO Sewer System Overflow
SOI Sphere of Influence
SWRCB State Water Resource Control Board
SP Stabilization Ponds
SSO Sewer System Overflows
TSS Total Suspended Solids
USBR U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
VSS Volatile Suspended Solids
VFD Variable Frequency Drive
WAS Wasted Activated Sludge
WDR Waste Discharge Requirements
WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant
WRCC Western Regional Climate Center
City of Coalinga
Sanitary Sewer Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Preliminary Engineering Report
Section 1 – Introduction
1 SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION

1.1. Purpose
The purpose of this Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) is to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the City of Coalinga’s (City) existing sewer collection system and wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) and recommend the most viable and sustainable sewer service alternative that will result in the least cost to City customers. This PER will assess the condition of the collection system’s existing pipelines and manholes, correct existing deficiencies, and prioritize the replacement of sewer lines based on their estimated remaining useful life. This PER will also provide recommendations that will correct system deficiencies at the existing WWTP to improve treatment operations.

The preparation of this PER is being funded by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) through the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF). The contents of this Report are intended to meet the requirements of the SWRCB and can be utilized to submit a CWSRF construction funding application for the implementation of the proposed project. This PER will include an overview of the City of Coalinga, description of the City’s existing water sources, evaluation of the existing sewer collection system and WWTP, and necessary improvement needed to provide adequate sewer service to residents within the City’s service area.

1.2. Study Area Characteristics

1.2.1. Location
The City of Coalinga is located near the eastern foothills of the Diablo Range and to the west of the Central San Joaquin Valley in western Fresno County. Figure 1-1 displays the City’s regional location and vicinity, including its relation to some of the surrounding communities in the area. The City is generally bounded by Lucile Avenue to the south, West Gale Avenue to the north, Monterey Street to the west and Springbrook Street to the East. The City of Fresno is located approximately 60 miles to the northeast, the city of Avenal is located approximately 18 miles to the southeast, and the city of Huron is located approximately 19 miles to the northeast. The primary access routes to Coalinga include California State Route 33 and California State Route 198 from the north and south. Interstate 5 is approximately 13 miles to the east.

The City’s boundary encompasses approximately 6 square miles, of which 2.1 square miles are urbanized. The Sphere of Influence (SOI) encompasses 3.6 square miles. Figure 1-2 displays the City’s current service area and SOI. The City has primary authority over land use and other governmental actions within this area.

The City owns and operates a citywide sewer collection system and a WWTP under Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) No. 94-184. The current WDRs limit the volume of average monthly discharge to

1.34 million gallons per day. The sewer collection system currently serves 3,369 residences and 318 businesses. The WWTP site is located approximately one mile east of the City. The WWTP consists of screening, primary clarification, and secondary treatment (aerated facultative lagoons followed by stabilization lagoons). Undisinfected secondary effluent is pumped year-round to irrigate fodder crops such as alfalfa, Sudan grass, oat hay and pasture. The City Maintenanceains sewer assets in accordance with industry standard practices by performing preventive Maintenance on mechanical equipment and pipelines.
• • • LEGEND CITY OF COALINGA SANITARY SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT FIGURE 1-1 REGIONAL LOCATION AND VICINITY MAP HURON AVENAL KETTLEMAN CITY COALINGA FIGURE 1-2 SERVICE BOUNDARY • • • LEGEND CITY OF COALINGA SANITARY SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT City of Coalinga
Sanitary Sewer Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Preliminary Engineering Report
Section 1 – Introduction
4 1.2.2. Environmental Resources
The proposed sewer collection system improvements evaluated in this Report will primarily consist of the replacement and/or rehabilitation of public sewer mains in the City’s existing public right-of-way (ROW). Little or no construction will occur on land which is not currently developed within those ROW. It is not anticipated that impacts to floodplains, farmland, historic resources, or endangered species will be part of the project.

1.2.3. Land Use and Population
Land use within the City’s service area consists mainly of residential properties, commercial businesses, and the Pleasant Valley State Prison. According to the 2017-2021 U.S. Census American Community Survey (ACS), the City’s median household income (MHI) is $65,180. The current residential sewer rate is $23.29 per month ($279.48 per year), which is approximately 0.43 percent of the MHI.

According to the 2020 U.S. Census, the population of the City was 17,590, which was up from 13,380 at the 2010 Census and up from 11,668 at the 2000 Census. According to the U.S. Census Population Estimates Program, population within the City has decreased to approximately 17,560 in 2021. This represents an average growth rate of approximately 2.30 percent from 1990 to 2022.

Population projection for the City through 2045 is presented in Table 1-1 below. A long‐term growth of

2.30 percent has been used in those projections. The City provides sewer service to 3,148 connections and receives an average daily flow of approximately 0.9 million gallons per day (MGD). The City of Coalinga is responsible for providing current as well as projected sewer service needs to customers within its service area.

Table 1-1 City of Coalinga Projected Population
2022 2024 2030 2035 2040 2045
Service Area Population 17,024 17,818 20,428 22,893 25,655 28,750 Notes:
(1) Projected estimates are based on population growth from 1990 to 2022. An annual growth rate of 2.30 percent is used.

1.2.4. Soils
The City of Coalinga has a relatively flat topography. According to the Custom Soil Resources Report for Fresno County, California, published by the Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), the most prevalent soils series in the City of Coalinga service area are Excelsior sandy loam, Westhaven loam and Posochanet clay loam. A copy of this soils report is attached in Appendix A.

1.2.5. Climate
The Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC) has maintained climate records for the past 100 years for areas within Fresno County. Average annual temperature and precipitation data is provided in Table 1-2.

Similar to the Western Regional Climate Center, the California Irrigation Management Information System (CIMIS) tracks and Maintenanceains records of evapotranspiration (ETo) for select cities only.

Table 1-2 provides ETo statistics were obtained from the City of Coalinga City of Coalinga
Sanitary Sewer Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Preliminary Engineering Report
Section 1 – Introduction
5 The City is characterized as having a semiarid climate, which occurs on the periphery of deserts in low latitude. The Köppen Climate Classification subtype for this climate is “BSk” (Tropical and Subtropical Steppe Climate). Summers are typically hot and dry, while winters are cool with an average precipitation of about 7.7 inches per year. Most of the annual precipitation occurs during the period from November and March. Table 1-2 below shows the average monthly precipitation, maximum and minimum average temperatures, and evapotranspiration within the City.

Table 1-2 City of Coalinga Average Perception
Month Average
Precipitation (in)
Average Temperature (°F) Evapotranspiration,
Maximum Minimum Eto (in)
January 1.60 57.8 35.8 1.98
February 1.51 63.6 39.2 2.93
March 1.21 69.2 41.8 4.49
April 0.55 76.0 45.9 6.43
May 0.25 84.9 52.5 8.37
June 0.04 92.7 59.2 9.66
July 0.01 99.4 65.3 10.01
August 0.02 97.8 63.2 8.99
September 0.19 92.7 58.6 6.94
October 0.31 81.8 49.7 4.88
November 0.72 67.6 40.6 2.64
December 1.20 58.2 35.7 1.72
Total/Average 7.61 78.5 49.0 69.04
City of Coalinga
Sanitary Sewer Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Preliminary Engineering Report
Section 2 – Municipal Water Supply
6 SECTION 2 - MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY

2.1. Water Supply Source
The City of Coalinga imports its water through the federal Central Valley Project (CVP) supervised by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR). Due to the poor groundwater quality in the area, the City does not pump groundwater to supplement the water supply due to its poor quality and high concentrations of sulfates, total dissolved solids (TDS), and sodium. On October 28, 1968, the City entered a 40-year contract with the US Bureau of Reclamation for up to 10,000 acre-feet (ac-ft) of CVP water on an annual basis. This contract expired on December 31, 2008. On January 22, 2021, a long-term contract was signed between the City and the USBR (Contract No. 14-06-200-4173A-IR1-P) that established new rates and extended the City’s right to pump up to 10,000 AF of water per year.

Raw water for the City flows from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to the south into either the DeltaMendota Canal or the CVP California Aqueduct, which discharges in the O’Neil Forebay. From the O’Neil Forebay, water continues to flow south into the California Aqueduct to the point of origination of the Coalinga Canal, approximately 15 miles northeast of the City where Highway 145 crosses over the California Aqueduct. After leaving the California Aqueduct, water is carried in the Coalinga Canal approximately 12 miles south to the City of Coalinga WTP intake. A raw water pump station then lifts the water from the Coalinga Canal to the City’s conventional surface WTP.

2.2. Water Facilities
Surface water from the Coalinga Canal is treated at the City’s Water Treatment Plant, which is located approximately 7 miles outside of city limits. The City’s surface WTP originally came online in April 1972 with an average daily flow capacity of 8 million gallons per day (MGD) and maximum daily flow capacity of 12 MGD. In anticipation of the increased demands resulting from the construction of the Pleasant Valley State Prison, the capacity of the WTP was increased to receive an average daily flow of 12 MGD and a maximum daily flow of 16 MGD. The Plant provides conventional surface water treatment, with processes that include chemical pretreatment, chlorine disinfection, corrosion control, filtration, flocculation, and sedimentation. As a secondary disinfection, chlorination is used to maintain chlorine residual in the distribution system while reducing further production of disinfection byproducts. Treated water is pumped by a filtered-water pump station into a 27-inch diameter pipeline in Palmer Avenue.

Treated water is pumped by a filtered-water pump station into a 27-inch diameter pipeline on Palmer Avenue. Approximately two miles west of the WTP, the flow tees at Calaveras Avenue. Water flowing west continues for another mile and a half to the Palmer Avenue Reservoir. Water going to the Pleasant Valley State Prison travels south in the 12-inch Calaveras Avenue pipeline to the Calaveras Avenue Reservoir. After flowing through the Calaveras Reservoir, it continues south along Calaveras Avenue another 3.5 miles to Jayne Avenue and then east to the prison. Water can potentially travel from the Calaveras Reservoir westerly into the City; however, this seldom occurs due to the hydraulic conditions.

Water leaving the Palmer Reservoir flows through approximately eight miles of 24 and 27-inch transmission mains to the Derrick Avenue Reservoir. Water travels primarily from the Derrick Avenue Reservoir through 18, 24, and 30-inch transmission mains into the City’s water distribution system. The distribution system consists of a network of water mains ranging in size from 4 to 14 inches in diameter.

The system can supply peak hour needs without excessive losses and can deliver fire flows to main lines.

City of Coalinga
Sanitary Sewer Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Preliminary Engineering Report
Section 2 – Municipal Water Supply
7 The City’s existing storage reservoirs all consist of steel tanks resting on reinforced concrete ring wall foundations. The following is a description of each of the City’s treated water storage reservoirs:
• Palmer Avenue Reservoir – This reservoir is located on the south side of Palmer Avenue and has a capacity of 2.8 MG. This reservoir receives pumped treated water from the WTP. • Calaveras Avenue Reservoir – This reservoir is located on the east side of Calaveras Avenue and has a capacity of 5.0 MG. Water flows from the WTP to the Calaveras Reservoir and then to the Pleasant Valley State Prison.
• Derrick Avenue Reservoir – This reservoir is located west of the City, on the east side of Derrick Avenue. This reservoir has a capacity of 7.6 MG. Water from the Palmer Reservoir flows to the Derrick Reservoir and then into the City.
• Oil King Reservoir – This reservoir is located west of Highway 33/198, approximately three miles north of Palmer Avenue. The reservoir has a capacity of 0.5 MG and exclusively serves the City’s oil company customers.
• Northwest Reservoir – This reservoir is located east of Derrick Avenue, approximately three miles north of Gale Avenue. This reservoir has a capacity of 0.2 MG. Like the Oil King Reservoir, this reservoir is also used exclusively for the City’s oil company customers.

Since the Oil King and Northwest reservoirs’ sole function is to provide water to oil companies, they are excluded from the evaluation of the City’s available storage. The existing combined storage capacity of the Palmer, Derrick and Calaveras reservoirs is 15.4 million gallons (MG).

City of Coalinga
Sanitary Sewer Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Preliminary Engineering Report
Section 3 – Wastewater Flows and Characteristics
8 SECTION 3 - WASTEWATER FLOWS AND CHARACTERISTICS

3.1. Wastewater Flows
The City of Coalinga (City) owns and operates a WWTP under Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) Order No. 94-184. The current WDRs limit the volume of the average monthly discharge to 1.34 million gallons per day (MGD). The WWTP consists of screening, primary clarification, and secondary treatment (aerated facultative lagoons followed by stabilization lagoons). Undisinfected secondary effluent is pumped year-round to irrigate fodder crops such as alfalfa, Sudan grass, oat hay and pasture.

Based on Records from January 1, 2018, through December 31, 2022, the City’s WWTP received an average daily flow of approximately 0.857 MGD. The maximum daily flow for the same period is approximately 1.014 MGD. Table 3-1 displays the average daily flow and maximum daily flows from January 1, 2018, through December 31, 2022.

Table 3-1 Average and Maximum Daily Wastewater Flows
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Average
Average Daily Flow (MGD) 0.824 0.838 0.864 0.877 0.880 0.857 Maximum Daily Flow (MGD) 0.925 0.908 0.957 1.014 1.005 0.962 Figure 3-1 displays the monthly average daily flow and maximum daily flow for each month between 2018 and 2022. The maximum daily flow peaks at an average of 1.003 MGD in June, while the average daily flow peaks at an average of 0.895 in February.

Using population data and influent wastewater presented in Table 3-1, the average wastewater generation per capita is approximately 51.690 gallons per capita day (gpcd). The maximum per capita wastewater generation for the same period is approximately 59.003 gpcd. Table 3‐2 provides projected values for the influent wastewater flows through 2045. As previously stated in Section 1 of this Report, population within the City has increased approximately 2.30 percent per year. As shown in Table 3-2, the WWTP’s current design flow of 1.34 MGD does not appear to provide adequate capacity through 2045.

Table 3-2 Projected Wastewater Flows
2024 2030 2035 2040 2045
Service Area Population 17,818 20,428 22,893 25,655 28,750 Estimated Average Daily Flows (MGD) 0.921 1.056 1.183 1.326 1.486 Estimated Average Maximum Flows (MGD) 1.051 1.205 1.351 1.514 1.696 Average Per Capita Consumption (gpcd) 51.690 51.690 51.689 51.690 51.690 Max Per Capita Consumption (gpcd) 59.004 59.003 59.003 59.003 59.003 City of Coalinga
Sanitary Sewer Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Preliminary Engineering Report
Section 3 – Wastewater Flows and Characteristics
9 2024 2030 2035 2040 2045
Service Area Population 17,818 20,428 22,893 25,655 28,750 Estimated Average Daily Flows (MGD) 0.921 1.056 1.183 1.326 1.486 Estimated Average Maximum Flows
(MGD) 1.051 1.205 1.351 1.514 1.696
Average Per Capita Consumption (gpcd) 51.690 51.690 51.689 51.690 51.690 Max Per Capita Consumption (gpcd) 59.004 59.003 59.003 59.003 59.003 The City owns and operates a citywide sewer collection system and a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP), which provides sewer service to approximately 3,687 connections, of which 3,369 are residential dwellings. The sewer collection system includes approximately 14 miles of sewer mains ranging in 6-inch to 24-inch in diameter. All of the homes currently receive water and wastewater services from the City of Coalinga.
• • • LEGEND LEGEND CITY OF COALINGA SANITARY SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT FIGURE 3-1 MONTHLY WASTEWATER FLOWS City of Coalinga
Sanitary Sewer Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Preliminary Engineering Report
Section 3 – Wastewater Flows and Characteristics
11 3.2. Wastewater Flow Characteristics
As stated above, influent wastewater flow to the City of Coalinga WWTP is comprised of primarily residential wastewater. The WWTP discharges undisinfected secondary effluent to adjacent land.

According to WDR Order No. 94-184, the WWTP is not required to monitor TSS. Table 3-3 summarizes the results of WWTP influent and effluent monitoring of BOD from the period of January 2018 through December 2022.

Table 3-3 Average Influent and Effluent BOD
Year
Influent Effluent
BOD
(mg/L)
BOD
(mg/L)
2018 196 42
2019 273 55
2020 264 41
2021 213 25
2022 225 31
90th Percentile 303 -
The City’s WWTP is currently regulated by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Discharge from the WWTP is required to meet all limits set forth in WDR Order No. 94-184.

According to WDR Order No. 94-184, the monthly average effluent BOD shall not exceed 40 milligrams per liter (mg/l) and the daily maximum shall not exceed 80 mg/l.

For design purposes, the 90th percentile is typically used in place of average values for BOD. The 90th percentile of past influent data represents the value that is exceeded 10 percent of the time. Figure 3-2 displays the frequency diagrams for BOD from January 2018 through December 2022.

3.3. Salinity
Treated wastewater contains higher concentrations of total dissolved solids (salinity) than that of the sources water. The increase in salinity is a result of domestic and commercial use of the water. The City currently monitors salinity by measuring the electrical conductivity of the WWTP effluent. The City’s source water, raw water from the Coalinga Canal, is currently monitored on an annual basis by the SWRCB. Table 3-4 shows the average EC levels in the City’s wastewater effluent during the period of January 2018 through December 2022. EC levels in the City’s source water are not available prior to 2023.

City of Coalinga
Sanitary Sewer Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Preliminary Engineering Report
Section 3 – Wastewater Flows and Characteristics
12 Table 3-4 Specific Conductivity
MonthYear
Specific Conductivity (µmhos/cm)
Source Water(1) Effluent
Jan-18 NA 840
Feb-18 NA NA
Mar-18 NA NA
Apr-18 NA NA
May-18 NA 1,000
Jun-18 NA 930
Jul-18 NA 1,000
Aug-18 NA 1,000
Sep-18 NA 1,030
Oct-18 NA 989
Nov-18 NA 1,090
Dec-18 NA 1,060
Jan-19 NA 1,060
Feb-19 NA 1,050
Mar-19 NA 1,150
Apr-19 NA 1,080
May-19 NA 984
Jun-19 NA 1,010
Jul-19 NA 953
Aug-19 NA 866
Sep-19 NA 899
Oct-19 NA 899
Nov-19 NA 889
Dec-19 NA 929
Jan-20 NA 923
Feb-20 NA NA
Mar-20 NA 1,000
Apr-20 NA 1,000
May-20 NA 1,000
Jun-20 NA 1,100
Jul-20 NA 1100
Aug-20 NA 1,100
Sep-20 NA 920
Oct-20 NA 960
Nov-20 NA 1,100
Dec-20 NA 1,100
City of Coalinga
Sanitary Sewer Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Preliminary Engineering Report
Section 3 – Wastewater Flows and Characteristics
13 Month-Year Specific Conductivity (µmhos/cm)
Source Water(1) Effluent
Jan-21 NA 1,400
Feb-21 NA 1,100
Mar-21 NA NA
Apr-21 NA 1,300
May-21 NA 1,300
Jun-21 NA 1,300
Jul-21 NA 1,100
Aug-21 NA 1,100
Sep-21 NA 1,200
Oct-21 NA 1,100
Nov-21 NA 1,300
Dec-21 NA 1,200
Jan-22 NA 1,200
Feb-22 NA 1,200
Mar-22 NA 1,500
Apr-22 NA 1,300
May-22 NA 1,300
Jun-22 NA 1,200
Jul-22 NA 1,200
Aug-22 NA 1,100
Sep-22 NA 1,200
Oct-22 NA NA
Nov-22 NA 1,200
Dec-22 NA NA
Notes:
(1) Source water EC is not available prior to 2023.
(2) Based on EC sample results from October 2018.
(3) Based on EC sample results from October 2019.
(4) Based on EC sample results from October 2020.
(5) Based on EC sample results from October 2021.
(6) Based on EC sample results from October 2022.

City of Coalinga
Sanitary Sewer Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Preliminary Engineering Report
Section 3 – Wastewater Flows and Characteristics
14 3.4. Effluent Quality Requirements
As previously stated, the City’s WWTP is regulated by the RWQCB and treated effluent discharges from the plant are required to meet all limits set forth WDR Order No. 94-184. A copy of this Order is provided in Appendix B. WDR Order No. 94-184 requires the City to monitor biological oxygen demand (BOD5) weekly and settleable solids (SS) daily. Total suspended solids (TSS) were measured prior to issuance of the current WDRs. The City does not monitor TSS. Table 3-5 displays the current limits set by the Order.

Table 3-5 WWTP Discharge Constituents and Limits
Constituent Units Monthly Average Daily Maximum
BOD mg/l 40 80
Settleable Solids mg/l 0.2 0.5
The current WDR does not place a limit on total nitrogen, and it is not measured at the plant. Treated effluent is discharged to approximately 325 acres of agricultural land located on several parcels adjacent to the WWTP site to grow non-human consumption crops. The parcels are leased by User. One of the goals of this PER is to determine improvements to the WWTP to be able to match the facility’s wastewater treatment and disposal capacities. However, nitrogen reduction will also be considered in the upgrade of the WWTP in preparation for a likely future requirement to reduce nitrogen.

3.5. Discharge Violations
Currently, the WWTP is meeting all limits outlined in the WDR Order No. 94-184 and no discharge violations have been issued by the RWQCB.

FIGURE 3-2 INFLUENT BOD FREQUENCY DIAGRAM • • • LEGEND CITY OF COALINGA SANITARY SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT City of Coalinga
Sanitary Sewer Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Preliminary Engineering Report
Section 4 – Existing Facilities and Project Need
16 SECTION 4 - EXISTING FACILITIES AND PROJECT NEED

4.1. Overview
The City owns and operates a wastewater collection and treatment system that provides sewer service to the City’s urbanized areas. The sewer collection system consists of over 42 miles of sewer pipelines with sizes ranging from 6 to 24-inches in diameter and a Wastewater treatment plant that currently serves 3,369 residences and 318 businesses.

4.2. Existing Wastewater Treatment Plant
The City owns and operates the WWTP under the current Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) Order No. 94-184. The WWTP is located at the confluence of Los Gatos Creek and Warthan Creek, approximately one mile east of the City. More specifically, the WWTP is located on Assessor's Parcel Nos. 070-070-023, 071-020-026.

The WWTP treats and discharges the municipal wastewater generated by residences and businesses within the City. The treatment process at the City’s WWTP consists of screening, primary clarification, and secondary treatment (aerated facultative lagoons followed by stabilization lagoons). Treated effluent quality is undisinfected secondary effluent as described in Section 30301.900 of Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR).

4.2.1. Background
The City's WWTP has undergone two major modifications and additions over the last 40 years.

According to WDR Order No. 76-180, the WWTP originally consisted of a primary clarifier followed by three oxidation ponds in series. The final disposal consisted of irrigating land controlled by the City and West Hills Community College for agricultural reclamation. At that time, the WWTP’s treatment capacity was 0.6 MGD.

In 1980 the City submitted a Report of Waste Discharge for the expansion of the existing treatment capacity from 0.6 MGD to 0.93 MGD. The modifications consisted of influent screening followed by two aerated facultative lagoons and three stabilization ponds. Final effluent disposal was consistent with previous practices on City-owned land and West Hills College grounds. These modifications and additions were implemented in 1982. WDR Order No. 80-064 was adopted on May 26, 1980.

In 1991, the City submitted a Report of Waste Discharge in support of a change in operation and an increase in quantity of discharge from its municipal WWTP. The treatment capacity was increased from

0.93 MGD to the current 1.34 MGD. The City completed the rehabilitation of the primary clarifier and aerobic digester, which were removed from service during the previous plant modification. Effluent is pumped from one of the stabilization ponds to 30 acres of farmland owned by the Discharger (leased and operated by West Hills Community College District) and 102 acres of farmland owned by West Hills Community College (User) for crop irrigation and percolation disposal. The User grows alfalfa, hay, cotton, pasture, and sugar beets (for research only) with reclaimed wastewater. The Discharger owns an additional 96.7 acres of land in the immediate area, which could be used for reclamation if needed.

City of Coalinga
Sanitary Sewer Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Preliminary Engineering Report
Section 4 – Existing Facilities and Project Need
17 The Wastewater Treatment Plant relied on land owned by the City and nearby West Hills Community College Farm (College) for the disposal of its treated wastewater effluent until 2003. In 2003, the College announced its plans to relocate their facility and develop the land where effluent was being disposed of.

Without the College, the City did not have an effluent disposal method and began investigating alternative disposal methods.

The City found HCM Farms, a landowner adjacent to the WWTP site who was interested in accepting recycled water. HCM Farms owned and operated about 448 acres of agricultural land and was interested in using the City's treated effluent to irrigate agricultural crops, primarily cotton. In 2010, HCM Farms was sold to Mouren Farms. Mouren Farms continued using recycled water from the City’s WWTP until March 31, 2014. In 2014, The City found Jeff Brooks, another farmer who was interested in using the City’s recycled water temporarily until the City secures a long-term disposal method. Mr. Brooks leases 325 acres around the WWTP including the West-Hills college reclamation areas permitted under the current WDRs. The City also owns approximately 470 acres on the southwest corner of Jayne Avenue and Alpine Avenue. The City purchased that land in 2006 with the intent of relocating its WWTP and disposal areas. The economic downturn has delayed the completion of that project. The use of recycled water by User is considered to be only temporary until the construction of infrastructure needed to convey the reclaimed water to the City-owned land is complete. Currently, treated effluent is pumped from one of the stabilization ponds to adjacent land, where it either evaporates or percolates into the soil and is used to recharge the groundwater table. By way of this process, most of the treated domestic wastewater is recycled as groundwater recharge.

4.2.2. Existing Treatment
The existing WWTP was constructed in 1982 and has a permitted capacity of 1.34 MGD. The City’s WWTP produces undisinfected secondary effluent suitable for irrigation of non-human consumption crops. The treatment process consists of screening, primary clarification, and secondary treatment (aerated facultative lagoons followed by stabilization lagoons). Treated effluent quality is undisinfected secondary effluent as described in Section 30301.900 of Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR). The treatment process is comprised of the following unit processes:

4.2.2.1. Screening
Wastewater flows by gravity throughout the City's sewer collection system and enters the WWTP at the headworks. At this point, the wastewater undergoes preliminary treatment, which consists of trash screening for removal of rags, sticks, and other large objects that could damage downstream equipment processes. Wastewater then flows through a Parshall flume equipped with an ultrasonic level transducer that continuously monitors the level and records the corresponding plant flow data.

4.2.2.2. Primary Treatment
Pretreated effluent from the headworks flows through a 24-inch gravity line into a clarifier center feed well. The purpose of the feed well baffle is to disperse the incoming wastewater without disturbing the settled sludge in the bottom of the clarifier. As wastewater flows through the clarifier, heavy solids settle to the bottom and are removed as primary sludge. The clarified effluent is collected by a peripheral overflow launder protected by a submerged baffle that retains floatable from entering the effluent channel. Floating material is removed by a surface skimmer that pushes the material into a City of Coalinga
Sanitary Sewer Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Preliminary Engineering Report
Section 4 – Existing Facilities and Project Need
18 scum beach. From there, the scum is pumped to the digester. Settled solids, primarily inorganic, and some large organic particles constitute the primary settled sludge. This sludge is scraped and pushed into the center sludge hopper by rotating rake arms. Scum is scraped by a rotating skimmer and deposited into a scum box. Eight spray nozzles are mounted along the clarifier walkway to aid in scum removal. Two 6-inch lines carry sludge from the sludge hopper and scum from the scum box to the primary pump station. From the primary pump station, the sludge is pumped to an aerobic digester by two separate plunger pumps. Both pumps are actuated either manually or automatically from a local control panel at the pump station. The piping is arranged in a way that both pumps are capable of pumping sludge.

4.2.2.3. Aerated Facultative Lagoons
Aerated facultative lagoons (AFLs) are the main treatment process responsible for the reduction of the soluble BOD. These lagoons, in conjunction with the downstream stabilization ponds, achieve high removal of organic materials, solids that are not removed in primary treatment, and pathogen bacteria.

The AFLs are equipped with surface aerators to supply the required oxygen for treatment and provide mixing of the surface zone. Eight aerators are installed, four in each lagoon. The aerators are driven by constant-speed electric motors. The aerators are controlled where they can be started and stopped to maintain a minimum dissolved oxygen concentration of 1 mg/L in the top layer of the lagoons.

The AFLs are designed to operate in parallel to better distribute the wastewater. The first aerator in each lagoon is a 20 HP unit while the remaining three are 10 HP. This design provides increased aeration in the zones of high oxygen demand at the beginning of the AFLs and inhibits uneven deposition or mounding of sludge.

4.2.2.4. Stabilization Ponds
Wastewater effluent from the AFLs flows into an effluent control box and then through three stabilization ponds (SPs) operated in series. The main purpose of these stabilization ponds is to provide secondary treatment or further removal of the remaining BOD and TSS not removed in primary treatment and aerated facultative lagoons. The stabilization ponds also act as seasonal storage facilities for the treated wastewater prior to effluent disposal. The water surface elevation in the first two stabilization ponds is controlled by a downstream weir at the end of the second pond. The water level at the third stabilization pond is controlled by the effluent pumping rate used at a given time to meet irrigation needs.

4.2.2.5. Aerobic Digester
Sludge collected at the primary clarifiers is regularly pumped into the aerobic digester. The aerobic digester provides an anoxic environment where the organic matter contained in the sludge is decomposed and transformed into stable material that can be air dried without causing objectionable odors. The aerobic digestion process decomposes the organic matter in water and C02, reducing the strength or volatile suspended solids (VSS) in the sludge collected by the primary clarifier. Aeration in the aerobic digester is provided by two positive displacement blowers that feed coarse bubble diffusers located near the bottom of the digester. The aerators are located at the side to impart turnover and mixing in the digester.

City of Coalinga
Sanitary Sewer Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Preliminary Engineering Report
Section 4 – Existing Facilities and Project Need
19 4.2.2.6. Sludge Drying Beds
Digested sludge leaving the aerobic digesters is fed to one of two asphalt-bottom sludge drying beds.

These beds provide enough air-sludge surface contact to enhance the evaporation of the water contained in the sludge. The sludge is first allowed to settle at the beds, after which the supernatant is decanted by telescopic valves and returned to the headworks. The remaining sludge is allowed to dry before it is scraped and stockpiled on-site. The sludge is then tested for regulated heavy metals before it is transported off-site by truck to a sludge composting facility for final disposal.

4.2.3. Existing Effluent Disposal
Currently, the City's wastewater effluent is transported to adjacent land and used for irrigation of nonfood crops such as cotton, alfalfa, and feed grains. Technically, all of Coalinga's wastewater can be said to be recycled since it is used to irrigate crops and a portion of the irrigation water percolates beyond the crop root zone ultimately to become groundwater. However, since groundwater is not a source of drinking water supply, it cannot be considered as offsetting potable water demand.

4.3. Project Need
The primary need for the City’s wastewater treatment facility improvement is due to the lack of effluent disposal alternatives. Currently, treated effluent is pumped from one of the stabilization ponds to adjacent land owned by the City and leased by Mr. Brooks. This effluent disposal method is a temporary solution to the City's effluent disposal needs.

4.3.1. System O&M
The City’s limited resources make it difficult to address the deficiencies in the wastewater treatment facility. This planning study has provided a comprehensive evaluation of the wastewater treatment facility. The City would like to correct the identified deficiencies in the wastewater treatment facility and is applying to the Clean Water State Revolving Fund to fund the recommended improvements.

4.3.2. Current O&M Expenses
Currently, operation and Maintenance (O&M) costs for the wastewater treatment facility include the cost labor, equipment, supplies, consulting fees, Maintenance, construction costs, equipment, and operational transfers. Table 4-4 displays the City’s actual O&M cost for the 2022-2023 fiscal year. • • • LEGEND CITY OF COALINGA SANITARY SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT FIGURE 4-1 WWTP SITE LAYOUT City of Coalinga
Sanitary Sewer Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Preliminary Engineering Report
Section 4 – Existing Facilities and Project Need
21 4.4. Sewer Collection System
The City owns and operates a citywide sewer collection system which provides sewer service to approximately 3,687 connections, of which 3,369 are residential dwellings. The sewer collection system includes approximately 14 miles of sewer mains ranging in 6‐inch to 24‐inch in diameter. All the homes currently receive water and wastewater services from the City of Coalinga. The overall condition of the sewer collection system is unknown. The older areas are believed to be in poor condition and in need of substantial repairs. The City’s Maintenance staff regularly respond to problems with the collection system and spend a great deal of their time locating and/or repairing the system in response to emergency calls from the City’s residents. Table 4-1 provides a summary of the existing sewer pipelines within the City’s collection system and a map of the system is shown in Figure 4-2.

