Cities Index.
Agenda packet

Los Banos City Council
July 6, 2022

Document
Agenda packet
Meeting
July 6, 2022
Body
Los Banos City Council
Pages
52
Original file
121.4 MB
Text extracted from the city's file for reading and search. Open the original on losbanos.org. That file is the official record.

1634
) ! A7G1000
General DW - EDT

ASSOCIATES
Certificate of Analysis
Sample ID: A7G1000-03 Sample Date - Time: 07/12/17 - 09:23 Sampled By: Ryan Harris Matrix: Drinking Water
Sample Description: Well 3 Sample Type: Grab
Field Data: pH=7.05 Temp=27.1 °C
BSK Associates Laboratory Fresno
General Chemistry
Aggressive Index 12 A709340 07/24/17 07/24/17
Alkalinity as CaC03 SM 2320B 210 3.0 mg/L A708761 07/12/17 07/12/17 Bicarbonate as CaCO3 SM 2320B 210 3.0 mg/L A708761 07/12/17 07/12/17 Carbonate as CaCO3 SM 2320B ND 3.0 mg/L A708761 07/12/17 07/12/17 Hydroxide as CaCO3 SM 2320B ND 3.0 mg/L A708761 07/12/17 07/12/17 Chloride EPA300.0 120 1.0 mg/L A708812 07/13/17 07/13/17 Color, Apparent SM 2120B ND 5.0 cu A708680 07/12/17 18:54 07/12/17 Conductivity @ 25C SM 2510B 970 1.0 umhos/cm A708761 07/12/17 07/12/17 Fluoride EPA300.0 0.11 0.10 mg/L A708812 07/13/17 07/13/17 Hexavalent Chromium EPA 218.7 33 0.25 ug/L 5 A708827 07/13/17 07/13/17 Langelier Index SM 2330B 0.47 A709340 07/24/17 07/24/17 MBAS, Calculated as LAS, mol wt 340 SM 5540C ND 0.050 mg/L A708807 07/12/17 20:00 07/12/17 Nitrate + Nitrite as N EPA300.0 6.3 0.23 mg/L A708812 07/13/17 11 :40 07/13/17 Nitrate as N EPA 300.0 6.3 0.23 mg/L A708812 07/13/17 11 :40 07/13/17 Nitrite as N EPA 300.0 ND 0.050 mg/L A708812 07/13/17 11 :40 07/13/17 Threshold Odor SM 2150B ND 1.0 T.O.N. A708607 07/12/17 18:25 07/12/17 Perchlorate EPA 314.0 ND 2.0 ug/L A709365 07/25/17 07/25/17 pH (1) SM 4500-H+ B 7.9 pH Units A708761 07/12/17 07/12/17 pH Temperature in °C 23.3
Sulfate as SO4 EPA300.0 91 1.0 mg/L A708812 07/13/17 07/13/17 Total Dissolved Solids SM 2540C 580 5.0 mg/L A708826 07/13/17 07/17/17 Turbidity SM 2130B 0.11 0.10 NTU A708680 07/12/17 19:19 07/12/17 Metals
Aluminum EPA 200.7 ND 0.050 mg/L A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17 Antimony EPA 200.8 ND 2.0 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17 Arsenic EPA 200.8 4.7 2.0 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17 Barium EPA 200.7 0.080 0.050 mg/L A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17 Beryllium EPA 200.8 ND 1.0 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17 cvo.o Cadmium EPA200.8 ND 1.0 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17
Calcium EPA200.7 66 0.10 mg/L A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17 Chromium EPA200.8 32 10 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17
Copper EPA200.8 ND 5.0 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17
Iron EPA200.7 ND 0.030 mg/L A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17
Lead EPA200.8 ND 1.0 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17
Magnesium EPA200.7 34 0.10 mg/L A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17 Manganese EPA200.7 ND 0 010 mg/L A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17 Mercury EPA200.8 ND 0.20 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17 CVO.O Nickel EPA200.8 ND 10 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17
Potassium EPA200.7 2.6 2.0 mg/L A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17 Selenium EPA200.8 ND 2.0 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17 A7G1000 FINAL07272017 1611
Pr"mted: 7/27/2017
QA-RP-0001-1 O Final.rpt www.BSKAssociates.com Page 13 of 76 1635

ASSOCIATES
Sample ID: A7G1000-03
Sampled By: Ryan Harris
Sample Description: Well 3
Field Data: pH=7.05 Temp=27.1 °C
Silver EPA 200.8
Sodium EPA 200.7
Thallium EPA200.8
Hardness as CaCO3 SM 2340B
Zinc EPA 200.7
Gross Alpha SM 7110C

1.65 Sigma Uncertainty
MDA95
EDB and DBCP bll: GC-ECD
Dibromochloropropane (DBCP) EPA504.1
Ethylene Dibromide (EDS) EPA 504.1
Surrogate: 1-Br-2-Nitrobenzene EPA504.1
EPA 505 - Simazine, Atrazine, and Alachlor On Ill
Alachlor EPA 505
Atrazine EPA 505
Simazine EPA505
Surrogate: 1-Br-2-Nitrobenzene EPA 505
Volatile Organics bll: GC-MS
1, 1, 1,2-Tetrachloroethane EPA 524.2
1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane EPA 524.2
1, 1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane EPA 524.2
1, 1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane EPA 524.2
1, 1,2-Trichloroethane EPA 524.2
1, 1-Dichloroethane EPA 524.2
1, 1-Dichloroethene EPA 524.2
1, 1-Dichloropropene EPA524.2
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene EPA524.2
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene EPA 524.2
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene EPA 524.2
1,2-Dichlorobenzene EPA 524.2
1,2-Dichloroethane EPA 524.2
1,2-Dichloropropane EPA524.2
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene EPA 524.2
1,3-Dichlorobenzene EPA 524.2
A7G1000 FINAL07272017 1611
Printed: 7/27/2017
QA-RP-0001-10 Final.rpt
Certificate of Analysis
Metals
ND 10 ug/L
83 1.0 mg/L
ND 1.0 ug/L
300 0.41 mg/L
ND 0.050 mg/L
Radiological

3.02 pCi/L

0.291 ±

1.06 pCi/L
Organics
ND 0.010 ug/L
ND 0.020 ug/L
106 % Acceptable range:

ND 1.0 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 1.0 ug/L
106 % Acceptable range:

ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 10 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
www.BSKAssociates.com
70-130%
70-130%
A7G1000
General OW - EDT
Sample Date -Time: 07/12/17 - 09:23
Matrix: Drinking Water
Sample Type: Grab
A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17
A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17
A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17
A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17
A709096 07/19/17 07/20/17
A708902 07/14/17 07/14/17
A708902 07/14/17 07/14/17
A708902 07/14/17 07/14/17
A708902 07/14/17 07/14/17
A708902 07/14/17 07/14/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17

Page 14 of 76 ends

1636
( 11 A7G1000 .,
\
I General OW - EDT )

ASSOCIATES
Certificate of Analysis
Sample ID: A7G1000-03 Sample Date - Time: 07/12/17 - 09:23 Sampled By: Ryan Harris Matrix: Drinking Water
Sample Description: Well 3 Sample Type: Grab
Field Data: pH=7.05 Temp=27.1 °C
Organics
Volatile Organics bl£ GC-MS
1,3-Dichloropropane EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 1,4-Dichlorobenzene EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13117 2,2-Dichloropropane EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13117 07/13117 2-Butanone EPA524.2 ND 5.0 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/'i3/17 2-Chlorotoluene EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13117 2-Hexanone EPA 524.2 ND 10 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13117 4-Chlorotoluene EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07113/17 4-Methyl-2-pentanone EPA524.2 ND 5.0 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Acetone EPA524.2 ND 10 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
Benzene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Bromobenzene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Bromochloromethane EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Bromodichloromethane EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Bromoform EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13117 Bromomethane EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13117 Carbon Tetrachloride EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Chlorobenzene EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Chloroethane EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07113/17 07/13/17 Chloroform EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13117 07/13/17 Chloromethane EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07113/17 07/13117 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07113/17 07/13/17 cis-1,3-Dichloropropene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Dibromochloromethane EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13117 07/13/17 Dibromomethane EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Dichlorodifiuoromethane EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13117 Dichloromethane EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13117 Di-isopropyl ether (DIPE) EPA524.2 ND 3.0 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Ethyl tert-Butyl Ether (ETBE) EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Ethylbenzene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Hexachlorobutadiene EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 lsopropylbenzene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 m,p-Xylenes EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13117 Methyl-I-butyl ether EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Naphthalene EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 n-Butylbenzene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13117 07/13/17 n-Propylbenzene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 a-Xylene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 p-lsopropyltoluene EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 sec-Butylbenzene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13117 Styrene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 tert-Amyl Methyl Ether (TAME) EPA 524.2 ND 3.0 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 tert-Butyl alcohol (TBA) EPA524.2 ND 2.0 ug/L A708850 07/13117 07/13/17 tert-Butylbenzene EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 A7G1000 FINAL 07272017 1611
Printed: 7127/2017
QA-RP-0001-10 Final.rpt www.BSKAssociates.com Page 15 of 76 1637

ASSOCIATES
Sample ID: A7G1000-03
Sampled By: Ryan Harris
Sample Description: Well 3
Field Data: pH=7.05 Temp=27.1 °C
Volatile Organics bJl GC-MS
Tetrachloroethene (PCE)
Toluene
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene
Trichloroethene (TCE)
Trichlorofluoromethane
Vinyl Chloride
Surrogate: 1,2-Dichlorobenzene-d4
Surrogate: Bromofluorobenzene
Total 1,3-Dichloropropene
Total Trihalomethanes
Total Xylenes, EPA 524.2
A7G1000 FINAL07272017 1611
Printed: 7/2712017
QA-RP-0001-10 Final.rpt
EPA 524.2
EPA 524.2
EPA 524.2
EPA 524.2
EPA 524.2
EPA 524.2
EPA 524.2
EPA524.2
EPA524.2
Certificate of Analysis
Organics
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 5.0 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
94% Acceptable range:
102 % Acceptable range:

ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
www.BSKAssociates.com
70-130%
70-130 %
A7G1000
General DW - EDT
Sample Date - Time: 07/12/17 - 09:23
Matrix: Drinking Water
Sample Type: Grab
A708850 07/13/17 07/13117
A708850 07/13/17 07/13117
A708850 07/13/17 07/13117
A708850 07113/17 07113117
A708850 07/13/17 07/13117
A708850 07/13/17 07/13117
A708850 07/13/17 07/13117

Page 16 of 76 ends

1638
A7G1000
General DW - EDT

ASSOCIATES
Certificate of Analysis
Sample ID: A7G1000-04 Sample Date - Time: 07/12/17 - 12:25 Sampled By: Ryan Harris Matrix: Drinking Water
Sample Description: Well 5 Sample Type: Grab
Field Data: pH=7.06 Temp=28.5 °C
BSK Associates Laboratory Fresno
General Chemistry
Aggressive Index 13 A709340 07/24/17 07/24/17
Alkalinity as CaC03 SM 2320B 330 3.0 mg/L A708761 07/12/17 07/12/17 Bicarbonate as CaC03 SM 2320B 330 3.0 mg/L A708761 07/12/17 07/12/17 Carbonate as CaC03 SM 2320B ND 3.0 mg/L A708761 07/12/17 07/12/17 Hydroxide as CaC03 SM 2320B ND 3.0 mg/L A708761 07/12/17 07/12/17 Chloride EPA300.0 230 1.0 mg/L A708813 07/13/17 07/13/17 Color, Apparent SM 2120B ND 5.0 cu A708680 07/12/17 18:55 07/12/17 Conductivity @ 25C SM 2510B 1800 1.0 umhos/cm A708761 07/12/17 07/12/17 Fluoride EPA300.0 0.10 0.10 mg/L A708813 07/13/17 07/13/17 Hexavalent Chromium EPA218.7 43 0.25 ug/L 5 A708827 07/13/17 07/13/17 Langelier Index SM 2330B 1.0 A709340 07/24/17 07/24/17
MBAS, Calculated as LAS, mol wt 340 SM 5540C ND 0.050 mg/L A708807 07/12/17 20:00 07/12/17 Nitrate+ Nitrite as N EPA 300.0 8.0 0.23 mg/L A708813 07/13/17 14:26 07/13/17 Nitrate as N EPA 300.0 8.0 0.23 mg/L A708813 07/13/17 14:26 07/13/17 Nitrite as N EPA 300.0 ND 0.050 mg/L A708813 07/13/17 14:26 07/13/17 Threshold Odor SM 2150B ND 1.0 TO.N. A708607 07/12/17 18:25 07/12/17 Perchlorate EPA 314.0 ND 4.0 ug/L 2 A709365 07/25/17 07/25/17 DL1.0 pH (1) SM 4500-H+ B 8.0 pH Units A708761 07/12/17 07/12/17 pH Temperature in °c 23.3
Sulfate as S04 EPA300.0 240 1.0 mg/L A708813 07/13/17 07/13/17 Total Dissolved Solids SM 2540C 1100 5.0 mg/L A708826 07/13/17 07/17/17 Turbidity SM 2130B 0.14 0.10 NTU A708680 07/12/17 19:20 07/12/17 Metals
Aluminum EPA 200.7 ND 0.050 mg/L A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17 Antimony EPA200.8 ND 2.0 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17 Arsenic EPA200.8 5.9 2.0 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17 Barium EPA 200.7 0.10 0.050 mg/L A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17 Beryllium EPA200.8 ND 1.0 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17 CV0.0 Cadmium EPA200.8 ND 1.0 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17
Calcium EPA 200.7 120 0.10 mg/L A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17 Chromium EPA 200.8 43 10 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17 Copper EPA200.8 5.2 5.0 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17
Iron EPA 200.7 ND 0.030 mg/L A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17
Lead EPA 200.8 ND 1.0 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17
Magnesium EPA 200.7 67 0.10 mg/L A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17 Manganese EPA200.7 ND 0.010 mg/L A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17 Mercury EPA200.8 ND 0.20 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17 CV0.0 Nickel EPA200.8 ND 10 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17
Potassium EPA200.7 3.0 2.0 mg/L A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17 Selenium EPA200.8 3.3 2.0 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17 A7G1000 FINAL07272017 1611
Pr'tnted: 7/27/2017
QA-RP-0001-10 Final.rpt www.BSKAssociates.com Page 17 of 76 1639
~·

ASSOCIATES
Sample ID: A7G1000-04
Sampled By: Ryan Harris
Sample Description: Well 5
Field Data: pH=7.06 Temp=28.5 °C
Silver EPA200.8
Sodium EPA 200.7
Thallium EPA 200.8
Hardness as CaCO3 SM 2340B
Zinc EPA 200.7
Gross Alpha SM 7110C

1.65 Sigma Uncertainty
MDA95
EDB and DBCP bl£ GC-ECD
Dibromochloropropane (DBCP) EPA 504.1
Ethylene Dibromide (EDB) EPA 504.1
Surrogate: 1-Br-2-Nitrobenzene EPA 504.1
EPA 505 - Simazine, Atrazine, and Alachlor On Ill
Alachlor EPA 505
Atrazine EPA 505
Simazine EPA505
Surrogate: 1-Br-2-Nitrobenzene EPA505
Volatile Organics bl£ GC-MS
1, 1, 1,2-Tetrachloroethane EPA 524.2
1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane EPA 524.2
1, 1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane EPA 524.2
1, 1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane EPA 524.2
1, 1,2-Trichloroethane EPA 524.2
1, 1-Dichloroethane EPA524.2
1, 1-Dichloroethene EPA524.2
1, 1-Dichloropropene EPA524.2
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene EPA 524.2
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene EPA 524.2
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene EPA 524.2
1,2-Dichlorobenzene EPA 524.2
1,2-Dichloroethane EPA524.2
1,2-Dichloropropane EPA 524.2
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene EPA524.2
1,3-Dichlorobenzene EPA524.2
A7G1000 FINAL07272017 1611
Printed: 7/2712017
QA-RP-0001-10 Final.rpt
Certificate of Analysis
Metals
ND 10 ug/L
160 1.0 mg/L
ND 1.0 ug/L
590 0.41 mg/L
ND 0.050 mg/L
Radiological

9.06 pCi/L

0.479 ±

1.06 pCi/L
Organics
ND 0.010 ug/L
ND 0.020 ug/L
107 % Acceptable range:

ND 1.0 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 1.0 ug/L
107% Acceptable range:

ND 0.50 ugll
ND 0.50 ugll
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 10 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ugll
ND 0.50 ugll
www.BSKAssociates.com
70-130 %
70-130 %
A7G1000
General DW - EDT
Sample Date - Time: 07/12/17 - 12:25
Matrix: Drinking Water
Sample Type: Grab
A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17
A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17
A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17
A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17
A709096 07/19/17 07/20/17
A708902 07/14/17 07/14/17
A708902 07/14/17 07/14/17
A708902 07/14/17 07/14/17
A708902 07/14/17 07/14/17
A708902 07/14/17 07/14/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13117 07/13/17
A708850 07113/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13117 07/13/17
A708850 07/13117 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 . 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13117
A708850 07/13/17 07/13117
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17

Page 18 of 76 ends

1640
A7G1000
General DW - EDT

ASSOCIATES
Certificate of Analysis
Sample ID: A7G1000-04 Sample Date - Time: 07/12/17 -12:25 Sampled By: Ryan Harris Matrix: Drinking Water
Sample Description: Well 5 Sample Type: Grab
Field Data: pH=7.06 Temp=28.5 °C
Organics
Volatile Organics bl£ GC-MS
1,3-Dichloropropane EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 1,4-Dichlorobenzene EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 2,2-Dichloropropane EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 2-Butanone EPA524.2 ND 5.0 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 2-Chlorotoluene EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 2-Hexanone EPA 524.2 ND 10 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 4-Chlorotoluene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 4-Methyl-2-pentanone EPA524.2 ND 5.0 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Acetone EPA 524.2 ND 10 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
Benzene EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Bromobenzene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Bromochloromethane EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Bromodichloromethane EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Bromoform EPA 524.2 0.53 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Bromomethane EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Carbon Tetrachloride EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Chlorobenzene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Chloroethane EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Chloroform EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Chloromethane EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 cis-1,3-Dichloropropene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Dibromochloromethane EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Dibromomethane EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Dichlorodifluoromethane EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Dichloromethane EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Di-isopropyl ether (DIPE) EPA524.2 ND 3.0 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Ethyl tert-Butyl Ether (ETBE) EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Ethylbenzene EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Hexachlorobutadiene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 lsopropylbenzene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 m,p-Xylenes EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Methyl-I-butyl ether EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Naphthalene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 n-Butylbenzene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 n-Propylbenzene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 o-Xylene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 p-lsopropyltoluene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 sec-Butylbenzene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Styrene EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 tert-Amyl Methyl Ether (TAME) EPA524.2 ND 3.0 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 tert-Butyl alcohol (TBA) EPA524.2 ND 2.0 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 tert-Butylbenzene EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 A7G1000 FINAL07272017 1611
Printed: 7/27/2017
QA-RP-0001-10 Final.rpt www.BSKAssociates.com Page 19 of 76 1641

