Agenda packet — Lindsay City Council, January 14, 2025 (part 1 of 2)

City of Lindsay Page 1

LINDSAY CITY COUNCIL

REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
January 14, 2025, 6:00 P.M.

City Hall, 251 E. Honolulu St., Lindsay, CA 93247
Notice is hereby given that the Lindsay City Council will hold a Regular Meeting on Tuesday, January 14, 2025 at 6:00 p.m. in person and live via YouTube.

City of Lindsay YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/@CityofLindsay Se anima a los hispanohablantes a asistir a las próximas reuniones del Concejo Municipal de Lindsay. Para traducción al español, comuníquese con la oficina de la Secretaria Municipal por teléfono, (559) 562-7102 ext. 8034, o regístrese unos minutos antes en el momento de la reunión del Consejo.

Rules for Addressing the City Council:
• Members of the public may address the City Council on matters within the jurisdiction of the City of Lindsay.
• Persons wishing to address Council concerning an item on the agenda will be invited to address the Council during the time that Council is considering that agenda item. Persons wishing to address Council concerning issues not on the agenda will be invited to address Council during the Public Comment portion of the meeting.
• When invited by the Mayor to speak, please step up to the lectern, state your name and city of residence, and make your comments. Comments are limited to three minutes per speaker.

Americans with Disabilities Act
Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, persons with disabilities who may need assistance should contact the City Clerk prior to the meeting at (559) 562-7102 ext. 8034 or via email at [email protected].

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. INVOCATION – The invocation is to be given by Pastor Josh Treadway from Breakthrough Church.

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – The Pledge of Allegiance is to be led by Councilmember Nave.

4. ROLL CALL

5. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

6. PUBLIC COMMENT – The public is invited to comment on any subject under the jurisdiction of the Lindsay City Council. Please note that speakers that wish to comment on a Regular Item or Public Hearing on tonight’s agenda will have an opportunity to speak when public comment for that item is requested by the Mayor. Comments shall be limited to three (3) minutes per person, with thirty (30) minutes for the total comment period, unless otherwise indicated by the Mayor. The public may also choose to submit a comment before the meeting via email. Public comments received via email will be distributed to the Council prior to the start of the meeting and incorporated into the official minutes; however, they will not be read aloud. Under state law, matters presented under public comment cannot be acted upon by the Council at this time.

7. COUNCIL REPORT

8. STAFF UPDATES – City Services, Finance, Human Resources, Public Safety, Recreation Services

9. CITY MANAGER REPORT

10. RECOGNITIONS

10.1 Resolution of Commendation for Joseph Avina
Mayor
Misty Villarreal
Mayor Pro Tem
Yolanda Flores
Councilmembers
Adriana Nave
Rosaena Sanchez
Joe Soria
City of Lindsay Page 2

11. PRESENTATIONS

11.1 Tulare County STD Education, Prevention, Testing Presentation

12. CONSENT CALENDAR – Routine items approved in one motion unless an item is pulled for discussion. There will be no separate discussion of these matters unless a request is made, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Calendar to be discussed and voted upon by a separate motion.

12.1 Waive the Reading of Ordinance and Approve by Title Only.

Action & Recommendation: Approve the reading by title only of all ordinances and that further reading of such ordinances be waived.

Submitted by: Maegan Peton, City Clerk

12.2 Minutes of the Regular and/or Special Meeting of December 10, 2024.

Action & Recommendation: Approve as submitted.

Submitted by: Maegan Peton, City Clerk

12.3 Warrant List for December 2, 2024 Through January 5, 2025.

Action & Recommendation: Accept the Warrant List for transactions dated December 2, 2024, through January 5, 2025.

Submitted by: Lacy Meneses, Director of Finance

12.4 December 2024 Monthly Treasurer’s Report.

Action & Recommendation: Accept the December 2024 Monthly Treasurer’s Report.

Submitted by: Lacy Meneses, Director of Finance

12.5 Notice of Completion – Hermosa Street/Westwood Ave Roundabout Landscape Project.

Action & Recommendation: Accept as complete the Hermosa Street/Westwood Avenue Roundabout Landscape Project – No. 1 and direct the City Clerk to file a “Notice of Completion” with the Tulare County Clerk Recorder with a 1-year warranty period beginning upon recordation.

Submitted by: Mauricio Mendoza, Engineer Technician

12.6 Authorization to Release Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for City Engineering Services.

Action & Recommendation: Grant authorization to release a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for Engineering and Consulting Services for the City of Lindsay.

Submitted by: Ryan Heinks, Acting Director of City Services

13. PUBLIC HEARINGS

13.1 Adoption of a Draft Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Well 11 Treatment Project Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Authorize the City Manager to Apply for Construction Grant Funding for the Treatment of Well 11
Action & Recommendation: Staff recommends the Lindsay City Council approve the following actions:

1. Hold a public hearing on the Adoption of a Draft Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Well 11 Treatment Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and incorporate any public comment into the report.

2. Adopt Resolution 25-01 to Accept and Adopt the Draft Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Well 11 Treatment Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

City of Lindsay Page 3

3. Adopt Resolution 25-02 for the Lindsay City Council to authorize the City Manager to apply for construction grant funding for the treatment of Well 11.

Submitted by: Ryan Heinks, Acting Director of City Services

14. EXECUTIVE (CLOSED) SESSION

14.1 Conference with Real Property Negotiators (§ 54956.8) Property: 205-236-013; 205-236-014; 205-236-022; 205-236-020 Agency Negotiation: Daymon Qualls, City Manager
Negotiating Parties: Kristar Development, LLC
Under Negotiation: Price, terms of payment

14.2 Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation (§ 54956.9) Name of Case: Carrillo v. City of Lindsay, Case No. VCU306195

14.3 Conference with Legal Counsel – Anticipated Litigation Significant Exposure to Litigation
Pursuant to § 54956.9(b): 2 cases.

15. REQUEST FOR FUTURE ITEMS

16. ADJOURNMENT – Lindsay City Council meetings are held in the City Council Chambers at 251 E.

Honolulu Street in Lindsay, California beginning at 6:00 P.M. on the second and fourth Tuesday of every month unless otherwise noticed. Materials related to an Agenda item submitted to the legislative body after distribution of the Agenda Packet are available for public inspection in the office of the City Clerk during normal business hours. A complete agenda is available at www.lindsay.ca.us. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act & Ralph M. Brown Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, or to be able to access this agenda and documents in the agenda packet, please contact the office of the City Clerk at (559) 562-7102 x 8034. Notification prior to the meeting will enable the City to ensure accessibility to this meeting and/or provision of an alternative format of the agenda and documents in the agenda packet.

AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AGENDA
I hereby certify, in conformance with Government Code Sections 54954.2 and 54956, this agenda was posted in the bulletin board at the front of City Hall, 251 E Honolulu St., as well as on the City of Linday’s website (www.lindsay.ca.us).

DATE & TIME POSTED: Thursday, January 9, 2025 at 3:00 p.m.

Maegan Peton, City Clerk

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF LINDSAY
TITLE

MEETING

A RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION AND APPRECIATION TO

JOSEPH AVINA FOR OUTSTANDING SERVICE AND DEDICATION

TO THE CITY OF LINDSAY WHILE SERVING AS ACTING

DIRECTOR OF CITY SERVICES AND PLANNING
At a regularly scheduled meeting of the City of Lindsay City Council held on January 14, 2025, at 6:00 PM at 251 E. Honolulu Street, Lindsay, CA 93247
WHEREAS, Joseph Avina served as the Acting Director of City Services and Planning from March of 2024 until September of 2024, stepping into this critical leadership role during a transitional period for the City, where he displayed exceptional commitment and effective leadership; and
WHEREAS, he willingly embraced the additional responsibilities and challenges of the position, ensuring the continued success, stability and operation of the department, while still fulfilling his duties as the City Services Manager/Building Inspector; and WHEREAS, Joseph demonstrated professionalism and a collaborative approach, earning the respect of colleagues, staff, and external partners; and WHEREAS, he fostered an environment of excellence, promoting a positive and supportive atmosphere that contributed to the overall success of the department under his guidance; and
WHEREAS, Jospeh Avina’s efforts were instrumental in achieving departmental goals, delivering quality services, and successfully navigating the challenges of this transitional phase.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Lindsay, on behalf of its staff and community, extends its heartfelt appreciation and gratitude to Joseph Avina for his leadership, unwavering dedication, and service as Acting Director of City Services and Planning.
_____________________________________
Misty Villarreal, Mayor

LINDSAY CITY COUNCIL

REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
Lindsay Council Chambers Tuesday, December 10, 2024
251 E Honolulu St., Lindsay CA 93247 6:00 p.m. – Regular Meeting Proper notice of this meeting was given pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2 and 54956.

STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Daymon Qualls, City Attorney Megan Crouch, City Clerk Maegan Peton, Director of Public Safety Rob Moore, Acting Human Resources Manager Lance Rowell, Director of Finance Lacy Meneses, Director of Recreation Services Armando da Silva, Acting City Services Director Ryan Heinks, Administrative Supervisor Marshall Chairez, and Nathan Barber. 6:00 p.m. – REGULAR MEETING

1. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Serna called to order the regular meeting of the Lindsay City Council at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber located at 251 E. Honolulu St.

2. INVOCATION
The invocation was led by Mayor Serna.

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilmember Villarreal.

4. ROLL CALL
Council Present: Mayor Serna
Mayor Pro Tem Yolanda Flores
Councilmember Hipolito Cerros
Councilmember Rosaena Sanchez
Councilmember Misty Villarreal

5. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
It was motioned by Councilmember Cerros, seconded by Mayor Serna, and unanimously carried to approve the agenda.

6. PUBLIC COMMENT
District Representative for Senator Hurtado, Roxanne Serna, congratulated the incoming Councilmembers.

Director of Student Services for Lindsay Unified High School District Laura Cortez thanked the Lindsay community and staff.

College of the Sequoias Ward 4 Board Trustee Connie Diaz introduced herself to the City Council and staff.

Esmerelda Soria congratulated the incoming Council members, specifically her brother Joe Soria.

Lindsay High School representative Jessica Lemus provided updates regarding Lindsay High School.

Evette Soria thanked the City Council and congratulated Joe Soria.

Chamber of Commerce Representative Mercy Herrera thanked the City for the Tree Lighting and Taste of Lindsay event, citing its many benefits for the downtown businesses.

7. ELECTION BUSINESS

7.1 Canvass of Returns and Statement of the Election Results.

Action & Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 2024-44 declaring canvass of returns and statement of the election results certifying the election.

Submitted by: Maegan Peton, City Clerk and Assistant to the City Manager Public Comment: There were no public comments.

Council Action: It was motioned by Councilmember Cerros, seconded by Mayor Serna, and unanimously carried to approve Resolution 2024-44 declaring canvass of returns and statement of the election results certifying the election.

7.2 Recognition for Outgoing Councilmembers.

Action & Recommendation: Recognize Mayor Serna and Councilmember Cerros for their time serving the community of Lindsay.

Submitted by: Maegan Peton, City Clerk and Assistant to the City Manager Public Comment: There were no public comments.

Council Action: Mayor Pro Tem Flores recognized Mayor Serna and Councilmember Cerros for their time serving the Community of Lindsay and presented them each with a proclamation. Further recognition was provided by Councilmembers Sanchez and Villarreal.

7.3 Oath of Office for New Councilmembers.

Action & Recommendation: Administer Oath of Office to new Councilmembers Adriana Nave, Joe Soria and Misty Villarreal.

Council Action: City Clerk Maegan Peton administered the Oath of Office to Adriana Nave, Joe Soria and Misty Villarreal.

RECESS
Council adjourned to recess at 6:37 p.m. Council adjourned from recess at 6:54 p.m.

7.4 Reorganization of the City Council – Selection of Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem.

Action & Recommendation: Nominate and appoint Council members to the positions of Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem.

Submitted by: Daymon Qualls, City Manager
Public Comment: There were no public comments.

Council Action: Mayor Pro Tem Flores nominated Councilmember Villarreal for Mayor. Councilmember Villarreal accepted the nomination. It was motioned by Councilmember Soria, seconded by Councilmember Nave, and unanimously carried to appoint Councilmember Villarreal as Mayor.

Councilmember Sanchez nominated Mayor Pro Tem Flores for Mayor Pro Tem.

Mayor Pro Tem Flores accepted the nomination. It was motioned by Councilmember Sanchez, seconded by Councilmember Nave, and unanimously carried to reappoint Yolanda Flores as Mayor Pro Tem.

7.5 Council Appointments for Boards, Agencies, and Committees.

Action & Recommendation: Review the existing appointments and appoint Councilmember Representatives to Boards, Agencies, and Committees.

Submitted by: Maegan Peton, City Clerk and Assistant to the City Manager Public Comment: There were no public comments.

Council Action: It was the consensus of the Council to approve the following appointments:

Integrated Regional Water Management Representative: Joe Soria Alternate: Roseana Sanchez
East Kaweah Groundwater Sustainability Agency Representative: Joe Soria Alternate: Roseana Sanchez
Tulare County Association of Government
(TCAG) Board of Directors
Representative: Misty Villarreal
Alternate: Adriana Nave
Tulare County Regional Transit Agency (TCRTA)
Board of Directors
Representative: Misty Villarreal
Alternate: Joe Soria
Lindsay Wellness Center Programming
Committee
Representative: Joe Soria
Representative: Yolanda Flores
Healthy Kids Healthy Lindsay Representative: Misty Villarreal Alternate: Adriana Nave
Tulare County City Selection Committee Representative: Misty Villarreal Alternate: Yolanda Flores
Friday Night Market Operations Ad-Hoc
Oversight Committee
Representative: Roseana Sanchez
Representative: Adriana Nave
San Joaquin Valley (SJV) Air Pollution Control
District Special City Selection Committee
Representative: Adriana Nave
Alternate: Joe Soria
Tulare County Council of Cities Representative: Adriana Nave Alternate: Yolanda Flores
Lindsay Economic Development Committee: Representative: Adriana Nave Representative: Roseana Sanchez
City Water Ad-Hoc Committee Representative: Joe Soria
Representative: Roseana Sanchez

8. COUNCIL REPORT
Councilmember Nave congratulated the Lindsay soccer team.

Councilmember Soria attended the Lindsay High School football game and the hospital guild fundraiser. He thanked City staff for their efforts.

Councilmember Sanchez commended the success of the Tree Lighting and Taste of Lindsay event. She thanked City staff for the maintenance of downtown and welcomed new Councilmembers.

Mayor Villarreal attended the staff holiday luncheon and the Tree Lighting and Taste of Lindsay event. She also attended the Lindsay High School soccer and football games.

Mayor Pro Tem Flores attended the Tree Lighting and Taste of Lindsay and commended Virginia Loya for the success of the event.

9. STAFF UPDATES
City staff provided departmental updates for Council’s review.

10. CITY MANAGER REPORT
The City Manager reported on recent events and items of interest.

11. CONSENT CALENDAR
It was motioned by Councilmember Sanchez, seconded by Councilmember Soria and unanimously carried to approve the items on the Consent Calendar as presented.

11.1 Waive the Reading of Ordinance and Approve by Title Only.

Action & Recommendation: Approve the reading by title only of all ordinances and that further reading of such ordinances be waived.

11.2 Minutes of the regular and/or special Meeting of November 12, 2024.

Action & Recommendation: Approve as submitted.

Submitted by: Maegan Peton, City Clerk

11.3 Warrant List for November 3, 2024 through December 1, 2024.

Action & Recommendation: Accept the Warrant List for transaction dates of November 3, 2024 through December 1, 2024.

Submitted by: Lacy Meneses, Director of Finance

11.4 November 2024 Treasurer’s Report.

Action & Recommendation: Accept the November 2024 Monthly Treasurer’s Report.

Submitted by: Lacy Meneses, Director of Finance

11.5 Resolution No. 24-43 2024-2025 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protections (CAL-FIRE) Cooperative Fire Protection Grant Agreement.

Action & Recommendation: Approve Resolution 24-43, approving and accepting the 2024-2025 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protections (CALFIRE) Cooperative Fire Protection Grant agreement (7GF24056) in the amount of $5,912.50, as part of the Volunteer Fire Capacity Project.

Submitted by: Ryan Heinks, Public Safety Lieutenant

11.6 City Council 2025 Regular Meeting Schedule.

Action & Recommendation: Approve the City Council Regular Meeting Schedule for January 1, 2025, through December 31, 2025.

Submitted by: Maegan Peton, City Clerk and Assistant to the City Manager

11.7 Memorandum of Agreement with Self-Help Enterprises for Water Operator Training.

Action & Recommendation: Approve and authorize the City Manager to enter into a Memorandum of Agreement with Self-Help Enterprises for water operator training.

Submitted by: Ryan Heinks, Acting Director of City Services

11.8 Visalia Rawhide and City of Lindsay Marketing Agreement.

Action & Recommendation: Approve a Marketing Agreement by and between the Visalia Rawhide and City of Lindsay for the 2025 baseball season.

Submitted by: Armando da Silva, Director of Recreation Services

11.10 Update to Wastewater Treatment Plant Bar Screen Design/Build Project RFP.

Action & Recommendation: Receive and file this report regarding the issuance of a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the Wastewater Treatment Plant Bar Screen Project and the subsequent lack of responses; and approve the reduction of the scale of the project soliciting new quotes for the design, construction, and delivery of the bar screen and authorize the City Manager to enter into an agreement with the lowest responsive quote.

Submitted by: Ryan Heinks, Acting Director of City Services

13.1 Release a Request for Proposals for the Water Well 11 Inspection Project.

Action & Recommendation: Authorize the release of a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the Well 11 Inspection Project necessary to assess the current condition of the well and its components before finalizing the Plans, Specifications, and Estimate (PS&E) package for its treatment and rehabilitation.

Submitted by: Ryan Heinks, Acting Director of City Services

12. PRESENTATIONS

12.1 Mid-Valley Updates.

Action & Recommendation: Receive the presentation from Mid-Valley for updates on Solid Waste Services.

Submitted by: Thomas Hamon, Recycle Program Manager
Public Comment: There were no public comments.

Council Action: Thomas Hamon provided a presentation for Council review.

12.2 Tulare County Health and Human Services Agency – Condom Access Project.

Action & Recommendation: Receive the presentation from Tulare County Health and Human Services Agency regarding the Condom Access Project.

Submitted by: Sujey Martinez, Health Education Assistant Public Comment: There were no public comments.

Council Action: Sujey Martinez was unable to provide the presentation. It was Council consensus to hear this item at a later date.

13. ACTION ITEMS

13.2 2024-2025 Mid-Year Budget to Actuals and Amendment.

Action & Recommendation: Approve the City of Lindsay revised budget and amendment.

Submitted by: Lacy Meneses, Director of Finance
Public Comment: Public comment was provided by Mercy Herrera concerning items not included in the budget presentation and concerning Mayor Pro Tem Flores’ concerns.

Council Action: Following discussion, a roll call vote was taken and the motion passed 4-1 to approve the 2024-2025 Mid-Year Budget to Actuals and Amendment.

AYES: Mayor Villarreal, Councilmember Nave, Councilmember Sanchez, Councilmember Soria
NOES: Mayor Pro Tem Flores
MOTION PASSED 4-1

11.9 Release Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for Engineering-Architectural Design Services for the Lindsay Transit Center.

Action & Recommendation: Authorize the release of a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for Engineering and Architectural design services for the Lindsay Transit Center, formally initiating the competitive bidding process, ensuring transparency and compliance with procurement regulations; and outlining specific design criteria, performance requirements, and budget constraints to ensure the selected equipment aligns with the facility’s standards and long-term sustainability goals.

Submitted by: Ryan Heinks, Acting Director of City Services Public Comment: There was no public comment.

Council Action: Council provided direction to pursue the staff recommendation of the drought resistant landscaping to provide opportunity for development in the future. Following discussion, a roll call vote was taken.

AYES: Mayor Villarreal, Councilmember Nave, Councilmember Sanchez, Councilmember Soria
NOES: None
MOTION PASSED 5-0

14. REQUEST FOR FUTURE ITEMS
Mayor Pro Tem Flores requested a closed session to review audit findings. Council requested the removal of the barriers between the seats at the dais. City staff will address the issue. Mayor Villarreal requested the City’s assistance in supporting local artists including the show “Gaytino” coming up.

City Attorney Megan Crouch advised of free virtual training being provided on January 24th.

15. ADJOURNMENT
The regular meeting was adjourned at 8:52 p.m.

Approved by Council: January 14, 2025.
_________________________
Misty Villarreal, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Maegan Peton, City Clerk
The next Regular Meeting of the Lindsay City Council is scheduled to be held on January 14, 2025.

STAFF REPORT
TO: Lindsay City Council
MEETING DATE: January 14, 2025
DEPARTMENT: Finance
FROM: Lacy Meneses, Director of Finance
AGENDA TITLE: Warrant List for December 2, 2024, through January 5, 2025

ACTION & RECOMMENDATION
Accept the Warrant List for transactions dated December 2, 2024, through January 5, 2025.

BACKGROUND | ANALYSIS
The warrant list for December 2, 2024, through January 5, 2025, is submitted for Council review and acceptance.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this action.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Warrant List
Reviewed/Approved: ______
Item #: 12.3
Consent
CITY OF LINDSAY | WARRANT LIST
TRANSACTION DATES: THROUGH 1/5/2025
Check# Fund Date Vendor # Vendor Name Description Amount 27127 $1,305.00
101 - GENERAL FUND 12/05/24 7299 SHAWN'S KITCHEN TAX 105 101 - GENERAL FUND 12/05/24 7299 SHAWN'S KITCHEN XMAS CATERING 1200 27128 $829.27
101 - GENERAL FUND 12/05/24 4660 CITY OF LINDSAY DED:052 WELLNESS 39.7 101 - GENERAL FUND 12/05/24 4660 CITY OF LINDSAY DED:CDBG CDBG PMT 350 101 - GENERAL FUND 12/05/24 4660 CITY OF LINDSAY DED:L203 CDBG LOAN 439.57 27129 $366.72
101 - GENERAL FUND 12/05/24 3192 SEIU LOCAL 521 DED:COPE COPE SEIU 2 101 - GENERAL FUND 12/05/24 3192 SEIU LOCAL 521 DED:DUES UNION DUES 364.72 27130 $6,665.14
101 - GENERAL FUND 12/05/24 6452 GREAT-WEST TRUST DED:0500 DEF COMP 2103.54 101 - GENERAL FUND 12/05/24 6452 GREAT-WEST TRUST DED:0555 DC LOANPAY 1255.96 101 - GENERAL FUND 12/05/24 6452 GREAT-WEST TRUST DED:151 DEFERCOMP 2918.92 101 - GENERAL FUND 12/05/24 6452 GREAT-WEST TRUST DED:ROTH ROTH 386.72 27131 $0.00
101 - GENERAL FUND 12/05/24 2325 LINDSAY PUBLIC SAFE DED:LPOA LPOA DUES 0 27132 $73.82
101 - GENERAL FUND 12/05/24 6246 MCDERMONT VENTURE I DED:051 MCDERMONT 73.82 27133 $62.76
101 - GENERAL FUND 12/05/24 3042 STATE DISBURSEMENT DED:0512 CHILD SUPT 62.76 27134 $489.65
101 - GENERAL FUND 12/05/24 1498 STATE OF CALIF FRAN DED:0511 FTB - DEBT 489.65 27135 $399.35
101 - GENERAL FUND 12/06/24 2873 ADVANTAGE ANSWERING PUB WORKS 66.55 101 - GENERAL FUND 12/06/24 2873 ADVANTAGE ANSWERING STREETS 66.55 101 - GENERAL FUND 12/06/24 2873 ADVANTAGE ANSWERING PARKS 66.6 552 - WATER 12/06/24 2873 ADVANTAGE ANSWERING WATER 66.55 553 - SEWER 12/06/24 2873 ADVANTAGE ANSWERING SEWER 66.55 554 - REFUSE 12/06/24 2873 ADVANTAGE ANSWERING REFUSE 66.55 27136 $148.00
101 - GENERAL FUND 12/06/24 6504 ADVENTIST HEALTH TO LPD-24L-06906 148 27137 $565.30
101 - GENERAL FUND 12/06/24 007 AG IRRIGATION SALES 18490 229.11 101 - GENERAL FUND 12/06/24 007 AG IRRIGATION SALES 18586 73.48 101 - GENERAL FUND 12/06/24 007 AG IRRIGATION SALES 18595 21.14 101 - GENERAL FUND 12/06/24 007 AG IRRIGATION SALES 18633 24.22 101 - GENERAL FUND 12/06/24 007 AG IRRIGATION SALES H01-520-TF / 504050 167.06 101 - GENERAL FUND 12/06/24 007 AG IRRIGATION SALES S01-412010 19.38 552 - WATER 12/06/24 007 AG IRRIGATION SALES CLMP & BOLTS 30.91 27138 $60.00
553 - SEWER 12/06/24 1858 ALL PRO FIRE AND SA 4 DRY CHEM RECHG 60 27139 $475.00
400 - WELLNESS CENTER 12/06/24 6950 ANA CARRETERO NOVEMBER CLASSES 275 400 - WELLNESS CENTER 12/06/24 6950 ANA CARRETERO ZUMBA GOLD OCT '24 200 27140 $375.00
400 - WELLNESS CENTER 12/06/24 5819 ANITA GUTIERREZ NOVEMBER ZUMBA 175 400 - WELLNESS CENTER 12/06/24 5819 ANITA GUTIERREZ OCTOBER ZUMBA 200 27141 $23.92
101 - GENERAL FUND 12/06/24 5457 AUTO ZONE COMMERCIA BATTERY CORE 23.92 27142 $1,898.78
101 - GENERAL FUND 12/06/24 5381 AWAKE SKATE SHOP 18 2X4 BANNERS 1898.78 27143 $11,821.77
552 - WATER 12/06/24 051 BSK AH27316 4040
552 - WATER 12/06/24 051 BSK AH27317 5257.18
553 - SEWER 12/06/24 051 BSK AH27319 1727.89
556 - VITA-PAKT 12/06/24 051 BSK H27318 796.7
27144 $379.00
101 - GENERAL FUND 12/06/24 5013 BUZZ KILL PEST CONT MTHLY DUE 11/29 64 101 - GENERAL FUND 12/06/24 5013 BUZZ KILL PEST CONT BIMTHLY DUE 11/29 63 400 - WELLNESS CENTER 12/06/24 5013 BUZZ KILL PEST CONT OCTOBER SERVICE 87 552 - WATER 12/06/24 5013 BUZZ KILL PEST CONT BI MTHLY DUE 11/29 30 553 - SEWER 12/06/24 5013 BUZZ KILL PEST CONT BI MTHLY DUE 11/29 35 886 - SAMOA 12/06/24 5013 BUZZ KILL PEST CONT BI MTHLY DUE 11/29 45 887 - SWEETBRIER TOWNHOUSES 12/06/24 5013 BUZZ KILL PEST CONT BI MTHLY DUE 11/29 55 27148 $2,576.51
101 - GENERAL FUND 12/06/24 5832 CINTAS CORPORATION 74.95 101 - GENERAL FUND 12/06/24 5832 CINTAS CORPORATION 259.83 101 - GENERAL FUND 12/06/24 5832 CINTAS CORPORATION 259.84 101 - GENERAL FUND 12/06/24 5832 CINTAS CORPORATION 259.84 400 - WELLNESS CENTER 12/06/24 5832 CINTAS CORPORATION 516.75 400 - WELLNESS CENTER 12/06/24 5832 CINTAS CORPORATION CLEAN SUPPLIES 166 552 - WATER 12/06/24 5832 CINTAS CORPORATION 259.84
553 - SEWER 12/06/24 5832 CINTAS CORPORATION 259.81
554 - REFUSE 12/06/24 5832 CINTAS CORPORATION 259.81
556 - VITA-PAKT 12/06/24 5832 CINTAS CORPORATION 259.84 12/2/2024
27149 $4,800.00
101 - GENERAL FUND 12/06/24 6963 CIVICPLUS LLC MUNICODE RENEWAL 4800 27150 $3,275.00
883 - SIERRA VIEW ASSESSMENT 12/06/24 6090 CLEAN CUT LANDSCAPE DIS C SIER VIEW EST 1298 884 - HERITAGE ASSESSMENT DIST 12/06/24 6090 CLEAN CUT LANDSCAPE DIS A HERITAGE PARK 315 886 - SAMOA 12/06/24 6090 CLEAN CUT LANDSCAPE DIS D SAMOA HOMES 154 887 - SWEETBRIER TOWNHOUSES 12/06/24 6090 CLEAN CUT LANDSCAPE DIS D SWEET BRI HOM 546 888 - PARKSIDE 12/06/24 6090 CLEAN CUT LANDSCAPE DIS B PRKSIDE ESTAT 225 889 - SIERRA VISTA ASSESSMENT 12/06/24 6090 CLEAN CUT LANDSCAPE DIS C SIER VISTA ES 97 890 - MAPLE VALLEY ASSESSMENT 12/06/24 6090 CLEAN CUT LANDSCAPE DIS A MAPLE VALLEY 55 891 - PELOUS RANCH 12/06/24 6090 CLEAN CUT LANDSCAPE DIS B PELOUS RANCH 585 27151 $1,508.33
101 - GENERAL FUND 12/06/24 6672 COLBY'S TIRE,TOWING E87 R&R RVRS LIGHT 1508.33 27152 $418.78
101 - GENERAL FUND 12/06/24 2258 CROUZET IRRIGATION 418.78 27153 $223.00
101 - GENERAL FUND 12/06/24 102 CULLIGAN ACCT 55962 156 101 - GENERAL FUND 12/06/24 102 CULLIGAN ACCT 156018 4.5 400 - WELLNESS CENTER 12/06/24 102 CULLIGAN ACCT 178442 15.75 553 - SEWER 12/06/24 102 CULLIGAN ACCT 3301 46.75
27154 $700.00
552 - WATER 12/06/24 3147 DAVID & SON BACKHOE DIG OUT LEAK TUL/MI 700 27155 $106.33
101 - GENERAL FUND 12/06/24 5596 DIVISON OF THE STAT CASP QTR 2024-3 354.42 101 - GENERAL FUND 12/06/24 5596 DIVISON OF THE STAT CASP QTR 2024-3 -248.09 27156 $1,241.00
101 - GENERAL FUND 12/06/24 119 DOUG DELEO WELDING TRAILR RPAIR + MATE 835.03 552 - WATER 12/06/24 119 DOUG DELEO WELDING C08-65323 405.97 27157 $1,900.00
400 - WELLNESS CENTER 12/06/24 6973 ELIZABETH GUND GROUP CLASSES 1900 27158 $73.18
101 - GENERAL FUND 12/06/24 1450 FRESNO OXYGEN & WEL CYLINDER RENTAL 73.18 27159 $3,274.48
552 - WATER 12/06/24 137 FRIANT WATER AUTHOR FKC 2512
552 - WATER 12/06/24 137 FRIANT WATER AUTHOR SLD, POM,P-E,DMU,DL 762.48 27160 $139.97
553 - SEWER 12/06/24 6010 FRONTIER COMMUNICAT NEW CHGS 139.97 27161 $8,000.00
300 - MCDERMONT SALE PROCEEDS 12/06/24 7296 GB UNITED VENTURES 8000 27162 $1,895.00
552 - WATER 12/06/24 180 INGRAM EQUIPMENT CO 10" DISCHG SPL - WL 1895 27163 $13,605.85
101 - GENERAL FUND 12/06/24 6563 KAYLOR LANDSCAPE PS, CITY HALL, MIRA 13605.85 27164 $166.95
552 - WATER 12/06/24 2591 KIMBALL MIDWEST VESTS + CLEANER 83.47 553 - SEWER 12/06/24 2591 KIMBALL MIDWEST VESTS + CLEANER 83.48 27165 $5,153.10
101 - GENERAL FUND 12/06/24 4076 LIEBERT CASSIDY WHI LI012-00001 1129.5 101 - GENERAL FUND 12/06/24 4076 LIEBERT CASSIDY WHI LI012-00010 900 101 - GENERAL FUND 12/06/24 4076 LIEBERT CASSIDY WHI LI012-00011 3123.6 27166 $1,155.50
400 - WELLNESS CENTER 12/06/24 5788 LINCOLN AQUATICS BOTTLE DEPOSIT RETU -600 400 - WELLNESS CENTER 12/06/24 5788 LINCOLN AQUATICS CHEMICALS 1755.5 27167 $248.00
101 - GENERAL FUND 12/06/24 5424 LINDSAY VETERINARY 252934 233 101 - GENERAL FUND 12/06/24 5424 LINDSAY VETERINARY TNR PROGRAM 15 27168 $19,500.00
400 - WELLNESS CENTER 12/06/24 6260 LLEON SERVICES CHEM BALANCING 1800 400 - WELLNESS CENTER 12/06/24 6260 LLEON SERVICES VF DRIVE, P&I 17700 27169 $1,850.00
101 - GENERAL FUND 12/06/24 6550 MARIO SAGREDO ELECT LED TREE WELLS 1500 553 - SEWER 12/06/24 6550 MARIO SAGREDO ELECT WASTE WATER E PUMP 350 27170 $1,687.27
300 - MCDERMONT SALE PROCEEDS 12/06/24 5852 MID VALLEY DISPOSAL SKATE PARK 1687.27 27171 $8,942.02
460 - CA STATE PARKS 12/06/24 6639 MOORE IACOFANO GOLT SKATE PARK DESIGN 8942.02 27172 $115.00
101 - GENERAL FUND 12/06/24 4323 OASIS MT VERNON SVC 115 27173 $69.19
400 - WELLNESS CENTER 12/06/24 7242 ODP BUSINESS SOLUTI PAPER, COFFEE 69.19 27174 $1,752.32
552 - WATER 12/06/24 6673 PACE SUPPLY CORP STOCK 470.19 552 - WATER 12/06/24 6673 PACE SUPPLY CORP STOCK 1282.13 27175 $297.00
101 - GENERAL FUND 12/06/24 3260 PACIFIC EMPLOYERS QTRLY DUES 297 27176 $175.00
400 - WELLNESS CENTER 12/06/24 6018 POUND ROCKOUT WORKO NOVEMBER CLASSES LW 175 27177 $184.30
101 - GENERAL FUND 12/06/24 7110 PRISM DEDUCTIBLE BILLING 184.3 27178 $454.00
552 - WATER 12/06/24 4618 PROVOST & PRITCHARD WL AUDIT 454 27179 $401.68
101 - GENERAL FUND 12/06/24 285 QUILL CORPORATION BAGS AND STAPLES 166.07 101 - GENERAL FUND 12/06/24 285 QUILL CORPORATION MEMO BOOKS 15.11 101 - GENERAL FUND 12/06/24 285 QUILL CORPORATION RULED PADS 24.78 400 - WELLNESS CENTER 12/06/24 285 QUILL CORPORATION CLUBWIPES 195.72 27180 $165.00
400 - WELLNESS CENTER 12/06/24 3622 RLH FIRE PROTECTION INSPECTION 165 27181 $50.00
101 - GENERAL FUND 12/06/24 6664 ROTARY CLUB OF LIND SEAFOOD BOIL TICKET 50 27182 $375.00
400 - WELLNESS CENTER 12/06/24 3208 SHANNON PATTERSON AEROBIC CLASSES 175 400 - WELLNESS CENTER 12/06/24 3208 SHANNON PATTERSON OCT AEROBIC CLASSES 200 27183 $11,109.24
552 - WATER 12/06/24 4555 THATCHER COMPANY IN DEPOSIT RETURN -1350 552 - WATER 12/06/24 4555 THATCHER COMPANY IN ORDER 3000160712 12459.24 27184 $341.18
400 - WELLNESS CENTER 12/06/24 6551 CHARTER COMMUNICATI INTERNET 101.24 400 - WELLNESS CENTER 12/06/24 6551 CHARTER COMMUNICATI OTHER CHARGES 5 400 - WELLNESS CENTER 12/06/24 6551 CHARTER COMMUNICATI VOICE 234.94 27185 $1,162.50
779 - 00-HOME-0487 12/06/24 3634 STATE FARM POL 87-D2-8405-5 1162.5 27186 $4,665.34
101 - GENERAL FUND 12/06/24 5755 TELEPACIFIC COMMUNI 68.49 101 - GENERAL FUND 12/06/24 5755 TELEPACIFIC COMMUNI 561.63 101 - GENERAL FUND 12/06/24 5755 TELEPACIFIC COMMUNI 800.85 101 - GENERAL FUND 12/06/24 5755 TELEPACIFIC COMMUNI 1214.82 101 - GENERAL FUND 12/06/24 5755 TELEPACIFIC COMMUNI 754.65 400 - WELLNESS CENTER 12/06/24 5755 TELEPACIFIC COMMUNI 748.91 552 - WATER 12/06/24 5755 TELEPACIFIC COMMUNI 132.11
553 - SEWER 12/06/24 5755 TELEPACIFIC COMMUNI 383.88
27187 $2,740.00
552 - WATER 12/06/24 1921 TELSTAR INSTRUMENTS JOB 20-43865 1370 553 - SEWER 12/06/24 1921 TELSTAR INSTRUMENTS JOB 20-43866 1370 27188 $3,656.10
101 - GENERAL FUND 12/06/24 144 THE GAS COMPANY 185 N GALE HILL 23.61 101 - GENERAL FUND 12/06/24 144 THE GAS COMPANY 140 MIRAGE 16.73 101 - GENERAL FUND 12/06/24 144 THE GAS COMPANY 251 HONOLULU 21.9 101 - GENERAL FUND 12/06/24 144 THE GAS COMPANY 139 N SWEETBRIAR 18.44 400 - WELLNESS CENTER 12/06/24 144 THE GAS COMPANY 740 SEQUOIA 3575.42 27189 $301.35
101 - GENERAL FUND 12/06/24 5792 THOMSON REUTERS - W SUBSCRIPTION CHG 301.35 27190 $286.55
101 - GENERAL FUND 12/06/24 7273 T-MOBILE USA INC PS PHONES 233.66 552 - WATER 12/06/24 7273 T-MOBILE USA INC ON CALL, HOTSPOT 26.44 553 - SEWER 12/06/24 7273 T-MOBILE USA INC ON CALL, HOTSPOT 26.45 27191 $2,514.15
263 - TRANSPORTATION 12/06/24 5555 TULARE COUNTY ASSOC PT 2/2 24-25 DUES 2514.15 27192 $1,346.03
779 - 00-HOME-0487 12/06/24 336 TULARE COUNTY TAX C INSTALLMENT 1/2 1346.03 27193 $2,583.72
553 - SEWER 12/06/24 3814 TURNUPSEED ELECTRIC BAR SCREEB 2583.72 27194 $1,094.40
552 - WATER 12/06/24 5747 USA STAFFING INC. ANITA G 547.2 553 - SEWER 12/06/24 5747 USA STAFFING INC. ANITA G 547.2 27195 $2,835.11
552 - WATER 12/06/24 5413 UNIVAR USA INC CHLORINE 2835.11 27196 $3,861.39
552 - WATER 12/06/24 356 USA BLUEBOOK 3861.39
27197 $0.00
101 - GENERAL FUND 12/06/24 1041 VERIZON WIRELESS 0
101 - GENERAL FUND 12/06/24 1041 VERIZON WIRELESS 0
101 - GENERAL FUND 12/06/24 1041 VERIZON WIRELESS 0
101 - GENERAL FUND 12/06/24 1041 VERIZON WIRELESS 0
552 - WATER 12/06/24 1041 VERIZON WIRELESS 0
553 - SEWER 12/06/24 1041 VERIZON WIRELESS 0
554 - REFUSE 12/06/24 1041 VERIZON WIRELESS 0
27198 $12,000.00
552 - WATER 12/06/24 6783 WEBB MUNICIPAL FINA 1666.66
553 - SEWER 12/06/24 6783 WEBB MUNICIPAL FINA 1666.67
554 - REFUSE 12/06/24 6783 WEBB MUNICIPAL FINA 8666.67
27199 $0.00
306 - COVID-19 ARPA FUND 12/06/24 7295 4CREEKS INC PMT NO. 1 9/1-9/30/ 0 27200 $3,275.00
883 - SIERRA VIEW ASSESSMENT 12/13/24 6090 CLEAN CUT LANDSCAPE DIS C SIERR VIEW ES 1298 884 - HERITAGE ASSESSMENT DIST 12/13/24 6090 CLEAN CUT LANDSCAPE DIS A HERITAGE PARK 315 886 - SAMOA 12/13/24 6090 CLEAN CUT LANDSCAPE DIS D SAMOA 154 887 - SWEETBRIER TOWNHOUSES 12/13/24 6090 CLEAN CUT LANDSCAPE DIS D SWEET BRIER 546 888 - PARKSIDE 12/13/24 6090 CLEAN CUT LANDSCAPE DIS B PARKSIDE ESTA 225 889 - SIERRA VISTA ASSESSMENT 12/13/24 6090 CLEAN CUT LANDSCAPE DIS C SIERR VISTA E 97 890 - MAPLE VALLEY ASSESSMENT 12/13/24 6090 CLEAN CUT LANDSCAPE DIS A MAPLE VALLEY 55 891 - PELOUS RANCH 12/13/24 6090 CLEAN CUT LANDSCAPE DIS B PELOUS RANCH 585 27201 $2,759.03
101 - GENERAL FUND 12/13/24 633 ENTENMANN-ROVIN CO BADGES 2759.03 27202 $761.25
400 - WELLNESS CENTER 12/13/24 7177 EXTREME JUMP CHRS, TBLS, CANOPIE 761.25 27203 $3,000.00
101 - GENERAL FUND 12/13/24 7297 JUDGE DONALD BLACK 3000 27204 $150.00
400 - WELLNESS CENTER 12/13/24 6599 MARIA EDWARDS OCTOBER ZUMBA 150 27205 $320.00
400 - WELLNESS CENTER 12/13/24 7180 NANA'S PRIMROLLS SANTA/MRS CLAUS 2HR 320 27206 $24,083.93
266 - LTF-ART 8 STREETS & ROADS 12/13/24 4618 PROVOST & PRITCHARD TULARE RD/FOOTHILL 10778.8 553 - SEWER 12/13/24 4618 PROVOST & PRITCHARD GWM&R EAST PONDS 10156.48 556 - VITA-PAKT 12/13/24 4618 PROVOST & PRITCHARD VITAPAKT CONSLTING 3148.65 27207 $4,494.10
101 - GENERAL FUND 12/13/24 399 QUAD KNOPF,INC. PROJ 230009 4494.1 27208 $6,500.00
552 - WATER 12/13/24 6095 RALPH GUTIERREZ WAT CPO TRMT 3250 553 - SEWER 12/13/24 6095 RALPH GUTIERREZ WAT CPO TRMT 3250 27209 $889.20
552 - WATER 12/13/24 5747 USA STAFFING INC. ANITA GONZALEZ 444.6 553 - SEWER 12/13/24 5747 USA STAFFING INC. 444.6
27210 $1,479.00
101 - GENERAL FUND 12/13/24 3576 WHITE CAP, L.P. SANDBAGS 1479 27211 $1,012.70
306 - COVID-19 ARPA FUND 12/13/24 4618 PROVOST & PRITCHARD FEASIBILITY STDY UP 1012.7 27212 $250.00
101 - GENERAL FUND 12/13/24 6604 HIPOLITO CERROS DEC24 COUNCIL STIPE 250 27213 $250.00
101 - GENERAL FUND 12/13/24 4873 MISTY VILLARREAL DEC24 COUNCIL STIPE 250 27214 $300.00
101 - GENERAL FUND 12/13/24 6602 RAMIRO SERNA DEC24 COUNCIL STIPE 300 27215 $250.00
101 - GENERAL FUND 12/13/24 5511 ROSAENA SANCHEZ DEC24 COUNCIL STIPE 250 27216 $275.00
101 - GENERAL FUND 12/13/24 4068 YOLANDA FLORES DEC24 COUNCIL STIPE 275 27217 $1,953.00
101 - GENERAL FUND 12/20/24 6504 ADVENTIST HEALTH TO TOX LABS 1953 27218 $3,719.25
101 - GENERAL FUND 12/20/24 3353 ANDREW ROBINSON ADV DISAB 12/1-31/2 3719.25 27219 $87.00
400 - WELLNESS CENTER 12/20/24 5013 BUZZ KILL PEST CONT 860 SEQUOIA AVE 87 27222 $1,280.04
101 - GENERAL FUND 12/20/24 5832 CINTAS CORPORATION 149.9 101 - GENERAL FUND 12/20/24 5832 CINTAS CORPORATION 161.45 101 - GENERAL FUND 12/20/24 5832 CINTAS CORPORATION 161.45 101 - GENERAL FUND 12/20/24 5832 CINTAS CORPORATION 161.45 552 - WATER 12/20/24 5832 CINTAS CORPORATION 161.45
553 - SEWER 12/20/24 5832 CINTAS CORPORATION 161.44
554 - REFUSE 12/20/24 5832 CINTAS CORPORATION 161.43
556 - VITA-PAKT 12/20/24 5832 CINTAS CORPORATION 161.47 27223 $894.00
101 - GENERAL FUND 12/20/24 316 DEPT OF JUSTICE BAC ANALYSIS 140 101 - GENERAL FUND 12/20/24 316 DEPT OF JUSTICE NOV '24 LIVE SCANS 754 27224 $395.00
400 - WELLNESS CENTER 12/20/24 4807 FITGUARD INC. INSPCT+CLEAN 12/16/ 395 27225 $14,211.50
266 - LTF-ART 8 STREETS & ROADS 12/20/24 7166 KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES PRON 05624087 14211.5 27226 $240.00
101 - GENERAL FUND 12/20/24 6425 LINDSAY TIRE & AUTO FLAT REPAIR 20 101 - GENERAL FUND 12/20/24 6425 LINDSAY TIRE & AUTO FLAT REPAIR 40 101 - GENERAL FUND 12/20/24 6425 LINDSAY TIRE & AUTO TIRE REPAIR X1 20 101 - GENERAL FUND 12/20/24 6425 LINDSAY TIRE & AUTO TRAILER TIRE 140 552 - WATER 12/20/24 6425 LINDSAY TIRE & AUTO FLAT REPAIR 20 27227 $4,638.81
266 - LTF-ART 8 STREETS & ROADS 12/20/24 4618 PROVOST & PRITCHARD PROJ 03257-22-002 4638.81 27228 $26,979.23
101 - GENERAL FUND 12/20/24 399 QUAD KNOPF,INC. 8960.76 101 - GENERAL FUND 12/20/24 399 QUAD KNOPF,INC. 3446.2
266 - LTF-ART 8 STREETS & ROADS 12/20/24 399 QUAD KNOPF,INC. 14572.27 27229 $17.39
400 - WELLNESS CENTER 12/20/24 285 QUILL CORPORATION 17.39 27230 $28,205.00
553 - SEWER 12/20/24 1183 SWRCB ANNUAL PERMIT FEE 28205 27231 $301.35
101 - GENERAL FUND 12/20/24 5792 THOMSON REUTERS - W 301.35 27232 $725.35
101 - GENERAL FUND 12/20/24 1041 VERIZON WIRELESS 622.46 101 - GENERAL FUND 12/20/24 1041 VERIZON WIRELESS 17.14 101 - GENERAL FUND 12/20/24 1041 VERIZON WIRELESS 17.15 101 - GENERAL FUND 12/20/24 1041 VERIZON WIRELESS 17.15 552 - WATER 12/20/24 1041 VERIZON WIRELESS 17.15
553 - SEWER 12/20/24 1041 VERIZON WIRELESS 17.15
554 - REFUSE 12/20/24 1041 VERIZON WIRELESS 17.15
27233 $607.89
200 - STREET IMPROVEMENT FUND 12/20/24 399 QUAD KNOPF,INC. PROJ 240122 607.89 27234 $37,771.22
306 - COVID-19 ARPA FUND 12/20/24 7295 4CREEKS INC PROJ 240856 - 10H 37771.22 27235 $4,669.00
306 - COVID-19 ARPA FUND 12/20/24 399 QUAD KNOPF,INC. 4669 27236 $382,309.45
306 - COVID-19 ARPA FUND 12/20/24 7300 UNIFIED FIELD SERVI 382309.45 27237 $58.00
101 - GENERAL FUND 12/20/24 6015 TULARE COUNTY CLERK EXEMPTION FILING FE 58 27238 $392.35
101 - GENERAL FUND 01/03/25 2873 ADVANTAGE ANSWERING 78.47 101 - GENERAL FUND 01/03/25 2873 ADVANTAGE ANSWERING 78.47 101 - GENERAL FUND 01/03/25 2873 ADVANTAGE ANSWERING 78.47 552 - WATER 01/03/25 2873 ADVANTAGE ANSWERING 78.47
553 - SEWER 01/03/25 2873 ADVANTAGE ANSWERING 78.47
27239 $8,245.86
101 - GENERAL FUND 01/03/25 4661 BURTON'S FIRE, INC. PUMP REPAIR 8245.86 27240 $332.00
101 - GENERAL FUND 01/03/25 5013 BUZZ KILL PEST CONT 150 N MIRAGE 145 101 - GENERAL FUND 01/03/25 5013 BUZZ KILL PEST CONT 157 N MIRAGE 35 101 - GENERAL FUND 01/03/25 5013 BUZZ KILL PEST CONT 476 N MT VERNON 52 886 - SAMOA 01/03/25 5013 BUZZ KILL PEST CONT SAMOA TWN HOMES 45 887 - SWEETBRIER TOWNHOUSES 01/03/25 5013 BUZZ KILL PEST CONT HERMOSA TWN HOMES 55 27241 $350.13
400 - WELLNESS CENTER 01/03/25 6500 CHARTER COMMUNICATI VOICE & INTERNET 350.13 27242 $2,690.35
101 - GENERAL FUND 01/03/25 4067 LINCOLN NAT'L INSUR COVG 12/1-31/24 2690.35 27243 $987.81
101 - GENERAL FUND 01/03/25 6956 NOTED TECHNOLOGY SO ADOBE CLOUD 987.81 27244 $121.74
101 - GENERAL FUND 01/03/25 7242 ODP BUSINESS SOLUTI BINDER CLIPS 14.13 101 - GENERAL FUND 01/03/25 7242 ODP BUSINESS SOLUTI SCISSORS 1.4 101 - GENERAL FUND 01/03/25 7242 ODP BUSINESS SOLUTI TISS, BNDCLIP,PPRCL 47.07 400 - WELLNESS CENTER 01/03/25 7242 ODP BUSINESS SOLUTI 59.14 27245 $1,477.11
552 - WATER 01/03/25 6498 PACWEST DIRECT 738.55
553 - SEWER 01/03/25 6498 PACWEST DIRECT 738.56
27246 $1,185.39
553 - SEWER 01/03/25 4618 PROVOST & PRITCHARD PROJ 03257-24-101 1185.39 27247 $97.86
400 - WELLNESS CENTER 01/03/25 285 QUILL CORPORATION CLUBWIPES 97.86 27248 $120.00
400 - WELLNESS CENTER 01/03/25 6664 ROTARY CLUB OF LIND SEMI ANNUAL DUES 120 27249 $64.95
101 - GENERAL FUND 01/03/25 7264 SMITH SIGN & DECAL COUNCIL NAME PLATES 64.95 27250 $91,581.00
553 - SEWER 01/03/25 6363 STATE WATER RESOURC FACILITY 5D54010500 91581 27251 $1,094.40
101 - GENERAL FUND 01/03/25 5747 USA STAFFING INC. GONZALEZ, ANITA 218.88 101 - GENERAL FUND 01/03/25 5747 USA STAFFING INC. GONZALEZ, ANITA 218.88 101 - GENERAL FUND 01/03/25 5747 USA STAFFING INC. GONZALEZ, ANITA 218.88 552 - WATER 01/03/25 5747 USA STAFFING INC. GONZALEZ, ANITA 218.88 553 - SEWER 01/03/25 5747 USA STAFFING INC. GONZALEZ, ANITA 218.88 27252 $29,893.24
306 - COVID-19 ARPA FUND 01/03/25 7295 4CREEKS INC PROJ 240856 29893.24 27253 $829.27
101 - GENERAL FUND 12/13/24 4660 CITY OF LINDSAY DED:052 WELLNESS 39.7 101 - GENERAL FUND 12/13/24 4660 CITY OF LINDSAY DED:CDBG CDBG PMT 350 101 - GENERAL FUND 12/13/24 4660 CITY OF LINDSAY DED:L203 CDBG LOAN 439.57 27254 $366.72
101 - GENERAL FUND 12/13/24 3192 SEIU LOCAL 521 DED:COPE COPE SEIU 2 101 - GENERAL FUND 12/13/24 3192 SEIU LOCAL 521 DED:DUES UNION DUES 364.72 27255 $6,283.85
101 - GENERAL FUND 12/13/24 6452 GREAT-WEST TRUST DED:0500 DEF COMP 1915.04 101 - GENERAL FUND 12/13/24 6452 GREAT-WEST TRUST DED:0555 DC LOANPAY 1255.96 101 - GENERAL FUND 12/13/24 6452 GREAT-WEST TRUST DED:151 DEFERCOMP 2726.13 101 - GENERAL FUND 12/13/24 6452 GREAT-WEST TRUST DED:ROTH ROTH 386.72 27256 $224.62
101 - GENERAL FUND 12/13/24 7301 LINDSAY POLICE OFFI DED:LPOA LPOA DUES 224.62 27257 $73.82
101 - GENERAL FUND 12/13/24 6246 MCDERMONT VENTURE I DED:051 MCDERMONT 73.82 27258 $62.76
101 - GENERAL FUND 12/13/24 3042 STATE DISBURSEMENT DED:0512 CHILD SUPT 62.76 27259 $489.65
101 - GENERAL FUND 12/13/24 1498 STATE OF CALIF FRAN DED:0511 FTB - DEBT 489.65 27260 $829.27
101 - GENERAL FUND 12/27/24 4660 CITY OF LINDSAY DED:052 WELLNESS 39.7 101 - GENERAL FUND 12/27/24 4660 CITY OF LINDSAY DED:CDBG CDBG PMT 350 101 - GENERAL FUND 12/27/24 4660 CITY OF LINDSAY DED:L203 CDBG LOAN 439.57 27261 $366.72
101 - GENERAL FUND 12/27/24 3192 SEIU LOCAL 521 DED:COPE COPE SEIU 2 101 - GENERAL FUND 12/27/24 3192 SEIU LOCAL 521 DED:DUES UNION DUES 364.72 27262 $6,283.85
101 - GENERAL FUND 12/27/24 6452 GREAT-WEST TRUST DED:0500 DEF COMP 1915.04 101 - GENERAL FUND 12/27/24 6452 GREAT-WEST TRUST DED:0555 DC LOANPAY 1255.96 101 - GENERAL FUND 12/27/24 6452 GREAT-WEST TRUST DED:151 DEFERCOMP 2726.13 101 - GENERAL FUND 12/27/24 6452 GREAT-WEST TRUST DED:ROTH ROTH 386.72 27263 $224.62
101 - GENERAL FUND 12/27/24 7301 LINDSAY POLICE OFFI DED:LPOA LPOA DUES 224.62 27264 $73.82
101 - GENERAL FUND 12/27/24 6246 MCDERMONT VENTURE I DED:051 MCDERMONT 73.82 27265 $62.76
101 - GENERAL FUND 12/27/24 3042 STATE DISBURSEMENT DED:0512 CHILD SUPT 62.76 27266 $489.65
101 - GENERAL FUND 12/27/24 1498 STATE OF CALIF FRAN DED:0511 FTB - DEBT 489.65 AYA1218 $1,006.98
101 - GENERAL FUND 12/18/24 3977 AFLAC AFLAC DED NOV 2024 1006.98 EDD1213 $4,259.77
101 - GENERAL FUND 12/13/24 687 STATE OF CALIFORNIA DE88 PRPD 12.13.24 4259.77 IRS1213 $31,824.39
101 - GENERAL FUND 12/13/24 2011 INTERNAL REVENUE SE 941 PRPD 12.13.24 11105.19 101 - GENERAL FUND 12/13/24 2011 INTERNAL REVENUE SE 941 PRPD 12.13.24 20719.2 USBK2025 $172,431.73
101 - GENERAL FUND 12/15/24 430 US BANK TRUST NA 2012 BOND CSH ON HA -8974.52 101 - GENERAL FUND 12/15/24 430 US BANK TRUST NA 2012 MCDRMOTT INT P 16406.25 101 - GENERAL FUND 12/15/24 430 US BANK TRUST NA 2012MCDRMOT PRNPL P 165000 SUMMARY BY FUNDING SOURCE $1,086,844.43
101 - GENERAL FUND 320,133.81
200 - STREET IMPROVEMENT FUND 607.89
261 - GAS TAX FUND -
263 - TRANSPORTATION 2,514.15
266 - LTF-ART 8 STREETS & ROADS 44,201.38
300 - MCDERMONT SALE PROCEEDS 9,687.27
306 - COVID-19 ARPA FUND 455,655.61
400 - WELLNESS CENTER 32,194.19
460 - CA STATE PARKS 8,942.02
552 - WATER 44,726.97
553 - SEWER 145,384.34
554 - REFUSE 9,171.61
556 - VITA-PAKT 4,366.66
600 - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT -
660 - RDA OBLIGATION RETIREMENT -
700 - CDBG REVOLVING LN FUND -
702 - CHFA-HELP LHBP -
720 - HOME REVOLVING LN FUND -
779 - 00-HOME-0487 2,508.53
781 - CAL HOME RLF -
883 - SIERRA VIEW ASSESSMENT 2,596.00
884 - HERITAGE ASSESSMENT DIST 630.00
886 - SAMOA 398.00
887 - SWEETBRIER TOWNHOUSES 1,202.00
888 - PARKSIDE 450.00
889 - SIERRA VISTA ASSESSMENT 194.00
890 - MAPLE VALLEY ASSESSMENT 110.00
891 - PELOUS RANCH 1,170.00
TOTAL 1,086,844.43