Table 4-1 Summary of Sewer Pipelines
Diameter Length
(in) (ft)
6 ±72,732
8 ±23,462
10 ±4,031
12 ±1,105
15 ±1,364
18 ±5,987
24 ±2,499
Total ±111,180
6 IN LINE
8" LINE
10" LINE
12" LINE
15" LINE
18" LINE
24" LINE

MAINS NOT

INCLUDED IN
SURVEY

MANHOLES

INCLUDED IN
SURVEY

MANHOLES NOT

INCLUDED IN
SURVEY
• • •

CITY OF COALINGA

CCTV INSPECTION PROJECT
FIGURE 4-2 SEWER MAINS TO BE

INSPECTED VIA CCTV SURVEY NORTH
LEGEND
0 1,000 FT

SCALE IN FEET
• • •

CITY OF COALINGA

CCTV INSPECTION PROJECT
FIGURE 4-2 SEWER MAINS TO BE

INSPECTED VIA CCTV SURVEY
6 IN LINE
8" LINE
10" LINE
12" LINE
15" LINE
18" LINE
24" LINE

MAINS NOT

INCLUDED IN
SURVEY

MANHOLES

INCLUDED IN
SURVEY

MANHOLES NOT

INCLUDED IN

SURVEY NORTH
LEGEND
0 1,000 FT

SCALE IN FEET
City of Coalinga
Sanitary Sewer Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Preliminary Engineering Report
Section 4 – Existing Facilities and Project Need
23 4.5. Condition of Sewer Collection System
The City’s sewer collection system is aged and some of the older portions of the system experience frequent blockages, overflows and require cleaning or removal of roots. The physical condition of some of these sewer lines is believed to be very poor, likely beyond their life expectancy, and needs to be replaced. Beyond the required Maintenance and repair activities, there has not been any major replacement or rehabilitation of the City’s sewer collection system to date.

A condition survey of the sewer collection system was conducted to document the system’s existing condition, identify deficiencies, and estimate the useful life of the sewer mains. The current physical condition of the system’s components was assessed through site visits, discussion with City staff, and a comprehensive closed-circuit television (CCTV) inspection. As part of this PER, the City conducted a comprehensive CCTV inspection on the older portions of the sewer collection system. The results of the CCTV inspection are described below.

4.5.1. CCTV Inspection
Video Inspection Services (VIS) was retained by the City to perform hydro-flushing and a CCTV inspection assessment on approximately 111,180 LF of gravity sanitary sewer mains. The condition of the sewer mains was rated using the National Association of Sewer Service Companies (NASSCO) Pipeline Assessment Conditions Program (PACP) standardized rating. NASSCO PACP provides a standardized system for the consistent assessment of sanitary sewer conditions. PACP provides the capability to benchmark sewer conditions to track deterioration over time.

Table 4-2 NASSCO PACP Ratings
Rating Importance Likelihood of Failure
5 – Immediate
Attention
Defects require immediate
action
Pipe has failed or will likely fail
within the next 5 years
4 – Poor Severe defects Pipe will probably fail in 5 to 10 years
3 – Fair Moderate defect that will
continue to deteriorate Pipe may fail in 10 to 20 years 2 – Good Defects that have not begun to
deteriorate
Pipe unlikely to fail for at least 20
years
1 ‐ Excellent Minor or no defects Failure unlikely in the foreseeable future
The PACP process identifies major deterioration factors and assigns a rating that is related to the likelihood of failure or collapse. Deterioration factors include surrounding soil condition, position of groundwater table, frequency of sewer surcharging, above ground traffic loading, methods and materials used in construction, third party damages and defects such as roots, grease, and debris causing more frequent cleaning. It is important to note that the condition of the sewer involves many deterioration factors, both internal and external. A CCTV inspection can only determine the internal defects that affect the sewer condition. PACP defects are assigned a grade of 1 to 5 in order of increasing severity. Table 4-3 shows the criteria of NASSCP PACP ratings.

City of Coalinga
Sanitary Sewer Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Preliminary Engineering Report
Section 4 – Existing Facilities and Project Need
24 Table 4-4 provides a summary of the ratings observed in the 104,618 LF of CCTV video evaluated.

Figure 4-4 displays the map of the sewer collection system with the overall ratings of the pipes that were included in the CCTV inspection. Ratings are based on the structural integrity of the pipes and the operation and Maintenance issues such as changes in pipe alignment.

The CCTV inspection revealed the poor conditions of some of the City’s older lines. Defects found in the sewer lines include deformation, root intrusion, cracked pipe, collapsed and broken pipe, sags, intruding laterals, defective lateral break-ins, attached deposits (grease and concrete), and medium to large joint displacements.

4.6. Project Need
The primary need for a sewer collection system improvement project is due to the significant deterioration of the sewer infrastructure. The City’s Maintenance staff regularly response to problems with the collection system as back‐ups and overflows/spills and spend a great deal of their time locating and/or repairing the system in response to emergency calls from the City’s residents. According to the results of the CCTV inspection, approximately 50 percent of the sewer lines inspected require either replacement or rehabilitation.

Table 4-3 Summary of PACP Defects
Rating Diameter
(in)
Total Length Surveyed
(ft)
5 6, 8 & 10 5,182
4 6, 8, 10, 15 & 18 21,497
3 6, 8, 10, 15 & 18 26,351
2 6, 8, 10, 15, 18 & 24 10,067
1 6, 8, 10, 15, 18 & 24 41,522
Total Length Surveyed 104,618
• • •

CITY OF COALINGA

CCTV INSPECTION PROJECT NORTH
0 1,500 FT

SCALE IN FEET
NASSCO PACP RATING 1
NASSCO PACP RATING 2
NASSCO PACP RATING 3
NASSCO PACP RATING 4
NASSCO PACP RATING 5
LEGEND
FIGURE 4-3

SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM

CONDITION ASSESSMENT
City of Coalinga
Sanitary Sewer Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Preliminary Engineering Report
Section 4 – Existing Facilities and Project Need
26 4.6.1. Health and Safety
The major concerns related to health and safety are associated with the age and operating condition of the City’s collection system. As stated above, the current state of the system is the cause of blockages and sewer system overflows (SSOs).

There have been no formal Notices of Violation (NOV) from regulatory agencies concerning the City’s sewer collection system. The recent CCTV inspection provided the best evidence of the poor condition of some segments of the sewer collection system which are responsible for most of the SSOs in the City.

There are numerous public health and safety threats arising from SSOs onto the City’s streets and residential properties. There are also significant health and safety risks for staff that are responsible for the cleanup and repair of the sewer lines.

4.6.2. System O&M
The City’s limited resources make it difficult to address the deficiencies in the sewer collection system.

This planning study has provided a comprehensive evaluation of the sewer collection system. The City would like to correct the identified deficiencies in the sewer collection system and is applying to the Clean Water State Revolving Fund to fund the recommended improvements.

4.6.2.1. Current O&M Expenses
Currently, operation and Maintenance (O&M) costs for the sewer collection system include the cost labor, equipment, supplies, consulting fees, Maintenance, construction costs, equipment, and operational transfers. Table 4-5 displays the City’s actual O&M cost for the 2022-2023 fiscal year.

Table 4-4 Current O&M Expenses
Description Costs
Salaries Regular $ 124,053.00
Salaries Overtime $ 3,900.00
Salaries Cash Outs $ 2,377.00
Retirement CALPERS $ 11,674.00
Medical/Life Insurance $ 28,761.00
Social Security FICA $ 7,753.00
Medicare Insurance $ 1,799.00
Disability Income Insurance $ 1,551.00
Deferred Comp - 457 Retirement $ 5,250.00
Workers Comp. Insurance $ 14,886.00
Uniform Allowance $ 236.00
Retirement CalPERS UL $ 1,997.00
Unemployment Insurance $ 1,241.00
Personnel Cost $ 205,478.00
City of Coalinga
Sanitary Sewer Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Preliminary Engineering Report
Section 4 – Existing Facilities and Project Need
27 Description Costs
Office Supplies $ 200.00
Postage & Freight Out $ 50.00
Printing & Binding $ 50.00
Uniforms $ 2,500.00
Uniforms-Safety Equipment $ 3,000.00
Street Materials $ 4,500.00
Utility Parts & Supplies $ 4,500.00
Gasoline & Diesel $ 12,000.00
Miscellaneous Supplies $ 2,000.00
Water, Gas, Sanitation & Sewer $ 2,000.00
Electric $ 10,000.00
Telephone $ 5,000.00
Office Equip, Repairs & Maintenance $ 500.00
Major Equip Repairs & Maintenance $ 15,000.00
Buildings Repairs & Maintenance $ 5,000.00
Vehicle Parts, Repairs & Maintenance $ 20,000.00
Training, Travel, & Conference $ 5,000.00
Subs., Dues, & Publications $ 3,000.00
City Attorney Fees $ 1,000.00
Computer Program & Consulting $ 8,000.00
Medical - General $ 100.00
Professional Services $ 10,000.00
Geographic Information Systems $ 1,000.00
Grant Writing/Application $ 7,000.00
Physical w/Drug & Alcohol Test $ 150.00
Fingerprinting $ 15.00
Liability & Property Insurance $ 16,000.00
Taxes, Licenses, & Fees $ 1,200.00
Major Machinery & Equipment $ 30,000.00
New Los Gatos Lift Station $ 200,000.00
O&M Cost $ 368,765.00
Wastewater Collection Total $ 574,243.00

4.6.3. Growth
As described in Section 1.2.4, the City’s population according to the 2000 U.S. Census was 11,668.

According to the U.S. Census Population Estimates Program, population within the City has increased to approximately 17,024 in 2022. Therefore, the observed average annual growth rate from 1990 through 2022 is approximately 2.30 percent.

City of Coalinga
Sanitary Sewer Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Preliminary Engineering Report
Section 5 – Improvements to Sewer Collection System
28 SECTION 5 - IMPROVEMENTS TO SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM

5.1. Alternatives Considered
Three alternatives were considered for the improvement of the City of Coalinga’s sewer collection system, including a no project alternative. Additionally, two construction alternatives are considered herein for the repair or replacement of damaged sewer mains. The first construction alternative consists of using only conventional construction methods, such as digging the damaged sewer main and replacing it with a new pipe. The second alternative consists of using both convention and trenchless construction methods. The trenchless construction method will consist of pipe bursting or cured-inplace (CIPP) where feasible. In summary, the three alternatives are as follows:
• Alternative No. I: No Project
• Alternative No. II: Convention Construction Method
• Alternative No. III: Conventional and Trenchless Construction Methods The following sections contain a description of each alternative, including design parameters, purposed layouts, and an opinion of probable construction costs and operation and Maintenance (O&M) costs.

The anticipated useful life of rehabilitated sewer pipe and replaced sewer pipe is the same and in excess of 50 years.

5.2. Alternative No. I: No Project
Under the “No Project” Alternative, the City’s sewer collection systems would continue to operate under current conditions. This Alternative was dismissed due to not addressing concerns with the current condition of the sewer collection. As described in Section 4.4, the CCTV inspection of the sewer collection system revealed the severe condition of several pipe segments within the collection system.

These pipe segments will require replacement in the future as they will continue to deteriorate.

5.3. Alternative No. II: Convention Construction Method Alternative No. II involves replacing deteriorated sewer pipes with new pipes located along the same alignment as the existing. Under this Alternative, bypass pumping equipment and piping will be utilized on a temporary basis to convey wastewater around the construction zone while the existing pipe is excavated and removed. The new sanitary sewer will be installed in the existing pipe trench. Acquisition of new easements is not anticipated.

Conventional construction requires detailed geotechnical investigations and topographical surveys to locate existing utilities that may be impacted by the excavation of the sewer line. Conventional construction uses heavy equipment to dig the trenches and requires surface restoration of the excavated trench.

Conventional Construction is the recommended construction method under the following circumstances:
• where a portion of the existing pipe is collapsed; 0
• where there are multiple offset joints greater than 1-inch or if sealing rings protrude more than 1 inch;
• where the pipe is structurally deformed, and the profile of the pipe is lost; City of Coalinga
Sanitary Sewer Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Preliminary Engineering Report
Section 5 – Improvements to Sewer Collection System
29 • where heavy roots through pipe joints cannot be removed by interior cutting; • where heavy roots have compromised the structural integrity of the pipe; • where sags are greater than 60 percent of the pipe diameter.

5.3.1. Sewer Main Replacement
The segments of the City’s sewer collection system recommended for replacement have been selected based on sorted NASSCO ratings. It is recommended that sewer mains with a NASSCO overall condition rating of 3 and above be replaced unless the NASSCO rating is the result of designate alignment changes to the sewer main. Additionally, sewer mains where sags are present are also recommended to be replaced. Table 5-1 shows a summary of the sewer lines that are recommended to be replaced under this Alternative.

Table 5-1 Sewer Mains Recommended to be Replaced
From MH To MH Reason(s) Method Length (ft)
AP 1 B 001 Survey abandoned due to obstruction Replacement 530 AP 19 B 019 Broken Pipe, Hole Void Visible Replacement 214 CO 245 Broken pipe, Hole Void Visible Replacement 333
005 005 B Survey abandoned due to Root Joint Fine and cannot pass, Material pipe change RCP to VCP Replacement 411
5th 4th Multiple Pipe Fractures, Broken Pipe, Hole Void Visible, Multiple Cracks, Tap Break-in Intruding
Replacement 401
007 008 Broken Pipe Soil Visible Replacement 235
012 014 Multiple Cracks and Tap Break-in Intruding Replacement 427 012 013 Broken Pipe, Multiple Fractures, Tap Intruding Replacement 223 013 014 Multiple Fractures, Multiple Cracks, Tap Intruding Replacement 201 014 015 Multiple Cracks Replacement 300
015 021 B Pipe Fractures, Hole Void Visible, Tap Intruding Replacement 331 018 024 Sags 25%, Broken Pipe, Multiple Cracks, Joint Offset Medium, Material Pipe change VCP to PVC Replacement 330
022 033 Broken Pipe, Multiple Fractures Replacement 324 024 025 Multiple Cracks, Multiple Fractures, Sags 25% 25% 30% Replacement 299 020 021 Multiple Cracks Replacement 478
021 021 B Multiple Cracks Replacement 317
021 B 022 Multiple Cracks Replacement 165
029 052 Joint Offset Medium - Large Replacement 73
033 044 B Multiple Fractures, Material Pipe Change PVC to VCP Replacement 309 037 050 Survey abandoned due to debri and surface damage aggregate visible Replacement 19
038 039 Hole Void Visible Replacement 229
039 040 Broken Pipe Replacement 499
040 040 B Joint Offset Medium Replacement 425
41 B 117 B Broken Soil Visible, JOM Replacement 196
044 B 055 Multiple Cracks, Multiple Fractures, Sag 45%, Material Pipe Change Replacement 311 City of Coalinga
Sanitary Sewer Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Preliminary Engineering Report
Section 5 – Improvements to Sewer Collection System
30 Table 5-1 Sewer Mains Recommended to be Replaced
From MH To MH Reason(s) Method Length (ft)
050 049 Survey abandoned due to deposits settled gravel, bend in pipe, Material change CP to Clay Replacement 46
055 078 Multiple Cracks, Multiple Fractures, Joint Offset Medium, Root Joint Fine Replacement 320
059 058 Broken pipe hole void visible Replacement 6
059 087 Multiple Fractures, Broken Pipe, Hole Void Visible, Multiple Cracks Replacement 448 064 091 Multiple Fractures, Hole Void Visible, Joint Offset Medium Replacement 442 069 095 Multiple Fractures, Broken pipe soil visible, Tap Intruding Replacement 166 73 C 113 C Broken Soil Visible Replacement 549
066 092 Multiple Fractures, Hole Void Visible, Sag 30% Replacement 72 081 082 Multiple Fractures, Multiple Cracks Replacement 305 082 082 B Multiple Fractures, Multiple Cracks, Joint Offset Medium, Sags 50% Replacement 639 084 090 Multiple Fractures, Multiple Cracks Replacement 502 088 088 B Survey abandoned due to Joint Offset Medium - Large Replacement 41 089 063 Survey abandoned due to tap break in intruding Replacement 90 091 093 Multiple Fractures Replacement 505
093 098 Multiple Fractures, Multiple Cracks Replacement 588 094 112 Survey abandoned, Broken Pipe Replacement 338
095 068 Multiple Fractures, Broken Pipe, Hole Void Visible, Joint Offset Medium, Tap Intruding Replacement 259
096 114 Multiple Cracks, Deposits Settled Gravel Replacement 200 100 100 B Multiple Fractures, Multiple Cracks Longitudinal, Gravel Deposits Replacement 435 106 108 Multiple Cracks, Hole Void Visible Replacement 303 106 108 Multiple Cracks, Hole Void Visible, Grease Deposits Attached Replacement 322 106 108 Multiple Cracks, Multiple Fractures, Hole Void Visible, Sag 20% Replacement 337 106 108 Joint Offset Medium - Large, Broken pipe, Hole Void Visible Replacement 16 107 85 Multiple Cracks Replacement 199
108 107 Multiple Cracks Replacement 116
109 088 Multiple Fractures, Multiple Cracks, Tap Intruding, Material Pipe change PVC to VCP Replacement 256
113 113 C Multiple Fractures, Broken Pipe, Hole Void Visible Replacement 446 113 C 113 B Multiple Pipe Fractures, Broken Pipe and Material Pipe Change VCP to PVC
Replacement 154
114 114 B Multiple Fractures, Sag 30%, Gravel deposits settled Replacement 159 115 B 115 C Multiple Fractures, Multiple Cracks, Sags 30% Replacement 161 115 C 117 B Multiple Fractures Replacement 184
117 120 Pipe Fracture Replacement 1,109
117 B 117 Multiple Fractures, Multiple Cracks, JOM, Material Pipe Change PVC to VCP Replacement 1,240
127 B 85 Broken Pipe, Hole Void Visible Replacement 439 City of Coalinga
Sanitary Sewer Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Preliminary Engineering Report
Section 5 – Improvements to Sewer Collection System
31 Table 5-1 Sewer Mains Recommended to be Replaced
From MH To MH Reason(s) Method Length (ft)
132 127 Obstruction in pipe, Broken Pipe Soil Visible, Roots Joint Fine Replacement 359 133 146 Broken pipe soil visible Replacement 398
133 111 Multiple Fractures, Hole Void Visible, Joint Offset Medium Replacement 364 134 135 Pipe Collapse, Broken Pipe, Multiple Fractures, Multiple Cracks, Grease Deposits attached Replacement 401
135 112 Multiple Fractures, Joint Offset Medium, Sag 20% Replacement 479 138 B 138 C Multiple Cracks, Pipe Material Change Replacement 176 138 D 138 Multiple Fractures, Hole Void Visible, Multiple Cracks, Joint Offset Medium, Sag 20% 20% 40%, Survey abandoned due to debris Replacement 365 138 115 B Multiple Cracks, Multiple Fractures, Sag 20% Replacement 116 138 C 138 D Hole Void Visible Replacement 96
141 142 Pipe deformed (Cut in pipe) Replacement 463
143 148 Multiple Cracks, Multiple Fractures, Hole Void Visible Replacement 495 144 143 Multiple Cracks, Multiple Fractures Replacement 83 145 133 Survey abandoned due to Joint Offset Medium, Debri under water, Broken Pipe, Hole Void Visible, Multiple Cracks Replacement 105 147 134 Joint Offset Medium, Grease Deposits Attached Replacement 481 148 110 Multiple Fractures, Broken Pipe, Multiple Cracks Replacement 446 149 135 Broken Pipe, Multiple Fractures, Hole Void Visible, Sag 30%, 40% Replacement 480 152 137 Pipe Fractures Replacement 480
153 138 B Broken Pipe, Hole Void Visible, Multiple Cracks Replacement 235 155 154 Hole Void Visible, Pipe Surface Damage Replacement 57 155 156 Survey abandoned due to holes getting larger, deposits settled and debris Replacement 175
156 157 Broken Pipe Soil Visible, Survey abandoned due to surface damage aggregate visible Replacement 239
157 158 Survey abandoned due to surface damage aggregate visible Replacement 195 163 163 B Joint Separated Medium, Surface Spalling Damage Replacement 265 164 145 Multiple Fractures, Hole Void Visible, Multiple Cracks, Joint Offset Medium Replacement 475
165 147 Joint Offset Medium, Grease Deposits Attached Replacement 491 166 167 Broken pipe, Hole Void Visible Replacement 454
171 149 Multiple Fractures, Multiple Cracks, Broken Pipe, Severe Grease Deposits Attached Replacement 482
172 152 Pipe Fractures , Hole Void Visible Replacement 479 173 153 Broken Pipe, Hole Void Visible, Multiple Cracks Replacement 479 174 153 Multiple Cracks Replacement 199
175 174 Hole Void Visible Replacement 199
176 177 Pipe Fractures, Holes Void Visible, Survey abandoned due to Joint Offset Medium Replacement 354
177 178 Pipe Fractures, Deposits settled survey abandoned Replacement 162 City of Coalinga
Sanitary Sewer Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Preliminary Engineering Report
Section 5 – Improvements to Sewer Collection System
32 Table 5-1 Sewer Mains Recommended to be Replaced
From MH To MH Reason(s) Method Length (ft)
178 179 Survey abandoned due to Joint Offset Medium, Pipe Fractures Replacement 301 179 179 B Survey abandoned due to debri under water Replacement 147 183 164 Survey abandoned due to obstruction in pipe Replacement 274 184 171 Pipe Fractures, Broken Pipe, Hole Void Visible, Joint Offset Medium, Tap Intruding Replacement 481
185 C 185 B Survey abandoned cannot continue Replacement 307 185 175 Multiple Cracks, Broken Pipe Soil Visible Replacement 479 185 B 185 Hole Void Visible, Multiple Cracks Replacement 478 186 183 Multiple Cracks Replacement 228
188 C 188 B Multiple Cracks Replacement 189
188 173 Hole in Pipe, Multiple Cracks, Survey abandoned due to obstruction in Pipe Replacement 389
188 B 188 Broken Pipe, Hole Void Visible, Multiple Cracks Replacement 478 189 B 189 Survey abandoned due to obstruction Replacement 264 189 185 Multiple Cracks Replacement 398
194 195 Survey abandoned due to pipe in line Replacement 240 195 196 Survey abandoned due to Joint Offset Medium - Large Replacement 461 199 184 Survey abandoned due to grease deposits attached, Broken Pipe, Multiple Cracks Replacement 111
200 199 Pipe Fractures Replacement 198
201 201 C Pipe Fractures, Hole Void Visible, Joint Offset Medium Replacement 484 201 B 201 Broken Pipe, Pipe Fractures, Hole Void Visible Replacement 236 201 C 172 Survey abandoned due to deposits settled and debris Replacement 108 202 B 202 Survey abandoned due to Joint Offset Medium Replacement 163 203 204 Joint Offset Medium Replacement 480
204 B 193 Multiple Fractures, Multiple Cracks Replacement 150 204 C 204 B Broken Pipe with crack and fracture Replacement 7 205 206 Multiple Longitudinal Cracks, JOM - Large Replacement 215 206 204 C Multiple Fractures, Multiple Cracks, Pipe surface damage Replacement 175 206 206 B Multiple Longitudinal Cracks Replacement 176
209 212 Broken Pipe Replacement 150
210 211 Multiple Cracks, Roots Joint Fine Replacement 200 213 214 Multiple Cracks Replacement 300
224 207 Multiple Cracks, Broken Pipe with Pipe Fracture Replacement 613 225 212 Multiple Cracks, Roots Joint Medium Replacement 459 226 213 Multiple Cracks, Joint Offset Medium Replacement 469 227 214 Multiple Cracks Replacement 489
229 215 Multiple Fractures, Joint Offset Medium, Material Change VCP to PVC Replacement 253
City of Coalinga
Sanitary Sewer Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Preliminary Engineering Report
Section 5 – Improvements to Sewer Collection System
33 Table 5-1 Sewer Mains Recommended to be Replaced
From MH To MH Reason(s) Method Length (ft)
229 B 229 Broken Pipe Soil Visible, Multiple Cracks Replacement 377 230 229 B Broken Pipe Soil Visible, Multiple Cracks, Joint Offset Medium Replacement 373 230 231 Broken Pipe Soil Visible Replacement 355
231 232 Broken Pipe Soil Visible Replacement 401
232 233 Soil Visible and Multiple Cracks Replacement 339 233 234 Broken Pipe Replacement 63
234 235 Hole Void Visible Replacement 373
235 222 Pipe Fractures, Joint Offset Medium - Large, Material change VCP to PVC Replacement 250
237 237 B Joint Offset Medium Replacement 177
239 229 Survey abandoned due to camera under water, Multiple fractures Replacement 124 240 239 Multiple Cracks, Hole Void Visible Replacement 756 240 241 Survey abandoned due to obstruction under water level, Pipe material change VCP to PVC Replacement 146
241 242 Pipe Fracture, Joint Offset Medium Replacement 157 242 243 Multiple Fractures Joint Offset Medium - Roots Replacement 175 243 233 Pipe Fracture Replacement 200
246 B 246 Broken Pipe Soil Visible, Multiple Cracks, Joint Offset Medium Replacement 471 246 B 246 Survey abandoned due Infiltration Stain Joint, Multiple Holes Soil Visible, Multiple Fractures Replacement 263
247 246 Pipe Fractures, Multiple Cracks, Hole Void Visible Replacement 371 248 249 Pipe Fractures, Joint Offset Medium Replacement 25 248 247 Sag, Multiple cracks, Multiple Fracture Replacement 765 248 249 Survey abandoned due to line collapsing Replacement 25 250 251 Broken Pipe Soil Visible, Multiple Cracks Replacement 496 251 247 Pipe Fractures Replacement 185
252 134 Broken pipe, hole void visible, Sag 10% Replacement 239 252 094 Joint Offset Medium. Material Pipe change PVC to VCP Replacement 242 252 134 Obstruction in pipe Replacement 232
255 256 Broken Pipe, Soil Visible, Joint Offset Medium, Multiple Fractures Replacement 329 256 257 Broken Pipe, Multiple Fractures, Joint Offset Medium, Hole Void Visible, Tap Intruding Replacement 153
257 258 Broken Pipe, Multiple Fractures, Hole Void Visible, Multiple Cracks, Joint Offset Medium, Survey abandoned due to large offset Replacement 180 258 259 Tap Break-in Intruding, Multiple Longitudinal Cracks, Joint Separated Medium Replacement 243
259 260 Hole Void Visible, Tap Break-in Intruding Replacement 7 259 260 Hole Void Visible, Multiple Cracks, Fracture Longitudinal, Tap Breakin Intruding Replacement 271
260 261 Broken Pipe, Hole Void Visible, Multiple Cracks Replacement 218 City of Coalinga
Sanitary Sewer Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Preliminary Engineering Report
Section 5 – Improvements to Sewer Collection System
34 Table 5-1 Sewer Mains Recommended to be Replaced
From MH To MH Reason(s) Method Length (ft)
261 262 Broken Pipe Soil Visible, Multiple Cracks, JOM Replacement 750 262 205 Deposits Grease attached, Multiple Cracks Replacement 277 Total Length to Be Replaced 50,616
Under this Alternative, approximately 50,616 LF of sewer mains will be replaced with new sewer pipes before failure occurs. Figure 5-1 displays the pipe segments that are recommended for replacement.

5.3.2. Probable Construction Costs
Table 5-2 provides an opinion of probable construction costs for the replacement of the deteriorated and/or sagging sewer mains.

Table 5-2 Alternative No. II Probable Construction Costs Description Quantity Units Unit Cost
($/Unit) Total
Mobilization 1 LS $240,000 $240,000
Traffic Control Plan 1 LS $90,000 $90,000
New 6" PVC Pipe 29,751 LF $215 $6,397,000
New 8" PVC Pipe 11,524 LF $215 $2,478,000
New 10" PVC Pipe 3,809 LF $240 $915,000
New 15" PVC Pipe 2,558 LF $265 $678,000
New 18" PVC Pipe 2,975 LF $265 $789,000
Excavation 31,130 CY $9 $281,000
Backfill 43,582 TON $6 $262,000
Surface Restoration 7,780 SY $30 $234,000
Remove and Replace Sewer Lateral 40 EA $4,800 $192,000
Bypass Pumping 140 Day $1,200 $168,000
Subtotal Construction Costs $12,724,000
Contingency (15%) $1,908,600
Engineering, Environmental, Construction Administration (12%) $1,526,880 Total Capital Construction Costs $16,159,480
NOTE:

All capital construction costs are rounded up to the nearest thousand.

5.3.3. Annual O&M Costs
The annual operation and Maintenance (O&M) costs for Alternative No. II will consist of conventional Maintenance costs to operate the sewer collection system. Since this alternative only includes the replacement of existing sewer mains and laterals, no additional O&M costs are anticipated after construction concludes. The City’s existing O&M costs for the sewer collection system are provided in Table 4-5 of this PER.
• • •

CITY OF COALINGA

CCTV INSPECTION PROJECT NORTH
0 1,500 FT

SCALE IN FEET

NO REPLACEMENT

REPLACEMENT

NOT SURVEYED
LEGEND

ALTERNATIVE II -

SEWER MAINS TO BE REPLACED
City of Coalinga
Sanitary Sewer Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Preliminary Engineering Report
Section 5 – Improvements to Sewer Collection System
36 5.4. Alternative No. III Conventional and Trenchless Construction Methods Under this Alternative, both conventional and trenchless construction methods will be used to either replace or rehabilitate deteriorated sewer mains. Where applicable, Alternative No. III will utilize trenchless sewer rehabilitation techniques in lieu of conventional replacement methods. Trenchless sewer rehabilitation techniques offer a method of correcting pipe deficiencies that requires less restoration and causes less disturbance and environmental degradation than the conventional construction method. The most common trenchless sewer rehabilitation methods are Pipe Bursting and Cured‐In‐Place Pipe (CIPP).

5.4.1. Pipe Bursting
Pipe bursting is a method by which the existing pipe is forced outward and opened by a bursting tool. In pipe bursting the existing pipe is used as a guide for inserting the expansion head (part of the bursting tool). The expansion head, typically pulled by a cable rod and winch, increases the area available for the new pipe by pushing the existing pipe radially outward until it cracks. The bursting device pulls the new pipeline behind itself.

During the pipe bursting process, the rehabilitated pipe segment must be taken out of service by rerouting flows around it. After the pipe bursting is completed, laterals are re-connected, typically by conventional excavation methods.

Pipe Bursting is the recommended rehabilitation method under the following circumstances:
• when capacity of the existing line needs to be increased; • when the number of lateral connections is limited;
• when the number of crossing utilities is limited and the clearance between utilities is greater than 3 ft;
• when the depth of the sewer lines is less than 12 ft; • when sags in the line do not exceed 20 percent of the pipe diameter; • when pipes are not encased in concrete.

5.4.2. CIPP
Cured-in-place pipe (CIPP) is a rehabilitation method that uses a flexible fabric liner coated with a thermosetting resin to form a new pipe inside the existing pipe. The liner is inserted into the existing pipeline and cured to form a new liner. The liner is typically inserted into the existing pipe through an existing manhole. The fabric tube holds the resin in place until the tube is inserted in the pipe and ready to be cured. Commonly manufactured resins include unsaturated polyester, vinyl ester, and epoxy, each having distinct chemical resistance to domestic wastewater.

The CIPP method can be applied to rehabilitate pipelines with defects such as cracks, small offset joints, and structurally deficient segments. The thermosetting resin material bonds with the existing pipe materials to form a tighter seal than most other trenchless techniques. The liner is typically applied using gravity and either water or air pressure to force the tube through the pipe and invert it or turn the tube inside out. This process presses the resin- coated tube against the walls of the existing pipe. Heat is used to cure the resin to form a strong bond between the tube and the existing pipe.

City of Coalinga
Sanitary Sewer Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Preliminary Engineering Report
Section 5 – Improvements to Sewer Collection System
37 As the liner expands to fit the new pipe, dimples occur in the line where the laterals exist. Dimples in the line can be found by TV inspection or robotic equipment. Laterals are typically reinstated with robotic cutting devices, or, for large-diameter pipes, by manually cutting the liner.

CIPP is the recommended rehabilitation method under the following circumstances:
• where offset pipe joints are generally 1 inch or less; • where longitudinal or circumferential cracking in the pipe has caused minimal structural deformation;
• where light to medium roots exist through the pipe joints and can be removed by interior cutting;
• where sags in the pipe are less than 60 percent of the pipe diameter; • where debris can be removed from the pipe;
• where holes in the pipe don’t have visible voids (i.e., no soil visible outside the hole); larger holes allow CIPP liners to deform and weaken near the edges of the hole.

5.4.3. Sewer Main Replacement and Rehabilitation
Alternative No. III consists of an “in-kind” rehabilitation and replacement of the City’s gravity sewer mains. Where feasible, segments of the sewer collection system will be rehabilitated using trenchless construction methods. In order to ensure the structural integrity of the sewer system, conventional “open trench” construction methods will be used to replace the sewer mains that display pipe deformations, broken pipes, or sags greater than 60 percent of the pipe diameter. Table 5-3 displays the sewer mains that are recommended to be rehabilitated or replaced under this alternative. The proposed improvements are shown in Figure 5-2.