ASSOCIATES
Sample ID: A7G1000-04
Sampled By: Ryan Harris
Sample Description: Well 5
Field Data: pH=7.06 Temp=28.5 °C
Volatile Organics b}'. GC-MS
Tetrachloroethene (PCE)
Toluene
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene
Trichloroethene (TCE)
Trichlorofluoromethane
Vinyl Chloride
Surrogate: 1,2-Dichlorobenzene-d4
Surrogate: Bromofluorobenzene
Total 1,3-Dichloropropene
Total Trihalomethanes
Total Xylenes, EPA 524. 2
A7G1000 FINAL 07272017 1611
Printed: 7/27/2017
QA-RP-0001-10 Final.rpt
EPA 524.2
EPA524.2
EPA 524.2
EPA 524.2
EPA 524.2
EPA524.2
EPA524.2
EPA 524.2
EPA 524.2
Certificate of Analysis
Organics
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 5.0 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
90% Acceptable range:
102% Acceptable range:

ND 0.50 ug/L

0.53 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
www.BSKAssociates.com
70-130 %
70-130 %
A7G1000
General DW · EDT
Sample Date - Time: 07/12/17 - 12:25
Matrix: Drinking Water
Sample Type: Grab
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17

Page 20 ends

1642
A7G1000
I General DW - EDT I

ASSOCIATES
Certificate of Analysis
Sample ID: A7G1000-05 Sample Date - Time: 07/12/17 -11:06 Sampled By: Ryan Harris Matrix: Drinking Water
Sample Description: Well 6 Sample Type: Grab
Field Data: pH=6.99 Temp=27.0 °C
BSK Associates Laboratory Fresno
General Chemistry
Aggressive Index 12 A709340 07/24/17 07/24/17
Alkalinity as CaC03 SM 2320B 120 3.0 mg/L A708761 07/12/17 07/12/17 Bicarbonate as CaC03 SM 2320B 120 3.0 mg/L A708761 07/12/17 07/12/17 Carbonate as CaC03 SM 2320B ND 3.0 mg/L A708761 07/12/17 07/12/17 Hydroxide as CaC03 SM 2320B ND 3.0 mg/L A708761 07/12/17 07/12/17 Chloride EPA 300.0 100 1.0 mg/L A708813 07/13/17 07/13/17 Color, Apparent SM 2120B ND 5.0 cu A708680 07/12/17 18:56 07/12/17 Conductivity @ 25C SM 2510B 680 1.0 umhos/cm A708761 07/12/17 07/12/17 Fluoride EPA 300.0 0.12 0.10 mg/L A708813 07/13/17 07/13/17 Hexavalent Chromium EPA218.7 28 0.25 ug/L 5 A708827 07/13/17 07/13/17 Langelier Index SM 2330B 0.30 A709340 07/24/17 07/24/17 MBAS, Calculated as LAS, mol wt 340 SM 5540C ND 0.050 mg/L A708807 07/12/17 20:00 07/12/17 Nitrate+ Nitrite as N EPA 300.0 3.5 0.23 mg/L A708813 07/13/17 14:49 07/13/17 Nitrate as N EPA 300.0 3.5 0.23 mg/L A708813 07/13/17 14:49 07/13/17 Nitrite as N EPA300.0 ND 0.050 mg/L A708813 07/13/17 14:49 07/13/17 Threshold Odor SM 2150B ND 1.0 T.O.N. A708607 07/12/17 18:25 07/12/17 Perchlorate EPA 314.0 ND 2.0 ug/L A709365 07/25/17 07/25/17 pH (1) SM 4500-H+ B 8.1 pH Units A708761 07/12/17 07/12/17 pH Temperature in °C 23.2
Sulfate as S04 EPA 300.0 50 1.0 mg/L A708813 07/13/17 07/13/17 Total Dissolved Solids SM 2540C 380 5.0 mg/L A708826 07/13/17 07/17/17 Turbidity SM 2130B ND 0.10 NTU A708680 07/12/17 19:21 07/12/17 Metals
Aluminum EPA200.7 ND 0.050 mg/L A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17 Antimony EPA200.8 ND 2.0 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17 Arsenic EPA200.8 5.7 2.0 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17 Barium EPA 200.7 0.10 0.050 mg/L A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17 Beryllium EPA 200.8 ND 1.0 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17 CVO.O Cadmium EPA 200.8 ND 1.0 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17 Calcium EPA 200.7 47 0.10 mg/L A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17 Chromium EPA200.8 27 10 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17
Copper EPA200.8 ND 5.0 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17
Iron EPA 200.7 ND 0.030 mg/L A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17
Lead EPA 200.8 ND 1.0 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17
Magnesium EPA 200.7 23 0.10 mg/L A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17 Manganese EPA 200.7 ND 0.010 mg/L A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17 Mercury EPA200.8 ND 0.20 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17 cvo.o Nickel EPA200.8 ND 10 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17
Potassium EPA200.7 2.4 2.0 mg/L A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17 Selenium EPA200.8 ND 2.0 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17 A7G1000 FINAL07272017 1611
Printed: 7/27/2017
QA-RP-0001-10 Final.rpt www.BSKAssociates.com Page 21 of 76 1643

ASSOCIATES
Samp~ID:A7G100~05
Sampled By: Ryan Harris
Sample Description: Well 6
Field Data: pH=6.99 Temp=27.0 °C
Silver EPA200.8
Sodium EPA 200.7
Thallium EPA200.8
Hardness as CaCO3 SM 2340B
Zinc EPA 200.7
Gross Alpha SM 7110C

1.65 Sigma Uncertainty
MDA95
EDB and DBCP bl£ GC-ECD
Dibromochloropropane (DBCP) EPA 504.1
Ethylene Dibromide (EDB) EPA 504.1
Surrogate: 1-Br-2-Nitrobenzene EPA 504.1
EPA 505 - Simazine, Atrazine, and Alachlor OnlJl
Alachlor
Atrazine
Simazine
Surrogate: 1-Br-2-Nitrobenzene
A7G1000 FINAL 07272017 1611
Printed: 7/27/2017
QA-RP-0001-10 Final.rpt
EPA 505
EPA505
EPA 505
EPA 505
Certificate of Analysis
Metals
ND 10 ug/L
47 1.0 mg/L
ND 1.0 ug/L
210 0.41 mg/L
ND 0.050 mg/L
Radiological
ND pCi/L

0.156 ±

1.06 pCi/L
Organics
ND 0.010 ug/L
ND 0.020 ug/L
105 % Acceptable range: 70-130 %
ND 1.0 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 1.0 ug/L
105 % Acceptable range: 70-130%
www.BSKAssociates.com
A7G1000
General DW - EDT
Sample Date -Time: 07/12/17 -11:06
Matrix: Drinking Water
Sample Type: Grab
A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17
A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17
A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17
A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17
A709096 07/19/17 07/20/17
A708902 07/14/17 07/14/17
A708902 07/14/17 07/14/17
A708902 07/14/17 07/14/17
A708902 07/14/17 07/14/17
A708902 07/14/17 07/14/17

Page 22 of 76 ends

1644
A7G1000
General DW - EDT

ASSOCIATES
Certificate of Analysis
Sample ID: A7G1000-06 Sample Date - Time: 07/12/17 - 12:45 Sampled By: Ryan Harris Matrix: Drinking Water
Sample Description: Well 7 Sample Type: Grab
Field Data: pH=7.11 Temp=27.3 °C
BSK Associates Laboratory Fresno
General Chemistry
Aggressive Index 13 A709340 07/24/17 07/24/17
Alkalinity as CaCO3 SM 2320B 340 3.0 mg/L A708761 07/12/17 07/12/17 Bicarbonate as CaCO3 SM 2320B 340 3.0 mg/L A708761 07/12/17 07/12/17 Carbonate as CaCO3 SM 2320B ND 3.0 mg/L A708761 07/12/17 07/12/17 Hydroxide as CaCO3 SM 2320B ND 3.0 mg/L A708761 07/12/17 07/12/17 Chloride EPA 300.0 220 1.0 mg/L A708813 07/13/17 07/13/17 Color, Apparent SM 2120B ND 5.0 cu A708680 07/12/17 18:57 07/12/17 Conductivity @ 25C SM 2510B 1700 1.0 umhos/cm A708761 07/12/17 07/12/17 Fluoride EPA 300.0 ND 0.10 mg/L A708813 07/13/17 07/13/17 Hexavalent Chromium EPA218.7 42 0.25 ug/L 5 A708827 07/13/17 07/13/17 Langelier Index SM 2330B 0.98 A709340 07/24/17 07/24/17 MBAS, Calculated as LAS, mol wt 340 SM 5540C ND 0.050 mg/L A708807 07/12/17 20:00 07/12/17 Nitrate + Nitrite as N EPA 300.0 7.6 0.23 mg/L A708813 07/13/17 15:01 07/13/17 Nitrate as N EPA300.0 7.6 0.23 mg/L A708813 07/13/17 15:01 07/13/17 Nitrite as N EPA 300.0 ND 0.050 mg/L A708813 07/13/17 15:01 07/13/17 Threshold Odor SM 2150B ND 1.0 T.O.N. A708607 07/12/17 18:25 07/12/17 Perchlorate EPA 314.0 ND 4.0 ug/L 2 A709365 07/25/17 07/25/17 DL1.0 pH (1) SM 4500-H+ B 8.0 pH Units A708761 07/12/17 07/12/17 pH Temperature in °C 23.2
Sulfate as SO4 EPA 300.0 240 1.0 mg/L A708813 07/13/17 07/13/17 Total Dissolved Solids SM 2540C 1100 5.0 mg/L A708826 07/13/17 07/17/17 Turbidity SM 2130B ND 0.10 NTU A708680 07/12/17 19:22 07/12/17 Metals
Aluminum EPA200.7 ND 0.050 mg/L A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17 Antimony EPA200.8 ND 2.0 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17 Arsenic EPA 200.8 5.3 2.0 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17 Barium EPA200.7 0.060 0.050 mg/L A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17 Beryllium EPA200.8 ND 1.0 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17 cvo.o Cadmium EPA200.8 ND 1.0 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17
Calcium EPA 200.7 110 0.10 mg/L A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17 Chromium EPA 200.8 42 10 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17 Copper EPA200.8 ND 5.0 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17
Iron EPA200.7 ND 0.030 mg/L A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17
Lead EPA200.8 ND 1.0 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17
Magnesium EPA 200.7 63 0.10 mg/L A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17 Manganese EPA200.7 ND 0.010 mg/L A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17 Mercury EPA200.8 ND 0.20 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17 CV0.0 Nickel EPA200.8 ND 10 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17
Potassium EPA 200.7 2.9 2.0 mg/L A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17 Selenium EPA200.8 4.1 2.0 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17 A7G1000 FINAL07272017 1611
Printed: 7/27/2017
QA-RP-0001-10 Final.rpt www.BSKAssociates.com Page 23 of 76 1645

ASSOCIATES
Sample ID: A7G1000-06
Sampled By: Ryan Harris
Sample Description: Well 7
Field Data: pH=7.11 Temp=27.3 °C
Silver EPA200.8
Sodium EPA200.7
Thallium EPA200.8
Hardness as CaCO3 SM 2340B
Zinc EPA 200.7
Gross Alpha SM 7110C

1.65 Sigma Uncertainty
MDA95
EDB and DBCP bl£ GC-ECD
Dibromochloropropane (DBCP) EPA504.1
Ethylene Dibromide (EDB) EPA 504.1
Surrogate: 1-Br-2-Nitrobenzene EPA504.1
EPA 505 - Simazine, Atrazine, and Alachlor OnlJl
Alachlor
Atrazine
Simazine
Surrogate: 1-Br-2-Nitrobenzene
A7G1000 FINAL 07272017 1611
Printed: 7/27/2017
QA-RP-0001-10 Final.rpt
EPA 505
EPA505
EPA 505
EPA 505
Certificate of Analysis
Metals
ND 10 ug/L
160 1.0 mg/L
ND 1.0 ug/L
530 0.41 mg/L
ND 0.050 mg/L
Radiological

12.6 pCi/L

0.561 ±

1.06 pCi/L
Organics
ND 0.010 ug/L
ND 0.020 ug/L
105 % Acceptable range: 70-130 %
ND 1.0 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 1.0 ug/L
105 % Acceptable range: 70-130 %
www.BSKAssociates.com
A7G1000
General DW - EDT
Sample Date - Time: 07/12/17 - 12:45
Matrix: Drinking Water
Sample Type: Grab
A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17
A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17
A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17
A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17
A709096 07/19/17 07/20/17
A708902 07/14/17 07/14/17
A708902 07/14/17 07/14/17
A708902 07/14/17 07/14/17
A708902 07/14/17 07/14/17
A708902 07/14/17 07/14/17

Page 24 of 76 ends

1646
\
c· I A7G1000
)1 General DW - EDT
_,_I

ASSOCIATES
Certificate of Analysis
Sample ID: A7G1000-07 Sample Date - Time: 07/12/17 - 12:03 Sampled By: Ryan Harris Matrix: Drinking Water
Sample Description: Well 9 Sample Type: Grab
Field Data: pH=7.05 Temp=28.4 °C
BSK Associates Laboratory Fresno
General Chemistry
Aggressive Index 12 A709340 07/24/17 07/24/17
Alkalinity as CaCO3 SM 2320B 170 3.0 mg/L A708761 07/12/17 07/12/17 Bicarbonate as CaC03 SM 2320B 170 3.0 mg/L A708761 07/12/17 07/12/17 Carbonate as CaCO3 SM 2320B ND 3.0 mg/L A708761 07/12/17 07/12/17 Hydroxide as CaCO3 SM 2320B ND 3.0 mg/L A708761 07/12/17 07/12/17 Chloride EPA300.0 84 1.0 mg/L A708813 07/13/17 07/13/17 Color, Apparent SM 2120B ND 5.0 cu A708680 07/12/17 18:58 07/12/17 Conductivity @ 25C SM 2510B 760 1.0 umhos/cm A708761 07/12/17 07/12/17 Fluoride EPA 300.0 0.11 0.10 mg/L A708813 07/13/17 07/13/17 Hexavalent Chromium EPA218.7 36 0.25 ug/L 5 A708829 07/13/17 07/13/17 Langelier Index SM 2330B 0.36 A709340 07/24/17 07/24/17 MBAS, Calculated as LAS, mol wt 340 SM 5540C ND 0.050 mg/L A708807 07/12/17 20:00 07/12/17 Nitrate+ Nitrite as N EPA 300.0 2.3 0.23 mg/L A708813 07/13/17 15:25 07/13/17 Nitrate as N EPA300.0 2.3 0.23 mg/L A708813 07/13/17 15:25 07/13/17 Nitrite as N EPA 300.0 ND 0.050 mg/L A708813 07/13/17 15:25 07/13/17 Threshold Odor SM 2150B ND 1.0 T.O.N. A708607 07/12/17 18:25 07/12/17 Perchlorate EPA 314.0 ND 2.0 ug/L A709365 07/25/17 07/25/17 pH (1) SM 4500-H+ B 8.0 pH Units A708761 07/12/17 07/12/17 pH Temperature in °C 23.3
Sulfate as SO4 EPA 300.0 78 1.0 mg/L A708813 07/13/17 07/13/17 Total Dissolved Solids SM 2540C 440 5.0 mg/L A708826 07/13/17 07/17/17 Turbidity SM 2130B 0.18 0.10 NTU A708680 07/12/17 19:23 07/12/17 Metals
Aluminum EPA 200.7 ND 0.050 mg/L A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17 Antimony EPA 200.8 ND 2.0 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17 Arsenic EPA200.8 7.2 2.0 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17 Barium EPA 200.7 0.083 0.050 mg/L A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17 Beryllium EPA200.8 ND 1.0 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17 CVO.O Cadmium EPA 200.8 ND 1.0 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17 Calcium EPA200.7 48 0.10 mg/L A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17 Chromium EPA200.8 35 10 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17
Copper EPA 200.8 ND 5.0 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17
Iron EPA200.7 ND 0.030 mg/L A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17
Lead EPA200.8 ND 1.0 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17
Magnesium EPA 200.7 27 0.10 mg/L A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17 Manganese EPA200.7 ND 0.010 mg/L A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17 Mercury EPA200.8 ND 0.20 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17 cvo.o Nickel EPA200.8 ND 10 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17
Potassium EPA200.7 2.5 2.0 mg/L A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17 Selenium EPA200.8 ND 2.0 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17 A7G1000 FINAL 07272017 1611
Printed: 7/27/2017
QA-RP-0001-10 Final.rpt www.BSKAssociates.com Page 25 of 76 1647

ASSOCIATES
Sample ID: A7G1000-07
Sampled By: Ryan Harris
Sample Description: Well 9
Field Data: pH=?.05 Temp=28.4 °C
Silver EPA200.8
Sodium EPA 200.7
Thallium EPA 200.8
Hardness as CaCO3 SM 2340B
Zinc EPA200.7
Gross Alpha SM 7110C

1.65 Sigma Uncertainty
MDA95
EDB and DBCP bl!'. GC-ECD
Dibromochloropropane (DBCP) EPA504.1
Ethylene Dibromide (EDB) EPA 504.1
Surrogate: 1-Br-2-Nitrobenzene EPA 504.1
EPA 505 - Simazine, Atrazine, and Alachlor OnlJl
Alachlor EPA 505
Atrazine EPA 505
Simazine EPA505
Surrogate: 1-Br-2-Nitrobenzene EPA 505
Volatile Organics bl£ GC-MS
1, 1, 1,2-Tetrachloroethane EPA 524.2
1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane EPA 524.2
1, 1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane EPA524.2
1, 1,2-Trichloro-1,2.2-trifluoroethane EPA 524.2
1, 1,2-Trichloroethane EPA 524.2
1, 1-Dichloroethane EPA524.2
1, 1-Dichloroethene EPA 524.2
1, 1-Dichloropropene EPA 524.2
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene EPA524.2
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene EPA 524.2
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene EPA524.2
1,2-Dichlorobenzene EPA524.2
1,2-Dichloroethane EPA 524.2
1,2-Dichloropropane EPA524.2
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene EPA 524.2
1,3-Dichlorobenzene EPA 524.2
A7G1000 FINAL 07272017 1611
Printed: 7/27/2017
QA-RP-0001-10 Final.rpt
Certificate of Analysis
Metals
ND 10 ug/L
63 1.0 mg/L
ND 1.0 ug/L
230 0.41 mg/L
ND 0.050 mg/L
Radiological

3.52 pCi/L

0.311 ±

1.06 pCi/L
Organics
ND 0.010 ug/L
ND 0.020 ug/L
106% Acceptable range:

ND 1.0 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 1.0 ug/L
106% Acceptable range:

ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 10 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
www.BSKAssociates.com
70-130%
70-130%
A7G1000
General DW - EDT
Sample Date -Time: 07/12/17 - 12:03
Matrix: Drinking Water
Sample Type: Grab
A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17
A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17
A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17
A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17
A709096 07/19/17 07/20/17
A708902 07/14/17 07/14/17
A708902 07/14/17 07/14/17
A708902 07/14/17 07/14/17
A708902 07/14/17 07/14/17
A708902 07/14/17 07/14/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17

Page 26 ends

1648
A7G1000
General DW - EDT

ASSOCIATES
Certificate of Analysis
Sample ID: A7G1000-07 Sample Date - Time: 07 /12/17 - 12:03 Sampled By: Ryan Harris Matrix: Drinking Water
Sample Description: Well 9 Sample Type: Grab
Field Data: pH=7.05 Temp=28.4 °C
Organics
Volatile Organics bl£ GC-MS
1,3-Dichloropropane EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 1,4-Dichlorobenzene EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 2,2-Dichloropropane EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 2-Butanone EPA524.2 ND 5.0 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 2-Chlorotoluene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 2-Hexanone EPA524.2 ND 10 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 4-Chlorotoluene EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 4-Methyl-2-pentanone EPA 524.2 ND 5.0 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Acetone EPA524.2 ND 10 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
Benzene EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Bromobenzene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Bromochloromethane EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Bromodichloromethane EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Bromoform EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Bromomethane EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Carbon Tetrachloride EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Chlorobenzene EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Chloroethane EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Chloroform EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Chloromethane EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 cis-1,3-Dichloropropene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Dibromochloromethane EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Dibromomethane EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Dichlorodifluoromethane EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Dichloromethane EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Di-isopropyl ether (DIPE) EPA524.2 ND 3.0 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Ethyl tert-Butyl Ether (ETBE) EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Ethyl benzene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Hexachlorobutadiene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 lsopropylbenzene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 m,p-Xylenes EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Methyl-I-butyl ether EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Naphthalene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 n-Butylbenzene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 n-Propylbenzene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 o-Xylene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 p-lsopropyltoluene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 sec-Butylbenzene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Styrene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 tert-Amyl Methyl Ether (TAME) EPA524.2 ND 3.0 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 tert-Butyl alcohol (TBA) EPA524.2 ND 2.0 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 tert-Butylbenzene EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 A7G1000 FINAL 07272017 1611
Printed: 7/27/2017
QA-RP-0001-10 Final.rpt www.BSKAssociates.com Page 27 of 76 1649

ASSOCIATES
Sample ID: A7G1000-07
Sampled By: Ryan Harris
Sample Description: Well 9
Field Data: pH=7.05 Temp=28.4 °C
Volatile Organics bl£ GC-MS
Tetrachloroethene (PCE)
Toluene
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene
Trichloroethene (TCE)
Trichlorofiuoromethane
Vinyl Chloride
Surrogate: 1,2-Dichlorobenzene-d4
Surrogate: Bromofiuorobenzene
Total 1,3-Dichloropropene
Total Trihalomethanes
Total Xylenes, EPA524.2
A7G1000 FINAL07272017 1611
Printed: 7/27/2017
QA-RP-0001-10 Final.rpt
EPA 524.2
EPA 524.2
EPA524.2
EPA524.2
EPA 524.2
EPA 524.2
EPA 524.2
EPA524.2
EPA524.2
Certificate of Analysis
Organics
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 5.0 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
87% Acceptable range:
99% Acceptable range:

ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
www.BSKAssociates.com
70-130 %
70-130%
A7G1000
General DW - EDT
Sample Date - Time: 07/12/17 - 12:03
Matrix: Drinking Water
Sample Type: Grab
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17

Page 28 ends

1650
A7G1000
General DW - EDT

ASSOCIATES
Certificate of Analysis
Sample ID: A7G1000-08 Sample Date - Time: 07/12/17 -13:05 Sampled By: Ryan Harris Matrix: Drinking Water
Sample Description: Well 10 Sample Type: Grab
Field Data: pH=7.12 Temp=23.2 °C
BSK Associates Laboratory Fresno
General Chemistry
Aggressive Index 13 A709340 07/24/17 07/24/17
Alkalinity as CaCO3 SM 23208 270 3.0 mg/L A708803 07/12/17 07/12/17 Bicarbonate as CaCO3 SM 23208 270 3.0 mg/L A708803 07/12/17 07/12/17 Carbonate as CaCO3 SM 23208 ND 3.0 mg/L A708803 07/12/17 07/12/17 Hydroxide as CaCO3 SM 23208 ND 3.0 mg/L A708803 07/12/17 07/12/17 Chloride EPA 300.0 170 1.0 mg/L A708888 07/13/17 07/13/17 Color, Apparent SM 21208 ND 5.0 cu A708680 07/12/17 18:59 07/12/17 Conductivity @ 25C SM 25108 1400 1.0 umhos/cm A708803 07/12/17 07/12/17 Fluoride EPA 300.0 0.11 0.10 mg/L A708888 07/13/17 07/13/17 Hexavalent Chromium EPA 218.7 35 0.25 ug/L 5 A708829 07/13/17 07/13/17 Langelier Index SM 23308 0.83 A709340 07/24/17 07/24/17 MBAS, Calculated as LAS, mol wt 340 SM 5540C ND 0.050 mg/L A708807 07/12/17 20:00 07/12/17 Nitrate+ Nitrite as N EPA 300.0 7.0 0.23 mg/L A708888 07/13/17 19:18 07/13/17 Nitrate as N EPA 300.0 7.0 0.23 mg/L A708888 07/13/17 19:18 07/13/17 Nitrite as N EPA 300.0 ND 0.050 mg/L A708888 07/13/17 19:18 07/13/17 Threshold Odor SM 21508 ND 1.0 T.O.N. A708607 07/12/17 18:25 07/12/17 Perchlorate EPA 314.0 ND 4.0 ug/L 2 A709365 07/25/17 07/25/17 DL1.0 pH (1) SM 4500-H+ B 8.0 pH Units A708803 07/12/17 07/12/17 pH Temperature in °C 22.9
Sulfate as SO4 EPA 300.0 190 1.0 mg/L A708888 07/13/17 07/13/17 Total Dissolved Solids SM 2540C 860 5.0 mg/L A708826 07/13/17 07/17/17 Turbidity SM 21308 0.39 0.10 NTU A708680 07/12/17 19:24 07/12/17 Metals
Aluminum EPA200.7 ND 0.050 mg/L A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17 Antimony EPA200.8 ND 2.0 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17 Arsenic EPA200.8 5.0 2.0 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17 Barium EPA 200.7 0.065 0.050 mg/L A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17 Beryllium EPA200.8 ND 1.0 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17 cvo.o Cadmium EPA 200.8 ND 1.0 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17 Calcium. EPA200.7 95 0.10 mg/L A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17 Chromium EPA200.8 34 10 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17
Copper EPA200.8 ND 5.0 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17
Iron EPA 200.7 ND 0.030 mg/L A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17
Lead EPA 200.8 ND 1.0 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17
Magnesium EPA200.7 53 0.10 mg/L A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17 Manganese EPA200.7 ND 0.010 mg/L A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17 Mercury EPA200.8 ND 0.20 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17 cvo.o Nickel EPA200.8 ND 10 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17
Potassium EPA 200.7 2.8 2.0 mg/L A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17 Selenium EPA200.8 2.3 2.0 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17 A7G1000 FINAL 07272017 1611
Printed: 7/27/2017
QA-RP-0001-10 Final.rpt www.BSKAssociates.com Page 29 of 76 1651

ASSOCIATES
Sample ID: A7G1000-08
Sampled By: Ryan Harris
Sample Description: Well 10
Field Data: pH=7.12 Temp=23.2 °C
Silver EPA 200.8
Sodium EPA200.7
Thallium EPA200.8
Hardness as CaCO3 SM 2340B
Zinc EPA200.7
Gross Alpha SM 7110C

1.65 Sigma Uncertainty
MDA95
EDB and DBCP bl( GC-ECD
Dibromochloropropane (DBCP) EPA504.1
Ethylene Dibromide (EDB) EPA 504.1
Surrogate: 1-Br-2-Nitrobenzene EPA 504.1
EPA 505 - Simazine, Atrazine, and Alachlor Onll(
Alachlor EPA 505
Atrazine EPA 505
Simazine EPA 505
Surrogate: 1-Br-2-Nitrobenzene EPA 505
Volatile Organics bl( GC-MS
1, 1, 1,2-Tetrachloroethane EPA 524.2
1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane EPA 524.2
1, 1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane EPA524.2
1, 1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane EPA524.2
1, 1,2-Trichloroethane EPA 524.2
1, 1-Dichloroethane EPA 524.2
1, 1-Dichloroethene EPA 524.2
1, 1-Dichloropropene EPA 524.2
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene EPA 524.2
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene EPA 524.2
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene EPA524.2
1,2-Dichlorobenzene EPA 524.2
1,2-Dichloroethane EPA 524.2
1,2-Dichloropropane EPA 524.2
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene EPA524.2
1,3-Dichlorobenzene EPA 524.2
A7G1000 FINAL 07272017 1611
Printed: 7/27/2017
QA-RP-0001-10 Final.rpt
Certificate of Analysis
Metals
ND 10 ug/L
120 1.0 mg/L
ND 1.0 ug/L
450 0.41 mg/L
ND 0.050 mg/L
Radiological

10.6 pCi/L

0.516 ±

1.06 pCi/L
Organics
ND 0.010 ug/L
ND 0.020 ug/L
104 % Acceptable range:

ND 1.0 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 1.0 ug/L
104% Acceptable range:

ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 10 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
www.BSKAssociates.com
70-130 %
70-130 %
A7G1000
General DW - EDT
Sample Date - Time: 07 /12/17 - 13:05
Matrix: Drinking Water
Sample Type: Grab
A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17
A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17
A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17
A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17
A709096 07/19/17 07/20/17
A708902 07/14/17 07/14/17
A708902 07/14/17 07/14/17
A708902 07/14/17 07/14/17
A708902 07/14/17 07/14/17
A708902 07/14/17 07/14/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17

Page 30 of 76 ends

1652
\l
I I A7G1000
General OW - EDT

ASSOCIATES
Certificate of Analysis
Sample ID: A7G1000-08 Sample Date - Time: 07/12/17 -13:05 Sampled By: Ryan Harris Matrix: Drinking Water
Sample Description: Well 1 0 Sample Type: Grab
Field Data: pH=7.12 Temp=23.2 °C
Organics
Volatile Organics by: GC-MS
1,3-Dichloropropane EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 1,4-Dichlorobenzene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 2,2-Dichloropropane EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 2-Butanone EPA 524.2 ND 5.0 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 2-Chlorotoluene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 2-Hexanone EPA524.2 ND 10 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 4-Chlorotoluene EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 4-Methyl-2-pentanone EPA 524.2 ND 5.0 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Acetone EPA524.2 ND 10 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
Benzene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Bromobenzene EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Bromochloromethane EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Bromodichloromethane EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Bromoform EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Bromomethane EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Carbon Tetrachloride EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Chlorobenzene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Chloroethane EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Chloroform EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Chloromethane EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 cis-1,3-Dichloropropene EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Dibromochloromethane EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Dibromomethane EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Dichlorodifluoromethane EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Dichloromethane EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Di-isopropyl ether (DIPE) EPA524.2 ND 3.0 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Ethyl tert-Butyl Ether (ETBE) EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Ethylbenzene EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Hexachlorobutadiene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 lsopropylbenzene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 m,p-Xylenes EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Methyl-I-butyl ether EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Naphthalene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 n-Butylbenzene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 n-Propylbenzene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 a-Xylene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 p-lsopropyltoluene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 sec-Butylbenzene EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Styrene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 tert-Amyl Methyl Ether (TAME) EPA524.2 ND 3.0 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 tert-Butyl alcohol (TBA) EPA524.2 ND 2.0 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 tert-Butylbenzene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 A7G1000 FINAL 07272017 1611
Printed: 7/27/2017
QA-RP-0001-1 O Final.rpt www.BSKAssociates.com Page 31 of 76 1653

ASSOCIATES
Sample ID: A7G1000-08
Sampled By: Ryan Harris
Sample Description: Well 10
Field Data: pH=7.12 Temp=23.2 °C
Volatile Organics bl£ GC-MS
Tetrachloroethene (PCE)
Toluene
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene
Trichloroethene (TCE)
Trichlorofluoromethane
Vinyl Chloride
Surrogate: 1,2-Dichlorobenzene-d4
Surrogate: Bromofluorobenzene
Total 1,3-Dichloropropene
Total Trihalomethanes
Total Xylenes, EPA 524.2
A7G1000 FINAL07272017 1611
Printed: 712712017
QA-RP-0001-10 Final.rpt
EPA 524.2
EPA 524.2
EPA524.2
EPA524.2
EPA 524.2
EPA524.2
EPA524.2
EPA 524.2
EPA 524.2
Certificate of Analysis
Organics
ND 0.50 ugll
ND 0.50 ugll
ND 0.50 ugll
ND 0.50 ugll
ND 0.50 ugll
ND 5.0 ugll
ND 0.50 ug/L
88% Acceptable range:
99% Acceptable range:

ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
www.BSKAssociates.com
70-130 %
70-130 %
A7G1000
General DW - EDT
Sample Date -Time: 07/12/17 - 13:05
Matrix: Drinking Water
Sample Type: Grab
A708850 07113117 07113117
A708850 07113117 07113117
A708850 07113117 07113117
A708850 07113117 07113117
A708850 07113117 07/13117
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13117 07/13/17

Page 32 ends

1654
\ i A7G1000
General DW - EDT

ASSOCIATES
Certificate of Analysis
Sample ID: A7G1000-09 Sample Date - Time: 07/12/17 - 10:27 Sampled By: Ryan Harris Matrix: Drinking Water
Sample Description: Well 11 Sample Type: Grab
Field Data: pH=7.15 Temp=26.7 °C
BSK Associates Laboratory Fresno
General Chemistry
Aggressive Index 12 A709340 07/24/17 07/24/17
Alkalinity as CaC03 SM 2320B 160 3.0 mg/L A708803 07/12/17 07/12/17 Bicarbonate as CaC03 SM 2320B 160 3.0 mg/L A708803 07/12/17 07/12/17 Carbonate as CaC03 SM 2320B ND 3.0 mg/L A708803 07/12/17 07/12/17 Hydroxide as CaC03 SM 2320B ND 3.0 mg/L A708803 07/12/17 07/12/17 Chloride EPA300.0 84 1.0 mg/L A708888 07/13/17 07/13/17 Color, Apparent SM 2120B ND 5.0 cu A708680 07/12/17 19:00 07/12/17 Conductivity @ 25C SM 2510B 690 1.0 umhos/cm A708803 07/12/17 07/12/17 Fluoride EPA 300.0 0.13 0.10 mg/L A708888 07/13/17 07/13/17 Hexavalent Chromium EPA 218.7 23 0.25 ug/L 5 A708829 07/13/17 07/13/17 Langelier Index SM 2330B 0.44 A709340 07/24/17 07/24/17 MBAS, Calculated as LAS, mol wt 340 SM 5540C ND 0.050 mg/L A708807 07/12/17 20:00 07/12/17 Nitrate + Nitrite as N EPA 300.0 4.1 0.23 mg/L A708888 07/13/17 19:29 07/13/17 Nitrate as N EPA 300.0 4.1 0.23 mg/L A708888 07/13/17 19:29 07/13/17 Nitrite as N EPA 300.0 ND 0.050 mg/L A708888 07/13/17 19:29 07/13/17 Threshold Odor SM 2150B ND 1.0 T.O.N. A708607 07/12/17 18:25 07/12/17 Perchlorate EPA314.0 4.0 2.0 ug/L A709365 07/25/17 07/25/17 pH (1) SM 4500-H+ B 8.1 pH Units A708803 07/12/17 07/12/17 pH Temperature in °C 22.8
Sulfate as S04 EPA300.0 47 1.0 mg/L A708888 07/13/17 07/13/17 Total Dissolved Solids SM 2540C 400 5.0 mg/L A708826 07/13/17 07/17/17 Turbidity SM 2130B 0.31 0.10 NTU A708680 07/12/17 19:25 07/12/17 Metals
Aluminum EPA 200.7 ND 0.050 mg/L A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17 Antimony EPA 200.8 ND 2.0 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17 Arsenic EPA200.8 3.8 2.0 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17 Barium EPA200.7 0.094 0.050 mg/L A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17 Beryllium EPA200.8 ND 1.0 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17 CVO.O Cadmium EPA 200.8 ND 1.0 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17 Calcium EPA 200.7 49 0.10 mg/L A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17 Chromium EPA200.8 23 10 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17
Copper EPA200.8 ND 5.0 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17
Iron EPA 200.7 ND 0.030 mg/L A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17
Lead EPA 200.8 ND 1.0 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17
Magnesium EPA 200.7 23 0.10 mg/L A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17 Manganese EPA200.7 ND 0.010 mg/L A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17 Mercury EPA200.8 ND 0.20 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17 CVO.O Nickel EPA200.8 ND 10 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17
Potassium EPA200.7 2.1 2.0 mg/L A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17 Selenium EPA200.8 ND 2.0 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17 A7G1000 FINAL07272017 1611
Printed: 7/27/2017
QA-RP-0001-10 Final.rpt www.BSKAssociates.com Page 33 of76 1655

ASSOCIATES
Sample ID: A7G1000-09
Sampled By: Ryan Harris
Sample Description: Well 11
Field Data: pH=7.15 Temp=26.7 °C
Silver EPA200.8
Sodium EPA 200.7
Thallium EPA200.8
Hardness as CaCO3 SM 2340B
Zinc EPA 200.7
Gross Alpha SM 7110C

1.65 Sigma Uncertainty
MDA95
EDB and DBCP bl£ GC-ECD
Dibromochloropropane (DBCP) EPA 504.1
Ethylene Dibromide (EDB) EPA 504.1
Surrogate: 1-Br-2-Nitrobenzene EPA 504.1
EPA 505 - Simazine, Atrazine, and Alachlor OnlJl
Alachlor EPA 505
Atrazine EPA 505
Simazine EPA 505
Surrogate: 1-Br-2-N itrobenzene EPA 505
Volatile Organics bl£ GC-MS
1, 1, 1,2-Tetrachloroethane EPA 524.2
1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane EPA524.2
1, 1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane EPA 524.2
1, 1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane EPA 524.2
1, 1,2-Trichloroethane EPA524.2
1, 1-Dichloroethane EPA 524.2
1, 1-Dichloroethene EPA 524.2
1, 1-Dichloropropene EPA524.2
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene EPA524.2
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene EPA 524.2
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene EPA 524.2
1,2-Dichlorobenzene EPA524.2
1,2-Dichloroethane EPA524.2
1,2-Dichloropropane EPA 524.2
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene EPA 524.2
1,3-Dichlorobenzene EPA 524.2
A7G1000 FINAL07272017 1611
Printed: 7/27/2017
QA-RP-0001-10 Final.rpt
Certificate of Analysis
Metals
ND 10 ug/L
45 1.0 mg/L
ND 1.0 ug/L
220 0.41 mg/L
ND 0.050 mg/L
Radiological