STAFF REPORT
TO: Lindsay City Council
MEETING DATE: January 14, 2025
DEPARTMENT: Finance
FROM: Lacy Meneses, Finance Director
AGENDA TITLE: December 2024 Monthly Treasurer’s Report

ACTION & RECOMMENDATION
Accept the December 2024 Monthly Treasurer’s Report.

BACKGROUND | ANALYSIS
The December 2024 Monthly Treasurer’s Report is submitted for Council review and acceptance.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this action.

ATTACHMENTS

1. December 2024 Treasurer’s Report
Reviewed/Approved: ______
Item #: 12.4
Consent

CASH RESOURCES
LOCATION GL ACCOUNT # TYPE BALANCE
Cash Register Funds (City Hall & Wellness) 100-102 RES 1,100 $ Bank of the Sierra- Depository Account 100-114 GEN 12,146,267 Bank of the Sierra - Wellness Center 100-500 GEN 632,825 Bank of the Sierra - Impound Account 100-120 RES 44,954 LAIF Savings: City & Successor Agency 100-103 INV-RES 4,764,489 MBS Investments 100-700 INV-RES 3,223,679
$ 20,813,314

CASH EXPENDED

ACCOUNTS PAYABLE & PAYROLL AMOUNT DEBT SERVICE AMOUNT
Accounts Payable 1,401,088 $ Water Plant 109,874 $
Payroll (12/13/24) 269,866 $ Mcdermont 172,432 $
Payroll (12/27/24) 254,461 $
TOTAL $ 1,925,415 TOTAL $ 282,306

INVESTMENTS
INVESTED FUNDS $7,988,169
Respectfully submitted,
GEN: GENERAL UNRESTRICTED
RES: RESTRICTED ACTIVITY
Director of Finance INV: INVESTMENT
City of Lindsay

ABBREVIATIONS
Lacy Meneses
Monthly Treasurer's Report
DECEMBER 31,2024
Cash Balances Classified by Depository
TOTAL

INVESTMENT POLICY COMPLIANCE
As of the end of the month, the investments were in compliance with the requirements of the City's investment policy. This report reflects all cash and investments of the City of Lindsay (O/S checks not reflected in End Cash Balance).

STAFF REPORT
TO: Lindsay City Council
MEETING DATE: January 14, 2025
DEPARTMENT: City Services
FROM: Mauricio Mendoza, Engineer Technician
AGENDA TITLE: Notice of Completion – Hermosa Street/Westwood Ave. Roundabout Landscape Project

ACTION & RECOMMENDATION
Accept as complete the Hermosa Street/Westwood Avenue Roundabout Landscape Project – No. 1 and direct the City Clerk to file a “Notice of Completion” with the Tulare County Clerk County Recorder with a 1-year warranty period beginning upon recordation.

BACKGROUND | ANALYSIS
The Hermosa Street/Westwood Avenue Roundabout Landscape Project – No. 1 was designed to enhance the aesthetics and functionality of the roundabout and adjacent islands at the intersection of Hermosa Street and Westwood Avenue. This project included the installation of drought-tolerant plants, irrigation systems at the roundabout, and artificial turf on the adjacent islands to improve the area’s visual appeal while ensuring longterm maintenance efficiency and water conservation.

Council approved Westscapes Inc. as the selected contractor for the project on April 17, 2024. Westscapes Inc. was issued the Notice to Proceed on May 15, 2024. Work began in June 2024 and was completed on December 9, 2024.

Financial Report:

Project Budget: $ 200,000.00
Contract Amount: $ 165,033.58
Contract Change Orders: $ 12,331.35
Total Contract Amount $ 177,364.93
Approved Change Orders/Contract Adjustments:

1. Solar-Powered Irrigation Controller with Battery Backup ($407.61)

2. QK Construction Management Services ($11,923.74)

FISCAL IMPACT
Fund No. Fund Description Budget Budget FY
266 Local Transportation Fund $ 200,000 2022-2023 CIP (pg 9)

ATTACHMENTS

1. Notice of Completion

2. Warranty Letter
Reviewed/Approved: ______
Item #: 12.5
Consent

RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:

City of Lindsay
City Clerk
P.O. Box 369
Lindsay, CA 93247
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________ (Hermosa Street/Westwood Avenue Roundabout Landscape Project – No. 1) Space above this line for Recorder’s Use

NOTICE OF COMPLETION
Notice Pursuant to Civil Code Section 3093 must be filed within 10 days after completion.

Notice is hereby given that:

1. The undersigned is owner or corporate officer of the owner of the interest or estate stated below on the property being herein described:

2. The full name of the owner is: City of Lindsay

3. The full address of the owner is: 251 E. Honolulu
Lindsay, CA 93247

4. The nature of the interest or estate of the owner is “IN FEE” (If other than fee, strike “In Fee” and insert, for example “purchaser under contract of purchase, “or “lessee”)

5. The full names & addresses of all persons, if any, who hold title with the undersigned as joint tenants or as tenants in common, are

NAMES ADDRESSES
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

6. Work improvement on the property hereinafter described was completed on December 9, 2024. The Work done included the installation of drought-tolerant plants, irrigation systems at the roundabout, and artificial turf on the adjacent islands.

7. The name of the Contractor, if any, for such work or improvement was Westscapes Inc.

8. The property on which said improvement was completed is in the City of LINDSAY, County of TULARE, State of California, and is described as follows: Hermosa Street/Westwood Avenue Roundabout Landscape Project – No. 1

9. The address of said property is in Lindsay, CA 93247 Dated: ____________________ _____________________________________ Verification for Individual Owner
Signature of owner or corporate officer of
owner named in paragraph 2 or his agent

VERIFICATION
I, the undersigned, say: I am the “CITY CLERK” the declarant of the foregoing Notice of Completion; I have read said (“President of”, “Manager of”, “A Partner of”, etc.)
Notice of Completion and know the contents thereof; the same is true of my own knowledge. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on at Lindsay, California.
(Date of signature) (City where signed)
______________________________________________
(Personal signature of the individual who is swearing
that the contents of the notice of completion are true.) “Partners In Your Growing Investment”
Ca. Contractors Lic. # 803910
P.O. Box 1150 Hanford, CA 93230
Phone: 559-583-8066 Fax: 559-582-5017

10.00 Subcontractors Warranty Form
Guarantee:

RFB NO:

Trade: Irrigation/Landscape

10.10 GUARANTEE OF WORKMANSHIP: Work performed under this contract shall be completed in a workmanlike manner. Approval by building inspectors shall be deemed to constitute a determination that work was completed in a workmanlike manor and shall be binding on the undersigned.

There are no warranties either expressed or implied except those specifically set forth in this contract, and there are absolutely no guarantees: *(1) relating to continued life for growth of plant material beyond the period necessary for initial planting shock, but not to exceed 90 days unless otherwise specifically stated; (2) against cracking, settling, raising, or discoloration, nor is mastic guaranteed from pulling away as a result of raising or settling; (3) sprinkler system is guaranteed for 1 year on materials and workmanship, however vandalism and normal wear and tear and normal cleaning is not included.

10.20 **Owner is responsible for any damage to plants caused by either over or under watering, over fertilization, pest or diseases. Contractor shall not be responsible for any damage done by inclement weather.

10.30 Guarantees and warranties are effective only if the owner has complied with all the terms and conditions, payments and other provisions of this contract.

10.40 WARRANTY LIMITS: Because all landscape projects must be watered on a strict schedule to establish the newly planted lawns, trees, shrubs, and groundcover, our guarantee is limited when a manual irrigation system is installed. All landscape material will be installed in a proper healthy manner but is not guaranteed beyond completion of the job. This also applies to existing automatic systems that have no power or power interruptions to the controller. *The 90 day warranty period shall be extended to 1 year if (1) Westscapes has a landscape maintenance contract with the property in which the landscaping is being done; (2) and all recommendation for materials, amendments, and process have been followed. Not to cover Acts of God, vandalism or owner neglect. ** Does not apply if Westscapes is under a landscape maintenance contract with the property and is in control of all watering and fertilizing and all recommendation for pesticide treatments is followed.

Date: Date of Acceptance Contractor’s License. 901810
City of Lindsay
Lindsay CA
Hermosa Westwood Roundabout

STAFF REPORT
TO: Lindsay City Council
MEETING DATE: January 14, 2025
DEPARTMENT: City Services
FROM: Ryan Heinks, Acting Director of City Services and Planning AGENDA TITLE: Authorization to Release Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for City Engineering Services

ACTION & RECOMMENDATION
Grant authorization the release of a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for City Engineering Services to provide professional engineering and consulting services for the City of Lindsay.

BACKGROUND | ANALYSIS
The City of Lindsay (the “City”) has historically engaged professional engineering services to ensure the efficient planning, design, and implementation of the City’s infrastructure projects. These services typically include, but are not limited to, reviewing development plans, managing public works projects, providing technical oversight of capital improvements, and ensuring compliance with all applicable local, state, and federal regulations.

The current contractual arrangement for City Engineering services is set to expire on March 16th, 2025. In an effort to provide a fair and competitive process and ensure that Lindsay receives high-quality and cost-effective professional engineering services, staff believes it is prudent to issue a formal RFQ. Through this RFQ, staff intends to identify qualified firms or individual consultants capable of meeting the City’s engineering needs over the next several years.

1. Scope of Services
The City Engineer plays a critical role in the planning and management of the City’s infrastructure. The selected firm or consultant will be responsible for a wide range of duties, which may include:
o Reviewing development proposals and engineering plans for compliance with City standards and regulations.
o Providing technical oversight and management of capital improvement projects. o Assisting with the preparation and administration of federal, state, and local grant applications. o Advising staff and the City Council on long-term infrastructure planning, budgeting, and policy development.
o Performing other related engineering tasks, including updating design standards, ordinance reviews, and utility planning.
o

2. RFQ Process
o Release of RFQ: Upon Council authorization, staff will finalize and advertise the RFQ through the City’s website, local and regional publications, and professional engineering networks. o Timeline and Deadline: The RFQ will remain open for a minimum of 30 calendar days to allow interested parties sufficient time to submit proposals. o Evaluation Criteria: Submissions will be evaluated based on demonstrated competence, qualifications, experience with similar municipalities, references, and the ability to provide costeffective services. o Selection and Award: Once proposals are received, staff will convene an evaluation committee to review and rank the candidates. Staff will return to the City Council with a recommendation for award of contract to the highest-ranked firm or consultant.

Item #: 12.6
Consent

3. Benefits of Competitive Selection
By issuing an RFQ for City Engineer services, the City will:
o Ensure a transparent, competitive, and equitable selection process. o Identify the most qualified firm or consultant with demonstrated expertise in municipal engineering.
o Negotiate fair and reasonable contract terms that best serve the City’s interests.

Staff believes that releasing an RFQ for City Engineer services will ensure that the City of Lindsay continues to benefit from experienced, qualified, and competitive professional engineering expertise. By soliciting qualifications through a formal process, the City will be better positioned to manage its current and future infrastructure projects efficiently and effectively.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The issuance of an RFQ for professional services does not constitute a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and therefore is not subject to environmental review.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no immediate fiscal impact associated with the release of this RFQ. Costs related to advertising the RFQ are expected to be minimal and are included in the approved departmental budget. Upon selection of a City Engineer, staff will present a proposed contract with an associated scope of services and budget considerations for Council approval.

ATTACHMENTS

1. None
Reviewed/Approved: ______

STAFF REPORT
TO: Lindsay City Council
MEETING DATE: January 14, 2025
DEPARTMENT: City Services
FROM: Ryan Heinks, Acting Director of City Services and Planning AGENDA TITLE: Adoption of a Draft Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Well 11 Treatment Project Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Authorize the City Manager to Apply for Construction Grant Funding for the Treatment of Well 11

ACTION & RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Lindsay City Council approve the following actions:

2. Adopt Resolution 25-01 to Accept and Adopt the Draft Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Well 11 Treatment Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

3. Adopt Resolution 25-02 for the Lindsay City Council to authorize the City Manager to apply for construction grant funding for the treatment of Well 11.

BACKGROUND | ANALYSIS
The City of Lindsay operates a community water system in Tulare County, California, regulated by the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Division of Drinking Water (DDW). The system’s supply sources include water from the Central Valley Project (CVP) Friant-Kern Canal (treated at a single surface water treatment plant) and two active groundwater wells (Wells 14 and 15). A third well, Well 11, is currently inactive due to nitrate and perchlorate contamination above their respective maximum contaminant levels (MCLs). The distribution system functions as a single pressure zone and includes a 5-million-gallon atgrade reservoir located on a hill at the north end of the City.

The City’s water deficit is most severe during extreme drought. Under normal conditions, its annual CVP allocation of 2,500 acre-feet generally meets most of the City’s needs. During severe or extreme drought (such as in 2022), that allocation can be severely reduced or eliminated, forcing reliance on groundwater wells.

Without a special Health & Safety CVP water allocation, the City must reactivate Well 11 to meet demand, even with water conservation measures. However, using Well 11 without addressing its nitrate and perchlorate contamination would violate two primary drinking water standards, both of which pose potential acute health risks.

In January 2023, the Lindsay City Council commissioned a Water Feasibility Study. This study analyzed current and projected water supply capacity and demand, identifying an immediate deficit that will worsen with population growth. The Feasibility Study recommended returning Well 11 to service. The preferred option for clean water redundancy is to treat Well 11 using ion exchange processes to remove perchlorate first (via a single-use perchlorate-selective resin), followed by nitrate removal (via a regenerable ion exchange resin). The waste brine from the nitrate removal process would be concentrated in on-site, double-lined evaporation ponds before being trucked to the Clean Harbors Buttonwillow waste management facility.

Item #: 13.1
Public Hearing
On May 23, 2023, the Lindsay City Council unanimously approved the Well 11 Feasibility Study and its recommendations. As part of these improvements, the City is moving to adopt an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Well 11 Treatment Project. Public comments began on December 9, 2024, following a Notice of Intent published in the Porterville Recorder, with a 30-day comment period. The public hearing is scheduled for January 14, 2025, at 6 p.m. during the regularly scheduled council meeting at City Hall (251 E. Honolulu, Lindsay).

The City has worked with the SWRCB and received a Technical Assistance Grant through the Safe and Affordable Funding for Equity and Resilience (SAFER) program. This grant initially covered the Feasibility Study and the 30% design for the Plans, Specifications, & Estimate (PS&E) package; since then, the scope has expanded to 90%. The State of California has been very supportive of the City’s water needs and is collaborating with City staff on funding opportunities for construction. Self-Help Enterprises is also working with the City and the SWRCB to secure funding and move the project forward.

In September 2024, the City received a settlement offer resulting from a 2010 lawsuit against SQM North America, a subsidiary of Sociedad Química y Minera de Chile, which sold fertilizer linked to increased perchlorate contamination at Well 11. On September 24, 2024, the Lindsay City Council passed Resolution 24- 35, recognizing $6,550,533.74 in settlement funds designated exclusively for the design, installation, and ongoing operation and maintenance of a two-stage ion exchange treatment system at Well 11. The resolution prohibits using or transferring these funds for any purpose other than rehabilitating Well 11 and improving the City’s water system.

Moving forward, the City will continue seeking grant funding for the Well 11 Project with technical assistance from Self-Help Enterprises. By maximizing grant funding for the design, construction, and installation of the two-stage ion exchange system, the City can use the SQM settlement funds for long-term operation and maintenance. This strategy ensures maximum grant support for the project while providing stable funding for the treatment facility without impacting the City’s Water Enterprise account. It also allows the City to use other enterprise funds for additional water system improvements.

To further this project, Staff seeks Lindsay City Council approval for the City Manager, or his designee, authorized and directed to sign and file, for and on behalf of the Entity, a Financial Assistance Application for a financing agreement from the State Water Resources Control Board for the planning, design, and construction of the Well 11 Treatment Project.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Provost and Pritchard Consulting Group conducted the Draft Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Well 11 Project. Through this report, the City of Lindsay has reviewed the Well 11 Project to determine whether it could have a significant effect on the environment because of its development, as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15382. The report outlines the reasons why the City of Lindsay does not believe the project will have a significant effect in this case, due to a series of revisions made to mitigate any environmental issues. The entire report is attached to this staff report.

FISCAL IMPACT
Funding for the preparation of the IS/MND, as well as the next phases of the project is included in the SAFER Technical Assistance Grant for the current fiscal year as well as covered by the SQM settlement funds. The anticipated cost of the treatment system will be determined upon receipt of RFP responses and approval by the Council.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Draft Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration Report

2. Resolution 25-01 Accept and Adopt the Draft Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration

3. Resolution 25-02 Lindsay City Council to authorize the City Manager to apply for construction grant funding for the treatment of Well 11 under Resolution 25-02.

4. Public Notice for Hearing to Adopt the Draft Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration for Well 11 Reviewed/Approved: ______

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF

THE CITY OF LINDSAY
RESOLUTION NO. 25-01

Page 1 of 3 ends

NUMBER 25-01
TITLE

MEETING

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LINDSAY

APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE

DECLARATION AND MITIGATION, MONITORING, AND REPORTING
PROGRAM FOR THE WELL 11 TREATMENT PROJECT LOCATED SOUTH OF MARIPOSA STREET, EAST OF HIGHWAY 65 (APNs 199-140-038, 199- 140-048, 199-140-049, and 199-200-028) IN THE RCO (RESOURCE,

CONSERVATION, AND OPEN SPACE) AND HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL (CH) ZONE.

At a regularly scheduled meeting of the City of Lindsay City Council held on January 14, 2025, at 6:00 PM at 251 E. Honolulu Street, Lindsay, CA 93247 WHEREAS, the City of Lindsay (“City”) is committed to providing safe and reliable water supply to its residents and has proposed the Well 11 Treatment Project to address water quality needs; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Lindsay did hold a duly noticed public hearing before said Council on January 14, 2025; and
WHEREAS, the project site is designated in the Lindsay General Plan as Park and Recreation and Highway Commercial and zoned RCO (Resource, Conservation, and Open Space) and CH (Highway Commercial); and
WHEREAS, the Well 11 Treatment Project includes the following components: site demolition, clearing and grubbing, construction of a perchlorate vessel foundation, placement of perchlorate treatment vessels with initial load of resin, installation of pretreatment cartridge filters, construction of nitrate system foundations, installation of a nitrate treatment system with tanks, resin, controls, and softener, installation of on-site piping, placement of a brine holding tank, construction of polyethylene lined evaporation ponds, installation of associated electrical and controls, well pump upgrades, and perimeter fencing; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City has prepared an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project; and
WHEREAS, the Initial Study concluded that the environmental impacts of the proposed project are less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation measures; and WHEREAS, the IS/MND has been made available for public review at City Hall during a public review and comment period, which began on December 9, 2024, and ended on January 7, 2025.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF

THE CITY OF LINDSAY
RESOLUTION NO. 25-01

Page 2 of 3 ends

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LINDSAY DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are a substantive part of this Resolution.

SECTION 2. The City Council of the City of Lindsay hereby adopts the Well 11 Treatment Project Mitigated Negative Declaration and accompanying Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program as presented.

SECTION 3. All mitigation measures required by the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration and accompanying Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program shall be followed by City personnel, contractors, and subcontractors for this project.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF

THE CITY OF LINDSAY
RESOLUTION NO. 25-01

Page 3 of 3 ends

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Lindsay as follows:

MEETING DATE January 14, 2025
MOTION

SECOND MOTION
AYES
ABSENT

ABSTAIN
NAYS

CERTIFICATION OF THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION AS FULL, TRUE, PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LINDSAY AS DETAILED. _____________________________________
Misty Villarreal, Mayor

CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTING OFFICER
The undersigned, Maegan Peton, City Clerk of the City of Lindsay does hereby attest and certify that the foregoing Resolution is a true, full and correct copy of a resolution duly adopted at a meeting of the City of Lindsay which was duly convened and held on the date stated thereon, and that said document has not been amended, modified, repealed or rescinded since its date of adoption and is in full force and effect as of the date thereof.

ATTEST: _____________________________________
Maegan Peton, City Clerk

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF

THE CITY OF LINDSAY
RESOLUTION NO. 25-02

Page 1 of 2 ends

NUMBER 25-02
TITLE

MEETING

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LINDSAY TO

AUTHORIZE STAFF TO APPLY FOR CONSTRUCTION FUNDING FOR THE TREATMENT OF WELL 11.

At a regularly scheduled meeting of the City of Lindsay City Council held on January 14, 2025, at 6:00 PM at 251 E. Honolulu Street, Lindsay, CA 93247 WHEREAS, The City Council of the City of Lindsay (the “Entity”) commissioned a Water Feasibility Study in 2023, which identified an immediate water supply deficit; and WHEREAS, The Entity’s Well 11 suffers from nitrate and perchlorate contamination, reducing the available water supply that meets state-regulated drinking water standards; and WHEREAS, The 2023 Water Feasibility Study recommended treatment of Well 11 in order to partially ease the water supply deficit.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LINDSAY DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The City Manager (the “Authorized Representative”) or designee is hereby authorized and directed to sign and file, for and on behalf of the Entity, a Financial Assistance Application for a financing agreement from the State Water Resources Control Board for the planning, design, and construction of the Well 11 Treatment Project (the “Project”). This Authorized Representative, or his/her designee, is designated to provide the assurances, certifications, and commitments required for the financial assistance application, including executing a financial assistance agreement from the State Water Resources Control Board and any amendments or changes thereto.

The City Council of the City of Lindsay hereby adopts the Well 11 Treatment Project Mitigated Negative Declaration and accompanying Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program as presented.

SECTION 2. The Authorized Representative, or his/her designee, is designated to represent the Entity in carrying out the Entity’s responsibilities under the financing agreement, including certifying disbursement requests on behalf of the Entity and compliance with applicable state and federal laws.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF

THE CITY OF LINDSAY
RESOLUTION NO. 25-02

Page 2 of 2 ends

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Lindsay as follows:

MEETING DATE January 14, 2025
MOTION

SECOND MOTION
AYES
ABSENT

ABSTAIN
NAYS

CERTIFICATION OF THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION AS FULL, TRUE, PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LINDSAY AS DETAILED. _____________________________________
Misty Villarreal, Mayor

ATTEST: _____________________________________
Maegan Peton, City Clerk

PUBLIC NOTICE

NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE WELL 11 TREATMENT PROJECT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the CITY OF LINDSAY (City) plans to adopt an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the proposed improvements and operations of the Well 11 Treatment Project. The document will be on the agenda of City’s regularly scheduled City Council meeting on January 14, 2024, at City Hall, 251 E.

Honolulu St. Lindsay, CA 93247.

The Well 11 Treatment Project proposes to construct the following components; site demolition, clearing and grubbing, construction of a perchlorate vessel foundation, placement of perchlorate treatment vessels with initial load of resin, installation of pretreatment cartridge filters, construction of nitrate system foundations, installation of a nitrate treatment system with tanks, resin, controls and softener, installation of on-site piping, placement of a brine holding tank, construction of polyethylene lined evaporation ponds, installation of associated electrical and controls, well pump upgrades, and perimeter fencing.

Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study has been prepared, describing the degree of possible environmental impacts of the proposed project.

The City has assessed the potential environmental impacts of this proposed action and has determined that they will be less than significant. Copies of the IS/MND are on file and available for public review at City Hall. The public review period during which the City will receive comments on the proposed IS/MND will begin on December 9, 2024 and end on January 7, 2025. Comments should be in writing, if possible, and addressed to Neyba J.

Amezcua, City Services Director, at either [email protected], or 251 E. Honolulu Street Lindsay, CA 93247.

WELL 11 TREATMENT PROJECT

DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE

DECLARATION
DECEMBER 2024
PREPARED FOR:

City of Lindsay
251 E. Honolulu Street
Lindsay, CA 93247
PREPARED BY:

PROVOST & PRITCHARD

CONSULTING GROUP

PUBLIC NOTICE

Honolulu St. Lindsay, CA 93247.

Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study has been prepared, describing the degree of possible environmental impacts of the proposed project.

Amezcua, Principal Project Manager, at either [email protected], or 251 E.

Honolulu Street Lindsay, CA 93247.

Notice of Completion & Environmental Document Transmittal Mail to: State Clearinghouse, P.O. Box 3044, Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 (916) 445-0613 For Hand Delivery/Street Address: 1400 Tenth Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 Appendix C
SCH#
Project Title: Well 11 Treatment Project
Lead Agency: City of Lindsay
------------------------- Mailing Address: 251 E. Honolulu street Contact Person: Neyba J. Amezcua
Phone: (559) 562-7102
City: Lindsay Zip: 93247 County: _T_u_la_re _____________ _ Project Location: County: Tulare City/Nearest Community: Lindsay ------------- ---'----------------
Cross Streets: See attached project description Zip Code: ____ _ Longitude/Latitude (degrees, minutes and seconds): ~ 0 ~~,,N I ~ 0 ~ • 12.65" W Total Acres: _______ _ Assessor's Parcel No.: 199-140-038, 199-140-048, 199-140.049, and 199-200-028 Section: 12 Twp.: 20S --- ---- Range: 26E ---- Base: MDB&M Within 2 Miles: State Hwy #: 65
----------- Waterways: _____________________ _
Airports: ___________ _ Railways: SJRR Schools: Jefferson, Lincoln, Reagan, Lindsay, Washington Document Type:

CEQA: 0 NOP
D Early Cons
D Neg Dec
Iii Mit Neg Dec
Local Action Type:
□ General Plan Update
□ General Plan Amendment
□ General Plan Element
□ Community Plan
Development Type:
0 Draft EIR
D Supplement/Subsequent EIR
(Prior SCH No.) _____ _
Other: ----------
□ Specific Plan
□ Master Plan
□ Planned Unit Development
□ Site Plan
D Residential: Units --- Acres __ _
---------
NEPA: 0 NOI Other:
□
□
□
□
Rezone
0 EA
0 DraftEIS
0 FONS!
Prezone
Use Permit
Land Division (Subdivision, etc.)
D Joint Document
D Final Document
D Other: --------
□ Annexation
□ Redevelopment
□ Coastal Permit
Iii Other: Well Treatm ent
□ Office: Sq.ft. --- Acres __ _ Employees __ _ D Transportation: Type □ Commercial: Sq.ft. --------------- --- Acres __ _ Employees __ _ □ Mining: Mineral □ Industrial: Sq.ft. -------------- --- Acres --- Employees __ _ □ Power: Type _______ MW _____ _ □ Educational: ------------------- D Waste Treatment Type MGD ----- □ Recreational:
□ Water Facilities:Type ------------------- ______ _ MGD □ Hazardous Waste:Type I] Other: Well Treatment -------------- ------
Project Issues Discussed in Document:

Ii] Aesthetic/Visual D Fiscal Ii] Recreation/Parks
Ii] Agricultural Land Ii] Flood Plain/F1ooding Ii] Schools/Universities Ii] Air Quality Ii] Forest Land/Fire Hazard Ii] Septic Systems Ii] Archeological/Historical Ii] Geologic/Seismic Ii] Sewer Capacity Iii Biological Resources Ii] Minerals Ii] Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading D Coastal Zone Ii] Noise Ii] Solid Waste
Ii] Drainage/Absorption Ii] Population/Housing Balance Ii] Toxic/Hazardous D Economic/Jobs Ii] Public Services/Facilities Ii] Traffic/Circulation Present Land Use/Zoning/General Plan Designation:

Ii] Vegetation
Iii Water Quality
Ii] Water Supply/Groundwater
Ii] Wetland/Riparian
D Growth Inducement
Iii Land Use
D Cumulative Effects
[j] Other: Tribal Cultural Resources
The Project is designated Park and Recreation and Highway Commercial, and is zoned for Resource, Conservation, and Open Space, Commercial Highway.

Project Description: (please use a separate page if necessary) See attached
Note: The State Clearinghouse will assign identification numbers for all new projects. If a SCH number already exists for a project (e.g. Notice of Preparation or previous draft document) please fill in.

Revised 2010
Reviewing Agencies Checklist
Lead Agencies may recommend State Clearinghou e distribution by marking agencies below with and "X" . lfyou have already ent your document to the agency please denote that with an "S".

X
X
X
X
Air Resources Board
Boating & Waterways, Department of
California Emergency Management Agency
California Highway Patrol
Caltrans District # 6
Caltrans Division of Aeronautics
Caltrans Planning
Central Valley Flood Protection Board
Coachella Valley Mtns. Conservancy
Coastal Commission
Colorado River Board
Conservation, Department of
Corrections, Department of
Delta Protection Commission
Education, Department of
Energy Commission
Fish & Game Region # 4
Food & Agriculture, Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection, Department of
General Services, Department of
Health Services, Department of
Housing & Community Development
x ative American Heritage Commission
Local Public Review Period (to be filled in by lead agency) Starting Date December 9, 2024
Lead Agency (Complete if applicable):

Consulting Firm: ______________ _
Address: ------------------- City/St ate/Zip: ______________ _ Contact: _________________ _
Phone: _________________ _
x Office of Historic Preservation
Office of Public School Construction
__ Parks & Recreation, Department of
__ Pesticide Regulation, Department of
Public Utilities Commission
X Regional WQCB # s
Resources Agency
Resources Recycling and Recovery, Department of
__ S.F. Bay Conservation & Development Comm.
__ San Gabriel & Lower L.A. Rivers & Mtns. Conservancy
__ San Joaquin River Conservancy
Santa Monica Mtns. Conservancy
State Lands Commission
SWRCB: Clean Water Grants
_x_ SWRCB: Water Quality
__ SWRCB : Water Rights
__ Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
x Toxic Substances Control, Department of
X Water Resources Department of
Other: ________________ _
Other: _________________ _
Ending Date January 7, 2025
Applicant:

Address: ____________________ _
City/State/Zip: ________________ _
Phone: ----------------------
s;gnatu,e of Lead Agency Rep,esentativ~, --· L ~ ---------Date, - l~/c, 7; I Authohty cited, Sedon 21083, Public Resou± ,ence, SecUon 21161, Public Resou,ces Code. , , Revised 20 I 0

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Well 11 Treatment Project proposes to construct the following components:
• Site demolition, clearing and grubbing on approximately 3.4 acres; • Construction of a perchlorate vessel foundation;
• Placement of perchlorate treatment vessels with initial load of resin; • Installation of pretreatment cartridge filters;
• Construction of nitrate system foundations;
• Installation of a nitrate treatment system with tanks, resin, controls and softener; • Installation of on-site piping;
• Placement of a brine holding tank;
• Construction of polyethylene double-lined evaporation ponds; • Installation of associated electrical and controls;
• Well pump upgrades;
• Perimeter fencing; and
• Drive path for ingress and egress of the Project site The proposed equipment is listed below
Construction Schedule
Construction of the Project is anticipated to be completed within six (6) months, which would include grading, site preparation, and construction of the water treatment infrastructure.

Generally, construction wouldoccur between the hours of 7:00 am and 5:00 pm, Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. Post-construction activities would include system testing, commissioning, and site clean-up. Construction would require temporary staging and storage of materials and equipment. Staging areas would be located on-site.

Equipment
Construction equipment wou Id likely include an excavator, backhoes, graders, skid steers, loaders, crane, and hauling trucks.

Operation and Maintenance
Operation and maintenance of the water treatment facility would be performed by the existing City maintenance staff or contracted staff. Operation and maintenance associated with the evaporation pond alternative would consist of monitoring the ponds for leakage, occasional removal of crystalized salt from the bottom of the ponds, transferring the salt into super sacks and repair of the liner, as necessary. Brine deliveries to the CleanHarbors Buttonwillow facility would occur approximately every other day utilizing one (1) truck.

Table of Contents
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 i
Table of Contents
Mitigated Negative Declaration....................................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................1-1

1.1 Regulatory Information.......................................................................................................................1-1

1.2 Document Format...............................................................................................................................1-2 Chapter 2 Project Description.......................................................................................................................2-1

2.1 Project Background.............................................................................................................................2-1

2.1.1 Project Title ................................................................................................................2-1

2.1.2 Lead Agency Name and Address................................................................................2-1

2.1.3 Contact Person and Phone Number..........................................................................2-1

2.1.4 Project Location .........................................................................................................2-1

2.1.5 General Plan Designation and Zoning........................................................................2-1

2.1.6 Description of Project ................................................................................................2-2

2.1.7 Other Public Agencies Whose Discretionary Approvals May Be Required ...............2-3

2.1.8 Consultation with California Native American Tribes................................................2-3 Chapter 3 Determination..............................................................................................................................3-1

3.1 Potential Environmental Impacts .......................................................................................................3-1

3.2 Determination.....................................................................................................................................3-2 Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis....................................................................................................4-3

4.1 Aesthetics............................................................................................................................................4-3

4.1.1 Baseline Conditions....................................................................................................4-3

4.1.2 Impact Analysis...........................................................................................................4-4

4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ...................................................................................................4-5

4.2.1 Baseline Conditions....................................................................................................4-5

4.2.2 Impact Analysis...........................................................................................................4-6

4.3 Air Quality............................................................................................................................................4-9

4.3.1 Baseline Conditions....................................................................................................4-9

4.3.2 Impact Analysis.........................................................................................................4-13

4.4 Biological Resources .........................................................................................................................4-15

4.4.1 Baseline Conditions..................................................................................................4-15

4.4.2 Impact Analysis.........................................................................................................4-25 Mitigation..................................................................................................................................4-26

4.5 Cultural Resources............................................................................................................................4-29

4.5.1 Baseline Conditions..................................................................................................4-29

4.5.2 Impact Analysis.........................................................................................................4-30 Table of Contents
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 ii
Mitigation..................................................................................................................................4-30 Mitigation..................................................................................................................................4-31

4.6 Energy ...............................................................................................................................................4-32

4.6.1 Baseline Conditions..................................................................................................4-32

4.6.2 Impact Analysis.........................................................................................................4-32

4.7 Geology and Soils..............................................................................................................................4-34

4.7.1 Baseline Conditions..................................................................................................4-34

4.7.2 Impact Analysis.........................................................................................................4-36

4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions...............................................................................................................4-39

4.8.1 Baseline Conditions..................................................................................................4-39

4.8.2 Impact Analysis.........................................................................................................4-41

4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials....................................................................................................4-42

4.9.1 Baseline Conditions..................................................................................................4-42

4.9.2 Impact Analysis.........................................................................................................4-43

4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality .........................................................................................................4-46

4.10.1 Baseline Conditions..................................................................................................4-46

4.10.2 Impact Analysis.........................................................................................................4-47

4.11 Land Use and Planning....................................................................................................................4-51

4.11.1 Baseline Conditions..................................................................................................4-51

4.11.2 Impact Analysis.........................................................................................................4-51

4.12 Mineral Resources ..........................................................................................................................4-53

4.12.1 Baseline Conditions..................................................................................................4-53

4.12.2 Impact Analysis.........................................................................................................4-53

4.13 Noise ...............................................................................................................................................4-55

4.13.1 Baseline Conditions..................................................................................................4-55

4.13.2 Impact Analysis.........................................................................................................4-55

4.14 Population and Housing..................................................................................................................4-59

4.14.1 Baseline Conditions..................................................................................................4-59

4.14.2 Impact Analysis.........................................................................................................4-59

4.15 Public Services.................................................................................................................................4-61

4.15.1 Baseline Conditions..................................................................................................4-61

4.15.2 Impact Analysis.........................................................................................................4-61

4.16 Recreation.......................................................................................................................................4-63

4.16.1 Baseline Conditions..................................................................................................4-63

4.16.2 Impact Analysis.........................................................................................................4-63 Table of Contents
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 iii

4.17 Transportation ................................................................................................................................4-64

4.17.1 Baseline Conditions..................................................................................................4-64

4.17.2 Impact Analysis.........................................................................................................4-64

4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources................................................................................................................4-66

4.18.1 Baseline Conditions..................................................................................................4-66

4.18.2 Impact Assessment ..................................................................................................4-67 Mitigation..................................................................................................................................4-67

4.19 Utilities and Service Systems..........................................................................................................4-68

4.19.1 Baseline Conditions..................................................................................................4-68

4.19.2 Impact Analysis.........................................................................................................4-69

4.20 Wildfire............................................................................................................................................4-71

4.20.1 Baseline Conditions..................................................................................................4-71

4.20.2 Impact Analysis.........................................................................................................4-71

4.21 CEQA Mandatory Findings of Significance .....................................................................................4-73

4.21.1 Statement of Findings..............................................................................................4-73 Chapter 5 Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program.........................................................................5-1 Chapter 6 References....................................................................................................................................6-1

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A: CalEEMod Output Files................................................................................................................ 1 Appendix B: Biological Evaluation.................................................................................................................... 1 Appendix C: Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment ...................................................................................... 1

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1: Regional Location Map ...............................................................................................................2-5 Figure 2-2: Aerial Map...................................................................................................................................2-6 Figure 2-3: Topo Quad Map..........................................................................................................................2-7 Figure 2-4: General Plan Land Use Designation Map...................................................................................2-8 Figure 2-5: Zone District Map .......................................................................................................................2-9 Figure 2-6: Site Plan ......................................................................................................................................2-1 Figure 4-1: Farmland Designations Map.......................................................................................................4-8 Figure 4-2: Habitats Map ............................................................................................................................4-17 Figure 4-3: FEMA Flood Map ......................................................................................................................4-50 Table of Contents
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 iv

LIST OF TABLES
Table 4-1: Aesthetics Impacts.......................................................................................................................4-3 Table 4-2: Agriculture and Forest Impacts ...................................................................................................4-5 Table 4-3: Air Quality Impacts.......................................................................................................................4-9 Table 4-4: Summary of Ambient Air Quality Standards and Attainment Designation...............................4-11 Table 4-5: Project-Level Air Quality CEQA Thresholds of Significance.......................................................4-12 Table 4-6: Unmitigated Short-Term Construction Generated Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants ..........4-13 Table 4-7: Maximum Daily Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants .................................................................4-13 Table 4-8: Biological Resources Impacts.....................................................................................................4-15 Table 4-9. List of Soils Located on the Project Site and Their Basic Properties.........................................4-16 Table 4-10: List of Special Status Plants with Potential to Occur on the Site and/or in the Vicinity. ........4-20 Table 4-11: List of Special Status Animals with Potential to Occur on the Site and/or in the Vicinity ......4-22 Table 4-12: Cultural Resources Impacts.....................................................................................................4-29 Table 4-13: Energy Impacts.........................................................................................................................4-32 Table 4-14: Geology and Soils Impacts.......................................................................................................4-34 Table 4-15: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts........................................................................................4-39 Table 4-16: Short Term Construction Related GHG Emissions ..................................................................4-41 Table 4-17: Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impacts.............................................................................4-42 Table 4-18: Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts....................................................................................4-46 Table 4-19: Land Use and Planning Impacts...............................................................................................4-51 Table 4-20: Mineral Resources Impacts .....................................................................................................4-53 Table 4-21: Noise Impacts...........................................................................................................................4-55 Table 4-22: Typical Construction Noise Levels...........................................................................................4-56 Table 4-23: Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Sources Levels.....................................................4-57 Table 4-24: Population and Housing Impacts.............................................................................................4-59 Table 4-25: Public Services..........................................................................................................................4-61 Table 4-26: Recreation Impacts..................................................................................................................4-63 Table 4-27: Transportation Impacts ...........................................................................................................4-64 Table 4-28: Tribal Cultural Resources Impacts...........................................................................................4-66 Table 4-29: Utilities and Service Systems Impacts .....................................................................................4-68 Table 4-30: Wildfire Impacts.......................................................................................................................4-71 Table 4-31: CEQA Mandatory Findings of Significance ..............................................................................4-73 Table 5-1: Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program ........................................................................5-2 Table of Contents
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 i

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AB ..............................................................................................................................................Assembly Bill APE ............................................................................................................................. Area of Potential Effect BMP ......................................................................................................................Best Management Practices CalEEMod ........................................................................California Emissions Estimator Modeling (software) CalFire..........................................................................California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CARB..................................................................................................................California Air Resources Board CCAA..............................................................................................................................California Clean Air Act CDFW.......................................................................................................................California Fish and Wildlife CEQA........................................................................................................California Environmental Quality Act CH4 .................................................................................................................................................... Methane CHRIS ................................................................................California Historical Resources Information System CNDDB.................................................................................................... California Natural Diversity Database CNPS .................................................................................................................. California Native Plant Society CO ....................................................................................................................................Carbone Monoxide CO2 ...........................................................................................................................................Carbon dioxide County ......................................................................................................................................... Tulare County CVP ................................................................................................................................ Central Valley Project DTSC ................................................................................................. Department of Toxic Substances Control EIR ................................................................................................................... Environmental Impact Report FMMP ......................................................................................... Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program FTA ..................................................................................................................Federal Transit Administration GHG ........................................................................................................................................ Greenhouse Gas IPaC ................................U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Information for Planning and Consultation system IS ................................................................................................................................................ Initial Study IS/MND........................................................................................Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MMRP...................................................................................... Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MND ................................................................................................................ Mitigated Negative Declaration NAHC ................................................................................................... Native American Heritage Commission ND .................................................................................................................................Negative Declaration NEPA............................................................................................................National Environmental Policy Act NO2 ........................................................................................................................................Nitrogen Dioxide Table of Contents
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 ii
NOx .........................................................................................................................................Nitrogen Oxides NRCS .................................................................................................. Natural Resources Conservation Service O3 .........................................................................................................................................................Ozone Pb ............................................................................................................................................................Lead PM10 ....................................................................................................... particulate matter 10 microns in size PM2.5 ..................................................................................................... particulate matter 2.5 microns in size ppb ..........................................................................................................................................parts per billion ppm .........................................................................................................................................parts per million Project .....................................................................................................................Well 11 Treatment Project ROG ............................................................................................................................. Reactive Organic Gases RWQCB ..................................................................................................Regional Water Quality Control Board SJVAB..................................................................................................................... San Joaquin Valley Air Basin SJVAPCD .................................................................................San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District SO2 .............................................................................................................................................Sulfur Dioxide SSJVIC ...................................................................................Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center SR ................................................................................................................................................ State Route SRA ...........................................................................................................................State Responsibility Area SWPPP .................................................................................................Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan SWRCB................................................................................................... State Water Resources Control Board USEPA....................................................................................United States Environmental Protection Agency USFWS ..................................................................................................United States Fish and Wildlife Service USGS ............................................................................................................... United States Geological Survey μg/m3....................................................................................................................micrograms per cubic meter VMT ...............................................................................................................................Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigated Negative Declaration
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 1

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Mitigated Negative Declaration
As Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Lindsay has reviewed the Project described below to determine whether it could have a significant effect on the environment because of its development. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15382: “Significant effect on the environment” means a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the Project, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance.