Table 5-3 Alternative No. III Sewer Mains Recommended to be Rehabilitated/Replaced From MH To MH Reason(s) Method Length
(ft)
AP 1 B 001 Survey abandoned due to obstruction Trenchless 530 005 005 B Survey abandoned due to Root Joint Fine and cannot pass Trenchless 276 005 005 B Material pipe change RCP to VCP, Lining damage, Roots Joint Fine
Trenchless 135
013 214 Multiple Cracks Trenchless 300
014 015 Multiple Cracks Trenchless 300
018 024 Sags 25%, Broken Pipe, Multiple Cracks, JOM, Material Pipe change VCP to PVC
Trenchless 330
020 021 Multiple Cracks Trenchless 478
021 021 B Multiple Cracks Trenchless 317
021 B 022 Multiple Cracks Trenchless 165
022 033 Broken Pipe, Multiple Fractures Trenchless 324
024 025 Multiple Cracks, Multiple Fractures, Sags 25% 25% 30% Trenchless 299 039 040 Broken Pipe Trenchless 499
040 040 B JOM Trenchless 425
41 B 117 B Broken Soil Visible, JOM Trenchless 196
City of Coalinga
Sanitary Sewer Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Preliminary Engineering Report
Section 5 – Improvements to Sewer Collection System
38 Table 5-3 Alternative No. III Sewer Mains Recommended to be Rehabilitated/Replaced From MH To MH Reason(s) Method Length
(ft)
044 B 055 Multiple Cracks, Multiple Fractures, Sag 45%, Material Pipe Change
Trenchless 311
055 078 Multiple Cracks, Multiple Fractures, JOM, Root Joint Fine Trenchless 320 066 092 Multiple Fractures, Hole Void Visible, Sag 30% Trenchless 72 081 082 Multiple Fractures, Multiple Cracks Trenchless 305 082 082 B Multiple Fractures, Multiple Cracks, JOM, Sags 50% Trenchless 639 084 090 Multiple Fractures, Multiple Cracks Trenchless 502 091 093 Multiple Fractures Trenchless 505
093 098 Multiple Fractures, Multiple Cracks Trenchless 588 094 112 Survey abandoned, Broken Pipe Trenchless 338
096 114 Multiple Cracks, Deposits Settled Gravel Trenchless 200 100 100 B Multiple Fractures, Multiple Cracks Longitudinal, Gravel Deposits
Trenchless 436
106 108 Multiple Cracks, Multiple Fractures, Hole Void Visible, Sag 20%
Trenchless 337
107 85 Multiple Cracks Trenchless 199
108 107 Multiple Cracks Trenchless 116
109 088 Multiple Fractures, Hole Void Visible, Survey abandoned Trenchless 121 113 113 C Multiple Fractures, Broken Pipe, Hole Void Visible Trenchless 445 113 C 113 B Multiple Pipe Fractures, Broken Pipe and Material Pipe Change VCP to PVC
Trenchless 154
114 114 B Multiple Fractures, Sag 30%, Gravel deposits settled Trenchless 159 115 B 115 C Multiple Fractures, Multiple Cracks, Sags 30% Trenchless 161 115 C 117 B Multiple Fractures Trenchless 184
117 120 Pipe Fracture Trenchless 1,109
117 B 117 Multiple Fractures and Cracks Longitudinal, JOM, Material Pipe Change PVC to VCP
Trenchless 1,241
133 111 Multiple Fractures, Hole Void Visible, JOM Trenchless 364 138 115 B Multiple Cracks, Multiple Fractures, Sag 20% Trenchless 116 138 B 138 Multiple Fractures, Hole Void Visible, Multiple Cracks, JOM, Sag 20% 20% 40%, Survey abandoned due to debris
Trenchless 365
144 143 Multiple Cracks, Multiple Fractures Trenchless 83 147 134 JOM, Grease Deposits Attached Trenchless 481
152 137 Pipe Fractures Trenchless 480
153 138 B Broken Pipe, Hole Void Visible, Multiple Cracks Trenchless 235 155 156 Survey abandoned due to deposits settled and debris Trenchless 60 156 157 Survey abandoned due to surface damage aggregate visible
Trenchless 67
163 163 B Joint Separated Medium, Surface Spalling Damage Trenchless 265 City of Coalinga
Sanitary Sewer Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Preliminary Engineering Report
Section 5 – Improvements to Sewer Collection System
39 Table 5-3 Alternative No. III Sewer Mains Recommended to be Rehabilitated/Replaced From MH To MH Reason(s) Method Length
(ft)
165 147 JOM, Grease Deposits Attached Trenchless 491
171 149 Multiple Fractures, Multiple Cracks, Broken Pipe, Severe Grease Deposits Attached
Trenchless 482
174 153 Multiple Cracks Trenchless 199
175 174 Hole Void Visible Trenchless 199
176 177 Survey abandoned due to JOM Trenchless 4
179 179 B Survey abandoned due to debri under water Trenchless 147 185 175 Multiple Cracks, Broken Pipe Soil Visible Trenchless 479 185 B 185 Hole Void Visible, Multiple Cracks Trenchless 478 186 183 Multiple Cracks Trenchless 228
188 B 188 Broken Pipe, Hole Void Visible, Multiple Cracks Trenchless 478 188 C 188 B Multiple Cracks Trenchless 189
189 185 Multiple Cracks Trenchless 398
199 184 Survey abandoned due to grease deposits attached, Broken Pipe, Multiple Cracks
Trenchless 111
194 195 Survey abandoned due to pipe in line, Multiple Cracks Trenchless 330 195 196 Survey abandoned due to JOM - Large Trenchless 461 200 199 Pipe Fractures Trenchless 198
201 C 172 Survey abandoned due to deposits settled and debris Trenchless 108 202 B 202 Survey abandoned due to JOM Trenchless 163
203 204 JOM Trenchless 480
204 B 193 Multiple Fractures, Multiple Cracks Trenchless 150 204 C 204 B Broken Pipe with crack and fracture Trenchless 7 205 206 Multiple Longitudinal Cracks, JOM - Large Trenchless 215 206 204 C Multiple Fractures, Multiple Cracks, Pipe surface damage Trenchless 175 206 206 B Multiple Longitudinal Cracks Trenchless 176
209 212 Broken Pipe Trenchless 150
210 211 Multiple Cracks, Roots Joint Fine Trenchless 200 224 207 Multiple Cracks, Broken Pipe with Pipe Fracture Trenchless 613 225 212 Multiple Cracks, Roots Joint Medium Trenchless 459 226 213 Multiple Cracks, JOM Trenchless 469
227 214 Multiple Cracks Trenchless 489
229 215 Multiple Fractures, JOM, Material Change VCP to PVC Trenchless 253 229 B 229 Broken Pipe Soil Visible, Multiple Cracks Trenchless 377 230 229 B Broken Pipe Soil Visible, Multiple Cracks, JOM Trenchless 373 234 235 Hole Void Visible Trenchless 373
237 237 B JOM Trenchless 177
City of Coalinga
Sanitary Sewer Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Preliminary Engineering Report
Section 5 – Improvements to Sewer Collection System
40 Table 5-3 Alternative No. III Sewer Mains Recommended to be Rehabilitated/Replaced From MH To MH Reason(s) Method Length
(ft)
240 239 Multiple Cracks, Hole Void Visible Trenchless 756 240 241 Survey abandoned due to obstruction under water level, Pipe material change VCP to PVC
Trenchless 146
241 242 Pipe Fracture, JOM Trenchless 157
243 233 Pipe Fracture Trenchless 200
247 246 Pipe Fractures Trenchless 185
247 246 Multiple Cracks, Hole Void Visible Trenchless 186 248 247 Sag, Multiple cracks and Fracture Trenchless 765 248 249 Pipe Fractures, JOM Trenchless 25
251 247 Pipe Fractures Trenchless 185
252 134 Obstruction in pipe, Broken pipe, hole void visible, Sag 10%
Trenchless 471
252 094 JOM. Material Pipe change PVC to VCP Trenchless 242 257 258
Broken Pipe, Multiple Fractures, Hole Void Visible,
Multiple Cracks, JOM, Survey abandoned due to large
offset
Trenchless
180
259 259 JOM Trenchless 263
260 261 Broken Pipe, Hole Void Visible, Multiple Cracks Trenchless 218 261 262 Broken Pipe Soil Visible, Multiple Cracks, JOM Trenchless 750 262 205 Deposits Grease attached, Multiple Cracks Trenchless 277 Total Length to Be Rehabilitated 30,816
AP 19 B 019 Broken Pipe, Hole Void Visible Conventional 214 CO 245 Broken pipe, Hole Void Visible Conventional 333
5th 4th Multiple Pipe Fractures, Broken Pipe, Hole Void Visible, Multiple Cracks, Tap Break-in Intruding
Conventional 401
007 008 Broken Pipe Soil Visible Conventional 235
012 013 Broken Pipe, Multiple Fractures, Tap Intruding Conventional 223 012 014 Multiple Cracks and Tap Break-in Intruding Conventional 427 013 014 Multiple Fractures, Multiple Cracks, Tap Intruding Conventional 201 015 021 B Pipe Fractures, Hole Void Visible, Tap Intruding Conventional 331 029 052 JOM - Large Conventional 73
033 044 B Multiple Fractures, Material Pipe Change PVC to VCP Conventional 309 037 050 Survey abandoned due to debri and surface damage aggregate visible
Conventional 19
038 039 Hole Void Visible Conventional 229
050 049 Survey abandoned due to deposits settled gravel, bend in pipe, Material change CP to Clay
Conventional 46
059 058 Broken pipe hole void visible Conventional 6
059 087 Multiple Fractures, Broken Pipe, Hole Void Visible, Conventional 448 City of Coalinga
Sanitary Sewer Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Preliminary Engineering Report
Section 5 – Improvements to Sewer Collection System
41 Table 5-3 Alternative No. III Sewer Mains Recommended to be Rehabilitated/Replaced From MH To MH Reason(s) Method Length
(ft)
Multiple Cracks
064 091 Multiple Fractures, Hole Void Visible, JOM Conventional 442 066 095 Multiple Fractures, Broken pipe soil visible, Tap Intruding Conventional 166 73 C 113 C Broken Soil Visible Conventional 549
088 088 B Broken pipe soil visible, JOM - Large, Survey abandoned Conventional 41 089 063 Survey abandoned due to tap break in intruding Conventional 90 095 068 Multiple Fractures, Broken Pipe, Hole Void Visible, JOM, Tap Intruding
Conventional 259
106 108 Multiple Cracks, Hole Void Visible, JOM - Large, Broken pipe
Conventional 319
106 108 Multiple Cracks, Hole Void Visible, Grease Deposits Attached
Conventional 322
109 088 Multiple Fractures, Multiple Cracks, Tap Intruding, Material Pipe change PVC to VCP
Conventional 135
127 B 85 Broken Pipe, Hole Void Visible Conventional 439 132 127 Obstruction in pipe, Broken Pipe Soil Visible, Roots Joint Fine
Conventional 359
133 146 Broken pipe soil visible Conventional 398
134 135 Pipe Collapse, Broken Pipe, Multiple Fractures, Multiple Cracks, Grease Deposits attached
Conventional 401
135 112 Multiple Fractures, JOM, Sag 20% Conventional 479 138 C 138 D Hole Void Visible Conventional 96
138 B 138 C Multiple Cracks, Pipe Material Change Conventional 176 141 142 Pipe deformed (Cut in pipe) Conventional 463
143 148 Multiple Cracks, Multiple Fractures, Hole Void Visible Conventional 495 145 133 Survey abandoned due to JOM, Debri under water, Broken Pipe, Hole Void Visible, Multiple Cracks
Conventional 105
148 110 Multiple Fractures, Broken Pipe, Multiple Cracks Conventional 446 149 135 Broken Pipe, Multiple Fractures, Hole Void Visible, Sag 30%, 40%
Conventional 480
155 156 Survey abandoned due to holes getting larger Conventional 115 155 154 Hole Void Visible, Pipe Surface Damage Conventional 57 156 157 Broken Pipe Soil Visible Conventional 172
157 158 Survey abandoned due to surface damage aggregate visible
Conventional 195
164 145 Multiple Fractures, Hole Void Visible, Multiple Cracks, JOM Conventional 475 166 167 Broken pipe, Hole Void Visible Conventional 454 172 152 Pipe Fractures , Hole Void Visible Conventional 479 173 153 Broken Pipe, Hole Void Visible, Multiple Cracks Conventional 479 176 177 Pipe Fractures, Holes Void Visible Conventional 350 City of Coalinga
Sanitary Sewer Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Preliminary Engineering Report
Section 5 – Improvements to Sewer Collection System
42 Table 5-3 Alternative No. III Sewer Mains Recommended to be Rehabilitated/Replaced From MH To MH Reason(s) Method Length
(ft)
177 178 Pipe Fractures, Deposits settled survey abandoned Conventional 162 178 179 Survey abandoned due to JOM, Pipe Fractures Conventional 301 183 164 Survey abandoned due to obstruction in pipe Conventional 274 184 171 Pipe Fractures, Broken Pipe, Hole Void Visible, JOM, Tap Intruding
Conventional 481
185 C 185 B Survey abandoned cannot continue Conventional 307 188 173 Hole in Pipe, Multiple Cracks, Survey abandoned due to obstruction in Pipe
Conventional 389
189 B 189 Survey abandoned due to obstruction Conventional 264 201 201 C Pipe Fractures, Hole Void Visible, JOM Conventional 484 201 B 201 Broken Pipe, Pipe Fractures, Hole Void Visible Conventional 236 201 C 172 Survey abandoned Conventional 8
230 231 Broken Pipe Soil Visible Conventional 355
231 232 Broken Pipe Soil Visible Conventional 401
232 233 Soil Visible and Multiple Cracks Conventional 339 233 234 Broken Pipe Conventional 63
235 222 Pipe Fractures, JOM - Large, Material change VCP to PVC Conventional 250 239 229 Survey abandoned due to camera under water, Multiple fractures
Conventional 124
242 243 Multiple Fractures, JOM - Roots Conventional 175 246 B 246 Survey abandoned due Infiltration Stain Joint, Multiple Holes Soil Visible, Multiple Fractures
Conventional 263
246 B 246 Broken Pipe Soil Visible, Multiple Cracks, JOM Conventional 472 248 249 Survey abandoned due to line collapsing Conventional 25 250 251 Broken Pipe Soil Visible, Multiple Cracks Conventional 496 255 256 Broken Pipe, Soil Visible, JOM, Multiple Fractures Conventional 329 256 257 Broken Pipe, Multiple Fractures, JOM, Hole Void Visible, Tap Intruding
Conventional 153
258 259 Tap Break-in Intruding, Multiple Longitudinal Cracks, Joint Separated Medium
Conventional 243
259 260 Hole Void Visible, Multiple Cracks, Fracture Longitudinal, Tap Break-in Intruding
Conventional 271
259 260 Hole Void Visible, Tap Break-in Intruding Conventional 7 Total Length to Be Replaced 19,801

5.4.4. Probable Construction Costs
Table 5-4 provides an opinion of probable construction costs for the rehabilitation of approximately 30,816 LF of gravity sewer mains and the replacement of approximately 19,801 gravity sewer mains.

City of Coalinga
Sanitary Sewer Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Preliminary Engineering Report
Section 5 – Improvements to Sewer Collection System
43 Table 5-4 Alternative No. III Probable Construction Costs Description Quantity Units Unit Cost
($/Unit) Total
Mobilization 1 LS $240,000 $240,000
Traffic Control Plan 1 LS $90,000 $90,000
Rehabilitation 6" PVC Pipe 15,914 LF $95 $1,511,783
Rehabilitation 8" PVC Pipe 7,297 LF $105 $766,227
Rehabilitation 10" PVC Pipe 2,071 LF $110 $227,832
Rehabilitation 15" PVC Pipe 2,558 LF $120 $306,948
Rehabilitation 18" PVC Pipe 2,975 LF $120 $356,964
New 6" PVC Pipe 13,838 LF $215 $2,975,063
New 8" PVC Pipe 4,226 LF $215 $908,676
New 10" PVC Pipe 1,738 LF $240 $417,072
Excavation 9,933 CY $9 $89,400
Backfill 13,907 TON $6 $83,440
Surface Restoration 2,481 SY $30 $74,426
Remove and Replace Sewer Lateral 40 EA $4,800 $192,000
Bypass Pumping 70 Day $1,200 $84,000
Subtotal Construction Costs $8,323,830
Contingency (15%) $1,248,574
Engineering, Environmental, Construction Administration (15%) $998,860 Total Capital Construction Costs $10,571,264
NOTE:

All capital construction costs are rounded up to the nearest thousand.

5.4.5. Annual O&M Costs
Similar to Alternative No. II, Alternative No. III includes only the rehabilitation or replacement of existing deteriorated gravity sewer mains and laterals and will consist of conventional Maintenance costs to operate the sewer collection system. Table 4-4 displays the annual O&M costs associated with the sewer collection system.
• • •

CITY OF COALINGA

CCTV INSPECTION PROJECT NORTH
0 1,000 FT

SCALE IN FEET

NO REPLACEMENT

REPLACEMENT

REHABILITATION

NOT SURVEYED
LEGEND

ALTERNATIVE II -

SEWER MAINS TO BE REPLACED

AND REHABILITATED
City of Coalinga
Sanitary Sewer Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Preliminary Engineering Report
Section 5 – Improvements to Sewer Collection System
45 5.5. Alternative Evaluation
As previously stated, the purpose of this PER is to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the City’s existing sewer collection system and to recommend the replacement or rehabilitation of deteriorated gravity sewer mains through the City in order to prevent blockages, SSO’s, and pipe failure. The anticipated useful life of rehabilitated sewer pipe and replaced sewer pipe is the same and in excess of 50 years. The three alternatives considered are as follows:
• Alternative I: No Project
• Alternative II: Convention Construction Method
• Alternative III: Conventional and Trenchless Construction Methods Alternative I was eliminated from consideration as it does not address the long-term needs of the City.

The sewer mains considered in this Section would still require replacement in the future as they begin to fail. It was deemed more practical to address these structural and performance issues prior to failure of the system. The following paragraphs provide an evaluation of the remaining two alternatives.

5.5.1. Design Criteria/Compliance Issues
Alternatives Nos. II and III would require the replacement or rehabilitation of the City’s existing gravity sewer mains. There are no anticipated design issues, as both alternatives implement standard, common replacement, or rehabilitation methods. These alternatives may include excavation near trees and shrubs; however, Alternative No. III seeks to minimize the amount of excavation by using trenchless construction methods.

Replacing or rehabilitating the City’s existing sewer collection system will address the State’s planning priorities included in California Governmental Code Section 65041.1. Alternative Nos. II and III will both promote infill development by rehabilitating and improving existing infrastructure. The rehabilitated sewer collection system will protect environmental resources by reducing the likelihood of sewer collection system leaks and overflows. The improved system will also minimize costs to City residents by lowering repair and replacement costs.

5.5.2. Annual O&M Costs
For each alternative, the annual O&M cost associated with the improved sewer collection system would be similar to the existing O&M expenses. Table 5-5 displays the City’s operating expenses for the sewer collection system and personnel for the past five fiscal years. According to the table, the City’s average annual O&M costs for the sewer collection system are approximately $745,458.

City of Coalinga
Sanitary Sewer Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Preliminary Engineering Report
Section 5 – Improvements to Sewer Collection System
46 Table 5-5 Average Annual O&M Costs
Fiscal Year O & M Costs
2018/19 $590,760
2019/20 $515,807
2020/21 $814,221
2021/22 $1,232,257
2022/23 $574,243
Average $745,458
Notes:

Source: City of Coalinga Adopted Budget for
FY 2018/19, 2019/20, 2020/21, 2021/22 , 2022/23

5.5.3. Life-Cycle Costs
The alternatives described above were evaluated to determine the most feasible, cost-effective alternative. A life cycle of 25 years was used to determine lifetime O&M costs. A summary of costs for Alternative Nos. II and III are shown below in Table 5‐6.

Table 5-6 Life Cycle Cost Estimates
Alternative Capital Cost Lifetime O&M Total Life-Time Cost II – Conventional Construction Methods $16,159,480 $18,636,440 $34,795,920 III – Trenchless & Conventional Construction Methods $10,571,264 $18,636,440 $29,207,704 The table shows that Alternative III has the lowest life-time cost. As previously stated, it is anticipated that O&M will be the same regardless of if the sewer mains are replaced or rehabilitated, therefore both Alternatives have the same lifetime O&M.

5.6. Recommended Alternative
Based on each alternative’s life-time cost, design criteria/compliance issues, and feasibility, it is recommended that the City proceed with Alternative No. III. As demonstrated above, Alternative III has the lowest capital cost and lifetime cost of the two feasible alternatives. This alternative also minimizes the amount of excavation required.

City of Coalinga
Sanitary Sewer Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Preliminary Engineering Report
Section 6 – Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements
47 SECTION 6 - WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT

IMPROVEMENTS

6.1. Alternatives Considered
This section describes the alternatives considered for the improvement of the existing Coalinga WWTP.

The alternatives included in this section are intended for reuse or recycle treated effluent produced from the Coalinga WWTP to offset some of the non‐potable water demands within the City’s service area or to provide an incidental recharge of the groundwater basin. In summary, the four alternatives are as follows:
• Alternative I: No Project
• Alternative II: Existing Treatment with Offsite Disposal through Agricultural Irrigation (NonHuman Crops) • Alternative III: Upgrade Treatment to an Extended Aeration with Biological Nutrient Removal and Onsite Disposal through percolation (Groundwater Recharge) • Alternative IV: Upgrade Treatment to Tertiary
o IV-A. Offsite Disposal through Agricultural Irrigation (Human crops) o IV-B. Offsite Disposal through Landscape Irrigation
The following sections briefly describe each alternative, including design parameters, proposed layouts, probable construction costs, and operation and Maintenance (O&M) costs.

6.2. Alternative I: No Project
Under the “No Project” alternative, Coalinga’s WWTP would continue to operate under current conditions. This Alternative was dismissed due to not addressing concerns with the facility’s limited disposal alternatives.

6.3. Alternative II: Existing Treatment with Offsite Disposal through Agricultural Irrigation (Non-Human Crops)

6.3.1. Overview
Alternative II would consist of disposing undisinfected secondary effluent to adjacent land through agricultural irrigation at agronomic rates.

6.3.2. Potential User Survey
For Alternative II, the city identified all parcels and property owners within a 2-mile radius of the WWTP as shown in Figure 6-1. Table 6-1 lists the owner of record and the acreage of each Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) within the recycled water user survey area.

Table 6-1 Potential Recycled Water Users
APN Total Area (Acres) Owner of Record
071-020-43S & 071-020-62S 225.95 Jeff S Brooks
071-020-71S & 071-020-72S 101.43 Michael T Canaday
FIGURE 6-1 RECYCLED WATER USER SURVEY APN 071-020-62S APN 071-020-43S APN 071-020-71S APN 071-020-72S COALINGA WWTP • • • LEGEND CITY OF COALINGA SANITARY SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT City of Coalinga
Sanitary Sewer Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Preliminary Engineering Report
Section 6 – Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements
48 6.3.3. Water Balance
Water balance calculations are typically used to determine the area required to adequately dispose of the daily flow of recycled water and the volume of storage required. Table 6-2 summarizes the design data used in the water balance calculations for Alternative II. A copy of the water balance for this alternative is included in Appendix C.

Table 6-2 Alternative II – Water Balance Design Data
Parameter Value
Average Design Flow, MGD 1.340
Irrigation Efficiency, % 70%
Treatment Pond Area, Acres 18.34
Effluent Reclamation Area, Acres 219
Percolation Rate, inch/day 0
The WWTP currently receives an average daily flow of approximately 0.857 MGD. The water balance calculations have been prepared for the facility’s existing flow and the design flow of 1.34 MGD. Table 6- 3 summarizes the water balance calculations for Alternative II.

Table 6-3 Alternative II – Water Balance Calculation Summary Current Flow 0.857 MGD Design Flow 1.34 MGD
Reclamation Aera Required, Acres 325 219
Total Storage Volume Required, Acres-Feet 184.8 472
At current flows, the City can irrigate approximately 325 acres of land using approximately 2182 acrefeet of treated effluent on an annual basis. When the facility reaches its design flow conditions of 1.34 MGD, the City can irrigate 219 acres using approximately 1469 acre-feet of treated effluent on an annual basis.

6.3.4. Storage Requirements
When using recycled water for agricultural irrigation, a certain amount of effluent storage will be required to supply recycled water during the summer months. According to the water balance calculations provided in Appendix C, the maximum irrigation demand will occur during the month of July, during which approximately 242.5 acre-feet of recycled water will be used. For Alternative II, the City will need approximately 472 acres-feet of additional storage. Figure 6-2 displays the proposed site layout for this Alternative, including approximately 46 acres of additional storage.

6.3.5. Capital Construction Costs
Table 6-4 displays the total construction costs associated with constructing storage ponds and a delivery system to convey treated effluent for the use of agricultural irrigation.

City of Coalinga
Sanitary Sewer Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Preliminary Engineering Report
Section 6 – Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements
49 Table 6-4 Alternative II – Capital Construction Costs Description Quantity Units Unit Cost ($/Unit) Total
Mobilization 1 LS $400,000 $400,000
Headworks 1 LS $600,000 $600,000
Wastewater Facility Piping 1 LS $2,000,000 $2,000,000
Storage Pond Excavation 959,160 CY $2.5 $2,397,000
HDPE Storage Pond Liners 1,992,800 SF $1.2 $2,391,000
Recycled Water Pump Station 1 LS $1,200,000 $1,200,000
Recycled Water Piping 2,000 LF $190 $285,000
Permitting 1 LS $25,000 $25,000
Electrical & Instrumentation 1 LS $800,000 $800,000
Subtotal Construction Costs $9,993,000
Contingency (15%) $1,499,000
Engineering, Environmental, Construction Administration (12%) $1,199,000 TOTAL $12,691,000
NOTE:

All capital construction costs are rounded up to the nearest thousandth.

The total project cost for Alternative II would be approximately $12.6 million. The City would apply for construction funding to the SWRCB CWSRF to fund this improvements project.

6.3.6. Estimated O&M Costs
The O&M cost provided in Table 6-5 is based on the City’s current O&M costs for the WWTP.

Table 6-5 Alternative II – Estimated Annual O&M
Description Costs
Salaries Regular $229,773
Salaries Part Time $19,124
Salaries Overtime $16,000
Salaries Cash Outs $4,670
Retirement CALPERS $21,584
Medical/Life Insurance $55,073
Social Security FICA $15,556
Medicare Insurance $3,609
Disability Income Insurance $3,111
Deferred Comp - 457 Retirement $8,422
Workers Comp. Insurance $29,868
Safety Boot Allowance $588
Retirement CalPERS UL $2,640
Unemployment Insurance $2,298
Personnel Cost $412,316
City of Coalinga
Sanitary Sewer Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Preliminary Engineering Report
Section 6 – Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements
50 Description Costs
Office Supplies $500
Postage & Freight Out $250
Printing & Binding $250
Small Tolls &Equipment 1000
Uniforms $2,000
Utility Parts & Supplies $10,000
Vehicle Parts & Supplies $1,000
Gasoline & Diesel $3,500
Water, Gas, Sanitation & Sewer $18,000
Electric $150,000
Telephone $2,000
Equipment Rental 2000
Office Equip, Repairs & Maintenance $3,000
Major Equip Repairs & Maintenance $40,000
Buildings Repairs & Maintenance $5,000
Grounds, Chemicals & Maintenance 5000
Vehicle Parts, Repairs & Maintenance $2,000
Safety Equipment $2,000
Training, Travel, & Conference 2000
Subs., Dues, & Publications $2,000
Certifications, Renewals & Test 3500
City Attorney Fees $2,000
Computer Program & Consulting $4,500
Medical - General $700
Laboratory $5,000
Professional Services $25,000
Sludge Removal Contract $50,000
Grant Writing/Application $10,000
Physical w/Drug & Alcohol Test $300
Fingerprinting $50
Liability & Property Insurance $25,000
Taxes, Licenses, & Fees $25,000
2021A Water/WW Rev Bonds Principal $70,000
2021A Water/WW Rev Bonds Interest $66,689
Sewer Plant Automation and Security Upgrades $200,000
O&M Cost $739,239
Wastewater Plant Total $1,151,555
City of Coalinga
Sanitary Sewer Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Preliminary Engineering Report
Section 6 – Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements
51 6.4. Alternative III: Upgrading WWTP to Extended Aeration with Biological Nutrient Removal and Onsite Disposal through percolation (Groundwater Recharge)

6.4.1. Overview
Alternative III would consist of upgrading the WWTP to an extended aeration system with biological nutrient removal and disposing treated effluent on the City’s WWTP site through percolation ponds.

6.4.2. Improvements to WWTP
To recharge the groundwater, the effluent quality from the Coalinga WWTP will need to be upgraded to undisinfected secondary effluent with nitrogen removal.

6.4.2.1. Extended Aeration system
Under this alternative, the existing WWTP will be upgraded to an extended aeration system. The activated sludge system comprises of a basin for the wastewater to be aerated and suspended; a secondary clarifier; and a recirculation system for returning settled sludge to the basin. Extended aeration systems typically operate with a hydraulic retention time (HRT) that ranges from 18 to 36 hours. Extended aeration provides almost complete oxidation of organic material and nitrification.

Extended aeration also Maintenanceains a high sludge age of 20-30 days. Biological nitrogen removal can occur within the aerated lagoon if adequate conditions are created. In extended aeration, wastewater will enter the aerated lagoon and mix with biological culture known as mixed liquor (ML).

Mixed liquor from the aerated lagoon then flows into a secondary clarifier, where activated sludge settles to the bottom and clear treated effluent flows over a surface mount weir. The settled mixed liquor solids recirculate to the aerated lagoon, a process known as recirculating activated sludge (RAS).

Periodically, some of the RAS solids are wasted and sent to dewatering, a process known as wasted activated sludge (WAS).

Table 6-6 Alternative III – Extended Aeration Activated Sludge Parameters Item Parameters Design Value
Aeration Basin
Retention Time, hours 24
Aeration Tank Volume, MG 1.34
MCRT, days 24
Wastewater Temperature, oC 15
Aerobic Digester
Volume, % of Aeration Tank 29
Maximum Solids Conc., mg/l 12,000
Digester Temperature, oC 15
Sludge Holding Tank Volume, % of Aeration Tank 0
Maximum Solids Conc., mg/l 25,000
Aeration Pond Blower Motor, HP 125
For this alternative, two clarifiers will be utilized. A center-feed configuration is commonly used for influent entering the tank. Mixed liquor is carried to the center of the tank and enters a circular feed well designed to distribute the flow radially from the top of the basin. An influent baffle redirects the flow towards the bottom of the clarifier. A peripheral weir is used to collect effluent and a surface City of Coalinga
Sanitary Sewer Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Preliminary Engineering Report
Section 6 – Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements
52 skimmer is used to collect floating scum. Table 6-7 displays the preliminary design parameters used to size the clarifiers. As previously stated, two identical clarifiers will be constructed; one will be constructed to handle the facility’s build-out flow of 1.34 MGD and one will be constructed for redundancy.

Table 6-7 Alternative III – Clarifier Design Parameters Parameters Design Value
Number of Tanks 2
Tank Water Depth, ft 14
Weir Length, ft 366
Weir Overflow Rate, gpd/linear ft 3661
Surface Overflow Rate, gpd/sf 349
The bottom scrapper of the clarifier will collect settled sludge into a return pipe to be withdrawn.

Recirculated activated sludge or wasted activated sludge (RAS/WAS) will either be returned to inlet of the aeration basin (RAS) or wasted for dewatering (WAS). A sludge recirculation system will pump settled sludge from the bottom of the clarifiers to the head of aerated lagoon. The optimal recirculation ratio will be modified after the plant has been placed in operation. For extended aeration activated sludge systems, recirculation ratios typically range from 50 to 150 percent of the influent flow. One sludge pump will remove RAS/WAS from the secondary clarifier, with an additional pump for redundancy.

6.4.3. Improvements to Percolation Ponds
Under this alternative, the City needs to decommission the existing aerated lagoons and stabilization ponds to construct percolation ponds. Water balance calculations were used to determine the area required to adequately dispose of the City’s treated effluent and volume required for the percolation ponds. The results of the water balance calculations are analyzed in detail in the following sections.

6.4.3.1. Water Balance
The City’s WWTP currently receives an average daily flow of approximately 0.857; however, the facility’s disposal capacity is limited to 1.34 MGD. A soil survey was done to determine an appropriate percolation rate. The soil in this area consists mainly of silty sand, which has a typical coefficient of permeability greater than 0.85 inch per day (in/day). For this alternative, a percolation rate of 2.8 in/day is used to evaluate the amount of percolation in the new ponds. Figure 6-3 displays the proposed site layout for Alternative III. As shown in the figure, five percolation ponds with a total surface area of approximately 18.34 acres will be constructed. Table 6-8 summarizes the design data used in the water balance calculations.