3.02 pCi/L

0.291 ±

1.06 pCi/L
Organics
ND 0.010 ug/L
ND 0.020 ug/L
108% Acceptable range:

ND 1.0 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 1.0 ug/L
108 % Acceptable range:

ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 10 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
www.BSKAssociates.com
70-130%
70-130%
A7G1000
General DW - EDT
Sample Date - Time: 07/12/17 - 10:27
Matrix: Drinking Water
Sample Type: Grab
A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17
A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17
A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17
A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17
A709096 07/19/17 07/20/17
A708902 07/14/17 07/14/17
A708902 07/14/17 07/14/17
A708902 07/14/17 07/14/17
A708902 07/14/17 07/14/17
A708902 07/14/17 07/14/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17

Page 34 ends

1656
A7G1000
General DW - EDT

ASSOCIATES
Certificate of Analysis
Sample ID: A7G1000-09 Sample Date - Time: 07/12/17 - 10:27 Sampled By: Ryan Harris Matrix: Drinking Water
Sample Description: Well 11 Sample Type: Grab
Field Data: pH=7.15 Temp=26.7 °C
Organics
Volatile Organics bJl GC-MS
1,3-Dichloropropane EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 1,4-Dichlorobenzene EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 2,2-Dichloropropane EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 2-Butanone EPA524.2 ND 5.0 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 2-Chlorotoluene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 2-Hexanone EPA 524.2 ND 10 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 4-Chlorotoluene EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 4-Methyl-2-pentanone EPA 524.2 ND 5.0 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Acetone EPA 524.2 ND 10 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
Benzene EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Bromobenzene EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Bromochloromethane EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Bromodichloromethane EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Bromoform EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Bromomethane EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Carbon Tetrachloride EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Chlorobenzene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Chloroethane EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Chloroform EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Chloromethane EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 cis-1,3-Dichloropropene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Dibromochloromethane EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Dibromomethane EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Dichlorodifluoromethane EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Dichloromethane EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Di-isopropyl ether (DIPE) EPA524.2 ND 3.0 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Ethyl tert-Butyl Ether (ETBE) EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Ethylbenzene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Hexachlorobutadiene EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 lsopropylbenzene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 m,p-Xylenes EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Methyl-I-butyl ether EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Naphthalene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 n-Butylbenzene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 n-Propylbenzene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 a-Xylene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 p-lsopropyltoluene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 sec-Butylbenzene EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Styrene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 tert-Amyl Methyl Ether (TAME) EPA524.2 ND 3.0 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 tert-Butyl alcohol (TBA) EPA524.2 ND 2.0 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 tert-Butylbenzene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 A7G1000 FINAL07272017 1611
Printed: 7/27/2017
QA-RP-0001-10 Final.rpt www.BSKAssociates.com Page 35 of76 1657

ASSOCIATES
Sample ID: A7G1000-09
Sampled By: Ryan Harris
Sample Description: Well 11
Field Data: pH=7.15 Temp=26.7 °C
Volatile Organics bl£ GC-MS
Tetrachloroethene (PCE)
Toluene
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene
Trichloroethene (TCE)
Trichlorofluoromethane
Vinyl Chloride
Surrogate: 1,2-Dichlorobenzene-d4
Surrogate: Bromofluorobenzene
Total 1,3-Dichloropropene
Total Trihalomethanes
Total Xylenes, EPA 524.2
A7G1000 FINAL 07272017 1611
Printed: 7/27/2017
QA-RP-0001-10 Final.rpt
EPA 524.2
EPA524.2
EPA 524.2
EPA 524.2
EPA 524.2
EPA 524.2
EPA524.2
EPA 524.2
EPA 524.2
Certificate of Analysis
Organics
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 5.0 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
92% Acceptable range:
104 % Acceptable range:

ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
www.BSKAssociates.com
70-130%
70-130%
A7G1000
General DW - EDT
Sample Date - Time: 07/12/17 - 10:27
Matrix: Drinking Water
Sample Type: Grab
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/'13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17

Page 36 of 76 ends

1658
A7G1000
General DW - EDT

ASSOCIATES
Certificate of Analysis
Sample ID: A7G1000-10 Sample Date - Time: 07 /12/17 - 09:53 Sampled By: Ryan Harris Matrix: Drinking Water
Sample Description: Well 12 Sample Type: Grab
Field Data: pH=7.00 Temp=28.1 °C
BSK Associates Laboratory Fresno
General Chemistry
Aggressive Index 12 A709340 07/24/17 07/24/17
Alkalinity as CaCO3 SM 2320B 150 3.0 mg/L A708803 07/12/17 07/12/17 Bicarbonate as CaC03 SM 2320B 150 3.0 mg/L A708803 07/12/17 07/12/17 Carbonate as CaCO3 SM 2320B ND 3.0 mg/L A708803 07/12/17 07/12/17 Hydroxide as CaCO3 SM 2320B ND 3.0 mg/L A708803 07/12/17 07/12/17 Chloride EPA 300.0 75 1.0 mg/L A708888 07/13/17 07/13/17 Color, Apparent SM 2120B ND 5.0 cu A708680 07/12/17 19:01 07/12/17 Conductivity @ 25C SM 2510B 660 1.0 umhos/cm A708803 07/12/17 07/12/17 Fluoride EPA300.0 0.13 0.10 mg/L 1 A708888 07/13/17 07/13/17 Hexavalent Chromium EPA218.7 24 0.25 ug/L 5 A708829 07/13/17 07/13/17 Langelier Index SM 2330B 0.43 A709340 07/24/17 07/24/17 MBAS, Calculated as LAS, mol wt 340 SM 5540C ND 0.050 mg/L A708807 07/12/17 20:00 07/12/17 Nitrate+ Nitrite as N EPA 300.0 3.7 0.23 mg/L A708888 07/13/17 19:39 07/13/17 Nitrate as N EPA 300.0 3.7 0.23 mg/L A708888 07/13/17 19:39 07/13/17 Nitrite as N EPA 300.0 ND 0.050 mg/L A708888 07/13/17 19:39 07/13/17 Threshold Odor SM 2150B ND 1.0 T.O.N. A708607 07/12/17 18:25 07/12/17 Perchlorate EPA 314.0 ND 2.0 ug/L A709365 07/25/17 07/25/17 pH (1) SM 4500-H+ B 8.1 pH Units A708803 07/12/17 07/12/17 pH Temperature in °c 22.7
Sulfate as SO4 EPA 300.0 51 1.0 mg/L A708888 07/13/17 07/13/17 Total Dissolved Solids SM 2540C 380 5.0 mg/L A708826 07/13/17 07/17/17 Turbidity SM 2130B 0.11 0.10 NTU A708680 07/12/17 19:26 07/12/17 Metals
Aluminum EPA 200.7 ND 0.050 mg/L A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17 Antimony EPA200.8 ND 2.0 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17 Arsenic EPA200.8 4.3 2.0 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17 Barium EPA 200.7 0.10 0.050 mg/L A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17 Beryllium EPA200.8 ND 1.0 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17 CVO.O Cadmium EPA 200.8 ND 1.0 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17 Calcium EPA 200.7 50 0.10 mg/L A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17 Chromium EPA200.8 24 10 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17
Copper EPA200.8 ND 5.0 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17
Iron EPA 200.7 ND 0.030 mg/L A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17
Lead EPA 200.8 ND 1.0 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17
Magnesium EPA 200.7 22 0.10 mg/L A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17 Manganese EPA200.7 ND 0.010 mg/L A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17 Mercury EPA200.8 ND 0.20 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17 Nickel EPA200.8 ND 10 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17
Potassium EPA200.7 2.1 2.0 mg/L A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17 Selenium EPA200.8 ND 2.0 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17 A7G1000 FINAL07272017 1611
Printed: 7/27/2017
QA-RP-0001-10 Final.rpt www.BSKAssociates.com Page 37 of 76 1659

ASSOCIATES
Sample ID: A7G1000-10
Sampled By: Ryan Harris
Sample Description: Well 12
Field Data: pH=?.00 Temp=28.1 °C
Silver EPA 200.8
Sodium EPA 200.7
Thallium EPA 200.8
Hardness as CaCO3 SM 2340B
Zinc EPA 200.7
Gross Alpha SM 7110C

1.65 Sigma Uncertainty
MDA95
EDB and DBCP by GC-ECD
Dibromochloropropane (DBCP) EPA504.1
Ethylene Dibromide (EDB) EPA 504.1
Surrogate: 1-Br-2-Nitrobenzene EPA 504.1
EPA 505 - Simazine, Atrazine, and Alachlor Only
Alachlor EPA 505
Atrazine EPA 505
Simazine EPA505
Surrogate: 1-Br-2-Nitrobenzene EPA 505
Volatile Organics by GC-MS
1, 1, 1,2-Tetrachloroethane EPA524.2
1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane EPA 524.2
1, 1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane EPA524.2
1, 1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane EPA524.2
1, 1,2-Trichloroethane EPA 524.2
1, 1-Dichloroethane EPA 524.2
1, 1-Dichloroethene EPA 524.2
1, 1-Dichloropropene EPA 524.2
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene EPA524.2
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene EPA 524.2
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene EPA 524.2
1,2-Dichlorobenzene EPA524.2
1,2-Dichloroethane EPA 524.2
1,2-Dichloropropane EPA 524.2
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene EPA524.2
1,3-Dichlorobenzene EPA 524.2
A7G1000 FINAL07272017 1611
Printed: 7/2712017
QA-RP-0001-1 0 Final.rpt
Certificate of Analysis
Metals
ND 10 ug/L
47 1.0 mg/L
ND 1.0 ug/L
220 0.41 mg/L
ND 0.050 mg/L
Radiological
ND pCi/L

0.191 ±

1.06 pCi/L
Organics
ND 0.010 ug/L
ND 0.020 ug/L
102% Acceptable range:

ND 1.0 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 1.0 ug/L
102% Acceptable range:

ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 10 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
www.BSKAssociates.com
70-130 %
70-130%
A7G1000
General DW - EDT
Sample Date - Time: 07/12/17 - 09:53
Matrix: Drinking Water
Sample Type: Grab
A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17
A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17
A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17
A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17
A709096 07/19/17 07/20/17
A708902 07/14/17 07/14/17
A708902 07/14/17 07/14/17
A708902 07/14/17 07/14/17
A708902 07/14/17 07/14/17
A708902 07/14/17 07/14/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17

Page 38 of 76 ends

1660
I ) I A7G1000
General DW - EDT

ASSOCIATES
Certificate of Analysis
Sample ID: A7G1000-10 Sample Date - Time: 07 /12/17 - 09:53 Sampled By: Ryan Harris Matrix: Drinking Water
Sample Description: Well 12 Sample Type: Grab
Field Data: pH=7.00 Temp=28.1 °C
Organics
Volatile Organics b~ GC-MS
1,3-Dichloropropane EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 1,4-Dichlorobenzene EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17

2.2-Dichloropropane EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 2-Butanone EPA 524.2 ND 5.0 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 2-Chlorotoluene EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 2-Hexanone EPA 524.2 ND 10 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 4-Chlorotoluene EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 4-Methyl-2-pentanone EPA 524.2 ND 5.0 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Acetone EPA524.2 ND 10 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
Benzene EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Bromobenzene EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Bromochloromethane EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Bromodichloromethane EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Bromoform EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Bromomethane EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Carbon Tetrachloride EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Chlorobenzene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Chloroethane EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Chloroform EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Chloromethane EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 cis-1,3-Dichloropropene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Dibromochloromethane EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Dibromomethane EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Dichlorodifluoromethane EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Dichloromethane EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Di-isopropyl ether (DIPE) EPA524.2 ND 3.0 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Ethyl tert-Butyl Ether (ETBE) EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Ethylbenzene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Hexachlorobutadiene EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 lsopropylbenzene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 m,p-Xylenes EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Methyl-I-butyl ether EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Naphthalene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 n-Butylbenzene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 n-Propylbenzene EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 o-Xylene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 p-lsopropyltoluene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 sec-Butylbenzene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Styrene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 tert-Amyl Methyl Ether (TAME) EPA524.2 ND 3.0 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 tert-Butyl alcohol (TBA) EPA524.2 ND 2.0 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 tert-Butylbenzene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 A7G1000 FINAL07272017 1611
Printed: 7/27/2017
QA-RP-0001-10 Final.rpt www.BSKAssociates.com Page 39 of76 1661

ASSOCIATES
Sample ID: A7G1000-10
Sampled By: Ryan Harris
Sample Description: Well 12
Field Data: pH=7.00 Temp=28.1 °C
Volatile Organics bl£ GC-MS
Tetrachloroethene (PCE)
Toluene
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene
Trichloroethene (TCE)
Trichlorofluoromethane
Vinyl Chloride
Surrogate: 1,2-Dichlorobenzene-d4
Surrogate: Bromofluorobenzene
Total 1,3-Dichloropropene
Total Trihalomethanes
Total Xylenes, EPA 524.2
A7G1000 FINAL 07272017 1611
Printed: 712712017
QA-RP-0001-1 0 Final.rpt
EPA 524.2
EPA 524.2
EPA524.2
EPA 524.2
EPA 524.2
EPA 524.2
EPA 524.2
EPA 524.2
EPA 524.2
Certificate of Analysis
Organics
ND 0.50 ugll
ND 0.50 ugll
ND 0.50 ugll
ND 0.50 ugll
ND 0.50 ugll
ND 5.0 ugll
ND 0.50 ugll
94% Acceptable range:
102% Acceptable range:

ND 0.50 ugll
ND 0.50 ugll
ND 0.50 ugll
www.BSKAssociates.com
70-130 %
70-130%
A7G1000
General DW - EDT
Sample Date -Time: 07/12/17 - 09:53
Matrix: Drinking Water
Sample Type: Grab
A708850 07113117 07113117
A708850 07113117 07113117
A708850 07113117 07113117
A708850 07113117 07113117
A708850 07113117 07113117
A708850 07113117 07113117
A708850 07113117 07113117

Page 40 of 76 ends

1662
A7G1000
General DW - EDT

ASSOCIATES
Certificate of Analysis
Sample ID: A7G1000-11 Sample Date - Time: 07/12/17 - 08:11 Sampled By: Ryan Harris Matrix: Drinking Water
Sample Description: Well 13 Sample Type: Grab
Field Data: pH=7.11 Temp=22.2 °C
BSK Associates Laboratory Fresno
General Chemistry
Aggressive Index 13 A709340 07/24/17 07/24/17
Alkalinity as CaCO3 SM 2320B 280 3.0 mg/L A708803 07/12/17 07/12/17 Bicarbonate as CaCO3 SM 2320B 280 3.0 mg/L A708803 07/12/17 07/12/17 Carbonate as CaCO3 SM 2320B ND 3.0 mg/L A708803 07/12/17 07/12/17 Hydroxide as CaCO3 SM 2320B ND 3.0 mg/L A708803 07/12/17 07/12/17 Chloride EPA 300.0 170 1.0 mg/L A708888 07/13/17 07/13/17 Color, Apparent SM 2120B ND 5.0 cu A708680 07/12/17 19:02 07/12/17 Conductivity @ 25C SM 2510B 1300 1.0 umhos/cm A708803 07/12/17 07/12/17 Fluoride EPA 300.0 ND 0.10 mg/L A708888 07/13/17 07/13/17 Hexavalent Chromium EPA 218.7 42 0.25 ug/L 5 A708829 07/13/17 07/13/17 Langelier Index SM 2330B 0.83 A709340 07/24/17 07/24/17 MBAS, Calculated as LAS, mol wt 340 SM 5540C ND 0.050 mg/L A708807 07/12/17 20:00 07/12/17 Nitrate+ Nitrite as N EPA300.0 5.8 0.23 mg/L A708888 07/13/17 19:50 07/13/17 Nitrate as N EPA 300.0 5.8 0.23 mg/L A708888 07/13/17 19:50 07/13/17 Nitrite as N EPA 300.0 ND 0.050 mg/L A708888 07/13/17 19:50 07/13/17 Threshold Odor SM 2150B ND 1.0 T.O.N. A708607 07/12/17 18:25 07/12/17 Perchlorate EPA314.0 ND 4.0 ug/L 2 A709365 07/25/17 07/25/17 DL1.0 pH (1) SM 4500-H+ B 8,0 pH Units 1 A708803 07/12/17 07/12/17 pH Temperature in °C 22.6
Sulfate as SO4 EPA 300.0 140 1.0 mg/L A708888 07/13/17 07/13/17 Total Dissolved Solids SM 2540C 780 5.0 mg/L A708826 07/13/17 07/17/17 Turbidity SM 2130B 0.14 0.10 NTU A708680 07/12/17 19:27 07/12/17 Metals
Aluminum EPA 200.7 ND 0.050 mg/L A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17 Antimony EPA 200.8 ND 2.0 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17 Arsenic EPA 200.8 4.9 2.0 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17 Barium EPA200.7 0.12 0.050 mg/L A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17 Beryllium EPA200.8 ND 1.0 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17 CVO.O Cadmium EPA200.8 ND 1.0 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17
Calcium EPA 200.7 92 0.10 mg/L A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17 MS1.4 Chromium EPA200.8 41 10 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17
Copper EPA 200.8 ND 5.0 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17
Iron EPA 200.7 ND 0.030 mg/L A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17
Lead EPA200.8 ND 1.0 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17
Magnesium EPA200.7 49 0.10 mg/L A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17 MS1.4 Manganese EPA200.7 ND 0 010 mg/L A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17 Mercury EPA200.8 ND 0.20 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17 Nickel EPA200.8 ND 10 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17
Potassium EPA200.7 2.6 2.0 mg/L A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17 Selenium EPA200.8 ND 2.0 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17 A7G1000 FINAL07272017 1611
Printed: 7/27/2017
QA-RP-0001-10 Final.rpt www.BSKAssociates.com Page 41 of 76 1663
l
1,
J!
~ ... I

ASSOCIATES
Sample ID: A7G1000-11
Sampled By: Ryan Harris
Sample Description: Well 13
Field Data: pH=7.11 Temp=22.2 °C
Silver EPA200.8
Sodium EPA 200.7
Thallium EPA200.8
Hardness as CaC03 SM 2340B
Zinc EPA 200.7
Gross Alpha SM 7110C