Project Name
City of Lindsay Well 11 Treatment Project
Project Location
The Project is located in Lindsay, California, approximately 200 miles southeast of Sacramento and 53 miles north of Bakersfield (see Figure 2-1 and Figure 2-2). The Project site is located approximately on Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 199-140-038, 199-140-048, 199-140-049, and 199-200-028. The centroid of the Project site is 36° 12’ 21” N, 119° 06’ 12.65” W.

Project Description
The Well 11 Treatment Project proposes to construct the following components:
• Site demolition, clearing and grubbing on approximately 3.4 acres; • Construction of a perchlorate vessel foundation;
• Placement of perchlorate treatment vessels with initial load of resin; • Installation of pretreatment cartridge filters;
• Construction of nitrate system foundations;
• Installation of a nitrate treatment system with tanks, resin, controls and softener; • Installation of on-site piping;
• Placement of a brine holding tank;
• Construction of polyethylene double-lined evaporation ponds; • Installation of associated electrical and controls;
• Well pump upgrades;
• Perimeter fencing; and
• Drive path for ingress and egress of the Project site The proposed equipment is shown in Figure 2-6.

The City of Lindsay finds that although the Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the Project have been made by or agreed to by the Project proponent. More information on these environmental effects and others can be found further in this document. These revisions in the Project are discussed below:
• BIO-1 – Prior to filling the brine pond, deterrents shall be put in place to discourage birds from using the pond. This could include a combination of visual, auditory, and physical deterrents for Mitigated Negative Declaration
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 2
birds to minimize the potential for protected birds to utilize the brine pond. Examples include deterrents such as noise makers, ribbons, lasers, motion-triggered sprinklers, decoys, and others. • BIO-2 – The Project’s construction activities shall occur, if feasible, between September 16 and January 31 (outside of the nesting bird season) to avoid impacts to nesting birds. • BIO-3 – If Project construction activities must occur within the nesting bird season (February 1 to August 31), a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey for active nests within seven (7) calendar days prior to the start of construction. The survey shall include a one-time take avoidance survey for Swainson’s hawk and other birds and raptors. The survey shall be completed within the Project site, and up to 100 feet outside of the Project site for nesting migratory birds, up to 500 feet outside of the project site for nesting raptors, and up to 0.5-mile outside of the project site for nesting Swainson’s hawks. Raptor nests shall be considered “active” upon the nest-building stage. The survey shall not be completed between April 21 to June 10 due to the difficulty of identifying Swainson’s hawk nests during this time of year. If no active nests are observed, no further mitigation is required.
• BIO-4 – If discovery of any active nests or breeding colonies occurs within 50 feet of a work area, a qualified biologist shall determine appropriate avoidance buffer distances based on applicable CDFW and/or USFWS guidelines, the biology of the species, conditions of the nest(s), and the level of project disturbance. If necessary, avoidance buffers shall be identified and shall be maintained until the biologist has determined that the nestlings have fledged. • CUL-1 – In the event that previously unidentified archaeological remains are encountered during development or ground-moving activities in the APE, all work shall be halted until a qualified archaeologist can identify the discovery and assess its significance. In the event of accidental discovery of unidentified archaeological remains during development or ground-moving activities in the APE, all work shall be halted in the immediate vicinity until a qualified archaeologist can identify the discovery and assess its significance.
• CUL-2 – If human remains are uncovered during construction, the Tulare County Coroner shall be notified to investigate the remains and arrange proper treatment and disposition. If the remains are identified on the basis of archaeological context, age, cultural associations, or biological traits to be those of a Native American, California Health and Safety Code 7050.5 and PRC 5097.98 require that the coroner notify the NAHC within 24 hours of discovery. The NAHC will then identify the Most Likely Descendants who will be afforded an opportunity to make recommendations regarding the treatment and disposition of the remains. • NOI-1 – The City shall ensure the construction contractor implement the following construction noise reducing measures:
o The construction contractor shall ensure that all noise producing construction activities, including warming-up or servicing equipment and any preparation for construction, shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. The construction contractor shall locate on-site equipment staging areas to maximize the distance between construction-related noise sources and noise sensitive receptors nearest the project site during construction.
o The construction contractor shall ensure that all equipment shall have sound control devices that are no less effective than those provided on the original equipment. Further, pavement breakers and jackhammers shall also be equipped with acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds recommended by the manufacturers thereof. In lieu of or in the absence of manufacturers' recommendations, the Director of Public Works shall have the authority to prescribe such means of accomplishing maximum noise attenuation Mitigated Negative Declaration
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 3
as deemed to be in the public interest, considering the available technology and economic feasibility.
• NOI-2 – The City shall ensure that equipment and trucks used for construction of the project utilize the best available noise control techniques (including mufflers, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures and acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds).

Chapter 1: Introduction
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 1-1
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group (Provost & Pritchard) has prepared this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) on behalf of the City of Lindsay (Lead Agency; City) to address the environmental effects of the (Project). This document has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. The City is the CEQA lead agency for this Project.

The site and the Project are described in detail in Chapter 2 Project Description.

1.1 REGULATORY INFORMATION
An Initial Study (IS) is a document prepared by a lead agency to determine whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment. In accordance with California Code of Regulations Title 14 (Chapter 3, Section 15000, et seq.)-- also known as the CEQA Guidelines--Section 15064 (a)(1) states that an environmental impact report (EIR) must be prepared if there is substantial evidence in light of the whole record that the Project under review may have a significant effect on the environment and should be further analyzed to determine mitigation measures or project alternatives that might avoid or reduce project impacts to less than significant levels. A negative declaration (ND) may be prepared instead if the lead agency finds that there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. An ND is a written statement describing the reasons why a proposed Project, not otherwise exempt from CEQA, would not have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, why it would not require the preparation of an EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15371). According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15070, a ND or mitigated ND shall be prepared for a project subject to CEQA when either:
a. The IS shows there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the proposed Project may have a significant effect on the environment, or b. The IS identified potentially significant effects, but:

1. Revisions in the project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the applicant before the proposed MND and IS is released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur is prepared, and

2. There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the proposed Project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment.

Chapter 1: Introduction
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 1-2

1.2 DOCUMENT FORMAT
This IS/MND contains six chapters, described below.

Chapter 1 Introduction An overview of the Project and the CEQA process Chapter 2 Project Description A detailed description of proposed Project components and objectives
Chapter 3 Determination The Lead Agency’s determination based upon this initial evaluation.

Chapter 4 Environmental Impact
Analysis
The CEQA checklist and environmental analysis for all impact areas, mandatory findings of significance, and feasible mitigation measures. If the 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 reduce those impacts to a less than significant level.

Chapter 5 Mitigation,
Monitoring, and
Reporting Program
The proposed mitigation measures, implementation timelines, and the entity/agency responsible for ensuring implementation Chapter 6 References Details the documents and reports this document relies upon to provide its analysis.

Technical appendices, described below, are found at the end of this document.

Appendix A CalEEMod Output Files
Appendix B Biological Evaluation
Appendix C Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment
Chapter 2: Project Description
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 2-1
CHAPTER 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND

2.1.1 Project Title
Well 11 Treatment Project

2.1.2 Lead Agency Name and Address
City of Lindsay
251 E. Honolulu Street
Lindsay, CA 93247

2.1.3 Contact Person and Phone Number
Lead Agency Contact
Neyba J. Amezcua
City Services Director
(559) 562-7102
CEQA Consultant
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group
Jarred Olsen, Environmental Project Manager
(559) 636-1166

2.1.4 Project Location
The Project is located in Lindsay, California, approximately 200 miles southeast of Sacramento and 53 miles north of Bakersfield (see Figure 2-1 and Figure 2-2). The Project site is located approximately on Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 199-140-038, 199-140-048, 199-140-049, and 199-200-028. The centroid of the Project site is 36° 12’ 21” N, 119° 06’ 12.65” W.

2.1.5 General Plan Designation and Zoning
Project Area General Plan Designation Zoning District
ONSITE Park and Recreation, Highway Commercial RCO (Resource, Conservation, and Open Space, CH (Commercial Highway)
ADJACENT LANDS Public and Semi-Public Facility, Low Density Residential
RCO (Resource, Conservation, and Open Space,
CH (Commercial Highway, R-1-7 (Single Family
Residential), RM-3 (Multi-Family Residential)
Chapter 2: Project Description
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 2-2

2.1.6 Description of Project
Project Background and Purpose
The City of Lindsay operates a community water system located in Tulare County, California that is regulated by the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Division of Drinking Water (DDW). The system’s sources of supply are Central Valley Project (CVP) Friant Kern Canal water treated at a single surface water treatment plant and two active groundwater wells (Wells 14 and 15). A third well (Well 11) is currently inactive due to nitrate and perchlorate contamination at levels exceeding their respective maximum contaminant levels (MCLs). The distribution system is operated as a single pressure zone and includes one 4-million-gallon at-grade water storage reservoir located on a hill near the north end of the City.

The City’s water supply deficit is most critical during periods of extreme drought. During normal years, the City’s contracted CVP water allocation is 2,500 acre-feet, which is sufficient for the City to supply most of its water needs using its surface water treatment plant. However, during years of severe or extreme drought, including 2022, the City’s Friant Kern Canal water allocation can be severely reduced or unfulfilled entirely. Unless a special Health & Safety CVP water allocation is granted to the City, it will be necessary to reactivate Well 11 to meet system demands, even if water conservation measures are implemented.

Without mitigation of the nitrate and perchlorate contamination at Well 11, any use of the well would result in a violation of two primary drinking water standards, both of which have the potential to result in acute health effects.

In January 2023, a Water Feasibility Study (Feasibility Study) was prepared for the City of Lindsay (City). 1 That study included an analysis of current and projected future water supply capacity and demands. The Feasibility Study identified an immediate supply deficit with the deficit worsening as the City’s population grows. The Feasibility Study recommended returning the City’s Well 11 back to active service.

The preferred alternative for addressing the City’s clean water supply redundancy is to return Well 11 to service by treating the well. Treatment for both perchlorate and nitrate would be accomplished utilizing ion exchange treatment processes. Perchlorate would first be removed utilizing a single-use perchlorateselective ion exchange resin. Nitrate would then be removed using a regenerable ion exchange treatment system. The most economical means of disposing of the waste brine from the nitrate treatment process is to concentrate the brine in on-site double-lined evaporation ponds prior to having it trucked to CleanHarbors Buttonwillow waste management facility.

The Feasibility Study also recommended the addition of three new wells to be built over time up until 2030.

This Initial Study does not include any new wells because analysis of such projects is not ripe at this time.

Locations have not been selected and therefore impacts would be too speculative to analyze. Approval of this Project would not foreclose the City’s opportunity to mitigate significant environmental effects of future well projects.

Project Description
The Well 11 Treatment Project proposes to construct the following components:
• Site demolition, clearing and grubbing on approximately 3.4 acres; • Construction of a perchlorate vessel foundation;
1 (Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group 2023)
Chapter 2: Project Description
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 2-3
• Placement of perchlorate treatment vessels with initial load of resin; • Installation of pretreatment cartridge filters;
• Construction of nitrate system foundations;
• Installation of a nitrate treatment system with tanks, resin, controls and softener; • Installation of on-site piping;
• Placement of a brine holding tank;
• Construction of polyethylene double-lined evaporation ponds; • Installation of associated electrical and controls;
• Well pump upgrades;
• Perimeter fencing; and
• Drive path for ingress and egress of the Project site The proposed equipment is shown in Figure 2-6.

Construction Schedule
Construction of the Project is anticipated to be completed within six (6) months, which would include grading, site preparation, and construction of the water treatment infrastructure.

Generally, construction would occur between the hours of 7:00 am and 5:00 pm, Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. Post-construction activities would include system testing, commissioning, and site clean-up. Construction would require temporary staging and storage of materials and equipment. Staging areas would be located on-site.

Equipment
Construction equipment would likely include an excavator, backhoes, graders, skid steers, loaders, crane, and hauling trucks.

2.1.7 Other Public Agencies Whose Discretionary Approvals May Be Required • State Water Quality Resources Control Board
• San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control Board

2.1.8 Consultation with California Native American Tribes Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1, et seq. [codification of Assembly Bill (AB) 52, 2013-14] requires that a lead agency, within 14 days of determining that it will undertake a project, must notify in writing any California Native American Tribe traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the project if that Tribe has previously requested notification about projects in that geographic area. The notice Chapter 2: Project Description
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 2-4
must briefly describe the project and inquire whether the Tribe wishes to initiate request formal consultation. Tribes have 30 days from receipt of notification to request formal consultation. The lead agency then has 30 days to initiate the consultation, which then continues until the parties come to an agreement regarding necessary mitigation or agree that no mitigation is needed, or one or both parties determine that negotiation occurred in good faith, but no agreement will be made.

The City of Lindsay has not received any written correspondence from a Tribe pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1 requesting notification of proposed project.

Chapter 2: Project Description
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 2-5
Figure 2-1: Regional Location Map
Monson Yettem
Patterson
Tract
Seville
Farmersville
- Project Site
Census Place
Linnell
Camp
East Tulare
Villa
.,
City Limits (various colors)
~ 0- 2= 4
~ Miles
Project Site
Woodville
PoplarCotton
Center
Tooleville
Tonyville
El Rancho
Terra Bella
Regional Vicinity Map
Self Help Enterprises- Lindsay Well 11 Treatment
Springville
.,

PROVOST&

PRITCHARD
Fig. 1 Page 2
Chapter 2: Project Description
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 2-6
Figure 2-2: Aerial Map
t' - ,
.. - .. Lindsay City Limit
~ o---2sco==:::Jsoo
~ Feet
Aerial Map
Self Help Enterprises- Lindsay Well 11 Treatment

PROVOST&

PRITCHARD
Fig. 2 Page 3
Chapter 2: Project Description
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 2-7
Figure 2-3: Topo Quad Map
D
35 AV{ 141
c::J Project Site
USGS Topo Maps (1:24k}
c:J o uad
'_-_-~ Tow nship/Range
D Section
~ 0--711: 50===1,:JSOO
~ Feet
.AV( 241
T19S R266,,.,v,
T20S R26E
WHARf:>QSA ST
13 24
Project Elevation:is approximately 372 feet above MSL.
~ 1
Topographic Map
~
T20S R27E
I
"
32 lf \ 20
USGS NationJ~Map, Data refreshed April 2023. \
Self Help Enterprises- Lindsay Well 11 Treatment

PROVOST&

PRITCHARD
Fig. 3 Page 6
Chapter 2: Project Description
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 2-8
Figure 2-4: General Plan Land Use Designation Map
, --, Li ndsay City Li mit ~ -- ~
City of Lindsay General Plan Land Use
Medium Density
~ Mixed-Use
- Central Commercial
- Heavy Industrial
- Highway Commercial
§ Highway Commercial (Reserve)
~ Mobile Homes
~ Neighborhood Commercial
- Park & Recreation
- Public & Semi-Public Faci lity
~ •-- === oo ~ Feet
General Plan Land Use Map
Self Help Enterprises - Lindsay Well 11 Treatment
4/9/2024 \\ppeng.tom\pld~U-\t~tnb~I! Hdp Enterpr,scs-187S\18~l3007-l1nchay Wei( II fie.itmtnl\400Gt5\M ap\SHE linduy \Nell 11 T1tatrnet1t Mapp1ng\SI-<£ l.llld~~V Wdl 11 trea tment Wpp.ngaprl< DRAFT NAIP 2022 Imagery

PROVOST&

PRITCHARD
Chapter 2: Project Description
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 2-9
Figure 2-5: Zone District Map
- (IH) Heavy Industrial
r - - , L __ J Li ndsay City Limit ~ (MXU) Mixed Use
City of Lindsay Zoning (R-1-7) Single Family Residential - (CC) Central Commercial
- (CH) Highway Commercial
~ (CN) Neighborhood Commercial
- (RCO) Resource, Conserv. & Open Space
- (RM -3) Multi-Family Residential
[m (RM-MH8) Multi Family Residential
~ o---2•s=o==::::isoo
~ Feet
Zoning Map
Self Help Enterprises - Lindsay Well 11 Treatment
4/9/2024 \\ppeng.tom\pld~U-\t~tnb~I! Hdp Enterpr,scs-187S\18~l 3007-l1nchay Wei( II fie.itmtnl\400Gt5\Map\SHE linduy \Nell 11 T1tatrnet1t M app,ng\SI-< £ l.llld~~V Wdl 11 trea tment wpp.ngaprl<

PROVOST&

PRITCHARD
Chapter 2: Project Description
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 2-1
Figure 2-6: Site Plan
,a 0 r
- -_ - _ -_ - ---~-- ~~~,------· "'-=--,,,~~----------=-=--=--=,-=-="-.=.-:=; _-==::.-~=='/~-~1,_-t---_

CONTROL TABLE
POINT# NORTHING EASTING ELEVATION DESCRIPTION
1 1959615.20 6529497.19 371,22 FDAD NGS STA "HPGN D CA06 LL", HWY 6::>& TULARE RD. 51 1958446.33 6532118.75 370.80 FD BD CL MARIPOSA & WESTWOOD 52 1958422.41 6532119.32 370.61 FD BD CL MARIPOSA, SOUTH SIDE OF WESTWOOD 53 1953468.84 653325S.81 374 .73 FD IP CL MARIPOSA & EASTWOOD 54 1957748.'.Hi 6S32133.16 372.00 FD BO CL WESTWOOD & KERN 55 1957106.33 6532146.28 374.86 FD BD N. SIDE ROUNDABOUT, WESTWOOD & HERMOSA 30312 1958482.96 6530991.43 368.78 FD MAG NAIL TBM IN MARIPOSA ST.

TOPOGRAPHY NOTE
TOPOGRAPHY SHOWN WA$ COLLECTED BY PROVOST &

PRITCHARD CONSUL TING GROUP DURING A FIELD SURVEY
CONDUCTED IN OCTOBER OF 2023.

I
I
I
I
1/~/I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

BOUNDARY NOTE
THE BOUNDARY/EASEMENT INFORMATION SHOWN ON Tl-lESE

PLANS IS BASED UPON RECORD INFQRMA TION TIED TO PHYSICAL MONUMENTS, AND WAS PREPARED UNDER Tl-IE DIRECTION OF
TIMOTHY M. ODOM, PLS 8468
I
I
1 I

BASIS OF BEARINGS & COORDINATES
I
I
' '
I
mr
"--
I
f
- - - - -; THE CALIFORNIA COORDINATE SYSTEM OF 196.J, ZONE 4,

ESTABLI SHED LOCALLY BY RTK GPS OBSERVATIONS TIED TO
LEICA SMARTNET REAL TIME NETWORK. COORDINATES ARE IN
THE NADS3(NA2011)(MYCS2) REFERENCE FRAME, EPOCH 2023.25 , I---\ I
~ !
----------++rbl -~- ==-~-=-=- =-.-::-:-==---:;=-=:__,;:::__:_::~-==-+=--=-=-_di===----~-----------~------ i vi
I I
L ~
/\ BENCHMARKS

PROJECT BENCHMARK
NGS STATION "HFGN D CA06 LL". PIDAC6131. AN ALUMINUM DISK IN A WELL AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 65 AND
TULARE ROAD, WEST OF LINDSAY.

ELEVATION= 371.22' NAVD88 DATUM
I !
I
(
[1
I -f
::: D
I
I
:f}?;

SCALE IN FEET
I
I ,-~-~-.....;
w
I-
~ Iz IOU
zw
..; , >- wO ;:i-,: 1- 0::o u
ci~S?i ..J
QZLL W >
u ...J W O 0
i5 ~ ~ s 0:: -o: u ww
a_ 0:: ~ I- ~
--'
--'
w
s
1 0()0 1 [ f-Cl::: • /l Vl<( , j
OI ~ >u
Qt:: i ei:::ei::: • w
Ci...Ci... ~

DESIGN ENGINEER
- LICENSE NO·
-
JOB NO:--
PROJECT NO;
PHASE
"----··
z
<{
--'
a_
--'
0 a::

Iz
0 l.)
--'
-0:

Iz
0 N
ii'.
0 I
I!
~~t .
;i
if
.,.
~'

ORIGINAL SCALE SHOWN IS ONE
INCl-i. Afl.JUST SCALE FOR
REDUCED OR Ern..ARGED Pl.ANS
11 OF
Chapter 3: Determination
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 3-1
CHAPTER 3 DETERMINATION

3.1 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
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 and Forestry
Resources
☐ Air Quality
☐ Biological Resources ☐ Cultural Resources ☐ Energy
☐ Geology/Soils ☐ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ☐ Hazards and Hazardous Materials
☐ Hydrology / Water Quality ☐ Land Use/Planning ☐ Mineral Resources ☐ Noise ☐ Population/Housing ☐ Public Services
☐ Recreation ☐ Transportation ☐ Tribal Cultural Resources ☐ Utilities and Service Systems ☐ Wildfire ☐ Mandatory Findings of Significance
The analyses of environmental impacts in Chapter 4 Impact Analysis result in an impact statement, which shall have the following meanings.

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 with 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 proposed 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).

Chapter 3: Determination
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 3-2

3.2 DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation (to be completed by the Lead Agency):
☐ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
☒ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ☐ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
☐ I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 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. _______________________________________ Click or tap to enter a date.

Signature Date
_______________________________________
Printed Name/Position
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 4-3
CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

ANALYSIS

4.1 AESTHETICS
Table 4-1: Aesthetics Impacts
Except as provided in Public Resources
Code Section 21099, would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Have 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, substantially
degrade the existing visual character or
quality of public views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are those that
are experienced from publicly accessible
vantage point). If the project is in an
urbanized area, would the project conflict
with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

4.1.1 Baseline Conditions
The Project is located in the city of Lindsay (City) in Tulare County. Tulare County is located within the southern San Joaquin Valley, which is known for its large expanse of farmland and agricultural operations.

Most cities and communities within the San Joaquin Valley are fully surrounded by open space and farmland. The site itself is located at the western end of the City and contains a stormwater basin and the existing Well 11. The surrounding area consists of single-family residences, commercial development, and open space. The topography of the Project region is virtually flat with little to no relief, barring any potential scenic vistas.

The Project site is not located near California State Scenic Highway. According to the California State Scenic Highway System, the closest eligible and officially designated scenic highway is State Route (SR) 198, located approximately 8.2 miles north of the site.
2 There are no known historic buildings in the vicinity of the Project. To the east lies the Sierra Nevada mountains, which can be seen on a clear day from the Project site. The Sierra Nevada mountains tend to have scenic qualities; however, views are often obstructed due 2 (California Department of Transportation 2023)
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 4-4
to smog caused by the inversion layer found in the San Joaquin Valley. According to the Tulare County General Plan, the Project site, nor the Project vicinity, contain any designated scenic vistas.3

4.1.2 Impact Analysis
a) Have substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
No Impact. As mentioned, there are no designated scenic vistas at or near the Project site. Furthermore, despite the existing stormwater basin, the Project region is generally flat and nowhere on the site provides characteristics of a potential scenic vista. Therefore, there would be no impact. No mitigation measures are required.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
No Impact. The Project is not located within or visible from a designated state scenic highway.

Furthermore, the Project would not remove any trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings. Therefore, there would be no impact. No mitigation measures 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 other regulations governing scenic quality?
Less than Significant Impact. The city of Lindsay is not considered an urbanized area. Implementation of the Project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings. The Project proposes to construct perchlorate and nitrate treatment facilities and ancillary equipment to return Well 11 back into service. Proposed facilities would be located on the existing Well 11 site and therefore would not significantly deviate from the existing visual character of the site. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required. 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. The Project site is surrounded by residential, commercial, and open space uses. Minor lighting would be proposed for the operation of the Project. In accordance with the City’s General Plan Light and Glare standards, proposed lighting would be hooded and directed downwards in order to reduce glare or light spillage on neighboring properties.4 All proposed Project materials for the water treatment equipment would be constructed in a manner that would reduce any potential glaring effects. Therefore, the Project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.
3 (Tulare County 2030 General Plan Update 2010)
4 (Grunwald & Associates 1989)
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 4-5

4.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
Table 4-2: Agriculture and Forest Impacts
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

4.2.1 Baseline Conditions
The Project is located in California’s Central San Joaquin Valley in Tulare County. Tulare County is known for its agricultural production as it was the number one agriculture producing county in the United States for 2020.5In 2022, Tulare County’s agriculture production grossed 8.6 billion dollars, an increase in 6.5% from the previous year.6 While the Project is located within the developed portion of the City, the lands to the west are primarily agricultural lands.

Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program: The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) produces maps and statistical data used for analyzing impacts to California’s agricultural resources.

Agricultural land is rated according to soil quality and irrigation status; the best quality land is called Prime Farmland. The maps are updated with the use of a computer mapping system, aerial imagery, public review, and field reconnaissance. The California Department of Conservation’s 2020 FMMP is a non-regulatory program that produces “Important Farmland” maps and statistical data used for analyzing impacts on California’s agricultural resources. The Important Farmland maps identify eight land use categories, five of 5 (University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources 2022) 6 (Tulare County Agricultural Commissioner/Sealer 2022) Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 4-6
which are agriculture related: prime farmland, farmland of statewide importance, unique farmland, farmland of local importance, and grazing land — rated according to soil quality and irrigation status. Each is summarized of the following categories found in the surrounding area are described below:
• Prime Farmland: Farmland with the best combination of physical and chemical features able to sustain long term agricultural production. This land has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high yields. Land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date. • Farmland of Statewide Importance: Farmland similar to Prime Farmland but with minor shortcomings, such as greater slopes or less ability to store soil moisture. Land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.
• Farmland of Local Importance: Land of importance to the local agricultural economy as determined by each county’s board of supervisors and a local advisory committee. • Urban and Built-Up Land: Land occupied by structures with a building density of at least 1 unit to

1.5 acres, or approximately 6 structures to a 10-acre parcel. This land is used for residential, industrial, commercial, institutional, public administrative purposes, railroad and other transportation yards, cemeteries, airports, golf courses, sanitary landfills, sewage treatment, water control structures, and other developed purposes.

As demonstrated in Figure 4-1, the FMMP for the Project sites are designated as Urban and Built-Up Land.7

4.2.2 Impact Analysis
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
No Impact. The Project site is designated as “Urban and Built-up Land,” and would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (see Figure 4-1). Therefore, there would be no impact. No mitigation measures are required. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. The Project site is not zoned for agricultural uses, nor is it subject to a Williamson Act Land Use contract. The Project would have not convert any farmland to a non-agricultural use. Therefore. there would be no impact. No mitigation measures are required.

7 (California Department of Conservation 2023)
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 4-7
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? No Impact. The Project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. The City has not designated any area of the Project site or surrounding lands as Forest Land, Timberland, or timberland zoned for Timberland Production.8Therefore, there would be no impact. No mitigation measures are required. d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. The Project is not located in or near any forest land. Therefore, the Project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. There would be no impact. No mitigation measures are required.
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. The Project would not involve changes in the existing environment that would result in the conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural use or the conversion of forest land to a non-forest use. As mentioned, the Project site is not designated or used for farming activities. In addition, no land acquisition would be required for the completion of the Project. Therefore, there would be no impact. No mitigation measures are required.
8 (City of Lindsay 2021)
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 4-8
Figure 4-1: Farmland Designations Map
L -
Wil liamson Act
Farmland Designation
Prime Farmland
Farmland of Statewide Importance
- Farmland of Local Importance
- Urban and Built-Up Land
250 500 Farmland Map
Feet Self Help Enterprises - Li ndsay Well 11 Treatment 11/9/2024 \\ppena.com\p,!datii\c•cnb\Stll Help En1e,p, 1sc-'°'187~\187'523007-llndsa,,, Wcll ll rrntme~t\~OOGIS\Map\SHE l.ind~y Well 11 Tru tmenl Mapp<llfl\S,HE t.induv Wd 11 Treatment Mapp,r,g.apo,

PROVOST&

PRITCHARD
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 4-9

4.3 AIR QUALITY
Table 4-3: Air Quality Impacts
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
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 non-attainment under
an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

4.3.1 Baseline Conditions
The Project site is located within the boundaries of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) and the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB). The SJVAB is positioned within the San Joaquin Valley of California. The San Joaquin Valley is bounded by the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range to the east and the Coastal Mountain Range to the west. Wind within the SJVAB typically channels south-southwest during the summer months, while wind flows to the north-northwest during the winter months. Wind velocity for the region is considered low for an area of such size.9 Due to a lack of strong wind and the natural confinement of the mountain ranges surrounding the SJVAB, the region experiences some of the worst air quality in the world.

Regulatory Attainment Designations
Under the California Clean Air Act (CCAA), the California Air Resources Board (CARB) is required to designate areas of the State as attainment, nonattainment, or unclassified with respect to applicable standards. An “attainment” designation for an area signifies that pollutant concentrations did not violate the applicable standard in that area. A “nonattainment” designation indicates that a pollutant concentration violated the applicable standard at least once, excluding those occasions when a violation was caused by an exceptional event, as defined in the criteria. Depending on the frequency and severity of pollutants exceeding applicable standards, the nonattainment designation can be further classified as serious nonattainment, severe nonattainment, or extreme nonattainment, with extreme nonattainment being the most severe of the classifications. An “unclassified” designation signifies that the data does not support either an attainment or nonattainment designation. The CCAA divides districts into moderate, serious, and severe air pollution categories, with increasingly stringent control requirements mandated for each category.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) designates areas for ozone, CO, and NO2 as “does not meet the primary standards,” “cannot be classified,” or “better than national standards.” For 9 (San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 2012) Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 4-10
SO2, areas are designated as “does not meet the primary standards,” “does not meet the secondary standards,” “cannot be classified,” or “better than national standards.” However, the CARB terminology of attainment, nonattainment, and unclassified is more frequently used. The USEPA uses the same subcategories for nonattainment status: serious, severe, and extreme. In 1991, USEPA assigned new nonattainment designations to areas that had previously been classified as Group I, II, or III for PM10 based on the likelihood that they would violate national PM10 standards. All other areas are designated “unclassified.”
According to the USEPA Tulare County was not in non-attainment for two pollutant concentrations, with PM-2.5 (2012) being classified as in serious non-attainment, and 8-hour Ozone (2015) classified as being in extreme non-attainment as of October 27th, 2023.10
10 (United States Environmental Protection Agency 2023) Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 4-11
Table 4-4: Summary of Ambient Air Quality Standards and Attainment Designation Pollutant
Averaging
Time
California Standards* National Standards*
Concentration*
Attainment
Status
Primary
Attainment
Status
Ozone
(O3)
1-hour 0.09 ppm Nonattainment/
Severe
– No Federal
Standard
8-hour 0.070 ppm Nonattainment 0.075 ppm Nonattainment
(Extreme)**
Particulate
Matter
(PM10)
AAM 20 μg/m3 Nonattainment – Attainment
24-hour 50 μg/m3 150 μg/m3
Fine Particulate
Matter (PM2.5)
AAM 12 μg/m3 Nonattainment 12 μg/m3 Nonattainment
24-hour No Standard 35 μg/m3
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
1-hour 20 ppm Attainment/
Unclassified
35 ppm Attainment/
8-hour 9 ppm 9 ppm Unclassified
8-hour
(Lake Tahoe)
6 ppm –
Nitrogen
Dioxide
(NO2)
AAM 0.030 ppm Attainment 53 ppb Attainment/
1-hour 0.18 ppm 100 ppb Unclassified
Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2)
AAM – Attainment -- Attainment/
24-hour 0.04 ppm -- Unclassified
3-hour – 0.5 ppm
1-hour 0.25 ppm 75 ppb
Lead (Pb) 30-day Average 1.5 μg/m3 Attainment – No
Designation/
Classification
Calendar Quarter –
--
Rolling 3-Month
Average
– 0.15 μg/m3
Sulfates (SO4) 24-hour 25 μg/m3 Attainment No Federal Standards Hydrogen
Sulfide (H2S)
1-hour 0.03 ppm
(42 μg/m3)
Unclassified
Vinyl Chloride
(C2H3Cl)
24-hour 0.01 ppm
(26 μg/m3)
Attainment
VisibilityReducing
Particle Matter
8-hour Extinction coefficient:

0.23/km-visibility of
10 miles or more due
to particles when the
relative humidity is
less than 70%.

Unclassified
* For more information on standards visit: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf ** No Federal 1-hour standard. Reclassified extreme nonattainment for the Federal 8-hour standard 10/27/23. ***Secondary Standard
**** μg/m3: micrograms per cubic meter
Source: (California Air Resources Board 2017) ; (San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 2024) Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 4-12
Construction-Generated Emissions
Construction of the Project is assumed to be completed over approximately six (6) months. Emissions associated with the Project were calculated using California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Air Quality Model, Version 2022.1.1.20. The emissions modeling includes emissions generated by off-road equipment, haul trucks, and worker commute trips. Emissions were quantified based on anticipated construction schedules and the default parameters contained in the model. Localized air quality impacts associated with the Project would be minor and were qualitatively assessed. Modeling assumptions and output files are included in Appendix A.

Thresholds of Significance
Air pollutant emissions have regional effects and localized effects. This analysis assesses the regional effects of the Project’s criteria pollutant emissions in comparison to SJVAPCD thresholds of significance for shortterm construction activities and long-term operation of the Project. Localized emissions from Project construction and operation are also assessed using concentration-based thresholds that determine if the Project would result in a localized exceedance of any ambient air quality standards or would make a cumulatively considerable contribution to an existing exceedance.

The primary pollutants of concern during Project construction and operation are ROG (reactive organic gases), NOX, PM10, and PM2.5. The SJVAPCD Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI) adopted in 2015 contains thresholds for ROG and Nitrogen Oxides (NOX); Sulfur Oxides (SOX), CO, PM10, and PM2.5.

Ozone is a secondary pollutant that can be formed miles away from the source of emissions through reactions of ROG and NOX emissions in the presence of sunlight. Therefore, ROG and NOx are termed ozone precursors. The SJVAB often exceeds the state and national ozone standards. Therefore, if the Project emits a substantial quantity of ozone precursors, the Project may contribute to an exceedance of the ozone standard. The SJVAB also exceeds air quality standards for PM10, and PM2.5; therefore, substantial Project emissions may contribute to an exceedance for these pollutants.

The SJVAPCD adopted significance thresholds for construction-related and operational ROG, NOX, PM, CO, and SOX, these thresholds are included in Table 4-5.

Table 4-5: Project-Level Air Quality CEQA Thresholds of Significance Pollutant
Significance Threshold
Construction Emissions (tons/year) Operational Emissions (tons/year) CO 100 100
NOx 10 10
ROG 10 10
SOx 27 27
PM10 15 15
PM2.5 15 15
Source: SJVAPCD. 2015. Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. Website:
https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI-2015/FINAL-DRAFT-GAMAQI.PDF. Accessed May 20, 2024.

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 4-13

4.3.2 Impact Analysis
Short-Term Construction-Generated Emissions
Estimated construction-generated emissions are summarized in Table 4-6. Due to the passive nature of the Project, long-term operational emissions would be negligible and would not exceed any set threshold governing air quality emission generation within the SJVAPCD.

Table 4-6: Unmitigated Short-Term Construction Generated Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants Source
Annual Emissions (Tons per Year)
ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Maximum Annual Project
Construction Emissions

0.143 1.225 1.368 0.003 0.071 0.054
SJVAPCD Threshold 10 10 100 27 15 15
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Maximum Daily Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants
Daily construction emissions generated by the Project are summarized in Table 4-7.

Table 4-7: Maximum Daily Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants Source
Daily Emissions Maximum (in pounds)
ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Construction – Summer 1.241 10.60 11.88 0.023 0.407 0.373 Construction – Winter 1.558 14.10 14.89 0.025 7.780 4.029 SJVAPCD Threshold 100 100 100 100 100 100
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less than Significant Impact. The Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of any applicable air quality plan. The proposed Project would not exceed any threshold for air quality emissions that has been set by the SJVAPCD. Therefore, there would be a less than significant impact. No mitigation measures are required.
b) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is in non-attainment. As shown in Table 4-6 and Table 4-7, the Project would not exceed an emissions threshold which has been set by the SJVAPCD for construction related emissions. Due to the nature of the proposed Project, long-term operational emissions would be negligible and would not exceed any set threshold governing air quality emission generation within the SJVAPCD. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.
c) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than Significant Impact. As discussed above, the proposed Project would not result in significant long-term operational emissions. Constructed related emissions, shown in Table 4-6 and Table 4-7, would Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 4-14
be temporary in nature and would cease upon Project construction. Short-term construction activities, however, could result in temporary increases in pollutant concentrations that could impact nearby sensitive receptors. Sensitive Receptors are groups that would be more affected by air, noise, and light pollution, pesticides, and other toxic chemicals than others. This includes infants, children under 16, elderly over 65, athletes, and people with cardiovascular and respiratory diseases. High concentrations of these groups would include daycares, residential areas, hospitals, elder care facilities, schools, and parks.

While the proposed Project would result in construction in proximity to potential sensitive receptors, in the form of surrounding single family residences (as close as 80 feet) and a nearby school (0.17 miles), the construction activities lack the potential to cause a significant health risk to sensitive receptors in the area due to the Project’s size and nature. Health risks would result in a cancer risk of 7.12 in a million, which is below the threshold of 20 in a million. The Chronic Hazard Index of the nearest receptor is

0.014872, where the threshold is 1. Diesel particulate matter is not known to cause acute health impacts.

The majority of emissions generated by the Project would be as a result of constructing a concrete base for the treatment equipment to be located on, in addition to the evaporation pond. Operational emissions would consist of delivery vehicles, whose emissions would be spread out amongst the City and the region. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required. d) Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less than Significant Impact. During construction activities, construction equipment exhaust and other construction applications would temporarily emit odors. Construction would be completed within the City and would have an effect on some residences that are located near the construction area of the Project. To reduce impacts, the Project would implement BMPs such as refueling construction equipment in one location furthest from sensitive receptors, preventing wash water from entering storm drains (implemented by the SWPPP), and general site planning. Furthermore, construction of the Project would be temporary, and odors would not remain after Project completion. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 4-15

4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Table 4-8: Biological Resources Impacts
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
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
Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
☐ ☐ ☐
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
☐ ☐ ☐
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but
not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal,
etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means?
☐ ☐ ☐
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
☐ ☐ ☐
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a
tree preservation policy or ordinance?
☐ ☐ ☐
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
☐ ☐ ☐

4.4.1 Baseline Conditions
General
The Project is located in the city of Lindsay within the eastern San Joaquin Valley. The Project site includes dirt access roads, a stormwater basin, and sparsely vegetated and cultivated land, and is surrounded by developed and vacant residential and commercial lots, a school, and paved roads. The topography of the site is relatively flat with an elevation of approximately 372 feet above mean sea level.

Like most of California, the Project site experiences a Mediterranean climate. Warm, dry summers are followed by cool, moist winters. In the summer, average high temperatures range between 84- and 97- Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 4-16
degrees Fahrenheit (°F), but often exceed 100 °F, and the humidity is generally low. Winter temperatures are often below 65 °F during the day and rarely exceed 70 °F. On average, the city of Lindsay receives approximately 12 inches of precipitation in the form of rain yearly, most of which occurs between October and April, and the Project site would be expected to receive similar amounts of precipitation.11 Soils
Two soil mapping units representing two soil types were identified within the Project site and are listed in Table 4-9 (see Appendix D of Appendix B for the Web Soil Survey Report). The soils are displayed with their core properties according to the Major Land Resource Area of California. Both soils are primarily used for irrigated cropland, fruit crops, dryland grain, and pasture.

Table 4-9. List of Soils Located on the Project Site and Their Basic Properties Soil Soil Map Unit Percent of
Project Site
Hydric Soil
Category Drainage Permeability Runoff
Exeter Loam, 0 to 2
percent slopes 78.5% Predominantly Nonhydric
Well
drained
Moderately
slow
Negligible to
medium
Greenfield Sandy loam, 0 to
2 percent slopes 21.5% Nonhydric Well drained
Moderately
rapid
Slow to
medium
Hydric soils are defined as soils that are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions such that under sufficiently wet conditions, hydrophytic vegetation can be supported. Exeter loam, 0-2 percent slopes, has a predominantly nonhydric rating, which means that no major component listed for this map unit is rated as hydric, and at least one contrasting minor component is rated hydric. Greenfield sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes has a nonhydric rating, which means no major or minor components for this map unit are rated hydric.

Biotic Habitats
Two biotic habitats, stormwater basin and ruderal, were observed within the Project site (see Figure 4-2).

These habitats and their constituent plant and animal species are described in more detail in the following sections.
11 (Weatherspark 2023)
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 4-17
Figure 4-2: Habitats Map
r - , Lindsay City Limit I, - .,
Habitat
Pond Basin
Ruderal
~ o---2sco====::::isoo ~ Feet
Habitats Map
Self Help Enterprises- Lindsay Well 11 Treatment Fig. XPogeX Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 4-18
Stormwater Basin
The Project site was mostly dominated by stormwater basin habitat in the form of an existing stormwater basin; however, the Project components would not be constructed within this habitat. The stormwater basin was nearly empty of water during the time of the field survey. There was stagnant standing water towards the southeast end of the basin near a culvert that was up to 36 inches deep. The margins of the stormwater basin habitat were dominated by vegetation such as bur clover (Medicago polymorpha), castor bean (Ricinus communis), curly dock (Rumex crispus), honey locust (Gleditsia triacanthos), Johnson grass (Sorghum halepene), mouse-ear cress (Arabidopsis thaliana), and mule fat (Baccharis salicifolia).

No aquatic or semi-aquatic bird species were observed although there was visual evidence of bird tracks and feces embedded on the soil surface. Numerous aquatic or semi-aquatic bird species would be expected to use the stormwater basin habitat, especially when it is more inundated. Species that may use this habitat include killdeer (Charadrius vociferus), mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), Canada goose (Branta canadensis), American coot (Fulica americana), and other common species in the area.

Unidentified fish carcasses were observed towards the lowest point of the pond and adjacent to the stagnant water. While no evidence of live amphibians, fish, or reptiles was observed in the stormwater basin habitat during the field survey, common species would be expected to use this habitat including western toad (Anaxyrus boreas), Pacific tree frog (Pseudacris regilla), western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis), and fish potentially released for fishing. Mammals that are expected to use this habitat for drinking water or while the habitat is dry include raccoon (Procyon lotor), California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi), Botta's pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae), feral cats (Felis catus), and domestic dogs (Canis lupus familiaris).

Ruderal
The remainder of the Project site, which is where the Project components are proposed, consisted of ruderal habitat influenced by anthropogenic activities, which included dirt access roads and disced soils.

These areas of the Project site contained minimal to moderate vegetation due to vehicle and heavy equipment disturbance. Where vegetation was present, it consisted of invasive grasses, Bermuda grass (Cynodont dactylon), cheeseweed mallow (Malva pariflora), common fig (Fiscus carica), sowthistle (Sonchus oleraceus), bromegrass (Bromus diandrus), dove weed (Croton setigerus), flatspine bur ragweed (Ambrosia acanthicarpa), red stemmed filaree (Erodium cicutarium), Mexican fan palm (Washingtonia robusta), peach (Prunus persica), Callery pear (Pyrus calleryana), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), puncture vine (Tribulus terrestris), sacred datura (Datura wrightii), silverleaf nightshade (Solanum elaeagnifolium), elm (Ulmus sp.), sugar bush (Rhus ovata), telegraphweed (Heterotheca grandiflora), and white horehound (Marrubium vulgare).

Numerous bird species were observed within the ruderal habitat of the Project site, and included species such as American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), house finch (Haemorhous meixcanus), house sparrow (Passer domestius), killdeer, lesser goldfinch (Spinus Psaltria), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), ruby-crowned kinglet (Corthylio calendula), song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), and white crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys).

Other signs or species observed in this habitat include California ground squirrels and their burrows, gopher mounds, and a deceased frog with an advanced state of decomposition. Reptiles that would be expected to occur within the ruderal habitat of the Project site include Pacific gopher snake (Pituophis catenifer catenifer), western fence lizard, common side-blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana), and other reptiles common to the area. Other mammals that have the potential to occur in this habitat include deer mouse Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 4-19
(Peromyscus maniculatus), coyote (Canis latrans), raccoon, striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), and Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana).

Natural Communities of Special Concern and Riparian Habitat Natural communities of special concern are those that are of limited distribution, distinguished by significant biological diversity, or home to special status species. The California Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW) has classified and mapped all-natural communities in California. Just as the special status plant and animal species (see Table 4-10 and Table 4-11), these natural communities of special concern can be found within the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). There are no recorded observations of natural communities of special concern mapped within the Project site. Additionally, no natural communities of special concern were observed during the field survey.

Riparian habitat is composed of plant communities that occur along the banks, and sometimes over the banks, of most waterways and is an important habitat for numerous wildlife species. CDFW has jurisdiction over most riparian habitat in California. No natural waterways or riparian habitat were observed within or adjacent to the Project site.

Designated Critical Habitat
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) often designates areas of “critical habitat” when it lists species as threatened or endangered. Critical habitat is a specific geographic area that contains features essential for the conservation of a threatened or endangered species, which may require special management and protection. According to the USFWS’ Information for Planning and Consultation (iPac) system, designated critical habitat is absent from the Project site and vicinity.

Wildlife Movement Corridors and Native Wildlife Nursery Sites Wildlife movement corridors are routes that animals regularly and predictably follow during seasonal migration, dispersal from native ranges, daily travel within home ranges, and inter-population movements.

Movement corridors in California are typically associated with valleys, ridgelines, and rivers and creeks supporting riparian vegetation. The Project site does not have any features or habitats that are likely to be utilized as a wildlife movement corridor.

Native wildlife nursery sites are areas where a species or group of similar species raise their young in a concentrated place, such as maternity bat roosts. While native wildlife may utilize the existing stormwater basin habitat as a wildlife nursery site, Project components would not be constructed within the stormwater basin habitat.

Special Status Plant and Animal
A query of the CNDDB for occurrences of special status plant and animal species was conducted for the Lindsay 7.5-minute U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle that contains the Project site, and for the 8 surrounding USGS quadrangles: Cairns Corner, Chickencoop Canyon, Exeter, Frazier Valley, Porterville, Rocky Hill, Success Dam and Woodville. A query of the IPaC was also completed for the Project site. These species, and their potential to occur within the Project site, are listed in Table 4-10 and Table 4-11 below.