FIGURE 6-2 ALTERNATIVE II WWTF SITE LAYOUT • • • LEGEND CITY OF COALINGA SANITARY SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT EFFLUENT RECLAMATION AREA City of Coalinga
Sanitary Sewer Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Preliminary Engineering Report
Section 6 – Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements
53 Table 6-8 Alternative III – Water Balance Design Data Parameter Value
Average Design Flow, MGD 1.34
Irrigation Efficiency, % 90%
Percolation Pond Area, Acres 18.34
Percolation Pond Volume, Acre-feet 98.5
Percolation Rate, inch/day 2.8
According to the water balance calculations, a total percolation area of 18.34 acres would allow the City to discharge 1.34 MGD. A copy of the water balance calculations is provided in Appendix D.

6.4.4. Capital Construction Costs
Table 6-9 provides the total construction costs associated with constructing an extended aeration system and treated effluent disposal through percolation ponds.

Table 6-9 Alternative III – Capital Construction Costs
Description Quantity Units Unit Cost
($/Unit)
Total
Mobilization 1 LS $400,000 $400,000
Headworks 1 LS $600,000 $600,000
Extended Aeration Basin 1 LS $3,500,000 $3,500,000
WWTP Equipment Package 1 LS $4,500,000 $4,500,000
Blower Building 1 LS $800,000 $800,000
Sludge Dewatering System 1 LS $650,000 $650,000
Dry Sludge Storage 1 LS $200,000 $200,000
Wastewater Facility Piping 1 LS $500,000 $500,000
Evaporation/Percolation Pond Excavation 390,000 CY $2.50 $975,000 Recycled Water Pump Station 1 LS $1,000,000 $1,000,000
Permitting 1 LS $25,000 $25,000
Electrical & Instrumentation 1 LS $2,000,000 $2,000,000 Subtotal Construction Costs $15,150,000
Contingency (15%) $2,272,500
Engineering, Environmental, Construction Administration (12%) $1,818,000 TOTAL $19,240,500
NOTE:

All capital construction costs are rounded up to the nearest thousandth.

The total project cost for Alternative III would be approximately $19.2 million. The City would apply for construction funding to the SWRCB CWSRF to fund this improvements project.

City of Coalinga
Sanitary Sewer Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Preliminary Engineering Report
Section 6 – Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements
54 6.4.5. Estimated O&M Costs
In addition to the City’s existing operation and administration costs, O&M costs associated with the upgraded WWTP include costs for a Grade 3 Operator, electric, laboratory, and sludge disposal. The O&M cost provided in Table 6-5 is based on the City’s current O&M costs for the WWTP.

Table 6-10 Alternative III – Estimated O&M Costs
Description Costs
Salaries Regular $229,773
Salaries Part Time $19,124
Salaries Overtime $16,000
Salaries Cash Outs $4,670
Retirement CALPERS $21,584
Medical/Life Insurance $55,073
Social Security FICA $15,556
Medicare Insurance $3,609
Disability Income Insurance $3,111
Deferred Comp - 457 Retirement $8,422
Workers Comp. Insurance $29,868
Safety Boot Allowance $588
Retirement CalPERS UL $2,640
Unemployment Insurance $2,298
Personnel Cost $412,316
Description Costs
Office Supplies $500
Postage & Freight Out $250
Printing & Binding $250
Small Tolls &Equipment $1,000
Uniforms $2,000
Utility Parts & Supplies $10,000
Vehicle Parts & Supplies $1,000
Gasoline & Diesel $3,500
Water, Gas, Sanitation & Sewer $18,000
Electric $150,000
Telephone $2,000
Equipment Rental $2,000
Office Equip, Repairs & Maintenance $3,000
Major Equip Repairs & Maintenance $40,000
Buildings Repairs & Maintenance $5,000
Grounds, Chemicals & Maintenance $5,000
Vehicle Parts, Repairs & Maintenance $2,000
City of Coalinga
Sanitary Sewer Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Preliminary Engineering Report
Section 6 – Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements
55 Description Costs
Safety Equipment $2,000
Training, Travel, & Conference $2,000
Subs., Dues, & Publications $2,000
Certifications, Renewals & Test $3500
City Attorney Fees $2,000
Computer Program & Consulting $4,500
Medical - General $700
Laboratory $5,000
Chlorine $22,500
Polymer $10,000
Professional Services $25,000
Sludge Removal Contract $50,000
Grant Writing/Application $10,000
Physical w/Drug & Alcohol Test $300
Fingerprinting $50
Liability & Property Insurance $25,000
Taxes, Licenses, & Fees $25,000
2021A Wtr/WW Rev Bonds Prin $70,000
2021A Wtr/WW Rev Bonds Int $66,689
Sewer Plant Automation and Security Upgrades $200,000
O&M Cost $739,239
Wastewater Plant Total $1,151,555

6.5. Alternative IV: Upgrading WW Treatment Facility to Tertiary Treatment

6.5.1. Overview
Alternative IV would consist of upgrading the effluent quality produced by Coalinga's WWTP to disinfected tertiary. Under this alternative we will evaluate the following offsite disposal alternatives:
• Alternative IV A: Offsite Disposal through Agricultural Irrigation (Human Crops) • Alternative IV B: Offsite Disposal through Landscape Irrigation

6.5.2. Improvements to WWTP

6.5.2.1. Tertiary Treatment
Under this alternative, the existing WWTP will be upgraded to an extended aeration system followed by filtration and disinfection.

After wastewater has passed the aeration process and solids separation process (clarification), wastewater must be filtered and then disinfected. To use recycled wastewater for the irrigation of food crops, the treated effluent produced from the WWTP must meet the effluent quality requirements in Title 22, without any major interruption in the treatment performance. According to Title 22, the City of Coalinga
Sanitary Sewer Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Preliminary Engineering Report
Section 6 – Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements
56 average daily effluent turbidity limit for disinfected tertiary recycled water is 2 NTU, and the allowable total coliform must not exceed 2.2 MPN/100 mL.

As shown in Figure 6-5, after the secondary treatment process, wastewater will be filtered in accordance with Title 22 standards. For this Alternative, filtration may be achieved by either media filtration or membrane filtration. Media filtration consists of passing the clarified effluent through a bed of filter media such as sand. The clarified wastewater must then be coagulated and flocculated with a suitable chemical coagulant before entering the filters. Membrane filtration consists of submerging hollow membrane fibers or membrane plates, and through suction, force the liquid through the membrane pores. These pores are smaller than most microorganisms suspended in the mixed liquor. This process of filtration does not require the use of a chemical coagulant.

Tertiary treatment will require at least a Grade III certified treatment operator at the WWTF. The local availability and cost of Grade III operators can be significant for small wastewater utilities. In addition, chemical usage will include chlorine and possibly coagulants, which will also increase operation costs.

Finally, in-plant and effluent monitoring requirements are typically much more extensive in tertiary facilities than in secondary facilities to ensure that public health is adequately protected. The capital construction costs associated with constructing disinfected tertiary treatment facility are provided in Table 6-14.

6.5.2.2. Storage Requirements
When using disinfected tertiary recycled water for agricultural irrigation, a certain amount of effluent storage will be required to supply recycled water during the summer months. Since crops are typically watered on a weekly basis during the summer, the amount of storage required for each reclamation area is assumed to be one fourth of the maximum irrigation demand. According to the water balance calculations, the maximum irrigation demand will occur during the month of July, during which approximately 106.3 acre-feet of recycled water will be used. For Alternative III, it has been assumed that the amount of storage required will be one fourth of the maximum irrigation demand. Therefore, approximately 26.6 acre-feet of storage will be required.

For this Alternative, evaporation/percolation Pond No. 4 will need to be excavated from a depth of 4.7 feet to 5.1 feet. At this depth, Pond No. 4 will be able to store approximately 26.9 acre-feet of recycled water. Pond No. 4 will also be lined with a High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE) liner. Table 6-14 displays the capital construction costs associated with excavating and lining Pond No. 4.

City of Coalinga
Sanitary Sewer Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Preliminary Engineering Report
Section 6 – Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements
58 6.5.3. Alternative IV-A Offsite Disposal through Agricultural Irrigation (Human Crops) This alternative would consist of disposing disinfected tertiary effluent to adjacent land through agricultural irrigation at agronomic rates.

6.5.3.1. Potential User Survey
For alternative IV-A, the City identified all parcels and property owners within a 2-mile radius southeast of the WWTP as shown in Figure 6-4. Figure 6-5 shows the parcels within the recycled water user survey area.

6.5.3.2. Water Balance
Water balance calculations were used to determine the area required to adequately dispose of the daily flow of recycled water and the volume of storage required. Table 6-11 and Table 6-12 summarize the design data used in the water balance calculations and the water balance calculation summary for alternative IV A. A copy of the water balance for this alternative is included in Appendix E.

Table 6-11 Alternative IV-A - Water Balance Design Data Parameter Value
Average Design Flow, MGD 1.340
Irrigation Efficiency, % 90%
Storage Pond Area, Acres 18.34
Effluent Reclamation Area, Acres 288
Percolation Rate, in/day 0
Table 6-12 Alternative IV-A - Water Balance Calculation Summary Current Flow 0.857 MGD Design Flow 1.34 MGD
Reclamation Area, Acres 325 288
Total Storage Volume Required, Acre-Feet 306.1 574.5
Additional Storage Required, Acre-Feet 306.1 476
According to the water balance calculations provided in Appendix E, the maximum irrigation demand will occur during the month of July, during which approximately 275.3 acre-feet of recycled water will be used for irrigation. In this alternative, the City will require an additional 574.5 acre-feet for storage.

When upgrading to tertiary treatment, the City will use the existing aerated lagoons and stabilization ponds as storage ponds. Figure 6-5 displays the proposed site layout for this alternative, including approximately 46 acres of additional storage.

FIGURE 6-4 RECYCLED WATER USER SURVEY COALINGA WWTP • • • LEGEND CITY OF COALINGA SANITARY SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT • • • LEGEND CITY OF COALINGA SANITARY SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT FIGURE 6-5 ALTERNATIVE IV A PROPOSED WWTP SITE LAYOUT City of Coalinga
Sanitary Sewer Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Preliminary Engineering Report
Section 6 – Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements
59 6.5.3.3. Capital Construction Costs
Table 6-14 displays the total construction costs associated with constructing a tertiary treatment facility and recycled water delivery system to convey recycled water for the use of agricultural irrigation.

Table 6-13 Alternative IV-A – Capital Construction Costs Description Quantity Units Unit Cost
($/Unit) Total
Mobilization 1 LS $400,000 $400,000
Headworks 1 LS $600,000 $600,000
Extended Aeration System Basin 1 LS $3,500,000 $3,500,000 WWTP Equipment Package & Installation 1 LS $4,500,000 $4,500,000 Filtration + UV Disinfection 1 LS $1,100,000 $1,100,000 Blower Building 1 LS $800,000 $800,000
Sludge Dewatering System 1 LS $650,000 $650,000
Dry Sludge Storage 1 LS $200,000 $200,000
Wastewater Facility Piping 1 LS $500,000 $500,000
Recycled Pump Station 1 LS $1,000,000 $1,000,000
Storage Pond Excavation 1,203,782 LS $2.50 $3,009,000
HDPE Storage Pond Liners 1,095,665 LS $1.10 $1,205,000
Recycled Water Piping 2,000 LF $190 $380,000
Permitting 1 LS $25,000 $25,000
Electrical & Instrumentation 1 LS $2,000,000 $2,000,000 Subtotal Construction Costs $19,774,000
Contingency (15%) $2,967,000
Engineering, Environmental, Construction Administration (12%) $2,373,000 TOTAL $25,114,000
NOTE:

All capital construction costs are rounded up to the nearest thousandth.

The total project cost for Alternative IV A would be approximately $25.1 million. Like the previous alternatives, the City would apply for construction funding to the SWRCB CWSRF to fund this improvements project.

6.5.3.4. Estimated O&M Costs
In addition to the City’s existing O&M costs, Alternative IV A will also include costs for a Grade 3 Operator, electric, laboratory, sludge disposal, and chemicals for disinfection. The O&M cost provided in Table 6-15 is based on the City’s current O&M costs for the WWTP.

City of Coalinga
Sanitary Sewer Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Preliminary Engineering Report
Section 6 – Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements
60 Table 6-14 Alternative IV A – Estimated O&M Costs
Description Costs
Salaries Regular $229,773
Salaries Part Time $19,124
Salaries Overtime $16,000
Salaries Cash Outs $4,670
Retirement CALPERS $21,584
Medical/Life Insurance $55,073
Social Security FICA $15,556
Medicare Insurance $3,609
Disability Income Insurance $3,111
Deferred Comp - 457 Retirement $8,422
Workers Comp. Insurance $29,868
Safety Boot Allowance $588
Retirement CalPERS UL $2,640
Unemployment Insurance $2,298
Personnel Cost $412,316
Description Costs
Office Supplies $500
Postage & Freight Out $250
Printing & Binding $250
Small Tolls &Equipment $1,000
Uniforms $2,000
Utility Parts & Supplies $10,000
Vehicle Parts & Supplies $1,000
Gasoline & Diesel $3,500
Water, Gas, Sanitation & Sewer $18,000
Electric $150,000
Telephone $2,000
Equipment Rental $2,000
Office Equip, Repairs & Maintenance $3,000
Major Equip Repairs & Maintenance $40,000
Buildings Repairs & Maintenance $5,000
Grounds, Chemicals & Maintenance $5,000
Vehicle Parts, Repairs & Maintenance $2,000
Safety Equipment $2,000
Training, Travel, & Conference $2,000
Subs., Dues, & Publications $2,000
Certifications, Renewals & Test $3500
City of Coalinga
Sanitary Sewer Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Preliminary Engineering Report
Section 6 – Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements
61 Description Costs
City Attorney Fees $2,000
Computer Program & Consulting $4,500
Medical - General $700
Laboratory $5,000
Chlorine $22,500
Polymer $10,000
Professional Services $25,000
Sludge Removal Contract $50,000
Grant Writing/Application $10,000
Physical w/Drug & Alcohol Test $300
Fingerprinting $50
Liability & Property Insurance $25,000
Taxes, Licenses, & Fees $25,000
2021A Wtr/WW Rev Bonds Prin $70,000
2021A Wtr/WW Rev Bonds Int $66,689
Sewer Plant Automation and Security Upgrades $200,000
O&M Cost $739,239
Wastewater Plant Total $1,151,555

6.5.4. Alternative IV-B Offsite Disposal through Landscape Irrigation This alternative would consist of disposing disinfected tertiary effluent to irrigate public parks, school grounds and other landscape areas within the City's service area.

6.5.4.1. Potential Customers
In order to identify potential customers for this alternative, the City provided the annual water usage data of each potential recycled water customer where available. Figures 6‐6 and 6‐7 display the irrigable areas available at each site. Table 6‐16 displays each customer’s total water demand and the estimated irrigable area available at each site.

Table 6-15 Potential Landscape Irrigation Customers
Site No Location Demand
(MGD)
1 CHUSD 0.09
2 West Hills 0.09
3 Keck Park 0.03
4 Olsen Park 0.03
5 Chevron 25D 0.04
6 Sandalwood Park 0.01
7 Latchkey Pioneers 0.02
City of Coalinga
Sanitary Sewer Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Preliminary Engineering Report
Section 6 – Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements
62 Site No Location Demand
(MGD)
8 West Hills Farm of the Future 0.00
9 Wastewater Plant 0.02
10 Sports Complex 0.02
11 Centenniel Park 0.03
12 Next Green Wave 0.01
13 Triple J Ready Mix 0.00
14 Washington/Monterey Medians 0.00
15 Juniper Ridge Medians 0.01
16 Posa Chanet Medians 0.01
17 Lyons Park 0.00
18 Fountain 0.01
Total 0.42

6.5.4.2. Water balance
Under Alternative IV B, the water balance calculations are used to determine the amount of recycled water that will be disposed on the irrigation sites and the volume of storage required. Table 6-17 and Table 6-18 summarize the design data used in the water balance calculations and the water balance calculation summary for alternative IV A. A copy of the water balance calculation for this Alternative is provided in Appendix F.

Table 6-16 Water Balance Design Data
Parameter Value
Average Design Flow, MGD 1.340
Irrigation Efficiency, % 90%
Storage Pond Area, Acres 18.34
Effluent Reclamation Area, Acres 273
Percolation Rate, inch/day 0
Table 6-17 Water Balance Calculation Summary
Current Flow 0.857 MGD Design Flow 1.34 MGD
Reclamation Area, Acres 325 273
Total Storage Volume Required, Acre-Feet 306.1 480.2
Additional Storage Required, Acre-Feet 306.1 476
According to the water balance calculations, the maximum irrigation demand will occur during the month of July, during which approximately 235.1 acre-feet of recycled water will be used. For this alternative, the City will require an additional 480.2 acre-feet for storage. When upgrading to tertiary treatment, the City will use the existing aerated lagoons and stabilization ponds as storage ponds. Figure 6-6 displays the proposed site layout for this Alternative, including approximately 46 acres of additional storage.
0 2500 SCALE IN FEET NORTH • • • LEGEND CITY OF COALINGA SANITARY SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT FIGURE 6-7 POTENTIAL LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION CUSTOMERS City of Coalinga
Sanitary Sewer Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Preliminary Engineering Report
Section 6 – Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements
63 6.5.4.3. Recycled Water Delivery System
To supply recycled water to town, approximately 57,167 linear feet (LF) of purple pipeline will be constructed. Figure 6‐7 displays the recycled water conveyance system for this Alternative. The existing irrigation systems at each facility will need to be disconnected from the City’s potable water supply and connected to the new recycled water pipeline.

6.5.4.4. Capital Construction Costs
Table 6-19 displays the total construction costs associated with constructing a tertiary treatment facility and recycled water delivery system to convey recycled water for the use of agricultural irrigation.

Table 6-18 Alternative IV B – Capital Construction Costs Description Quantity Units Unit Cost
($/Unit) Total
Mobilization 1 LS $400,000 $400,000
Headworks 1 LS $600,000 $600,000
Extended Aeration System 1 LS $3,500,000 $3,500,000
WWTP Equipment Package & Installation 1 LS $4,500,000 $4,500,000 Filtration + UV Disinfection 1 LS $1,100,000 $1,100,000 Blower Building 1 LS $800,000 $800,000
Sludge Dewatering System 1 LS $650,000 $650,000
Dry Sludge Storage 1 LS $200,000 $200,000
Wastewater Facility Piping 1 LF $500,000 $500,000
Storage Pond Excavation 1,203,782 LS $2.50 $3,009,000
HDPE Storage Pond Liners 1,095,665 LS $1.10 $1,205,000
Recycled Water Pump Station 1 LS $1,000,000 $1,000,000
Recycled Water Piping 60,000 LF $190 $11,400,000
Electrical & Instrumentation 1 LS $2,000,000 $2,000,000 Permitting 1 LS $25,000 $25,000
Subtotal Construction Costs $30,889,000
Contingency (15%) $4,634,000
Engineering, Environmental, Construction Administration (12%) $3,706,000 TOTAL $39,229,000
NOTE:

All capital construction costs are rounded up to the nearest thousandth.

The total project cost for Alternative IV B would be approximately $39.2 million. Like the previous alternatives, the City would apply for construction funding to the SWRCB CWSRF to fund this improvements project.

City of Coalinga
Sanitary Sewer Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Preliminary Engineering Report
Section 6 – Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements
64 6.5.4.5. Estimated O&M Costs
In addition to the City’s existing O&M costs, Alternative IV will also include costs for a Grade 3 Operator, electric, laboratory, sludge disposal, chemicals for disinfection. The O&M cost provided in Table 6-20 is based on the City’s current O&M costs for the WWTP.

Table 6-19 Alternative IV B – Estimated O&M Costs
Description Costs
Salaries Regular $229,773
Salaries Part Time $19,124
Salaries Overtime $16,000
Salaries Cash Outs $4,670
Retirement CALPERS $21,584
Medical/Life Insurance $55,073
Social Security FICA $15,556
Medicare Insurance $3,609
Disability Income Insurance $3,111
Deferred Comp - 457 Retirement $8,422
Workers Comp. Insurance $29,868
Safety Boot Allowance $588
Retirement CalPERS UL $2,640
Unemployment Insurance $2,298
Personnel Cost $412,316
Description Costs
Office Supplies $500
Postage & Freight Out $250
Printing & Binding $250
Small Tolls &Equipment $1,000
Uniforms $2,000
Utility Parts & Supplies $10,000
Vehicle Parts & Supplies $1,000
Gasoline & Diesel $3,500
Water, Gas, Sanitation & Sewer $18,000
Electric $150,000
Telephone $2,000
Equipment Rental $2,000
Office Equip, Repairs & Maintenance $3,000
Major Equip Repairs & Maintenance $40,000
Buildings Repairs & Maintenance $5,000
Grounds, Chemicals & Maintenance $5,000
Vehicle Parts, Repairs & Maintenance $2,000
City of Coalinga
Sanitary Sewer Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Preliminary Engineering Report
Section 6 – Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements
65 Description Costs
Safety Equipment $2,000
Training, Travel, & Conference $2,000
Subs., Dues, & Publications $2,000
Certifications, Renewals & Test $3500
City Attorney Fees $2,000
Computer Program & Consulting $4,500
Medical - General $700
Laboratory $5,000
Chlorine $22,500
Polymer $10,000
Professional Services $25,000
Sludge Removal Contract $50,000
Grant Writing/Application $10,000
Physical w/Drug & Alcohol Test $300
Fingerprinting $50
Liability & Property Insurance $25,000
Taxes, Licenses, & Fees $25,000
2021A Wtr/WW Rev Bonds Prin $70,000
2021A Wtr/WW Rev Bonds Int $66,689
Sewer Plant Automation and Security
Upgrades $200,000
O&M Cost $739,239
Wastewater Plant Total $1,151,555
This alternative would consist of disposing of treated wastewater offsite through evaporation/percolation ponds. As previously stated, AMCE prepared a Recycled Water User Survey to all private landowners included in Table 6-11. Unlike Alternative III, if the property owners decide to use treated wastewater from the WWTF to recharge the groundwater aquifer basin and satisfy the goals of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA).

The SGMA was passed by the California legislature in 2014, as an effort to achieve sustainable use and management of groundwater by 2040. The Act requires local and regional governments and water agencies of high and medium priority groundwater basis to halt overdraft and bring groundwater basins into balanced levels of pumping and recharge. The role of farmers is critical in achieving water sustainability because agriculture is the largest human use of water in the state. Instead of using treated effluent for irrigation purposes, local farmers are now considering using treated wastewater for groundwater recharge to offset the amount of groundwater pumped.

Under this Alternative, the existing WWTF will be upgraded to a tertiary treatment system to improve the effluent quality for agriculture and irrigation purposes. The extended aeration activated sludge City of Coalinga
Sanitary Sewer Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Preliminary Engineering Report
Section 6 – Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements
66 system will provide almost compete of organic material and nitrification. Treated wastewater will then be discharged to an evaporation/percolation pond or will be used to recharge the groundwater aquifers.

City of Coalinga
Sanitary Sewer Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Preliminary Engineering Report
Section 7 – Proposed Project
67 SECTION 7 - PROPOSED PROJECT

7.1. Project Overview
As previously stated, the purpose of this PER is to recommend the most viable and sustainable alternative that will correct deficiencies in the sewer collection system and improve the operation of existing WWTP. This Section provides a detailed description of the proposed project, which consists of rehabilitating approximately 30,815 LF of gravity sewer mains using trenchless construction methods, replacing approximately 19,801 LF of gravity sewer mains using convention construction methods, upgrading the existing WWTF to an extended aeration activated sludge facility, and constructing percolation ponds to increase the facility’s disposal capacity. The following sections describe the proposed improvements and upgrades to the existing sewer collection system and WWTF.

7.2. Proposed Improvements to Sewer Collection System
Based on the condition assessment conducted, the recommended improvements for the City’s sewer collection system are summarized in the following paragraphs. Figure 7-1 displays the proposed improvements to the sewer collection system.

7.2.1. Sewer Main Replacement
As previously discussed in Section 4.4 of this PER, CCTV inspection conducted on 104,618 LF of the City’s sewer collection system revealed sever defects in portions of the collection system. Defects found in the sewer mains included root intrusion, fractured and broken pipe, cracked pipe, sags greater than 60 percent, defective and intruding laterals, joint displacements, and attached deposits (grease and concrete). The segments of the sewer collection system recommended for replacement have been selected based on sorted NASSCO ratings and the condition of the existing sewer mains. For this proposed project, it is recommended that approximately 41,073 LF of gravity sewer mains be replaced with new sewer pipes before failure occurs. Table 7-1 provides a summary of the sewer mains that will be replaced using the conventional construction method of dig and replace.

Table 7-1 Proposed Sewer Main Replacement
Parameter Total Length (ft)
6" PVC Pipe 13,838
8" PVC Pipe 4,226
10" PVC Pipe 1,738
Total 19,802

7.2.2. Sewer Main Rehabilitation
Trenchless sewer rehabilitation is recommended where applicable to reduce surface disturbance over traditional dig and replace methods, reduce the number of traffic and pedestrian detours, spare tree removal, decrease construction noise, and reduce air pollution from construction equipment. Table 7-2 provides a summary of the sewer mains that will be rehabilitated using the trenchless construction method known as cured-in-place (CIPP).

City of Coalinga
Sanitary Sewer Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Preliminary Engineering Report
Section 7 – Proposed Project
68 Table 7-2 Proposed Sewer Main Rehabilitation
Parameter Total Length (ft)
6" PVC Pipe 15,914
8" PVC Pipe 7,297
10" PVC Pipe 2,071
15" PVC Pipe 2,558
18" PVC Pipe 2,975
Total 30,815

7.2.3. Potential Construction Problems
Sewer collection system historically have construction problems related to many factors. As previously stated, approximately 50,616 LF of sewer mains will either be replaced using the conventional construction method of dig and replace or rehabilitated using the trenchless construction method of CIPP. The following is a list of potential problems associated with replacing/rehabilitating sewer mains within the City’s sewer collection system:
• Handling of raw sewage by construction crews while replacing sewer mains. • Disruption to the local streets and temporary detours. • Reconstruction of trench paving to match roadway standards. • Access to private properties and businesses during construction. • Timely backfilling of trenches, sewer line testing, and repaving of streets. • Connection of existing laterals at depths that could vary 6‐feet or more. • Coordination for disruption of sewer services with both private and public users. • • •

CITY OF COALINGA

CCTV INSPECTION PROJECT NORTH
0 1,000 FT

SCALE IN FEET

NO REPLACEMENT

REPLACEMENT

REHABILITATION

NOT SURVEYED
LEGEND

ALTERNATIVE II -

SEWER MAINS TO BE REPLACED

AND REHABILITATED
City of Coalinga
Sanitary Sewer Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Preliminary Engineering Report
Section 7 – Proposed Project
70 7.3. Proposed Improvements to Wastewater Treatment Plant This Section provides a more detailed description of the proposed improvements to Coalinga’s WWTP.

Figures 7-3 and 7-4 display the proposed WWTP site layout and illustrate the various treatment improvements. The existing aerated lagoons and stabilization ponds will be decommissioned for the construction of percolation ponds. In this proposed project, an extended aeration system with biological nutrient removal with filtration and disinfection will be constructed.

For this proposed project, Aero Mod extended aeration system was selected. The moving aeration chains are equipped with diffuser and provide efficient mixing of the basin contents as well as high oxygen transfer at low energy usage. Aeration will be provided by aeration blowers, which will be operated by VFDs. Mixed liquor will flow across the aerated tank reactor and will enter a distribution box that will split flow between two clarifiers. One clarifier will be required to handle the plant’s design flow of 1.34 MGD, while the other will be provided for redundancy. Mixed liquor will settle in the clarifier and clear liquid will overflow into a peripheral weir channel and into the RAS/WAS pump station. Settled sludge will be recirculated back to the aeration basin or wasted to a sludge drying bed.

Treated effluent will be conveyed to the facility’s new percolation ponds that will be constructed. Figure 7-3 displays the proposed improvements to the WWTF.

7.3.1. Extended Aeration and Biological Nutrient Removal The proposed aeration tank will be constructed in the existing WWTP facility. Aero-Mod SEQUOX for biological nutrient removal offers the benefits of sequencing aeration and continuous clarification. Flow enters through an anoxic tank, where the raw sewage is combined with returned activated sludge (RAS) from the clarifiers. The combination of cyclical aeration in the four (4) basins creates excellent aerobic conditions for BOD and ammonia removal when aerating. When the air is off, the nitrate laden MLSS settles and becomes oxygen deprived, creating anoxic conditions for the nitrates to become the oxygen source and allow for denitrification to occur.

The plug flow process repeats this cyclical on/off aeration several times as the liquid mass progresses through the SEQUOX process and on to the clarifier. The effluent quality is achieved with TN levels as low as 3 mg/L. The process is energy efficient and has a small footprint and it does not require recycling pumps or mixers. Table 7-3 contains the required dimensions for the aerated treatment system.

7.3.2. Clarifier
The SEQUOX process often incorporates the ClarAtor clarifier where the biomass is settled and returned to the Selector Tank. The clarified effluent is withdrawn and discharged. This technology is low Maintenance featuring stainless steel and fiberglass components with no moving parts below the water, its unique flow regulation system provides in-basin surge storage. For this proposed project, a centerfee configuration will be used for influent entering the secondary clarifier. Mixed liquor will be carried to the center of the clarifier, which will radially distribute flow from the top of the basin. a peripheral weir will collect effluent and surface skimmer will collect floating scum.

7.3.3. Effluent Disposal
The purpose of upgrading the existing WWTP to an extended aeration activated system with biological nutrient removal facility is to lower the nitrogen concentration of the effluent before it is discharged to percolate the underground aquifer. Nitrogen is a nutrient normally present in domestic wastewater at a concentration that can degrade groundwater quality. Currently, the existing WWTP is not protective of FIGURE 7-3 PROPOSED WWTP SITE LAYOUT STORAGE POND 2 STORAGE POND 3 STORAGE POND 4 STORAGE POND 5 • • • LEGEND CITY OF COALINGA SANITARY SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT STORAGE POND 1 City of Coalinga
Sanitary Sewer Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Preliminary Engineering Report
Section 7 – Proposed Project
71 the current beneficial use of the groundwater and is not consistent with RWQCB’s policy of beneficial reuse. By upgrading the WWTP to include secondary/tertiary treatment and discharging the higher effluent quality to percolation ponds on site, the City will provide an incidental recharge of the groundwater aquifer, which will ultimately help demonstrate groundwater sustainability. By removing nitrogen, treated effluent will be allowed to percolate and be protective of the groundwater’s beneficial uses. As previously described in Section 6.4.3 of this PER, the City would need to decommission the existing aerated lagoons and stabilization ponds to construct five percolation ponds to increase the facility’s disposal capacity. According to the water balance calculations provided in Appendix D, a total percolation area of 18.34 acres would allow the City to dispose 1.34 MGD. Table 7-3 display the surface areas and estimated volumes of each percolation pond.

Table 7-3 Proposed Evaporation/Percolation Pond Characteristics Pond No Top Surface Area (ac) Depth (ft) Volume (ac-ft) Volume (gal) Pond 1 3 6 18 5,866,200
Pond 2 3 6 18 5,866,200
Pond 3 2.45 5 12.25 3,992,275
Pond 4 4.83 5 24.15 7,870,485
Pond 5 5.06 5 25.30 8,245,270
Total 18.34 97.7 31,840,430

7.4. Climate Change Considerations
The impacts of climate change on the selected alternative as well as adaptation and mitigation measures have been considered for this PER. The WWTF will be most vulnerable to the effects of drought and water supply depletion and will be minorly affected by increasing water and air temperatures, flooding, and increased storm severity. The extended aeration activated sludge system is well suited to operating over a wide range of influent conditions. Decreased influent flows and higher biological load concentrations have little impact on the important operational factors of influent BOD per volume and sludge retention time. To prevent flooding of the evaporation/percolation ponds, the levees will be constructed well above the base flood elevation. Proper site drainage and erosion control will reduce the damage from severe storms.

Mitigation measures are measures taken to slow or stop changes to the environment caused by GHG emissions. Since filtration and disinfection are not included, the proposed WWTF will require less power and will produce less GHG emissions from power generation than a disinfected treaty treatment facility.

Additionally, the use of variable frequency drives (VFDs) on blowers and pumps will further reduce power demands, as will decreasing aeration during periods of low oxygen demand. The use of efficient aeration/mixing equipment will also decrease the amount of GHG emissions produced during operation of the facility.