1.65 Sigma Uncertainty
MDA95
EDB and DBCP bl£ GC-ECD
Dibromochloropropane (DBCP) EPA504.1
Ethylene Dibromide (EDB) EPA 504.1
Surrogate: 1-Br-2-Nitrobenzene EPA504.1
EPA 505 - Simazine, Atrazine, and Alachlor Onll£
Alachlor EPA 505
Atrazine EPA505
Simazine EPA 505
Surrogate: 1-Br-2-Nitrobenzene EPA 505
Volatile Organics bl£ GC-MS
1, 1, 1,2-Tetrachloroethane EPA 524.2
1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane EPA 524.2
1, 1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane EPA 524.2
1, 1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane EPA524.2
1, 1,2-Trichloroethane EPA 524.2
1, 1-Dichloroethane EPA 524.2
1, 1-Dichloroethene EPA 524.2
1, 1-Dichloropropene EPA524.2
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene EPA 524.2
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene EPA 524.2
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene EPA 524.2
1,2-Dichlorobenzene EPA524.2
1,2-Dichloroethane EPA 524.2
1,2-Dichloropropane EPA 524.2
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene EPA 524.2
1,3-Dichlorobenzene EPA 524.2
A7G1000 FINAL07272017 1611
Printed: 7/27/2017
QA-RP-0001-10 Final.rpt
Certificate of Analysis
Metals
ND 10 ug/L
98 1.0 mg/L
ND 1.0 ug/L
430 0.41 mg/L
ND 0.050 mg/L
Radiological

4.03 pCi/L

0.330 ±

1.06 pCi/L
Organics
ND 0.010 ug/L
ND 0.020 ug/L
108% Acceptable range:

ND 1.0 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 1.0 ug/L
108 % Acceptable range:

ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ugll
ND 10 ugll
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ugll
ND 0.50 ugll
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
www.BSKAssociates.com
70-130 %
70-130 %
A7G1000
General DW - EDT
Sample Date -Time: 07/12/17 - 08:11
Matrix: Drinking Water
Sample Type: Grab
A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17
A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17 MS1.4
A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17
A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17
A709096 07/19/17 07/20/17
A708902 07/14/17 07/14/17
A708902 07/14/17 07/14/17
A708902 07/14/17 07/14/17
A708902 07114/17 07/14/17
A708902 07/14/17 07/14/17
A708850 07113117 07113117
A708850 07/13/17 07113117
A708850 07113117 07/13117
A708850 07113117 07/13/17
A708850 07113117 07113117
A708850 07113117 07113117
A708850 07/13117 07/13117
A708850 07113/17 07113117
A708850 07113/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17

Page 42 of 76 ends

1664
A7G1000
General DW - EDT

ASSOCIATES
Certificate of Analysis
Sample ID: A7G1000-11 Sample Date - Time: 07/12/17 - 08:11 Sampled By: Ryan Harris Matrix: Drinking Water
Sample Description: Well 13 Sample Type: Grab
Field Data: pH=7.11 Temp=22.2 °C
Organics
Volatile Organics by GC-MS
1,3-Dichloropropane EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 1,4-Dichlorobenzene EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 2,2-Dichloropropane EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 2-Butanone EPA 524.2 ND 5.0 ug/L A708850 07/"13/17 07/13/17 2-Chlorotoluene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 2-Hexanone EPA524.2 ND 10 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 4-Chlorotoluene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 4-Methyl-2-pentanone EPA 524.2 ND 5.0 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Acetone EPA 524.2 ND 10 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
Benzene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Bromobenzene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Bromochloromethane EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Bromodichloromethane EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Bromoform EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Bromomethane EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Carbon Tetrachloride EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Chlorobenzene EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Chloroethane EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Chloroform EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Chloromethane EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 cis-1,3-Dichloropropene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Dibromochloromethane EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Dibromomethane EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Dichlorodifluoromethane EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Dichloromethane EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Di-isopropyl ether (DIPE) EPA 524.2 ND 3.0 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Ethyl tert-Butyl Ether (ETBE) EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Ethylbenzene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Hexachlorobutadiene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 lsopropylbenzene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 m,p-Xylenes EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Methyl-I-butyl ether EPA524.2 10 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Naphthalene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 n-Butylbenzene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 n-Propylbenzene EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 o-Xylene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 p-lsopropyltoluene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 sec-Butylbenzene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Styrene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 tert-Amyl Methyl Ether (TAME) EPA 524.2 ND 3.0 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 tert-Butyl alcohol (TBA) EPA524.2 ND 2.0 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 tert-Butylbenzene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 A7G1DOO FINAL 07272017 1611
Printed: 7/27/2017
QA-RP-0001-1 O Final.rpt www.BSKAssociates.com Page 43 of 76 1665
'\
) r
/. I

ASSOCIATES
Sample ID: A7G1000-11
Sampled By: Ryan Harris
Sample Description: Well 13
Field Data: pH=7.11 Temp=22.2 °C
Volatile Organics bl£ GC-MS
Tetrachloroethene (PCE)
Toluene
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene
Trichloroethene (TCE)
Trichlorofluoromethane
Vinyl Chloride
Surrogate: 1,2-Dichlorobenzene-d4
Surrogate: Bromofluorobenzene
Total 1,3-Dichloropropene
Total Trihalomethanes
Total Xylenes, EPA524.2
A7G1000 FINAL 07272017 1611
Printed: 7127/2017
QA-RP-0001-10 Final.rpt
EPA 524.2
EPA 524.2
EPA524.2
EPA 524.2
EPA 524.2
EPA524.2
EPA 524.2
EPA524.2
EPA 524.2
Certificate of Analysis
Organics

1.0 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ugll
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ugll
ND 5.0 ugll
ND 0.50 ug/L
99% Acceptable range:
102% Acceptable range:

ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ugll
ND 0.50 ugll
www.BSKAssociates.com
70-130 %
70-130 %
A7G1000
General DW - EDT
Sample Date - Time: 07/12/17 - 08:11
Matrix: Drinking Water
Sample Type: Grab
A708850 07113117 07113117
A708850 07113/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13117 07113117
A708850 07/13117 07113117
A708850 07113117 07/13/17
A708850 07113/17 07/13117
A708850 07/13117 07113117

Page 44 of 76 ends

1666
A7G1000
General DW - EDT

ASSOCIATES
Certificate of Analysis
Sample ID: A7G1000-12 Sample Date - Time: 07/12/17 -11:39 Sampled By: Ryan Harris Matrix: Drinking Water
Sample Description: Well 14 Sample Type: Grab
Field Data: pH=7.02 Temp=26.5 °C
BSK Associates Laboratory Fresno
General Chemistry
Aggressive Index 13 A709340 07/24/17 07/24/17
Alkalinity as CaCO3 SM 2320B 300 3.0 mg/L A708803 07/12/17 07/12/17 Bicarbonate as CaCO3 SM 2320B 300 3.0 mg/L A708803 07/12/17 07/12/17 Carbonate as CaCO3 SM 2320B ND 3.0 mg/L A708803 07/12/17 07/12/17 Hydroxide as CaCO3 SM 2320B ND 3.0 mg/L A708803 07/12/17 07/12/17 Chloride EPA 300.0 190 1.0 mg/L A708888 07/13/17 07/13/17 Color, Apparent SM 2120B ND 5.0 cu A708680 07/12/17 19:03 07/12/17 Conductivity @ 25C SM 2510B 1700 1.0 umhos/cm A708803 07/12/17 07/12/17 Fluoride EPA 300.0 ND 0.10 mg/L A708888 07/13/17 07/13/17 Hexavalent Chromium EPA 218.7 38 0.25 ug/L 5 A708829 07/13/17 07/13/17 Langelier Index SM 2330B 0.86 A709340 07/24/17 07/24/17 MBAS, Calculated as LAS, mol wt 340 SM 5540C ND 0.050 mg/L A708807 07/12/17 20:00 07/12/17 Nitrate+ Nitrite as N EPA 300.0 5.5 0.23 mg/L A708888 07/13/17 20:01 07/13/17 Nitrate as N EPA 300.0 5.5 0.23 mg/L A708888 07/13/17 20:01 07/13/17 Nitrite as N EPA 300.0 ND 0.050 mg/L A708888 07/13/17 20:01 07/13/17 Threshold Odor SM 2150B ND 1.0 T.O.N A708607 07/12/17 18:25 07/12/17 Perchlorate EPA 314.0 ND 4.0 ug/L 2 A709365 07/25/17 07/25/17 DL1.0 pH (1) SM 4500-H+ B 8.0 pH Units A708803 07/12/17 07/12/17 pH Temperature in °C 22.6
Sulfate as SO4 EPA 300.0 310 1.0 mg/L A708888 07/13/17 07/13/17 Total Dissolved Solids SM 2540C 1100 5.0 mg/L A708826 07/13/17 07/17/17 Turbidity SM 2130B 0.10 0.10 NTU A708680 07/12/17 19:28 07/12/17 Metals
Aluminum EPA 200.7 ND 0.050 mg/L A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17 Antimony EPA200.8 ND 2.0 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17 Arsenic EPA200.8 6.0 2.0 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17 Barium EPA 200.7 ND 0.050 mg/L A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17 Beryllium EPA 200.8 ND 1.0 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17 CVO.O Cadmium EPA 200.8 ND 1.0 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17 Calcium EPA200.7 96 0.10 mg/L A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17 Chromium EPA200.8 38 10 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17
Copper EPA 200.8 ND 5.0 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17
Iron EPA200.7 ND 0.030 mg/L A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17
Lead EPA200.8 ND 1.0 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17
Magnesium EPA 200.7 54 0.10 mg/L A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17 Manganese EPA 200.7 ND 0.010 mg/L A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17 Mercury EPA 200.8 ND 0.20 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17 Nickel EPA200.8 ND 10 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17
Potassium EPA 200.7 2.8 2.0 mg/L A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17 Selenium EPA200.8 3.8 2.0 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17 A7G1000 FINAL 07272017 1611
Printed: 7/27/2017
QA-RP-0001-10 Final.rpt www.BSKAssociates.com Page 45 of76 1667

ASSOCIATES
Sample ID: A7G1000-12
Sampled By: Ryan Harris
Sample Description: Well 14
Field Data: pH=7.02 Temp=26.5 °C
Silver EPA 200.8
Sodium EPA 200.7
Thallium EPA200.8
Hardness as CaCO3 SM 2340B
Zinc EPA 200.7
Gross Alpha SM 7110C

1.65 Sigma Uncertainty
MDA95
EDB and DBCP bl£ GC-ECD
Dibromochloropropane (DBCP) EPA 504.1
Ethylene Dibromide (EDB) EPA504.1
Surrogate: 1-Br-2-Nitrobenzene EPA504.1
EPA 505 - Simazine, Atrazine, and Alachlor Onlll
Alachlor EPA505
Atrazine EPA 505
Simazine EPA 505
Surrogate: 1-Br-2-N itrobenzene EPA505
Volatile Organics bl£ GC-MS
1, 1, 1,2-Tetrachloroethane EPA 524.2
1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane EPA 524.2
1, 1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane EPA524.2
1, 1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane EPA 524.2
1, 1,2-Trichloroethane EPA524.2
1, 1-Dichloroethane EPA524.2
1, 1-Dichloroethene EPA524.2
1, 1-Dichloropropene EPA 524.2
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene EPA 524.2
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene EPA524.2
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene EPA 524.2
1,2-Dichlorobenzene EPA 524.2
1,2-Dichloroethane EPA 524.2
1,2-Dichloropropane EPA524.2
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene EPA 524.2
1,3-Dichlorobenzene EPA 524.2
A7G1000 FINAL07272017 1611
Printed: 7/27/2017
QA-RP-0001-10 Final.rpt
Certificate of Analysis
Metals
ND 10 ug/L
190 1.0 mg/L
ND 1.0 ug/L
460 0.41 mg/L
ND 0.050 mg/L
Radiological

8.56 pCi/L

0.467 ±

1.06 pCi/L
Organics
ND 0.010 ug/L
ND 0.020 ug/L
103 % Acceptable range:

ND 1.0 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 1.0 ug/L
103% Acceptable range:

ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 10 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
www.BSKAssociates.com
70-130%
70-130%
A7G1000
General DW - EDT
Sample Date -Time: 07/12/17 -11:39
Matrix: Drinking Water
Sample Type: Grab
A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17
A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17
A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17
A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17
A709096 07/19/17 07/20/17
A708902 07/14/17 07/14/17
A708902 07/14/17 07/14/17
A708902 07/14/17 07/14/17
A708902 07/14/17 07/14/17
A708902 07/14/17 07/14/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17

Page 46 of 76 ends

1668
A7G1000
General DW - EDT

ASSOCIATES
Certificate of Analysis
Sample ID: A7G1000-12 Sample Date - Time: 07/12/17 -11:39 Sampled By: Ryan Harris Matrix: Drinking Water
Sample Description: Well 14 Sample Type: Grab
Field Data: pH=7.02 Temp=26.5 °C
Organics
Volatile Organics bl£ GC-MS
1,3-Dichloropropane EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 1,4-Dichlorobenzene EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 2,2-Dichloropropane EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 2-Butanone EPA 524.2 ND 5.0 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 2-Chlorotoluene EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 2-Hexanone EPA524.2 ND 10 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 4-Chlorotoluene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 4-Methyl-2-pentanone EPA524.2 ND 5.0 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Acetone EPA 524.2 ND 10 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
Benzene EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Bromobenzene EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Bromochloromethane EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Bromodichloromethane EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Bromoform EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Bromomethane EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Carbon Tetrachloride EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Chlorobenzene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Chloroethane EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Chloroform EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Chloromethane EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 cis-1,3-Dichloropropene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Dibromochloromethane EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Dibromomethane EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Dichlorodifluoromethane EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Dichloromethane EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Di-isopropyl ether (DIPE) EPA524.2 ND 3.0 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Ethyl tert-Butyl Ether (ETBE) EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Ethylbenzene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Hexachlorobutadiene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 lsopropylbenzene EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 m,p-Xylenes EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Methyl-I-butyl ether EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Naphthalene EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 n-Butylbenzene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 n-Propylbenzene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 o-Xylene EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 p-lsopropyltoluene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 sec-Butylbenzene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Styrene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 tert-Amyl Methyl Ether (TAME) EPA 524.2 ND 3.0 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 tert-Butyl alcohol (TBA) EPA524.2 ND 2.0 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 tert-Butylbenzene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 A7G1000 FINAL07272017 1611
Printed: 7/27/2017
QA-RP-0001-10 Final.rpt www.BSKAssociates.com Page 47 of 76 1669

ASSOCIATES
Sample ID: A7G1000-12
Sampled By: Ryan Harris
Sample Description: Well 14
Field Data: pH=7.02 Temp=26.5 °C
Volatile Organics bl£ GC-MS
Tetrachloroethene (PCE)
Toluene
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene
Trichloroethene (TCE)
Trichlorofiuoromethane
Vinyl Chloride
Surrogate: 1,2-Dichlorobenzene-d4
Surrogate: Bromofiuorobenzene
Total 1,3-Dichloropropene
Total Trihalomethanes
Total Xylenes, EPA 524.2
A7G1000 FINAL07272017 1611
Printed: 7127/2017
QA-RP-0001-10 Final.rpt
EPA 524.2
EPA524.2
EPA 524.2
EPA 524.2
EPA 524.2
EPA 524.2
EPA524.2
EPA524.2
EPA 524.2
Certificate of Analysis
Organics
ND 0.50 ugll
ND 0.50 ugll
ND 0.50 ugll
ND 0.50 ugll
ND 0.50 ugll
ND 5.0 ugll
ND 0.50 ug/L
88% Acceptable range:
90% Acceptable range:

ND 0.50 ugll
ND 0.50 ugll
ND 0.50 ugll
www.BSKAssociates.com
70-130%
70-130%
A7G1000
General DW - EDT
Sample Date -Time: 07/12/17 -11:39
Matrix: Drinking Water
Sample Type: Grab
A708850 07113117 07113117
A708850 07113117 07113117
A708850 07113117 07113117
A708850 07113117 07/13/i7
A708850 07/13117 07/13117
A708850 07/13117 07/13117
A708850 07/13117 07113117

Page 48 of 76 ends

1670
A7G1000
General DW - EDT

ASSOCIATES
Certificate of Analysis
Sample ID: A7G1000-13 Sample Date - Time: 07/12/17 - 10:49 Sampled By: Ryan Harris Matrix: Drinking Water
Sample Description: Well 15 Sample Type: Grab
Field Data: pH=7.03 Temp=27.1 °C
BSK Associates Laboratory Fresno
General Chemistry
Aggressive Index 12 A709340 07/24/17 07/24/17
Alkalinity as CaCO3 SM 2320B 150 3.0 mg/L A708803 07/12/17 07/12/17 Bicarbonate as CaCO3 SM 2320B 150 3.0 mg/L A708803 07/12/17 07/12/17 Carbonate as CaCO3 SM 2320B ND 3.0 mg/L A708803 07/12/17 07/12/17 Hydroxide as CaCO3 SM 2320B ND 3.0 mg/L A708803 07/12/17 07/12/17 Chloride EPA 300.0 96 1.0 mg/L A708888 07/13/17 07/13/17 Color, Apparent SM 2120B ND 5.0 cu A708680 07/12/17 19:04 07/12/17 Conductivity @ 25C SM 2510B 770 1.0 umhos/cm A708803 07/12/17 07/12/17 Fluoride EPA 300.0 0.12 0.10 mg/L A708888 07/13/17 07/13/17 Hexavalent Chromium EPA 218.7 19 0.25 ug/L 5 A708829 07/13/17 07/13/17 Langelier Index SM 2330B 0.44 A709340 07/24/17 07/24/17 MBAS, Calculated as LAS, mol wt 340 SM 5540C ND 0.050 mg/L A708807 07/12/17 20:00 07/12/17 Nitrate+ Nitrite as N EPA 300.0 4.7 0.23 mg/L A708888 07/13/17 20:23 07/13/17 Nitrate as N EPA 300.0 4.7 0.23 mg/L A708888 07/13/17 20:23 07/13/17 Nitrite as N EPA 300.0 ND 0.050 mg/L A708888 07/13/17 20:23 07/13/17 Threshold Odor SM 2150B ND 1.0 T.O.N. A708607 07/12/17 18:25 07/12/17 Perchlorate EPA314.0 ND 2.0 ug/L A709365 07/25/17 07/25/17 pH (1) SM 4500-H+ B 8.1 pH Units A708803 07/12/17 07/12/17 pH Temperature in °c 22.5
Sulfate as SO4 EPA 300.0 72 1.0 mg/L A708888 07/13/17 07/13/17 Total Dissolved Solids SM 2540C 480 5.0 mg/L A708826 07/13/17 07/17/17 Turbidity SM 2130B 0.10 0.10 NTU A708680 07/12/17 19:29 07/12/17 Metals
Aluminum EPA 200.7 ND 0.050 mg/L A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17 Antimony EPA200.8 ND 2.0 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17 Arsenic EPA200.8 7.8 2.0 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17 Barium EPA 200.7 0.11 0.050 mg/L A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17 Beryllium EPA 200.8 ND 1.0 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17 CVO.O Cadmium EPA 200.8 ND 1.0 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17 Calcium EPA 200.7 53 0.10 mg/L A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17 Chromium EPA200.8 18 10 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17
Copper EPA200.8 ND 5.0 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17
Iron EPA200.7 ND 0.030 mg/L A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17
Lead EPA200.8 ND 1.0 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17
Magnesium EPA 200.7 30 0.10 mg/L A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17 Manganese EPA 200.7 ND 0.010 mg/L A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17 Mercury EPA200.8 ND 0.20 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17 Nickel EPA200.8 ND 10 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17
Potassium EPA 200.7 2.2 2.0 mg/L A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17 Selenium EPA200.8 ND 2.0 ug/L A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17 A7G1000 FINAL07272017 1611
Printed: 7/27/2017
QA-RP-0001-10 Final.rpt www.BSKAssociates.com Page 49 of76 1671

ASSOCIATES
Sample ID: A7G1000-13
Sampled By: Ryan Harris
Sample Description: Well 15
Field Data: pH=7.03 Temp=27.1 °C
Silver EPA200.8
Sodium EPA 200.7
Thallium EPA 200.8
Hardness as CaCO3 SM 2340B
Zinc EPA200.7
Gross Alpha SM 7110C

1.65 Sigma Uncertainty
MDA95
EDBandDBCPb~GC~CD
Dibromochloropropane (DBCP) EPA504.1
Ethylene Dibromide (EDB) EPA 504.1
Surrogate: 1-Br-2-Nitrobenzene EPA 504.1
EPA 505 - Simazine, Atrazine, and Alachlor Onl~
Alachlor EPA 505
Atrazine EPA 505
Simazine EPA 505
Surrogate: 1-Br-2-Nitrobenzene EPA 505
Volatile Organics b~ GC-MS
1, 1, 1,2-Tetrachloroethane EPA524.2
1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane EPA 524.2
1, 1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane EPA 524.2
1, 1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane EPA 524.2
1, 1,2-Trichloroethane EPA 524.2
1, 1-Dichloroethane EPA 524.2
1, 1-Dichloroethene EPA 524.2
1, 1-Dichloropropene EPA 524.2
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene EPA 524.2
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene EPA 524.2
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene EPA524.2
1,2-Dichlorobenzene EPA524.2
1,2-Dichloroethane EPA 524.2
1,2-Dichloropropane EPA524.2
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene EPA524.2
1,3-Dichlorobenzene EPA 524.2
A7G1000 FINAL 07272017 1611
Printed: 712712017
QA-RP-0001-10 Final.rpt
Certificate of Analysis
Metals
ND 10 ug/L
47 1.0 mg/L
ND 1.0 ug/L
260 0.41 mg/L
ND 0.050 mg/L
Radiological
ND pCi/L

0.110 ±

1.06 pCi/L
Organics
ND 0.010 ug/L
ND 0.020 ug/L
109 % Acceptable range.