Other special status species that did not show up in the CNDDB query, but have the potential to occur in the vicinity, are also included in Table 4-11. Species lists obtained from CNDDB and IPaC are available in Appendix B and Appendix C, respectively of Appendix B. All relevant sources of information, as discussed in the Study Methodology section of Appendix B, as well as field observations, were used to determine if any special status species have the potential to occur within the Project site.

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 4-20
Table 4-10: List of Special Status Plants with Potential to Occur on the Site and/or in the Vicinity.

Species Status* Habitat Occurrence within the Site
Alkali -sink goldfields
(Lasthenia
chrysantha)
California
Native Plant
Society (CNPS)
1B
Found in vernal pool and wet saline
flat habitats in the San Joaquin
Valley region at elevations below
700 feet. Blooms February – April.

Absent. Suitable habitats required by
this species were absent within the
project site and surrounding areas.

Calico monkeyflower
(Diplacus pictus)
CNPS 1B Found in the Sierra Nevada foothills
and the Tehachapi mountains in
bare, sunny, shrubby areas, around
granite outcrops within foothill
woodland communities. Found at
elevations between 450 and 4,100
feet. Blooms March – May.

Absent. Suitable habitats required by
this species were absent within the
project site and surrounding areas and
the project site is outside of the known
range for this species.

California alkali grass
(Puccinellia simplex)
CNPS 1B Found in the San Joaquin Valley and
other parts of California in saline
flats and mineral springs within
valley grassland and wetlandriparian communities. Found at elevations below 3,000 feet. Blooms
March – May.

Absent. Suitable habitats required by
this species were absent within the
project site and surrounding areas.

Chaparral ragwort
(Senecio aphanactis)
CNPS 2B Found in chaparral, cismontane
woodland, and coastal scrub,
typically within drying alkaline flats
at elevations between 50 and 2,800
feet. Blooms February – May.

Absent. Suitable habitats required by
this species were absent within the
project site and surrounding areas.

Earlimart orache
(Atriplex cordulata
var. erecticaulis)
CNPS 1B Found in the San Joaquin Valley in
saline and alkaline soils, typically
within valley grasslands at
elevations below 400 feet. Blooms
August – September.

Absent. Suitable habitat and required
soils were absent from the project site.

Kaweah brodiaea
(Brodiaea insignis)
CE, CNPS 1B Found in the Sierra Nevada foothills
in foothill woodland and valley
grassland communities at elevations
between 650 and 1,700 feet.

Blooms May – June.

Absent. Suitable habitats required by
this species were absent within the
project site and surrounding areas.

Keck’s checkerbloom
(Sidalcea keckii)
FE, CNPS 1B Occurs in cismontane woodland,
valley, and foothill grassland
communities, typically on grassy
slopes in clay soils at elevations
between 250 and 1,700 feet.

Blooms April – May.

Absent. Suitable habitats required by
this species were absent within the
project site and surrounding areas.

Lesser saltscale
(Atriplex minuscula)
CNPS 1B Found in the San Joaquin Valley in
sandy, alkaline soils in alkali scrub,
valley and foothill grassland, and
alkali sink communities at
elevations below 750 feet. Blooms
April – October.

Absent. Required habitat and alkaline
soils were absent within the project site
and surrounding areas.

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 4-21
Species Status* Habitat Occurrence within the Site
Lassics lupine
(Lupinus constancei)

FE, CE,
CNPS 1B
Occurs in lower montane coniferous
forests. Often on serpentine
barrens at elevations between
5,530 and 5,700 feet. Blooms in
July.

Absent. Suitable habitats required by
this species were absent within the
project site and the site is outside of
the elevational range for this species.

Madera leptosiphon
(Leptosiphon
serrulatus)
CNPS 1B Found within openings of foothill
woodland, often yellow-pine forest,
and chaparral at elevations
between 1,000 and 4,300 feet.

Blooms April – May.

Absent. Suitable habitat was absent
within the project site and surrounding
areas.

Recurved larkspur
(Delphinium
recurvatum)
CNPS 1B Occurs in chenopod scrub,
cismontane woodland, and
grassland habitats on poorly
drained, fine, alkaline soils; often in
valley saltbush or valley chenopod
scrub communities at elevations
between 100 and 2,600 feet.

Blooms March – June.

Absent. Suitable habitat and alkaline
soils were absent within the project site
and surrounding areas.

San Joaquin adobe
sunburst
(Pseudobahia
peirsonii)
FT, CE, CNPS 1B Found in the San Joaquin Valley and
the Sierra Nevada foothills in bare,
dark clay soils in valley and foothill
grassland and cismontane
woodland communities at
elevations between 300 and 3,000
feet. Blooms March – May.

Absent. Suitable habitat and required
dark clay soils were absent withing the
project site and surrounding areas.

San Joaquin
woollythreads
(Monolopia
congdonii)
FE, CNPS 1B Occurs in the San Joaquin Valley in
sandy soils on alkaline or loamy
plains in valley and foothill
grassland and alkali scrub
communities at elevations between
150 and 2,800 feet. Blooms
February – May.

Absent. Suitable habitat was absent
within the project site and surrounding
areas.

Shining navarretia
(Navarretia
nigelliformis ssp.

Radians)
CNPS 1B Found in cismontane woodland and
valley and foothill grassland
communities, sometimes in vernal
pools. Occurs at elevations between
200 and 3,200 feet. Blooms May –
July.

Absent. Suitable habitat was absent
within the project site and surrounding
areas.

Spiny-sepaled buttoncelery
(Eryngium
spinosepalum)
CNPS 1B Found in the Sierra Nevada foothills
and the San Joaquin Valley. Occurs
in vernal pools, swales, and
roadside ditches. Often associated
with clay soils in vernal pools within
grassland communities. Occurs at
elevations between 50 and 4,200
feet. Blooms April – July.

Absent. Suitable habitat including
vernal pools were absent within the
project site and surrounding areas.

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 4-22
Species Status* Habitat Occurrence within the Site
Springville clarkia
(Clarkia
springvillensis)
FT, CE, CNPS 1B Endemic to the woodlands and
grasslands of the southern portion
of the Sierra Nevada range,
occurring primarily in the Tule River
watershed. Found at elevations
between 650 and 7,400 feet.

Blooms in May.

Absent. Suitable habitat was absent
within the project site and surrounding
areas.

Striped adobe-lily
(Fritillaria striata)
CT, CNPS 1B Found in the Sierra Nevada foothills
in adobe soil within valley grassland
and foothill woodland communities
at elevations below 3,300 feet.

Blooms February – April.

Absent. Suitable habitat and required
soils were absent from the project site
and surrounding areas.

Subtle orache
(Atriplex subtilis)
CNPS 1B Found in the San Joaquin Valley in
saline depressions in alkaline soils
within valley and foothill grassland
communities at elevations below
300 feet. Blooms June – October.

Absent. Suitable habitat and required
soils were absent within the project site
and surrounding areas.

Table 4-11: List of Special Status Animals with Potential to Occur on the Site and/or in the Vicinity Species Status* Habitat Occurrence within the Site
American badger
(Taxidea taxus)
CSSC Occurs most abundantly in drier
open stages of shrub, forest, and
herbaceous habitats with friable
soils to burrow, but can be found
within numerous habitats
throughout California, including the
margins of agricultural lands. Needs
a sufficient prey base of burrowing
rodents.

Unlikely. Suitable habitat was absent
from the project site. The site is
frequently disturbed which would deter
this species. The nearest recorded
observation of this species within the
vicinity was approximately 9.9 miles
northwest of the project site in 1994.

California condor
(Gymnogyps
californianus)
FE, CE, CFP Typically nests in cavities in canyon
or cliff faces but has also been
recorded nesting in giant sequoias
in Tulare County. Requires vast
expanse of open savannah,
grassland, and/or foothill chaparral
in mountain ranges of moderate
altitude. Forages for carrion up to
100 miles from their roost/nest
sites.

Unlikely. Nesting habitat was absent
from the project site. The project site
may provide some foraging
opportunities, but the adjacent
residences and roads and human
activity would deter this species from
foraging on the site.

California tiger
salamander – central
California DPS
(Ambystoma
californiense)
FT, CT Requires vernal pools or seasonal
ponds for breeding and small
mammal burrows for aestivation.

Generally found in grassland and
oak savannah plant communities in
central California from sea level to
1,500 feet in elevation. Can migrate
up to 1.3 miles to breed.

Absent. Suitable habitat was absent
from the project site and there were no
nearby occurrences in the surrounding
areas. The stormwater basin contained
evidence of fish that would deter this
species from using it for breeding and
the ruderal habitat is frequently
disturbed.

Crotch’s bumble bee
(Bombus crotchii)
CCE Occurs throughout coastal
California, as well as east to the
Sierra Nevada-Cascade crest, and
Unlikely. Suitable foraging habitat was
absent from the project site due to
frequent discing. This species could fly
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 4-23
Species Status* Habitat Occurrence within the Site
south into Mexico. Food plant
genera include Antirrhinum,
Phacelia, Clarkia, Dendromecon,
Eschscholzia, and Eriogonum.
through the site but would be expected
to fly away during construction. The
nearest CNDDB recorded observation
was approximately 2 miles northeast of
the project site in 1956.

Foothill yellow-legged
frog – south Sierra
DPS (Rana boylii pop.
5)
FC, CE Frequents rocky streams and rivers
with rocky substrate and open,
sunny banks in forests, chaparral,
and woodlands. Occasionally found
in isolated pools, vegetated
backwaters, and deep, shaded,
spring-fed pools.

Absent. Suitable habitat was absent
from the project site.

Winter roost sites extend along the
Pacific coast from northern
Mendocino to Baja California,
Mexico.

Unlikely. Suitable foraging and roosting
habitat was absent from the project site
due to frequent discing. This species
could fly through the site but would be
expected to fly away during
construction. There are no recorded
observations of this species on CNDDB
within the regional vicinity of the
project.

Northern California
legless lizard
(Anniella pulchra)
CSSC Found primarily underground,
burrowing in loose, sandy soil.

Forages in loose soil and leaf litter
during the day.

Unlikely. Suitable habitat and required
soils were absent from the project site.

The nearest CNDDB recorded
observation was approximately five
miles north of the project site in 2021.

Northwestern pond
turtle
(Actinemys
marmorata)
FPT, CSSC An aquatic turtle of ponds, marshes,
slow-moving rivers, streams, and
irrigation ditches with riparian
vegetation. Requires adequate
basking sites and sandy banks or
grassy open fields to deposit eggs.

Unlikely. The stormwater basin habitat
lacks suitable vegetation and cover for
this species to bask and hide from
predators. The surrounding upland
areas are frequently disturbed including
discing, which would keep this species
from nesting. The nearest CNDDB
recorded observation was
approximately 9.8 miles northeast of
the project site at an unknown date
prior to 1988.

Pallid bat
(Antrozous pallidus)
CSSC Roosts in rocky outcrops, cliffs, and
crevices with access to open
habitats for foraging. May also roost
in caves, mines, hollow trees, and
buildings. Forages over open shrubsteppe grasslands, oak savannah grasslands, open Ponderosa pine
forests, talus slopes, gravel roads,
lava flows, fruit orchards, and
vineyards
Unlikely. The project site lacked
suitable roosting habitat for this
species. This species could fly over or
forage within the project site but would
not be expected to occur during
construction. The nearest CNDDB
recorded observation was
approximately 12 miles northwest of
the project site in 2004.

San Joaquin kit fox
(Vulpes macrotis
mutica)
FE, CT Opportunistically forages in a
variety of habitats. Dens in burrows
within alkali sink, valley grassland,
and woodland habitats in valleys
and adjacent foothills and in
human-made structures in cities,
rangeland, and agricultural areas.

Unlikely. Suitable habitat for this
species is absent due to frequent
disturbances and lack of prey. While the
site contained California ground
squirrels at the time of the survey,
there were also bait stations present to
eliminate them from the site. The
nearest recorded observation was
approximately 2 miles northwest of the
project site in 2001.

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 4-24
Species Status* Habitat Occurrence within the Site
Swainson’s hawk
(Buteo swainsoni)
CT Nests in large trees in open areas
adjacent to grasslands, grain or
alfalfa fields, or livestock pastures
suitable for supporting rodent
populations.

Possible. While suitable nesting trees
for this species were absent within the
project site there are trees large
enough to nest in the surrounding
areas. This species could also forage
over the site. The nearest recorded
observation of this species occurred
approximately 3.8 miles west of the
project site in 2017.

Unlikely. The project site lacked
suitable habitat and soft soils for this
species to burrow. The nearest
recorded observation was
approximately 7.4 miles southwest of
the project site in 1943.

Townsend’s big-eared
bat (Corynorhinus
townsendii)
CSSC Primarily a cave dwelling bat, but
may also roost in tunnels, buildings,
other human-made structures, and
hollow trees. Occurs in a variety of
habitats and forage associations
include edge habitats along streams
and areas adjacent to and within a
variety of wooded habitats.

Unlikely. The project site lacked
suitable roosting habitat for this
species. This species could fly over or
forage within the project site but would
not be expected to occur during
construction. The nearest CNDDB
recorded observation was
approximately 15 miles southeast of
the project site in 1941.

Tricolored blackbird
(Agelaius tricolor)
CT, CSSC Nests colonially near fresh water in
dense cattails or tules, or in thickets
of riparian shrubs. Forages in
grassland and cropland. Large
colonies are often found foraging in
dairy farm feed fields.

Unlikely. The project site lacked
suitable nesting habitat. This species
could forage on or fly over the site but
would be expected to fly away during
construction. The nearest CNDDB
recorded observation was
approximately 6.8 miles northeast of
the project site in 2014.

Valley elderberry
longhorn beetle
(Desmocerus
californicus
dimorphus)
FT Lives in mature elderberry shrubs of
the Central Valley and adjacent
foothills from Tehama County south
through Merced and Mariposa
Counties with two scattered
populations in Madera and Fresno
Counties. Adults are active from
March to June.

Absent. Suitable habitat and elderberry
shrubs required by this species were
absent from the site. The project site is
located outside of the known range for
this species.

Vernal pool fairy
shrimp
(Branchinecta lynchi)
FT Occupies vernal and seasonal pools,
with clear to tea-colored water, in
grass or mud-bottomed swales, and
basalt depression pools.

Absent. Suitable vernal pool habitat
was absent from the project site.

Western mastiff bat
(Eumops perotis
californicus)
CSSC Found in open, arid to semi-arid
habitats, including dry desert
washes, flood plains, chaparral, oak
woodland, open ponderosa pine
forest, grassland, and agricultural
areas, where it feeds on insects in
flight. Roosts most commonly in
crevices in cliff faces but may also
use high buildings and tunnels.

Unlikely. The project site lacked
suitable roosting habitat for this
species. This species could fly over or
forage within the project site but would
not be expected to occur during
construction. The nearest recorded
observation was approximately 8.4
miles north of the project site in 1994.

Western spadefoot
(Spea hammondii)
CSSC The majority of the time this species
is terrestrial and occurs in small
mammal burrows and soil cracks,
sometimes in the bottom of dried
Unlikely. Although the project site
contains marginally suitable habitat for
this species such as the stormwater
basin, the odds of this species occurring
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 4-25
Species Status* Habitat Occurrence within the Site
pools. Prefers open areas with
sandy or gravelly soils, in a variety
of habitats including mixed
woodlands, grasslands, coastal sage
scrub, chaparral, sandy washes,
lowlands, river floodplains, alluvial
fans, playas, alkali flats, foothills,
and mountains. Vernal or seasonal
pools, that hold water for a
minimum of three weeks, are
necessary for breeding.
here are low. In addition, the highly
disturbed surrounding areas make it
unlikely that this species would occur
within the project site. The last
recorded observation was
approximately six miles northeast of
the project site in 1991.

Western yellow-billed
cuckoo
(Coccyzus
americanus)
FT, CE Suitable nesting habitat in California
includes dense riparian willowcottonwood and mesquite habitats along a perennial river. Once
common in the California Central
Valley, as well as coastal valleys and
riparian habitats east of the Sierra
Nevada, habitat loss now constrains
the California breeding population
to small numbers of birds.

Absent. Suitable habitat was absent
from the project site.

*EXPLANATION OF OCCURRENCE DESIGNATIONS AND STATUS CODES

Present: Species observed on the project site at time of field surveys or during recent past.

Likely: Species not observed on the project site, but it may reasonably be expected to occur there on a regular basis.

Possible: Species not observed on the project site, but it could occur there from time to time.

Unlikely: Species not observed on the project site, and would not be expected to occur there except, perhaps, as a transient.

Absent: Species not observed on the project site and precluded from occurring there due to absence of suitable habitat.

STATUS CODES
FE Federally Endangered CE California Endangered
FT Federally Threatened CCE California Endangered (Candidate) FC Federal Candidate CT California Threatened
FPT Federally Threatened (Proposed) CFP California Fully Protected CSSC California Species of Special Concern

CNPS LISTING
1B Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere. 2B Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere.

4.4.2 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Of the 18 regionally occurring special status plant species, all are considered absent from or unlikely to occur within the Project site due to past or ongoing disturbance and/or the absence of suitable habitat. Since it is unlikely that these species would occur onsite, implementation of the Project should have no impact on these 18 special status species through construction mortality, disturbance, or loss of habitat. Mitigation measures are not warranted.

Of the 19 regionally occurring special status animal species, 18 are considered absent from or unlikely to occur within the project site due to past or ongoing disturbance and/or the absence of suitable habitat.

These species include: American badger, California condor, California tiger salamander, Crotch’s bumble Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 4-26
bee, foothill yellow-legged frog, monarch butterfly, northern California legless lizard, northwestern pond turtle, pallid bat, San Joaquin kit fox, Tipton kangaroo rat, Townsend’s big-eared bat, tricolored blackbird, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, vernal pool fairy shrimp, western mastiff bat, western spadefoot, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. Since it is unlikely that these species would occur onsite, implementation of the project should have no impact on these 18 special status species through construction mortality, disturbance, or loss of habitat. Mitigation measures are not warranted.

Project-Related Mortality and/or Nest Abandonment of Migratory Birds and Raptors, including Swainson’s Hawk
The Project would result in the construction of a brine pond that would hold water with saturated sodium chloride brine (approximately 25% NaCl) and elevated levels of nitrate and potentially elevated levels of arsenic that could impact migratory birds and raptors, and implementation of the Project has the potential to impact nesting migratory birds and raptors including Swainson’s hawk. The construction of the brine pond could potentially attract aquatic and semi-aquatic birds. While birds generally avoid areas that could harm them, birds that land on or adjacent to this pond could become encrusted with salt and drown or impact their ability to fly. If birds preen their feathers that are covered with toxic brine water or drink toxic brine water from the brine pond, they could become sick or die due to toxicosis. Raptors could forage on birds with toxicosis and could have secondary poisoning. This would be an ongoing potential impact to migratory birds and raptors for the life of the project, or whenever there was toxic brine water or residual toxic brine in the proposed brine pond. In addition, the project site contains suitable nesting habitat for a variety of protected bird species, such as migratory birds and raptors. It is anticipated that during the nesting bird season, protected birds could nest on the ground or in shrubs, trees, or structures within the project site. Protected birds located within or adjacent to the project site during construction have the potential to be injured or killed by project-related activities.

In addition to the direct “take” of protected birds within the project site and adjacent areas, these birds nesting in these areas could be disturbed by project-related activities resulting in nest abandonment.

Projects that adversely affect the nesting success of protected birds or result in the mortality of the migratory birds and raptors would be a violation of State and federal laws and considered a potentially significant impact under CEQA.

While foraging habitat for protected birds including Swainson’s hawk is present on the site, suitable foraging habitat is located adjacent to the site and within the vicinity of the site. Loss of the foraging habitat from implementation of the project is not considered a significant impact.

Implementation of mitigation measures BIO-1 through BIO-4 will reduce potential impacts to protected birds to a less than significant level under CEQA and help comply with State and federal laws protecting these bird species.

Mitigation
BIO-1 Prior to filling the brine pond, deterrents shall be put in place to discourage birds from using the pond. This could include a combination of visual, auditory, and physical deterrents for birds to minimize the potential for protected birds to utilize the brine pond. Examples include deterrents such as noise makers, ribbons, lasers, motiontriggered sprinklers, decoys, and others.

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 4-27
BIO-2 The Project’s construction activities shall occur, if feasible, between September 16 and January 31 (outside of the nesting bird season) to avoid impacts to nesting birds.

BIO-3 If Project construction activities must occur within the nesting bird season (February 1 to August 31), a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey for active nests within seven (7) calendar days prior to the start of construction. The survey shall include a one-time take avoidance survey for Swainson’s hawk and other birds and raptors. The survey shall be completed within the Project site, and up to 100 feet outside of the Project site for nesting migratory birds, up to 500 feet outside of the project site for nesting raptors, and up to 0.5-mile outside of the project site for nesting Swainson’s hawks. Raptor nests shall be considered “active” upon the nest-building stage. The survey shall not be completed between April 21 to June 10 due to the difficulty of identifying Swainson’s hawk nests during this time of year. If no active nests are observed, no further mitigation is required.

BIO-4 If discovery of any active nests or breeding colonies occurs within 50 feet of a work area, a qualified biologist shall determine appropriate avoidance buffer distances based on applicable CDFW and/or USFWS guidelines, the biology of the species, conditions of the nest(s), and the level of project disturbance. If necessary, avoidance buffers shall be identified and shall be maintained until the biologist has determined that the nestlings have fledged.
b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No Impact. Riparian habitat is absent from the Project site and adjacent areas. There are no CNDDBdesignated “natural communities of special concern” recorded within the Project site or surrounding areas. There would be no impact. No mitigation measures are required. c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Less than Significant Impact. Typical wetlands, vernal pools, and other waters were not observed onsite at the time of the field survey. The only aquatic feature onsite is a stagnant, isolated, stormwater basin with no connection to navigable waters or a natural drainage channel with a bed or bank, and therefore it can be reasonably assumed that jurisdictional waters are absent. There are no designated wild and scenic rivers within the Project site; therefore, the Project would not result in direct impacts to wild and scenic rivers. No mitigation measures are required.

Since construction would involve ground disturbance over an area greater than one acre, the Project would also be required to obtain a Construction General Permit under the Construction Storm Water Program administered by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). A prerequisite for this permit is the development of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to ensure construction activities do not adversely affect water quality. Impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 4-28
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
No Impact. The Project site does not contain features that would be likely to function as wildlife movement corridors. The surrounding areas are commercial and residential with paved roads; it is unlikely construction would affect animal dispersion and migration. The Project site contains a stormwater basin that could potentially be used as a native wildlife nursery site by aquatic and semiaquatic species. The basin is not proposed to be impacted by the project. Therefore, the Project would have no impact on wildlife movement corridors or native wildlife nursery sites, and no mitigation measures are required.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
No Impact. The Project appears to be consistent with the goals and policies of the Tulare County General Plan. There are no known Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) or Natural Community Conservation Plans (NCCPs) in the Project vicinity. There would be no impact. No mitigation measures are required. 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. The Project is not located within the boundaries of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Communities Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. There would be no impact. No mitigation measures are required.

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 4-29

4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Table 4-12: Cultural Resources Impacts
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource
pursuant to in § 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 dedicated
cemeteries?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐

4.5.1 Baseline Conditions
Phase 1 Cultural Resources Survey
A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment was prepared for the Project by Taylored Archaeology, dated February 2024 (See Appendix C). As part of the Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment, qualified archaeologists conducted an intensive pedestrian survey of the Project Area of Potential Effect (APE) on January 20, 2024. The APE consisted of a stormwater basin and municipal well within the northern threequarters of the APE, and an empty field in the southwestern quarter of the APE. The natural topography of the area within the APE was previously altered by human development. The surrounding land uses included orchards, empty fields, commercial buildings, an elementary school, and residences. The bottom of the stormwater basin in the center of the APE was inaccessible due to stormwater and muddy conditions. The perimeter of the APE was enclosed within a chain-link fence, and the APE was partitioned between the empty field and the stormwater basin by an additional chain-link fence. The perimeter of the stormwater basin consisted of a dirt access road with annual grasses and scattered vegetation. Well 11 and a storage tank were observed along the northern central boundary of the APE. The survey resulted in one previously unrecorded historic archaeological site. The archaeological site consisted of the remnants of a rural residence which was constructed between 1929 to 1946 and demolished between 1984 to 1990. This resource was evaluated and did not meet Criteria 1 through 4 for listing on the California Register of Historic Resources nor Criteria A through D for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.

Records Search
On January 16, 2024 a cultural resource records search was requested from the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center (SSJVIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) at California State University in Bakersfield, California. The purpose of this request was to identify and review prior cultural resource investigations completed in or near the APE and identify any prehistoric or historical resources that had been previously recorded within the APE and a 0.5-mile radius of the surrounding area.

SSJVIC staff researched historical USGS topographic maps, reports of previous cultural resource investigations, archaeological site and survey base maps, DPR forms as well as listings of the Historic Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 4-30
Properties Directory of the Office of Historic Preservation, General Land Office Maps, Archaeological Resources Directory, and the California Inventory of Historic Resources.

According to the CHRIS results, one prior cultural study report was conducted within the APE, and 11 cultural study reports were conducted within a 0.5-mile radius of the APE. The records search also stated that there are no cultural resources previously recorded within the APE, but two cultural resources (P-54- 004626 and CHL-471) were previously recorded within 0.5-mile radius of the APE.

Native American Outreach
On January 3, 2024, a request was sent to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) as part of this archaeological survey report for a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search. The objective of the SLF search was to identify any known places of spiritual, sacred activity or traditional use or gathering areas are present in or near the APE. The NAHC responded on January 11, 2024, with a letter indicating negative results and included contact information for local Native American tribal representatives who may have knowledge or interest in sharing information about the APE and surrounding area. On January 25, 2024, each Native American representative listed was sent a nongovernmental outreach letter via email or certified mail notifying them of the Project and asking if they had any knowledge of the Project area or surrounding vicinity. Follow-up communication was performed via email or phone call as appropriate.

4.5.2 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to in § 15064.5?
b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
a and b) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. A CHRIS records search, from the SSJVIC, was conducted January 16, 2024. According to the SSJVIC, one previous study (TU-00046) has been conducted within the Project APE, and 11 previous studies were identified within the 0.5 mi. radius.

The SSJVIC results identified no previously recorded cultural resources within the APE, but two were identified within the 0.5 mile radius of the Project APE. The Project will not impact these known cultural resources.

It is unlikely that the Project has the potential to result in significant impacts or adverse effects to cultural or historical resources, such as archaeological remains, artifacts, or historic properties. However, in the improbable event that cultural resources are encountered during Project construction, implementation of mitigation measure CUL-1 outlined below would reduce impacts to less than significant.

Mitigation
CUL-1 In the event that previously unidentified archaeological remains are encountered during development or ground-moving activities in the APE, all work shall be halted until a qualified archaeologist can identify the discovery and assess its significance. In the event of accidental discovery of unidentified archaeological remains during development or ground-moving activities in the APE, all work shall be halted in the immediate vicinity until a qualified archaeologist can identify the discovery and assess its significance. c) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 4-31
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. There is no evidence or record that the Project has the potential to be an unknown burial site, or the site of buried human remains. In the unlikely event of such a discovery, mitigation shall be implemented. With incorporation of mitigation measure CUL-2 outlined below, impacts resulting from the discovery of remains interred on the Project site would be less than significant.

Mitigation
CUL-2 If human remains are uncovered during construction, the Tulare County Coroner shall be notified to investigate the remains and arrange proper treatment and disposition. If the remains are identified on the basis of archaeological context, age, cultural associations, or biological traits to be those of a Native American, California Health and Safety Code 7050.5 and PRC 5097.98 require that the coroner notify the NAHC within 24 hours of discovery. The NAHC will then identify the Most Likely Descendants who will be afforded an opportunity to make recommendations regarding the treatment and disposition of the remains.

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 4-32

4.6 ENERGY
Table 4-13: Energy Impacts
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
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?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

4.6.1 Baseline Conditions
The proposed water treatment Project would be located within the city of Lindsay. This area is served by Southern California Edison for its energy needs and by Southern California Gas Company for natural gas.

4.6.2 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Less than Significant Impact. Fuel consumed by construction equipment would be the primary energy resource expended over the course of Project construction. For heavy-duty construction equipment, horsepower and load factor were assumed using default data from the CalEEMod model. Fuel use associated with construction vehicle trips generated by the Project was also estimated; trips include construction worker trips, haul trucks trips for material transport, and vendor trips for construction material deliveries. Fuel use from these vehicles traveling to the Project was based on (1) the projected number of trips the Project would generate (CalEEMod default values), (2) default average trip distance by land use in CalEEMod, and (3) fuel efficiencies estimated in the ARB 2017 Emissions Factors model (EMFAC2017) mobile source emission model.

Construction is estimated to consume a total of 21,300 gallons of diesel fuel and 80 gallons of gasoline fuel. California Code of Regulations Title 13, Motor Vehicles, Section 2449(d)(2), Idling, limits idling times of construction vehicles to no more than 5 minutes, thereby precluding unnecessary and wasteful consumption of fuel because of unproductive idling of construction equipment. In addition, the energy consumption for construction activities would not be ongoing as they would be limited to the duration of Project construction.

Operational deliveries are anticipated to consume approximately 2,700 gallons of diesel fuel annually.

Energy consumption of non-residential uses is currently governed by the 2022 California Building Code, Part 6 for structures, and Title 20 of the California Code of Regulations for appliances. Energy consumption is anticipated to decrease over time as more energy efficient standards take effect and Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 4-33
energy-consuming equipment reaches its end-of-life and necessitates replacement. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required. b) Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
No Impact. State and local authorities regulate energy use and consumption. These regulations at the State level are intended to reduce energy use and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. These include, among others, Assembly Bill (AB) 1493 – Light-Duty Vehicle Standards; California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 6 – Energy Efficiency Standards; and California Code of Regulations Title 24, Parts 6 and 11 – California Energy Code and Green Building Standards. The Project would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Therefore, there would be no impact. No mitigation measures are required.

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 4-34

4.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Table 4-14: Geology and Soils Impacts
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
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 AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the
area or based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iv. Landslides? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in
on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994) creating substantial direct or indirect
risks to life or property?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative waste
water disposal systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of wastewater?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geological feature?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

4.7.1 Baseline Conditions
Geology and Soils
The Project is located in the city of Lindsay. The Project site is relatively flat, typical of lands found in the Central San Joaquin Valley. The Project site is located in the southern section of California’s Great Valley Geomorphic Province, or Central Valley. The Sacramento Valley makes up the northern third and the San Joaquin Valley makes up the southern two-thirds of the geomorphic province.12 Both valleys are watered by large rivers flowing west from the Sierra Nevada Range, with smaller tributaries flowing east from the 12 (California Department of Conservation 2002)
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 4-35
Coast Ranges. Most of the surface of the Great Valley is covered by Quaternary (present day to 1.6 million years ago) alluvium. The sedimentary formations are steeply upturned along the western margin due to the uplifted Sierra Nevada Range. From the time the Valley first began to form, sediments derived from erosion of igneous and metamorphic rocks and consolidated marine sediments in the surrounding mountains have been transported into the Valley by streams.

Faults and Seismicity
Groundshaking is the primary seismic hazard in Tulare County due to the County’s seismic setting and its record of historical activity. The city of Lindsay is located on the valley floor and the valley portion of Tulare County is located on alluvial deposits, which tend to experience greater groundshaking intensities than areas located on hard rock. This results in greater damage to structures on the valley floor compared to those located in the foothills and the mountain areas of the County.13 The Project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and no known faults cut through the soil at the site. The nearest major fault is the Owens Valley Fault Zone, Olancha section, located approximately 60.7 miles Northeast of the Project site.14 The San Andreas Fault is the dominant active tectonic feature of the Coast Ranges and represents the boundary of the North American and Pacific plates. A smaller fault zone, the Pond Fault is approximately 35.6 miles southwest of the site.
15 Liquefaction
The potential for liquefaction, which is the loss of soil strength due to seismic forces, is dependent on soil types and density, the groundwater table, and the duration and intensity of ground shaking. Although no specific liquefaction hazard areas have been identified in the county, this potential is recognized throughout the San Joaquin Valley where unconsolidated sediments and a high-water table coincide. It is reasonable to assume that due to the depth to groundwater within the southern portion of Tulare County, liquefaction hazards would be negligible. Soil conditions are key factors in selecting locations for direct groundwater recharge projects. Using the United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service soil survey of the Project site, an analysis of the soils was performed. Soils in the area consist of Exeter loam and Greenfield sandy loam all of which are 0–2% slopes and well drained.

Soil Subsidence
There are two types of Subsidence: Land subsidence and hydrocompaction subsidence. Hydrocompaction subsidence occurs when a large land area settles due to over-saturation. These areas are typically composed of open-textured soils that become saturated, high in silt or clay content. Land subsidence occurs when an extensive amount of ground water, oil, or natural gas is withdrawn from below the ground surface. The San Joaquin Valley has become an area that has increasingly experienced subsidence due to excessive groundwater pumping activities lowering the water table. The Project site consists of Exeter loam and Greenfield sandy loam. These soil types have a low to moderate risk of subsidence.

Dam and Levee Failure
There is no inundation zone within 10 miles of the Project site. 16 13 (County of Tulare Resource Management Agency 2015) 14 (California Department of Conservation 2023)
15 Ibid.
16 (California Department of Water Resources 2022)
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 4-36

4.7.2 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

Less than Significant Impact. The nearest major fault is the Owens Valley Fault Zone, Olancha section, located approximately 60.7 miles northeast of the Project site. A smaller fault zone, the Pond Fault is approximately 35.6 miles southwest of the site. The Project does not include habitable residential, agricultural, commercial, or industrial structures. Operation of the Project would require infrequent, routine maintenance visits. Any impact would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
No Impact. The Project site and its vicinity are located in an area traditionally characterized by relatively low seismic activity. The site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone as established by the Alquist-Priolo Fault Zoning Act (Section 2622 of Chapter 7.5, Division 2 of the California Public Resources Code). The Project does not include any activities or components which could feasibly cause strong seismic ground shaking, either directly or indirectly. Therefore, there would be no impact. No mitigation measures are required.
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less than Significant Impact. Liquefaction occurs when loose, water-saturated sediments lose strength and fail during strong ground shaking. In general, liquefiable areas are generally confined to the Valley floor covered by Quaternary-age alluvial deposits, Holocene soil deposits, current river channels, and active wash deposits and their historic floodplains, marshes, and dry lakes. Specific liquefaction hazard areas in the county have not been identified. The Project site is not in a wetland area and is located in the southwestern portion of the County where liquefaction risk is considered low to moderate. The impact would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required. iv. Landslides?
Less than Significant Impact. As the Project is located on the Valley floor, no major geologic landforms exist on or near the site that could result in a landslide event. The potential landslide impact at this location is minimal as the site is more than five miles from the foothills and the local topography is essentially flat and level. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.
b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than Significant Impact. Earthmoving activities associated with the Project would include excavation, basin grading and expansion. These activities could expose soils to erosion processes and the extent of erosion would vary depending on slope steepness/stability, vegetation/cover, concentration of runoff, Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 4-37
and weather conditions. Dischargers whose projects disturb one (1) or more acres of soil, or whose projects disturb less than one acre but are part of a larger common plan of development that in total disturbs one or more acres, are required to obtain coverage under the General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity. Construction activity subject to this permit includes clearing, grading, and disturbances to the ground such as stockpiling or excavation but does not include regular maintenance activities performed to restore the original line, grade, or capacity of the facility.

The Construction General Permit requires the development of a SWPPP by a certified qualified SWPPP developer. Through the completion of a SWPPP, any possible impacts from construction related activities involving soil erosion and loss of topsoil would be reduced. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.
c) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project site and the surrounding lands generally do not have any substantial grade changes to the point where implementation of the Project would expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects on- or offsite such as landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. While the site does include a stormwater basin, the basin is not considered a hazard in regard to landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse.

Subsidence and liquefaction risk are low to moderate at the site. In addition, Project infrastructure would be constructed on reinforced concrete slabs where applicable. These concrete slabs would provide a stable platform for proposed facilities and would reduce any potential impacts. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required. d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? No Impact. The soils at the Project site are primarily comprised of Exeter loam and Greenfield sandy loam.

Permeability is moderate. The Project would not contain any facilities that could be affected by expansive soils, nor would substantial grading change the topography such that the project would generate substantial risks to life or property. The Project would be consistent with the California Building Standards Code; therefore, there would be no impact. No mitigation measures are required. e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No Impact. Septic installation or alternative wastewater disposal systems are not necessary or a part of the project. There would be no impact. No mitigation measures are required. f) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature?
No Impact. Paleontological resources are fossilized remains of flora and fauna and associated deposits.

Most fossils are found in sedimentary rock. Sedimentary rock is formed by dirt (sand, silt, or clay) and debris that settles to the bottom of an ocean or lake and compresses for such a long time that it becomes hard as a rock. 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 Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 4-38
G(v)(c)). If an impact is significant, CEQA requires feasible measures to minimize the impact (CCR Title 14(3) Section 15126.4(a)(1)). PRC Section 5097.5 (see above) also applies to paleontological resources.

The Project would require grading and excavation activities on a site that has been previously disturbed from earthwork. The Project would comply with California Public Resources Code Section 5097.5 which pertains to the protection of paleontological resources. With compliance with said regulation, impacts would be less than significant.

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 4-39

4.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Table 4-15: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
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?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

4.8.1 Baseline Conditions
Commonly identified GHG emissions and sources include the following:

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an odorless, colorless natural greenhouse gas. CO2 is emitted from natural and anthropogenic sources. Natural sources include the following: decomposition of dead organic matter; respiration of bacteria, plants, animals, and fungus; evaporation from oceans; and volcanic out gassing. Anthropogenic sources include the burning of coal, oil, natural gas, and wood.

Methane (CH4) is a flammable greenhouse gas. A natural source of methane is the anaerobic decay of organic matter. Geological deposits, known as natural gas fields, also contain methane, which is extracted for fuel. Other sources are from landfills, fermentation of manure, and ruminants such as cattle.

Nitrous oxide (N2O), also known as laughing gas, is a colorless greenhouse gas. Nitrous oxide is produced by microbial processes in soil and water, including those reactions that occur in fertilizer containing nitrogen. In addition to agricultural sources, some industrial processes (fossil fuel-fired power plants, nylon production, nitric acid production, and vehicle emissions) also contribute to its atmospheric load.

Water vapor is the most abundant, and variable greenhouse gas. It is not considered a pollutant; in the atmosphere, it maintains a climate necessary for life.

Ozone (O3) is known as a photochemical pollutant and is a greenhouse gas; however, unlike other greenhouse gases, ozone in the troposphere is relatively short-lived and, therefore, is not global in nature. O3 is not emitted directly into the atmosphere but is formed by a complex series of chemical reactions between volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, and sunlight.

Aerosols are suspensions of particulate matter in a gas emitted into the air through burning biomass (plant material) and fossil fuels. Aerosols can warm the atmosphere by absorbing and emitting heat and can cool the atmosphere by reflecting light.

Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are nontoxic, nonflammable, insoluble, and chemically unreactive in the troposphere (the level of air at the earth’s surface). CFCs were first synthesized in 1928 for use as Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 4-40
refrigerants, aerosol propellants, and cleaning solvents. CFCs destroy stratospheric ozone; therefore, their production was stopped as required by the Montreal Protocol in 1987.

Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) are synthetic chemicals that are used as a substitute for CFCs. Of all the greenhouse gases, HFCs are one of three groups (the other two are perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride) with the highest global warming potential. HFCs are human-made for applications such as air conditioners and refrigerants.

Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) have stable molecular structures and do not break down through the chemical processes in the lower atmosphere; therefore, PFCs have long atmospheric lifetimes, between 10,000 and 50,000 years. The two main sources of PFCs are primary aluminum production and semiconductor manufacture.

Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) is an inorganic, odorless, colorless, nontoxic, nonflammable gas. It has the highest global warming potential of any gas evaluated. Sulfur hexafluoride is used for insulation in electric power transmission and distribution equipment, in the magnesium industry, in semiconductor manufacturing, and as a tracer gas for leak detection.

There are uncertainties as to exactly what the climate changes will be in various local areas of the earth, and what the effects of clouds will be in determining the rate at which the mean temperature will increase.

There are also uncertainties associated with the magnitude and timing of other consequences of a warmer planet: sea level rise, spread of certain diseases out of their usual geographic range, the effect on agricultural production, water supply, sustainability of ecosystems, increased strength and frequency of storms, extreme heat events, air pollution episodes, and the consequence of these effects on the economy.

Emissions of GHGs contributing to global climate change are largely attributable to human activities associated with the industrial/manufacturing, utility, transportation, residential, and agricultural sectors.

About three-quarters of human emissions of CO2 to the global atmosphere during the past 20 years are due to fossil fuel burning. Atmospheric concentrations of CO2, CH4, and N2O have increased by at least 40 percent, 150 percent, and 20 percent respectively since the year 1750. GHG emissions are typically expressed in carbon dioxide-equivalents (CO2e), based on the GHG’s Global Warming Potential. The GWP is dependent on the lifetime, or persistence, of the gas molecule in the atmosphere. For example, one ton of CH4 has the same contribution to the greenhouse effect as approximately 25 tons of CO2. Therefore, CH4 is a much more potent GHG than CO2. In accordance with SJVAPCD’s CEQA Greenhouse Gas Guidance for Valley Land-use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects17, proposed projects complying with Best Performance Standards (BPS) would be determined to have a less-than-significant impact. Projects not complying with BPS would be considered less than significant if operational GHG emissions would be reduced or mitigated by a minimum of 29 percent, in comparison to business-as-usual (year 2004) conditions. In addition, project-generated emissions complying with an approved plan or mitigation program would also be determined to have a less-than-significant impact. 17 (San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 2009) Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 4-41

4.8.2 Impact Analysis
Project Related Emissions
Construction of the Project is assumed to be completed over approximately six months. Emissions associated with the Project were calculated using CalEEMod Air Quality Model, Version 2022.1.1.20. The emissions modeling includes emissions generated by off-road equipment, haul trucks, and worker commute trips. Emissions were quantified based on anticipated construction schedules and the default parameters contained in the model. Localized air quality impacts associated with the Project would be minor and were qualitatively assessed. Modeling assumptions and output files are included in Appendix A.

Estimated construction-generated emissions are summarized in Table 4-16. GHGs impact the environment over time as they increase and contribute to climate change.

Table 4-16: Short Term Construction Related GHG Emissions Emissions (MT CO2e) in Tons per
Year
Maximum Annual Construction CO2e Emissions 231.6
Maximum Annual Operational CO2e Emissions 24.75
AB 32 Consistency Threshold for Land-Use Development Projects* 1,100 Threshold Exceeded? No
* As published in the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. Available online at http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en Accessed 5/24/2024.

Construction related generation of GHGs would be a maximum of 231.6 Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (MT CO2e) per year, while operational emissions, composed of brine deliveries to the CleanHarbors disposal facility, are expected to be negligible at 25 MTCO2e. The Project would not exceed the AB 32 consistency threshold for land use projects for both short term construction emissions and longterm operational emissions as a result. No mitigation measures are required. a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. As shown in Table 4-16, the Project is not expected to result in the generation of GHG emissions that would exceed the AB 32 consistency threshold of 1,100 MT CO2e annually during both construction activities. Due to the nature of the proposed use, the Project is expected to result in the generation of negligible quantities of emissions during operational activities. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required. b) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. The Project would comply with all SJVAPCD policies and regulations and would not exceed an applicable threshold for GHG emissions. Therefore, there would be no impacts. No mitigation measures are required.

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 4-42

4.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Table 4-17: Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impacts
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
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
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?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

4.9.1 Baseline Conditions
Hazardous Materials
The Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites (Cortese) List is a planning document used by the State, local agencies, and developers to comply with CEQA requirements in providing information about the location of hazardous materials release sites. Government Code (GC) Section 65962.5 requires the California Environmental Protection Agency to develop at least annually an updated Cortese List. The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) is responsible for a portion of the information contained in the Cortese List. Other State and local government agencies are required to provide additional hazardous material release information for the Cortese List. DTSC’s EnviroStor database provides DTSC’s component of Cortese Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 4-43
List data (DTSC, 2010). In addition to the EnviroStor database, the SWRCB Geotracker database provides information on regulated hazardous waste facilities in California, including underground storage tank (UST) cases and non-UST cleanup programs, including Spills-Leaks-Investigations-Cleanups (SLIC) sites, Department of Defense (DOD)sites, and Land Disposal program. A search of the DTSC EnviroStor database and the SWRCB Geotracker performed on August 14, 2024 determined that there are no known active hazardous waste generators or hazardous material spill sites within the Project site.18 Airports
The closest airstrip to the Project site is Eckert Field which is located approximately 5.4 miles southeast of the Project. The Porterville Municipal Airport is located approximately 13.9 miles south of the Project. The Fresno Yosemite International Airport is located approximately 63.7 miles northwest of the Project.

Emergency Response Plan
The Tulare County Office of Emergency Services coordinates the development and maintenance of the Tulare County Operational Area Master Emergency Services Plan. Additionally the city of Lindsay, also follows an Emergency Management Plan within its public safety manual.19 Sensitive Receptors
There are several rural single-family homes located east adjacent to the Project site and to the north of the Project site. Jefferson Elementary School is located approximately 0.17 miles southeast of the Project.

4.9.2 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Would the project 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?
a and b) Less than Significant Impact. Equipment and materials used during construction activities would include fuels, oils, and lubricants. The routine use or an accidental spill of hazardous materials used in construction could result in inadvertent releases, which could adversely affect construction workers, the public, and the environment. Any potential accidental hazardous materials spills during Project construction are the responsibility of the contractor to remediate in accordance with industry best management practices (BMPs) and State and County regulations. Any impacts would therefore be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required for construction of the Project.

During operation, the perchlorate treatment system would generate only a small volume of waste during backwashing, which only occurs when resin is changed out. This backwash waste would be nonhazardous, would not include brine, and should be of a quality that can be discharged into the adjacent storm water basin. Conversely, the nitrate treatment process would generate waste brine daily. Provided the perchlorate is removed upstream of the nitrate treatment system, the nitrate treatment brine should be classified as nonhazardous. However, the brine will be very high in total dissolved solids (i.e. salt) and will 18 (California Department of Toxic Substances Control 2024); (State of California 2020) 19 Lindsay Department of Public Safety Policy Manual
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 4-44
also contain elevated levels of nitrate and other anions the treatment system removes from the water.

For the nitrate treatment waste disposal, the Project would utilize on-stie double-lined evaporation and subsequent disposal of salt. When operating at full capacity, 24 hours per day, the treatment plant is estimated to use approximately 1.4 lbs of salt per kilogallons of water produced by the well. That salt would constitute the majority of the dissolved solids in the waste brine. CleanHarbors, which would be the disposal site, requires that the salt be dry and packaged in drums or 2,000-lb capacity super sacks before transport. This would ensure that there would be no significant hazard to the public or environment during transportation to the disposal site. Impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.
c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is located 0.17 miles northwest of Jefferson Elementary School. The perchlorate treatment system will generate only a small volume of waste during backwashing, which only occurs when resin is changed out. This backwash waste will be nonhazardous, will not include brine, and should be of a quality that can be discharged into the adjacent storm water basin. Conversely, the nitrate treatment process will generate waste brine daily. The design of the system will remove the perchlorate upstream of the nitrate treatment system, thus the nitrate treatment brine should be classified as nonhazardous. However, the brine will be very high in total dissolved solids (i.e. salt) and will also contain elevated levels of nitrate and other anions the treatment system removes from the water. The site contains a perimeter fence to prevent unauthorized persons from accessing the site.

The Project would adhere to BMPs involving the use and transport of hazardous materials. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required. d) Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
No Impact. The Project would not involve land that is actively listed as a hazardous materials site pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and is not included on a list compiled by the DTSC. Both the SWRCB’s GeoTracker and DTSC’s EnviroStor websites were checked for contaminated groundwater or sites in the area. There would be no impact. No mitigation measures 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? No Impact. The closest airstrip to the Project site is Eckert Field which is located approximately 5.4 miles southeast of the Project. The Porterville Municipal Airport is located approximately 13.9 miles south of the project. The Fresno Yosemite International Airport is located approximately 63.7 miles northwest of the project. The Project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of an airport.

There would be no impact. No mitigation measures are required. f) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less than Significant Impact. The provision of treatment facilities to the existing city of Lindsay Well 11 would not impair or physically interfere with any adopted emergency response or emergency evacuation Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 4-45
plan. Well treatment upgrades would occur within the Project site and would be required to meet City Fire Department and Police Department standards that would ensure any impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required. g) Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Less than Significant Impact. According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire), the Project is not located in a State Responsibility Area (SRA) or a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. The nearest SRA is located approximately 2.6 miles to the east of the Project. The nearest Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone is located approximately 14.5 miles east of the Project.20 Typically, wildland fires are associated with grasslands and open space. The Project is located in the City, which contains urban uses such as residences and commercial buildings. The Project would not include any residential components, nor would it require any employees to be stationed permanently at the site on a daily basis. Any impacts from directly or indirectly exposing people or structures to injury or death involving a wildland fire would be considered less than significant. No mitigation measures are required. 20 (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection 2022) (ArcGIS 2023) Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 4-46

4.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Table 4-18: Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
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
off-site;
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
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? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

4.10.1 Baseline Conditions
The Project is located in the Kaweah Subbasin of the overarching San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin.