7.5. Permitting Requirements
Permitting requirements to construct the upgraded WWTF include the following:
• Preparation of the necessary environmental documentation in accordance with CEQA-Plus. It is assumed a mitigated negative declaration will suffice for the work being proposed.

City of Coalinga
Sanitary Sewer Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Preliminary Engineering Report
Section 7 – Proposed Project
72 • Preparation of a Report on Waste Discharge to the Regional Water Quality Control Board describing the proposed changes to treatment and disposal. • Preparation of a Title 22 Report to the SWRCB-DDW describing the new effluent disposal areas and the safety measures that will be implemented to protect public health.

7.6. Opinions of Probable Construction Costs
This section describes the probable cost for construction, operating, and Maintaining the City’s improved sewer collection system and WWTP. No key issues or items likely to significantly impact the project budget or schedule are foreseen at this time.

7.6.1. Capital Construction Costs
The capital construction costs for the proposed improvements to the sewer collection system and WWTP are included in this section. The cost estimates included in this Section are only preliminary and final estimates will be prepared at the completion of each design stage. Table 7-4 displays the estimated construction costs for the proposed improvements, including contingency, engineering and construction administration fees.

Table 7-4 Summary of Capital Construction Costs
Description Quantity Units Unit Cost
($/Unit) Total
General Construction Costs
Mobilization 1 LS $240,000 $240,000
Traffic Control Plan 1 LS $90,000 $90,000
Subtotal General Construction Costs $330,000
Sewer Main Replacement
6" PVC Pipe 13,838 LF $215 $2,975,100
8" PVC Pipe 4,226 LF $215 $908,700
10" PVC Pipe 1,738 LF $240 $417,100
Excavation 9,933 CY $9 $89,500
Backfill 13,907 TON $6 $83,500
Surface Restoration 2,481 SY $30 $74,500
Remove and Replace Sewer Lateral 40 EA $4,800 $192,000
Bypass Pumping 70 Day $1,200 $84,000
Subtotal Sewer Main Replacement Costs $4,824,400
Sewer Main Rehabilitation
6" CIPP Liner 15,914 LF $95 $1,511,800
8" CIPP Liner 7,297 LF $105 $766,300
10" CIPP Liner 2,071 LF $110 $227,900
15" CIPP Liner 2,558 LF $120 $306,000
18" CIPP Liner 2,975 LF $120 $356,000
Subtotal Sewer Main Replacement Costs $3,170,000
WWTP Improvements
City of Coalinga
Sanitary Sewer Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Preliminary Engineering Report
Section 7 – Proposed Project
73 Table 7-4 Summary of Capital Construction Costs
Description Quantity Units Unit Cost
($/Unit) Total
Mobilization 1 LS $400,000 $400,000
Headworks 1 LS $600,000 $600,000
Extended Aeration Basin 1 LS $3,500,000 $3,500,000
WWTP Equipment Package & Installation 1 LS $4,500,000 $4,500,000 Blower Building 1 LS $800,000 $800,000
Sludge Dewatering System 1 LS $500,000 $650,000
Dry Sludge Storage 1 LS $200,000 $200,000
Wastewater Facility Piping 1 LS $500,000 $500,000
Evaporation/Percolation Pond Excavation 390,000 CY $2.50 $975,000 Recycled Water Pump Station 1 LS $1,000,000 $1,000,000
Electrical & Instrumentation 1 LS $2,000,000 $2,000,000 Permitting 1 LS $25,000 $25,000
Subtotal WWTP Improvements Costs $15,150,000
Subtotal Construction Costs $23,474,400
Contingency (15%) $3,521,160
Engineering, Environmental, Construction Administration (12%) $2,816,928 Total Capital Construction Costs $29,812,00
NOTE:

All capital construction costs are rounded up to the nearest thousand.

The total capital construction costs for the proposed Project would be approximately $29.8 million. The City would apply for grant funding through the SWRCB CWSRF to fund the proposed improvements to the sewer collection system and WWTP. The City should be eligible to receive funding from CWSRF Grant for both planning and construction costs. Table 7-4 displays the proposed planning and construction for the proposed Project.

7.6.2. Operation and Maintenance
Annual O&M costs provided in Table 6-5 are based on the City’s current O&M costs associated with the sewer collection system and WWTP. These costs include labor, tools, operating supplies, replacement parts, engineering fees, sludge disposal, and various administration costs. The City is currently in the process of constructing a solar photovoltaic (PV) system within the boundary of the WWTP. Since the solar PV system will be used to power the WWTP, a cost of $0 has been assumed for the plant’s electricity costs. According to Table 7-5, the estimated annual O&M costs for the sewer collection system and WWTP.

City of Coalinga
Sanitary Sewer Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Preliminary Engineering Report
Section 7 – Proposed Project
74 Table 7-5 Estimated Annual O&M Costs
Description Amount
Sewer Collection System
Full Time Employees $245,000
Full Time Employees/Overtime $35,000
PERS Contribution $63,250
FICA Contribution $21,500
Medical Benefits $61,125
Uniforms $3,000
Other Operating Supplies $12,000
Equipment Parts $10,000
Building Repair Supplies $1,500
Street Maintenance Materials $5,800
Tools $1,200
Other Maintenance Supplies $4,000
Auditing Services $3,000
Engineering Services $4,000
Professional Services $15,000
Conference/Training $1,000
Machinery Repair & Maintenance $1,500
Other Repairs & Maintenance $1,000
Regulatory Agencies $300
Construction $20,000
Equipment Transfers $83,283
Operational Transfers $80,618
Subtotal Sewer Collection System Costs $673,076
Wastewater Treatment/Distribution
Full Time Employees $276,000
Full Time Employees/Overtime $48,000
PERS Contribution $72,000
FICA Contribution $25,000
Medical Benefits $79,000
Uniforms $3,500
Office Supplies $500
Computer Supplies $250
Cleaning Supplies $1,000
Lubricants $500
Chemicals $250
Shop Materials $250
City of Coalinga
Sanitary Sewer Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Preliminary Engineering Report
Section 7 – Proposed Project
75 Table 7-5 Estimated Annual O&M Costs
Description Amount
Equipment Parts $12,500
Sludge Removal $10,000
Building Repair Supplies $750
Street Maintenance Materials $3,000
Tools $2,000
Other Maintenance Supplies $15,000
Auditing Services $5,000
Engineering Services $1,000
Computer Lease/Enhance $1,000
Professional Services $13,000
Emergency Generator Services $3,500
Telephone $3,000
Billing/Postage $100
Conference/Training $3,000
Electricity $0
Machinery Repair & Maintenance $8,000
Other Repairs & Maintenance $8,000
Books/Subscriptions $250
Memberships $500
Water Contract/Utilities $12,000
Regulatory Agencies $10,000
Testing Services $9,000
General Services/Liability $10,000
Machinery/Equipment $30,000
Equipment Transfers $83,282
Operational Transfers $80,618
Public Safety Allocation $30,000
Subtotal Wastewater
Treatment/Distribution $860,750
Estimated Annual O&M Costs $1,533,826

7.6.3. Present Worth Analysis
To determine the present worth of the proposed Project, the salvage value for each construction item was first determined. Table 6-6 displays the estimated cost for each construction item and each item corresponding useful life. The salvage value for each item was calculated using the SWRCB’s Economic Analysis Model. The salvage value for the proposed project was estimated to be approximately $ 14.54 Million.

City of Coalinga
Sanitary Sewer Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Preliminary Engineering Report
Section 7 – Proposed Project
76 Table 7-6 Estimated Salvage Value
Item Cost Useful Life Salvage Value
Site Work(1) $2,587,000 100 $2,069,000
Surface Restoration $74,500 30 $24,000
Pipelines(2) $7,970,900 80 $5,978,000
Lateral Connections $192,000 80 $144,000
Equipment $12,650,000 40 $6,325,000
Subtotal Construction Costs $23,474,400 - $14,540,000
Contingency(3) $3,521,160 - -
Engineering, Environmental, Construction Administration(3) $2,816,928 - - TOTAL $29,812,488 - $14,540,000
Notes:
(1) Site Work includes mobilization, traffic control and flagging, excavation and backfill of pipelines, and bypass pumping.
(2) Pipelines includes replacing and rehabilitating sewer mains. (3) No salvage value is given for permitting, contingency, engineering, environmental and construction administration.

Table 6-7 displays the present worth cost analysis that was used to determine the present worth of the proposed project. Using the SWRCB Economic Analysis Model, the proposed Project’s present worth was estimated to be approximately $ 23.88 Million. All costs are in 2019 dollars.

Table 7-7 Present Worth Cost Analysis
Year
Design &
Construction
Cost
O&M Costs Salvage
Value
Present
Worth
Factor
at 6%
Present Worth of Costs
Design &
Construction
Cost
O&M Costs Salvage
Value Total
Fixed Variable Fixed Variable
2023 29,812,488 1 $29,812,488 $0 $0 $29,812,488
2024 $1,372,726 $161,100 0.943 $1,294,481 $151,917 $1,446,398 2025 $1,372,726 $161,100 0.89 $1,221,726 $143,379 $1,365,105 2026 $1,372,726 $161,100 0.84 $1,153,090 $135,324 $1,288,414 2027 $1,372,726 $161,100 0.792 $1,087,199 $127,591 $1,214,790 2028 $1,372,726 $161,100 0.747 $1,025,426 $120,342 $1,145,768 2029 $1,372,726 $161,100 0.705 $967,772 $113,576 $1,081,347 2030 $1,372,726 $161,100 0.665 $912,863 $107,132 $1,019,994 2031 $1,372,726 $161,100 0.627 $860,699 $101,010 $961,709 2032 $1,372,726 $161,100 0.592 $812,654 $95,371 $908,025 2033 $1,372,726 $161,100 0.558 $765,981 $89,894 $855,875 2034 $1,372,726 $161,100 0.527 $723,427 $84,900 $808,326 2035 $1,372,726 $161,100 0.497 $682,245 $80,067 $762,312 2036 $1,372,726 $161,100 0.469 $643,808 $75,556 $719,364 City of Coalinga
Sanitary Sewer Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Preliminary Engineering Report
Section 7 – Proposed Project
77 Table 7-7 Present Worth Cost Analysis
Year
Design &
Construction
Cost
O&M Costs Salvage
Value
Present
Worth
Factor
at 6%
Present Worth of Costs
Design &
Construction
Cost
O&M Costs Salvage
Value Total
Fixed Variable Fixed Variable
2037 $1,372,726 $161,100 0.442 $606,745 $71,206 $677,951 2038 $1,372,726 $161,100 0.417 $572,427 $67,179 $639,605 2039 $1,372,726 $161,100 0.394 $540,854 $63,473 $604,327 2040 $1,372,726 $161,100 0.371 $509,281 $59,768 $569,049 2041 $1,372,726 $161,100 0.35 $480,454 $56,385 $536,839 2042 $1,372,726 $161,100 0.331 $454,372 $53,324 $507,696 2043 $1,372,726 $161,100 15,147,000 0.312 $428,291 $50,263 $4,725,864 ($4,247,310) Total 29,812,488 29,812,488 15,743,794 1,847,656 4,725,864 42,678,074

7.6.4. Life Cycle Costs
Life‐cycle cost refers to the sum of the capital construction costs and recurring O&M cost over the full life span of the proposed project. Table 6-8 displays the life cycle cost analysis for the proposed project.

The analysis covers a 20, 30 and 40‐year life‐cycle and assumes a 1.2 percent discount rate for the 20‐year lifecycle and a 1.5 percent discount rate for the 30 and 40‐year life‐cycle.

Table 7-8 Proposed Project Life-Cycle Costs
Total Amount
Capital Construction $29,811,400
O&M Cost $1,533,826
O&M Cost (20-yrs) $23,911,062
O&M Cost (30-yrs) $32,103,427
O&M Cost (40-yrs) $38,503,289
20-yr Life Cycle $25,444,888
30-yr Life Cycle $33,637,253
40-yr Life Cycle $40,037,115

7.7. Project Schedule
Approval of the CWSRF construction application is expected in 9 months to a year after submission to the SWRCB. After Approval, the project engineer can begin the project design. Once the plans and specifications and construction documents have been prepared, bidding can begin, followed by construction. Construction time is expected to be one year. A project schedule is provided in Table 6-9 below.

City of Coalinga
Sanitary Sewer Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Preliminary Engineering Report
Section 7 – Proposed Project
78 Table 7-9 Estimated Project Schedule
Task Estimated Date
Environmental Documents February 28, 2024
Sewer Rate Study June 30, 2024
CWSRF Application Preparation
General Package July 31, 2023
Technical Package August 31, 2023
Environmental Package February 28, 2024
Financial Package April 30, 2024
CWSRF Application Submission April 30, 2024
CWSRF Application Review July 31, 2024
Funding Agreement Approved August 31, 2024
Project Design March 31, 2025
Preparation of Construction Documents October 31, 2025
Bidding December 30, 2025
Construction Begins January 5, 2026
Construction Ends May 31, 2026
City of Coalinga
Sanitary Sewer Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Preliminary Engineering Report
Appendix A – Soils Report

APPENDIX A

SOILS REPORT
United States
Department of
Agriculture
A product of the National
Cooperative Soil Survey,
a joint effort of the United
States Department of
Agriculture and other
Federal agencies, State
agencies including the
Agricultural Experiment
Stations, and local
participants
Custom Soil Resource
Report for
Fresno County,
California, Western
Part
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service
May 23, 2023
Preface
Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas.

They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers.

Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment.

Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions.

The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations.

Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/ portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/? cid=nrcs142p2_053951).

Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations.

The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey.

Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 2 alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
3 Contents
Preface....................................................................................................................2 How Soil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................5 Soil Map.................................................................................................................. 8 Soil Map................................................................................................................9 Legend................................................................................................................10 Map Unit Legend................................................................................................ 11 Map Unit Descriptions.........................................................................................11 Fresno County, California, Western Part.........................................................14 412—Yribarren clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes........................................ 14 435—Lethent clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes...........................................15 445—Excelsior sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, MLRA 17.................... 17 447—Excelsior sandy loam, sandy substratum, 0 to 2 percent slopes.......19 448—Excelsior loamy sand, sandy substratum, 0 to 1 percent slopes, eroded...................................................................................................21 451—Milham sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes MLRA 17........................ 22 452—Milham sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes........................................ 24 474—Westhaven loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes.............................................25 476—Posochanet clay loam, saline-sodic, 0 to 2 percent slopes...............27 477—Westhaven clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes.....................................29 478—Cerini sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, MLRA 17..........................30 479—Cerini clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes..............................................32 480—Calflax clay loam, saline-sodic, 0 to 2 percent slopes, MLRA 17......34 847—Carranza gravelly sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes........................36 950—Pits, gravel.........................................................................................38 960—Excelsior, sandy substratum-westhaven association, flooded, 0 to 2 percent slopes................................................................................39 981—Sewage disposal pond.......................................................................41 References............................................................................................................43 4 How Soil Surveys Are Made
Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity.

Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA.

The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape.

Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil-vegetation-landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries.

Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units).

Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil 5 scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research.

The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.

Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map.

The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil-landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific locations. Once the soil-landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded.

These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from one point to another across the landscape.

Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other properties.

While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field-observed characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management.

Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil.

Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date.

After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and Custom Soil Resource Report
6 identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately.

Custom Soil Resource Report
7 Soil Map
The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit. 8 9
Custom Soil Resource Report
Soil Map
4000000 4001000 4002000 4003000 4004000 4005000 4006000 4000000 4001000 4002000 4003000 4004000 4005000 4006000 4007000 735000 736000 737000 738000 739000 740000 741000 742000 743000 744000 745000 746000 735000 736000 737000 738000 739000 740000 741000 742000 743000 744000 745000 746000 36° 10' 40'' N
120° 23' 31'' W
36° 10' 40'' N
120° 15' 41'' W
36° 6' 33'' N
120° 23' 31'' W
36° 6' 33'' N
120° 15' 41'' W
N
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 10N WGS84 0 2500 5000 10000 15000
Feet
0 500 1000 2000 3000
Meters
Map Scale: 1:53,700 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet.

MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Map Unit Polygons
Soil Map Unit Lines
Soil Map Unit Points
Special Point Features
Blowout
Borrow Pit
Clay Spot
Closed Depression
Gravel Pit
Gravelly Spot
Landfill
Lava Flow
Marsh or swamp
Mine or Quarry
Miscellaneous Water
Perennial Water
Rock Outcrop
Saline Spot
Sandy Spot
Severely Eroded Spot
Sinkhole
Slide or Slip
Sodic Spot
Spoil Area
Stony Spot
Very Stony Spot
Wet Spot
Other
Special Line Features
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
Rails
Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:24,000.

Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.

Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL:

Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required.

This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below.

Soil Survey Area: Fresno County, California, Western Part Survey Area Data: Version 17, Sep 1, 2022
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger.

Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Mar 16, 2022—Mar 21, 2022
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.

Custom Soil Resource Report
10 Map Unit Legend
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 412 Yribarren clay loam, 0 to 2
percent slopes
371.6 3.2%
435 Lethent clay loam, 0 to 1
percent slopes

34.9 0.3%
445 Excelsior sandy loam, 0 to 2
percent slopes, MLRA 17
3,381.4 29.3%
447 Excelsior sandy loam, sandy
substratum, 0 to 2 percent
slopes
1,183.3 10.3%
448 Excelsior loamy sand, sandy
substratum, 0 to 1 percent
slopes, eroded

41.4 0.4%
451 Milham sandy loam, 0 to 2
percent slopes MLRA 17
286.6 2.5%
452 Milham sandy loam, 2 to 5
percent slopes
498.0 4.3%
474 Westhaven loam, 0 to 2 percent
slopes
1,353.9 11.8%
476 Posochanet clay loam, salinesodic, 0 to 2 percent slopes1,157.5 10.0% 477 Westhaven clay loam, 0 to 2
percent slopes
720.5 6.3%
478 Cerini sandy loam, 0 to 2
percent slopes, MLRA 17
547.6 4.8%
479 Cerini clay loam, 0 to 2 percent
slopes
696.4 6.0%
480 Calflax clay loam, saline-sodic,
0 to 2 percent slopes, MLRA
17 128.5 1.1%
847 Carranza gravelly sandy loam,
2 to 8 percent slopes

79.7 0.7%
950 Pits, gravel 117.7 1.0%
960 Excelsior, sandy substratumwesthaven association,
flooded, 0 to 2 percent slopes
877.2 7.6%
981 Sewage disposal pond 44.6 0.4%
Totals for Area of Interest 11,522.9 100.0%
Map Unit Descriptions
The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit.

Custom Soil Resource Report
11 A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class.

Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils.

Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape.

The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.

An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions.

Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities.

Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement.

Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series.

Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas.

These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups.

A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps.

Custom Soil Resource Report
12 The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example.

An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha-Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.

An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.

Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example.

Custom Soil Resource Report
13 Fresno County, California, Western Part
412—Yribarren clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: hnzf
Elevation: 540 to 800 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 6 to 7 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 63 to 64 degrees F
Frost-free period: 240 to 250 days
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated
Map Unit Composition
Yribarren, clay loam, and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Yribarren, Clay Loam
Setting
Landform: Alluvial fans
Landform position (two-dimensional): Footslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Alluvium derived from calcareous sedimentary rock Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 9 inches: clay loam
A - 9 to 16 inches: silty clay loam
Btk - 16 to 31 inches: silty clay
2Bky - 31 to 51 inches: silt loam
3Bk - 51 to 60 inches: clay loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 2 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Medium
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: Very rareNone
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 4 percent
Gypsum, maximum content: 4 percent
Maximum salinity: Very slightly saline to moderately saline (2.0 to 8.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum: 15.0
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: High (about 9.4 inches) Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 2s
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7s
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Ecological site: R017XY906CA - Non-Alkali San Joaquin Valley Desert Custom Soil Resource Report
14 Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Panoche, loam
Percent of map unit: 4 percent
Landform: Alluvial fans
Hydric soil rating: No
Excelsior, sandy loam
Percent of map unit: 3 percent
Landform: Alluvial fans
Hydric soil rating: No
Milham, sandy loam
Percent of map unit: 3 percent
Landform: Fan remnants
Hydric soil rating: No
Westhaven, loam
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Landform: Alluvial fans
Hydric soil rating: No
Ciervo, clay
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Landform: Fan skirts
Hydric soil rating: No
Carranza, gravelly sandy loam
Percent of map unit: 1 percent
Landform: Fan remnants
Hydric soil rating: No
435—Lethent clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: hnzm
Elevation: 240 to 1,000 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 7 to 8 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 62 to 64 degrees F
Frost-free period: 220 to 250 days
Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance Map Unit Composition
Lethent, clay loam, and similar soils: 90 percent
Minor components: 10 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Custom Soil Resource Report
15 Description of Lethent, Clay Loam
Setting
Landform: Fan remnants
Landform position (two-dimensional): Footslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Talf
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Alluvium derived from calcareous sedimentary rock Typical profile
Ap1 - 0 to 7 inches: clay loam
Ap2 - 7 to 16 inches: clay loam
Ap3 - 16 to 25 inches: clay loam
Btkn1 - 25 to 33 inches: clay loam
Btkn2 - 33 to 62 inches: clay loam
C - 62 to 72 inches: clay loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 1 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: 20 to 39 inches to natric Drainage class: Moderately well drained
Runoff class: Medium
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: Very rareNone
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 2 percent
Gypsum, maximum content: 2 percent
Maximum salinity: Slightly saline to strongly saline (4.0 to 16.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum: 40.0
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 4.3 inches) Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 3s
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7s
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Ecological site: R017XY906CA - Non-Alkali San Joaquin Valley Desert Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Gepford, clay
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Landform: Flood plains on basin floors
Ecological site: R017XY907CA - Aridic Alkali Desert
Hydric soil rating: Yes
Posochanet, clay loam, saline-sodic
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Landform: Fan skirts
Ecological site: R017XY907CA - Aridic Alkali Desert
Hydric soil rating: No
Ciervo, clay, saline-sodic
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Custom Soil Resource Report
16 Landform: Fan skirts
Ecological site: R017XY907CA - Aridic Alkali Desert
Hydric soil rating: No
Cerini, clay loam
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Landform: Alluvial fans
Ecological site: R017XY907CA - Aridic Alkali Desert
Hydric soil rating: No
Calflax, clay loam, saline-sodic
Percent of map unit: 1 percent
Landform: Fan skirts
Ecological site: R017XY907CA - Aridic Alkali Desert
Hydric soil rating: No
Calflax, clay loam, saline-sodic, wet
Percent of map unit: 1 percent
Landform: Fan skirts
Ecological site: R017XY907CA - Aridic Alkali Desert
Hydric soil rating: No
445—Excelsior sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, MLRA 17 Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 2ss8v
Elevation: 200 to 1,000 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 5 to 8 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 62 to 65 degrees F
Frost-free period: 240 to 300 days
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated
Map Unit Composition
Excelsior and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Excelsior
Setting
Landform: Alluvial fans
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Calcareous coarse-loamy alluvium derived from sedimentary rock Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 7 inches: sandy loam
A - 7 to 23 inches: sandy loam
C - 23 to 72 inches: sandy loam
Custom Soil Resource Report
17 Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 2 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Negligible
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 5.95 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: Very rareNone
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 3 percent
Gypsum, maximum content: 1 percent
Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to slightly saline (0.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum: 10.0
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Moderate (about 7.2 inches) Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 1
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7c
Hydrologic Soil Group: A
Ecological site: R017XY904CA - Subirrigated Deep Alluvial Fans Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Cerini
Percent of map unit: 6 percent
Landform: Alluvial fans
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Hydric soil rating: No
Excelsior
Percent of map unit: 4 percent
Landform: Alluvial fans
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Hydric soil rating: No
Kimberlina
Percent of map unit: 3 percent
Landform: Alluvial fans
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Hydric soil rating: No
Bakersfield
Percent of map unit: 1 percent
Landform: Flood plains
Landform position (three-dimensional): Talf
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Hydric soil rating: Yes
Custom Soil Resource Report
18 Westhaven
Percent of map unit: 1 percent
Landform: Flood plains, alluvial fans
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread, talf
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Hydric soil rating: No
447—Excelsior sandy loam, sandy substratum, 0 to 2 percent slopes Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: hnzw
Elevation: 180 to 900 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 6 to 8 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 62 to 64 degrees F
Frost-free period: 240 to 280 days
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated
Map Unit Composition
Excelsior, sandy loam, sandy substratum, and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Excelsior, Sandy Loam, Sandy Substratum
Setting
Landform: Alluvial fans
Landform position (two-dimensional): Footslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Alluvium derived from calcareous sedimentary rock Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 7 inches: sandy loam
A - 7 to 23 inches: sandy loam
C1 - 23 to 53 inches: stratified loamy sand to silt loam C2 - 53 to 72 inches: loamy sand
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 2 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Negligible
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: RareNone
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 3 percent
Custom Soil Resource Report
19 Gypsum, maximum content: 1 percent
Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to slightly saline (0.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum: 10.0
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Moderate (about 6.8 inches) Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 2s
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7s
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Ecological site: R017XY906CA - Non-Alkali San Joaquin Valley Desert Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Excelsior, sandy loam
Percent of map unit: 4 percent
Landform: Alluvial fans
Ecological site: R017XY904CA - Subirrigated Deep Alluvial Fans Hydric soil rating: No
Kimberlina, sandy loam
Percent of map unit: 4 percent
Landform: Alluvial fans
Ecological site: R017XY904CA - Subirrigated Deep Alluvial Fans Hydric soil rating: No
Polvadero, sandy loam
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Landform: Fan remnants
Ecological site: R017XY904CA - Subirrigated Deep Alluvial Fans Hydric soil rating: No
Wasco, sandy loam
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Landform: Alluvial fans
Ecological site: R017XY904CA - Subirrigated Deep Alluvial Fans Hydric soil rating: No
Excelsior, sandy loam, saline-sodic
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Landform: Alluvial fans
Ecological site: R017XY904CA - Subirrigated Deep Alluvial Fans Hydric soil rating: No
Westhaven, loam
Percent of map unit: 1 percent
Landform: Alluvial fans
Ecological site: R017XY904CA - Subirrigated Deep Alluvial Fans Hydric soil rating: No
Custom Soil Resource Report
20 448—Excelsior loamy sand, sandy substratum, 0 to 1 percent slopes, eroded
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: hnzx
Elevation: 470 to 670 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 7 to 8 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 62 to 64 degrees F
Frost-free period: 240 to 270 days
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated
Map Unit Composition
Excelsior, loamy sand, sandy substratum, eroded, and similar soils: 88 percent Minor components: 12 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Excelsior, Loamy Sand, Sandy Substratum, Eroded Setting
Landform: Alluvial fans
Landform position (two-dimensional): Footslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Talf
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Alluvium derived from calcareous sedimentary rock Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 8 inches: loamy sand
C1 - 8 to 38 inches: stratified sandy loam to silt loam C2 - 38 to 60 inches: loamy sand
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 1 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Negligible
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: Very rareNone
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 5 percent
Gypsum, maximum content: 1 percent
Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to slightly saline (0.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum: 10.0
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 5.7 inches) Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 2s
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7e
Custom Soil Resource Report
21 Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Ecological site: R017XY906CA - Non-Alkali San Joaquin Valley Desert Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Westhaven, loam
Percent of map unit: 3 percent
Landform: Alluvial fans
Ecological site: R017XY904CA - Subirrigated Deep Alluvial Fans Hydric soil rating: No
Kimberlina, sandy loam
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Landform: Alluvial fans
Ecological site: R017XY904CA - Subirrigated Deep Alluvial Fans Hydric soil rating: No
Guijarral, sandy loam
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Landform: Fan remnants
Ecological site: R017XY904CA - Subirrigated Deep Alluvial Fans Hydric soil rating: No
Polvadero, sandy loam
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Landform: Fan remnants
Ecological site: R017XY904CA - Subirrigated Deep Alluvial Fans Hydric soil rating: No
Wasco, sandy loam
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Landform: Alluvial fans
Ecological site: R017XY904CA - Subirrigated Deep Alluvial Fans Hydric soil rating: No
Excelsior, loamy sand
Percent of map unit: 1 percent
Landform: Alluvial fans
Ecological site: R017XY904CA - Subirrigated Deep Alluvial Fans Hydric soil rating: No
451—Milham sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes MLRA 17
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 2ss91
Elevation: 200 to 1,200 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 5 to 8 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 63 to 65 degrees F
Frost-free period: 250 to 300 days
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated
Custom Soil Resource Report
22 Map Unit Composition
Milham and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Milham
Setting
Landform: Terraces, fan remnants, plains, alluvial fans Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread, rise
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Alluvium derived from igneous and sedimentary rock Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 4 inches: sandy loam
Bk - 4 to 10 inches: sandy loam
Btk1 - 10 to 22 inches: loam
Btk2 - 22 to 49 inches: clay loam
2Ck - 49 to 60 inches: sandy loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 2 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Medium
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high (0.20 to 0.60 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: Rare
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 10 percent
Gypsum, maximum content: 1 percent
Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to moderately saline (0.0 to 8.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum: 25.0
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: High (about 9.1 inches) Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 1
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7c
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Ecological site: R017XG043CA - Loamy 6-8" P.Z.

Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Kimberlina
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: Alluvial fans
Landform position (three-dimensional): Talf
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Hydric soil rating: No
Garces
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Custom Soil Resource Report
23 Landform: Rims on basin floors
Landform position (three-dimensional): Talf
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Hydric soil rating: No
Panoche
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: Alluvial fans
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Hydric soil rating: No
452—Milham sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: hnzz
Elevation: 440 to 1,100 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 6 to 8 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 63 to 65 degrees F
Frost-free period: 250 to 300 days
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated
Map Unit Composition
Milham, sandy loam, and similar soils: 89 percent
Minor components: 11 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Milham, Sandy Loam
Setting
Landform: Fan remnants
Landform position (two-dimensional): Footslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Alluvium derived from calcareous sedimentary rock Typical profile
A - 0 to 6 inches: sandy loam
Bt - 6 to 16 inches: sandy clay loam
Btk - 16 to 31 inches: sandy clay loam
Bk - 31 to 60 inches: sandy loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 2 to 5 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Medium
Custom Soil Resource Report
24 Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high (0.20 to 0.57 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 8 percent
Gypsum, maximum content: 1 percent
Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to slightly saline (0.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum: 12.0
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Moderate (about 7.5 inches) Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 2e
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7e
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Ecological site: R017XG043CA - Loamy 6-8" P.Z.

Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Polvadero, sandy loam
Percent of map unit: 3 percent
Landform: Fan remnants
Hydric soil rating: No
Excelsior, sandy loam
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Landform: Alluvial fans
Hydric soil rating: No
Wasco, sandy loam
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Landform: Alluvial fans
Hydric soil rating: No
Kimberlina, sandy loam
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Landform: Alluvial fans
Hydric soil rating: No
Milham, sandy loam, undulating
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Landform: Fan remnants
Hydric soil rating: No
474—Westhaven loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: hp09
Elevation: 270 to 690 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 6 to 8 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 62 to 65 degrees F
Custom Soil Resource Report
25 Frost-free period: 240 to 290 days
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated
Map Unit Composition
Westhaven, loam, and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Westhaven, Loam
Setting
Landform: Alluvial fans
Landform position (two-dimensional): Footslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Alluvium derived from calcareous sedimentary rock Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 7 inches: loam
Bw - 7 to 17 inches: loam
Bk1 - 17 to 42 inches: stratified loam to silty clay loam Bk2 - 42 to 65 inches: stratified loamy sand to silty clay loam C - 65 to 72 inches: stratified loam to silty clay loam Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 2 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high (0.20 to 0.57 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: Very rareNone
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 4 percent
Gypsum, maximum content: 1 percent
Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to slightly saline (0.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum: 12.0
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: High (about 9.8 inches) Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 1
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7c
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Ecological site: R017XY906CA - Non-Alkali San Joaquin Valley Desert Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Cerini, clay loam
Percent of map unit: 4 percent
Landform: Alluvial fans
Hydric soil rating: No
Wasco, sandy loam
Percent of map unit: 3 percent
Custom Soil Resource Report
26 Landform: Alluvial fans
Hydric soil rating: No
Excelsior, sandy loam
Percent of map unit: 3 percent
Landform: Alluvial fans
Hydric soil rating: No
Kimberlina, sandy loam
Percent of map unit: 3 percent
Landform: Alluvial fans
Hydric soil rating: No
Panoche, loam
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Landform: Alluvial fans
Hydric soil rating: No
476—Posochanet clay loam, saline-sodic, 0 to 2 percent slopes Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: hp0c
Elevation: 260 to 690 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 6 to 8 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 62 to 65 degrees F
Frost-free period: 230 to 250 days
Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance Map Unit Composition
Posochanet, clay loam, saline-sodic, and similar soils: 88 percent Minor components: 12 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Posochanet, Clay Loam, Saline-sodic
Setting
Landform: Fan skirts
Landform position (two-dimensional): Footslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Alluvium derived from calcareous sedimentary rock Typical profile
Ap1 - 0 to 7 inches: clay loam
Ap2 - 7 to 15 inches: clay loam
Bw - 15 to 24 inches: stratified loam to silty clay loam Bknz - 24 to 60 inches: stratified loam to silty clay loam Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 2 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Custom Soil Resource Report
27 Drainage class: Moderately well drained
Runoff class: Medium
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: Very rareNone
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 2 percent
Gypsum, maximum content: 2 percent
Maximum salinity: Slightly saline to moderately saline (4.0 to 8.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum: 30.0
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Moderate (about 8.5 inches) Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 2s
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7s
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Ecological site: R017XY906CA - Non-Alkali San Joaquin Valley Desert Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Tranquillity, clay, saline-sodic
Percent of map unit: 3 percent
Landform: Fan skirts
Hydric soil rating: No
Ciervo, clay, saline-sodic
Percent of map unit: 3 percent
Landform: Fan skirts
Hydric soil rating: No
Lethent, clay loam
Percent of map unit: 3 percent
Landform: Fan remnants
Hydric soil rating: No
Cerini, clay loam
Percent of map unit: 1 percent
Landform: Alluvial fans
Hydric soil rating: No
Calflax, clay loam, saline-sodic
Percent of map unit: 1 percent
Landform: Fan skirts
Hydric soil rating: No
Posochanet, clay loam, saline-sodic, wet
Percent of map unit: 1 percent
Landform: Fan skirts
Hydric soil rating: No
Custom Soil Resource Report
28 477—Westhaven clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: hp0d
Elevation: 250 to 640 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 6 to 8 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 62 to 65 degrees F
Frost-free period: 240 to 290 days
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated
Map Unit Composition
Westhaven, clay loam, and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Westhaven, Clay Loam
Setting
Landform: Alluvial fans
Landform position (two-dimensional): Footslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Alluvium derived from calcareous sedimentary rock Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 12 inches: clay loam
Bw - 12 to 21 inches: silty clay loam
Bk - 21 to 61 inches: stratified loam to silty clay loam C - 61 to 72 inches: stratified loamy sand to silty clay loam Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 2 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high (0.20 to 0.57 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: Very rareNone
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 4 percent
Gypsum, maximum content: 1 percent
Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to slightly saline (0.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum: 12.0
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: High (about 10.5 inches) Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 1
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7c
Custom Soil Resource Report
29 Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Ecological site: R017XY906CA - Non-Alkali San Joaquin Valley Desert Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Cerini, clay loam
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: Alluvial fans
Hydric soil rating: No
Ciervo, clay
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Landform: Fan skirts
Hydric soil rating: No
Westhaven, loam
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Landform: Alluvial fans
Hydric soil rating: No
Calflax, clay loam, saline-sodic
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Landform: Fan skirts
Hydric soil rating: No
Lethent, clay loam
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Landform: Fan remnants
Hydric soil rating: No
Posochanet, clay loam, saline-sodic
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Landform: Fan skirts
Hydric soil rating: No
478—Cerini sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, MLRA 17
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 2vnd5
Elevation: 210 to 930 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 6 to 11 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 62 to 66 degrees F
Frost-free period: 240 to 300 days
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated
Map Unit Composition
Cerini and similar soils: 90 percent
Minor components: 10 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Custom Soil Resource Report
30 Description of Cerini
Setting
Landform: Alluvial fans
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Alluvium derived from calcareous sedimentary rock Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 5 inches: sandy loam
Bw - 5 to 25 inches: clay loam
Bk1 - 25 to 35 inches: stratified sandy loam to clay loam Bk2 - 35 to 79 inches: stratified sandy loam to clay loam Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 2 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high (0.20 to 0.57 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: NoneVery rare
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 4 percent
Gypsum, maximum content: 2 percent
Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to slightly saline (0.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum: 8.0
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: High (about 9.4 inches) Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 1
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7c
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Ecological site: R017XY904CA - Subirrigated Deep Alluvial Fans Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Excelsior, sandy loam
Percent of map unit: 3 percent
Landform: Alluvial fans
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Hydric soil rating: No
Westhaven, loam
Percent of map unit: 3 percent
Landform: Alluvial fans
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Hydric soil rating: No
Kimberlina, sandy loam
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Landform: Alluvial fans
Down-slope shape: Linear
Custom Soil Resource Report
31 Across-slope shape: Linear
Hydric soil rating: No
Ciervo, clay
Percent of map unit: 1 percent
Landform: Alluvial fans
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Hydric soil rating: No
Granoso
Percent of map unit: 1 percent
Landform: Alluvial fans
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Hydric soil rating: No
479—Cerini clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: hp0g
Elevation: 160 to 800 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 6 to 8 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 62 to 64 degrees F
Frost-free period: 230 to 290 days
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated
Map Unit Composition
Cerini, clay loam, and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Cerini, Clay Loam
Setting
Landform: Alluvial fans
Landform position (two-dimensional): Footslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Alluvium derived from calcareous sedimentary rock Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 5 inches: clay loam
Bw - 5 to 25 inches: clay loam
Bk1 - 25 to 35 inches: stratified sandy loam to clay loam Bk2 - 35 to 62 inches: stratified sandy loam to clay loam Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 2 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Custom Soil Resource Report
32 Drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high (0.20 to 0.57 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: Very rareNone
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 4 percent
Gypsum, maximum content: 2 percent
Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to slightly saline (0.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum: 8.0
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: High (about 9.6 inches) Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 1
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7c
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Ecological site: R017XY906CA - Non-Alkali San Joaquin Valley Desert Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Ciervo, clay
Percent of map unit: 4 percent
Landform: Fan skirts
Hydric soil rating: No
Panoche, clay loam
Percent of map unit: 3 percent
Landform: Alluvial fans
Hydric soil rating: No
Cerini, sandy loam
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Landform: Alluvial fans
Hydric soil rating: No
Excelsior, sandy loam
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Landform: Alluvial fans
Hydric soil rating: No
Westhaven, loam
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Landform: Alluvial fans
Hydric soil rating: No
Kimberlina, sandy loam
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Landform: Alluvial fans
Hydric soil rating: No
Custom Soil Resource Report
33 480—Calflax clay loam, saline-sodic, 0 to 2 percent slopes, MLRA 17 Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 2vncm
Elevation: 160 to 730 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 6 to 11 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 61 to 66 degrees F
Frost-free period: 230 to 250 days
Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance Map Unit Composition
Calflax, clay loam, saline-sodic, and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Calflax, Clay Loam, Saline-sodic
Setting
Landform: Fan skirts
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Alluvium derived from calcareous sedimentary rock Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 8 inches: clay loam
Bw - 8 to 26 inches: clay loam
Bny - 26 to 33 inches: loam
Bnyz1 - 33 to 47 inches: silt loam
Bnyz2 - 47 to 65 inches: loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 2 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high (0.20 to 0.57 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: Very rareNone
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 3 percent
Gypsum, maximum content: 5 percent
Maximum salinity: Very slightly saline to strongly saline (2.0 to 16.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum: 30.0
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Moderate (about 7.8 inches) Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 2s
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7s
Custom Soil Resource Report
34 Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Ecological site: R017XY907CA - Aridic Alkali Desert
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Calflax, clay loam, saline-sodic, wet
Percent of map unit: 3 percent
Landform: Fan skirts
Landform position (three-dimensional): Talf
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Hydric soil rating: No
Posochanet, clay, saline-sodic
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Landform: Fan skirts
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Hydric soil rating: No
Garces, silt loam
Percent of map unit: 1 percent
Landform: Rims on basin floors
Landform position (three-dimensional): Talf
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Hydric soil rating: No
Westhaven
Percent of map unit: 1 percent
Landform: Flood plains, alluvial fans
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread, talf
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Hydric soil rating: No
Unnamed hydric
Percent of map unit: 1 percent
Landform: Fan skirts
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Hydric soil rating: Yes
Twisselman, clay, saline-alkali
Percent of map unit: 1 percent
Landform: Alluvial fans
Landform position (three-dimensional): Talf
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Hydric soil rating: No
Panoche
Percent of map unit: 1 percent
Landform: Alluvial fans
Landform position (three-dimensional): Talf
Custom Soil Resource Report
35 Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Hydric soil rating: No
Cerini, clay loam
Percent of map unit: 1 percent
Landform: Alluvial fans
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Hydric soil rating: No
Lethent
Percent of map unit: 1 percent
Landform: Rims
Landform position (three-dimensional): Talf
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Hydric soil rating: No
Kimberlina, sandy loam
Percent of map unit: 1 percent
Landform: Alluvial fans
Landform position (three-dimensional): Talf
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Hydric soil rating: No
Ciervo, clay, saline-sodic
Percent of map unit: 1 percent
Landform: Fan skirts
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Hydric soil rating: No
Avenal
Percent of map unit: 1 percent
Landform: Alluvial fans
Landform position (two-dimensional): Footslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Base slope
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Hydric soil rating: No
847—Carranza gravelly sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: hp3h
Elevation: 540 to 1,360 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 8 to 10 inches
Custom Soil Resource Report
36 Mean annual air temperature: 61 to 63 degrees F
Frost-free period: 250 to 270 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Carranza, gravelly sandy loam, and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Carranza, Gravelly Sandy Loam
Setting
Landform: Fan remnants
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Alluvium derived from sandstone and shale Typical profile
A - 0 to 7 inches: gravelly sandy loam
ABt - 7 to 14 inches: gravelly sandy loam
Bt1 - 14 to 20 inches: gravelly sandy clay loam
Bt2 - 20 to 25 inches: very gravelly sandy clay loam
Bt3 - 25 to 60 inches: gravelly sandy clay loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 2 to 8 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Medium
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high (0.20 to 0.57 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 1 percent
Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum: 6.0
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Moderate (about 6.3 inches) Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Ecological site: R017XE061CA - Loamy Fan Remnant 8-10" P.Z.

Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Bapos, clay loam
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: Fan remnants
Hydric soil rating: No
Milham, sandy loam
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Custom Soil Resource Report
37 Landform: Fan remnants
Hydric soil rating: No
Pedcat, fine sandy loam, eroded
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: Fan remnants
Hydric soil rating: Yes
950—Pits, gravel
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: hp2k
Elevation: 420 to 960 feet
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Pits, gravel: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Pits, Gravel
Setting
Landform: Fan remnants, flood plains
Landform position (two-dimensional): Toeslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Alluvium from mixed rock
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 5 percent
Frequency of flooding: RareNone
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 8
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Excelsior, sandy loam
Percent of map unit: 4 percent
Landform: Alluvial fans, flood plains
Microfeatures of landform position: Bars and channels
Hydric soil rating: No
Cerini, sandy loam
Percent of map unit: 4 percent
Landform: Alluvial fans
Hydric soil rating: No
Custom Soil Resource Report
38 Los banos, clay loam
Percent of map unit: 3 percent
Landform: Fan remnants
Hydric soil rating: No
Panoche, loam
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Landform: Alluvial fans
Hydric soil rating: No
Guijarral, sandy loam
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Landform: Fan remnants
Hydric soil rating: No
960—Excelsior, sandy substratum-westhaven association, flooded, 0 to 2 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: hp2l
Elevation: 310 to 850 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 7 to 8 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 62 to 64 degrees F
Frost-free period: 240 to 280 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Excelsior, sandy loam, sandy substratum, and similar soils: 50 percent Westhaven, loam, and similar soils: 30 percent
Minor components: 20 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Excelsior, Sandy Loam, Sandy Substratum
Setting
Landform: Alluvial fans, flood plains
Landform position (two-dimensional): Footslope, toeslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Microfeatures of landform position: Bars and channels
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Alluvium derived from calcareous sedimentary rock Typical profile
A1 - 0 to 7 inches: sandy loam
A2 - 7 to 23 inches: sandy loam
C1 - 23 to 53 inches: stratified loamy sand to silt loam C2 - 53 to 72 inches: loamy sand
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 2 percent
Custom Soil Resource Report
39 Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: NoneOccasional
Frequency of ponding: Occasional
Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 3 percent
Gypsum, maximum content: 1 percent
Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to slightly saline (0.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum: 10.0
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Moderate (about 6.8 inches) Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 2w
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7w
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Ecological site: R017XY903CA - Stream Channels and Floodplains Hydric soil rating: No
Description of Westhaven, Loam
Setting
Landform: Alluvial fans, flood plains
Landform position (two-dimensional): Footslope, toeslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Microfeatures of landform position: Bars and channels
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Alluvium derived from calcareous sedimentary rock Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 7 inches: loam
Bw - 7 to 17 inches: loam
Bk1 - 17 to 42 inches: stratified loam to silty clay loam Bk2 - 42 to 65 inches: stratified loamy sand to silty clay loam C - 65 to 72 inches: stratified loam to silty clay loam Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 2 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high (0.20 to 0.57 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: NoneOccasional
Frequency of ponding: Occasional
Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 4 percent
Gypsum, maximum content: 1 percent
Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to slightly saline (0.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum: 12.0
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: High (about 9.8 inches) Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 2w
Custom Soil Resource Report
40 Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7w
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Ecological site: R017XY903CA - Stream Channels and Floodplains Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Ciervo, clay
Percent of map unit: 10 percent
Landform: Fan skirts
Ecological site: R017XY903CA - Stream Channels and Floodplains Hydric soil rating: No
Excelsior, sandy loam
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: Alluvial fans, flood plains
Microfeatures of landform position: Bars and channels
Ecological site: R017XY903CA - Stream Channels and Floodplains Hydric soil rating: No
Cerini, clay loam
Percent of map unit: 3 percent
Landform: Alluvial fans
Ecological site: R017XY903CA - Stream Channels and Floodplains Hydric soil rating: No
Anela, very gravelly sandy loam
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Landform: Flood plains
Ecological site: R017XY903CA - Stream Channels and Floodplains Hydric soil rating: No
981—Sewage disposal pond
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: hp2n
Elevation: 140 to 650 feet
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Sewage disposal pond: 100 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Sewage Disposal Pond
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 percent
Frequency of flooding: Very rareNone
Custom Soil Resource Report
41 Custom Soil Resource Report
42 References
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition.

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00.

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31.

Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States.

Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States.

Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States.

National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries.

Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_054262
Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053577 Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053580 Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands Section.

United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y-87-1.

United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.

National forestry manual. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/ home/?cid=nrcs142p2_053374
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.

National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/ detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084 43 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.

National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nrcs142p2_054242
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/? cid=nrcs142p2_053624
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf Custom Soil Resource Report
44 City of Coalinga
Sanitary Sewer Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Preliminary Engineering Report
Appendix B – WDR Order No. 94-184

APPENDIX B
WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS ORDER NO. 94-184

CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD

CENTRAL VALLEY REGION
ORDER NO. 94-184

WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS
FOR

CITY OF COALINGA

WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY

FRESNO COUNTY
The California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region, (hereafter Board) fmds that:

1. The City of Coalinga (hereafter Discharger) submitted a Report of Waste Discharge, dated 2 July 1991, and a site evaluation report, dated 25 June 1991, in support of a change in operation and an increase in quantity of discharge from its municipal wastewater treatment facility (WWTF). The property (Assessor's Parcel Nos. 070- 07-023, 071-02-026, and 071-02-043) is owned by the Discharger. The WWTF is at the confluence of Los Gatos Creek and Warthan Creek. The ponds and lagoons are immediately adjacent to Los Gatos Creek, separated by an embankment which extends three feet above the highest pond water level.

2. Waste Discharge Requirements Order No. 80-064, adopted by the Board on 30 May 1980, prescribes requirements for a monthly average dry weather flow discharge of

0.93 million gallons per day (mgd) from the WWTF, for use on irrigated lands.

3. Order No. 80-64 is neither adequate (due to increase in flow and a change in operation) nor consistent with current plans and policies of the Board.

4. The Discharger completed rehabilitation of the primary clarifier and digester, which were removed from service during the previous plant modification, on 25 November 1991. The facility includes a bar screen; a primary clarifier; an aerobic sludge digester; sludge drying beds; two aerated facultative lagoons, each with a surface area of 3 acres; and three stabilization ponds, having a total surface area of 11 acres.

Effluent is pumped from one of the stabilization ponds to 30 acres of farm land owned by the Discharger (leased and operated by West Hills Community College District) and 102 acres of farm land owned by West Hills Community College District (User) for crop irrigation and percolation disposal. The User grows alfalfa, hay, cotton, pasture, and sugar beets (for research only) with reclaimed wastewater. The Discharger owns an additional 96.7 acres of land in the immediate area, which could be used for reclamation if needed.

5. Reuse of reclaimed wastewater by User is regulated under separate Order.

WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS

CITY OF COALINGA

WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY

FRESNO COUNTY
-2-

6. At current flows, the Discharger applies approximately 6.8 feet/year of treated wastewater to the acreage available for wastewater reclamation. If applied to the total acreage available for reclamation, the application rate would be on the order of 3.9 feet/yearly without considering necessary setbacks from roads, wells and adjacent property. The typical irrigation application rates for Alfalfa and Cotton are 4. 7 feet/year and 3.7 feet/year, respectively.

7. The WWTF has a design average daily dry weather flow capacity of 1.34 mgd. It presently serves a population of approximately 9,240, which generates an average daily wastewater flow of 0.80 mgd and maximum peak daily flow of 1.20 mgd.

8. The wastestream consists entirely of domestic wastes. There are no significant industrial dischargers.

9. The WWTF is in Section 33, T20S, R15E, MDB&M, with surface water drainage to Warthan Creek and Los Gatos Creek, as shown in Attachment A, which is attached hereto and part of this Order by reference. The site lies within the Kettleman Hydrologic Area (No. 558.50), as depicted on interagency hydrologic maps prepared by the Department of Water Resources in August 1986.

10. Federal Regulations for storm water discharges were promulgated by the USEPA on 16 November 1990 (40 CFR Parts 122, 123, and 124). The regulations require specific categories of facilities, which discharge storm water associated with industrial activity (storm water), to obtain NPDES permits and to implement Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT) and Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT) to reduce or eliminate industrial storm water pollution.

The State Water Resources Control Board adopted Order No. 91-13-DWQ, NPDES General Permit No. CAS000001, amended 17 September 1992, specifying waste discharge requirements for discharges of storm water associated with industrial activities (hereafter General Permit). The Discharger is required to file a Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with the General Permit because it is specified in the General Permit that all WWTFs with design flows greater than 1.0 mgd must be covered by the General Permit. The Discharger has not submitted an NOI.

11. The Board adopted a Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin (5D, hereafter Basin Plan), which contains water quality objectives for all waters of the Basin. These requirements implement the Basin Plan.

WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS

CITY OF COALINGA

WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY

FRESNO COUNTY

12. California Department of Health Services has established statewide reclamation criteria in Title 22, California Code of Regulations (CCR), Section 60301, et seq. (hereafter Title 22) for use of reclaimed water and has developed guidelines for specific uses.
-3-

13. Coalinga is a surface water contractor with the United States Bureau of Reclamation for water from the Central Valley project via the Coalinga Canal, which is operated by Westlands Water District (electrical conductivity is about 400 J.tmhos/cm, total dissolved solids is about 220 mg/1).

14. Ground water is encountered at a depth of 300 feet below ground surface and is of poor quality, with electrical conductivities averaging approximately 2500 J.Lmhos/cm.

15. The beneficial uses of underlying ground water are municipal, agricultural, and industrial supply.

16. Average annual precipitation is 6 to 8 inches.

17. The beneficial uses of Los Gatos Creek and Warthan Creek are agricultural and industrial supply.

18. Soil penneabilities in the vicinity of the WWTF range from 0.06 to 2.0 inches/hour.

19. Coalinga is in an area of active seismic activity because of proximity to the San Andreas, Post-Poso Creek, and White Wolf faults. In 1983 Coalinga was jolted by an earthquake having a magnitude of 6. 7 on the Richter Scale. According to the California Division of Mines and Geology, there is a 50 percent likelihood of an earthquake of greater than 8 on the Richter Scale occurring by the year 2000 in the State of California.

20. The Discharger stockpiles its dried sludge on-site. Order No. 80-64 does not require the Discharger to submit a sludge management plan, and the Discharger has not submitted a sludge management plan.

21. The action to revise waste discharge requirements for the rehabilitation of the existing permitted WWTF is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), in accordance with Title 14, California Code of Regulations (CCR), Section 15301.

WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS

CITY OF COALINGA

WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY

FRESNO COUNTY
-4-

22. The Board has notified the Discharger and interested agencies and persons of its intent to prescribe waste discharge requirements for this discharge and has provided them with an opportunity for a public hearing and an opportunity to submit their written views and recommendations.

23. The Board, in a public meeting, heard and considered all comments pertaining to the discharge.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Order No. 80-064 is rescinded and the City of Coalinga, its agents, successors, and assigns, in order to meet the provisions contained in Division 7 of the California Water Code and regulations adopted thereunder, shall comply with the following:

A. Discharge Prohibitions:

1. Discharge of wastes to surface waters or surface water drainage courses is prohibited.

2. Bypass or overflow of untreated or partially treated waste is prohibited.

3. Discharge of waste classified as 'hazardous' or 'designated', as defmed in Sections 2521(a) and 2522(a) of Title 23, California Code of Regulations, Section 2510, et seq, (hereafter Chapter 15) is prohibited.

B. Discharge Specifications:

1. The monthly average dry weather discharge shall not exceed 1.34 mgd.

2. Objectionable odors originating at this facility shall not be perceivable beyond the limits of the wastewater treatment and disposal areas.

3. As a means of discerning compliance with Discharge Specification No. B.2, the dissolved oxygen content in the upper zone (1 foot) of wastewater in ponds and lagoons shall not be less than 1. 0 mg/1.

4. The treatment facilities shall be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained to prevent inundation or washout due to floods with a 100-year return frequency.

WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS

CITY OF COALINGA

WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY

FRESNO COUNTY

5. Effluent shall not exceed the following limits:

Monthly
Constituent Units Average
BODl mg/1 40
Settleable Solids ml/1 0.2
1 Five-day, 20° Celsius biochemical oxygen demand.

6. Ponds shall not have a pH less than 6.5 or greater than 9.5.

Daily
Maximum
80 0.5

7. Ponds shall be managed to prevent breeding of mosquitos. In particular:
a. An erosion control program should assure that small coves and irregularities are not created around the perimeter of the water surface. -5-
b. Weeds shall be minimized through control of water depth, harvesting, or herbicides.
c. Dead algae, vegetation, and debris shall not accumulate on the water surface.

8. Public contact with wastewater shall be precluded through such means as fences, signs, and other acceptable alternatives.

9. Ponds shall have sufficient capacity to accommodate allowable wastewater flow and design seasonal precipitation and ancillary inflow and infiltration during the nonirrigation season. Design seasonal precipitation shall be based on total annual precipitation using a return period of 100 years, distributed monthly in accordance with historical rainfall patterns. Freeboard shall never be less than two feet (measured vertically).

10. On or about 1 October of each year, available pond storage capacity shall at least equal the volume necessary to comply with Discharge Specification B.9.

WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS

CITY OF COALINGA

WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY

FRESNO COUNTY
C. Reclamation Specifications:
-6-

1. There should be no irrigation with, or impoundment of reclaimed water within a minimum of 150 feet of any drinking water well. Drainage should be controlled to prevent reelaimed water from coming within 150 feet of a drinking water well.

2. Reclaimed water used for irrigation shall be managed to minimize erosion.

3. The Discharger may not irrigate effluent during periods of precipitation and for at least 24 hours after cessation of precipitation.

4. The following setback distances (feet) shall be provided at the reclamation area:

Setback Distance (feet)
25 30
50 150
50 Property Line
Public Roads
On-site irrigation wells
Domestic wells
Drainage courses

5. The perimeter of the reclamation area shall be graded to prevent ponding along public roads or other public areas.

6. Application of reclaimed water to the reclamation area shall be at reasonable rates considering the crops, soil, climate, and irrigation management system.

7. There shall be no standing water in the reclamation area 24· hours after wastewater is applied.

8. Reclaimed water must be controlled to comply with the following:
a. Mist should not be created;
b. Reclaimed water should not be sprayed;
c. Runoff is confmed to the reclaimed water use area;
WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREM:ENTS

CITY OF COALINGA

WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY

FRESNO COUNTY
d. Runoff does not contact or enter a dwelling, food handling facility, passing vehicle, or a place where the public may be present; e. Runoff does not contact a yard at a residence, or an area with frequent human contact;
-7-
f. Runoff does not contact or enter a place where access and exposure to a wetted surface could be similar to that at a park, playground, or school yard.

D. Sludge Disposal:

1. Collected screenings, sludges, and other solids removed from liquid wastes shall be disposed of in a manner that is consistent with Chapter 15 and approved by the Executive Officer, · ·

2. Any proposed change in sludge use or disposal practice shall be reported to the Executive Officer at least 90 days in advance of the change.

3. Use and disposal of sewage sludge shall comply with existing federal and state laws and regulations, and with 40 CFR Part 503 technical standards when promulgated.

If an applicable management practice or numerical limitation for pollutants in sewage sludge is promulgated under 40 CPR Part 503 of the CWA after issuance of this permit which is more stringent than the sludge pollutant limit or management practice specified in this permit or in existing federal or state laws or regulations, the Discharger shall comply with the limitations by not later than the compliance deadline specified in the applicable regulations as required by 40 CFR Part 503.

E. Ground Water Limitations:

The discharge, in combination with other sources, shall not cause underlying ground water to: ·

1. Contain waste constituents in concentrations statistically greater than receiving water limits, where specified below, or background water quality where not specified. (For purposes of comparison, background water quality shall be

WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS

CITY OF COALINGA

WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY

FRESNO COUNTY
determined when background monitoring provides sufficient data. Quality determined in this manner establishes "water quality protection standards.") -8-

2. Contain chemicals, heavy metals, or trace elements in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses or exceed maximum contaminant levels specified in the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 15.

3. Exceed a most probable number of total coliform organisms of 2.2/100 m1 over any seven-day period.

4. Exceed concentrations of radionuclides specified in the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 15.

5. Contain taste or odor-producing substances in concentrations that cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses.

6. Contain concentrations of chemical constituents in amounts that adversely affect agricultural use.

F. Provisions:

1. The Discharger shall comply with Monitoring and Reporting Program No. 94-184, which is part of this Order, and any revisions thereto as ordered by the Executive Officer.

2. The Discharger shall comply with the ''Standard Provisions and Reporting Requirements for Waste Discharge Requirements," dated 1 March 1991, which are attached hereto and by reference a part of this Order. This attachment and its individual paragraphs are commonly referenced as "Standard Provision(s)."

3. In the event of any change in control or ownership of land or waste discharge facilities described herein, the Discharger shall notify the succeeding owner or operator of the existence of this Order by letter, a copy of which shall be immediately forwarded to this office.

To assume operation under this Order, the succeeding owner or operator must apply in writing to the Executive Officer requesting transfer of the Order. The request must contain the requesting entity's full legal name, the State of incorporation if a corporation, the name and address and telephone number of the persons responsible for contact with the Board, and a statement. The

WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS

CITY OF COALINGA

WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY

FRESNO COUNTY
-9-
statement shall comply with the signatory paragraph of Standard Provision B.3 and state that the new owner or operator assumes full responsibility for compliance with this-Order. Failure to submit the request shall be considered a discharge without requirements, a violation of the California Water Code.

Transfer shall be approved or disapproved by the Executive Officer,

4. At least 90 days prior to termination or exprration of any lease, contra.:ct, or agreement involving disposal or reclamation areas or off-site reuse of effluent, used to justify the capacity authorized herein and assure compliance with this Order, the Discharger shall notify the Board in writing of the situation and of what measures have been taken or are being taken to assure full compliance with this Order.

5. The Discharger shall use the best practicable cost-effective control technique currently available to comply with salinity limits specified in this order.

6. By 1 January 1995, the Discharger shall submit a water balance for the reclamation area which includes a topographic map showing the net acreage available for wastewater reclamation; considers crop water needs (feet of water/year); harvesting and planting "down" times, when wastewater is not applied; losses due to percolation and evaporation in the ponds; and compliance with Reclamation Specifications in this Order. The water balance shall be submitted as a technical report prepared by a California registered civil engineer or a California registered agricultural engineer.

7. By 1 January 1995, the Discharger shall submit a technical report prepared by a California registered engineer which verifies whether the WWTF complies with Discharge Specification B.4.

8. By 1 January 1995, the Discharger shall submit a technical report, which discusses compliance with Reclamation Specifications and includes a time schedule for compliance with said Reclamation Specification where necessary.

9. By 1 August 1994, the Discharger shall submit a copy of the agreement between the Discharger and West Hills Community College District for delivery of reclaimed water and an accurate map defming the boundaries of city owned land and the reclamation property belonging to West Hills Community College District farm. The map shall identify where West Hills Community College District is reclaiming effluent or may reclaim effluent and the land the city itself has available for reclamation if the need arises.

WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS

CITY OF COALINGA

WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY

FRESNO COUNTY

10. By 1 August 1994, the Discharger shall submit a completed NOI to comply with the General Pennit.
'-10-

11. The Discharger shall submit to the.Board on or before each report due date the specified document or, if an action is specified, a written report detailing evidence of compliance with the date and task. If noncompliance is being reported, the reasons for such noncompl.iance shall be stated, plus an estimate of the date when the Discharger will be in compliance. The Discharger shall notify the Board by letter when it returns to compliance with the time schedule.

12. The Discharger must comply with all conditions of this Order, including timely submittal of technical and monitoring reports as directed by the Executive Officer. Violations may result in enforcement action, including Regional Board or court orders requiring corrective action or imposing civil monetary liability, or in revision or rescission of this Order.

13. A copy of this Order shall be kept at the discharge facility for reference by operating personnel. Key operating personnel shall be familiar with its contents.

14. If reclaimed water is used for construction purposes, it shall comply with the most current edition of •Guidelines for Use of Reclaimed Water for Construction Purposes•. Other uses of reclaimed water not specifically authorized herein shall be subject to the approval of the Executive Officer and shall comply with 22 CCR, Division 4.

15. The Board will review this Order periodically and will revise requirements when necessary.

I, WILLIAM H. CROOKS, Executive Officer, do hereby certify the foregoing is a full, true, and correct copy of an Order adopted by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region, on 24 June 1994.

WILLIAM H. CROOKS, Executive Officer
MS:cjs: 6/24/94

CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD

CENTRAL VALLEY REGION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM NO. 94-184
FOR

CITY OF COALINGA

WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY

FRESNO COUNTY
Specific sample ~tation locations shall be established with concurrence of the Board's staff, and the Discharger shall submit a description of the stations to Board and attach a copy to it's copy of this Program.

INFLUENT MONITORING
Influent samples shall be collected at the inlet of the headworks and approximately the same time as effluent samples. Influent monitoring shall include at least the following:

Constituents Units T.)a>e of Sample
Flow mgd continuous
Settleable Solids ml/1 . grab
BODl mg/1 8-hr composite2
1 Five-day, 20° Celsius biochemical oxygen demand.
2 Samples to be collected in proportion to flow.

EFFLUENT MONITORING
Sampling
Frequency
Daily
Daily
Weekly
Except for flow, which may be measured either at the head works or treatment unit, effluent samples shall be collected just prior to discharge to the disposal facility. Effluent samples should be representative of the volume and nature of the discharge. Samples collected from the outlet structure of ponds will be considered adequately. Time of collection of a grab sample shall be recorded. Effluent monitoring shall include at least the following:

Sampling
Constituents Units Type of Sample Frequency1
Dissolved Oxygen2 mg/1 Grab Daily
pH pH Units Grab Daily
Settleable Solids ml/1 Grab Daily
BODl mg/1 8-hr composite Wee~y

MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

CITY OF COALINGA

WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY

FRESNO COUNTY
Constituents Units
Specific Conductivity p.mhos/cm
Nitrates as N mg/1
Sampling
".[nJe of Sample Frequency1
Grab Monthly
Grab Quarterly
1 If results of monitoring a pollutant appear to violate effluent limitations, but monitoring frequency is not sufficient to validate violation (e.g .. , the monthly average for BOD), or indicate a violation and potential upset of the treatment process (e.g., less than minimum D.O.), the frequency of sampling shall be increased to confirm the magnitude and duration of violation, if any, and aid in identification and resolution of the problem.
-2-
2 Samples shall be collected at a depth of one foot from each pond, opposite the inlet, and analyzed for dissolved oxygen. Samples shall be collected between 0800 and 0900 hours.
3 Five-day, 20° Celsius biochemical oxygen demand.