ND 1.0 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 1.0 ug/L
109% Acceptable range:

ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ugll
ND 10 ugll
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ugll
ND 0.50 ugll
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ugll
ND 0.50 ug/L
www.BSKAssociates.com
70-130%
70-130%
A7G1000
General DW - EDT
Sample Date - Time: 07/12/17 - 10:49
Matrix: Drinking Water
Sample Type: Grab
A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17
A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17
A708842 07/13/17 07/20/17
A708842 07/13/17 07/21/17
A709096 07/19/17 07/20/17
A708902 07/14/17 07/14/17
A708902 07/14/17 07/14/17
A708902 07/14/17 07114117
A708902 07/14/17 07/14/17
A708902 07114/17 07/14/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13117
A708850 07113/17 07/13/17
A708850 07113117 07/13/17
A708850 07/13117 07/13/17
A708850 07/13117 07/13/17
A708850 07113/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13117
A708850 07/13/17 07113117
A708850 07/13/17 07/13117
A708850 07/13/17 07/13117
A708850 07113117 07/13/17
A708850 07/13117 07113/17
A708850 07/13117 07/13117
A708850 07/13/17 07/13117
A708850 07113117 07/13/17
A708850 07/13117 07113/17

Page 50 of 76 ends

1672
A7G1000
General DW - EDT

ASSOCIATES
Certificate of Analysis
Sample ID: A7G1000-13 Sample Date - Time: 07/12/17 - 10:49 Sampled By: Ryan Harris Matrix: Drinking Water
Sample Description: Well 15 Sample Type: Grab
Field Data: pH=7.03 Temp=27.1 °C
Organics
Volatile Organics bl£ GC-MS
1,3-Dichloropropane EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 1,4-Dichlorobenzene EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 2,2-Dichloropropane EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 2-Butanone EPA 524.2 ND 5.0 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 2-Chlorotoluene EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 2-Hexanone EPA 524.2 ND 10 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 4-Chlorotoluene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 4-Methyl-2-pentanone EPA 524.2 ND 5.0 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Acetone EPA 524.2 ND 10 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
Benzene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Bromobenzene EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Bromochloromethane EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Bromodichloromethane EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Bromoform EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Bromomethane EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Carbon Tetrachloride EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Chlorobenzene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Chloroethane EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Chloroform EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Chloromethane EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 cis-1,3-Dichloropropene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Dibromochloromethane EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Dibromomethane EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Dichlorodiftuoromethane EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Dichloromethane EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Di-isopropyl ether (DIPE) EPA524.2 ND 3.0 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Ethyl tert-Butyl Ether (ETBE) EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Ethylbenzene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Hexachlorobutadiene EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 lsopropylbenzene EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 m,p-Xylenes EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Methyl-I-butyl ether EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Naphthalene EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 n-Butylbenzene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 n-Propylbenzene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 o-Xylene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 p-lsopropyltoluene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 sec-Butylbenzene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 Styrene EPA 524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 tert-Amyl Methyl Ether (TAME) EPA 524.2 ND 3.0 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 tert-Butyl alcohol (TBA) EPA524.2 ND 2.0 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 tert-Butylbenzene EPA524.2 ND 0.50 ug/L A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17 A7G1000 FINAL 07272017 1611
Printed: 7/27/2017
QA-RP-0001-10 Final.rpt www.BSKAssociates.com Page 51 of 76 1673

ASSOCIATES
Sample ID: A7G1000-13
Sampled By: Ryan Harris
Sample Description: Well 15
Field Data: pH=?.03 Temp=27.1 °C
Volatile Organics bl£ GC-MS
Tetrachloroethene (PCE)
Toluene
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene
Trichloroethene (TC E)
Trichlorofluoromethane
Vinyl Chloride
Surrogate: 1,2-Dichlorobenzene-d4
Surrogate: Bromofluorobenzene
Total 1,3-Dichloropropene
Total Trihalomethanes
Total Xylenes, EPA 524.2
A7G1000 FINAL07272017 1611
Printed: 7/27/2017
QA-RP-0001-10 Final.rpt
EPA 524.2
EPA 524.2
EPA 524.2
EPA 524.2
EPA 524.2
EPA 524.2
EPA 524.2
EPA524.2
EPA 524.2
Certificate of Analysis
Organics
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 5.0 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
105 % Acceptable range:
103 % Acceptable range:

ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
ND 0.50 ug/L
www.BSKAssociates.com
70-130%
70-130%
A7G1000
General DW - EDT
Sample Date -Time: 07/12/17 - 10:49
Matrix: Drinking Water
Sample Type: Grab
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17
A708850 07/13/17 07/13/17

Page 52 of 76 ends

1674
Appendix T. Groundwater Conditions in
the Dos Palos Sub-Area of the SJREC GSP

1675

GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS IN THE

DOS PALOS SUB-AREA OF THE SJREC GSP
prepared for
San Joaquin River Exchange
Contractors GSA
Los Banos, California
and
City of Dos Palos GSA
Dos Palos, California
by
Kenneth D. Schmidt & Associates
Groundwater Quality Consultants
Fresno, California
May 2019
1676
KENNETH D. SCHMIDT AND ASSOCIATES

GROUNDWATER QUALITY CONSULTANTS
600 WEST SHAW AVE., SUITE 250
FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93704
TELEPHONE (559) 224-4412
Mr. Chris White, Executive Director
San Joaquin River Exchange
Contractors GSA
P. 0. Box 2115
Los Banos, CA 93635
Re: Dos Palos Sub-Area of the

SJREC GSP
Dear Chris:

May 31, 2019
Submitted herewith is our report on groundwater conditions in the Dos Palos Sub-area of the SJREC GSP. We appreciate the cooperation of the CCID and City of Dos Palos in providing information for this report.

Sincerely Yours,
~J~idt
Geologist No . 1578
Certified Hydrogeologist 176
1677

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

INTRODUCTION

SUBSURFACE GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS

WELL DATA

WATER LEVELS

PUMP TEST DATA PUMPAGE

CITY AQUEDUCT WATER CITY EFFLUENT

CONSUMPTIVE USE
Urban
Rural
Total

CHANGE IN GROUNDWATER STORAGE

WATER BUDGET

LAND SUBSIDENCE

GROUNDWATER QUALITY

REFERENCES
i
Page
ii
iii
1 3
3 4
6 6
10 10
13 13 13 15 15 15 15
17 19
1678
No.
1 2
3 LIST OF TABLES
Title
Pump Test Data for CCID Well No. 6
Annual Pumpage for CCID Well No. 6 and Private
Irrigation Wells
Water Deliveries to the City from the Aqueduct
4 Amounts of City Sewage Effluent and Pond Evaporation 5 CCID Canal Water Deliveries and Crop Evapotranspiration 6 Chemical Quality of Water from CCID Well No. 6
ii
Page
8 9
11 12 14 18
1679
No.
1 2
3 4

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Title
Location of Dos Palos Study Area and Selected Wells
Water-Level Elevations and Direction of Groundwater
Flow for the Upper Aquifer (Spring 2015)
Representative Water-Level Hydrograph for the Upper
Aquifer in the Dos Palos Area
Land Subsidence (December 2013-December 2017)
iii
5 7
16 1680

GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS IN THE

DOS PALOS SUB-AREA OF THE SJREC GSP

INTRODUCTION
As part of the Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) for the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors (SJREC) GSA service area, GSPs for a number of cities, including Dos Palos, are being incorporated into the SJREC GSP. The City has been using water from the California Aqueduct for several decades, because of poor groundwater quality beneath the City. Kenneth D. Schmidt and Associates (KOSA, 2017) prepared a report on groundwater conditions in the vicinity of the City of Dos Palos, as part of an evaluation of potential sites for a backup well for the City.

The area evaluated included the City and lands to the south and west along the pipeline extending between the Aqueduct and the City.

This report is intended to provide information on groundwater conditions within and near the Dos Palos Study Area (Figure 1).

This area encompasses lands that are planned for future urban development. This study area is generally bounded by Carmellia Avenue to the north, W. Miller Avenue to the south, the Laguna Canal to the west, and N. Custer Avenue on the east. Lands surrounding most of the City are in the SJREC GSA. Some lands west of Folsom Avenue are in the Merced County Delta-Mendota GSA. 1681
~ en ;ii
32 20
29 31
;o
....Ji.

SHAIN
21 1$?'f'l'Y AVE ·"' W MIL~ERAVE
MERRILdAVE I I
z
,, LAGUNA I I C
en
/'28 en
l!ll 27 ,... 26 "'/-.... 25 I 30 z
~ m 0.3250.65 1.3
'-
I 20
I
29 1.95
z
~
1:ii ;;i~
~
~ m
I\
I '\.
~
33 N .~,.,JW+E
3 \I
s
11 21 g Dos Palos Study Area
SJ REC GSA Boundary
C',..

I- City of Dos Palos GSA
~ Merced County DM GSA
• Private Wells
• CCIDWell
FIGURE 1-LOCATION OF DOS PALOS STUDY AREA AND SELECTED WELLS N
1682

SUBSURFACE GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
Alluvial deposits comprise the aquifers in the Dos Palos vicinity. A regional confining bed, the Corcoran Clay, separates the upper and lower aquifers. The top of the Corcoran Clay is about 250 feet deep and the clay is about 120 feet thick beneath the City. There are numerous sand layers above and below the clay from which groundwater can be pumped.

WELL DATA
Two test holes were drilled in the City in Fall 1956. The first was a 627-foot deep hole near the City water works (west of the Joint Union High School). The second hole was drilled to a depth of 700 feet at a site about 2,000 feet east of the High School. Water samples were apparently collected from both holes, the chemical quality was determined to be unusable for public supply, and the holes were destroyed. Prior to the City obtaining water from the aqueduct, Luhdorff & Scalmanini conducted an evaluation for the City of the closest area where groundwater of suitable quality for public supply was present.

They conducted a test well program near the Dos Palos Y (Highways 152 and 33). Although good quality groundwater was found, there was substantial local opposition to exporting groundwater from the Y area, and the proposed project was abandoned. In 3 1683
1984, Kenneth D. Schmidt & Associates conducted an evaluation for the City and concluded that suitable quality groundwater for public supply wasn't present beneath the City. The City then went ahead with the project to obtain water from the Aqueduct.

Water from the San Luis Canal (Aqueduct) was purchased from the CCID. A pipeline was subsequently built from near Eagle Field Road and the Aqueduct to the east to Russel Avenue, thence to the north and east and into the City.

Irrigation wells in the Dos Palos vicinity tap the upper aquifer, as higher salinity groundwater is normally present below the Corcoran Clay. CCID Well No. 6 is located northwest of the study area. The casing in this well is perforated between 50 and 180 feet in depth.

WATER LEVELS
Water levels in the Dos Palos vicinity are relatively shallow, generally less than 20 feet deep. Figure 2 is a waterlevel elevation map for the upper aquifer for Spring 2015. The City is near a groundwater divide. Groundwater northeast of the City flows to the northeast towards the San Joaquin River, groundwater to the south flows to the south and into the Panoche W.D., and groundwater northwest of the City flows to the northwest and into the Grassland W.D. 4 1684
< / . . I~ n::m:~ecnr10N 10.IF G!ROUNJDWAiliER
.~'\,:/, • \ '\ • 1Fl;.10W . . . . .
· . -'>(Y. , ~ 100 . 1 GR'OUNDWAT1eA ell.£_--'Wi. .. rnON • ·.( • '-•• , • 1 · • (FEET ABOVE: MEAN SEA LEVEii.') • "l.r "· . . ~
0 1 2
FIGURE 2 - WATER-LEVEL ELEVATIONS AND DIRECTION OF
GROUNDWATER FLOW FOR THE UPPER AQUIFER (SPRING 2015)
4 a I
Mile~
01 1685
Figure 3 is a representative water-level hydrograph for the upper aquifer in the Dos Palos area. Well T11S/Rl3E-17El is located about a mile and a quarter east of the study area. Depth to water ranged from about two to 25 feet during 1965-2017. The deepest water levels of record were in 2015-16. Except for the recent drought, water-levels were stable, usually ranging from about three to 12 feet deep.

PUMP TEST DATA
Table 1 shows pump test data for CCID Well No. 6. Pump tests are available for 11 years between 2002 and 2016. The pumping rates ranged from 825 to 1,733 gpm. Specific capacities usually ranged from about 20 to 80 gpm per foot. The highest pumping rates and specific capacities were after the well perforations had been cleaned.

PUMPAGE
Table 2 shows annual pumpage from CCID Well No. 6 and 18 private irrigation wells in the study area (estimated by the CCID).

Annual pumpage from CCID Well No. 6 ranged from about 50 to 1,030 acre-feet and averaged about 490 acre-feet per year from 2003 to 2017. The highest pumpage was in 2007 and the lowest 6 1686
"Tl
G)
C
;o
m
w
I
;o
m
"'U
;o
m
en
m
z
:.., ~
< m
:.., ~ m
;o
I
r
m
<
m
r
I
-< 0
;o
0 G)
;o
)>
"'U
I
"Tl
0 ;o
C
"'U
"'U
m
;o
)>
0 C
"Tl
m
;o
z
-I
I
m
0 0
CJ)
"'U
)>
r
0 (/)
)>
;o
m
)>
w
0 N l.n N
0 Depth to Water (feet)
I-'
l.n I-'
0 l.n 0
i I ' I ' i r !
I J
·~ I
' J
" Di. ! I
~ I
' ,.
' ◄
! J I
' : /'- ' ..J L._
'
I ~
I j I I
'
y
: #,
~
I
1, I
, L_-__
I 4'-~
i
, _,,,,,,-· I I L:._
I ...._
I
I ◄~
I J
j ; I ~ ~
I -
'. : - .Ii.

I i I ~ _,,,,, ...
! ~ , .::::=
: /
I I . ~
: I ;
I
_l -.....---r
-
-.....
i - ! I L
' ! ,
, L I .__
I L
' /I I -.
- ' I ~ -~ I
! •r
I J
----~
:
1 -----
- '
~
J -
1 _-_ ~...... r--
1 - . ~~ .., C,
I ~ ~~ I ~~
~
,......... T- ~~
2 _. ~~, 00
.,., ...
- "' ...
- i ~"
I
. ~ ~
...
- w ... - "'
l '
2/1/1965
11/1/1965
8/1/1966
5/1/1967
2/1/1968
11/1/1968
8/1/1969
5/1/1970
2/1/1971
11/1/1971
8/1/1972
5/1/1973
2/1/1974
11/1/1974
8/1/1975 .
5/1/1976
2/1/1977
11/1/1977
8/1/1978
5/1/1979
2/1/1980
11/1/1980
8/1/1981
5/1/1982
2/1/1983
11/1/1983
8/1/1984
- I
-
- _. ~ -- -- I I I
5/1/1985
2/1/1986
11/1/1986
8/1/1987
5/1/1988
2/1/1989
11/1/1989
8/li1990
5/1/1991
2/1/1992
11/1/1992
8/:)./1993
5/1/1994
2/1/1995
11/1/1995
8/1/1996
5/1/1997
2/1/1998
11/1/1998
8/1/1999
5/1/2000
2/1/2001
11/1/2001
8/1/2002
5/1/2003
2/1/2004
11/1/2004
8/1/2005
5/1/2006
2/1/2007
11/1/2007
8/1/2008
5/1/2009
2/1/2010
11/1/2010
8/1/2011
5/1/2012
2/1/2013
11/1/2013
8/1/2014
5/1/2015
2/1/2016
11/1/2016
8/1/2017
-
--...J
1687
T66-LE 1-PUMP TEST DATA FOR CCID WELL NO. 6
Pumping Static Level Pumping Drawdown Approximate Specific Date Tested Rate (gpm) (feet) Lev~I (feet) (feet) Capacity (gpm/ft) 6/3/02 1,526 29.82 64.00 34.18 44.60
7/25/03 1,532 - 78.30 78.30 - ·
7/28/04 1,105 20.70 76.50 55.80 19.10 ,
6/'2.8/05 1,002 18.70 70.00 51.30 18.80
8/31/07 825 17.30 75.00 57.70 14.30
4/1/09 1,557 25.15 49.14 23.99 64.90
10/25/10 1,328 11.20 38.20 27.00 49.20
8/1/11 1,642 24.60 48.20 23.60 69.60 ..
9/25/12 1,634 25.00 45.50 20.50 79.70
6/24/14 825 18.00 28.00 10.00 82.50
10/15/16 1,733 12.70 42.49 29.79 58.20
CXl
1688
TABLE 6-ANNUAL PUMPAGE FOR CCID WELL NO. 6

AND PRIVATE IRRIGATION WELLS
Pum;ea2e (AF)
Year CCID Wells Private Wells
2003 265 5,013 2004 606 3,356
2005 382 3,639
2006 49 3,928 2007 1,028 3,121 2008 199 4,061 2009 454 4,540 2010 503 1,677
2011 413 2,353 2012 684 896 2013 813 1,718 2014 478 2,676 2015 508 7,870 2016 425 1,891 2017 178 375 9 1689
10 pumpage was in 2006. Annual pumpage from the private irrigation wells ranged from about 380 acre-feet to 7,870 acre-feet from 2003 to 2017. The highest pumpage was in 2015 and the lowest pumpage was in 2017. The average pumpage from the private wells in the study area was about 3,360 acre-feet per year during 2003-17.