The basin is part of the Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region which stretches from north of Fresno to south of Bakersfield near the Grapevine. The San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin is divided into seven subbasins.

The Kaweah Subbasin, where the Project site is located, is approximately 446,000 acres large within Tulare County. The Kaweah subbasin lies between the Kings Groundwater Subbasin to the north, the Tule Groundwater Subbasin to the south, crystalline bedrock of the Sierra Nevada foothills to the east, and the Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 4-47
Kings River Conservation District to the west. The subbasin comprises lands in the Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District. Major rivers and streams in the subbasin include the Kaweah and St. John’s Rivers.21

4.10.2 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Less than Significant Impact. Construction of the Project could introduce sediments and other contaminants typically associated with construction into stormwater runoff. Stormwater flowing over the Project features during construction could carry various pollutants downstream such as sediment, nutrients, bacteria and viruses, oil and grease, heavy metals, organics, pesticides, and miscellaneous waste. These pollutants could originate from soil disturbances, construction equipment, building materials, and workers. Erosion potential and water quality impacts are always present during construction and occur when protective vegetative cover is removed, and soils are disturbed. In the case of the Project, it is primarily grading, and the cut and fill associated with facility improvements.

As discussed in Section 4.7 Geology and Soils, the Project would require coverage under the SWRCB Construction General Permit. In accordance with the requirements of the Construction General Permit, prior to construction of the Project, a risk assessment must be prepared and submitted to the Central Valley RWQCB to determine the Project’s risk level and associated water quality control requirements.

These requirements would include the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP identifying specific BMPs to be implemented and maintained on the site in order to comply with the applicable effluent standards. The Construction General Permit requires construction sites to be inspected before and after storm events and every 24 hours during extended storm events. Inspections identify any BMP maintenance requirements and determine the effectiveness of the BMPs. Other than the potential minor drainage changes and minor additional sources of runoff when compared baseline conditions, the Project would not include activities that would substantially degrade water quality. Compliance with the SWRCB requirements would ensure that water quality impacts during the construction phase of the Project would be less than significant.

The Project would address the contamination issue with Well 11 and return it back to service. Without mitigation of the nitrate and perchlorate contamination at Well 11, any use of the well would result in a violation of two primary drinking water standards, both of which have the potential to result in acute health effects. Treatment for both perchlorate and nitrate would be accomplished utilizing ion exchange treatment processes. Perchlorate would first be removed utilizing a single-use perchlorate-selective ion exchange resin. Nitrate would then be removed using a regenerable ion exchange treatment system. The most economical means of disposing of the waste brine from the nitrate treatment process would be to concentrate the brine in two proposed on-site evaporation ponds prior to having it trucked to CleanHarbors Buttonwillow waste management facility. Both evaporation ponds would be double-lined with polyethylene material that would prevent percolation of salts into the underlying groundwater.

Additionally, a pond leakage detection system would be installed to monitor any potential defects during operation. Furthermore, netting over the ponds would be implemented for additional protection. By doing this, the Project would improve water quality and avoid any potential significant impacts. Impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required. 21 (California Department of Water Resources 2004)
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 4-48
b) Would the project 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. The Project would bring the city of Lindsay’s Well 11 back into service by constructing a treatment system designed to remove both perchlorate and nitrate. The rehabilitation of Well 11 would expand the City’s water supply from what is present, but not in a historical manner as it used to be in use prior to its inactivity status. The City’s water supply deficit is most critical during periods of extreme drought. During normal years, the City’s contracted Central Valley Project (CVP) water allocation is 2,500 acre-feet, which is sufficient for the City to supply most of its water needs using its surface water treatment plant. However, during years of severe or extreme drought, including the recent instance of 2022, the City’s Friant Kern Canal water allocation can be severely reduced or unfulfilled entirely. Even if water conservation measures are implemented, it is necessary to reactivate Well 11 to meet system demands. While the underlying Kaweah Subbasin is critically-overdrafted, the Project would notsignificantly increase overall groundwater demand as the City already supplements its water demand with groundwater using Well 14 and Well 15. Reactivating Well 11 would bolster the City’s ability to meet its demand. Additional groundwater extraction would vary based on availability of surface water supplies.

The Project is intended to improve water quality and bolster the city of Lindsay’s water supply to ensure redundancy. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project would impede sustainable groundwater management of the Kaweah Subbasin, nor would it substantially decrease ground water supplies. The City has already implemented the management action project (the adjacent recharge basin) in the Groundwater Sustainability Plan22 and that project would not hinder or conflict with this Project. Any impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required. c) Would the project 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 off-site;
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?
a-i – a-iv) Less than Significant Impact. The Project includes changes to the existing stormwater drainage pattern of the area through the backfilling of the site and installation of impermeable (concrete/asphalt) surfaces and/or structures associated with Project facilities. It is not expected that the increase in impermeable surface would substantially alter the drainage pattern of the area. In addition, the Project site is adjacent to a stormwater basin and drainage still be directed towards it. 22 (Intera; Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group 2024)
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 4-49
Further, the evaporation ponds depth would be constructed at a depth of six (6) feet so that there would be room for solids accumulation and freeboard. The inflow and outflow of brine into the evaporation ponds would be monitored so that the maximum level of brine would never be exceeded, reducing any impacts related from potential spillage that could seep into the ground. Therefore, any impacts resulting from drainage patterns would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required. d) Would the project in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundations?
e) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
d and e) No Impact. The Project site is not within any special flood hazard areas, or other areas of flood hazard, as identified by current Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map (see Figure 4-3). 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 two proposed evaporation ponds would be double-lined to prevent percolation of salts into the underlying groundwater resulting in contamination. Additionally, a pond leakage detection system would be installed to monitor any potential defects during operation. The Project would not conflict with any water quality control plans or sustainable groundwater management plan. There would be no impact. No mitigation measures are required.

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 4-50
Figure 4-3: FEMA Flood Map
~ __ ~ Lindsay City Lim it
Flood Zone
DFIRM Panel Number/Date
- 100 Year Flood Zone (FEMA DFIRM)
~ -- ::::i000
~ Feet
FEMA Map
Self Help Enterprises - Lindsay Well 11 Treatment
4/9/2024 \\ppen11.com\pma1a\den1s1,Scl1 HclpEnterpnse,-.1875\187523007-l.mds~Wed11Ttcat~nt\400GLS\Map\SH£ Llnd~y Wei 11 Treatment Mappln11\SH Llnduy Well I I Trc.ilmcnl ~pp:rtjJ~

PROVOST&

PRITCHARD
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 4-51

4.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Table 4-19: Land Use and Planning Impacts
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
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?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

4.11.1 Baseline Conditions
The Project is located in the city of Lindsay, which was incorporated into Tulare County in 1910. Lindsay is located approximately 11 miles east of Tulare and seven miles north of Porterville. As seen in other cities and communities throughout the Central Valley in California, Lindsay is an agricultural community that is surrounded by farmland and open space. However, the city itself contains various urban land uses such as residential, commercial, industrial, and public-quasi-public. As seen in Figure 2-4 and Figure 2-5, the Project is designated Park and Recreation and Highway Commercial, and is zoned for Resource, Conservation, and Open Space, Commercial Highway.

4.11.2 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project physically divide an established community? No Impact. The Project would add perchlorate and nitrate treatment systems and two double-lined evaporation ponds for residual brine at the existing Well 11 site in order to bring back the well into service for the residents of Lindsay. Implementation of the Project would not result in any physical division within the city of Lindsay. There would be no impact. No mitigation measures are required. b) Would the project cause a significant environmental conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Less than Significant Impact. The purpose of the Project is to modify an existing public facility, to provide an additional source of clean water to the city of Lindsay. The Project components would be ancillary to the already established use of the site. The Project proposes an allowed use, pursuant to Section 18.04 of the Municipal Code. Furthermore, the existing zoning districts that are allowing the Project are compatible with the existing planned land uses. Implementation of the Project would not change the existing use of the site but would only modify existing facilities to allow the continued operation of supplying clean drinking water to the city of Lindsay. The Project would be consistent with all applicable plans, policies, ordinances, and regulations, including those adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 4-52

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 4-53

4.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
Table 4-20: Mineral Resources Impacts
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

4.12.1 Baseline Conditions
The most important minerals of Tulare County’s mineral extraction activities focus on aggregate (sand, gravel, and crushed stone), which is primarily used in building materials. These aggregate resources are the most valuable since they are used in Portland cement. Most of these extraction activities appear to occur in the Sierra Foothill Area. Historically, the Kaweah River, Lewis Creek, and the Tule River have provided the main sources of high-quality sand and gravel in Tulare County. The highest quality deposits are located at the Kaweah and Tule Rivers. According to the Tulare County General Plan Background Report, all of the known potential mineral resource locations are mapped within the foothills and/or along major watercourses. Similarly, the only active oil and gas fields are in the foothills along Deer Creek.23 The Project site is not delineated on a local land use plan as a locally important mineral resource recovery site.

4.12.2 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project 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?
No Impact. There are no known mineral resources within the Project site.24 Therefore, the Project would have no impact resulting in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state. No mitigation measures are required. b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact. The California Geological Survey Division of Mines and Geology has not classified the Project site as a Mineral Resource Zone under the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act. California’s Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources has no records of active oil or gas wells on the Project site. The closest 23 (Environmental Science Associates 2010)
24 (Tulare County 2030 General Plan Update 2010)
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 4-54
plugged and dry hole well is Well A.K. 1 King Development Company (API 0410700223) 25 located 0.9 miles
southwest of the Project. No known mineral resources are located within the Project area. Therefore, construction of the Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource since no known mineral resources have been identified in this area. There would be no impact. No mitigation measures are warranted.
25 (California Department of Conservation Well Finder 2020) Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 4-55

4.13 NOISE
Table 4-21: Noise Impacts
Would the project result in:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
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 ground borne
vibration or ground borne 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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

4.13.1 Baseline Conditions
The ambient noise levels experienced throughout Lindsay are characteristic of an urbanized area containing a combination of residential, commercial, industrial land uses, and the circulation system. The Project site is surrounded by commercial, residential, and open space. The closest sensitive receptors to the Project site are the residences to the north across W. Mariposa Street, as close as 80 feet. Jefferson Elementary School is located approximately 0.17 miles southeast of the Project. The primary existing noise source contributing to ambient noise in the Project area derives from traffic along adjacent residential roads and SR 65, which is located approximately 0.12 miles to the west.

4.13.2 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Less than Significant Impact. According to the Lindsay General Plan, exterior noise levels in the range of 50-60 dB CNEL (Community Noise Exposure Level) are generally considered to be acceptable for residential land uses.26 Operation of the Project would be passive in nature; however, there would be noise generated from the existing well pump. It is not anticipated that pump noise would be significant due to the existing ambient noise in the area. Project construction would generate temporary noise, 26 (Grunwald & Associates 1989)
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 4-56
mostly from trucks and the construction activity itself. Table 4-22 below describes the typical construction noise levels of various construction equipment.

Table 4-22: Typical Construction Noise Levels
Equipment
50 feet from Source
(dBA Leq)
100 feet from Source
(dBA Leq)
200 feet from Source
(dBA Leq)
300 feet from Source
(dBA Leq)
Air Compressor 80 74 68 64
Backhoe 80 74 68 64
Concrete Mixer 85 79 73 69
Grader 85 79 73 69
Jack Hammer 88 82 76 72
Loader 80 74 68 64
Paver 85 79 73 69
Roller 85 79 73 69
Saw 76 70 64 60
Scraper 85 79 73 69
Truck 84 78 72 68
Source: Noise level at 50 feet from (John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center 2018) Note: Noise Levels at 100 feet, 200 feet, and 300 feet were extrapolated using a 6 dBA attenuation rate per doubling of distance. Each noise level assumes the piece of equipment is operating at full power for the expected duration to complete the construction activity. The duration varies widely between each piece of equipment. Noise levels also depend on the model and year of the equipment used.

There are existing residences that are located as close as 80 feet from the Project. While construction would be temporary, lasting only six months, even with attenuation rates, noise generated from construction equipment could exceed 50-60 dB CNEL, as outlined in Lindsay’s General Plan. To ensure these Project-related increases in ambient noise would not exceed applicable noise and land use standards, the noise reducing BMPs pursuant to Mitigation Measures NOI-1 and NOI-2 will be implemented. With the inclusion of said mitigation, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Mitigation
NOI-1 The City shall ensure the construction contractor implement the following construction noise reducing measures:
• The construction contractor shall ensure that all noise producing construction activities, including warming-up or servicing equipment and any preparation for construction, shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. The construction contractor shall locate on-site equipment staging areas to maximize the distance between constructionrelated noise sources and noise sensitive receptors nearest the project site during construction.
• The construction contractor shall ensure that all equipment shall have sound control devices that are no less effective than those provided on the original equipment. Further, pavement breakers and jackhammers shall also be equipped with acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds recommended by the manufacturers thereof. In lieu of or in the absence of manufacturers' recommendations, the Director of Public Works shall have the authority to prescribe such means of accomplishing maximum noise attenuation as deemed to be in the public interest, considering the available technology and economic feasibility.

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 4-57
•
NOI-2 The City shall ensure that equipment and trucks used for construction of the Project utilize the best available noise control techniques (including mufflers, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures and acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds). b) Would the project result in generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? Less than Significant Impact. Operation of the Project would not include any activities that would generate significant levels of vibration. Therefore, it is not anticipated that Project operation would expose the nearest sensitive receptor to vibration levels that would result in annoyance. For this reason, the following analysis of the Project’s vibration impacts evaluates only the effects of on-site construction activities.

There are no federal or State standards that address construction noise or vibration. Additionally, the city of Lindsay or Tulare County do not have regulations that define acceptable levels of vibration. However, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) publication concerning noise and vibration impact assessment from transit activities has vibration standards suggestions. Although the FTA guidelines are to be applied to transit activities and construction, they may be reasonably applied to the assessment of the potential for annoyance or structural damage resulting from other activities. To prevent vibration annoyance in residences, a level of 80 VdB (vibration velocity level in dB) or less is suggested when there are fewer than 70 vibration events per day. A level of 100 VdB or less is suggested by the FTA guidelines to prevent damage to fragile buildings. Table 4-23 describes the typical construction equipment vibration levels.

While these construction-related activities would result in ground borne vibration, such groundborne noise or vibration, would attenuate rapidly from the source and would not be generally perceptible outside of the construction-related areas. In addition, there would not be any vibrational impacts from operation and maintenance activities.

Table 4-23: Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Sources Levels Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Sources Levels Equipment PPV at 25 ft, in/sec Approximate Lv* at 25 ft Large bulldozer 0.089 87
Caisson drilling 0.089 87
Loaded trucks 0.076 86
Jackhammer 0.035 79
Small bulldozer 0.003 58
*RMS velocity in decibels, VdB re 1 micro-in/sec
Source: (John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center 2018) Construction-related activities in general can have the potential to create ground borne vibrations.

However, based on the soil types found in the general Project sites, it is unlikely that any blasting or piledriving would be required in connection with construction of the Project. Therefore, the potential for ground borne vibrations to occur as part of construction-related activities of the Project would not be significant. Additionally, the operation of the Project would not contain any activities that would create excessive ground borne vibrations. The Project would not result in the generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 4-58
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The Project site is not located in an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.27 Eckert Field is located approximately 5.4 miles southeast of the Project. The Porterville Municipal Airport is located approximately 13.9 miles south of the project. The Fresno Yosemite International Airport is located approximately 63.7 miles northwest of the p\Project. As the Project is not located within an airport land use plan or two miles of an airport, there would be no impact. No mitigation measures are required. 27 (Aries Consultants Ltd. 2012)
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 4-59

4.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Table 4-24: Population and Housing Impacts
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

4.14.1 Baseline Conditions
According to the 2020 Census, the city of Lindsay has an estimated population of 12,659.28 Additionally, it is estimated that Lindsay contains approximately 3,627 households.29 The Project site is located in the western region of the City. Lindsay is located approximately 11 miles east of Tulare and seven miles north of Porterville. As seen in other cities and communities throughout the Central Valley in California, Lindsay is an agricultural community that is surrounded by farmland and open space.

4.14.2 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project proposes upgrades to one of the City’s domestic water wells to assist in providing clean drinking water to its residents. The Feasibility Study prepared in 2023 identified an immediate supply deficit with the deficit worsening as the City’s population grows. Although the City mostly relies on surface water via the FKC, the reservicing of Well 11 is needed to supplement demand as its FKC water allocation varies depending on the hydrological year. In times of drought, the City is more reliant on groundwater due to the limit on surface water availability. The Project does not propose to amend the General Plan or its land uses and thus would not result in unplanned growth. Impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required. b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
28 (United States Census Bureau 2000)
29 Ibid.

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 4-60
No Impact. The Project would not result in the displacement of existing people or housing. Therefore, there would be no impact. No mitigation measures are required.

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 4-61

4.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
Table 4-25: Public Services
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) 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:
i. Fire protection? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
ii. Police protection? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
iii. Schools? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
iv. Parks? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
v. Other public facilities? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

4.15.1 Baseline Conditions
Fire Protection: The Project site would be served by the Lindsay Fire Department. The closest fire station is the Lindsay Fire Department, located approximately 0.78 miles east.

Police Protection: Police protection is provided by the Lindsay Police Department. The closest police station is the Lindsay Police Department Station, located approximately 0.78 miles east.

Schools: Jefferson Elementary School is the nearest school to the Project, located approximately 0.17 miles southeast.

Parks: The nearest park to the Project site is Olive Bowl Park, located approximately 0.4 miles southeast.

Landfills: The Project would utilize the CleanHarbors disposal site. The site is located in Buttonwillow, CA, which is approximately 87 miles southwest.

4.15.2 Impact Analysis
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:
i. Fire Protection:
ii. Police Protection:

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 4-62
iii. Schools:
iv. Parks:
v. Other public facilities:
a-i – a-v) No Impact. The Project would not require new or altered governmental facilities in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for public services.

The Project involves the alteration of existing water treatment facilities to assist with providing clean drinking water to the city of Lindsay. Currently, Well 11 is on standby due to high levels of perchlorate and nitrate and implementation of the Project would remedy the contamination issue and bring Well 11 back into service. The Project would not result in unplanned population growth as Well 11 would support the existing and planned population. The Project would not send brine to a governmental landfill facility.

The Project would send brine to CleanHarbors, which is a private landfill facility. CleanHarbors has determined and informed the Project proponent that they have capacity to serve the Project. There would be no impact to the listed public services. No mitigation measures are required.

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 4-63

4.16 RECREATION
Table 4-26: Recreation Impacts
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood
and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or
be accelerated?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

4.16.1 Baseline Conditions
According the City’s General Plan, the City has about 52 acres of developed park land.30 With its 52 acres, the City maintains a ratio of 6.34 acres of parkland per 1,000 people which exceeds the Quimby Act goal of

5.0 acres per 1,000. The closest park to the Project site is Olive Bowl Park, located approximately 0.4 miles southeast.

4.16.2 Impact Analysis
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? No Impact. The Project is upgrading and remediating an existing facility. Project features would not increase the use or demand of any existing neighborhood park, regional park, or any other recreational facilities of any kind. Population growth is not anticipated or associated with the Project. Therefore, there would be no impact. No mitigation measures are required. 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 Project would not include recreational facilities, nor would it propose the expansion of any existing recreational facilities. As mentioned, the Project’s objective is to allow the City to provide its residents with a clean, reliable source of water. There would be no impact. No mitigation measures are required.
30 (Grunwald & Associates 1989)
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 4-64

4.17 TRANSPORTATION
Table 4-27: Transportation Impacts
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
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) 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? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

4.17.1 Baseline Conditions
The Project site is located on the south side of west Mariposa Street approximately 0.12 miles east of SR

65. The closest airstrip to the Project site is Eckert Field which is located approximately 5.4 miles southeast of the Project. The Porterville Municipal Airport is located approximately 13.9 miles south of the Project.

The Fresno Yosemite International Airport is located approximately 63.7 miles northwest of the Project

4.17.2 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project conflict with a plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project includes water treatment at the existing Well 11 site.

Construction traffic associated with the Project would be minimal and temporary, lasting approximately six (6) months. Road closures and detours are not anticipated as part of construction. The Project would would provide a new access road on the Project site to accommodate the brine hauling truck. The new path would comply with City requirements including roadway width, grade, and materials. Operational traffic would be minimal. Operational traffic would consist of maintenance which is already taking place at the well site. Additional operational traffic due to brine hauling would utilize existing roads and the proposed access road. No changes would be made to the existing circulation system. There would not be a significant adverse effect to existing roadways in the area.

There would be no population growth associated with the Project, nor would implementation of the Project result in an increase of staff or drivers utilizing roadways in the area. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not increase the demand for any changes to congestion management programs or interfere with existing level of service standards during the operational phase. Impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3 subdivision (b)? Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 4-65
Less than Significant Impact. Section 15064.3 of the State CEQA Guidelines establishes specific considerations for evaluating a project’s transportation impacts. The State CEQA Guidelines identify vehicle miles traveled (VMT), which is defined as the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project, as the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts. Other relevant considerations may include the effects of a project on transit and nonmotorized travel.

Construction of the Project would last approximately six (6) months and would use existing construction crews. Operation of the Project assumes the brine delivery truck is a medium heavy duty vehicle weighing approximately seven tons. It is estimated brine would hauled off site 183 times per year (approximately one trip every other day). According to the Office of Planning and Research Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, the term “automobile” refers to on-road passenger vehicles, specifically cars and light-duty trucks.
31 The brine delivery truck is not subject to Section 15064.3 of the State CEQA Guidelines and would not add a substantial amount of VMT to the Project. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required. c) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No Impact. While construction equipment would be transported to the Project site using hauling trucks, Project area roadways are suitable and capable of transporting of said equipment; therefore, there would be no impact. No mitigation measures are required.
d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Less than Significant Impact. The Project would not propose new roadway design features or permanent alterations to roadways. Any potential disturbances to roadways during construction would be temporary and repaired to baseline conditions. No road closures or detours are anticipated as part of the construction phase of the Project. The operational phase of the Project would have no effect on roadways or emergency access. Therefore, overall potential Project-related impacts to emergency access on local roadways would be considered less than significant. No mitigation measures are required. 31 (Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) 2018) Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 4-66

4.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Table 4-28: Tribal Cultural Resources Impacts
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural resource,
defined in Public Resources Code section
21074 as either a site, feature, place,
cultural landscape that is geographically
defined in terms of the size and scope of
the landscape, sacred place, or object with
cultural value to a California Native
American tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in the local register of
historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k), or
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
ii. A resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and supported
by substantial evidence, to be
significant pursuant to criteria set
forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1. In
applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency
shall consider the significance of the
resource to a California Native
American tribe.
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐

4.18.1 Baseline Conditions
The Project’s APE is in the Southern Valley Yokuts ethnographic territory of the San Joaquin Valley. Within California, the Yokuts were generally divided into three major groups, the Northern Valley Yokuts, the Southern Valley Yokuts, and the Foothill Yokuts. The Yokuts are a sub-group of the Penutian language that covers much of coastal and central California and Oregon. The Tule River Indian Tribe and the Wuksache Indian Tribe, which are also affiliated with the Project area, are considered a part of the Yokuts people.

Native American Outreach
A SLF search from the NAHC was sent on January 3, 2024. The NAHC responded on January 11, 2024, via letter indicating negative results of the database search. The NAHC supplied a list of Native American representatives to contact for information or knowledge of cultural resources in the APE and the surrounding area. The following Native American organizations/individuals were contacted from the list provided by NAHC below:

1. Cultural Specialist I Nichole Escalon of the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 4-67

2. Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Shana Powers of the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Tribe

3. Cultural Specialist II Samantha McCarty of the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe

4. Chairperson Neil Peyron of the Tule River Indian Tribe

5. Environmental Department Director Kerri Vera of the Tule River Tribe

6. Tribal Archaeologist Joey Garfield of the Tule River Indian Tribe

7. Chairperson Kenneth Woodrow of the Wuksache Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band To date, no responses have been received from the above-listed tribes. Furthermore, as discussed in Section 2.1.8, the city of Lindsay has not received any written correspondence from a Tribe pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1 requesting notification of proposed project.

4.18.2 Impact Assessment
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 the local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
a-i – a-ii) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. A search of the NAHC Sacred Lands File was completed for the Project APE. Results of this file search were negative, and no tribal cultural resources were identified in the Project APE. A records search was also conducted at the SSJVIC. The search results determined that tribal cultural resources were not discovered within the Project APE.

Although there is little or no chance the Project would cause a substantial adverse change to the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined, mitigation measures CUL-1 and CUL-2, described in Section 4.5.2 are recommended in the event cultural materials or human remains are unearthed during excavation or construction.

Mitigation
See CUL-1 and CUL-2 in Section 4.5.2
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 4-68

4.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Table 4-29: Utilities and Service Systems Impacts
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could
cause significant environmental 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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

4.19.1 Baseline Conditions
The Project site is located at the western end of the City and contains a stormwater basin and the existing Well 11.

Water Supply
The Project is located within the Kaweah Subbasin of the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin.32 Groundwater overdraft and groundwater depletion are recurring problems in Tulare County. Measures for ensuring the continued availability of groundwater have been identified and planned in several areas of the County. The measures include groundwater conservation and recharge, and supplementing or replacing groundwater sources for irrigation with surface water. The Kaweah Subbasin contains approximately 7,474 wells, of which approximately 224 are water supply wells. Groundwater accounts for over 90 percent of the land’s water supply.
33 32 (Groundwater Exchange 2023)
33 (Groundwater Exchange 2023)
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 4-69
Wastewater Collection and Treatment
The city of Lindsay operates and maintains a wastewater distribution system and wastewater treatment plant.

Landfills
The Project would utilize the CleanHarbors disposal site. The site is located in Buttonwillow, CA, which is approximately 87 miles southwest.

4.19.2 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less than Significant Impact. The Project would construct upgrades to water treatment facilities, which would connect to the City’s currently out of service well, Well 11. The proposed facilities would bring Well 11 back into service and would supply the City with additional water supply to meet current and future demand. Implementation of the Project has been analyzed throughout this document and impacts to the environment, overall, would be less than significant with the inclusion of various regulatory compliance requirements and mitigation measures. No mitigation measures are required. b) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? Less than Significant Impact. The Project would construct upgrades to water treatment facilities, which would connect to the City’s currently out of service well, Well 11. Without treatment of the nitrate and perchlorate contamination at Well 11, any use of the well would result in a violation of two primary drinking water standards, both of which have the potential to result in acute health effects. Reactivating Well 11 is necessary to meet system demands. Although the Project is expected to add to the City’s available water supply, the well would not increase current water demand. The Project itself would not require water to support its construction or implementation. Impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.
c) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
No Impact. The Project proposes to construct water treatment facility upgrades to remediate the City’s Well 11. Implementation of the Project would not increase demand for wastewater treatment facilities or services, but would rather bring Well 11. Therefore, there would be no impact. No mitigation measures are required.
d) Would the project 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? No Impact. Minimal solid waste would be generated by the Project during construction. Construction contractors are generally required to remove all solid waste generated during construction. During operation, the Project would not generate solid waste. Therefore, there would be no impact. No mitigation measures are required.

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 4-70
e) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
No Impact. Any solid waste generated during Project construction would be required to comply with all applicable federal, State, and local statues and regulations related to solid waste removal and proper disposal. There would be no impact. No mitigation measures are required.

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 4-71

4.20 WILDFIRE
Table 4-30: Wildfire Impacts
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
Incorporated
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 uncontrollable spread of 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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

4.20.1 Baseline Conditions
The Project is located in an agriculturally active area of the City that is surrounded all around by open space and farmland. According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire), the Project is not located in a State Responsibility Area (SRA) or a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. The nearest SRA is located approximately 2.6 miles to the east of the Project. The nearest Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone is located approximately 14.5 miles east of the Project.34

4.20.2 Impact Analysis
a) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project 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?
34 (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection 2022) (ArcGIS 2023) Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 4-72
c) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project 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) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project 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? a-d) No Impact. The Project area is located in a section of Tulare County that has not been designated as either a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone or an SRA. Therefore, further analysis is not required and there would be no impact. No mitigation measures are required.

Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 4-73

4.21 CEQA MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Table 4-31: CEQA Mandatory Findings of Significance
Does the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) 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) 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) Have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
☐ ☒ ☒ ☐

4.21.1 Statement of Findings
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 selfsustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The analysis conducted in this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration results in a determination that the Project, with incorporation of mitigation measures, will have a less than significant effect on the environment. The potential for impacts to biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, and tribal cultural resources from the implementation of the Project will be less than significant with the incorporation of the mitigation measures discussed in Chapter 5 Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program. Mitigation measures related to Biological Resources include BIO-1 through BIO-4, which help to mitigate potential impacts to protected bird species. Mitigation measures related to Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources include CUL-1 and CUL-2, which provide standard protocol in the event that unidentified archaeological resources and human remains are uncovered during construction. Mitigation Measure GEO-1 is included to mitigate impacts to paleontological resources. GEO-1 requires a Worker Environmental Awareness Program training prior to construction so that construction personnel are informed of the standard protocol upon discovery of paleontological resources. Accordingly, the Project would involve no potential for significant impacts through the degradation of the quality of the environment, the reduction in the Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 4-74
habitat or population of fish or wildlife, including endangered plants or animals, the elimination of a plant or animal community or example of a major period 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)?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(i) States that a Lead Agency shall consider whether the cumulative impact of a project is significant and whether the effects of the project are cumulatively considerable. The assessment of the significance of the cumulative effects of a project must, therefore, be conducted in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects. The Project would construct perchlorate and nitrate treatment facilities at the existing City Well 11 site to return the well back into service. The Project is intended to improve water quality and bolster the water supply in the city of Lindsay. The Project would not result in direct or indirect population growth. Furthermore, potentially significant impacts of the Project would be reduced to a less than significant level following implementation of mitigation measures BIO-1 through BIO-4, CUL-1 and CUL-2. Presumably, previously completed projects have also implemented mitigation as necessary. Accordingly, the Project would not otherwise combine with impacts of related development to add considerably to any cumulative impacts in the Project region.

With the inclusion of said mitigation, the Project would not have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. Therefore, the Project would have a less than cumulatively considerable impact with implementation of mitigation measures.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project proposes to construct water treatment facility upgrades to remediate the City’s Well 11. The Project in and of itself would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. On the contrary, implementation of the Project would resolve water quality issues. Construction-related air quality/dust exposure impacts could occur temporarily as a result of Project construction. However, implementation of basic regulatory requirements identified in this IS/MND would ensure that impacts are less than significant. Furthermore, the Project includes mitigation measures BIO-1 through BIO-4 and CUL-1 and CUL-2 to reduce impacts that could have potentially been significant if it were not for the prescribed mitigation. Therefore, the Project would not have any direct or indirect adverse impacts on humans. This impact would be less than significant Chapter 5: Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 5-1
CHAPTER 5 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 Project. The MMRP lists mitigation measures recommended in the IS/MND for the Project and identifies monitoring and reporting requirements.

Table 5-1: Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program presents the mitigation measures identified for the Project. Each mitigation measure is numbered with a symbol indicating the topical section to which it pertains, a hyphen, and the impact number. For example, AIR-2 would be the second mitigation measure identified in the Air Quality analysis of the IS/MND.

The first column of Table 5-1: Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program identifies the mitigation measure. The second column, entitled “When Monitoring is to Occur,” identifies the time the mitigation measure should be initiated. The third column, “Frequency of Monitoring,” identifies the frequency of the monitoring of the mitigation measure. The fourth column, “Agency Responsible for Monitoring,” names the party ultimately responsible for ensuring that the mitigation measure is implemented. The last columns will be used by the Lead and Responsible Agencies to ensure that individual mitigation measures have been complied with and monitored.

Chapter 5: Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 5-2
Table 5-1: Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program
Item Mitigation Measure When Monitoring is
to Occur
Frequency of
Monitoring
Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring
Method to
Verify
Compliance
Verification of
Compliance
Biological Resources
Project-Related Mortality and/or Nest Abandonment of Migratory Birds and Raptors, Including Swainson’s Hawk BIO-1 Prior to filling the brine pond, deterrents shall be put in place to discourage birds from using the pond.

This could include a combination of visual, auditory,
and physical deterrents for birds to minimize the
potential for protected birds to utilize the brine
pond. Examples include deterrents such as noise
makers, ribbons, lasers, motion-triggered sprinklers,
decoys, and others.

Prior to Project
operation
Once, as
determined by
qualified biologist
City of Lindsay with
the assistance of a
qualified biologist
Report
BIO-2 The Project’s construction activities shall occur, if feasible, between September 16 and January 31
(outside of the nesting bird season) to avoid impacts
to nesting birds.

September 16 to
January 31
Once, as
determined by
qualified biologist
City of Lindsay with
the assistance of a
qualified biologist
Report
BIO-3 If Project construction activities must occur within the nesting bird season (February 1 to August 31), a
qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction
survey for active nests within seven (7) calendar
days prior to the start of construction. The survey
shall include a one-time take avoidance survey for
Swainson’s hawk and other birds and raptors. The
survey shall be completed within the Project site,
and up to 100 feet outside of the Project site for
nesting migratory birds, up to 500 feet outside of
the project site for nesting raptors, and up to 0.5-
mile outside of the project site for nesting
Swainson’s hawks. Raptor nests shall be considered
“active” upon the nest-building stage. The survey
shall not be completed between April 21 to June 10
due to the difficulty of identifying Swainson’s hawk
nests during this time of year. If no active nests are
observed, no further mitigation is required.

Seven days prior to
construction between
February 1 to August
31 Once, as
determined by
qualified biologist
City of Lindsay with
the assistance of a
qualified biologist
Report
BIO-4 If discovery of any active nests or breeding colonies occurs within 50 feet of a work area, a qualified
biologist shall determine appropriate avoidance
Upon discovery of
active nests or
breeding colonies
Once, as
determined by
qualified biologist
City of Lindsay Report
Chapter 5: Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 5-3
Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program
Item Mitigation Measure When Monitoring is
to Occur
Frequency of
Monitoring
Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring
Method to
Verify
Compliance
Verification of
Compliance
buffer distances based on applicable CDFW and/or
USFWS guidelines, the biology of the species,
conditions of the nest(s), and the level of project
disturbance. If necessary, avoidance buffers shall be
identified and shall be maintained until the biologist
has determined that the nestlings have fledged.

Cultural Resources
CUL-1 In the event that previously unidentified
archaeological remains are encountered during
development or ground-moving activities in the
APE, all work shall be halted until a qualified
archaeologist can identify the discovery and assess
its significance. In the event of accidental discovery
of unidentified archaeological remains during
development or ground-moving activities in the
APE, all work shall be halted in the immediate
vicinity until a qualified archaeologist can identify
the discovery and assess its significance.

During construction
Daily during
construction
activities
City of Lindsay
CUL-2 If human remains are uncovered during
construction, the Tulare County Coroner shall be
notified to investigate the remains and arrange
proper treatment and disposition. If the remains are
identified on the basis of archaeological context,
age, cultural associations, or biological traits to be
those of a Native American, California Health and
Safety Code 7050.5 and PRC 5097.98 require that
the coroner notify the NAHC within 24 hours of
discovery. The NAHC will then identify the Most
Likely Descendants who will be afforded an
opportunity to make recommendations regarding
the treatment and disposition of the remains.

During construction
Daily during
construction
activities
City of Lindsay
Noise
NOI-1 The City shall ensure the construction contractor implement the following construction noise
reducing measures:
• The construction contractor shall ensure
that all noise producing construction
During construction
Daily during
construction
activities
City of Lindsay
Chapter 5: Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 5-4
Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program
Item Mitigation Measure When Monitoring is
to Occur
Frequency of
Monitoring
Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring
Method to
Verify
Compliance
Verification of
Compliance
activities, including warming-up or servicing
equipment and any preparation for
construction, shall be limited to the hours
between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. The
construction contractor shall locate on-site
equipment staging areas to maximize the
distance between construction-related
noise sources and noise sensitive receptors
nearest the project site during
construction.
• The construction contractor shall ensure
that all equipment shall have sound control
devices that are no less effective than those
provided on the original equipment.

Further, pavement breakers and
jackhammers shall also be equipped with
acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds
recommended by the manufacturers
thereof. In lieu of or in the absence of
manufacturers' recommendations, the
Director of Public Works shall have the
authority to prescribe such means of
accomplishing maximum noise attenuation
as deemed to be in the public interest,
considering the available technology and
economic feasibility.

NOI-2 The City shall ensure that equipment and trucks
used for construction of the project utilize the best
available noise control techniques (including
mufflers, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine
enclosures and acoustically attenuating shields or
shrouds).

During construction
Daily during
construction
activities
City of Lindsay
Tribal Cultural Resources
See CUL-1 and CUL-2 in Section 4.5.2.

Chapter 6: References
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 6-1
CHAPTER 6 REFERENCES
ArcGIS. 2023. Is Your Home in a Fire Hazard Severity Zone? https://www.arcgis.com/apps/Styler/index.html?appid=5e96315793d445419b6c96f89ce5d153.

Aries Consultants Ltd. 2012. "Tulare County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan." https://tularecounty.ca.gov/rma/rma-documents/planning-documents/tulare-countycomprehensive-airport-land-use-plan/.

California Department of Conservation. 2002. "California Geomorphic Provinces Note 36." https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/Documents/Publications/CGS-Notes/CGS-Note-36.pdf. —. 2023. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/. —. 2023. Important Farmland Categories. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/ImportantFarmland-Categories.aspx.

California Department of Conservation Well Finder. 2020. California Department of Conservation Well Finder. May 18. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/calgem/Pages/WellFinder.aspx.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2022. California State Responsibility Areas. https://www.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html?layers=5ac1dae3cb2544629a845d9a19e83 991.

California Department of Toxic Substances Control. 2024. California Department of Toxic Substances Control EnviroStor. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/.

California Department of Transportation. 2023. California State Scenic Highway System Map. https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=2e921695c43643b1aaf7000dfcc199

83. California Department of Water Resources. 2022. Dam Breach Inundation Map Web Publisher. https://fmds.water.ca.gov/webgis/?appid=dam_prototype_v2.

California Department of Water Resources. 2004. "San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin Kaweah Subbasin." https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/Web-Pages/Programs/GroundwaterManagement/Bulletin-118/Files/2003-Basin-Descriptions/5_022_11_KaweahSubbasin.pdf.

City of Lindsay. 2021. "City of Lindsay Zoning Map."
https://www.lindsay.ca.us/sites/default/files/fileattachments/city_services/page/7691/cityoflinds ay_zoningmap.pdf.

County of Tulare Resource Management Agency. 2015. "Pixley Community Plan 2015 Update." http://generalplan.co.tulare.ca.us/documents/GP/001Adopted%20Tulare%20County%20General %20Plan%20Materials/120Part%20III%20Community%20Plans%201%20of%207/009Pixley/GPA% 2014-002%20PIXLEY%20COMMUNITY%20PLAN.pdf.

Environmental Science Associates. 2010. "Tulare County General Plan Background Report." http://generalplan.co.tulare.ca.us/documents/GeneralPlan2010/BackgroundReport.pdf.

Chapter 6: References
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 6-2
Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR). 2018. "Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA." https://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/20190122-743_Technical_Advisory.pdf.

Groundwater Exchange. 2023. "San Joaquin Valley - Kaweah." https://groundwaterexchange.org/basin/san-joaquin-valley-kaweah-5-022-11/.

Grunwald & Associates. 1989. "Comprehensive General Plan." Lindsay, CA. https://www.lindsay.ca.us/sites/default/files/fileattachments/planning/page/4141/lindsay_gener al_plan_1989.pdf.

Intera; Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group. 2024. "East Kaweah Groundwater Sustainability Agency Groundwater Sustainability PLan." 6-33. https://ekgsa.org/ekgsa-gsp-central.

John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center. 2018. "FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual ." https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/researchinnovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no0123_0.pdf.

Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group. 2023. "City of Lindsay Well 11 Feasibility Study." https://www.lindsay.ca.us/sites/default/files/fileattachments/city_services/page/8398/1._lindsay _well_11_feasibility_study_final.pdf.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. 2012. Air Quality Attainment Plans. Accessed October 27, 2023. https://ww2.valleyair.org/rules-and-planning/air-quality-plans/.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. 2009. "Guidance for Valley Land-use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emissions Impacts for New Projects under CEQA."
—. 2024. San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Ambient Air Quality Standards & Valley Attainment Status. http://www.valleyair.org/aqinfo/attainment.htm.

State of California . 2020. State Water Resources Control Board Geo Tracker. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/.

Tulare County 2030 General Plan Update. 2010. "Tulare County 2030 General Plan Update." Tulare County 2030 General Plan Update.
http://generalplan.co.tulare.ca.us/documents/GeneralPlan2010/GeneralPlan2030Update.pdf.

Tulare County Agricultural Commissioner/Sealer. 2022. "Tulare County Crop and Livestock Report." United States Census Bureau. 2000. Quick Fact: Lindsay city, California. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/lindsaycitycalifornia/PST045223.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2023. Current Nonattainment Counties for All Criteria Pollutants. Accessed October 27, 2023. https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/ancl.html.

University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources. 2022. Tulare County Cooperative Extension. https://cetulare.ucanr.edu/.

Weatherspark. 2023. Climate and Average Weather Year Round in Lindsay California, United States.

Accessed December 2023. https://weatherspark.com/y/1463/Average-Weather-in-LindsayCalifornia-United-States-Year-Round.

Appendices
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 A-1
Appendix A: CalEEMod Output Files
1 / 25
Well 11 Treatment Project Custom Report
Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

2. Emissions Summary

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Site Preparation (2025) - Unmitigated

3.3. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated

3.5. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Well 11 Treatment Project Custom Report, 6/27/2024
2 / 25

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. 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
Well 11 Treatment Project Custom Report, 6/27/2024
3 / 25

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

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Well 11 Treatment Project Custom Report, 6/27/2024
4 / 25

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated

8. User Changes to Default Data
Well 11 Treatment Project Custom Report, 6/27/2024
5 / 25

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Well 11 Treatment Project
Construction Start Date 1/1/2025
Operational Year 2026
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.10
Precipitation (days) 25.6
Location 36.2060565877142, -119.10367032752752
County Tulare
City Lindsay
Air District San Joaquin Valley APCD
Air Basin San Joaquin Valley
TAZ 2725
EDFZ 9
Electric Utility Southern California Edison
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.25

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
General Light
Industry

1.00 1000sqft 0.02 1,000 0.00 — — —
Well 11 Treatment Project Custom Report, 6/27/2024
6 / 25
Other Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

2.75 Acre 2.75 0.00 0.00 — — —

2. Emissions Summary

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 1.49 1.24 10.6 11.9 0.02 0.40 < 0.005 0.41 0.37 < 0.005 0.37 — 2,207 2,207 0.09 0.02 0.02 2,215 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 1.85 1.56 14.1 14.9 0.03 0.64 7.14 7.78 0.59 3.44 4.03 — 2,757 2,757 0.11 0.02 0.01 2,767 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.94 0.78 6.71 7.49 0.01 0.26 0.13 0.39 0.24 0.06 0.30 — 1,394 1,394 0.06 0.01 0.01 1,399 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.17 0.14 1.23 1.37 < 0.005 0.05 0.02 0.07 0.04 0.01 0.05 — 231 231 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 232

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 109 109 < 0.005 0.02 0.35 114 Area 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.18 0.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.18 Energy < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 29.3 29.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 29.4 Well 11 Treatment Project Custom Report, 6/27/2024
-------------------
-------------------
7 / 25
Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.44 1.33 1.77 0.05 < 0.005 — 3.23 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.67 0.00 0.67 0.07 0.00 — 2.34 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.26 0.26
Total 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 1.11 140 141 0.12 0.02 0.61 150 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 109 109 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 114 Area 0.04 0.04 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 29.3 29.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 29.4 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.44 1.33 1.77 0.05 < 0.005 — 3.23 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.67 0.00 0.67 0.07 0.00 — 2.34 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.26 0.26
Total 0.05 0.04 0.11 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 1.11 140 141 0.12 0.02 0.27 149 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 109 109 < 0.005 0.02 0.15 114 Area 0.05 0.04 < 0.005 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.09 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.09 Energy < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 29.3 29.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 29.4 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.44 1.33 1.77 0.05 < 0.005 — 3.23 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.67 0.00 0.67 0.07 0.00 — 2.34 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.26 0.26
Total 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 1.11 140 141 0.12 0.02 0.41 149 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 18.1 18.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 18.9 Area 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.01 Energy < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 4.84 4.84 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.86 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.07 0.22 0.29 0.01 < 0.005 — 0.54 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.11 0.00 0.11 0.01 0.00 — 0.39 Well 11 Treatment Project Custom Report, 6/27/2024
8 / 25
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.04 0.04
Total 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.18 23.2 23.4 0.02 < 0.005 0.07 24.7

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Site Preparation (2025) - 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 Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.42 1.19 10.9 11.0 0.03 0.47 — 0.47 0.43 — 0.43 — 2,717 2,717 0.11 0.02 — 2,726 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 1.59 1.59 — 0.17 0.17 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.01 0.01 0.09 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 22.3 22.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 22.4 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.01 0.01 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
Well 11 Treatment Project Custom Report, 6/27/2024
-------------------
9 / 25
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 3.70 3.70 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.71 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 40.0 40.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 40.7 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.34 0.34 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.35 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Well 11 Treatment Project Custom Report, 6/27/2024
10 / 25

3.3. Grading (2025) - 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 Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.80 1.51 14.1 14.5 0.02 0.64 — 0.64 0.59 — 0.59 — 2,455 2,455 0.10 0.02 — 2,463 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 7.08 7.08 — 3.42 3.42 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.03 0.02 0.23 0.24 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 40.4 40.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 40.5 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.12 0.12 — 0.06 0.06 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Well 11 Treatment Project Custom Report, 6/27/2024
-------------------
11 / 25
Off-Roa 0.01 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 6.68 6.68 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.70 d
Equipm
ent
Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.02 0.02 — 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 53.4 53.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 54.3 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.91 0.91 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.93 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.15 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.15 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.5. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Well 11 Treatment Project Custom Report, 6/27/2024
12 / 25
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.49 1.24 10.6 11.9 0.02 0.40 — 0.40 0.37 — 0.37 — 2,201 2,201 0.09 0.02 — 2,209 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.49 1.24 10.6 11.9 0.02 0.40 — 0.40 0.37 — 0.37 — 2,201 2,201 0.09 0.02 — 2,209 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.90 0.75 6.39 7.15 0.01 0.24 — 0.24 0.22 — 0.22 — 1,327 1,327 0.05 0.01 — 1,331 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.16 0.14 1.17 1.30 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 220 220 0.01 < 0.005 — 220 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Well 11 Treatment Project Custom Report, 6/27/2024
-------------------
13 / 25
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.53 2.53 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 2.58 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.52 3.52 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 3.69 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.24 2.24 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.28 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.53 3.53 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.68 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.40 1.40 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.43 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.12 2.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.22 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.23 0.23 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.24 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.35 0.35 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.37 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated
Mobile source emissions results are presented in Sections 2.6. No further detailed breakdown of emissions is available.