SLUDGE MONITORING
When sludge is removed from ponds and treatment units, but prior to disposal, a composite sample shall be analyzed, on a dry weight basis, for Total Solids (%),Nitrogen (total, NH4- N, and N03-N), Total Phosphorous, Total Potassium, Total PCBs, and totals of specific metals (Pb, Zn, Cu, Ni, Cd, and Ag). Analytical results shall be submitted to the Executive Officer. Analysis of soluble concentrations of these specific metals shall also be included as needed. If final· disposal is proposed to go to land, a technical report an3.Iyzing application rates and procedures relative to Department of Health Services' Manual of Good Practices for Landspreading of Sewage Sludge and EPA's Process Design Manual for Land Application of Municipal Sludges and Title 23, California Code of Regulations, Section 2511(f), shall be completed and submitted to the Executive Officer for approval. The report shall be prepared by a California registered civil engineer experienced in wastewater treatment and d~sposal.

Sampling records shall be retained for a minimum of five y~s. A log shall be kept of sludge quantities generated and of handling and disposal activities. The f~equency of entries is discretionary; however, the log should be complete enough to serve as a basis for part of the annual report.

MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

CITY OF COALINGA

WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY

FRESNO COUNTY

POND MONITORING
-3-
The freeboard shall be monitored on the evaporation/percolation ponds in use to the nearest tenth foot. Pond water monitoring shall include the following:

Constituent
Freeboard
Unit
feet
Type of Sample
Observation
Frequency
Weekly
Permanent markers shall be placed in the pond with calibration indicating the water level at design capacity and available operational freeboard.

In addition, the Discharger shall inspect the condition of the ponds once per week and write visual observation in a bound log book. Notations shall include observations of whether weeds are developing in the water or along the bank, and their location; whether dead algae, vegetation, scum, or debris are accumulating on the pond surface and their location; whether burrowing animals or insects are present; and the color of the pond (e.g. , dark sparkling green, dull green, yellow, grey, tan, brown, etc.). A copy of the entries made in the log during each month shall be submitted along with the monitoring report the following month.

Where the O&M manual indicates remedial action is necessary, the Discharger shall briefly explain in the transmittal what action has been taken or is scheduled to be taken.

WATER SUPPLY MONITORING
A sampling station shall be established where a representative sample of the water supply can be obtained or the information requested below may be obtained from the supplier. Water supply monitoring shall include at least the following:

Sampling
Constituents Units Frequency
Standard Minerals
1 mg/1 Quarterly
Electrical Conductivity µ.mhos/cm Quarterly
@25 °C
Total Dissolved Solids mg/1 Quarterly
1 Standard Mineral analyses shall include bicarbonate, calcium, carbonate, chloride, fluoride, iron, manganese, magnesium, nitrate, potassium, sodium, sulfate, total phosphorus, total cations, and total anions.

MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

CITY OF COALINGA

WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY

FRESNO COUNTY

ANNUAL LAND MANAGEMENT REPORTS
-4-
The Discharger shall submit a summary report on its land management operation (West Hills College shall submit its own) after the conclusion of each season. The report shall discuss net acreage irrigated and total water application over the season; the total wastewater applied in acre-feet; the total wastewater, and nutrient loading fro� wastewater, sludges, and chemical fertilizers; and the amount of nutrients removed through harvest of the crop. In short, the report shall present a mass balance relative to pollutants of concern and hydraulic loading. The report is due by 30 January of the following year.

REPORTING
Monthly monitoring reports shall be submitted to the Board by the 20th day of the following month.

In reporting the monitoring data, the Discharger shall arrange the data in tabular form so that the date, the constituents, and the concentrations are readily discernible. The data shall be summarized in such a manner that illustrates clearly whether the Discharger complies with waste discharge requirements, including calculation of all averages, etc.

If the Discharger monitors any pollutant at the locations designated herein more frequently than is required by this Order, the results of such monitoring shall be included in the discharge monitoring report.

The Discharger may also be requested to submit an annual report to the Board with tabular and graphical summaries of the monitoring data obtained during the previous year. Any such request shall be made in writing. The report shall discuss the corrective actions taken and planned to bring the discharge into full compliance with the waste discharge requirements.

By 31 January of each year, the Discharger shall submit a written report to the Executive Officer containing the following:
a. The names, titles, certificate grade (if any) and general responsibilities of persons operating and· maintaining the wastewater treatment plant. b. The names and telephone numbers of persons to contact regarding the plant for emergency and routine situations.

MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

CITY OF COALINGA

WASTEWATER
FRESNO
TREATMENT FACillTY
COUNTY
c. A certified statement of when the flow meter and other monitoring instruments and devices were last calibrated, including identifi�tion of who did the calibration (Standard Provision C.4).
-5-
d. A stat.ement whether the current operation and mail'lteoance manual, and contingency plan, reflect the wastewater treatment plant as currently constructed and operated, and the dates when these documents were last reviewed· for adequacy. e. The total quantity of sludge disposed of during the previous year and ultimate disposal site(s).

All reports submitted in response to this Order shall comply with the signatory requirements in Standard Provision B.3.

The Discharger shall implement the above monitoring program on the first day of the month following adoption of this Order.

MS:cjs: 6/24/94
Oroe=I by: (
WILLIAM H.
�)L 0 QJL
CROOKS, Executive Officer
24 June 1994
(Date)
Well
RT
28 II
II
~:;
«" -JII
~li
Zll
~::.

C/J!:well )'-
//'\ J'.
'6<-GLel '\:\ \;f . WEST HILLS COMMUNITY COLLEGE F:ARM
Pits?<'. ~M ~~- Coalinga : :,
. 6~-~ :: . ......... . ~:
.. ,__ ~l
"=-· . 'I-. ·· .
6Go
27 1.1
.. SOUTHERN. I,Qra
.,!3M 647 PHE:LPS:; -··-
'1
II
• :I

LAND OWNED BY THE CITY OF
I•
I;
I· "
Tf~---
N
Scale: 1"=20001
1·
I

COALINGA WWTF
.AVE:

Qi
b.J
u
ll::
:well
3 ATTACHMENT A
City of Coalinga WWTF

FRESNO COUNTY
Portions of Sec. 33 and 34, T20S, R15E, MDB&M
Coalinga, CA. 7.5' USGS Quad
Photorevised 1979

INFORMATION SHEET

CITY OF COALINGA

WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY

FRESNO COUNTY
The City of Coalinga (hereafter Discharge!"), an incorporated city with an approximate population of 9 ,240, operates a wastewater treatment facility (WWTF) with surface water drainage to Warthan Creek· and Los Gatos Creek in the Pleasant Valley. The City is on the western side of the San Joaquin Valley, along ffighway 33 and 198, approximately 12 miles west of interstate 5. The WWTF is regulated by Waste Discharge Requirements Order No. 80-064 for a monthly average dry weather flow of .93 million gallons per day (mgd) of primarily domestic wastewater.

The Discharger completed a project on 25 November 1991 which involved rehabilitation of the primary clarifier and digester, which were removed from service during the previous plant modification. No new construction was involved. The WWTF consists of headworks; a primary clarifier; an aerobic sludge digester; sludge drying beds; two aerated facultative lagoons, each with a surface area of 3 acres; and three stabilization ponds, having a total surface area on 11 acres. Effluent is pumped from one of the stabilization ponds to 30 acres o~ farmland owned by the Discharger and 102 acres of farmland owned by West Hills Community College District for crop irrigation and percolation disposal. The User grows alfalfa, hay, cotton, pasture, and sugar beets (for research only) with reclaimed wastewater on its land.

The State Water Resources Control Board adopted Order No. 91-13-DWQ, NPDES General Permit No. CAS000001, amended 17 September 1992, specifying waste discharge activities (hereafter General Permit). The Discharger must to file a Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with the General Permit because all WWTFs with design flows greater than 1.0 mgd must be covered by the General Permit. The Discharger has not submitted a NOI.

Panoche clay loam, and Panoche sandy loam are the predominant soil types in Coalinga.

Soil analysis indicates naturally occurring asbestos in the Coalinga area.

The City is in an area of seismic activity in the vicinity of the San Andreas, Post-Poso Creek, and White Wolf faults. In 1983, the City was jolted by an earthquake having a magnitude of 6. 7 on the Richter Scale. According to the California Division of Mines and Geology, there is a 50 percent likelihood of an earthquake of greater than 8 on the Richter Scale occurring by the year 2000.

Ground water is encountered at a depth of 300 to 400 feet below ground surface. The ground water quality is poor; specific conductances ranges from 2500 J.'mhos/ em to 3000 ttmhos/cm. The beneficial use of underlying ground water is agricultural supply.

INFORMATION SHEET - Continued

CITY OF COALINGA

WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
FRESNO COUNTY -2-
The action to revise waste discharge requirements for the rehabilitation of the existing permitted WWTF is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in accordance with Title 14, California Code of Regulations (CCR), Section 15301.

City of Coalinga
Sanitary Sewer Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Preliminary Engineering Report
Appendix C – Annual Water Balance

APPENDIX C

ANNUAL WATER BALANCE
Parameter Value

0.857
70%

18.34 325
0 Evaporation Precipitation Irrigation
Ponds Ponds Disposal Areas Percolation
Month (MGD) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) (acre-feet)(2) (Acre-ft)(3) Monthly Cumulative(5) October 0.857 81.5 7.3 1.1 167.9 0.0 -92.5 0.0
November 0.857 78.9 4.0 1.9 79.0 0.0 -2.2 0.0
December 0.857 81.5 2.6 3.2 26.6 0.0 55.5 55.5
January 0.857 81.5 2.6 5.3 0.0 0.0 84.2 139.8
February 0.857 73.6 4.2 5.2 29.6 0.0 45.0 184.8
March 0.857 81.5 6.8 4.6 100.1 0.0 -20.7 164.1
April 0.857 78.9 9.6 1.4 214.9 0.0 -144.2 19.9
May 0.857 81.5 13.0 0.7 299.9 0.0 -230.6 0.0
June 0.857 78.9 14.6 0.2 336.6 0.0 -272.2 0.0
July 0.857 81.5 15.6 0.0 359.8 0.0 -293.9 0.0
August 0.857 81.5 14.1 0.1 323.8 0.0 -256.3 0.0
September 0.857 78.9 10.6 1.0 243.8 0.0 -174.5 0.0
960.0 105.1 24.8 2182.0 0.0
(1) Irrigation requirements based on ET values for the San Joaquin Valley. (2) Water contribution by rainfall over the pond surface areas. (3) Percolation assumes a rate of 0.00 inch per day.
(4) Monthly excess (deficit) of water. Equal to the sum of sewage flow and precipitation less water loss through evaporation and percolation.

Note: Reference precipitation and evapotranspiration data are included in this Attachment.

DESIGN DATA

CITY OF COALINGA
Water Balance Assuming Evaporation and Agricultural Irrigation

0.857 MGD
Sewage Flow Balance (Acre-feet)
(5) Cummulative Balance is proposed to be either stored on the top 48" of soil (root zone) or percolated beyond the root zone. Water storage capacity of exisitng Hanford Loam soils is 0.11 in/in (See USDA Soil Survey Report).

Average Design Flow, MGD
Irrigation Efficiency, %
Pond #2 Area, Acres
Effluent Reclamation Area, Acres
Percolation Rate, inch/day
Value

1.340
70%

18.34 219
0 Evaporation Precipitation Irrigation Pond
Ponds Ponds Disposal Areas Percolation
Month (MGD) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) (acre-feet)(2) (Acre-ft)(3) Monthly Cumulative(5) October 1.34 127.5 7.3 1.1 111.8 0.0 9.5 9.5
November 1.34 123.4 4.0 1.9 53.2 0.0 68.0 77.5
December 1.34 127.5 2.6 3.2 17.9 0.0 110.2 187.7
January 1.34 127.5 2.6 5.3 0.0 0.0 130.2 317.9
February 1.34 115.1 4.2 5.2 19.9 0.0 96.2 414.1
March 1.34 127.5 6.8 4.6 67.5 0.0 57.9 472.0
April 1.34 123.4 9.6 1.4 144.8 0.0 -29.6 442.3
May 1.34 127.5 13.0 0.7 202.1 0.0 -86.9 355.4
June 1.34 123.4 14.6 0.2 226.8 0.0 -117.9 237.5
July 1.34 127.5 15.6 0.0 242.5 0.0 -130.6 107.0
August 1.34 127.5 14.1 0.1 218.2 0.0 -104.7 2.3
September 1.34 123.4 10.6 1.0 164.3 0.0 -50.5 0.0
1,501.0 105.1 24.8 1469.0 0.0
(1) Irrigation requirements based on ET values for the San Joaquin Valley. (2) Water contribution by rainfall over the pond surface areas (3) Percolation assumes a rate of 0.00 inch per day.
(4) Monthly excess (deficit) of water. Equal to the sum of sewage flow and precipitation less water loss through evaporation and percolation.

Note: Reference precipitation and evapotranspiration data are included in the Appendix.

Percolation Rate, inch/day

CITY OF COALINGA
Water Balance Assuming Evaporation and Agricultural Irrigation

1.34 MGD
Treatment Pond Area, Acres
Effluent Reclamation Area, Acres
Irrigation Efficiency, %

DESIGN DATA
Average Design Flow, MGD
Parameter
Sewage Flow Balance (Acre-feet)
(5) Cummulative Balance is proposed to be either stored on the top 24" of soil (root zone) or percolated beyond the root zone. Water storage capacity of exisitng Exclusive sandy loam soils is 0.10 in/in (See USDA Soil Survey Report).

Ref Evap
(inches)
Month Days Ponds Alfalfa Cotton ETo2 Normal3
100-yr4
October 31 1.1 1.00 0.80 4.34 0.38 0.74 0.05
November 30 1.1 1.00 0.80 2.40 0.64 1.25 0.36
December 31 1.1 1.00 0.80 1.55 1.07 2.09 0.86
January 31 1.1 1.00 0.80 1.55 1.78 3.48 1.80
February 28 1.1 1.00 0.80 2.52 1.75 3.42 1.76
March 31 1.1 1.00 0.59 4.03 1.55 3.03 1.44
April 30 1.1 1.00 0.71 5.70 0.46 0.90 0.15
May 31 1.1 1.00 0.83 7.75 0.24 0.47 0.00
June 30 1.1 1.00 0.90 8.70 0.06 0.12 0.00
July 31 1.1 1.00 0.96 9.30 0.01 0.02 0.00
August 31 1.1 1.00 0.96 8.37 0.04 0.08 0.00
September 30 1.1 1.00 0.91 6.30 0.32 0.63 0.00
Total 62.51 8.30 16.24
1 Irrigation with Reclaimed Municipal Wastewater. A guidance manual. PettyGrove and Asano, 1986. 2 California Irrigation Management Information System (ET0 Map) 3 National Climate Data Center. Normal Precipitation (1971-2000). 4 Rainfall-Depth Duration Frequency for California. California Dept. of Water Resources, Division of Planning, February 1981. 5 Effective Precipitation: FAO Irrigation Water Management, Training Manual No. 3.

CITY OF COALINGA
Precipitation and Evaporation Reference Data
Precipitation
(inches) Eff. Precipitation
(inches)5
Crop Coefficients (kc)1
City of Coalinga
Sanitary Sewer Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Preliminary Engineering Report
Appendix D – Annual Water Balance

APPENDIX D

ANNUAL WATER BALANCE
Parameter Value

0.857
70%

18.34 325
0 Evaporation Precipitation Irrigation
Ponds Ponds Disposal Areas Percolation
Month (MGD) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) (acre-feet)(2) (Acre-ft)(3) Monthly Cumulative(5) October 0.857 81.5 7.3 1.1 167.9 0.0 -92.5 0.0
November 0.857 78.9 4.0 1.9 79.0 0.0 -2.2 0.0
December 0.857 81.5 2.6 3.2 26.6 0.0 55.5 55.5
January 0.857 81.5 2.6 5.3 0.0 0.0 84.2 139.8
February 0.857 73.6 4.2 5.2 29.6 0.0 45.0 184.8
March 0.857 81.5 6.8 4.6 100.1 0.0 -20.7 164.1
April 0.857 78.9 9.6 1.4 214.9 0.0 -144.2 19.9
May 0.857 81.5 13.0 0.7 299.9 0.0 -230.6 0.0
June 0.857 78.9 14.6 0.2 336.6 0.0 -272.2 0.0
July 0.857 81.5 15.6 0.0 359.8 0.0 -293.9 0.0
August 0.857 81.5 14.1 0.1 323.8 0.0 -256.3 0.0
September 0.857 78.9 10.6 1.0 243.8 0.0 -174.5 0.0
960.0 105.1 24.8 2182.0 0.0
(1) Irrigation requirements based on ET values for the San Joaquin Valley. (2) Water contribution by rainfall over the pond surface areas. (3) Percolation assumes a rate of 0.00 inch per day.
(4) Monthly excess (deficit) of water. Equal to the sum of sewage flow and precipitation less water loss through evaporation and percolation.

Note: Reference precipitation and evapotranspiration data are included in this Attachment.

DESIGN DATA

CITY OF COALINGA
Water Balance Assuming Evaporation and Agricultural Irrigation

0.857 MGD
Sewage Flow Balance (Acre-feet)
(5) Cummulative Balance is proposed to be either stored on the top 48" of soil (root zone) or percolated beyond the root zone. Water storage capacity of exisitng Hanford Loam soils is 0.11 in/in (See USDA Soil Survey Report).

Average Design Flow, MGD
Irrigation Efficiency, %
Treatment pond Area, Acres
Effluent Reclamation Area, Acres
Percolation Rate, inch/day
Value

1.340
90%

18.34 2.8
Evaporation Precipitation Irrigation Pond
Ponds Ponds Disposal Areas Percolation
Month (MGD) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) (acre-feet)(2) (Acre-ft)(3) Monthly Cumulative(5) October 1.34 127.5 7.3 1.1 0.0 132.7 -11.3 0.0
November 1.34 123.4 4.0 1.9 0.0 128.4 -7.1 0.0
December 1.34 127.5 2.6 3.2 0.0 132.7 -4.6 0.0
January 1.34 127.5 2.6 5.3 0.0 132.7 -2.5 0.0
February 1.34 115.1 4.2 5.2 0.0 119.8 -3.7 0.0
March 1.34 127.5 6.8 4.6 0.0 132.7 -7.3 0.0
April 1.34 123.4 9.6 1.4 0.0 128.4 -13.2 0.0
May 1.34 127.5 13.0 0.7 0.0 132.7 -17.5 0.0
June 1.34 123.4 14.6 0.2 0.0 128.4 -19.5 0.0
July 1.34 127.5 15.6 0.0 0.0 132.7 -20.8 0.0
August 1.34 127.5 14.1 0.1 0.0 132.7 -19.1 0.0
September 1.34 123.4 10.6 1.0 0.0 128.4 -14.6 0.0
1,501.0 105.1 24.8 0.0 1562.0 -141.2
(1) Irrigation requirements based on ET values for the San Joaquin Valley. (2) Water contribution by rainfall over the pond surface areas (3) Percolation assumes a rate of 2.8 inch per day.
(4) Monthly excess (deficit) of water. Equal to the sum of sewage flow and precipitation less water loss through evaporation and percolation.

Note: Reference precipitation and evapotranspiration data are included in the Appendix. (5) Cummulative Balance is proposed to be either stored on the top 24" of soil (root zone) or percolated beyond the root zone. Water storage capacity of exisitng Exclusive sandy loam soils is 0.10 in/in (See USDA Soil Survey Report).

Percolation Rate, inch/day
Sewage Flow Balance (Acre-feet)

CITY OF COALINGA
Water Balance Assuming Evaporation and Agricultural Irrigation

1.34 MGD
Effluent Pond Area, Acres
Irrigation Efficiency, %

DESIGN DATA
Average Design Flow, MGD
Parameter
Ref Evap
(inches)
Month Days Ponds Grass ETo2 Normal3
100-yr4
October 31 1.1 1.00 4.34 0.38 0.74 0.05 (0.17) 0.00
November 30 1.1 1.00 2.40 0.64 1.25 0.36 (0.01) 0.00
December 31 1.1 1.00 1.55 1.07 2.09 0.86 0.25 0.25
January 31 1.1 1.00 1.55 1.78 3.48 1.80 0.67 0.67
February 28 1.1 1.00 2.52 1.75 3.42 1.76 0.66 0.66
March 31 1.1 1.00 4.03 1.55 3.03 1.44 0.54 0.54
April 30 1.1 1.00 5.70 0.46 0.90 0.15 (0.12) 0.00
May 31 1.1 1.00 7.75 0.24 0.47 0.00 (0.25) 0.00
June 30 1.1 1.00 8.70 0.06 0.12 0.00 (0.36) 0.00
July 31 1.1 1.00 9.30 0.01 0.02 0.00 (0.39) 0.00
August 31 1.1 1.00 8.37 0.04 0.08 0.00 (0.37) 0.00
September 30 1.1 1.00 6.30 0.32 0.63 0.00 (0.20) 0.00
Total 62.51 8.30 16.24
1 Irrigation with Reclaimed Municipal Wastewater. A guidance manual. PettyGrove and Asano, 1986. 2 California Irrigation Management Information System (ET0 Map) 3 National Climate Data Center. Normal Precipitation (1971-2000). 4 Rainfall-Depth Duration Frequency for California. California Dept. of Water Resources, Division of Planning, February 1981. 5 Effective Precipitation: FAO Irrigation Water Management, Training Manual No. 3.

CITY OF COALINGA
Precipitation and Evaporation Reference Data
Precipitation
(inches) Eff. Precipitation
(inches)5
Crop Coefficients (kc)1
City of Coalinga
Sanitary Sewer Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Preliminary Engineering Report
Appendix E – Annual Water Balance

APPENDIX E

ANNUAL WATER BALANCE
Parameter Value

0.857
70%

18.34 325
0 Evaporation Precipitation Irrigation
Ponds Ponds Disposal Areas Percolation
Month (MGD) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) (acre-feet)(2) (Acre-ft)(3) Monthly Cumulative(5) October 0.857 81.5 7.3 1.1 154.5 0.0 -79.1 0.0
November 0.857 78.9 4.0 1.9 50.2 0.0 26.5 26.5
December 0.857 81.5 2.6 3.2 0.0 0.0 82.1 108.7
January 0.857 81.5 2.6 5.3 0.0 0.0 84.2 192.9
February 0.857 73.6 4.2 5.2 0.0 0.0 74.6 267.6
March 0.857 81.5 6.8 4.6 40.9 0.0 38.5 306.1
April 0.857 78.9 9.6 1.4 170.8 0.0 -100.1 206.0
May 0.857 81.5 13.0 0.7 281.9 0.0 -212.6 0.0
June 0.857 78.9 14.6 0.2 353.4 0.0 -289.0 0.0
July 0.857 81.5 15.6 0.0 399.4 0.0 -333.5 0.0
August 0.857 81.5 14.1 0.1 359.5 0.0 -291.9 0.0
September 0.857 78.9 10.6 1.0 258.4 0.0 -189.1 0.0
960.0 105.1 24.8 2068.9 0.0
(1) Irrigation requirements based on ET values for the San Joaquin Valley. (2) Water contribution by rainfall over the pond surface areas. (3) Percolation assumes a rate of 0.00 inch per day.
(4) Monthly excess (deficit) of water. Equal to the sum of sewage flow and precipitation less water loss through evaporation and percolation.

Note: Reference precipitation and evapotranspiration data are included in this Attachment.

DESIGN DATA

CITY OF COALINGA
Water Balance Assuming Evaporation and Agricultural Irrigation

0.857 MGD
Sewage Flow Balance (Acre-feet)
(5) Cummulative Balance is proposed to be either stored on the top 48" of soil (root zone) or percolated beyond the root zone. Water storage capacity of exisitng Hanford Loam soils is 0.11 in/in (See USDA Soil Survey Report).

Average Design Flow, MGD
Irrigation Efficiency, %
Pond #2 Area, Acres
Effluent Reclamation Area, Acres
Percolation Rate, inch/day
Value

1.340
90%

18.34 288
0 Evaporation Precipitation Irrigation Pond
Ponds Ponds Disposal Areas Percolation
Month (MGD) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) (acre-feet)(2) (Acre-ft)(3) Monthly Cumulative(5) October 1.34 127.5 7.3 1.1 105.1 0.0 16.2 16.2
November 1.34 123.4 4.0 1.9 34.6 0.0 86.6 102.9
December 1.34 127.5 2.6 3.2 0.0 0.0 128.1 230.9
January 1.34 127.5 2.6 5.3 0.0 0.0 130.2 361.1
February 1.34 115.1 4.2 5.2 0.0 0.0 116.1 477.3
March 1.34 127.5 6.8 4.6 28.2 0.0 97.2 574.5
April 1.34 123.4 9.6 1.4 117.7 0.0 -2.5 571.9
May 1.34 127.5 13.0 0.7 194.3 0.0 -79.1 492.8
June 1.34 123.4 14.6 0.2 243.6 0.0 -134.7 358.1
July 1.34 127.5 15.6 0.0 275.3 0.0 -163.4 194.7
August 1.34 127.5 14.1 0.1 247.8 0.0 -134.2 60.5
September 1.34 123.4 10.6 1.0 178.1 0.0 -64.3 0.0
1,501.0 105.1 24.8 1424.6 0.0
(1) Irrigation requirements based on ET values for the San Joaquin Valley. (2) Water contribution by rainfall over the pond surface areas (3) Percolation assumes a rate of 0.00 inch per day.
(4) Monthly excess (deficit) of water. Equal to the sum of sewage flow and precipitation less water loss through evaporation and percolation.

Note: Reference precipitation and evapotranspiration data are included in the Appendix. (5) Cummulative Balance is proposed to be either stored on the top 24" of soil (root zone) or percolated beyond the root zone. Water storage capacity of exisitng Exclusive sandy loam soils is 0.10 in/in (See USDA Soil Survey Report).

Percolation Rate, inch/day
Sewage Flow Balance (Acre-feet)

CITY OF COALINGA
Water Balance Assuming Evaporation and Agricultural Irrigation

1.34 MGD
Storage Pond Area, Acres
Effluent Reclamation Area, Acres
Irrigation Efficiency, %

DESIGN DATA
Average Design Flow, MGD
Parameter
Ref Evap
(inches)
Month Days Ponds Almond ETo2 Normal3
100-yr4
October 31 1.1 0.92 4.34 0.38 0.74 0.05
November 30 1.1 0.69 2.40 0.64 1.25 0.36
December 31 1.1 0.43 1.55 1.07 2.09 0.86
January 31 1.1 0.40 1.55 1.78 3.48 1.80
February 28 1.1 0.41 2.52 1.75 3.42 1.76
March 31 1.1 0.62 4.03 1.55 3.03 1.44
April 30 1.1 0.80 5.70 0.46 0.90 0.15
May 31 1.1 0.94 7.75 0.24 0.47 0.00
June 30 1.1 1.05 8.70 0.06 0.12 0.00
July 31 1.1 1.11 9.30 0.01 0.02 0.00
August 31 1.1 1.11 8.37 0.04 0.08 0.00
September 30 1.1 1.06 6.30 0.32 0.63 0.00
Total 62.51 8.30 16.24
1 Irrigation with Reclaimed Municipal Wastewater. A guidance manual. PettyGrove and Asano, 1986. 2 California Irrigation Management Information System (ET0 Map) 3 National Climate Data Center. Normal Precipitation (1971-2000). 4 Rainfall-Depth Duration Frequency for California. California Dept. of Water Resources, Division of Planning, February 1981. 5 Effective Precipitation: FAO Irrigation Water Management, Training Manual No. 3.

CITY OF COALINGA
Precipitation and Evaporation Reference Data
Precipitation
(inches) Eff. Precipitation
(inches)5
Crop Coefficients (kc)1
City of Coalinga
Sanitary Sewer Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Preliminary Engineering Report
Appendix F – Annual Water Balance

APPENDIX F

ANNUAL WATER BALANCE
Parameter Value

0.857
70%

18.34 273
0 Evaporation Precipitation Irrigation
Ponds Ponds Disposal Areas Percolation
Month (MGD) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) (acre-feet)(2) (Acre-ft)(3) Monthly Cumulative(5) October 0.857 81.5 7.3 1.1 141.1 0.0 -65.7 0.0
November 0.857 78.9 4.0 1.9 66.4 0.0 10.4 10.4
December 0.857 81.5 2.6 3.2 22.3 0.0 59.8 70.2
January 0.857 81.5 2.6 5.3 0.0 0.0 84.2 154.4
February 0.857 73.6 4.2 5.2 24.9 0.0 49.8 204.2
March 0.857 81.5 6.8 4.6 84.1 0.0 -4.7 199.5
April 0.857 78.9 9.6 1.4 180.5 0.0 -109.8 89.7
May 0.857 81.5 13.0 0.7 251.9 0.0 -182.7 0.0
June 0.857 78.9 14.6 0.2 282.8 0.0 -218.3 0.0
July 0.857 81.5 15.6 0.0 302.3 0.0 -236.3 0.0
August 0.857 81.5 14.1 0.1 272.0 0.0 -204.4 0.0
September 0.857 78.9 10.6 1.0 204.8 0.0 -135.5 0.0
960.0 105.1 24.8 1832.9 0.0 -953.2
(1) Irrigation requirements based on ET values for the San Joaquin Valley. (2) Water contribution by rainfall over the pond surface areas. (3) Percolation assumes a rate of 0.00 inch per day.
(4) Monthly excess (deficit) of water. Equal to the sum of sewage flow and precipitation less water loss through evaporation and percolation.

Note: Reference precipitation and evapotranspiration data are included in this Attachment.

Sewage Flow Balance (Acre-feet)
(5) Cummulative Balance is proposed to be either stored on the top 48" of soil (root zone) or percolated beyond the root zone. Water storage capacity of exisitng Hanford Loam soils is 0.11 in/in (See USDA Soil Survey Report).

Average Design Flow, MGD
Irrigation Efficiency, %
Pond #2 Area, Acres
Effluent Reclamation Area, Acres
Percolation Rate, inch/day

DESIGN DATA

CITY OF COALINGA
Water Balance Assuming Evaporation and Agricultural Irrigation

0.857 MGD
Value

1.340
90%

18.34 273
0 Evaporation Precipitation Irrigation Pond
Ponds Ponds Disposal Areas Percolation
Month (MGD) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) (acre-feet)(2) (Acre-ft)(3) Monthly Cumulative(5) October 1.34 127.5 7.3 1.1 108.4 0.0 12.9 12.9
November 1.34 123.4 4.0 1.9 51.6 0.0 69.6 82.6
December 1.34 127.5 2.6 3.2 17.4 0.0 110.7 193.3
January 1.34 127.5 2.6 5.3 0.0 0.0 130.2 323.5
February 1.34 115.1 4.2 5.2 19.3 0.0 96.8 420.3
March 1.34 127.5 6.8 4.6 65.4 0.0 59.9 480.2
April 1.34 123.4 9.6 1.4 140.4 0.0 -25.2 455.0
May 1.34 127.5 13.0 0.7 195.9 0.0 -80.7 374.2
June 1.34 123.4 14.6 0.2 219.9 0.0 -111.0 263.2
July 1.34 127.5 15.6 0.0 235.1 0.0 -123.2 140.0
August 1.34 127.5 14.1 0.1 211.6 0.0 -98.0 42.0
September 1.34 123.4 10.6 1.0 159.3 0.0 -45.5 0.0
1,501.0 105.1 24.8 1424.3 0.0 -3.5
(1) Irrigation requirements based on ET values for the San Joaquin Valley. (2) Water contribution by rainfall over the pond surface areas (3) Percolation assumes a rate of 0.00 inch per day.
(4) Monthly excess (deficit) of water. Equal to the sum of sewage flow and precipitation less water loss through evaporation and percolation.

Note: Reference precipitation and evapotranspiration data are included in the Appendix.

CITY OF COALINGA
Water Balance Assuming Evaporation and Agricultural Irrigation

1.34 MGD
Storage Pond Area, Acres
Effluent Reclamation Area, Acres
Irrigation Efficiency, %

DESIGN DATA
Average Design Flow, MGD
Parameter
(5) Cummulative Balance is proposed to be either stored on the top 24" of soil (root zone) or percolated beyond the root zone. Water storage capacity of exisitng Exclusive sandy loam soils is 0.10 in/in (See USDA Soil Survey Report).