CITY AQUEDUCT WATER
Table 3 shows the water deliveries to the City from the aqueduct for 2003-16. The annual deliveries ranged from 970 to 1,778 acre-feet and averaged 1,400 acre-feet per year from 2003 to 2016.

CITY EFFLUENT
Table 4 shows annual volume of sewage effluent for the City for 2003 to 2016. The annual amount of effluent ranged from 476 to 744 acre-feet, and the average amount was about 640 acre-feet per year during this period. Net evaporation from the 54 acres of effluent ponds is estimated to average about 4.0 acre-feet per acre per year, or about 220 acre-feet per year. Most of the remainder of the effluent was used for crop irrigation. 1690
1 1
TABLE 3-WATER DELIVERIES TO THE CITY FROM THE AQUEDUCT
Water Year Volume (ac-ft)
2003 1,417
2004 1,495 2005 1,415 2006 1,455 2007 1,630 2008 1,664 2009 1,269 2010 1,280 2011 1,224
2012 1,346
2013 1,778
2014 1,417
2015 970
2016 1,231
1691
12 TABLE 4-AMOUNTS OF CITY SEWAGE EFFLUENT AND POND EVAPORATION Total Effluent After Pond Evaporation
Water Year Volume (AF) Effluent Volume (AF)
2003 611 287 2004 657 333
2005 702 378
2006 688 364
2007 646 322
2008 678 354
2009 743 419
2010 694 370
2011 744 420
2012 677 353
2013 663 339
2014 536 212
2015 490 166 2016 476 152
1692
13 CONSUMPTIVE USE
Urban
The urban consumptive use is from outside water use in the City, evaporation from the effluent ponds, and evapotranspiration of crops grown with effluent. The outside water use was estimated by subtracting the average amount of sewage effluent (640 acre feet per year) from the average amount of aqueduct water delivered (1,400 acre-feet per year) during 2003 to 2016.

The average outside water use was thus 760 acre-feet per year for this period. The consumptive use due to outside water use in the City was estimated to be 70 percent of this, or 530 acrefeet per year. An average of about 420 acre-feet of effluent was used for crop irrigation. The estimated consumptive use was about 70 percent of this, or 300 acre-feet per year. Combined with the pond evaporation of 220 acre-feet per year, the average total urban consumptive use was thus about 1,050 acre-feet per year.

Rural
Table 5 shows CCID canal water deliveries and crop evapotranspiration from 2003-16. CCID water deliveries average 7,700 acre-feet per year. The crop evapotranspiration of applied water averaged about 5,900 acre-feet per year. 1693
TABLE 5-CCID CANAL WATER DELIVERIES AND CROP EVAPOTRANSPIRATION Water Year 2003 2004 2005 2006. 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Acreage 3,100 3,100 3,100 3,100 3,100 3,100 3,100 3,100 3,100 3,100 3,100 3,100 3,100 3,100 Water Deiivered (AF) 7,800 9,500 7,300 6,400 7,400 8,200 7,900 7,300 7,500 9,100 10,200 6,600 6,700 6,100 ETc (AF) 7,500 8,300 7,500 7,900 6,800 6,900 8,900 7,000 7,500 7,500 7,400 6,500 7,000 6,800 ETiw (AF) 6,600 7,200 6,200 6,400 6,200 6,200 6,500
....,.
.i,.
1694
Total
The total consumptive use in the study area averaged about 6,950 acre-feet per year during 2003-16.

CHANGES IN GROUNDWATER STORAGE
Long-term water-level measurements for wells in the area indicated no overall change in storage. In the Dos Palos study area this is supported by the water budget calculations, which do not indicate a water deficit.

WATER BUDGET
15 The total amount of surface water (urban and rural) averaged 9,100 acre-feet per year, and this exceeded the consumptive use by an average of 2,150 acre-feet per year. The groundwater flows into and out of the study area help maintain a water balance.

More groundwater flows out of the study area than into the area.

LAND SUBSIDENCE
Figure 4 shows land subsidence in the area for December 2013- December 2017. Land subsidence is due primarily to pumpage from the lower aquifer. The subsidence near Dos Palos was 0.5 foot during this period. The closest wells to Dos Palos where pumpage from the lower aquifer was occurring was in the Red Top-El 1695
0 '?

EXPLANATION
I \ --- IQ7 c«es ""~ " , ~ \
~ ·,,
Contour of Land Surface
Elevation Change (feet)
138

0.1 1 F._, 11,:,,%' 11
So~ •ry :..~,.,. ,
,,_v;,
\
' HS249,

0.072
" "'
~
c
.3
,,
~ u l/·f.11LH n.t:i l
. "' Ke )'Oo
S,.-.n Lu•~
Rilroft.'l1
Wddl d9
RelUQ~
~;
o. ,,
~
0 ..,~_
D-:! n.1 tr
__ ... ~, .... ,,,,.
119_ / / '·,,,t
,~,;,..\.::,~'0_,,~ .... -
; ";~{'t'-cJ:.O
0 SJREC GSA Boundary
Expanded GSA Boundary
4 N

0.05 ,,,,,.,, Scale (miles) 1 ,,: ~6,.
\ C~lh / I
I
' 0104:8 "'inion Ca>1~
• ,, .... A11p.:,11
. • '.'V~ -.. o;'o.;,";.

HJ!m., r
.,
T
Sl,:-\1nson 0
<
. ~ · o, ,
. ,;::
04 ~,, . ' -- ' ·-"'""</
-0. i - ~- - 1-:25 ~-.,., MHC-?_d_ - E-CA-H
-~ - ·0 --· . .o.oy•-~. ""'---- - 1"
0 - - - • ......_ • I ~ ',._ " 0.1
/
,... ___ J __ ~ -0.29 / 2065 . "'
131
-0.16
A L• •'.
'=" ('_..;.,·
A -1.12 '.,_
I ----,0-................... •,
I
- 155 . 7.o '\ · 152 ---- 1.oa I '\
--0.47 IA .. - ... I --"
"l_ ( f "~ ---- - '\-s::: ILL
I
N GE
~ :..:.
~ 146
S,n Lui, R~ '- I) , ,_ Su te Raic Aiu ~ 33~~
!-.lt1 Luf~
R~~-r.•:.11
' ••. ::'r1r -'(:.·~~
--·.,,.-
:)
:,:
"' ·::.
--·-"
·.-,.
~
-;.
_,7 5 tr
Lo! 6-'"'' -Gr&+"- Sl..,~
~:.. ,.: ~"·- ., -
......
,/ -1-,,,..,ge ::.- !'°' . j f .:: ~,
I ,
•.L-::-:-:
,jJI' /
.;.~~ ... /
/
---
/
' - , /.r;._/';0- / / / 0
-~:::,___. -:- ~-Jr/
.:i.:: ~ ........
" D IA BL O RJ;NGE
__ .,,. .... ··
_, ' ' .v
:.. "\. .J- .;j-?Y -
J~
.
~
2348
.s2 I
0 DH6665- 0 ·
-0.33
a:
} . _:....-- _., . .:·; :: _.,;,,.-,.-::· .. ,. ... ~---:· ; , ~ P"A:'.Jf?-Cf-! .. E/_!1!LLS ,.. -~ '"7..-,,-._(C"~ .. .,,_.~.i;. _._ () _I:) 55R --..< O
-~~< . ~2378
'-2.33 . s.~ -2.2
0 ~054 ) ----~·\ -2.617
-Jj,·01~~ <:,
,,}':ii / .... - .s2V ... ~
127
-0.71 ...
0--cs I,. • - , - -
DH6671 1 - - _ ,..
-0.37 . _ ... I'.
~!.o,.,.,r
>
~ .- ~; ~~ .!-::t::·--~~;~_..;,~<\~
Subsidence Monitoring Points* · ,>:_~>,; ... ~;, :{/:. - '- . ~ -. ' ·! , .... r .· ,.. GPS Point-December 2011 11: , ---~"-"-t< ' ... : · V.qi t, f:'1-' • ~ --'. ~.o
0 0
GPS Point-added July 2012
GPS Point-added December 2013
J:>,'"'oct-1e vfll ... E .....
,,,
-:--· ,..
' '
i UME YH!lLS
',. ·_·Sourcets:·Esri, HERE,.Delorm'e, lntermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAQ, NPS, l;JRCAN, - ',;G!;Q~a.~~.)_l @.N, ~ag_aster NL, Or~ r:i~nce Survey, Esri Japan, METl,'Esri China (Hong Kong), · s½'isstopo_. ~ ~pmyl~JJ[a, © OperiStre~ Map contributors, and the GIS User Community FIGURE 4-LAND SUBSIDENCE (DECEMBER 2013-DECEMBER 2017)
--"
0)
1696
Nido area to the northeast and east, in the Panoche Water District to the southwest, and in the Broadview W.D. to the south.

Figure 4 indicates that more than two feet of land subsidence occurred in the Red Top area during this period.

GROUNDWATER QUALITY
17 Water samples were collected from CCID Well No. 6 during ten years between 2003 and 2017. Table 6 shows the results of three analyses of water from this well. The water was of the sodium chloride type. Sodium concentrations ranged from 230 to 300 mg/1 and chloride concentrations ranged from 450 to 550 mg/1.

Nitrate concentrations were less than 1 mg/1, and boron concentrations ranged from 0.6 to 0.8 mg/1. Water from this well is of suitable quality for irrigation of crops when mixed with canal water. If used directly for irrigation, the water or soil would need to be treated because of the high sodium adsorption ratio. The boron concentrations exceeded desirable levels for direct irrigation of boron-sensitive crops, and chloride concentrations were too high for direct irrigation of some crops, such as almonds. The non-detectable nitrate concentrations indicate that the groundwater is anaerobic. Such groundwater can have high concentrations of iron, manganese, and arsenic, and have a rotten-egg odor due to hydrogen sulfide.
1697
TABLE 6-CHEMICAL QUALITY OF WATER FROM CCID WELL NO. 6
Constituent (mg/l) 8/22/03 9/23/10 7/19/17
Calcium 91 110 120
Magnesium 52 57 59
Sodium 230 240 300
Potassium 3 4 5
Bicarbonate 170 210 180
Sulfate 130 210 200
Chloride 500 450 550
Nitrate <1 <1 <1
pH 7.4 7.9 7.7
Electrical Conductivity
(micromhos/cm@ 25°C) 2,000 2,100 2,500
Total Dissolved Solids
(@ 180°C) 1,300 1,300 1,400
Boron 0.7 0.6 0.8
....
co
1698
19 REFERENCES Kenneth D. Schmidt & Associates, 2017, Letter report to QK, Inc. on Potential Well Sites between Dos Palos and California Aqueduct, Sp. 1699
Appendix U. Updated Groundwater
Conditions in the Vicinity of the City of
Firebaugh

1700

UPDATED GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS IN THE

VICINITY OF THE CITY OF FIREBAUGH
prepared for
San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors GSA
Los Banos, California
and
City of Firebaugh GSA
Firebaugh, California
by
Kenneth D. Schmidt and Associates
Groundwater Quality Consultants
Fresno, California
May 2019
1701
KENNETH D. SCHMIDT AND ASSOCIATES

GROUNDWATER QUALITY CONSULTANTS
600 WEST SHAW AVE., SUITE 250
FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93704
TELEPHONE (559) 224-4412
Mr. Chris White, Executive Director
San Joaquin River Exchange
Contractors GSA
P.O. Box 2115
Los Banos, CA 93635
Re: Firebaugh Sub-Area of the

SJREC GSP
Dear Chris:

May 31, 2019
Submitted herewith is our report on groundwater conditions in the Firebaugh Sub-area of the SJREC GSP. We appreciate the cooperation of the CCID and City of Firebaugh in providing information for this report.

Sincerely Yours,
'1?--A_Lh~P,
Kenneth D. Schmidt
Geologist No. 1578
Certified Hydrogeologist 176
1702

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

INTRODUCTION

SUBSURFACE GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS

CONSTRUCTION DATA FOR WELLS
Active City Wells
CCID Wells

WATER LEVELS
Depths and Elevations
Time Trends

AQUIFER CHARACTERISTICS
Well Capacities
Aquifer Tests

PUMPAGE

CANAL WATER DELIVERIES

CONSUMPTIVE USE
Rural
Urban

SOURCES OF RECHARGE

GROUNDWATER QUALITY
Inorganic Chemical Constituents
Radiological Constituents
Trace Organic Chemical Constituents

WATER BUDGET FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS

REFERENCES
i
ii
iii
1 3
10 10
10 13
13 14 14 14
19 21
24 24
24 24 25
27 27
30 32 32
35 1703

LIST OF TABLES
No. Title Page --
1 Data for Active City Wells 11
2 Data for CCID Wells 12
3 Pump Test Data for City Wells 18
4 Pump Test Data for CCID Wells 20
5 Annual Pumpage from City of Firebaugh Wells 22
6 Annual Pumpage from CCID Wells 23
7 Chemical Quality of Water from City of Firebaugh Wells 29 8 Chemical Quality of Water from CCID Wells 31
ii
1704
No.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Title
Study Area Boundary, City Wells, and SGMA GSAs
Locations of Selected Wells, Test Holes, and Subsurface Geologic Cross Sections Subsurface Geologic Cross Section A-A' Subsurface Geologic Cross Section B-B' Subsurface Geologic Cross Section C-C' Water-Level Elevation Contours and Direction of
Groundwater Flow for Upper Aquifer (Spring 1992)
Long-Term Water-Level and Pwnpage Hydrographs for
CCID Well No. 29
Long-Term Water-Level and Pwnpage Hydrographs for
CCID Well No. 41
Electrical Conductivities of Water from Wells
Tapping Upper Aquifer
iii
4 6
8 9
15 16
17 28
1705

UPDATED GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS IN THE

VICINITY OF THE CITY OF FIREBAUGH

INTRODUCTION
As part of the Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) for the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors (SJREC) GSA service area, GSPs for a number of cities, including Firebaugh, are being incorporated into the SJREC GSP. Kenneth D. Schmidt and Associates (KDSA) prepared a report on groundwater conditions in the vicinity of the City of Firebaugh in 2008 for the City 2030 general plans. That report provides substantial information that was used in preparing this report.

This report is intended to provide an update on groundwater conditions within the Firebaugh Study Area boundary (Figure 1).

This boundary encompasses lands that are planned for future urban development. This study area is generally bounded by west Behymer Avenue on the north, the Outside Canal on the southwest, West Bullard Avenue on the south, and Road 6 on the east. The Central California Irrigation District (CCID) virtually adjoins the City on the west and south sides, and part of the City sphere of influence is in the District.

Figure 1 shows the study area boundary, City lands, and GSAs in the vicinity. There are two small areas that are in Madera Area-3 GSA, and the rest of the area is in the SJRECWA GSA. 1706
z
C
~g
m Ci)
~
31 6
~+
9~+,
1 27
0~·11
--v~
!<o
[email protected],
~ -<o
,.... ~ ~ ~o<o
~QI~
~ N W+E
s +-. It'-----.. --~------~
I
26, EXPLANATION;
~SJRECGSA f.
19 l 1111 City of Firebaugh GSA
- Firebaugh Study Boundary
~ Madera County - 3 GSA
1-~~~1 - ---
..........
ij, ..... ~ DELTA-MENDOTA SUBBASIN
351 • Private Wells
• CityWells
• CCIDWells
t:.;
6 FIGURE 1-STUDY AREA ~OUN DARY, _C~-rY Y'fELLS, AND SGMA _GSAS tv
1707
3 SUBSURFACE GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
Alluvial deposits comprise the water producing deposits in the Firebaugh area. The Corcoran Clay is a regional, laterally extensive, confining bed beneath much of the west side of the San Joaquin Valley. Regionally, this blue clay has been used to separate an upper aquifer from an underlying lower aquifer. The focus of this evaluation focuses on groundwater in the upper aquifer, because groundwater in this aquifer is pumped by City wells.

Deeper groundwater in the Firebaugh vicinity is indicated to be of unsuitable quality for public supply. The top of the Corcoran Clay is about 300 feet deep and the clay ranges from about 60 to 110 feet thick near Firebaugh. Belitz and Haimes (1990) showed that the Sierran Sands are present below a depth of about 100 feet and above the Corcoran Clay near the San Joaquin River near Mendota. These deposits are highly permeable and comprise the major aquifer that is used in the Firebaugh and Mendota areas.

The top of these sands is shallower beneath Firebaugh, and these sands become thinner to the west of Firebaugh with increasing distance from the San Joaquin River. The Sierran Sands are overlain by Coast Range alluvial deposits, which are primarily finegrained in the area west of Firebaugh.