4.2. Energy
Well 11 Treatment Project Custom Report, 6/27/2024
14 / 25

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - 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,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Light
Industry
— — — — — — — — — — — — 14.9 14.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.9 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 14.9 14.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.9 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Light
Industry
— — — — — — — — — — — — 14.9 14.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.9 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 14.9 14.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.9 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Light
Industry
— — — — — — — — — — — — 2.46 2.46 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.47 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.46 2.46 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.47

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Well 11 Treatment Project Custom Report, 6/27/2024
15 / 25
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,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Light
Industry
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 14.4 14.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.4 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 14.4 14.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.4 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Light
Industry
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 14.4 14.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.4 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 14.4 14.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.4 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Light
Industry
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.39 2.39 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.39 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.39 2.39 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.39

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated
Well 11 Treatment Project Custom Report, 6/27/2024
16 / 25
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Product
s

0.03 0.03 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.01 0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent

0.01 0.01 < 0.005 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.18 0.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.18 Total 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.18 0.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.18 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Product
s

0.03 0.03 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.01 0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 0.04 0.04 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Product
s

0.01 0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Well 11 Treatment Project Custom Report, 6/27/2024
-------------------
17 / 25
Architect < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ural
Coating
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.01 Total 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.01

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. 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,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Light
Industry
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.44 1.33 1.77 0.05 < 0.005 — 3.23 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.44 1.33 1.77 0.05 < 0.005 — 3.23 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Light
Industry
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.44 1.33 1.77 0.05 < 0.005 — 3.23 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.44 1.33 1.77 0.05 < 0.005 — 3.23 Well 11 Treatment Project Custom Report, 6/27/2024
18 / 25
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Light
Industry
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.07 0.22 0.29 0.01 < 0.005 — 0.54 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.07 0.22 0.29 0.01 < 0.005 — 0.54

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. 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,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Light
Industry
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.67 0.00 0.67 0.07 0.00 — 2.34
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.67 0.00 0.67 0.07 0.00 — 2.34 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Light
Industry
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.67 0.00 0.67 0.07 0.00 — 2.34
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.67 0.00 0.67 0.07 0.00 — 2.34 Well 11 Treatment Project Custom Report, 6/27/2024
19 / 25
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Light
Industry
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.11 0.00 0.11 0.01 0.00 — 0.39
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.11 0.00 0.11 0.01 0.00 — 0.39

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. 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,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Light
Industry
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.26 0.26
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.26 0.26
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Light
Industry
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.26 0.26
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.26 0.26
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Light
Industry
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.04 0.04
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.04 0.04
Well 11 Treatment Project Custom Report, 6/27/2024
20 / 25

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Site Preparation Site Preparation 1/30/2025 2/3/2025 5.00 3.00 — Grading Grading 2/4/2025 2/12/2025 5.00 6.00 —
Building Construction Building Construction 2/13/2025 12/18/2025 5.00 220 —

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 Well 11 Treatment Project Custom Report, 6/27/2024
21 / 25
Site Preparation Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41 Site Preparation Scrapers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 423 0.48 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 2.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 2.00 7.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 46.0 0.45

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 7.50 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 6.80 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 10.0 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 6.80 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Well 11 Treatment Project Custom Report, 6/27/2024
22 / 25
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 0.42 7.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 0.16 6.80 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.

5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (cy) Material Exported (cy) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (sq. ft.) Acres Paved (acres) Site Preparation — — 4.50 0.00 —
Grading — — 6.00 0.00 —

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
General Light Industry 0.00 0%
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 2.75 0%
Well 11 Treatment Project Custom Report, 6/27/2024
23 / 25

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2025 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Total all Land Uses 0.50 0.50 0.50 183 43.5 43.5 43.5 15,878

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
0 0.00 1,500 500 7,187

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
Well 11 Treatment Project Custom Report, 6/27/2024
24 / 25

5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) General Light Industry 10,189 532 0.0330 0.0040 44,953
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 532 0.0330 0.0040 0.00

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) General Light Industry 231,250 0.00
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
General Light Industry 1.24 —
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 —

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced General Light Industry Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 0.30 4.00 4.00 18.0
Well 11 Treatment Project Custom Report, 6/27/2024
25 / 25

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Construction: Construction Phases No demolition of structures, paving, or architectural coatings Operations: Fleet Mix Assumes brine delivery truck is a Medium Heavy Duty vehicle (7+ tons).

Well 11 Treatment Project Custom Report, 6/27/2024
Appendices
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 B-1
Appendix B: Biological Evaluation

CITY OF LINDSAY
LINDSAY WELL 11 TREATMENT

PROJECT BIOLOGICAL

EVALUATION

TULARE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
SEPTEMBER 2024
PREPARED FOR:

City of Lindsay
Tulare County
PREPARED BY:

Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group
455 W. Fir Avenue, Clovis, California 93611
https://us-partner-integrations.egnyte.com/msoffice/wopi/files/f7890f1e-240b-45d9-ac8af364e5781c9f/WOPIServiceId_TP_EGNYTE_PLUS/WOPIUserId_288.ppeng.egnyte.com/New_Final_BE_Lindsay Well 11_.docx Report Prepared for:

City of Lindsay
251 E. Honolulu St.

Lindsay, CA 93247
Contact:

Neyba J. Amezcua
559-562-7102
Report Prepared by:

Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group
Preparer: Jairo A. Perez and Shaylea Stark, Biologists
Project Manager: Jarred Olsen, Senior Planner
QA/QC: Geoff Cline, Principal Biologist
GIS Specialist: Ben Toews
Project Administrator: Morganne Colvard
Contact:

Jarred Olsen, Senior Planner
(559) 636-1166
COPYRIGHT 2024 BY PROVOST & PRITCHARD CONSULTING GROUP ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group expressly reserves its common law copyright and other applicable property rights to this document. This document is not to be reproduced, changed, or copied in any form or manner whatsoever, nor are they to be assigned to a third party without first obtaining the written permission and consent of Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group In the event of unauthorized reuse of the information contained herein by a third party, the third party shall hold the firm of Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group harmless, and shall bear the cost of Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group's legal fees associated with defending and enforcing these rights.

City of Lindsay September 27, 2024
Biological Evaluation
www.provostandpritchard.com Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1-1

1.1 Project Description...................................................................................................................1-1

1.2 Report Objectives.....................................................................................................................1-1

1.3 Study Methodology ..................................................................................................................1-5 2 Existing Conditions ....................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Regional Settings......................................................................................................................2-1

2.1.1 Topography..................................................................................................................2-1

2.1.2 Climate.........................................................................................................................2-1

2.1.3 Soils..............................................................................................................................2-1

2.2 Biotic Habitats..........................................................................................................................2-3

2.2.1 Stormwater Basin.........................................................................................................2-3

2.2.2 Ruderal.........................................................................................................................2-3

2.3 Natural Communities of Special Concern and Riparian Habitat ...............................................2-4

2.4 Designated Critical Habitat.......................................................................................................2-4

2.5 Wildlife Movement Corridors and Native Wildlife Nursery Sites..............................................2-4

2.6 Special Status Plants and Animals ............................................................................................2-6 3 Impacts and Mitigation ................................................................................................................. 3-1

3.1 Significance Criteria..................................................................................................................3-1

3.1.1 CEQA............................................................................................................................3-1

3.1.2 NEPA ............................................................................................................................3-1

3.2 Relevant Goals, Policies, and Laws...........................................................................................3-2

3.2.1 Tulare County General Plan .........................................................................................3-2

3.2.2 Threatened and Endangered Species ..........................................................................3-3

3.2.3 Designated Critical Habitat ..........................................................................................3-3

3.2.4 Migratory Birds............................................................................................................3-3

3.2.5 Birds of Prey.................................................................................................................3-4

3.2.6 Nesting Birds................................................................................................................3-4

3.2.7 Wetlands and other “Jurisdictional Waters”................................................................3-4

3.3 Potentially Significant Project-Related Impacts and Mitigation ...............................................3-6

3.3.1 Project-Related Mortality and/or Nest Abandonment of Migratory Birds and Raptors, including Swainson’s Hawk ................................................................................................................3-6

3.4 Section 7 Determinations.........................................................................................................3-7

3.5 Less Than Significant Project-Related Impacts.........................................................................3-9

3.5.1 Project-Related Impacts to Special Status Plant Species Absent From, or Unlikely to Occur on, the Project Site..................................................................................................................3-9

3.5.2 Project-Related Impacts to Special Status Animal Species Absent From, or Unlikely to Occur on, the Project Site..................................................................................................................3-9

3.5.3 Project-Related Impacts to Riparian Habitat and Natural Communities of Special Concern .....................................................................................................................................3-9

3.5.4 Project-Related Impacts to Regulated Waters, Wetlands, and Water Quality.............3-9 City of Lindsay September 27, 2024
Biological Evaluation
www.provostandpritchard.com Page ii

3.5.5 Project-Related Impacts to Wildlife Movement Corridors and Native Wildlife Nursery Sites ...................................................................................................................................3-10

3.5.6 Project-Related Impacts to Critical Habitat................................................................3-10

3.5.7 Local Policies or Habitat Conservation Plans..............................................................3-10

3.5.8 Coastal Zone and Coastal Barriers Resources Act......................................................3-10

3.5.9 Project-Related Impact to Essential Fish Habitat.......................................................3-10 4 References ................................................................................................................................... 4-1

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Regional Vicinity Map ............................................................................................................. 1-3 Figure 2: Aerial Map.............................................................................................................................. 1-4 Figure 3: Topographic Quadrangle Map ................................................................................................ 2-2 Figure 4: Habitats Map .......................................................................................................................... 2-5

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: List of Soils Located on the Site and Their Basic Properties ....................................................... 2-1 Table 2: List of Special Status Plants with Potential to Occur on the Site and/or in the Vicinity. .............. 2-6 Table 3: List of Special Status Animals with Potential to Occur on the Site and/or in the Vicinity............. 2-9 Table 4: Section 7 Determinations ......................................................................................................... 3-8

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A: Representative Photos of the Project Site
Appendix B: CNDDB 9-Quad Species List
Appendix C: IPaC Species List
Appendix D: NRCS Web Soil Survey Report
Appendix E: NMFS EFH Mapper
City of Lindsay September 27, 2024
Biological Evaluation
www.provostandpritchard.com Page iii

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
BMPs .................................................................................................................. Best Management Practices CDFW............................................................................................California Department of Fish and Wildlife CEQA .....................................................................................................California Environmental Quality Act CNDDB.................................................................................................. California Natural Diversity Database CNPS................................................................................................................ California Native Plant Society County …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..Tulare County ERM ………………………………………………………………………………………………..Environmental Resource Management IPaC ...............................U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Information for Planning and Consultation system MBTA...................................................................................................................... Migratory Bird Treaty Act NEPA..........................................................................................................National Environmental Policy Act NRCS................................................................................................ Natural Resources Conservation Service Project...................................................................................................... Lindsay Well 11 Treatment Project Provost & Pritchard………………………….………………………………………….…..Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group RWQCB................................................................................................Regional Water Quality Control Board SWPPP............................................................................................... Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan SWRCB................................................................................................. State Water Resources Control Board USACE................................................................................................ United States Army Corps of Engineers USC ................................................................................................................................. United States Code USFWS................................................................................................United States Fish and Wildlife Service USGS............................................................................................................. United States Geological Survey EPA ....................................................................................United States Environmental Protection Agency WR ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Water Resources City of Lindsay September 27, 2024
Biological Evaluation
Section One: Introduction
www.provostandpritchard.com 1-1
1 INTRODUCTION
The following Biological Evaluation report, prepared by Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group (Provost & Pritchard) in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), includes descriptions of the biological resources present or with potential to occur within the proposed Lindsay Well 11 Treatment Project (or “project”), potential project-related impacts or effects to those resources, and mitigation measures to reduce these impacts and effects to a less-than-significant level under CEQA and NEPA.

1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The approximately 12.5-acre project site (or “site”) is located south of Mariposa Street, west of Westmore Court, north of Hermosa Street, and east of State Route 65 in the western portion of the City of Lindsay, Tulare County (County), California (see Figure 1 and Figure 2). The site is along the east side of the San Joaquin Valley and includes dirt access roads, a stormwater basin, and sparsely vegetated and cultivated land, and is surrounded by developed and vacant residential and commercial lots, a school, and paved roads.

The project includes the construction of lined brine evaporation ponds along the west side of the project site, a treatment plant along the north side of the existing stormwater basin, and a pipeline to connect the existing well to the treatment plant and brine evaporation ponds. The project will not be impacting the existing stormwater basin and associated infrastructure. The new pond basins would be used for brine generated from treating water collected from the well. The water in the brine ponds will be saturated sodium chloride brine (approximately 25% NaCl) with elevated levels of nitrate and potentially elevated levels of arsenic. The ponds will include polyethylene lining to prevent migration of the brine into groundwater. The current existing stormwater basin will continue to serve as a stormwater basin.

1.2 REPORT OBJECTIVES
Construction activities such as those proposed by the project could potentially modify biological resources or habitats that are crucial for sensitive plant and wildlife species. In cases such as these, development may be regulated by state or federal agencies, and/or addressed by local regulatory agencies.

This report addresses issues related to the following:
• The presence of sensitive biological resources on the site, or with the potential to occur on the site. • The federal, state, and local regulations regarding these resources. • Mitigation measures that may be required to reduce the magnitude of anticipated impacts and/or comply with permit requirements of state and federal resource agencies.

Therefore, the objectives of this report are to:
• Summarize all site-specific information related to existing biological resources. • Make reasonable inferences about the biological resources that could occur on the site based on habitat suitability and the proximity of the site to a species’ known range. • Summarize all state and federal natural resource protection laws that may be relevant to implementation of the project.
• Identify and discuss project impacts and effects to biological resources likely to occur onsite within the context of CEQA, NEPA, and/or state or federal laws.
• Identify and prescribe a set of avoidance and mitigation measures that would reduce impacts to a lessthan-significant level (as identified by CEQA) or avoid and minimize effects (as identified by NEPA) and City of Lindsay September 27, 2024
Biological Evaluation
Section One: Introduction
www.provostandpritchard.com 1-2
are generally consistent with recommendations of the resource agencies for affected biological resources.

EAð
EA¢
A¹E
A«E
A¹E
EA¤
Lindsay
Woodlake
Farmersville
Exeter
Tulare
Porterville
Visalia
East
Porterville
East Tulare
Villa
El Rancho
Ivanhoe
Lemon Cove
Lindcove
Linnell
Camp
Matheny
Monson
Patterson
Tract
Plainview
PoplarCotton
Center
Seville
Springville
Strathmore
Terra Bella
Teviston
Three Rivers
Tipton
Tonyville
Tooleville
Woodville
Yettem
AªE
AªEEAÎ
EAÎ
A¤E
A¤E
EA¤
Project Site
Census Place
City Limits (various colors)
County 0
24 o Miles
!
Project Site
Tulare Co.
3/11/2024 G:\Self Help Enterprises-1875\187523007-Lindsay Well 11 Treatment\400 GIS\Map\SHE_Lindsay_Well_11_Treatment_Mapping\SHE_Lindsay_Well_11_Treatment_Mapping.aprx Regional Vicinity Map
Self Help Enterprises - Lindsay Well 11 Treatment Fig. 1 Page 1-3 - •

PROVOST&

PRITCHARD
Burem Ln
Kern St
Westmore Ct
Fremont Dr
Van Ness Ave
Old Tulare Hwy
Fresno St
Mariposa St
Ave 232
Hermosa St
Westwood Ave
?¤
0 250 500
Feet
Project Site
Lindsay City Limit
3/11/2024 G:\Self Help Enterprises-1875\187523007-Lindsay Well 11 Treatment\400 GIS\Map\SHE_Lindsay_Well_11_Treatment_Mapping\SHE_Lindsay_Well_11_Treatment_Mapping.aprx o
Prepared By
Aerial Map
Self Help Enterprises - Lindsay Well 11 Treatment
NAIP 2022 Imagery
Fig. 2 Page 1-4
• .. ,
•
' .. ' ·:t::.~
.:::::::. '
::::::;;:: \
·-······-· -···--· •••••••• ..............
............ ······-··· ·-······ .. •· ..... ---·-···· -·-·--·· • \
\
\ :::::-::!:::::_~! \
• ••••••• ··--· • ::::::~::::;::::.::. ~ ·::!~=:::;::::::;;::: \ ·--·····-········
..... ' .. . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . ...... . ..... .. ···•···· ...... ·····•· •···· •·· ... ·•· , . ····•·•• ..... ..... . .. .... . . ··• ......... . ... ..... ...... . ··•' ... ··•• ... . an11u 1uu1u - .... .~ ... 11!11!1' •. ~ ... -
--- _____ ..__ - ...... ___ _ ~...:.:::::=
.-==::!:~ -----
,. 'I
I, ..
--- ·---·- -··-. -·· ·-
•►-
--
City of Lindsay September 27, 2024
Biological Evaluation
Section One: Introduction
www.provostandpritchard.com 1-5

1.3 STUDY METHODOLOGY
A reconnaissance-level field survey of the project site was conducted on December 4, 2023, by Provost & Pritchard biologist, Jairo Perez. The survey consisted of walking and driving throughout accessible areas of the project site while identifying and noting land uses, biological habitats and communities, and plant and animal species encountered, and assessing habitats that could be suitable for various rare or protected plant and animal species. Inaccessible areas were visually surveyed using binoculars. Representative photographs of the site were taken and are presented in Appendix A.

Mr. Perez then utilized the results of the field survey to analyze potential project-related impacts to biological resources based on the resources known to occur or with potential to occur within the project site. Sources of information used in preparation of this analysis included: the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB; see Appendix B for the species list) and California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) database; California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS) Online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California; CalFlora’s online database of California native plants; Jepson Herbarium’s online database (i.e., Jepson eFlora); United States Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) Environmental Conservation Online System, Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC; see Appendix C for the species list) system, and National Wetlands Inventory (NWI); iNaturalist; NatureServe Explorer’s online database; United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service’s (NRCS) Web Soil Survey (see Appendix D for the Web Soil Survey Report); California Herps website; and various manuals, reports, and references related to plants and animals of the San Joaquin Valley region.

The field survey did not include focused surveys for special status species. The field survey conducted included the appropriate level of detail to assess the significance of potential impacts to sensitive biological resources resulting from implementing the project. Furthermore, the field survey was sufficient to generally describe those features of the project that could be subject to the jurisdiction of federal and/or state agencies, such as the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), CDFW, Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB).

City of Lindsay September 27, 2024
Biological Evaluation
Section Two: Existing Conditions
www.provostandpritchard.com 2-1
2 EXISTING CONDITIONS

2.1 REGIONAL SETTINGS

2.1.1 TOPOGRAPHY
The project site is located within the northeast quarter of Section 12, of the Lindsay U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute quadrangle (or “quad”) within Township 20 South, Range 26 East, and the topography of the site is relatively flat with an elevation of approximately 372 feet above mean sea level (see Figure 3).

2.1.2 CLIMATE
Like most of California, the project site experiences a Mediterranean climate. Warm, dry summers are followed by cool, moist winters. In the summer, average high temperatures range between 84- and 97- degrees Fahrenheit (°F), but often exceed 100 °F, and the humidity is generally low. Winter temperatures are often below 65 °F during the day and rarely exceed 70 °F. On average, the City of Lindsay receives approximately 12 inches of precipitation in the form of rain yearly, most of which occurs between October and April, and the project site would be expected to receive similar amounts of precipitation (Weatherspark, 2023).

2.1.3 SOILS
Two soil mapping units representing two soil types were identified within the project site and are listed in Table 1, below (see Appendix D for the Web Soil Survey Report). The soils are displayed with their core properties according to the Major Land Resource Area of California. Both soils are primarily used for irrigated cropland, fruit crops, dryland grain, and pasture.

Table 1: List of Soils Located on the Site and Their Basic Properties Soil Soil Map
Unit
Percent
of
Project
Site
Hydric
Soil
Category
Drainage Permeability Runoff
Exeter
Loam, 0 to 2
percent
slopes

78.5%
Predominantly
Nonhydric Well drained Moderately slow Negligible to medium Greenfield
Sandy loam,
0 to 2
percent
slopes

21.5% Nonhydric Well drained Moderately rapid Slow to
medium
Hydric soils are defined as soils that are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions such that under sufficiently wet conditions, hydrophytic vegetation can be supported. Exeter loam, 0-2 percent slopes, has a predominantly nonhydric rating, which means that no major component listed for this map unit is rated as hydric, and at least one contrasting minor component is rated hydric. Greenfield sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes has a nonhydric rating, which means no major or minor components for this map unit are rated hydric.

T19S R26E
T20S R26E
T19S R27E
T20S R27E
QUAD: LINDSAY
31 32 35
36 02 01 06 05
11 12 07 08
14 13 18 17
23 24 19 20
Project Site
USGS Topo Maps (1:24k)
Quad
Township/Range
Section
0 750 1,500 o Feet
USGS National Map, Data refreshed April 2023.

Project Elevation is approximately 372 feet above MSL.
3/11/2024 G:\Self Help Enterprises-1875\187523007-Lindsay Well 11 Treatment\400 GIS\Map\SHE_Lindsay_Well_11_Treatment_Mapping\SHE_Lindsay_Well_11_Treatment_Mapping.aprx Prepared By Topographic Map
Self Help Enterprises - Lindsay Well 11 Treatment Fig. 3 Page 2-2 0 ~247

PALM AVE J
-==r- PINE AVE
I
AVE 237
~ '{
~

W TULARE RD
AVE 228
W MARIP_OSA ST
w Hf~SA_s_T __ _

WW ODELL ST
CJ
CJ
,- - ,
D
t-
:! "' 0
a:

AVE 240
~ '{
~ I
" a:
~
..,
::,.
'{
l: "' '{

MARIGOLD ST
...
:i:
':;
::::
..,
~~ " :;,:
~ 0 ...
00 f WADDELL

PROVOST&

PRITCHARD
City of Lindsay September 27, 2024
Biological Evaluation
Section Two: Existing Conditions
www.provostandpritchard.com 2-3

2.2 BIOTIC HABITATS
Two biotic habitats, stormwater basin and ruderal, were observed within the project site (see Figure 4).

These habitats and their constituent plant and animal species are described in more detail in the following sections.

2.2.1 STORMWATER BASIN
The project site was mostly dominated by stormwater basin habitat in the form of an existing stormwater basin; however, the project components will not be constructed within this habitat. The stormwater basin habitat was nearly empty during the time of the field survey and had stagnant water towards the southeast end of the basin near a culvert that was approximately one to 36 inches deep. The margins of the stormwater basin habitat were dominated by vegetation such as bur clover (Medicago polymorpha), castor bean (Ricinus communis), curly dock (Rumex crispus), honey locust (Gleditsia triacanthos), Johnson grass (Sorghum halepene), mouse-ear cress (Arabidopsis thaliana), and mule fat (Baccharis salicifolia).

No aquatic or semi-aquatic bird species were observed in spite of the evidence of bird tracks and feces embedded on the soil surface, but numerous aquatic or semi-aquatic bird species would be expected to use the stormwater basin habitat, especially when it is more inundated. Species that may use this habitat include killdeer (Charadrius vociferus), mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), Canada goose (Branta canadensis), American coot (Fulica americana), and other common species in the area.

2.2.2 RUDERAL
The remainder of the project site, which is where the project components are proposed, consisted of ruderal habitat influenced by anthropogenic activities, which included dirt access roads and disced soils.

These areas of the project site contained minimal to moderate vegetation due to vehicle and heavy equipment disturbance. Where vegetation was present, it consisted of invasive grasses, Bermuda grass (Cynodont dactylon), cheeseweed mallow (Malva pariflora), common fig (Fiscus carica), sowthistle (Sonchus oleraceus), bromegrass (Bromus diandrus), dove weed (Croton setigerus), flatspine bur ragweed (Ambrosia acanthicarpa), red stemmed filaree (Erodium cicutarium), Mexican fan palm (Washingtonia robusta), peach (Prunus persica), Callery pear (Pyrus calleryana), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), puncture vine (Tribulus terrestris), sacred datura (Datura wrightii), silverleaf nightshade (Solanum elaeagnifolium), elm (Ulmus sp.), sugar bush (Rhus ovata), telegraphweed (Heterotheca grandiflora), and white horehound (Marrubium vulgare).

Numerous bird species were observed within the ruderal habitat of the project site, and included species such as American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), house finch (Haemorhous meixcanus), house sparrow (Passer domesticus), killdeer, lesser goldfinch (Spinus Psaltria), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), ruby-crowned kinglet (Corthylio calendula), song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), and white crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys).

City of Lindsay September 27, 2024
Biological Evaluation
Section Two: Existing Conditions
www.provostandpritchard.com 2-4
Other signs or species observed in this habitat include California ground squirrels and their burrows, gopher mounds, and a deceased frog with an advanced state of decomposition. Reptiles that would be expected to occur within the ruderal habitat of the project site include Pacific gopher snake (Pituophis catenifer catenifer), western fence lizard, common side-blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana), and other reptiles common to the area. Other mammals that have the potential to occur in this habitat include deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus), coyote (Canis latrans), raccoon, striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), and Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana).

2.3 NATURAL COMMUNITIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN AND RIPARIAN HABITAT Natural communities of special concern are those that are of limited distribution, distinguished by significant biological diversity, or home to special status species. CDFW has classified and mapped allnatural communities in California. Just as the special status plant and animal species (see Section 2.6), these natural communities of special concern can be found within the CNDDB. There are no recorded observations of natural communities of special concern mapped within the project site. Additionally, no natural communities of special concern were observed during the field survey.

2.4 DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT
The USFWS often designates areas of “critical habitat” when it lists species as threatened or endangered.

Critical habitat is a specific geographic area that contains features essential for the conservation of a threatened or endangered species, which may require special management and protection. According to the IPaC, designated critical habitat is absent from the project site and vicinity.

2.5 WILDLIFE MOVEMENT CORRIDORS AND NATIVE WILDLIFE NURSERY SITES Wildlife movement corridors are routes that animals regularly and predictably follow during seasonal migration, dispersal from native ranges, daily travel within home ranges, and inter-population movements.

Movement corridors in California are typically associated with valleys, ridgelines, and rivers and creeks supporting riparian vegetation. The project site does not have any features or habitats that are likely to be utilized as a wildlife movement corridor.

Native wildlife nursery sites are areas where a species or group of similar species raise their young in a concentrated place, such as maternity bat roosts. While native wildlife may utilize the existing stormwater basin habitat as a wildlife nursery site, project components will not be constructed within the stormwater basin habitat.

Burem Ln
Kern St
Westmore Ct
Fremont Dr
Van Ness Ave
Old Tulare Hwy
Fresno St
Mariposa St
Ave 232
Hermosa St
Westwood Ave
?¤
0 250 500 Feet
Project Site
Lindsay City Limit
Habitat
Ruderal
Stormwater Basin
o
Prepared By
Habitats Map
Self Help Enterprises - Lindsay Well 11 Treatment
3/11/2024 G:\Self Help Enterprises-1875\187523007-Lindsay Well 11 Treatment\400 GIS\Map\SHE_Lindsay_Well_11_Treatment_Mapping\SHE_Lindsay_Well_11_Treatment_Mapping.aprx NAIP 2022 Imagery
Fig. 4 Page 2-5
,. 'I
L J
1111 -

PROVOST&

PRITCHARD
City of Lindsay September 27, 2024
Biological Evaluation
Section Two: Existing Conditions
www.provostandpritchard.com 2-6

2.6 SPECIAL STATUS PLANTS AND ANIMALS
California contains several rare plant and animal species. In this context, “rare” is defined as a species known to have low populations or limited distributions. As the human population grows, urban expansion encroaches on the already-limited suitable habitat for rare species. This results in rare and sensitive species becoming increasingly more vulnerable to extirpation. State and federal regulations have provided the CDFW and USFWS with mechanisms for conserving and protecting the diversity of plant and animal species native to California. Numerous native plants and animals have been formally designated as “threatened” or “endangered” under state and federal endangered species legislation. Other formal designations include “candidate” for listing or “species of special concern” by CDFW. The CNPS has its list of native plants considered rare, threatened, or endangered. Collectively these animals and plants are referred to as “special status species.”
A query of the CNDDB for occurrences of special status plant and animal species was conducted for the Lindsay 7.5-minute USGS quadrangle that contains the project site, and for the 8 surrounding USGS quadrangles: Cairns Corner, Chickencoop Canyon, Exeter, Frazier Valley, Porterville, Rocky Hill, Success Dam and Woodville. A query of the IPaC was also completed for the project site. These species, and their potential to occur within the project site, are listed in Table 2 and Table 3 below. Other special status species that did not show up in the CNDDB query, but have the potential to occur in the vicinity, are also included in Table 3. Species lists obtained from CNDDB and IPaC are available in Appendix B and Appendix C, respectively. All relevant sources of information, as discussed in the Study Methodology section of this report, as well as field observations, were used to determine if any special status species have the potential to occur within the project site.

Table 2: List of Special Status Plants with Potential to Occur on the Site and/or in the Vicinity.

Species Status* Habitat Occurrence within the Site
Alkali -sink goldfields
(Lasthenia
chrysantha)
CNPS 1B
Found in vernal pool and wet
saline flat habitats in the San
Joaquin Valley region at
elevations below 700 feet.

Blooms February – April.

Absent. Suitable habitats required
by this species were absent within
the project site and surrounding
areas.

Calico monkeyflower
(Diplacus pictus)
CNPS 1B
Found in the Sierra Nevada
foothills and the Tehachapi
mountains in bare, sunny,
shrubby areas, around granite
outcrops within foothill
woodland communities. Found
at elevations between 450 and
4,100 feet. Blooms March –
May.

Absent. Suitable habitats required
by this species were absent within
the project site and surrounding
areas and the project site is outside
of the known range for this species.

California alkali grass
(Puccinellia simplex)
CNPS 1B
Found in the San Joaquin Valley
and other parts of California in
saline flats and mineral springs
within valley grassland and
wetland-riparian communities.

Found at elevations below 3,000
feet. Blooms March – May.

Absent. Suitable habitats required
by this species were absent within
the project site and surrounding
areas.

City of Lindsay September 27, 2024
Biological Evaluation
Section Two: Existing Conditions
www.provostandpritchard.com 2-7
Species Status* Habitat Occurrence within the Site
Chaparral ragwort
(Senecio aphanactis)
CNPS 2B
Found in chaparral, cismontane
woodland, and coastal scrub,
typically within drying alkaline
flats at elevations between 50
and 2,800 feet. Blooms February
– May.

Absent. Suitable habitats required
by this species were absent within
the project site and surrounding
areas.

Earlimart orache
(Atriplex cordulata
var. erecticaulis)
CNPS 1B
Found in the San Joaquin Valley
in saline and alkaline soils,
typically within valley grasslands
at elevations below 400 feet.

Blooms August – September.

Absent. Suitable habitat and
required soils were absent from the
project site.

Kaweah brodiaea
(Brodiaea insignis)
CE, CNPS 1B
Found in the Sierra Nevada
foothills in foothill woodland and
valley grassland communities at
elevations between 650 and
1,700 feet. Blooms May – June.

Absent. Suitable habitats required
by this species were absent within
the project site and surrounding
areas.

Keck’s checkerbloom
(Sidalcea keckii)
FE, CNPS 1B
Occurs in cismontane woodland,
valley, and foothill grassland
communities, typically on grassy
slopes in clay soils at elevations
between 250 and 1,700 feet.

Blooms April – May.

Absent. Suitable habitats required
by this species were absent within
the project site and surrounding
areas.

Lesser saltscale
(Atriplex minuscula)
CNPS 1B
Found in the San Joaquin Valley
in sandy, alkaline soils in alkali
scrub, valley and foothill
grassland, and alkali sink
communities at elevations below
750 feet. Blooms April –
October.

Absent. Required habitat and
alkaline soils were absent within the
project site and surrounding areas.

Madera leptosiphon
(Leptosiphon
serrulatus)
CNPS 1B
Found within openings of foothill
woodland, often yellow-pine
forest, and chaparral at
elevations between 1,000 and
4,300 feet. Blooms April – May.

Absent. Suitable habitat was absent
within the project site and
surrounding areas.

Recurved larkspur
(Delphinium
recurvatum)
CNPS 1B
Occurs in chenopod scrub,
cismontane woodland, and
grassland habitats on poorly
drained, fine, alkaline soils; often
in valley saltbush or valley
chenopod scrub communities at
elevations between 100 and
2,600 feet. Blooms March –
June.

Absent. Suitable habitat and alkaline
soils were absent within the project
site and surrounding areas.

San Joaquin adobe
sunburst
(Pseudobahia
peirsonii)

FT, CE, CNPS
1B
Found in the San Joaquin Valley
and the Sierra Nevada foothills
in bare, dark clay soils in valley
and foothill grassland and
cismontane woodland
communities at elevations
Absent. Suitable habitat and
required dark clay soils were absent
withing the project site and
surrounding areas.

City of Lindsay September 27, 2024
Biological Evaluation
Section Two: Existing Conditions
www.provostandpritchard.com 2-8
Species Status* Habitat Occurrence within the Site
between 300 and 3,000 feet.

Blooms March – May.

San Joaquin
woollythreads
(Monolopia
congdonii)
FE, CNPS 1B
Occurs in the San Joaquin Valley
in sandy soils on alkaline or
loamy plains in valley and foothill
grassland and alkali scrub
communities at elevations
between 150 and 2,800 feet.

Blooms February – May.

Absent. Suitable habitat was absent
within the project site and
surrounding areas.

Shining navarretia
(Navarretia
nigelliformis ssp.

Radians)
CNPS 1B
Found in cismontane woodland
and valley and foothill grassland
communities, sometimes in
vernal pools. Occurs at
elevations between 200 and
3,200 feet. Blooms May – July.

Absent. Suitable habitat was absent
within the project site and
surrounding areas.

Spiny-sepaled buttoncelery
(Eryngium
spinosepalum)
CNPS 1B
Found in the Sierra Nevada
foothills and the San Joaquin
Valley. Occurs in vernal pools,
swales, and roadside ditches.

Often associated with clay soils
in vernal pools within grassland
communities. Occurs at
elevations between 50 and
4,200 feet. Blooms April – July.

Absent. Suitable habitat including
vernal pools were absent within the
project site and surrounding areas.

Springville clarkia
(Clarkia
springvillensis)

FT, CE, CNPS
1B
Endemic to the woodlands and
grasslands of the southern
portion of the Sierra Nevada
range, occurring primarily in the
Tule River watershed. Found at
elevations between 650 and
7,400 feet. Blooms in May.

Absent. Suitable habitat was absent
within the project site and
surrounding areas.

Striped adobe-lily
(Fritillaria striata)
CT, CNPS 1B
Found in the Sierra Nevada
foothills in adobe soil within
valley grassland and foothill
woodland communities at
elevations below 3,300 feet.

Blooms February – April.

Absent. Suitable habitat and
required soils were absent from the
project site and surrounding areas.

Subtle orache
(Atriplex subtilis)
CNPS 1B
Found in the San Joaquin Valley
in saline depressions in alkaline
soils within valley and foothill
grassland communities at
elevations below 300 feet.

Blooms June – October.

Absent. Suitable habitat and
required soils were absent within
the project site and surrounding
areas.

City of Lindsay September 27, 2024
Biological Evaluation
Section Two: Existing Conditions
www.provostandpritchard.com 2-9
Table 3: List of Special Status Animals with Potential to Occur on the Site and/or in the Vicinity Species Status* Habitat Occurrence within the Site
American badger
(Taxidea taxus)
CSSC
Occurs most abundantly in drier
open stages of shrub, forest, and
herbaceous habitats with friable
soils to burrow, but can be found
within numerous habitats
throughout California, including
the margins of agricultural lands.

Needs a sufficient prey base of
burrowing rodents.

Unlikely. Suitable habitat was
absent from the project site. The
site is frequently disturbed which
would deter this species. The
nearest recorded observation of this
species within the vicinity was
approximately 9.9 miles northwest
of the project site in 1994.

California condor
(Gymnogyps
californianus)

FE, CE, CFP
Typically nests in cavities in
canyon or cliff faces but has also
been recorded nesting in giant
sequoias in Tulare County.

Requires vast expanse of open
savannah, grassland, and/or
foothill chaparral in mountain
ranges of moderate altitude.

Forages for carrion up to 100
miles from their roost/nest sites.

Unlikely. Nesting habitat was absent
from the project site. The project
site may provide some foraging
opportunities, but the adjacent
residences and roads and human
activity would deter this species
from foraging on the site.

Crotch’s bumble bee
(Bombus crotchii)
CCE
Occurs throughout coastal
California, as well as east to the
Sierra Nevada-Cascade crest,
and south into Mexico. Food
plant genera include
Antirrhinum, Phacelia, Clarkia,
Dendromecon, Eschscholzia, and
Eriogonum.

Unlikely. Suitable foraging habitat
was absent from the project site
due to frequent discing. This species
could fly through the site but would
be expected to fly away during
construction. The nearest CNDDB
recorded observation was
approximately 2 miles northeast of
the project site in 1956.

Foothill yellow-legged
frog – south Sierra
DPS (Rana boylii pop.
5)
FC, CE
Frequents rocky streams and
rivers with rocky substrate and
open, sunny banks in forests,
chaparral, and woodlands.

Occasionally found in isolated
pools, vegetated backwaters,
and deep, shaded, spring-fed
pools.

Absent. Suitable habitat was absent
from the project site.

Monarch butterfly
(Danaus plexippus)
FC
Roosts in wind-protected tree
groves (eucalyptus, Monterey
pine, cypress), with nectar and
water sources nearby. Larval
host plants consist of milkweeds
(Asclepias sp.). Winter roost sites
extend along the Pacific coast
from northern Mendocino to
Baja California, Mexico.

Unlikely. Suitable foraging and
roosting habitat was absent from
the project site due to frequent
discing. This species could fly
through the site but would be
expected to fly away during
construction. There are no recorded
observations of this species on
CNDDB within the regional vicinity
of the project.

Northern California
legless lizard
(Anniella pulchra)
CSSC
Found primarily underground,
burrowing in loose, sandy soil.

Forages in loose soil and leaf
litter during the day.

Unlikely. Suitable habitat and
required soils were absent from the
project site. The nearest CNDDB
recorded observation was
City of Lindsay September 27, 2024
Biological Evaluation
Section Two: Existing Conditions
www.provostandpritchard.com 2-10
Species Status* Habitat Occurrence within the Site
approximately five miles north of
the project site in 2021.

Northwestern pond
turtle
(Actinemys
marmorata)

FPT, CSSC
An aquatic turtle of ponds,
marshes, slow-moving rivers,
streams, and irrigation ditches
with riparian vegetation.

Requires adequate basking sites
and sandy banks or grassy open
fields to deposit eggs.

Unlikely. The stormwater basin
habitat lacks suitable vegetation and
cover for this species to bask and
hide from predators. The
surrounding upland areas are
frequently disturbed including
discing, which would keep this
species from nesting. The nearest
CNDDB recorded observation was
approximately 9.8 miles northeast
of the project site at an unknown
date prior to 1988.

Pallid bat
(Antrozous pallidus)
CSSC
Roosts in rocky outcrops, cliffs,
and crevices with access to open
habitats for foraging. May also
roost in caves, mines, hollow
trees, and buildings. Forages
over open shrub-steppe
grasslands, oak savannah
grasslands, open Ponderosa pine
forests, talus slopes, gravel
roads, lava flows, fruit orchards,
and vineyards
Unlikely. The project site lacked
suitable roosting habitat for this
species. This species could fly over
or forage within the project site but
would not be expected to occur
during construction. The nearest
CNDDB recorded observation was
approximately 12 miles northwest
of the project site in 2004.

San Joaquin kit fox
(Vulpes macrotis
mutica)
FE, CT
Opportunistically forages in a
variety of habitats. Dens in
burrows within alkali sink, valley
grassland, and woodland
habitats in valleys and adjacent
foothills and in human-made
structures in cities, rangeland,
and agricultural areas.

Unlikely. Suitable habitat for this
species is absent due to frequent
disturbances and lack of prey. While
the site contained California ground
squirrels at the time of the survey,
there were also bait stations
present to eliminate them from the
site. The nearest recorded
observation was approximately 2
miles northwest of the project site
in 2001.

Swainson’s hawk
(Buteo swainsoni)
CT
Nests in large trees in open
areas adjacent to grasslands,
grain or alfalfa fields, or livestock
pastures suitable for supporting
rodent populations.

Possible. While suitable nesting
trees for this species were absent
within the project site there are
trees large enough to nest in the
surrounding areas. This species
could also forage over the site. The
nearest recorded observation of this
species occurred approximately 3.8
miles west of the project site in
2017.

Tipton kangaroo rat
(Dipodomys
nitratoides
nitratoides)
FE, CE
Inhabits saltbush scrub and sink
scrub communities in the Tulare
Lake Basin of the southern San
Joaquin Valley. This species
Unlikely. The project site lacked
suitable habitat and soft soils for
this species to burrow. The nearest
recorded observation was
City of Lindsay September 27, 2024
Biological Evaluation
Section Two: Existing Conditions
www.provostandpritchard.com 2-11
Species Status* Habitat Occurrence within the Site
needs soft friable soils to
burrow.
approximately 7.4 miles southwest
of the project site in 1943.

Townsend’s big-eared
bat (Corynorhinus
townsendii)
CSSC
Primarily a cave dwelling bat, but
may also roost in tunnels,
buildings, other human-made
structures, and hollow trees.

Occurs in a variety of habitats
and forage associations include
edge habitats along streams and
areas adjacent to and within a
variety of wooded habitats.

Unlikely. The project site lacked
suitable roosting habitat for this
species. This species could fly over
or forage within the project site but
would not be expected to occur
during construction. The nearest
CNDDB recorded observation was
approximately 15 miles southeast of
the project site in 1941.

Tricolored blackbird
(Agelaius tricolor)

CT, CSSC
Nests colonially near fresh water
in dense cattails or tules, or in
thickets of riparian shrubs.

Forages in grassland and
cropland. Large colonies are
often found foraging in dairy
farm feed fields.

Unlikely. The project site lacked
suitable nesting habitat. This species
could forage on or fly over the site
but would be expected to fly away
during construction. The nearest
CNDDB recorded observation was
approximately 6.8 miles northeast
of the project site in 2014.

Valley elderberry
longhorn beetle
(Desmocerus
californicus
dimorphus)
FT
Lives in mature elderberry
shrubs of the Central Valley and
adjacent foothills from Tehama
County south through Merced
and Mariposa Counties with two
scattered populations in Madera
and Fresno Counties. Adults are
active from March to June.

Absent. Suitable habitat and
elderberry shrubs required by this
species were absent from the site.

The project site is located outside of
the known range for this species.

Vernal pool fairy
shrimp
(Branchinecta lynchi)
FT
Occupies vernal and seasonal
pools, with clear to tea-colored
water, in grass or mud-bottomed
swales, and basalt depression
pools.

Absent. Suitable vernal pool habitat
was absent from the project site.

Western mastiff bat
(Eumops perotis
californicus)
CSSC
Found in open, arid to semi-arid
habitats, including dry desert
washes, flood plains, chaparral,
oak woodland, open ponderosa
pine forest, grassland, and
agricultural areas, where it feeds
on insects in flight. Roosts most
commonly in crevices in cliff
faces but may also use high
buildings and tunnels.

Unlikely. The project site lacked
suitable roosting habitat for this
species. This species could fly over
or forage within the project site but
would not be expected to occur
during construction. The nearest
recorded observation was
approximately 8.4 miles north of the
project site in 1994.

Western spadefoot
(Spea hammondii)

FPT, CSSC
The majority of the time this
species is terrestrial and occurs
in small mammal burrows and
soil cracks, sometimes in the
bottom of dried pools. Prefers
open areas with sandy or
gravelly soils, in a variety of
habitats including mixed
woodlands, grasslands, coastal
Unlikely. Although the project site
contains marginally suitable habitat
for this species such as the
stormwater basin, the odds of this
species occurring here are low. In
addition, the highly disturbed
surrounding areas make it unlikely
that this species would occur within
the project site. The last recorded
City of Lindsay September 27, 2024
Biological Evaluation
Section Two: Existing Conditions
www.provostandpritchard.com 2-12
Species Status* Habitat Occurrence within the Site
sage scrub, chaparral, sandy
washes, lowlands, river
floodplains, alluvial fans, playas,
alkali flats, foothills, and
mountains. Vernal or seasonal
pools, that hold water for a
minimum of three weeks, are
necessary for breeding.
observation was approximately six
miles northeast of the project site in
1991.

Western yellow-billed
cuckoo
(Coccyzus
americanus)
FT, CE
Suitable nesting habitat in
California includes dense
riparian willow-cottonwood and
mesquite habitats along a
perennial river. Once common in
the California Central Valley, as
well as coastal valleys and
riparian habitats east of the
Sierra Nevada, habitat loss now
constrains the California
breeding population to small
numbers of birds.

Absent. Suitable habitat was absent
from the project site.

*EXPLANATION OF OCCURRENCE DESIGNATIONS AND STATUS CODES

Present: Species observed on the project site at time of field surveys or during recent past.

Likely: Species not observed on the project site, but it may reasonably be expected to occur there on a regular basis.

Possible: Species not observed on the project site, but it could occur there from time to time.

Unlikely: Species not observed on the project site, and would not be expected to occur there except, perhaps, as a transient.

Absent: Species not observed on the project site and precluded from occurring there due to absence of suitable habitat.

CNPS LISTING
1B Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere. 2B Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere.

City of Lindsay September 27, 2024
Biological Evaluation
Section Three: Impacts and Mitigation
www.provostandpritchard.com 3-1
3 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION

3.1 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA

3.1.1 CEQA
General plans, area plans, and specific projects are subject to the provisions of CEQA. The purpose of CEQA is to assess the impacts of proposed projects on the environment prior to project implementation. Impacts to biological resources are just one type of environmental impact assessed under CEQA and vary from project to project in terms of scope and magnitude. Projects requiring removal of vegetation may result in the mortality or displacement of animals associated with this vegetation. Animals adapted to humans, roads, buildings, and pets may replace those species formerly occurring on a site. Plants and animals that are rare may be destroyed or displaced. Sensitive habitats such as wetlands and riparian woodlands may be altered or destroyed. Such impacts may be considered either “significant” or “less than significant” under CEQA. According to CEQA Statute and Guidelines (AEP 2023), “significant effect on the environment” means a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic interest. Specific project impacts to biological resources may be considered “significant” if they would:
• 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 CDFW or USFWS;
• 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 CDFW or USFWS; • Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means; • Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.
• Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance; or
• Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), or other approved local, regional, or state HCP.

Furthermore, CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a) states that a project may trigger the requirement to make a “mandatory finding of significance” if the project has 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, reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare or threatened species, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.”

3.1.2 NEPA
Federal projects are subject to the provisions of NEPA. The purpose of NEPA is to assess the effects of a proposed action on the human environment, assess the significance of those effects, and recommend measures that if implemented would mitigate those effects. As used in NEPA, a determination that certain City of Lindsay September 27, 2024
Biological Evaluation
Section Three: Impacts and Mitigation
www.provostandpritchard.com 3-2
effects on the human environment are “significant” requires considerations of both context and intensity (40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1508.27).

For the purposes of assessing effects of an action on biological resources, the relevant context is often local.

The analysis may, however, require a comparison of the action area’s biological resources with the biological resources of an entire region. Project activities must have a federal nexus and discuss federally listed species, and/or designated critical habitat that may be affected in the action area.

Federal agencies are required to determine whether their actions may affect listed or proposed species and designated critical habitat. The primary role of this document is to provide agencies conclusion and the rationale to support those conclusions regarding the effects of any proposed actions of the project on protected resources. Document content and recommended elements are identified in 50 CFR 402.12(f).

Under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, federal agencies must consult with NOAA Fisheries or the USFWS, depending on the species, through an informal or formal consultation when any action the agency carries out, funds, or authorizes may affect either a species listed as threatened or endangered under the Act, or any critical habitat designated for it.

Once resources are assessed an Endangered Species Act Section 7 finding needs to be made regarding proposed or listed species and/or designated critical habitat that may be present in the project area. This report will provide the necessary information for the lead federal agency to make a determination on affects. This finding may result in one of the following determinations:
• “No effect” - means there will be no impacts, positive or negative, to listed or proposed resources.

Generally, this means no listed resources will be exposed to action and its environmental consequences. Concurrence from the Service is not required. • “May affect, but not likely to adversely affect" means that all effects are beneficial, insignificant, or discountable. Beneficial effects have contemporaneous positive effects without any adverse effects to the species or habitat. Insignificant effects relate to the size of the impact and include those effects that are undetectable, not measurable, or cannot be evaluated. Discountable effects are extremely unlikely to occur. These determinations require written concurrence from the Service. • “May affect, likely to adversely affect" means that listed resources are likely to be exposed to the action or its environmental consequences and will respond in a negative manner to the exposure.

3.2 RELEVANT GOALS, POLICIES, AND LAWS

3.2.1 TULARE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN
The Tulare County General Plan contains the following goals and policies related to the project:

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES:

The Environmental Resource Management (ERM) policies were established to preserve and protect sensitive significant habitats, enhance biodiversity, and promote healthy ecosystems throughout the county.

ERM-1.1: Protection of Rare and Endangered Species. The County shall ensure the protection of environmentally sensitive wildlife and plant life, including those species designated as rare, threatened, and/or endangered by State and/or Federal government, through compatible land use development.

City of Lindsay September 27, 2024
Biological Evaluation
Section Three: Impacts and Mitigation
www.provostandpritchard.com 3-3
ERM-1.16 Cooperate with Wildlife Agencies. The County shall cooperate with State and federal wildlife agencies to address linkages between habitat areas.

WATER QUALITY:

The Water Resources (WR) policies were established to provide for the current and long-range water needs of the County and for the protection of the quality of surface water and groundwater resources.

WR-2.1 Protect Water Quality: All major land use and development plans shall be evaluated as to their potential to create surface and groundwater contamination hazards from point and non-point sources. The County shall confer with other appropriate agencies, as necessary, to assure adequate water quality review to prevent soil erosion; direct discharge of potentially harmful substances; ground leaching from storage of raw materials, petroleum products, or wastes; floating debris; and runoff from site.