Percolation Rate, inch/day
Sewage Flow Balance (Acre-feet)
Ref Evap
(inches)
Month Days Ponds Grass ETo2 Normal3
100-yr4
October 31 1.1 1.00 4.34 0.38 0.05 0.74 0.05
November 30 1.1 1.00 2.40 0.64 0.36 1.25 0.36
December 31 1.1 1.00 1.55 1.07 0.86 2.09 0.86
January 31 1.1 1.00 1.55 1.78 1.80 3.48 1.80
February 28 1.1 1.00 2.52 1.75 1.76 3.42 1.76
March 31 1.1 1.00 4.03 1.55 1.44 3.03 1.44
April 30 1.1 1.00 5.70 0.46 0.15 0.90 0.15
May 31 1.1 1.00 7.75 0.24 (0.11) 0.47 0.00
June 30 1.1 1.00 8.70 0.06 (0.32) 0.12 0.00
July 31 1.1 1.00 9.30 0.01 (0.38) 0.02 0.00
August 31 1.1 1.00 8.37 0.04 (0.35) 0.08 0.00
September 30 1.1 1.00 6.30 0.32 (0.02) 0.63 0.00
Total 62.51 8.30 16.24
1 Irrigation with Reclaimed Municipal Wastewater. A guidance manual. PettyGrove and Asano, 1986. 2 California Irrigation Management Information System (ET0 Map) 3 National Climate Data Center. Normal Precipitation (1971-2000). 4 Rainfall-Depth Duration Frequency for California. California Dept. of Water Resources, Division of Planning, February 1981. 5 Effective Precipitation: FAO Irrigation Water Management, Training Manual No. 3.

CITY OF COALINGA
Precipitation and Evaporation Reference Data
Precipitation (inches) Eff. Precipitation
(inches)5
Crop Coefficients (kc)1
Appendix B
Air Emission Output Files
Coalinga Sewer Pipeline Replacement Detailed Report, 7/23/2026 Coalinga Sewer Pipeline Replacement 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

2.2.1. Total Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated

2.2.2. Onsite Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated

2.2.3. Offsite Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing (2027)

3.1.1. Onsite - Unmitigated

3.1.2. Offsite - Unmitigated

3.2. Linear, Grading & Excavation (2027)

3.2.1. Onsite - Unmitigated

3.2.2. Offsite - Unmitigated

3.3. Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Sub-Grade (2027)
1 / 33
Coalinga Sewer Pipeline Replacement Detailed Report, 7/23/2026

3.3.1. Onsite - Unmitigated

3.3.2. Offsite - Unmitigated

3.4. Linear, Paving (2027)

3.4.1. Onsite - Unmitigated

3.4.2. Offsite - 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

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
2 / 33
Coalinga Sewer Pipeline Replacement Detailed Report, 7/23/2026

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

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
3 / 33
Coalinga Sewer Pipeline Replacement Detailed Report, 7/23/2026

8.1. Justifications
4 / 33
Coalinga Sewer Pipeline Replacement Detailed Report, 7/23/2026

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Coalinga Sewer Pipeline Replacement
Construction Start Date 1/1/2027
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 3.50000
Precipitation (days) 16.8000
Location 36.14350657546261, -120.3644755280045
County Fresno
City Coalinga
Air District San Joaquin Valley APCD
Air Basin San Joaquin Valley
TAZ 2531
EDFZ 5
Electric Utility Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Gas Utility City of Coalinga
App Version 2022.1.1.45
5 / 33
Coalinga Sewer Pipeline Replacement Detailed Report, 7/23/2026

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
Road Widening 10.00000 Mile 12.0000 0.00000 — — — —

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

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Su
mmer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 4.32532 3.68031 28.0878 39.2304 0.07068 1.18206 0.47938 1.66145 1.08751 0.11251 1.20002 — 8,168.44 8,168.44 0.32440 0.08457 1.65564 8,203.40 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 4.28860 3.62873 28.1284 38.7076 0.07068 1.18206 0.47938 1.66145 1.08751 0.11251 1.20002 — 8,111.53 8,111.53 0.33019 0.08650 0.04296 8,145.61 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.18945 1.01367 7.74016 10.9758 0.01931 0.31478 0.17372 0.48850 0.28960 0.04072 0.33032 — 2,241.22 2,241.22 0.08973 0.02543 0.26057 2,251.30 6 / 33
Coalinga Sewer Pipeline Replacement Detailed Report, 7/23/2026 Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.21707 0.18500 1.41258 2.00308 0.00352 0.05745 0.03170 0.08915 0.05285 0.00743 0.06028 — 371.059 371.059 0.01486 0.00421 0.04314 372.728

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year

2.2.1. Total Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated Includes both onsite and offsite emissions.

Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily - S
ummer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 4.32532 3.68031 28.0878 39.2304 0.07068 1.18206 0.47938 1.66145 1.08751 0.11251 1.20002 — 8,168.44 8,168.44 0.32440 0.08457 1.65564 8,203.40 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 4.28860 3.62873 28.1284 38.7076 0.07068 1.18206 0.47938 1.66145 1.08751 0.11251 1.20002 — 8,111.53 8,111.53 0.33019 0.08650 0.04296 8,145.61 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 1.18945 1.01367 7.74016 10.9758 0.01931 0.31478 0.17372 0.48850 0.28960 0.04072 0.33032 — 2,241.22 2,241.22 0.08973 0.02543 0.26057 2,251.30 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 0.21707 0.18500 1.41258 2.00308 0.00352 0.05745 0.03170 0.08915 0.05285 0.00743 0.06028 — 371.059 371.059 0.01486 0.00421 0.04314 372.728

2.2.2. Onsite Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated 7 / 33
Coalinga Sewer Pipeline Replacement Detailed Report, 7/23/2026 Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily - S
ummer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 3.98784 3.35089 27.9061 36.4512 0.07059 1.18188 0.00000 1.18188 1.08733 0.00000 1.08733 — 7,644.02 7,644.02 0.31008 0.06202 0.00000 7,670.26 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 3.98784 3.35089 27.9061 36.4512 0.07059 1.18188 0.00000 1.18188 1.08733 0.00000 1.08733 — 7,644.02 7,644.02 0.31008 0.06202 0.00000 7,670.26 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 1.07765 0.90477 7.66995 10.1369 0.01929 0.31475 0.00000 0.31475 0.28957 0.00000 0.28957 — 2,065.60 2,065.60 0.08379 0.01676 0.00000 2,072.69 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 0.19667 0.16512 1.39977 1.84998 0.00352 0.05744 0.00000 0.05744 0.05285 0.00000 0.05285 — 341.983 341.983 0.01387 0.00277 0.00000 343.157

2.2.3. Offsite 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) Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily - S
ummer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 0.33748 0.32941 0.18167 2.77921 0.00009 0.00018 0.47938 0.47956 0.00018 0.11251 0.11268 — 524.412 524.412 0.01433 0.02255 1.65564 533.147 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 0.30077 0.27784 0.22230 2.25643 0.00009 0.00018 0.47938 0.47956 0.00018 0.11251 0.11268 — 467.509 467.509 0.02011 0.02448 0.04296 475.351 8 / 33
Coalinga Sewer Pipeline Replacement Detailed Report, 7/23/2026 Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 0.11180 0.10890 0.07021 0.83893 0.00002 0.00003 0.17372 0.17375 0.00003 0.04072 0.04075 — 175.619 175.619 0.00594 0.00867 0.26057 178.611 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 0.02040 0.01987 0.01281 0.15310 < 0.0000
05 0.00001 0.03170 0.03171 0.00001 0.00743 0.00744 — 29.0757 29.0757 0.00098 0.00143 0.04314 29.5710

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing (2027)

3.1.1. Onsite - 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 BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Su
mmer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
OffRoad Eq
uipment

0.50946 0.42808 3.80861 4.46942 0.00584 0.18470 — 0.18470 0.16993 — 0.16993 — 632.486 632.486 0.02566 0.00513 — 634.656 Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 9 / 33
Coalinga Sewer Pipeline Replacement Detailed Report, 7/23/2026 Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
OffRoad Eq
uipment

0.02094 0.01759 0.15652 0.18367 0.00024 0.00759 — 0.00759 0.00698 — 0.00698 — 25.9926 25.9926 0.00105 0.00021 — 26.0818 Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
OffRoad Eq
uipment

0.00382 0.00321 0.02856 0.03352 0.00004 0.00139 — 0.00139 0.00127 — 0.00127 — 4.30336 4.30336 0.00017 0.00003 — 4.31813 Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

3.1.2. Offsite - 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 BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Su
mmer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.19699 0.18216 0.13222 1.47669 0.00000 0.00000 0.31282 0.31282 0.00000 0.07332 0.07332 — 296.818 296.818 0.01268 0.01483 0.02778 301.583 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
10 / 33
Coalinga Sewer Pipeline Replacement Detailed Report, 7/23/2026 Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Worker 0.00820 0.00799 0.00488 0.06151 0.00000 0.00000 0.01272 0.01272 0.00000 0.00298 0.00298 — 12.6327 12.6327 0.00042 0.00061 0.01899 12.8437 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00150 0.00146 0.00089 0.01123 0.00000 0.00000 0.00232 0.00232 0.00000 0.00054 0.00054 — 2.09149 2.09149 0.00007 0.00010 0.00314 2.12643 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

3.2. Linear, Grading & Excavation (2027)

3.2.1. Onsite - 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 BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Su
mmer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
OffRoad Eq
uipment

3.98784 3.35089 27.9061 36.4512 0.07059 1.18188 — 1.18188 1.08733 — 1.08733 — 7,644.02 7,644.02 0.31008 0.06202 — 7,670.26 Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
11 / 33
Coalinga Sewer Pipeline Replacement Detailed Report, 7/23/2026 Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e OffRoad Eq
uipment

3.98784 3.35089 27.9061 36.4512 0.07059 1.18188 — 1.18188 1.08733 — 1.08733 — 7,644.02 7,644.02 0.31008 0.06202 — 7,670.26 Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
OffRoad Eq
uipment

0.74294 0.62428 5.19895 6.79091 0.01315 0.22019 — 0.22019 0.20257 — 0.20257 — 1,424.09 1,424.09 0.05777 0.01155 — 1,428.98 Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
OffRoad Eq
uipment

0.13559 0.11393 0.94881 1.23934 0.00240 0.04018 — 0.04018 0.03697 — 0.03697 — 235.775 235.775 0.00956 0.00191 — 236.584 Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

3.2.2. Offsite - 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 BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Su
mmer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.33643 0.32871 0.16185 2.77030 0.00000 0.00000 0.47603 0.47603 0.00000 0.11158 0.11158 — 508.609 508.609 0.01350 0.02064 1.62916 516.726 Vendor 0.00106 0.00071 0.01982 0.00891 0.00009 0.00018 0.00336 0.00353 0.00018 0.00093 0.00110 — 12.6314 12.6314 0.00031 0.00185 0.02648 13.2175 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 12 / 33
Coalinga Sewer Pipeline Replacement Detailed Report, 7/23/2026 Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.29977 0.27720 0.20120 2.24714 0.00000 0.00000 0.47603 0.47603 0.00000 0.11158 0.11158 — 451.680 451.680 0.01929 0.02257 0.04227 458.930 Vendor 0.00099 0.00064 0.02110 0.00928 0.00009 0.00018 0.00336 0.00353 0.00018 0.00093 0.00110 — 12.6569 12.6569 0.00031 0.00185 0.00069 13.2171 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05657 0.05513 0.03364 0.42432 0.00000 0.00000 0.08773 0.08773 0.00000 0.02055 0.02055 — 87.1473 87.1473 0.00288 0.00420 0.13098 88.6032 Vendor 0.00019 0.00012 0.00384 0.00169 0.00002 0.00003 0.00062 0.00065 0.00003 0.00017 0.00020 — 2.35524 2.35524 0.00006 0.00035 0.00213 2.46162 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01032 0.01006 0.00614 0.07744 0.00000 0.00000 0.01601 0.01601 0.00000 0.00375 0.00375 — 14.4282 14.4282 0.00048 0.00070 0.02169 14.6693 Vendor 0.00003 0.00002 0.00070 0.00031 < 0.0000
05 0.00001 0.00011 0.00012 0.00001 0.00003 0.00004 — 0.38994 0.38994 0.00001 0.00006 0.00035 0.40755 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

3.3. Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Sub-Grade (2027)

3.3.1. Onsite - 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 BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Su
mmer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
13 / 33
Coalinga Sewer Pipeline Replacement Detailed Report, 7/23/2026 Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e OffRoad Eq
uipment

2.06595 1.72988 15.0381 19.6689 0.03954 0.56552 — 0.56552 0.52028 — 0.52028 — 4,088.78 4,088.78 0.16586 0.03317 — 4,102.81 Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
OffRoad Eq
uipment

0.25471 0.21327 1.85402 2.42493 0.00488 0.06972 — 0.06972 0.06414 — 0.06414 — 504.096 504.096 0.02045 0.00409 — 505.826 Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
OffRoad Eq
uipment

0.04648 0.03892 0.33836 0.44255 0.00089 0.01272 — 0.01272 0.01171 — 0.01171 — 83.4588 83.4588 0.00339 0.00068 — 83.7453 Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

3.3.2. Offsite - 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 BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Su
mmer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.28836 0.28175 0.13873 2.37454 0.00000 0.00000 0.40803 0.40803 0.00000 0.09564 0.09564 — 435.950 435.950 0.01157 0.01769 1.39643 442.908 14 / 33
Coalinga Sewer Pipeline Replacement Detailed Report, 7/23/2026 Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03209 0.03127 0.01908 0.24069 0.00000 0.00000 0.04976 0.04976 0.00000 0.01166 0.01166 — 49.4323 49.4323 0.00163 0.00239 0.07430 50.2581 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00586 0.00571 0.00348 0.04393 0.00000 0.00000 0.00908 0.00908 0.00000 0.00213 0.00213 — 8.18408 8.18408 0.00027 0.00039 0.01230 8.32081 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

3.4. Linear, Paving (2027)

3.4.1. Onsite - 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 BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Su
mmer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
15 / 33
Coalinga Sewer Pipeline Replacement Detailed Report, 7/23/2026 Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e OffRoad Eq
uipment

0.93732 0.78761 7.30737 11.7016 0.01633 0.27376 — 0.27376 0.25186 — 0.25186 — 1,768.15 1,768.15 0.07172 0.01434 — 1,774.22 Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
OffRoad Eq
uipment

0.05906 0.04963 0.46046 0.73736 0.00103 0.01725 — 0.01725 0.01587 — 0.01587 — 111.418 111.418 0.00452 0.00090 — 111.800 Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
OffRoad Eq
uipment

0.01078 0.00906 0.08403 0.13457 0.00019 0.00315 — 0.00315 0.00290 — 0.00290 — 18.4465 18.4465 0.00075 0.00015 — 18.5098 Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

3.4.2. Offsite - 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 BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Su
mmer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.25953 0.25358 0.12485 2.13709 0.00000 0.00000 0.36722 0.36722 0.00000 0.08608 0.08608 — 392.355 392.355 0.01042 0.01592 1.25678 398.618 16 / 33
Coalinga Sewer Pipeline Replacement Detailed Report, 7/23/2026 Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01476 0.01438 0.00878 0.11072 0.00000 0.00000 0.02289 0.02289 0.00000 0.00536 0.00536 — 22.7389 22.7389 0.00075 0.00110 0.03418 23.1187 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00269 0.00263 0.00160 0.02021 0.00000 0.00000 0.00418 0.00418 0.00000 0.00098 0.00098 — 3.76468 3.76468 0.00012 0.00018 0.00566 3.82757 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

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) 17 / 33
Coalinga Sewer Pipeline Replacement Detailed Report, 7/23/2026 Vegetati
on
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Su
mmer
(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 BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Su
mmer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
18 / 33
Coalinga Sewer Pipeline Replacement Detailed Report, 7/23/2026

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 BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Su
mmer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
19 / 33
Coalinga Sewer Pipeline Replacement Detailed Report, 7/23/2026 Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 Linear, Grubbing & Land
Clearing
Linear, Grubbing & Land
Clearing
1/1/2027 1/22/2027 5.00000 15.0000 —
Linear, Grading &
Excavation
Linear, Grading &
Excavation
1/23/2027 4/28/2027 5.00000 68.0000 —
Linear, Drainage,
Utilities, & Sub-Grade
Linear, Drainage,
Utilities, & Sub-Grade
4/29/2027 7/1/2027 5.00000 45.0000 —
Linear, Paving Linear, Paving 7/2/2027 8/3/2027 5.00000 23.0000 — 20 / 33
Coalinga Sewer Pipeline Replacement Detailed Report, 7/23/2026

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Linear, Grubbing &
Land Clearing
Crawler Tractors Diesel Average 1.000000 8.00000 87.0000 0.43000 Linear, Grubbing &
Land Clearing
Excavators Diesel Average 2.00000 8.00000 36.0000 0.38000 Linear, Grubbing &
Land Clearing
Signal Boards Electric Average 20.0000 8.00000 6.00000 0.82000 Linear, Grading &
Excavation
Crawler Tractors Diesel Average 1.000000 8.00000 87.0000 0.43000 Linear, Grading &
Excavation
Excavators Diesel Average 3.00000 8.00000 36.0000 0.38000 Linear, Grading &
Excavation
Graders Diesel Average 2.00000 8.00000 148.000 0.41000
Linear, Grading &
Excavation
Rollers Diesel Average 2.00000 8.00000 36.0000 0.38000
Linear, Grading &
Excavation
Rubber Tired Loaders Diesel Average 1.000000 8.00000 150.000 0.36000 Linear, Grading &
Excavation
Scrapers Diesel Average 2.00000 8.00000 423.000 0.48000 Linear, Grading &
Excavation
Signal Boards Electric Average 20.0000 8.00000 6.00000 0.82000 Linear, Grading &
Excavation
Tractors/Loaders/
Backhoes
Diesel Average 4.00000 8.00000 84.0000 0.37000
Linear, Drainage,
Utilities, & Sub-Grade
Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.000000 8.00000 37.0000 0.48000 21 / 33
Coalinga Sewer Pipeline Replacement Detailed Report, 7/23/2026 Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Linear, Drainage,
Utilities, & Sub-Grade
Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.000000 8.00000 14.0000 0.74000 Linear, Drainage,
Utilities, & Sub-Grade
Graders Diesel Average 1.000000 8.00000 148.000 0.41000 Linear, Drainage,
Utilities, & Sub-Grade
Plate Compactors Diesel Average 1.000000 8.00000 8.00000 0.43000 Linear, Drainage,
Utilities, & Sub-Grade
Pumps Diesel Average 1.000000 8.00000 11.0000 0.74000
Linear, Drainage,
Utilities, & Sub-Grade
Rough Terrain
Forklifts
Diesel Average 1.000000 8.00000 96.0000 0.40000
Linear, Drainage,
Utilities, & Sub-Grade
Scrapers Diesel Average 1.000000 8.00000 423.000 0.48000 Linear, Drainage,
Utilities, & Sub-Grade
Signal Boards Electric Average 20.0000 8.00000 6.00000 0.82000 Linear, Drainage,
Utilities, & Sub-Grade
Tractors/Loaders/
Backhoes
Diesel Average 3.00000 8.00000 84.0000 0.37000
Linear, Paving Pavers Diesel Average 1.000000 8.00000 81.0000 0.42000 Linear, Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 1.000000 8.00000 89.0000 0.36000 Linear, Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00000 8.00000 36.0000 0.38000 Linear, Paving Signal Boards Electric Average 20.0000 8.00000 6.00000 0.82000 Linear, Paving Tractors/Loaders/
Backhoes
Diesel Average 3.00000 8.00000 84.0000 0.37000

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
22 / 33
Coalinga Sewer Pipeline Replacement Detailed Report, 7/23/2026 Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing Worker 57.5000 7.70000 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing Vendor 0.00000 4.00000 HHDT,MHDT Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing Hauling 0.00000 20.0000 HHDT Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing Onsite truck — — HHDT
Linear, Grading & Excavation Worker 87.5000 7.70000 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Linear, Grading & Excavation Vendor 1.000000 4.00000 HHDT,MHDT Linear, Grading & Excavation Hauling 0.00000 20.0000 HHDT Linear, Grading & Excavation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & SubGradeWorker 75.0000 7.70000 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & SubGradeVendor 0.00000 4.00000 HHDT,MHDT Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & SubGradeHauling 0.00000 20.0000 HHDT Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & SubGradeOnsite truck — — HHDT Linear, Paving Worker 67.5000 7.70000 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Linear, Paving Vendor 0.00000 4.00000 HHDT,MHDT
Linear, Paving Hauling 0.00000 20.0000 HHDT
Linear, Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
23 / 33
Coalinga Sewer Pipeline Replacement Detailed Report, 7/23/2026 Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2027 2,348.06 203.983 0.03300 0.00400

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres 24 / 33
Coalinga Sewer Pipeline Replacement Detailed Report, 7/23/2026

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 25.1400 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 1.65000 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 0.00000 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. 25 / 33
Coalinga Sewer Pipeline Replacement Detailed Report, 7/23/2026 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 CalAdapt (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
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 2 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
26 / 33
Coalinga Sewer Pipeline Replacement Detailed Report, 7/23/2026 Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 2 1 1 3
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
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 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 —
27 / 33
Coalinga Sewer Pipeline Replacement Detailed Report, 7/23/2026 Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
AQ-Ozone 65.6876
AQ-PM 44.9782
AQ-DPM 48.2390
Drinking Water 66.2420
Lead Risk Housing 50.3718
Pesticides 60.5862
Toxic Releases 31.6079
Traffic 2.93750
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 91.0414
Groundwater 40.7604
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 43.2958
Impaired Water Bodies 23.8765
Solid Waste 52.8981
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 72.1211
Cardio-vascular 91.6002
Low Birth Weights 49.9102
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 69.1977
Housing 52.0913
28 / 33
Coalinga Sewer Pipeline Replacement Detailed Report, 7/23/2026 Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Linguistic 36.9739
Poverty 57.4372
Unemployment 51.2624

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 43.55190556
Employed 29.10304119
Median HI 46.75991274
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 30.70704478
High school enrollment 5.569100475
Preschool enrollment 20.53124599
Transportation —
Auto Access 30.77120493
Active commuting 37.16155524
Social —
2-parent households 17.16925446
Voting 26.22866675
29 / 33
Coalinga Sewer Pipeline Replacement Detailed Report, 7/23/2026 Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 56.37110227
Park access 32.00307969
Retail density 30.32208392
Supermarket access 64.76324907
Tree canopy 12.96034903
Housing —
Homeownership 44.15501091
Housing habitability 71.60272039
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 69.34428333 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 69.76774028
Uncrowded housing 56.30694213
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 67.2783267
Arthritis 0.0
Asthma ER Admissions 31.4
High Blood Pressure 0.0
Cancer (excluding skin) 0.0
Asthma 0.0
Coronary Heart Disease 0.0
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 0.0
30 / 33
Coalinga Sewer Pipeline Replacement Detailed Report, 7/23/2026 Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Diagnosed Diabetes 0.0
Life Expectancy at Birth 16.3
Cognitively Disabled 52.2
Physically Disabled 10.4
Heart Attack ER Admissions 0.4
Mental Health Not Good 0.0
Chronic Kidney Disease 0.0
Obesity 0.0
Pedestrian Injuries 57.7
Physical Health Not Good 0.0
Stroke 0.0
Health Risk Behaviors —
Binge Drinking 0.0
Current Smoker 0.0
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 0.0
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 40.5
Elderly 67.6
English Speaking 65.8
31 / 33
Coalinga Sewer Pipeline Replacement Detailed Report, 7/23/2026 Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Foreign-born 19.9
Outdoor Workers 7.3
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 46.7
Traffic Density 1.0
Traffic Access 0.0
Other Indices —
Hardship 59.6
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 46.1

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 72.0000 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 28.0000 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No 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
32 / 33
Coalinga Sewer Pipeline Replacement Detailed Report, 7/23/2026 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

8.1. Justifications
Screen Justification
Construction: Dust From Material Movement no soil will be imported or exported 33 / 33
Appendix C
Biological Resource Evaluation

SANITARY SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM AND

WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENTS

BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION

CITY OF COALINGA, CALIFORNIA
Prepared by
LIVE OAK ASSOCIATES, INC.

Natalie Neff, Staff Ecologist
Rebekah Jensen, Senior Project Manager and Ecologist
Austin Pearson, Vice President
Prepared for
Travis Crawford
Crawford and Bowen Planning, Inc.
113 N. Church Street
Visalia, CA 93291
May 1, 2025 PN 2887-01
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................................... 1

1.2 REPORT OBJECTIVES .............................................................................................................. 4

1.3 STUDY METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................... 5

2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS .............................................................................................................. 6

2.1 REGIONAL SETTING ................................................................................................................ 6

2.2 PROJECT SITE ............................................................................................................................ 6

2.3 BIOTIC HABITATS / LAND USES ........................................................................................... 8

2.3.1 Urban ..................................................................................................................................... 8

2.3.2 Rural..................................................................................................................................... 10

2.3.3 Wastewater Treatment Facility ............................................................................................ 11

2.4 SPECIAL STATUS PLANTS AND ANIMALS ....................................................................... 12

2.5 JURISDICTIONAL WATERS .................................................................................................. 23

2.6 DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT ..................................................................................... 23

2.7 SENSITIVE NATURAL COMMUNITIES ............................................................................... 24

2.8 WILDLIFE MOVEMENT CORRIDORS ................................................................................. 24

3.0 RELEVANT GOALS, POLICIES, AND LAWS ......................................................................... 25

3.1 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ............................................................. 25

3.2 NATIONAL ENVIORNMENTAL POLICY ACT ................................................................... 26

3.3 GENERAL PLAN POLICIES OF THE CITY OF COALINGA .............................................. 27

3.4 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES ................................................................... 27

3.5 MIGRATORY BIRDS .............................................................................................................. 28

3.6 BIRDS OF PREY ....................................................................................................................... 28

3.7 NESTING BIRDS ...................................................................................................................... 29

3.8 HABITAT CONSERVATION PLANS AND NATURAL COMMUNITY
CONSERVATION PLANS ............................................................................................................. 29

3.9 WETLANDS AND OTHER JURISDICTIONAL WATERS ................................................... 29

4.0 IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS .................................................................................................. 32

4.1 POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT PROJECT IMPACTS ........................................................... 32

4.1.1 Project Impacts to Monarch Butterfly ................................................................................. 32

4.1.2 Potential Project Impacts to the Southwestern Pond Turtle ................................................ 33

4.1.3 Potential Project Impacts to the Temblor Legless Lizard, California Glossy Snake, and San Joaquin Coachwhip ......................................................................................................... 36 ii

4.1.4 Potential Project Impacts to the Swainson’s Hawk ............................................................. 38

4.1.5 Potential Project Impacts to the Burrowing Owl ................................................................. 39

4.1.6 Potential Project Impacts to the San Joaquin Kit Fox ......................................................... 40

4.1.7 Potential Project Impacts to the American Badger .............................................................. 42

4.1.8 Potential Project Impacts to Nesting Migratory Birds and Raptors including the Longeared Owl ...................................................................................................................................... 43

4.2 LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT PROJECT IMPACTS ................................................................ 44

4.2.1 Project Impacts to Special Status Plant Species .................................................................. 44

4.2.2 Project Impacts to Special Status Animal Species that Would Use the Site for Nonsensitive Activities Only ............................................................................................................... 44

4.2.3 Project Impacts to Roosting Bats including Townsend’s Big-eared Bat and Western Mastiff Bat .................................................................................................................................... 45

4.2.4 Project Impacts to Special Status Animal Species Absent from, or Unlikely to Occur within, the Project Site .................................................................................................................. 46

4.2.5 Project Impacts to Riparian Habitat and Sensitive Natural Communities ........................... 46

4.2.6 Potential Project Impacts to Waters of the State and U.S. ................................................... 47

4.2.7 Project Impacts to Wildlife Movement Corridors ............................................................... 47

4.2.8 Project Impacts to Designated Critical Habitat.................................................................... 47

4.2.9 Local Policies or Habitat Conservation Plans...................................................................... 48

4.3 SECTION 7 DETERMINATIONS FOR FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES ............................ 48

5.0 LITERATURE REFERENCED .................................................................................................... 50 APPENDIX A: VASCULAR PLANTS OF THE PROJECT SITE ..................................................... 52 APPENDIX B: TERRESTRIAL VERTEBRATE SPECIES THAT POTENTIALLY OCCUR ON THE PROJECT SITE ................................................................................................................ 56 APPENDIX C: SELECTED SITE PHOTOGRAPHS ......................................................................... 62 APPENDIX D: USFWS INFORMATION FOR PLANNING AND CONSULTATION OFFICIAL SPECIES LIST ............................................................................................................. 69 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION
This technical report, prepared by Live Oak Associates, Inc. (LOA) to facilitate compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and Section 7 of the federal Endangered Species Act, describes the biotic resources of lands that may be affected by the City of Coalinga’s proposed Sanitary Sewer Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Project (“project”), and evaluates potential impacts to those resources that could result from the project. The project’s area of potential effect, or “project site,” consists of a discontinuous, 50,616-linear-foot alignment along which existing sewer mains will be rehabilitated or replaced (“sewer main work area”), and an approximately 30-acre portion of the City’s wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) proposed for various improvements (“WWTP work area”).

The project site is located within the City of Coalinga in Fresno County, California (Figure 1). It may be found on the Coalinga U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute quadrangle in Sections 32, 33, and 34 in Township 20 South and in Sections 4 and 5 in Township 21 South, Range 15 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian (Figure 2).

1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The City of Coalinga owns and operates a citywide sewer collection system and wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) under Water Discharge Requirements (WDR) No. 94-184. A condition survey of the sewer collection system was recently conducted and revealed that approximately 19,801 linear feet (lf) of gravity sewer mains need rehabilitation and that approximately 30,815 lf of gravity sewer mains need replacing. In addition, improvements are needed at the City’s WWTP due to lack of effluent disposal alternatives.

Two trenchless construction methods, cured-in-place pipe (CIPP) and pipe bursting, will be utilized to rehabilitate pipelines with cracks, light root intrusion, small sags, small holes with no void, small offset joints, and structurally deficient segments. The CIPP method uses a flexible fabric liner coated with a thermosetting resin to form a new pipe inside the existing pipe. The liner will be inserted into the pipes at existing manholes, and will be cured with heat, forming a strong bond between the tube and existing pipe. The pipe bursting method involves pulling the © OpenStreetMap (and) contributors, CC-BY-SA
Fresno County Dept. PWP, Bureau of
Land Management, Esri, HERE,
Garmin, NGA, USGS, NPS
LEGEND
Sewer Main Work Area
WWTP Work Area
Approximate Project
Location
0 0.25 0.5 1
Miles
0 2.5 5 10
Miles µ
Regional Map
Location Map
See
Regional
Map
See
Location
Map FRESNO CO.

KINGS CO.

SAN BENITO CO.

Vicinity Map
04/30/2026 2887-01 1
Date Project # Figure #
City of Coalinga Sanitary Sewer Collection and
Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements
Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed
µ
0 0.25 0.5 1
Miles
LEGEND
Sewer Main Work Area
WWTP Work Area
Topographic Map
04/30/2026 2887-01 2
Date Project # Figure #
City of Coalinga Sanitary Sewer Collection and
Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements
4 new replacement pipe through the old pipe and breaking the old pipe into pieces during replacement. Laterals that need connecting are done via conventional excavation methods.

Pipes that cannot be rehabilitated will be replaced in kind with conventional open trench construction methods. Open trench widths will range from 1 foot to 2.5 feet depending on the diameter of the pipes to be replaced; pipe diameters range from 6 inches to 10 inches. Nearly all sewer line work will be confined to city streets and drives, with no construction activities outside the traveled way. In the few instances where the sewer lines to be rehabilitated or replaced are located outside of the traveled way, all project-related disturbance will be confined to an approximately 20-foot wide corridor centered on the pipe alignment.

The City’s WWTP will be upgraded to an extended aeration system with biological nutrient removal with filtration and disinfection. The improvements will include a new aeration tank, two clarifiers, and five percolation ponds. The percolation ponds will be developed within the footprints of the facility’s existing ponds, which comprise two aerated lagoons and three stabilization ponds. The existing ponds will be decommissioned and dewatered, following which heavy equipment will be used to remove the clay liners from the bottom of each pond, converting their function to evaporation/percolation. The WWTP improvements will serve to lower the nitrogen concentration of the resulting effluent before it is discharged to the percolation ponds and allowed to percolate into the underground aquifer. The upgraded WWTP will not require off-site effluent disposal; therefore, current effluent disposal practices on adjacent City-owned property would be discontinued following project implementation.

1.2 REPORT OBJECTIVES
This report summarizes a biological study conducted by LOA to facilitate environmental review pursuant to CEQA and NEPA, and to facilitate compliance with Section 7 of the federal Endangered Species Act. As such, the report’s objectives are to:
• Characterize the project site’s existing biological resources, including biotic habitats, flora and fauna, soils, and aquatic resources.
• Evaluate the project site’s potential to support sensitive resources such as special status species, sensitive natural communities, and jurisdictional waters and wetlands. 5 • Summarize all state and federal natural resource protection laws that may be relevant to project implementation.
• Identify and discuss potential project-related impacts to biological resources within the context of CEQA, NEPA, and other state and federal laws. • Identify avoidance and mitigation measures that would reduce the magnitude of projectrelated impacts in a manner consistent with CEQA, NEPA, and species-specific guidelines.
• Make preliminary effect determinations pursuant to Section 7 of the federal Endangered Species Act for listed species with the potential to occur in the project vicinity.