WR-2.2 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Enforcement: The County shall continue to support the State in monitoring and enforcing provisions to control non-point source water pollution contained in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency NPDES program as implemented by the Water Quality Control Board.

WR-2.3 Best Management Practices (BMPs): The County shall continue to require the use of feasible BMPs, and other mitigation measures designed to protect surface water and groundwater from the adverse effects of construction activities, agricultural operations requiring a County Permit and urban runoff in coordination with the Water Quality Control Board.

3.2.2 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
Permits may be required from CDFW and/or USFWS if activities associated with a project have the potential to result in the “take” of a species listed as threatened or endangered under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) and/or Endangered Species Act (ESA), respectively. Take is defined by CESA as, “to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture or kill” (California Fish and Game Code, Section 86). Take is more broadly defined by the ESA to include “harm” (16 USC, Section 1532(19), 50 CFR, Section 17.3). CDFW and USFWS are responsible agencies under CEQA and NEPA. Both agencies review CEQA and NEPA documents in order to determine the adequacy of the treatment of endangered species issues and to make project-specific recommendations for their conservation.

3.2.3 DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT
When species are listed as threatened or endangered, the USFWS often designates areas of “critical habitat” as defined by section 3(5)(A) of the ESA. Critical habitat is a term defined in the ESA as a specific geographic area that contains features essential for the conservation of a threatened or endangered species and that may require special management and protection. Critical habitat is a tool that supports the continued conservation of imperiled species by guiding cooperation with the federal government.

Designations only affect federal agency actions or federally funded or permitted activities. Critical habitat does not prevent activities that occur within the designated area. Only activities that involve a federal permit, license, or funding and are likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat will be affected.

3.2.4 MIGRATORY BIRDS
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA: 16 USC 703-712) prohibits killing, possessing, or trading in any bird species covered in one of four international conventions to which the United States is a party, except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. The name of the act is misleading, City of Lindsay September 27, 2024
Biological Evaluation
Section Three: Impacts and Mitigation
www.provostandpritchard.com 3-4
as it covers almost all bird’s native to the United States, even those that are non-migratory. The MBTA encompasses whole birds, parts of birds, and bird nests and eggs. Additionally, California Fish and Game Code makes it unlawful to take or possess any non-game birds covered by the MBTA (Section 3513), as well as any other native non-game birds (Section 3800).

3.2.5 BIRDS OF PREY
Birds of prey are protected in California under provisions of California Fish and Game Code (Section 3503.5), which states that it is unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the order Falconiformes (hawks and eagles) or Strigiformes (owls), as well as their nests and eggs. The bald eagle and golden eagle are afforded additional protection under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 USC 668), which makes it unlawful to kill birds or their eggs, or take feathers or nests, without a permit issued by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior.

3.2.6 NESTING BIRDS
In California, protection is afforded to the nests and eggs of all birds. California Fish and Game Code (Section 3503) states that it is “unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto.” Breeding-season disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort is considered a form of “take” by the CDFW.

3.2.7 WETLANDS AND OTHER “JURISDICTIONAL WATERS”
The definition of “waters of the United States” (WOTUS) often changes from one presidential administration to the next and can also be affected by the outcomes of court cases involving federal jurisdiction of waters. The current definition (i.e., “Conforming Rule”) was adopted under the Biden Administration in early 2023 and was subsequently revised in September 2023 to incorporate the U.S.

Supreme Court’s May 25, 2023, decision in the case of Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

The Conforming Rule has adopted much of the same WOTUS designations as the pre-2015 rules but has incorporated the most recent science and court case rulings. The extent of jurisdiction has been defined in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) but is also subject to interpretation by the federal courts.

Jurisdictional waters generally include the following categories:
1) Traditional Navigable Waters, the territorial seas, or interstate waters (not including interstate wetlands);
2) Impoundments of waters of the United States;
3) Tributaries of:
a. Traditional navigable waters, territorial seas, or interstate waters (not including interstate wetlands); or
b. Impoundments of waters of the United States when the tributaries meet the relatively permanent standard.
4) Wetlands:
a. Adjacent to traditional navigable waters, the territorial seas, or interstate waters; b. Adjacent to and with a continuous surface connection to relatively permanent impoundments of waters of the United States
c. Adjacent to and with a continuous surface connection to relatively permanent jurisdictional tributaries.
5) Intrastate lakes and ponds not identified in items 1 through 4 of this section that are relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water with a continuous surface connection to the waters identified in items 1 or 3 above.

City of Lindsay September 27, 2024
Biological Evaluation
Section Three: Impacts and Mitigation
www.provostandpritchard.com 3-5
Exclusions under the new definition include the following:
1) Waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons, designed to meet the requirements of the CWA;
2) Prior converted cropland designated by the Secretary of Agriculture. The exclusion would cease upon a change of use, which means that the area is no longer available for the production of agricultural commodities. Notwithstanding the determination of an area's status as prior converted cropland by any other federal agency, for the purposes of the CWA, the final authority regarding CWA jurisdiction remains with USEPA;
3) Ditches (including roadside ditches) excavated wholly in and draining only dry land and that do not carry a relatively permanent flow of water;
4) Artificially irrigated areas that would revert to dry land if the irrigation ceased; 5) Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating or diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing;
6) Artificial reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating or diking dry land to retain water for primarily aesthetic reasons; 7) Waterfilled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States; and
8) Swales and erosional features (e.g., gullies, small washes) characterized by low volume, infrequent, or short duration flow.

The Conformin Rule has incorporated the best available science, relevant supreme court cases, public comment, technical expertise, and experience gained from more than 45 years of implementing the pre2015 “waters of the United States” framework to inform jurisdictional limits. One significant court case involved the U.S. Supreme Court in its 2001 Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. United States Army Corps of Engineers (SWANCC) decision. It was determined that channels and wetlands isolated from other jurisdictional waters cannot be considered jurisdictional on the basis of their use, hypothetical or observed, by migratory birds.

Similarly, in its 2006 consolidated Carabell/Rapanos decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a significant nexus between a wetland and other navigable waters must exist for the wetland itself to be considered a jurisdictional water. The Supreme Court heard Sackett v. United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in May 2023, to determine governing standards of a significant nexus between waters of the United States and adjacent wetlands. The court decided that adjacent wetlands would be protected under the CWA only if it maintained a continuous surface water connection with a federal water body. This decision has limited protection for networks of wetlands connected to navigable waters through subsurface flow. The final decision was enacted in September 2023.

The USACE regulates the filling or grading of waters of the United States. under the authority of Section 404 of the CWA. The extent of jurisdiction within drainage channels is defined by “ordinary high-water marks” on opposing channel banks. All activities that involve the discharge of dredge or fill material into waters of the United States are subject to the permit requirements of the USACE. Such permits are typically issued on the condition that the applicant agrees to provide mitigation that results in no net loss of wetland functions or values. No permit can be issued until the RWQCB issues a Section 401 Water Quality City of Lindsay September 27, 2024
Biological Evaluation
Section Three: Impacts and Mitigation
www.provostandpritchard.com 3-6
Certification (or waiver of such certification) verifying that the proposed activity will meet state water quality standards.

Under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1969, the SWRCB has regulatory authority to protect the water quality of all surface water and groundwater in California (“waters of the state”). Nine RWQCBs oversee water quality at the local and regional level. The RWQCB for a given region regulates discharges of fill or pollutants into waters of the state through the issuance of various permits and orders.

Discharges into Waters of the State that are also WOTUS require a Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the RWQCB as a prerequisite to obtaining certain federal permits, such as a Section 404 Clean Water Act permit. Discharges into all Waters of the State, even those that are not also WOTUS, require waste discharge requirements (WDRs), or waivers of WDRs, from the RWQCB. The RWQCB also administers the Construction Storm Water Program and the federal National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Projects that disturb one acre or more of soil must obtain a Construction General Permit under the Construction Storm Water Program. A prerequisite for this permit is the development of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) by a certified Qualified SWPPP Developer. Projects that discharge wastewater, storm water, or other pollutants into a WOTUS may require an NPDES permit.

CDFW has jurisdiction over the bed and bank of natural drainages and lakes according to provisions of Section 1601 and 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code. Activities that may substantially modify such waters through the diversion or obstruction of their natural flow, change or use any material from their bed or bank, or deposits debris within them require a notification of a Lake or Streambed Alteration. If CDFW determines that the activity may adversely affect fish and wildlife resources, a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement will be prepared. Such an agreement typically stipulates that certain avoidance and minimization measures will be implemented to protect the habitat values of the lake or drainage in question and the plant, fish, and wildlife species that may be present within these resources.

3.3 POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT PROJECT-RELATED IMPACTS AND

MITIGATION
Species protected by California Fish and Game Code, CDFW, USFWS, CEQA, or NEPA that have the potential to be impacted by project activities include Swainson’s hawk and migratory birds and raptors.

Corresponding mitigation measures can be found below.

3.3.1 PROJECT-RELATED MORTALITY AND/OR NEST ABANDONMENT OF MIGRATORY BIRDS AND RAPTORS, INCLUDING SWAINSON’S HAWK
The project will result in the construction of a brine pond that will hold water with saturated sodium chloride brine (approximately 25% NaCl) and elevated levels of nitrate and potentially elevated levels of arsenic which could impact migratory birds and raptors, and implementation of the project has the potential to impact nesting migratory birds and raptors including Swainson’s hawk. The construction of the brine pond could potentially attract aquatic and semi-aquatic birds. While birds generally avoid areas that could harm them, birds that land on or adjacent to this pond could become encrusted with salt and drown or impact their ability to fly. If birds preen their feathers that have toxic brine water or drink toxic brine water from the brine pond, they could become sick or die due to toxicosis. Raptors could forage on birds with toxicosis and could have secondary poisoning. This would be an ongoing potential impact to migratory birds and raptors for the life of the project, or whenever there was toxic brine water or residual toxic brine in the proposed brine pond. In addition, the project site contains suitable nesting habitat for a variety of protected bird species, such as migratory birds and raptors. It is anticipated that during the nesting bird season, protected birds could nest on the ground or in shrubs, trees, or structures within the project site.

City of Lindsay September 27, 2024
Biological Evaluation
Section Three: Impacts and Mitigation
www.provostandpritchard.com 3-7
Protected birds located within or adjacent to the project site during construction have the potential to be injured or killed by project-related activities. In addition to the direct “take” of protected birds within the project site and adjacent areas, these birds nesting in these areas could be disturbed by project-related activities resulting in nest abandonment. Projects that adversely affect the nesting success of protected birds or result in the mortality of the migratory birds and raptors would be a violation of state and federal laws and considered a potentially significant impact under CEQA and NEPA.

Implementation of the following measures will reduce potential impacts to protected birds to a less than significant level under CEQA and NEPA and help comply with state and federal laws protecting these bird species.

Mitigation Measure BIO-1a (Deterrents): Prior to filling the brine pond, deterrents will be put in place to discourage birds from using the pond. This could include a combination of visual, auditory, and physical deterrents for birds to minimize the potential for protected birds to utilize the brine pond. Examples include deterrents such as noise makers, ribbons, lasers, motion-triggered sprinklers, decoys, and others.

Mitigation Measure BIO-1b (Avoidance): The project’s construction activities will occur, if feasible, between September 16 and January 31 (outside of the nesting bird season) to avoid impacts to nesting birds.

Mitigation Measure BIO-1c (Pre-construction Surveys): If project construction activities must occur within the nesting bird season (February 1 to August 31), a qualified biologist will conduct a preconstruction survey for active nests within seven (7) calendar days prior to the start of construction.

The survey will include a one-time take avoidance survey for Swainson’s hawk and other birds and raptors. The survey will be completed within the project site, and up to 100 feet outside of the project site for nesting migratory birds, up to 500 feet outside of the project site for nesting raptors, and up to 0.5-mile outside of the project site for nesting Swainson’s hawks. Raptor nests will be considered “active” upon the nest-building stage. The survey will not be completed between April 21 to June 10 due to the difficulty of identifying Swainson’s hawk nests during this time of year. If no active nests are observed, no further mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measure BIO-1d (Avoidance Buffers): On discovery of any active nests or breeding colonies near work areas, a qualified biologist will determine appropriate avoidance buffer distances based on applicable CDFW and/or USFWS guidelines, the biology of the species, conditions of the nest(s), and the level of project disturbance. If necessary, avoidance buffers will be identified and will be maintained until the biologist has determined that the nestlings have fledged.

3.4 SECTION 7 DETERMINATIONS
In addition to the occurrence analysis performed in Table 2 and Table 3 of this document, Table 4 summarizes project effect determinations for federally-listed species found on the CNDDB list generated City of Lindsay September 27, 2024
Biological Evaluation
Section Three: Impacts and Mitigation
www.provostandpritchard.com 3-8
on March 7, 2024, and the USFWS IPaC list generated on March 7, 2024 (see Appendix B and Appendix C, respectively), in accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.

Table 4: Section 7 Determinations
Species Determination Rationale for Determination
California condor (Gymnogyps
californianus)
No effect
Habitats absent. Nesting habitat was absent
from the project site. The project site may
provide some foraging opportunities, but
frequent disturbances would deter this species.

Foothill yellow-legged frog -
south Sierra DPS (Rana boylii
pop. 5)
No effect
Habitat absent. Suitable habitat was absent
from the project site.

Keck’s checkerbloom (Sidalcea
keckii)
No effect
Habitats absent. Suitable habitats required by
this species were absent within the project site
and surrounding areas.

Monarch butterfly
(Danaus plexippus)
No effect
Habitats absent. Suitable foraging and roosting
habitat was absent from the project site due to
frequent discing. This species could fly through
the site but would be expected to fly away
during construction.

Northwestern pond turtle
(Actinemys marmorata)
No effect
Habitat absent. The stormwater basin habitat
lacks suitable vegetation and cover for this
species to bask and hide from predators. The
surrounding upland areas are frequently
disturbed including discing, which would keep
this species from nesting.

San Joaquin adobe sunburst
(Pseudobahia peirsonii)
No effect
Habitats absent. Suitable habitat and required
dark clay soils were absent withing the project
site and surrounding areas.

San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes
macrotis mutica)
No effect
Habitats absent. Suitable habitat for this species
is absent due to frequent disturbances and lack
of prey. While the site contained California
ground squirrels at the time of the survey,
there were also bait stations present to
eliminate them from the site.

San Joaquin woollythreads
(Monolopia congdonii)
No effect
Habitats absent. Suitable habitat was absent
within the project site and surrounding areas.

Springville clarkia (Clarkia
springvillensis)
No effect
Habitats absent. Suitable habitat was absent
within the project site and surrounding areas.

Tipton kangaroo rat
(Dipodomys nitratoides
nitratoides)
No effect
Habitats absent. The project site lacked suitable
habitat and soft soils for this species to burrow.

Valley elderberry longhorn
beetle
(Desmocerus californicus
dimorphus)
No effect
Habitat absent. Suitable habitat and elderberry
shrubs required by this species were absent
from the site. The project site is located outside
of the known range for this species.

City of Lindsay September 27, 2024
Biological Evaluation
Section Three: Impacts and Mitigation
www.provostandpritchard.com 3-9
Species Determination Rationale for Determination
Vernal pool fairy shrimp
(Branchinecta lynchi)
No effect
Habitat absent. Vernal pool habitat was absent
within the project site and surrounding areas.

Western spadefoot
(Spea hammondii)
No effect
Habitat marginal. Although the project site
contains marginally suitable habitat for this
species such as the stormwater basin, the odds
of this species occurring here are low. In
addition, the highly disturbed surrounding
areas make it unlikely that this species would
occur within the project site.

Western yellow-billed cuckoo
(Coccyzus americanus)
No effect
Habitats absent. Habitats required by this
species for nesting and foraging were absent
from the project site and surrounding areas.

3.5 LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT PROJECT-RELATED IMPACTS

3.5.1 PROJECT-RELATED IMPACTS TO SPECIAL STATUS PLANT SPECIES ABSENT FROM, OR

UNLIKELY TO OCCUR ON, THE PROJECT SITE
Of the 17 regionally occurring special status plant species, all are considered absent from or unlikely to occur within the project site due to past or ongoing disturbance and/or the absence of suitable habitat.

Since it is unlikely that these species would occur onsite, implementation of the project should have no impact on these 17 special status species through construction mortality, disturbance, or loss of habitat.

Mitigation measures are not warranted.

3.5.2 PROJECT-RELATED IMPACTS TO SPECIAL STATUS ANIMAL SPECIES ABSENT FROM, OR

UNLIKELY TO OCCUR ON, THE PROJECT SITE
Of the 18 regionally occurring special status animal species, 17 are considered absent from or unlikely to occur within the project site due to past or ongoing disturbance and/or the absence of suitable habitat.

These species include: American badger, California condor, Crotch’s bumble bee, foothill yellow-legged frog, monarch butterfly, northern California legless lizard, northwestern pond turtle, pallid bat, San Joaquin kit fox, Tipton kangaroo rat, Townsend’s big-eared bat, tricolored blackbird, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, vernal pool fairy shrimp, western mastiff bat, western spadefoot, and western yellow-billed cuckoo.

Mitigation measures are not warranted.

3.5.3 PROJECT-RELATED IMPACTS TO RIPARIAN HABITAT AND NATURAL COMMUNITIES OF

SPECIAL CONCERN
Riparian habitat is absent from the project site and adjacent areas. There are no CNDDB-designated “natural communities of special concern” recorded within the project site or surrounding areas. Mitigation is not warranted.

3.5.4 PROJECT-RELATED IMPACTS TO REGULATED WATERS, WETLANDS, AND WATER

QUALITY
Typical wetlands, vernal pools, and other waters were not observed onsite at the time of the field survey.

The only aquatic feature onsite is a stagnant, isolated, stormwater basin with no connection to navigable waters or a natural drainage channels with a bed or bank, and therefore it can be reasonably assumed that jurisdictional waters are absent. There are no designated wild and scenic rivers within the project site; City of Lindsay September 27, 2024
Biological Evaluation
Section Three: Impacts and Mitigation
www.provostandpritchard.com 3-10
therefore, the project would not result in direct impacts to wild and scenic rivers. Mitigation measures are not warranted.

Since construction would involve ground disturbance over an area greater than one acre, the project would also be required to obtain a Construction General Permit under the Construction Storm Water Program administered by the RWQCB. A prerequisite for this permit is the development of a SWPPP to ensure construction activities do not adversely affect water quality.

3.5.5 PROJECT-RELATED IMPACTS TO WILDLIFE MOVEMENT CORRIDORS AND NATIVE

WILDLIFE NURSERY SITES
The project site does not contain features that would be likely to function as wildlife movement corridors.

The surrounding areas are commercial and residential with paved roads; it is unlikely construction would affect animal dispersion and migration.

The project site contains a stormwater basin that could potentially be used as a native wildlife nursery site by aquatic and semi-aquatic species. The basin is not proposed to be impacted by the project.

Therefore, the project would have no impact on wildlife movement corridors or native wildlife nursery sites, and no mitigation measures are warranted.

3.5.6 PROJECT-RELATED IMPACTS TO CRITICAL HABITAT
Designated critical habitat is absent from the project site and surrounding areas. Therefore, there would be no impact to critical habitat, and mitigation measures are not warranted.

3.5.7 LOCAL POLICIES OR HABITAT CONSERVATION PLANS
The project appears to be consistent with the goals and policies of the Tulare County General Plan. There are no known HCPs or NCCPs in the project vicinity. Mitigation measures are not warranted.

3.5.8 COASTAL ZONE AND COASTAL BARRIERS RESOURCES ACT
The project would not be located within the coastal zone. The project would not impact or be located within or near the Coastal Barrier Resources System or its adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters. Mitigation measures are not warranted.

3.5.9 PROJECT-RELATED IMPACT TO ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT
Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) and Habitat Areas of Particular Concern are absent from the project site and surrounding areas, and consultation with the National Marine Fisheries (NMFS) Service would not be required. Query results of the NMFS EHF Mapper can be found in Appendix E at the end of this document.

Mitigation measures are not warranted.

City of Lindsay September 27, 2024
Biological Evaluation
Section Four: References
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-1
4 REFERENCES
Baldwin, B., Goldman, D. H., Keil, D., Patterson, R., Rosatti, T., & Wilken, D. (2012). The Jepson Manual; Vascular Plants of California, second edition. Berkeley: University of California Press. Retrieved December 2023
Calflora. (2023). Retrieved from Calflora: Information on California Plants for Education, Research and Conservation: http://www.calflora.org/
California Department of Conservation Fish and Wildlife. (2022). California Department of Conservation Fish and Wildlife. Retrieved December 2023, from California Department of Conservation Fish and Wildlife:
https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). (2018, March). Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensative Natural Communities. Retrieved December 2023, from https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=18959&inline California Department of FIsh and Wildlife. (2023). State and federally listed endangered, threatened, and rare plants of California. Retrieved December 2023, from
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109390&inline California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). (2023). California Department of Fish and Wildlife. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). Retrieved December 2023 Department of Water Resources. (n.d.). Retrieved December 2023, from Groundwater Basin Boundary Assessment Tool (BBAT): http://gis.water.ca.gov/app/bbat/ eBird, Cornell Lab of Ornithology. (2023). Retrieved December 2023, from eBird: An online database of bird distribution and abundance: https://ebird.org/
iNaturalist. (2023). Observations of Special Status Species. Retrieved December 2023, from iNaturalist:
https://www.inaturalist.org/
Jepson Flora Project (eds.). (2023). Retrieved December 2023, from Jepson eFlora:
http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/eflora/
Natural Resource Conservation Service. (2023). NRCS Hydric Soils List. Retrieved December 2023, from https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/publications/Lists%20of%20Hydric%20Soils%20- %20Query%20by%20Soil%20Survey%20Area%20Map%20Unit%20Rating.html Sibley, D. A. (n.d.). The Sibley Guide to Birds (Second ed.). Knopf. Retrieved December 2023 State Water Resources Control Board. (2021, April 6). State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharge of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State. Retrieved December 2023 The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Habitat Conservation. (2023). Essential Fish Habitat Mapper. Retrieved December 2023, from
https://www.habitat.noaa.gov/apps/efhmapper/?page=page_5 City of Lindsay September 27, 2024
Biological Evaluation
Section Four: References
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-2
Tulare County General Plan. (2012, August). Retrieved December 2023, from http://generalplan.co.tulare.ca.us/documents/GP/001Adopted%20Tulare%20County%20General %20Plan%20Materials/200Mitigating,%20Monitoring%20and%20Reporting%20Program/MITIGA TING,%20MONITORING%20AND%20REPORTING%20PROGRAM.pdf
United States Army Corps of Engineers. (1987). Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Department of the Army. Retrieved December 2023
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2022). Waters GeoViewer. Retrieved December 2023, from https://www.epa.gov/waterdata/waters-geoviewer United States Fish and Wildlife Service. (2011). Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance. Retrieved December 2023 United States Fish and Wildlife Service. (2023). Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS). Retrieved December 2023, from https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. National Wetlands Inventory. (2023). National Wetlands Inventory.

Retrieved December 2023, from National Wetlands Inventory:
https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html
United States Fish and Wildlife Service.. (2023). Information on Planning and Consultation (IPaC). Retrieved December 2023, from https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/
Weatherspark. (2023). Climate and Average Weather Year Round in Lindsay California, United States. Retrieved December 2023, from Weatherspark: https://weatherspark.com/y/1463/Average-Weather-inLindsay-California-United-States-Year-Round APPENDIX A: REPRESENTATIVE

PHOTOS OF THE PROJECT SITE
City of Lindsay
Lindsay Well 11 Treatment Project Appendix A
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group A-1
Photograph 1
Overview of the stormwater
basin habitat within the site.

Photograph 2
Another overview of the
stormwater basin habitat
within the site.
" NE ---=-- ~ I: . ) 30 - 60 ~~ _ _ :,0
I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I" • I I
O 89°E (T} ® 36.206203, -119.104463 ±21 m • 83 m
SE 120 150
•l•l•l•l•l•l•I•
4482 ±3 m • 83 m
City of Lindsay
Lindsay Well 11 Treatment Project Appendix A
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group A-2
Photograph 3
Overview of the stagnant
water within the stormwater basin habitat.

Photograph 4
Unidentified fish carcasses
located within the stormwater basin habitat.

City of Lindsay
Lindsay Well 11 Treatment Project Appendix A
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group A-3
Photograph 5
Overview of the ruderal
habitat within the site.

Photograph 6
Another overview of the ruderal habitat within the site.

NW N I NE E 300 330 0 30 60 90
I· I· I· I· I· I· I· I· I· I• I· I· I· I· I· I• I· I
T) ® 36.205031, -119.104515 ±16 m • 84 m
O 171°S (T) @ 36.205076, -119.104488 ±13 m. 84 m
City of Lindsay
Lindsay Well 11 Treatment Project Appendix A
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group A-4
Photograph 7
Domestic dog scat located
within the ruderal habitat
onsite.

Photograph 8
Example of a California
ground squirrel burrow located within the ruderal
habitat onsite.

E SE I s SW 90 120 I 1so 1ao, 210 240
I • I • I• I • I • I •, I • I • I • I • I , • I •, I • I • I• I • I • I 0 163°SE (T) @ 36.205056, -119.102969 ±8 m • 83 m - ... .

City of Lindsay
Lindsay Well 11 Treatment Project Appendix A
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group A-5
Photograph 9
California ground squirrel
bait stations were located
along the south fence line .

Surrounding land to the
south consisted of an elementary school.

Photograph 10
Surrounding land to the
north and east consisted of
residential neighborhoods.
: , SE _ _ , SW . --- ~ 1~- - ) ~ O 150 _ _- - 1\;,J ~ 210 240 · l · l •l· l • l ·l• l · l ·l• l • l ·l· l • l ·l• l • I · 0 180°S (T) @ 36.205106, -119.102903 ±4 m • 84 m
j~
SW w INW N 240 270 300 330 0 30
• I • I • I• I • I • I• I • I • I• I • I • I• I • I • I• I • I • O 310°NW (T) @ 36.206821, -119.102456 ±3 m • 85 m . .
f
APPENDIX B: CNDDB 9-QUAD

SPECIES LIST
Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
alkali-sink goldfields
Lasthenia chrysantha
PDAST5L030 None None G2 S2 1B.1
American badger
Taxidea taxus
AMAJF04010 None None G5 S3 SSC
calico monkeyflower
Diplacus pictus
PDSCR1B240 None None G2 S2 1B.2
California alkali grass
Puccinellia simplex
PMPOA53110 None None G2 S2 1B.2
California condor
Gymnogyps californianus
ABNKA03010 Endangered Endangered G1 S2 FP
chaparral ragwort
Senecio aphanactis
PDAST8H060 None None G3 S2 2B.2
Crotch's bumble bee
Bombus crotchii
IIHYM24480 None Candidate
Endangered
G2 S2
Earlimart orache
Atriplex cordulata var. erecticaulis
PDCHE042V0 None None G3T1 S1 1B.2
foothill yellow-legged frog - south Sierra DPS
Rana boylii pop. 5
AAABH01055 Endangered Endangered G3T2 S2
Great Valley Valley Oak Riparian Forest
Great Valley Valley Oak Riparian Forest
CTT61430CA None None G1 S1.1
Kaweah brodiaea
Brodiaea insignis
PMLIL0C060 None Endangered G1 S1 1B.2
Keck's checkerbloom
Sidalcea keckii
PDMAL110D0 Endangered None G2 S2 1B.1
lesser saltscale
Atriplex minuscula
PDCHE042M0 None None G2 S2 1B.1
Madera leptosiphon
Leptosiphon serrulatus
PDPLM09130 None None G3 S3 1B.2
molestan blister beetle
Lytta molesta
IICOL4C030 None None G2 S2
Moody's gnaphosid spider
Talanites moodyae
ILARA98020 None None G2G3 S2S3
Morrison's blister beetle
Lytta morrisoni
IICOL4C040 None None G1G2 S2
Northern California legless lizard
Anniella pulchra
ARACC01020 None None G3 S2S3 SSC
Query Criteria: Quad IS (Exeter (3611932) OR Rocky Hill (3611931) OR Chickencoop Canyon (3611838) OR Frazier Valley (3611828) OR Lindsay (3611921) OR Cairns Corner (3611922) OR Woodville (3611912) OR Porterville (3611911) OR Success Dam (3611818))
Report Printed on Friday, September 27, 2024
Commercial Version -- Dated September, 1 2024 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 1 of 3 Information Expires 3/1/2025
Selected Elements by Common Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
Northern Claypan Vernal Pool
Northern Claypan Vernal Pool
CTT44120CA None None G1 S1.1
northwestern pond turtle
Actinemys marmorata
ARAAD02031 Proposed
Threatened
None G2 SNR SSC
pallid bat
Antrozous pallidus
AMACC10010 None None G4 S3 SSC
recurved larkspur
Delphinium recurvatum
PDRAN0B1J0 None None G2? S2 1B.2
San Joaquin adobe sunburst
Pseudobahia peirsonii
PDAST7P030 Threatened Endangered G1 S1 1B.1
San Joaquin kit fox
Vulpes macrotis mutica
AMAJA03041 Endangered Threatened G4T2 S3
San Joaquin Valley giant flower-loving fly
Rhaphiomidas trochilus
IIDIP05010 None None G1 S1
San Joaquin woollythreads
Monolopia congdonii
PDASTA8010 Endangered None G2 S2 1B.2
shining navarretia
Navarretia nigelliformis ssp. radians
PDPLM0C0J2 None None G4T2T3 S2S3 1B.2
spiny-sepaled button-celery
Eryngium spinosepalum
PDAPI0Z0Y0 None None G2 S2 1B.2
Springville clarkia
Clarkia springvillensis
PDONA05120 Threatened Endangered G2 S2 1B.2
striped adobe-lily
Fritillaria striata
PMLIL0V0K0 None Threatened G1 S1 1B.1
subtle orache
Atriplex subtilis
PDCHE042T0 None None G1 S1 1B.2
Swainson's hawk
Buteo swainsoni
ABNKC19070 None Threatened G5 S4
Tipton kangaroo rat
Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides
AMAFD03152 Endangered Endangered G2T1T2 S2
Townsend's big-eared bat
Corynorhinus townsendii
AMACC08010 None None G4 S2 SSC
tricolored blackbird
Agelaius tricolor
ABPBXB0020 None Threatened G1G2 S2 SSC
valley elderberry longhorn beetle
Desmocerus californicus dimorphus
IICOL48011 Threatened None G3T3 S3
Valley Sacaton Grassland
Valley Sacaton Grassland
CTT42120CA None None G1 S1.1
vernal pool fairy shrimp
Branchinecta lynchi
ICBRA03030 Threatened None G3 S3
western mastiff bat
Eumops perotis californicus
AMACD02011 None None G4G5T4 S3S4 SSC
Report Printed on Friday, September 27, 2024
Commercial Version -- Dated September, 1 2024 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 2 of 3 Information Expires 3/1/2025
Selected Elements by Common Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
western spadefoot
Spea hammondii
AAABF02020 Proposed
Threatened
None G2G3 S3S4 SSC
Record Count: 40
Report Printed on Friday, September 27, 2024
Commercial Version -- Dated September, 1 2024 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 3 of 3 Information Expires 3/1/2025
Selected Elements by Common Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
APPENDIX C: IPAC SPECIES LIST
09/27/2024 17:05:16 UTC
United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Sacramento Fish And Wildlife Office
Federal Building
2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605
Sacramento, CA 95825-1846
Phone: (916) 414-6600 Fax: (916) 414-6713
In Reply Refer To:

Project Code: 2024-0059460
Project Name: Lindsay Well 11 Treatment Project
Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location or may be affected by your proposed project
To Whom It May Concern:

The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, as well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be completed by visiting the IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested through the IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list.

The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq.), Federal agencies are required to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered species and/or designated critical habitat.

A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2) Project code: 2024-0059460 09/27/2024 17:05:16 UTC
2 of 8
(c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a biological evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether the project may affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12.

If a Federal agency determines, based on the Biological Assessment or biological evaluation, that listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected by the proposed project, the agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 402. In addition, the Service recommends that candidate species, proposed species and proposed critical habitat be addressed within the consultation. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7 consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found in the "Endangered Species Consultation Handbook" at:
https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/endangered-species-consultationhandbook.pdf Migratory Birds: In addition to responsibilities to protect threatened and endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), there are additional responsibilities under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) to protect native birds from project-related impacts. Any activity, intentional or unintentional, resulting in take of migratory birds, including eagles, is prohibited unless otherwise permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)). For more information regarding these Acts, see https://www.fws.gov/program/migratory-bird-permit/whatwe-do.

The MBTA has no provision for allowing take of migratory birds that may be unintentionally killed or injured by otherwise lawful activities. It is the responsibility of the project proponent to comply with these Acts by identifying potential impacts to migratory birds and eagles within applicable NEPA documents (when there is a federal nexus) or a Bird/Eagle Conservation Plan (when there is no federal nexus). Proponents should implement conservation measures to avoid or minimize the production of project-related stressors or minimize the exposure of birds and their resources to the project-related stressors. For more information on avian stressors and recommended conservation measures, see https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/threats-birds.

In addition to MBTA and BGEPA, Executive Order 13186: Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, obligates all Federal agencies that engage in or authorize activities that might affect migratory birds, to minimize those effects and encourage conservation measures that will improve bird populations. Executive Order 13186 provides for the protection of both migratory birds and migratory bird habitat. For information regarding the implementation of Executive Order 13186, please visit https://www.fws.gov/partner/council-conservationmigratory-birds.

We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Code in the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project that you submit to our office.

Project code: 2024-0059460 09/27/2024 17:05:16 UTC
3 of 8
▪
Attachment(s):

Official Species List

OFFICIAL SPECIES LIST
This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed action".

This species list is provided by:

Sacramento Fish And Wildlife Office
Federal Building
2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605
Sacramento, CA 95825-1846
(916) 414-6600
Project code: 2024-0059460 09/27/2024 17:05:16 UTC
4 of 8

PROJECT SUMMARY
Project Code: 2024-0059460
Project Name: Lindsay Well 11 Treatment Project
Project Type: Wastewater Facility - New Construction
Project Description: The project includes the construction of lined brine evaporation ponds along the west side of the project site, a treatment plant along the north side of the existing stormwater basin, and a pipeline to connect the existing well to the treatment plant and brine evaporation ponds. The project will not be impacting the existing stormwater basin and associated infrastructure. The new pond basins would be used for brine generated from treating water collected from the well. The water in the brine ponds will be saturated sodium chloride brine (approximately 25% NaCl) with elevated levels of nitrate and potentially elevated levels of arsenic. The ponds will include polyethylene lining to prevent migration of the brine into groundwater. The current existing stormwater basin will continue to serve as a stormwater basin.

Project Location:

The approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https:// www.google.com/maps/@36.20571645,-119.1035228054985,14z Counties: Tulare County, California
ripo:sa SI
Bumm Ln
Project code: 2024-0059460 09/27/2024 17:05:16 UTC
5 of 8

1. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT SPECIES
There is a total of 9 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list.

Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species list because a project could affect downstream species.

IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA Fisheries , as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the Department of Commerce.

See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office if you have questions.

NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce.
1 Project code: 2024-0059460 09/27/2024 17:05:16 UTC
6 of 8

MAMMALS

NAME STATUS
San Joaquin Kit Fox Vulpes macrotis mutica
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2873
Endangered
Tipton Kangaroo Rat Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7247
Endangered
BIRDS

NAME STATUS
California Condor Gymnogyps californianus
Population: Wherever found, except where listed as an experimental population There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8193
Endangered
Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus
Population: Western U.S. DPS
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3911
Threatened

REPTILES

NAME STATUS
Northwestern Pond Turtle Actinemys marmorata
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1111
Proposed
Threatened

AMPHIBIANS

NAME STATUS
Western Spadefoot Spea hammondii
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5425
Proposed
Threatened

INSECTS

NAME STATUS
Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743
Candidate

CRUSTACEANS
Project code: 2024-0059460 09/27/2024 17:05:16 UTC
7 of 8

NAME STATUS
Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp Branchinecta lynchi
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/498
Threatened

FLOWERING PLANTS

NAME STATUS
San Joaquin Adobe Sunburst Pseudobahia peirsonii
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2931
Threatened

CRITICAL HABITATS

THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S JURISDICTION.

YOU ARE STILL REQUIRED TO DETERMINE IF YOUR PROJECT(S) MAY HAVE EFFECTS ON ALL ABOVE LISTED SPECIES.

Project code: 2024-0059460 09/27/2024 17:05:16 UTC
8 of 8

IPAC USER CONTACT INFORMATION
Agency: Private Entity
Name: Shaylea Stark
Address: 455 W Fir Ave
City: Clovis
State: CA
Zip: 93612
Email [email protected]
Phone: 5594492700

LEAD AGENCY CONTACT INFORMATION
Lead Agency: Lindsay city
APPENDIX D: NRCS WEB SOIL

SURVEY 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
Tulare County,
California, Central
Part
Lindsay Well 11 Treatment
Project
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service
November 30, 2023
USDA
~
NRCS
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 Tulare County, California, Central Part........................................................... 13 124—Exeter loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes....................................................13 132—Greenfield sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes................................... 14 References............................................................................................................16 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
4008660 4008700 4008740 4008780 4008820 4008860 4008900 4008940 4008980 4008660 4008700 4008740 4008780 4008820 4008860 4008900 4008940 4008980 310780 310820 310860 310900 310940 310980 311020
310780 310820 310860 310900 310940 310980 311020
36° 12' 26'' N
119° 6' 17'' W
36° 12' 26'' N
119° 6' 7'' W
36° 12' 14'' N
119° 6' 17'' W
36° 12' 14'' N N 119° 6' 7'' W
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 11N WGS84 0 50 100 200 300
Feet
0 20 40 80 120
Meters
Map Scale: 1:1,680 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet.

Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.

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.

Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.

Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale.

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: Tulare County, California, Central Part Survey Area Data: Version 17, Aug 31, 2023
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—May 30, 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 §
□ (I -
D lb
~
{j
□ ....
~
181 ,,,.....,
* +-H
◊ ~
X ~
..
. ~
0 ~
A.
~ •
0 0
V
+
....
.. ..
0 ~
%f
~ -
Map Unit Legend
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 124 Exeter loam, 0 to 2 percent
slopes

9.8 78.5%
132 Greenfield sandy loam, 0 to 2
percent slopes

2.7 21.5%
Totals for Area of Interest 12.5 100.0%
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.

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, Custom Soil Resource Report
11 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.

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
12 Tulare County, California, Central Part
124—Exeter loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: hkdh
Elevation: 20 to 700 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 7 to 20 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 61 to 64 degrees F
Frost-free period: 250 to 300 days
Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance Map Unit Composition
Exeter and similar soils: 75 percent
Minor components: 25 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Exeter
Setting
Landform: Terraces
Landform position (two-dimensional): Footslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Alluvium derived from granitoid
Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 14 inches: loam
Bt - 14 to 30 inches: sandy clay loam
Cqm - 30 to 43 inches: duripan
C1 - 43 to 47 inches: gravelly sand
C2 - 47 to 60 inches: stratified sandy loam to silt loam Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 2 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: 20 to 40 inches to duripan Drainage class: Well drained
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: 5 percent
Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 4.6 inches) Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 3s
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4s
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Ecological site: R017XY902CA - Duripan Vernal Pools
Hydric soil rating: No
Custom Soil Resource Report
13 Minor Components
Unnamed, brown subsoil
Percent of map unit: 7 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
San joaquin
Percent of map unit: 7 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Wyman
Percent of map unit: 7 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Unnamed, ponded
Percent of map unit: 4 percent
Landform: Depressions
Hydric soil rating: Yes
132—Greenfield sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: hkdr
Elevation: 100 to 3,500 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 9 to 20 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 63 degrees F
Frost-free period: 200 to 300 days
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated
Map Unit Composition
Greenfield and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Greenfield
Setting
Landform: Alluvial fans
Landform position (two-dimensional): Footslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Base slope
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Alluvium derived from granitoid
Typical profile
A - 0 to 18 inches: sandy loam
B - 18 to 70 inches: fine sandy loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 2 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Custom Soil Resource Report
14 Drainage class: Well drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High (1.98 to 5.95 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Moderate (about 8.2 inches) Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 1
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4c
Hydrologic Soil Group: A
Ecological site: R017XY904CA - Subirrigated Deep Alluvial Fans Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Tujunga
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Honcut
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Unnamed, finer subsoil
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Custom Soil Resource Report
15 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 16 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
17 APPENDIX E: NMFS EFH MAPPER
EFH Mapper Report
EFH Data Notice
Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) is defined by textual descriptions contained in the fishery management plans developed by the regional fishery management councils. In most cases mapping data can not fully represent the complexity of the habitats that make up EFH. This report should be used for general interest queries only and should not be interpreted as a definitive evaluation of EFH at this location. A location-specific evaluation of EFH for any official purposes must be performed by a regional expert. Please refer to the following links for the appropriate regional resources.

West Coast Regional Office
EFH
No additional Essential Fish Habitats (EFH) were identified at the report location.

Pacific Salmon EFH
No Pacific Salmon Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) were identified at the report location.

Atlantic Salmon
No Atlantic Salmon were identified at the report location.

HAPCs
No Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC) were identified at the report location.

EFH Areas Protected from Fishing
No EFH Areas Protected from Fishing (EFHA) were identified at the report location.

Spatial data does not currently exist for all the managed species in this area. The following is a list of species or management units for which there is no spatial data. **For links to all EFH text descriptions see the complete data inventory: open data inventory --> Pacific Coastal Pelagic Species,
Jack Mackerel,
Pacific (Chub) Mackerel,
Pacific Sardine,
Northern Anchovy - Central Subpopulation,
Northern Anchovy - Northern Subpopulation,
Pacific Highly Migratory Species,
Bigeye Thresher Shark - North Pacific,
Bluefin Tuna - Pacific,
Dolphinfish (Dorado or Mahimahi) - Pacific,
Pelagic Thresher Shark - North Pacific,
Swordfish - North Pacific
Appendices
Well 11 Treatment Project
December 2024 F-1
Appendix C: Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment
USGS Lindsay 7.5’ topographic quadrangle

12.5-acre APE; intensive pedestrian survey
Keywords: Remnant of rural residence foundation (historic archaeological site) Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the
City of Lindsay Well 11 Treatment Project,
Lindsay, Tulare County, California
Consuelo Y. Sauls
Prepared By
Taylored Archaeology
6083 N. Figarden Dr., Ste 616
Fresno, CA 93722
Prepared For
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group
455 W. Fir Avenue
Clovis, CA 93611
February 2024

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
The City of Lindsay (City) is proposing a Well 11 Treatment Plan for approximately 12.5 acres in Lindsay, Tulare County, California. The proposed City of Lindsay Well 11 Treatment Project (Project) includes construction of a perchlorate vessel foundation, nitrate system foundations and evaporation ponds. Additionally, the project will also include installing pretreatment cartridge filters, nitrate treatment system with tanks, resin, controls and softener, on-site piping and upgrade well pump. Taylored Archaeology (Taylored) conducted a Phase I cultural resources assessment for the Project under contract with Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group, in compliance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Project is also seeking Drinking Water State Revolving Fund funding, which is partially funded by the US Environmental Protection Agency. Therefore, the Project requires compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA).

This reportsummarizes the methods and results of the cultural resources assessment of the 12.5- acre Area of Potential Effects (APE). In order to assess and determine whether cultural resources are present that could be affected by the proposed Project, this investigation included: (1) a records search from the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center (SSJVIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System; (2) a request of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) and nongovernmental tribal outreach; (3) archival research; (4) an archaeological pedestrian survey of the APE; and (5) documentation of resources identified with the APE.

A cultural resource records search was requested and conducted by the SSJVIC which reported one prior cultural resources investigation conducted within the APE and no cultural resources recorded within the APE. The SSJVIC also reported that 11 previous cultural resources investigations were conducted, and two historical resources were recorded within a 0.5-mile radius of the APE.

Taylored Archaeology requested a search of the SLF from the NAHC. The SLF search results were negative. The listed Native American representatives were contacted on January 25, 2024. One response was received on February 6, 2024, from Samantha McCarty, Cultural Specialist II, of the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe. The response stated that Santa Rosa Rancheria will be deferring to tribes more local to the area. No other comments from contacted Native Americans were received as of the date of this report.

The archaeological pedestrian survey was conducted on January 20, 2024. The survey resulted in one previously unrecorded historic archaeological site. The archaeological site consisted of the remnants of a rural residence which was constructed between 1929 to 1946 and demolished between 1984 to 1990. This resource was evaluated and did not meet Criteria 1 through 4 for listing on the California Register of Historic Resources nor Criteria A through D for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. No further cultural resource management is recommended for this resource.

Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the City of Lindsay Well 11 Treatment Project iii
Taylored Archaeology additionally advises the following:

In the event that previously unidentified archaeological remains are encountered during development or ground-moving activities in the APE, all work should be halted until a qualified archaeologist can identify the discovery and assess its significance. In the event of accidental discovery of unidentified archaeological remains during development or ground-moving activities in the APE, all work shall be halted in the immediate vicinity until a qualified archaeologist can identify the discovery and assess its significance.

If human remains are uncovered during construction, the Tulare County Coroner is to be notified to investigate the remains and arrange proper treatment and disposition. If the remains are identified on the basis of archaeological context, age, cultural associations, or biological traits to be those of a Native American, California Health and Safety Code 7050.5 and PRC 5097.98 require that the coroner notify the NAHC within 24 hours of discovery. The NAHC will then identify the Most Likely Descendent who will be afforded an opportunity to make recommendations regarding the treatment and disposition of the remains.

Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the City of Lindsay Well 11 Treatment Project iv

CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................1

1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION ..................................................................1

1.2 REGULATORY SETTING.............................................................................................1

1.2.1 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT .............................................2

1.2.2 NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT OF 1966.....................................2

1.2.3 SECTION 106 OF NHPA.................................................................................3

1.3 PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS ............................................................................3

1.4 REPORT STRUCTURE ................................................................................................7 2 PROJECT SETTING................................................................................................................8

2.1 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT........................................................................................8

2.2 PREHISTORIC SETTING .............................................................................................9

2.3 ETHNOGRAPHY ......................................................................................................10

2.4 HISTORIC SETTING..................................................................................................11

2.4.1 California History .......................................................................................11

2.4.2 Central California History...........................................................................12

2.4.3 Local History...............................................................................................12 3 METHODS ..........................................................................................................................14

3.1 RECORDS SEARCH ..................................................................................................14

3.2 ARCHIVAL RESEARCH .............................................................................................14

3.3 NATIVE AMERICAN OUTREACH .............................................................................14

3.4 ARCHAEOLOGICAL PEDESTRIAN SURVEY...............................................................14 4 RESULTS .............................................................................................................................16

4.1 RECORDS SEARCH ..................................................................................................16

4.2 ARCHIVAL RESEARCH .............................................................................................18

4.3 NATIVE AMERICAN OUTREACH .............................................................................20

4.4 ARCHAEOLOGICAL PEDESTRIAN SURVEY RESULTS................................................21 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION........................................................................27 6 REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................28

APPENDICIES
A Personnel Qualifications
B Records Search Results
C Native American Outreach
D DPR 523 Cultural Resource Record Forms
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the City of Lindsay Well 11 Treatment Project v

FIGURES
Figure 1-1 Project vicinity in Tulare County, California............................................................ 4 Figure 1-2 Project location on the USGS Lindsay, CA 7.5-minute quadrangle. ....................... 5 Figure 1-3 Aerial view of the APE showing survey coverage. .................................................. 6 Figure 4-1 1951 USGS Topographic Map, APE in Red............................................................ 18 Figure 4-2 1946 Aerial Photograph, APE in Red..................................................................... 19 Figure 4-3 1990 Aerial Photograph, APE in Red, Rural Residence in Yellow. ........................ 20 Figure 4-4 Survey Coverage Map. .......................................................................................... 22 Figure 4-5 Perimeter of stormwater basin, facing north....................................................... 23 Figure 4-6 Well 11 and Tank, facing southeast...................................................................... 23 Figure 4-7 Foundations of demolished circa 1930-1940s rural residence, facing south....... 24 Figure 4-8 APE with Historic Archaeological Site in Yellow. .................................................. 25 TABLES
Table 4-1 Previous Cultural Resources Investigation Reports within the APE ............................. 16 Table 4-2 Previous Cultural Resources Investigation Reports within 0.5-mile radius of the APE 16 Table 4-3 Previous Recorded Cultural Resources within 0.5-mile radius of the APE................... 18

Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the City of Lindsay Well 11 Treatment Project 1 1

INTRODUCTION
Taylored Archaeology performed a Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the City of Lindsay Well 11 Treatment Project (Project) in the city of Lindsay, California in Tulare County, California under contract to Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group. As part of development approval process, the City of Lindsay as lead agency must comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code [PRC] 21000 [g] mandate that government agencies consider the impacts of a project on the environment, including cultural resources. The Project is seeking Drinking Water State Revolving Fund funding, which is partially funded by United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Therefore, the Project was additionally assessed for effects to historic properties within the Project’s Area of Potential Effects (APE) under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA).

1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION
The Well 11 Treatment Project proposes to install nitrate and perchlorate treatment processes to the existing Well 11 facility. This includes constructing a perchlorate vessel foundation, nitrate system foundations and evaporation ponds. The proposed Project will also involve installing pretreatment cartridge filters, nitrate treatment system with tanks, resin, controls and softener, on-site piping and well pump upgrades.

The APE for the Project is defined as the area of potential ground disturbance resulting from project activities based upon the project description. The total horizontal APE is approximately

12.5 acres, and the vertical APE is approximately six feet below ground surface.

The Project’s APE is approximately 12.5 acres on Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 199-140-038, 199- 140-048 and -49 and 199-200-028 located at West Mariposa Street in the City of Lindsay, Tulare County, California (Figure 1-1). Lindsay is located approximately 12 miles north of Porterville and 18 miles southeast of Visalia. The APE is on the U.S Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute Lindsay, California, topographic quadrangle in Section 12 of Township 20 South, Range 26 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian (Figure 1-2).

1.2 REGULATORY SETTING
In this report “cultural resources” are defined as prehistoric or historical archaeological sites as well as historical objects, buildings, or structures. In accordance with 30 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §60.4, “historical” in this report applies to cultural resources which are at least 50 years old. The significance or importance of a cultural resource is dependent upon whether the resource qualifies for inclusion at the local or state level in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), or at the federal level in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).

Cultural resources that are determined to be eligible for inclusion in the CRHR are called Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the City of Lindsay Well 11 Treatment Project 2 “historical resources” (California Code of Regulations [CCR] 15064.5[a]). Under this statue the determination of eligibility is partially based on the consideration of the criteria of significance as defined in 14 CCR 15064.5(a)(3). Cultural resources eligible for inclusion in the NRHP are deemed “historic properties”.

1.2.1 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
Pursuant to CEQA, a historical resource is a resource listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in, the CRHR. Historical resources may include, but are not limited to, “any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically or archaeologically significant” (PRC §5020.1[j]). In addition, a resource included in a local register of historical resources or identified as significant in a local survey conducted in accordance with the state guidelines are also considered historic resources under California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5020.1.

CEQA details appropriate measures for the evaluation and protection of cultural resources in §15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. According to CEQA guidelines §15064.5 (a)(3), criteria for listing on the CRHR includes the following:
(A) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage. (B) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past. (C) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values.
(D) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

These criteria are known as CRHR Eligibility Criterion 1 through 4. According to CEQA guidelines §21074 (a)(1), criteria for tribal cultural resources includes the following:
(1) Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either of the following:
(A) included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources.
(B) included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1.

Protection of cultural resources within California is additionally regulated by PRC §5097.5, which prohibits destruction, defacing, or removal of any historic or prehistoric cultural features on land under the jurisdiction of State or local authorities.

1.2.2 NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT OF 1966
The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (16 U.S.C. 470 ET SEQ.) was enacted in 1966 and created a national policy of historic preservation. The law established several programs, Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the City of Lindsay Well 11 Treatment Project 3 administered by the Secretary of the Interior, to encourage the achievement of preservation goals at local, state, and federal levels. The NHPA authorized the creation and expansion of the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), formed the position of State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), allowed for the creation of State Review Boards to set up methods for local governments to enact the NHPA at a local level, assisted Native American tribes with preserving their heritage, and established the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP).

The NHPA established criteria for determining if a historic property is eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. These criteria are set forth in 36 CFR 60.4 as follows:

The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association and (a) that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or
(b) that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or (c) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or
(d) that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

1.2.3 SECTION 106 OF NHPA
Section 106 of NHPA states that any federal agency with direct or indirect jurisdiction over federally assisted or proposed federal action will take into account the effect the action will have on any historic property that is on, or eligible to be included in, the NRHP. The NHPA provides the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the relevant SHPO the opportunity to provide comment on the federal action in regard to potential impacts to historic properties.

1.3 PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS
Archaeologist Consuelo Y. Sauls (M.A.), a Registered Professional Archaeologist (RPA 41591505), managed the assessment and compiled this report for the Project. Ms. Sauls also conducted the records search, literature review, requested Sacred Lands File and performed the archaeological pedestrian survey. Ms. Sauls meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Professional Qualifications in Archaeology. Statement of Qualifications for key personnel is provided in Appendix A.

Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the City of Lindsay Well 11 Treatment Project 4 Figure 1-1 Project vicinity in Tulare County, California. (t
.s~Joaquin
n, .r""'gh
Huron.

N
J(erman lltlSM>CHAo\'Dl.£
0£CIJT'I£ .,..,a,r
C.iirvthtrs,
Riverdale·
L(fill llf
"'+ ,,..,...

IIIAWAI.Afll
su,no-,
bovis
,~W),.0S(liltt'l1l.
+'""·

CALIFORNIA
"Fresno (
II
0 ... <' LostH1ls
.. .... S.ng...-• I
• P•h•r ;.
,.5elma °RHdlty
o,nub.t
J<lngsburg
"
Visalia_
Tu ar.-
0 Pixley•
C:
"
'Z
Exeter"
•o.1ano
nAo11Ch ll>t! Al ,OfJ
0 Woodlilce
e •.riduy
JJ 7'-
~
0 10 20 30 40
- - 50 mi
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the City of Lindsay Well 11 Treatment Project 5 Figure 1-2 Project location on the USGS Lindsay, CA 7.5-minute quadrangle. 26 35
· ·'ii'!,.

IMJl!l7 : ,.
11 24
\
~ 7 - ).
\
) _ _, -
l ,,.

I (
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the City of Lindsay Well 11 Treatment Project 6 Figure 1-3 Aerial view of the APE showing survey coverage.

Lindsay Well 11 Treatment Project
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the City of Lindsay Well 11 Treatment Project 7 1.4 REPORT STRUCTURE
This report documents the results of a cultural resource assessment of the proposed Project area.

In order to assess potential project impacts to archaeological and historical resources pursuant to CCR §15064.5, the following specific tasks were completed: (1) requesting a records search from the Southern San Joaquin Information Center (SSJVIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), at California State University, Bakersfield; (2) requesting a Sacred Lands File Search and list of interested parties from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and initiating outreach to local Native American individuals and tribal representatives; (3) conducting an archaeological pedestrian survey, (4) preparing this technical report and (5) preparing Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 series record forms.

Taylored Archaeology prepared this report following the California Office of Historic Preservation standards in the 1990 Archaeological Resources Management Report Recommended Contents and Format. Chapter 1 describes the introduction of the Project and its location, and identifies the key personnel involved in this report. Chapter 2 summarizes the Project setting, including the natural, prehistoric, historic, and ethnographic background for the Project area and surrounding area. Chapters 3 details the methods used for cultural records search, archival research, local Native American outreach, and archaeological pedestrian survey. Chapter 4 summarizes the results of the cultural resource investigation. Chapter 5 discusses the Project results and offers management recommendations. Chapter 6 is a bibliography of references cited within this report. The report also contains the following appendices: Qualifications of key personnel (Appendix A), the CHRIS records search results (Appendix B), the NAHC letter of the SLF results (Appendix C) and DPR Forms (Appendix D).

Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the City of Lindsay Well 11 Treatment Project 8 2

PROJECT SETTING

2.1 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
The Project area lies in the Central Valley of California, which is approximately 450 miles from north to south, and ranges in width east to west from 40 to 60 miles (Prothero 2017). The Central Valley is divided into two subunits, the Sacramento Valley in the north and the San Joaquin Valley in the south, which are each named after the primary rivers within each valley (Madden 2020).

The Project is located approximately 370 feet above sea level on the open flat plains at the eastern edge of the Southern San Joaquin Valley. Climate within the San Joaquin valley is classified as a ‘hot Mediterranean climate’, with hot and dry summers, and cool damp winters characterized by periods of dense fog known as ‘tule fog’ (Prothero 2017).

The San Joaquin Valley is a comprised of a structural trough created approximately 65 million years ago and is filled with nearly six miles of sediment (Bull 1964). The San Joaquin Valley ranges from Stockton and the San Joaquin-Sacramento River Delta in the north to Wheeler Ridge to the south, ranging nearly 60 miles wide at its widest (Zack 2017). It is split by late Pleistocene alluvial fans between the San Joaquin River hydrologic area in the north and the Tulare Lake Drainage Basin in the south (Rosenthal et al 2007). The Project site is located within the latter of the two hydrologic units. The Kaweah, Tule, Kern, and Kings rivers flowed into large inland lakes with no outflow except in high flood events, in which the lakes would flow through the Fresno Slough into the San Joaquin River. The largest of these inland lakes was the Tulare Lake, which occupied a vast area of Tulare and Kings Counties and was the largest freshwater lake west of the Mississippi. These four rivers in the Tulare Lake Drainage Basin accounted for more than 95 percent of water discharged into Tulare Lake, with the remaining five percent sourced from small drainages originating in the Coast Ranges to the west (Adams et al. 2015).

The Project area is in central Tulare County on the valley floor of the San Joaquin Valley. Before the appearance of agriculture in the nineteenth century, the Project location would have been comprised of prairie grasslands with scattered oak tree savannas near the foothills, and along the various streams and drainages (Preston 1981). Riparian environments would also have been present along various waterways, including drainages and marshes. Native vegetation likely would have consisted of needle grasses and other perennial bunchgrasses before the introduction of non-native species in the 1800s.

The valley floor of the region was largely dominated by marshlands, lakes, and annual grasslands.

Historically, these habitats provided a lush environment for large animals, including various migratory birds and other waterfowl, grizzly bear, tule elk, pronghorn, mule deer, black bear, and mountain lion (Preston 1981). Native trees and plants observed in the Project vicinity include various blue, live, and white oaks, cottonwood, and willow. The introduction of agriculture to the region resulted in large animals being forced out of their habitat. Common land mammals now include valley coyote, bobcat, gray fox, kit fox, and rabbits. Rivers and lakes throughout the valley Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the City of Lindsay Well 11 Treatment Project 9 provide habitat for freshwater fish, including rainbow trout, Sacramento sucker, and Sacramento perch (Preston 1981).

2.2 PREHISTORIC SETTING
Research into San Joaquin Valley prehistory began in the early 1900s with several archaeological investigations (Rosenthal et al. 2007). The Southern San Joaquin Valley is of one of the least understood areas within California due to a lack of well-grounded chronologies for large segments of the valley (Rosenthal et al. 2007). This is largely due to the valley floor being filled with thick alluvial deposits, and from human activity largely disturbing much of the valley floor due to a century and a half of agricultural use (Dillon 2002; Siefken 1999). Mound sites may have occurred as frequently as one every two or three miles along major waterways but studying such mounded occupations sites is difficult as most surface sites have been destroyed (Schenck and Dawson 1929). Much of the early to middle Holocene archaeological sites may be buried as deep as 10 meters due to millennia of erosion and alluvial deposits from the western Sierras (Moratto 1984).

Mass agricultural development has heavily disturbed and changed the landscape of the Southern San Joaquin Valley, from the draining of marshes and the vanishing of the extensive Tulare Lake, to grading nearly the entire valley for agricultural operations (Garone 2011). These activities have impacted or scattered much of the shallow surface deposits and mounds throughout the valley (Rosenthal et al 2007). Some researchers have suggested that potentially as much as 90 percent of all Central California archaeological sites have been destroyed from these activities (Riddell 2002).

The cultural traits and chronologies which are summarized below are largely based upon information discussed in multiple sources, including Bennyhoff and Fredrickson (1973, 1974), Garfinkel (2015), McGuire and Garfinkel (1980), Moratto (1984), and Rosenthal et al. (2007). The most recent comprehensive approach to compiling a chronology of the Southern San Joaquin Valley prehistory is by Garfinkel in 2015, which builds off Rosenthal’s 2007 previous work. Both Garfinkel’s and Rosenthal’s chronologies are calculated in years B.C. In the interest of maintaining cohesiveness with modern anthropological research, the dates of these chronologies have been adapted into years before present (B.P.).

The Paleo-Indian Period (13,500-10,600 cal B.P.) was largely represented by ephemeral lake sites which were characterized by atlatl and spear projectile points. Around 14,000 years ago, California was largely a cooler and wetter place, but with the retreat of continental Pleistocene glaciers, California largely experienced a warming and drying period. Lakes filled with glacial meltwater were located in the valley floor and used by populations of now extinct large game animals. A few prehistoric sites were discovered near the southwestern shore of Tulare Lake (Garfinkel 2015). Foragers appear to have operated in small groups which migrated on a regular basis.

During the Lower Archaic Period (10,500-7450 cal B.P.), climate change created a largely different environment which led to the creation of larger alluvial fans and flood plains. Most of the Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the City of Lindsay Well 11 Treatment Project 10 archaeological records of the prior period wound up being buried by geological processes. During this time, cultural patterns appear to have emerged between the foothill and valley populations of the local people. The foothill sites were often categorized by dense flaked and ground stone assemblages, while the valley sites were instead characterized by a predominance of crescents and stemmed projectile points. Occupation within the area is represented mostly by isolated discoveries and along the former shoreline of Tulare Lake. Archaeological finds are typically characterized by chipped stone crescents, stemmed points, and other distinctive flakes stone artifacts (Rosenthal et al. 2007). Variations in consumption patterns emerged as well, with the valley sites more marked by consumption of waterfowl, mussels, and freshwater fish, while the foothills sites saw an increase in nuts, seeds, and a more narrowly focused diet than the valley sites.

The Middle Archaic (7450-2500 cal B.P.) saw an increase in semi-permanent villages along river and creek settings, with more permanent sites located along lakes with a more stable supply of water and wildlife. Due to the warmer and drier weather of this period, many lakes within the valley dramatically reduced in size, while some vanished completely (Garone 2011). Cultural patterns during this time saw an increase in stone tools, while a growth in shell beads, ornaments, and obsidian evidence an extensive and ever-growing long-distance trade network. Little is known of cultural patterns in the valley during the Upper Archaic (2500-850 B.P.), but large village structures appeared to be more common around local rivers. An overall reduction of projectile point size suggests changing bow and arrow technologies. Finally, the Emergent Period (850 cal B.P. - Historic Era) was generally marked by an ever-increasing specialization in tools, and the bow and arrow generally replaced the dominance of the dart and atlatl. Cultural traditions ancestral to those recorded during ethnographic research in the early 1900s are identifiable.

2.3 ETHNOGRAPHY
The APE is in the Southern Valley Yokuts ethnographic territory of the San Joaquin Valley. The Yokuts were generally divided into three major groups, the Northern Valley Yokuts, the Southern Valley Yokuts, and the Foothill Yokuts. The Yokuts are a sub-group of the Penutian language that covers much of coastal and central California and Oregon (Callaghan 1958). The Yokuts language contained multiple dialects spoken throughout the region, though many of them were mutually understandable (Merriam 1904).

The Yokuts have been extensively researched and recorded by ethnographers, including Powers (1877), Kroeber (1925), Gifford and Schenck (1926, 1929), Gayton (1930, 1945), Driver (1937), Harrington (1957), Latta (1977), and Wallace (1978). Much of the research from these ethnographers focuses on the central Yokuts tribes due to the northernmost tribes being impacted by Euro-Americans during the California Gold Rush of the mid 1800s, and by the southernmost tribes often being removed and relocated by the Spanish to various Bay Area or coastal missions. The central Yokuts tribes, and especially the western Sierra Nevada foothill tribes, were the most intact at the time of ethnographic study.

Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the City of Lindsay Well 11 Treatment Project 11 The most detailed ethnographic information gathered regarding Native American group territories in Central California is located within maps prepared by Kroeber. The information presented in Kroeber’s map of Southern and Central Yokuts shows the Project area within the Koyeti Yokuts territory (1925: Plate 47). The main village for this area was Chokowisho, which was approximately 10 miles to the southeast of the APE along the Tule River (Kroeber 1925).

Primary Yokuts villages were typically located along lakeshores and major stream courses, with scattered secondary or temporary camps and settlements located near gathering areas in the foothills. Yokuts were organized into local tribes, with one or more linked villages and smaller settlements within a territory (Kroeber 1925).

Each local tribe was a land-owning group that was organized around a central village and shared common territory and ancestry. Most local tribe populations ranged from 150 to 500 people (Kroeber 1925). These local tribes were often led by a chief, who was often advised by a variety of assistants including the winatum, who served as a messenger and assistant chief (Gayton 1930). Early studies by Kroeber (1925), Gifford and Schenck (1926), and Gayton (1930) concluded that social and political authority within local tribes was derived from male lineage and patriarchy. However, more recent reexaminations (Dick-Bissonnette 1998) argue that this assumption of patriarchal organization was based on male bias by early 20th century researchers, and instead Yokuts sociopolitical authority was matriarchal in nature and centered around matrilineal use-rights and women’s work groups.

Prior to Euro-American contact, there was abundance of natural resources within the greater Tulare Lake area. Due to these resources, Yokuts maintained some of the largest populations in North America west of the continental divide (Cook 1955a).

2.4 HISTORIC SETTING

2.4.1 California History
European contact in modern-day California first occurred in 1542 with the arrival of a Spanish expedition lead by Juan Rodríguez Cabrillo into San Diego Bay (Engstrand 1997). Expeditions along the California coast continued throughout the sixteenth century and primarily focused on finding favorable harbors for further expansion and trade across the Pacific. However, rocky shorelines, unfavorable currents, and wind conditions made traveling north from New Spain to the upper California coast a difficult and time-consuming journey (Eifler 2017). The topography of California, with high mountains, large deserts, and few natural harbors lead to European expansion into California only starting in the 1760s. As British and Russian expansion through fur trading encroached on California from the north, Spain established a system of presidios, pueblos, and missions along the California coast to defend its claim, starting with Mission San Diego de Alcalá in 1769 (Engstrand 1997).

Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the City of Lindsay Well 11 Treatment Project 12 2.4.2 Central California History
The San Joaquin Valley did not experience contact with Europeans until the late 1700s (Starr 2007). Life at the California missions was hard and brutal for Native Americans, with many dying of disease, poor conditions, and many fleeing to areas not under direct Spanish control (Jackson and Castillo 1995). The earliest exploration of the San Joaquin Valley by Europeans was likely by the Spaniards when in the fall of 1772 a group known as the Catalonian Volunteers entered the valley through Tejon Pass in search of deserters from the Southern California Missions (Zack 2017). However, the group only made it as far north as Buena Vista Lake in modern day Kern County before turning around due to the extensive swamps. Additional excursions to the valley were for exploration such as those led by Lieutenant Bariel Moraga in 1806, but also to find sites for suitable mission sites and to track down Native Americans fleeing the coastal missions (Cook 1958).

Subsequent expeditions were also sent to pursue outlaws from the coast who would often flee to the valley for safety. One of the subsequent explorations was an expedition in 1814 to 1815 with Sargent Juan Ortega and Father Juan Cabot, who left the Mission San Miguel with a company of approximately 30 Spanish soldiers and explored the San Joaquin Valley (Smith 2004). This expedition passed through the Kaweah Delta and modern-day Visalia and made a recommendation to establish a mission near modern-day Visalia. However, with European contact also came European disease. Malaria and other new diseases were brought by Europeans, and in 1833 an epidemic of unknown origin traveled throughout the Central Valley.

Some estimates place the Native American mortality of the epidemic as high as 75 percent (Cook 1955b). Combined with the rapid expansion of Americans into California in 1848 during the Gold Rush, Native American populations within the valley never fully recovered (Eifler 2017).

Initial settlement within the valley by Europeans in the 1830s was largely either by trappers or horse thieves (Clough and Secrest 1984). In fact, horse and other livestock theft was so rampant that ranching operations on the Rancho Laguna de Tache by the Kings River and Rancho del San Joaquin Rancho along the San Joaquin River could not be properly established (Cook 1962). With the end of the Mexican American War and the beginning of the gold rush in 1848, the San Joaquin Valley became more populated with ranchers and prospectors. Most prospectors traveled by sea to San Francisco and used rivers ranging from the Sacramento River to the San Joaquin River to access the California interior (Eifler 2017). Most areas south of the San Joaquin River were less settled simply because those rivers did not connect to the San Francisco Bay area except in wet flood years. By 1850, California became a state and Tulare County was established in 1853.

2.4.3 Local History
The City of Lindsay is located within central Tulare County, and its history is heavily influenced by the local railroad, agriculture, and irrigation. The city is situated in the very center of the most extensively developed section of Tulare’s County’s orange belt.

The Southern Pacific Railroad was extended from Fresno into Tulare County in the early 1870s (Small 1926). By 1874, branch railroad connections were built to agricultural communities Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the City of Lindsay Well 11 Treatment Project 13 (Mitchell 1974). In 1888 a branch of the Southern Pacific railroad was completed, and Lindsay was made a station, though the depot was not constructed until 1890 (Menefee and Dodge 1913). Lindsay was incorporated as a city in 1910 (Menefee and Dodge 1913).

The construction of the rail line also brought an increase in agriculture and farms, which clashed with existing ranching operations in the local area. Escalating conflicts and livestock disputes between ranchers and farmers lead to the “No Fence Law” in 1874, which forced ranchers to pay for crop and property damage caused by their cattle (Ludeke 1980). With the passage of this law and the expansion of irrigation systems, predominant land use in the 1870s switched from grazing to farming (Mitchell 1974). This led to the beginning of the vast change of the San Joaquin Valley from native vegetation and grasslands to irrigated crops (Varner and Stuart 1975).

Water rights within California originally arose from the ‘first come first serve’ policy of the Gold Rush era. Diverting surface water to farms became big business but was a convoluted mess of customs, traditions, and conflicting claims (Zack 2017). Fed up with the situation, small farmers gathered behind Modesto lawyer C.C. Wright, who was elected to the California legislature in 1887 on the platform of taking water rights from large estates and putting it in the power of community-controlled irrigation districts (Hundley 1992). To solve this mess, the Wright Act of 1887 was passed that allowed residents to petition a local county board of supervisors to create irrigation districts that had the power to issues bonds, and tax land within the district boundaries to pay for the creation and maintenance of canals and ditches for irrigation purposes.

At the same time as the Wright Act, an important step forward was made in ditch-digging technology that allowed irrigation systems to be built at a faster pace. From the 1840s to 1890s, farm ditches and canals were largely constructed through the use of buckboards and slip-scoops, which involved the use of a board pulled by horses in an uprights position in order to level ground (Bulls 2010). Between 1883 and 1885, Scottish immigrant James Porteous had moved to Fresno and made significant improvements to the buckboard style scraper that allowed the new scraper to be pulled by two horses and scrape and move soil while dumping it at a controlled depth. This new design was patented and sold as the “Fresno Scraper”, which lead to an explosion of ditch digging efforts within the San Joaquin Valley (Zack 2017).

Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the City of Lindsay Well 11 Treatment Project 14 3

METHODS

3.1 RECORDS SEARCH
On January 16, 2024, Taylored Archaeology requested a cultural resource records search from the SSJVIC of the CHRIS at California State University in Bakersfield, California. The purpose of this request was to identify and review prior cultural resource investigations completed in or near the APE and identify any prehistoric or historical resources that had been previously recorded within the APE and a 0.5-mile radius of the surrounding area. SSJVIC staff researched historical USGS topographic maps, reports of previous cultural resource investigations, archaeological site and survey base maps, DPR forms as well as listings of the Historic Properties Directory of the Office of Historic Preservation, General Land Office Maps, Archaeological Resources Directory, and the California Inventory of Historic Resources (Appendix B).

3.2 ARCHIVAL RESEARCH
Archival research was conducted to investigate the historical background for any potential archaeological deposits, historical deposits or built environment properties that may exist in the APE. Historical maps, historical aerial photographs, historical USGS topographic maps, Google Street View photos, books, scholarly articles, and other records were used to better understand the prehistory and history of the APE and surrounding area. Research data was used to identify potential areas within the APE where archaeological deposits may exist, or historical buildings, structures or objects may exist. The results of this research are presented in Chapter 4.

3.3 NATIVE AMERICAN OUTREACH
Taylored Archaeology sent a request to the NAHC as part of this archaeological survey report for a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search on January 3, 2024. The objective of the SLF search was to identify any known places of spiritual, sacred activity or traditional use or gathering areas are present in or near the APE. The NAHC responded via email on January 11, 2024, with a letter including contact information for local Native American tribal representatives who may have knowledge or interest in sharing information about the APE and surrounding area. Each Native American representative listed was sent on January 25, 2024, a nongovernmental outreach letter via email or certified mail to those who may not have an email address and a map notifying them of the Project and asking if they had any knowledge of the Project area or surrounding vicinity. Followup communication was performed via email or phone call as appropriate. The SLF results are in Chapter 4.

3.4 ARCHAEOLOGICAL PEDESTRIAN SURVEY
An intensive pedestrian survey was conducted by archaeologist Consuelo Sauls on January 20, 2024, of all accessible portions of the APE. Field methods consisted of a pedestrian survey whereby the ground surface was inspected while walking a series of transects over the entire Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the City of Lindsay Well 11 Treatment Project 15 surveyed area. Ms. Sauls walked a 5 meter transect within the APE. Transects were periodically deviated from to locate and focus on areas with improved ground surface visibility. Trowels were occasionally used to clear small areas of vegetation to observe the surface and to inspect rodent burrow soil piles. All but 3.5 acres (28 percent) of the APE was accessible and surveyed to identify any archaeological deposits that may be present on the ground surface. Ms. Sauls used a plan map, visible landmarks, and Gaia GPS application for navigation to locate and survey the APE.

Ms. Sauls visually inspected and photographed the exposed ground surface of the project site using an iPhone 11 Pro digital camera and recorded her observations on a Survey Field Record and compiled a Photographic Record.

Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the City of Lindsay Well 11 Treatment Project 16 4

RESULTS

4.1 RECORDS SEARCH
The SSJVIC responded to Taylored Archaeology’s records search request on January 16, 2024, and provided a letter with the results of previous cultural studies conducted, and cultural resources recorded within the APE and within a 0.5-mile radius of the APE (Records Search File No. 24-011; Appendix B). The records search indicated one prior cultural study report conducted that was conducted within the APE (Table 4-1), and 11 cultural study reports done within the 0.5-mile surrounding area (Table 4-2). The records search also stated that there are no cultural resources previously recorded within the APE. However, two cultural resources(P-54-004626 and CHL-471) were previously recorded within 0.5-mile radius of the APE (Table 4-3). P-54-004626 is a long railroad segment of the Southern Pacific Railroad, which was evaluated in 2020, and was recommended as not NRHP or CRHR significant or eligible (Azpitarte 2020). CHL-471 is a Historical Point of Interest plaque by the California State Park Commission commemorating the Fremont Trail and the Butterfield Stage Route along present-day Highway 65.

Table 4-1 Previous Cultural Resources Investigation Reports within the APE Report
Number Author(s) Date Report Title Study
TU-01673 Steven Ptomey 2004 Historic Property Survey Report for the Tulare Expressway
Project on State Route 65, Tulare
County, California
Historic Property Field
Survey
Table 4-2 Previous Cultural Resources Investigation Reports within 0.5-mile radius of the APE Report
Number Author(s) Date Report Title Study
TU-00010 Kristina C. Roper and
Sheri Ahlborg
1997 Negative Archaeological Survey
Report for 06-Tul-65 29.5/32.0,
06-Tul-137 27.0/27.4 Overlay
and Widening
Archaeological Field
Survey
TU-00441 Lynn Riley 1988 Negative Archaeological Survey Report for the Intersection of
Route 65 and Oak Street
Archaeological Field
Survey
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the City of Lindsay Well 11 Treatment Project 17 Report
Number Author(s) Date Report Title Study
TU-00691 Lawrence E. Weigel 1988 Negative Archaeological Survey Report for Proposed Project
Plans to Widen a 7.6 Mile
Portion of State Route 65 to a
Four Lane Expressway With a
40 Foot Median
Archaeological Field
Survey
TU-00951 Jim Fisher 1998 Historic Resource Evaluation
Report for Cairns Corner Near
Lindsay, Tulare County
Architectural/Historical
Evaluation
TU-01103 Lorna Billat 2001 Nextel Site No. CA-1929C /
Lindsay
Architectural/Historical
Field Survey
TU-01181 Estella Villacorta 2002 Section 106 Review for the Cricket Comfortable Wireless
Site: Lindsay - VIS-027-A,
Lindsay, California 93247
Archaeological Field
Survey
TU-01301 Lorna Billat 2006 New Tower Submission Packet, FCC Form 620, for DT Lindsay
Yard, SC-10136B
Archaeological Field
Survey
TU-01331 Melinda A. Peak 2007 Determination of Eligibility and Effect for the Lindsay Senior
Apartments Project, City of
Lindsay, California
Architectural/Historical
Evaluation
TU-01337 Robert E. Parr 2008 Archaeological Assessment of 14 Deteriorated Power Poles
on the Southern California
Edison Counts 2.4kV and
Cairns, Cattle, Lewis, and
Rosedale 12kV Circuits, Tulare
County, California
Archaeological Field
Survey
TU-01598 Susan M. Fry 2007 National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 Consultation
for Abandonment of Federal
Land near Lindsay, Tulare
County, California
Architectural/Historical
Field Survey
TU-01840 Scott M. Hudlow 2018 A Cultural Resource Survey for Self-Help Enterprises, Lindsay
Comprehensive Housing
Project, City of Lindsay,
California
Archaeological and
Architectural/Historical
Field Study
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the City of Lindsay Well 11 Treatment Project 18 Table 4-3 Previous Recorded Cultural Resources within 0.5-mile radius of the APE Resource Number Age
Association Resource Type Resource Description Resource Within APE P-54-004626 Historic Site Southern Pacific Railroad No
CHL 471 Historic Monument Butterfield Stage Route
– A plaque placed by the
California State Park
Commission in
Cooperation with the
Tulare County Historical
Society
No

4.2 ARCHIVAL RESEARCH
Historical map coverage of the APE began in 1885. A review of an 1885 irrigation map of the Fresno to Porterville region shows the APE within Section 12 with a road or rail line running through the section (Hammond 1885). Section 12 is shown as owned by a “Jacobs”. An 1892 survey map of Tulare County identified all of Section 12 as owned by a “Geo S. Patton” (Thompson 1892). Available historical USGS topographic map coverage of the APE begins in 1928 (NETROnline; USGS). No structures are depicted within the APE in 1928. The 1951 topographic map depicts the APE as an orchard with a single structure (USGS, Figure 4-1). Topographic maps from 1964 and 1971 depict the same orchard and structure within the APE.

Figure 4-1 1951 USGS Topographic Map, APE in Red.
• • •• •• ••
•• ··:
••• •
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the City of Lindsay Well 11 Treatment Project 19 Historic aerial photograph coverage of the APE began in 1946. The 1946 historic aerial photograph of the APE shows most of the APE as an orchard with a rural residence and multiple outbuildings in the southwestern portion similar to the 1952 and 1956 topographic maps (USAAA 1946, NETROnline, Figure 4-2).

Figure 4-2 1946 Aerial Photograph, APE in Red.

Historic aerial photographs from 1956 and 1969 show a similar setting within the APE. An aerial photograph from 1984 depicts the orchard removed and a water basin covering most of the APE with the rural residence and outbuildings still largely intact in the southwest portion of the APE (NETROnline). By 1990 the APE appears similar to its present-day configuration with the water basin and the rural residence demolished (Caltrans 1990, Figure 4-3).

Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the City of Lindsay Well 11 Treatment Project 20 Figure 4-3 1990 Aerial Photograph, APE in Red, Rural Residence in Yellow.

Historical aerial photographs from 1992 to 2024 depict no significant changes within the APE (Google Earth, NETROnline). Based upon available archival research, the rural residence within the APE appears to have been constructed between 1929 and 1946 and demolished sometime between 1984 and 1990.

The site is currently owned by the City of Lindsay and has no current address. A review of available property ownership records did not reveal any information of prior ownership or historical addresses.

4.3 NATIVE AMERICAN OUTREACH
The NAHC responded on January 11, 2024, via letter regarding Taylored Archaeology’s request.

The letter stated a search of the SLF was negative. The NAHC supplied a list of seven Native American representatives to contact for information or knowledge of cultural resources in the APE and the surrounding area (Appendix C).

Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the City of Lindsay Well 11 Treatment Project 21 The following Native American organizations/individuals were contacted from the list provided by NAHC below:

1. Cultural Specialist I Nicole Escalon of the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe;

2. Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Shana Powers of the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe;

3. Cultural Specialist II Samantha McCarty of the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe;

4. Chairperson Neil Peyron of the Tule River Indian Tribe;

5. Environmental Department Kerri Vera of the Tule River Tribe;

6. Tribal Archaeologist Joey Garfield of the Tule River Indian Tribe; and

7. Chairperson Kenneth Woodrow of the Wuksache Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band.

The outreach letters were sent to all the Native American representatives on the contact list on January 25, 2024 (Appendix C). The letters included a description of the proposed Project and a topographic map of the location. Follow-up by emails were sent on February 6, 2024.

One Native American organization responded. Samantha McCarty, Cultural Specialist II of the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi-Yokut Tribe, responded by email stating that due to the location of the project, they will be deferring to tribes that are more local to the area (Appendix C).

As of the date of this report, no other responses were received by the tribal representatives, nor was any information shared regarding tribal cultural resources pertaining to the APE.

4.4 ARCHAEOLOGICAL PEDESTRIAN SURVEY RESULTS
An intensive pedestrian survey of the APE was conducted by Taylored Archaeology on January 20, 2024. All but 3.5 acres (28 percent) of the APE were accessible and surveyed systematically (Figure 4-4). The APE consisted of a stormwater basin and municipal well within the northern three-quarters of the APE, and an empty field in the southwestern quarter of the APE. The natural topography of the area within the APE was previously altered by human development. The surrounding land uses included orchards, empty fields, commercial buildings, an elementary school, and residences. The bottom of the stormwater basin in the center of the APE was inaccessible due to stormwater and muddy conditions. The perimeter of the APE was enclosed within a chain-link fence, and the APE was partitioned between the empty field and the stormwater basin by an additional chain-link fence. The perimeter of the stormwater basin consisted of a dirt access road with annual grasses and scattered vegetation (Figure 4-5). Well 11 and a storage tank were observed along the northern central boundary of the APE (Figure 4-6).

A circa 1940s historic archaeological site was observed in the central western portion of the APE (Figure 4-7). The historic archaeological site consisted of the foundations and concrete pad of a demolished rural residence (Figure 4-8). Dirt, grass, and modern refuse were observed within the center of the site. The remnants of the foundations do not meet Criteria 1 through 4 for listing on the CRHR nor Criteria A through D for listing on the NRHP. DPR 523 cultural resources record forms documenting the historic archaeological resource are included in Appendix D.

Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the City of Lindsay Well 11 Treatment Project 22 Figure 4-4 Survey Coverage Map.

Lindsay Well 11 Treatment Project
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the City of Lindsay Well 11 Treatment Project 23 Figure 4-5 Perimeter of stormwater basin, facing north.

Figure 4-6 Well 11 and Tank, facing southeast.

Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the City of Lindsay Well 11 Treatment Project 24 Figure 4-7 Foundations of demolished circa 1930-1940s rural residence, facing south.

Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the City of Lindsay Well 11 Treatment Project 25 Figure 4-8 APE with Historic Archaeological Site in Yellow.

At the time of the survey, the ground surface visibility ranged from poor to excellent (0 to 100 percent). The visibility was excellent among dirt roads, patchy areas with no vegetation, and rodent burrows. Visibility was poor around the perimeter of the basin and in the open field south of the basin due to thick vegetation. A pile of large pieces of concrete and asphalt was observed in the southwestern portion of the APE. Modern debris was identified throughout the APE.

Lindsay Well 11 Treatment Project
Rural Residence Remnant
, Well 11 Project Boundary Updated
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the City of Lindsay Well 11 Treatment Project 26 No other archaeological materials or features (e.g., lithic debitage, artifacts, or other evidence of prehistoric occupation) were observed throughout the ground surface of the APE. While past agricultural activities may have potentially destroyed or obscured ground surface evidence of archaeological resources within the APE, intact archaeological resources related to prior occupation of the area may potentially exist below the ground surface.

Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the City of Lindsay Well 11 Treatment Project 27 5

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
Taylored Archaeology performed a Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the City of Lindsay Well 11 Treatment Project.

The SSJVIC reported one prior cultural resources investigation conducted within the APE and no cultural resources recorded within the APE. The SSJVIC also reported that 11 previous cultural resources investigations were conducted, and two historical resources were recorded, within a

0.5-mile radius of the APE.

The NAHC’s Sacred Lands File search results were negative, and outreach with Native American representatives did not result in any indication of archaeological sites or tribal cultural resources in the APE. One comment was received from the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe, which stated the tribe will be deferring to tribes more local to the area. No other comments from contacted Native Americans were received.

As a result of archival research and an intensive pedestrian survey, a historic period archaeological resource was documented within the APE. The resource consists of the remnants of a residential structure which was constructed between 1929 to 1946 and demolished between 1984 to 1990. This resource was evaluated and does not meet Criteria 1 through 4 for listing on the CRHR nor Criteria A through D for listing on the NRHP. No further cultural resource management is recommended for this resource.

Taylored Archaeology additionally advises the following:

Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the City of Lindsay Well 11 Treatment Project 28 6

REFERENCES
Adams, Kenneth D., Robert M. Negrini, Edward R. Cook, and Seshadri Rajagopal. 2015 Annually resolved late Holocene paleohydrology of the southern Sierra Nevada and Tulare Lake, California. Water Resources Research 51:9708-9724.

Azpitarte, Robert.
2020 Class III Inventory/Phase I Survey, Butterfield Corridor Project, Porterville, Tulare County, California. ASM Affiliates, Inc., Bakersfield, California.

Bull, William B.
1964 Geomorphology of Segmented Alluvial Fans in Western Fresno County, California.

Geological Survey Professional Paper 352-E. United States Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Bulls, Diana.
2010 The Fresno Scraper: A Mechanical Engineering Marvel. Kings River Life Magazine.

August 14.

Callaghan, Catherine A.
1958 California Penutian: History and Bibliography. International Journal of American Linguistics. 24(3):189-194.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).
1990 Tulare County, California Aerial Survey No. TUL-65 15-121, http://digitized.library.fresnostate.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/aerial/id/20301, accessed through Map and Aerial Locator Tool (MALT), Henry Madden Library, California State University, Fresno, accessed February 2, 2024.

Clough, Charles W. and William B. Secrest, Jr.
1984 Fresno County The Pioneer Years: From the Beginnings to 1900. Panorama West Publishing, Fresno, California.

Cook, Sherburne F.
1955a The Aboriginal Population of the San Joaquin Valley, California. Anthropological Records 16:31–80. University of California, Berkeley.
1955b The Epidemic of 1830-1833 In California and Oregon. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 43(3):303-326. University of California, Berkeley.

Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the City of Lindsay Well 11 Treatment Project 29 1958 The Project Gutenberg eBook, Colonial Expeditions to the Interior of California Central Valley, 1800-1820
1962 Expeditions to the Interior of California: Central Valley, 1820-1840. Anthropological Records 20(5):151-212.

Dillon, Brian D.
2002 California Paleo-Indians: Lack of Evidence, or Evidence of a Lack? In Essays in California Archaeology: A Memorial to Franklin Fenenga, edited by William J.

Wallace and Francis A. Riddell, pp. 110–128. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility No. 60. Berkeley.

Dick-Bissonnette, Linda E.
1998 Gender and Authority among the Yokoch, Mono, and Miwok of Central California.

Journal of Anthropological Research 54(1):49-72.

Driver, Harold E.
1937 Cultural Elements Distribution: VI, Southern Sierra Nevada. University of California Anthropological Records 1(2):53–154.

Eifler, Mark A.
2017 The California Gold Rush: The Stampede that Changed the World. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group Press, Las Vegas.

Engstrand, Iris H.W.
1997 Seekers of the "Northern Mystery": European Exploration of California and the Pacific.

California History, 76(2/3):78–110.

Fredrickson, David A.
1973 Early Cultures of the North Coast Ranges, California. Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis.
1974 Cultural Diversity in Early Central California: A View from the North Coast Ranges.

Journal of California Anthropology 1(1):41-54.

Garfinkel, Alan P.
2015 Archaeological Background and Cultural Sequence for The San Joaquin, Central California. Electronic document,
https://www.academia.edu/14721089/ArchaeologicalBackgroundfortheSanJoaquin ValleyCentralCalifornia, accessed July 13, 2020. Academia.edu Garone, Philip
2011 The Fall and Rise of the Wetlands of California’s Great Central Valley. University of the Press, Berkeley.

Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the City of Lindsay Well 11 Treatment Project 30 Gayton, Anna H.
1930 Yokuts-Mono Chiefs and Shamans. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 24(8):361–420.
1945 Yokuts and Western Mono Social Organization. American Anthropologist 47(3):409–426.

Gifford, E.W., and W. Egbert Schenck
1926 Archaeology of the Southern San Joaquin Valley, California. Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 23(1).
1929 Archaeology of the Northern San Joaquin Valley. Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 25(4).

Hammond, William.
1885 Composite, Fresno to Porterville, Detail Irrigation Map. California State Engineering Department.
https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~207677~3003421:

Accessed February 2, 2024.

Harrington, Mark R.
1957 A Pinto Site at Little Lake, California. No. 17. Southwest Museum.

Hundley, Norris Jr.
1992 The Great Thirst: Californians and Water, 1770s – 1900s. University of California Press, Berkley, California.

Jackson, Robert H. and Edward Castillo
1995 Indians, Franciscans, and Spanish Colonization: The Impacts of the Mission System on California Indians. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Kroeber, Alfred L.
1925 Handbook of California Indians. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78, Washington, D.C. Reprinted 2018, Dover Publications, New York, New York.

Latta, Frank F.
1977 Handbook of Yokuts Indians. Reprinted 2014, Bear State Books, Santa Cruz, California.

Ludeke, John.
1980 The No Fence Law of 1874: Victor for San Joaquin Valley Farmers. California History 2(59):98-115. University of California Press, Berkley, California.

Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the City of Lindsay Well 11 Treatment Project 31 Madden, Derek.
2020 The Naturalist’s Illustrated Guide to the Sierra Foothills and Central Valley. Heyday Publishing, Berkley, California.

McGuire, Kelly R. and Alan P. Garfinkel.
1980 Archaeological Investigations in the Southern Sierra Nevada: The Bear Mountain Segment of the Pacific Crest Trail. Cultural Resources Publications, Archaeology, unnumbered: xii – 304.

Menefee, Eugene L. and Dodge, Fred A.
1913 History of Tulare and Kings Counties, California. Historic Record Company. Los Angeles, California.

Merriam, Hart C.
1904 Distribution of Indian Tribes in the Southern Sierra and Adjacent Parts of the San Joaquin Valley, California. Science 19(494):912-917.

Mitchell, Annie R.
1974 A Modern History of Tulare County. Limited Edition of Visalia, Incorporated. Visalia, California.

Moratto, Michael J.
1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, New York, NY.

Powers, Stephen
1877 Tribes of California. Washington Press, Washington, D.C.

Preston, William L.
1981 Vanishing Landscapes: Land and Life in the Tulare Lake Basin. Olympic Marketing Corp, Hopkins.

Prothero, Donald R.
2017 California’s Amazing Geology. Taylor and Francis Group.

Riddell, Francis A.
2002 The Status of San Joaquin Valley Archaeological. In Essays in California Archaeology:

A Memorial to Franklin Fenenga edited by William J. Wallace and Francis A. Riddell, pp. 55-61. University of California Archaeological Research Facility, Contribution Number 60. Berkeley, California.

Rosenthal, Jeffrey S., Gregory G. White, and Mark Q. Sutton 2007 The Central Valley: A View from the Catbirds’s Seat. In California Prehistory:

Colonization, Cultural, and Complexity, edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar.

AltaMira Press, Lanham, Maryland.

Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the City of Lindsay Well 11 Treatment Project 32 Schenck, W.E., and E.J. Dawson
1929 Archaeology of the Northern San Joaquin Valley. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 25:289-413. University of California, Bakersfield, California.

Siefken, Nelson.
1999 Archaeology of the Redfeldt Mound (CA-KIN-66), Tulare Basin, California. M.A. Thesis, Department of Anthropology, California State University, Bakersfield.

Small, Kathleen Edwards.
1926 Early History of Tulare County California. 2001 reprint edition, Bear State Books, Exeter, California.

Smith, Wallace.
2004 Garden of the Sun: A History of the San Joaquin Valley: 1772-1939. 2 nd ed., revised by
William B. Secrest, Jr. Linden Publishing, Fresno, California.

Starr, Kevin.
2007 California: A History. Random House Publishing Group, New York, New York.

Thompson, Thomas H.
1892 Township 20 South, Range 26 East, Tulare Co., California. Official Historical Atlas Map of Tulare County. https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/ RUMSEY~8~1~24956~970108:T-20S-R-26E. Accessed February 2, 2024.

U.S. Agricultural Adjustment Administration (USAAA)
1946 Tulare County, California Aerial Survey No. 1946 F-K 798, http://digitized.library.fresnostate.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/aerial/id/16194, accessed through Map and Aerial Locator Tool (MALT), Henry Madden Library, California State University, Fresno, accessed February 2, 2024.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
1928 Lindsay, California, Quandrangle Map. 7.5-minute series. https://ngmdb.usgs.gov /topoview/. US Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado. Accessed February 2, 2024. 1951 Lindsay, California, Quandrangle Map. 7.5-minute series. https://ngmdb.usgs.gov /topoview/. US Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado. Accessed February 2, 2024. 1964 Lindsay, California, Quandrangle Map. 7.5-minute series. https://ngmdb.usgs.gov /topoview/. US Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado. Accessed February 2, 2024. 1971 Lindsay, California, Quandrangle Map, 1964, photorevised 1971. 7.5-minute series. https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/. US Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado.

Accessed February 2, 2024.

Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the City of Lindsay Well 11 Treatment Project 33 Varner, Dudley M. and David R. Stuart.
1975 Survey of Archaeological and Historical Resources in the Central Yokohl Valley, Tulare County, California. Sacramento: Report to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.

Wallace, William J.
1978 Southern Valley Yokuts. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, California. Ed.

Robert F. Heizer, pp. 448-461. The Geological Society of American, Inc., Boulder, Colorado
Zack, Richard.
2017 Quest for Water Tulare Irrigation District its History, People, and Progression.

PartnerPress.org, Carlsbad, California.

Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the City of Lindsay Well 11 Treatment Project

APPENDIX A
Personnel Qualifications
Consuelo Sauls, M.A., RPA 41591505 [email protected] Archaeologist 559.797.1572
6083 N. Figarden Dr., Ste. 616, Fresno, CA 93722
Areas of Expertise
• Cultural Resource Management
• CEQA and Federal regulations
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Laboratory Management
• Technical Writing
• Phase I Assessments
Years of Experience
• 14
Education
• M.A., Archaeology, University of
Durham, 2014
• B.A., Anthropology, California
State University, Fresno, 2009
Registrations/Certifications
• Registered Professional
Archaeologist 41591505
Professional Affiliations
• Coalition for Diversity in California
Archaeology
• Society for American Archaeology
• Society for California Archaeology
• Society of Black Archaeologists
Professional Experience
2019 –Present Principal Investigator, Taylored Archaeology, Fresno, California
2018 – 2019 Staff Archaeologist, Applied EarthWorks, Inc., Fresno, California
2016 – 2018 Principal Investigator, Soar Environmental Consulting, Inc., Fresno, California
2015 Archivist/Database Technician, Development and
Conservation Management, Inc., Laguna Beach,
California
2013 Laboratory Research Assistant, Durham University
Archaeology Department and Archaeology Museum,
Durham, England, UK
2011 – 2012 Laboratory Technician, University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania
2008 – 2009 Laboratory Technician, California State University, Fresno 2008 Field School, California State University, Fresno
Technical Qualifications
Ms. Sauls meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards as an archaeologist. She has conducted pedestrian surveys, supervised Extended Phase I survey, authored technical reports, and completed the Section 106 process with the State Historic Preservation Officer and Tribal Historic Preservation Officer. Her experience includes data recovery excavation at Western Mono sites and processing recovered artifacts in the laboratory as well as conducting archival research about prehistory and ethnography of Central California.

Ms. Sauls has authored and contributed to technical and letter reports in compliance with of the National Historical Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). She also has supported NHPA tribal consultation and responded to Assembly Bill 52 tribal comments. Ms. Sauls also has an extensive background supervising laboratory processing, cataloging, and conservation of prehistoric and historical archaeological collections. In addition, she worked with the Rock Art Heritage Group in the management, preservation, and presentation of rock art in museums throughout England, including a thorough analysis of the British Museum’s rock art collections. At Durham University Archaeology Museum, Ms. Sauls processed the excavated skeletal remains of 30 individuals from the seventeenth century.

Lindsay City CouncilJanuary 14, 2025

Lindsay City Council
January 14, 2025