As part of the previous evaluation, three subsurface geologic cross sections were developed (Figure 2). These cross sections were developed to focus primarily on conditions above the Corcoran 1708
I
w 18
- ,·,\;_d,-1-' - . \\,;~~:\. ~ ~ l \ \~ H _.·,_,, I (\\\\ \ I 11 ~-- ---.•. ·1! ,C') 'i ~ . ·' ,- ',\ :~ .:1 • \\
~-?~~~?:,17 L~_Avenue91/2 ,, 9½ ~-- S!.p6 J\ ,;_., \\)\\ \\{c.o ·, . .f\s \\ \·-'·.·~1:::~ V: ·-i~s~,/'i1 r------------r= ~to========a,-_,,'.gl!) 'c#= J \ '.\ \, '·I "O /-,,'-._ ✓--:: ', :_· ·:·:) li§ ,- 9~ ""'-~~- ·\ <S> ~ "O U '. , \ \ O ----, .- " -o ✓ o~---'\~--:..~ -.. I ,.__ 1 •l .,\,·\lrol"'-·----...... 1 _ •••. ,- •uc.o , ~ --~, ,,.,,,,,,_,,.,.., ILD -a'\ ~ (\\ .,ta:·· : ___ r •• ' .. ' J~f Cll cc. cc. ,, '
I . \._:, -~ :": 0,,- \\..J .... S&s-."' I Cll ? \ ; F·- <>,1··-.., l --------... -•• ',:-- --...._, I" u.. I -::-.. ~<:,.r"-' o 2·~ ----- \. ·--. ·, .... •--.. '\ \', 1 i ···,) "' o Ji3.2., . ~-~~ "'-;'o"' [-o ..,,'\ a: J ,.:>---_•.I·-----,_ ,_,_ -----... ;r_, ,"-::, /·11,;?. . tr \ '¾,0. o-- ~k ' '"' 's, •. ,,...-----'"'
• ~M 147 '--.....,"--.:_ ·':"'•-...
i ·,;·:_;~, 1. -~~-.c'o I a: "? • ____ :1 r<:,,\ \ ,--.. __ , \ 1 ,, __ /! 1:1 I <::;,'- ~~;:~<;~ ' • i\ \ \\ \ '~ / /~-' .,/),;: •._;• .. , .. -.·.·, :·-,,: ,'-._ _, ' -. I ' I' "/4 " \ ~--.:::-·,, ... :~tJ \ r,.--~, \·.. l •.'::,-----; .::z, J;; !Zt,,,~~,, >\ --....______ -,~ (\::i·,;),t,: l \\ -r<1 \~\ ··-<<tY ,j\i, - B§.f:!.YM.§3_ ---· -~\/E __ -:--,-J\ ~ I //~1'- (/ If II ;<\. '' __ )_ \~ I 11 ~---~r~~------- ...... C --~--~,.-_.- - ~ ........... ... --~Jg========v====== e ,\ +'43 v ('-,, ., .u,. -.:il,~• w II· · · · Aven e g ,. 'l
,,. ,;
,'I
~.....-~ I L, \, ~ -♦-- .,,70/2 \~ '\._
'•--;- li'Jc. '\, '\ •• -. - q>/Jw '\\ '\i -.. ·· ~ /
\'I ~'la/ .):,:•.: fjr() I} 142 'I \ ,-~ ~) \ I...,
'\.:-.\ <( Af.a· --- ··. fl t //1 ·-0 ·· 1
'\::. ;f ,.., ... _,,....... \ ,- ,, ,---., t:r.i ~-.... /!, 1[ 'l,. II / I ~ ~-> - -..: ~ -.--. ,[ 1/ -~ 11 ' I o ti ~ ~ . /#. / \ \~ ::~-~-- ~ cS u ~~ ,,:, " ,',•
'I .; ~'" ~-
\. \ ~ 1M -'p'' '1'g_'h /II i ., \! /J
!,!! ,~- 1flff~~,~I ~ <>,,,;:; __ -------'> ~~" ~ / - \• !,ff/i1/ I 'I -,,- \IC{/ 2 IR UGF/(/,f' : ii '\, 11~ o, CO!!NlD"fl@' ; • -;,, . II /1 1/" I/
City Sphere
of Influence
I/ _l,•D // ,/ ,/' /''
i:~---. _11 ~~~~ /1
~~ ~ti~\~<-,,
~
~"'.::-,'~ (33) ~ I/
//
,f
I/ -~·~:,, I/ -~,
ft.. I/~: i,";:;I 11 ... lt,,._143~--·· it I ~~~'-, ! '~ ' // // ,;,..,l~, ,! /f j' ~- ~f• - \ . ., I c~ }X"' {-i;:
q CCID "· "" ,,, v \ "" 11
cl r· rr ~ 1 1~ ):
o.:IJ No. 29 ~;--;::;--.... : .. ~,,,,,,. ::l \," \\Avenue,8.1/2 ·~ //: \, ..... r-- ""'11'
>-
u.\
<'.",--,,,,,.,.,,,,,,,,,.,.J ..... ~==~ II ~~ I ' I ;:.==== 20 c-;:i/ ~ _jfjJ ~,,;,~~\\ ::I 21 "'s-"' \ i 2
=t .... ,1!1'.fJ(- ~\;\ IJ: ~~ ... - I
?
\
Ir \~\\ I!. ~=:-;~\_ / / \ \\\
111 .,. \ / ; :.;,' ❖ ll ~~~i~ :- \ ,,./ o '\'.\
----rr---•,a., ,·1 I I II I I/ r.-1,r.,;1 1:j~ lO :
1 ·Q/ ~/(_}p II c:-=>\lll ti ' ~\,\\
. _ II _ C))'\ _., -•~ ~5..,1 r&-· --- 1_r 11 ~ __ -===el:Ja!I - -. . ""!,..:, 11 •-;;;J..,;~ ? , / I~ ,=:,:,-===-- . _/ ;i/)1;' •••••••••• -;-0;z-;1c~~ ~ ' ~J,}1
~--=,; -"'~~. · • Avenu~ .. -~=="
l / // ,/ '\'\\_
Sbepherd / -,;i.._ _/·7
_,, I ~ ,?• 1,,
"'""'·:.:_
·~~~,,
~ '\\ '-...~
I ~~-
o. 13· - ") II 111 __ ,_ \I_
.-/ C .? 1- // -..:~,~ ..... .- ....... -,;;:,;::-::-;;-- , ,; , '"'>\~-- •1° .(I ,,, 1r•.~I:-.,, .J' . ,/' , q" $f.. 1; ();:.~11 ~,'-". .. , B' ,1- ·.\,~
.• -..._ .-,~,-- -i' ~- Ill /' '\,'· . · ll/55-, ~~ ~ _,.;, "-..._ ~ ~ ~ /. ;; • "-..._,,, ~~~;.,_ •, b /,- _ij --- ~,{;;J-1 --- - •. ~ , .
'"~•':;·t,) '1; ,1 '-......_
;;--- :"--=====~""=' '-."-.. TH - I -f 3.-. :-•,. ·'·1"·-~ ~ .y,;;-_//,• ,t- 0 ,j, 1~- """" ·--...,_ / '\. .i~' ii 3~,, i~L if //
!! '
,:a,"AF'_...,-..-Y",....-~,
((/l
...
\I
II
Ii
\!
J 27
Avenue 7 "1/2
,,,...--r,'--_,___J_ " ,,,Y/ 11 -·---l~5 _
l\ ,--..... ~----,
~"- !~========~-==----· ----==- I TH-14 I
'\~"1l--...... .. \
/
'\.~ii '"-
I'-..._ :1-~,. '·..__ \
\N_ee~ Av~nu_~38 A~£.
\ ~
, lil\
~
's,~ - ..... '-. j:li
~\
~ -i\.,,. ',' --------_J:::, ', ,, '-,'i> '•,,1, \, _______ ,__ ·•, '-, "•••-,. Avenue 7
\. ,,, ~\~~:~¾,, ~,, ·-·•t,t "'- '••,,_', .oM ""'-,_._-'.,,,_ · c;;,_r V '-, '• ' ""6/'~,""~"--\ '•, •• ' ' ' '0, ½,\,, -., '•,. ··•, \,_ "' ,-,,, ,, •. "· \ 32 34 \,
~~ i~-'-,, ., -. 31 '•, •• '
=' ··"" ,~·-. '',"', " \ atek
• "'''\. '•, \ , •=~-• - Tom
~ -::,°?; \~;'.%\, ·•••• \ "-.. /·, / )I! r . --,.-..,~ ation Pon~_s > Q) •t<:,>Q \'\,'\. •• \ ,-"•L,,/' • , •50000 .:_=---- f/, ll ~ ~-,,, ' ' > •,&, / i! ~------~- '"' ' T
<( ,, "'• •,,,,.',, ',, ' \ ~\, • ' ' -- /~~;,, ----""·" ~0;!:f,, . ' ;~ r \.~-', •·),:\_-,_ \q • ·•,, ', ·•o, , \,;,,-,,/ v- I-• --, , ' "''" ---~.. ,, V:°" ,-C ', -,,, ,,_ '\0:~ '~ . ' \ ,, ,,,,._,,,,," . I/' ' 12 ,: BM ' \,'%,,"" '•• ' ', I . , \ '•••0;,~~-!,_S:s, 1;1•·· o¼, , 0 ' " \ ' '\.",, ,,____ '- ', •, \ ' ' ' ' ' ' ' • "•,,,;;,, -,, ., ,,, I , S
O ' ' \_->,,, ,,, ', " -~- ' BM'°''\ ,,,.,, ,, . : "'"--'\ •. . : I --,_ . , '"'"'-· - ' Avenue,, --- .,, -,~ ·, '¾ • •, "-, " , \ <Y-'s =- ,
Herndon___ ---'--.~-- :: \ ¾,,e,_ ••, '\ " + iill --.......... \__====== ~ _ .. ,.,,_,;,'¾. "- n -,, -, ' '·• ,, ., " ·---"\- w ,,,;, :.,_ :: :: , , , -_,,' <'I'--, ',, ,: I ______ .,____ t;-.._ \:' -- -- " ~-""' "' " . ·-·-·-~ •, " • ' ~---- ._, " ' " " 'c'i-'-, ', ', " • , - - ,h, -~-... _ 'I '--. 11 Ii g,I! "-\~':':-,,,\.,, '~~<>' \ :: J \ '•BM 1615 ''•¾o~, \ CCI ·,.
-;.--~\ .
\'(~~
\, . ,,,,,,,,.,,~
T.
13 S.
, ' ,, ,, " ,, ,, ,,, __ ' '• • " ~ , . ~ --~, ,,~~~ ~..... B II '--'1, II 11,' -·---, .,,_ """o \\ II 4\ _.,,#,:-;:..· .. ~ '•,,;;,, ,.::; .. ·. •, No -I 6 " ,, " , __ ' ·•~ ,_,, I , -""---- -, "'-, - ' " ,. , <-c;\ __________ ,..:--r--- ---.---- , ,-".:'"'· \ I , _/2;~~\)e, ----;;-:::.~\':i]·-··,,>,\ ,·;,_'::-.:\:;- '\., 1 ' ~ ·-..., ~•---· '- ';,;_;,o \"f-Yt,o
' ~\;%,_•, 5 .,,, • ', -·~ \ ,' < ''-"''""" '\ ii , '::,,_ '"'-., ·\, I ' ~---,-- ' ,,' ,. ', ·•-J!>;"},,,h \; ~<¾;~~!:i<U._ \, ~•, .,e,,• • ;;,,el' ',_ o. \~,;~o ,, ' '- " '·=·"·---- ---.,, "' ------. -_,. • ->z ,,,_ ~® " "· ,, .... ~ ~ ·-~ -,,-¥•,s._, ~;: ...... - ...... , B
l~ 162 ~~;:'."---"¾,., ~ ~4'§~ "- --- I ,, ¾,i\;_'¼_,i,?-,:

EXPLANATION
~
•
Well and Identification
Active City of Firebaugh
Well
0 ()
e
e
CD
Inactive City of Firebaugh
Well
Active CCID Well
Inactive CCID Well
Other Well
Test Hole
AO--cJJ\ 1 Location of Subsurface
M. Geologic Cross Section
N
1 0 2,000
Scale (feet)
----- , ,~ . , '. -' ' , "' ,,,,_ ~---,,. ' -ef;!,- ~ , - f t or,.,,,.,, "' •v~ ,,, -4, ' 0 ---~---~, • - -•~- - •' ff; '"""''·••---=--- ,-,, -,,,_ ·v, •,. -... - -- -•-l , •, •;,,·-:;• 0 ---.,,,, • ,,;, ' ,....,., , "0~'\<[ c fl( <;>)?' ''•,);,._, II •• , _..,_ -----,,o-i ', , ., If ~/¾;,,, ' ~--- BM •• -2:-.'-----_ ', ~ - "t,,, Bem,, · • "' t, '<' '< , , "'" , '\, !--------t~ I:
1Bullard Aven~e AVE
'66 '•,, ·--, ~-. ,:,,._
-~ '•· ,, "'· ·'s
•• ' ' \'s
- .,._,, ,, ,~ I ,i •••~, -.,,_ <g ,....._ . ••,, ' ', ,,,._ ~.. ", '',v '❖,. '6 ------- "" \ ,~~~ Jl~ ~\,::;;,_"' '" • • ' '" ks ~,< ",_ "' 0- - '• "• -<-- '-' w,,,n., 'i'<-- '• ',j <'- 0 ',, •• •~ ~-" lf'c".'~\,,.• • --==1-€>~ ~,,~ --~ "( ~ 0 ' ' </, -• ••••-- "" ,O '\, • C >, ''. """-•",•• - o '\ 't> '\\ o © '\ ·\.~ "'- I O~· ""~~ \, \~ »:\, ~ .. ,; > ---~'(~----------9 - ""--·-·•· • •• -" -..,,, •-..,_ I ~<$>,.., -,~,, "' , e ' • ,
;Jl~~"!!.'Yg"~.'I.'\._, gj ,, - ' ~❖~ ---- "<,~~ ', ~~ .... - '-.

FIGURE 2 - LOCATIONS OF SELECTED WELLS, TEST HOLES AND SUBSURFACE

GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTIONS
,l=s,
1709
5 Clay at and near Firebaugh. Cross Section A-A' extends from near Avenue 8-1/2 and Road 6, northeast of the City, to the south near the east edge of the City, and thence to the southeast through several City wells. Cross Section B-B' extends from near the north part of the City to the southeast, through several City wells, and thence to the east to near Road 6. Cross Section C-C' extends along the Outside Canal, west of the City to the southeast, through the southern part of the City to near Sierra Avenue.

Subsurface Cross Section A-A' (Figure 3) shows the Corcoran Clay, which deepens to the southwest in the vicinity. The clay ranges from about 70 to 110 feet thick along this section. A more localized and thinner clay layer is present along the part of the cross section near the San Joaquin River. This has been termed the A-clay in the Mendota area and farther south. This shallow blue clay is overlain and underlain by the Sierran Sands at Firebaugh. Near Firebaugh and Mendota, the A-clay is a partial confining bed, partially separating the overlying groundwater from the underlying groundwater. The A-clay was identified at three wells (28J and former City Wells No. 5 and 8) along this section. Fine-grained deposits are predominant above the Corcoran Clay along the northeast part of the section. Near the San Joaquin River and farther southwest, sand is predominant above the Corcoran Clay along this section. Another regional blue clay, 1710
---- +-'
(I)
(I)
LL --
_J
w
>
w
_J
<(
w
(f)
z
<(
w w
>
_J
w
a:
z
0 >
w
_J
w
200
100
-100
-200 -300
-400
-500
A

NORTHEAST
21H
co
UJ
=:i
z
UJ
-------------------------
·.:.---:::---·---.. _ . ., ... __ ~----- -·----------- __ - - - - - ···-·-·-··-·-·-·-···-·-·-· ---- -·---····-·----·--··-·•-·--·-- -------- ------------
------------------------
--:=·-=-.. :=....=..-·.... ·-·---·= --·-···::-;-- ___ --------- ., __ T.D. 600
00 UJ
=:i
z
UJ
28A
NO LOG
T.D. 436
('-.

UJ
=:i
z
UJ
z
5 a o:
<( UJ O>
...,
-
z 0:
<(
CJ)
28J 280
A'

SOUTHWEST
T.D. 200 T.D. 204 T.D. 208

EXPLANATION
F;:~ Gravel or Gravel and Sand Mixture
V//j Sand
Sandy Clay, Clayey Sand or Sand and
Clay Mixture f-=-~ Clay
Corcoran Clay
28J Well and Identification l P,rtorated 1,teNel
T.D. 383 Total Depth (feet)
Water-Levels:
-=--- 7 ... Shallowest
- .X.. • • Deepest
0 1,000
Horizontal Scale (feet)
FIGURE 3 - SUBSURFACE GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION A - A'
200
100
0 -100 -200
-300 -400
-500
m
r
m
:...-i
0 z
JJ
m
r
< m
-I
0 m
)>
z
Cf)
m
)>
r
m
<
m
r
---- 71
(D (D
,-+
--
6 1711
the C-clay, is also present near the San Joaquin River, and is about 150 to 200 feet deep beneath Firebaugh. Some stream channel deposits (coarser than sand) are present above the C-clay along this section.

Subsurface Cross Section B-B' (Figure 4) also shows the Corcoran Clay, which is apparently about 100 feet thick along this section. The A-clay was penetrated by two wells along this section, at a depth of about 100 feet. Sand is predominant above the Corcoran Clay along the northwest part of this section. The C-clay was also penetrated by the same wells that penetrated the A-clay along this section, at a depth of about 150 to 170 feet.

Stream channel deposits were encountered near the river both above and below the C-clay. The shallowest and deepest historical water levels for the two CCID wells are also shown on this section.
7 Cross Section C-C' (Figure 5) extends from near Shephard Avenue and the Outside Canal to the southeast to near Sierra Avenue and the Main Canal. Three of the logs used along this cross section are for test holes done as part of a groundwater pumping/ water transfer project by the Firebaugh Canal Water District and the CCID. Electric logs and geologic logs are available for these holes. The remaining two logs are for two CCID wells. Two of the test holes (TH-12 and TH-13) reached the top of the Corcoran 1712
---- +-'
Cl) Cl)
LL
.,_..
.....J
w
> w
.....J
<(
w
(f)
z <(
w
w
>
.....J
w
a:
z
0 > w
.....J
w
200
100
0 -100
-200 -300
B

NORTHWEST
ro
UJ
::J
z
UJ
;'( CCID
No.29
T.D. 255

EXPLANATION
F;:::,J Gravel or Gravel and Sand Mixture
!/(;';] Sand
Sandy Clay, Clayey Sand or Sand and
Clay Mixture
t:._=--::J Clay
Corcoran Clay
CCID No. 29 Well and Identification l PoITomted lnt,n,al T.D. 255
Water-Levels:

Total Depth (feet)
-v
- Shallowest
- • .z:.. •..., Deepest
0 1,000
Horizontal Scale (feet)
z
0 :'1! 5
(J) z 0 cc 0 <( <( UJ

0.. 0 O>
-,
-
z cc
<(
(J)
CCID
No. 41
- ---
City of Firebaugh I \
No. 3 No.10
B'
EAST
NO LOG
(0
0 ci
cc
28A
--- --= ((~:0:~:~/_:.-::,::-:__:::);__;j_/f_:::.:_:-~;(:/:/ -=-=-==-==-==-=-~ __:--__:--_-_-_-_-_- - - - - - - -----
T.D. 436
FIGURE 4 - SUBSURFACE GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION B - B'
200
100
0 -100
-300
m
r
m
5;; -I
0 z
JJ
m
r
< m
-I
0 m
z
(J)
m
r
m
< m
r
---- "'Tl
<D <D r-+
.,_..
8 1713
C

NORTHWEST
..J ('I) < ('I) z
a < a: w w w () $ w ::i z ::i Cl) ::i z I
200- IZ 0 z Cl) z <( CJ D.. w ::'.i w w w z :i:

Cl) CCID
TH-12 TH-13 TH-14 No.24
-
-300-
FIGURE 5 - SUBSURFACE GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION C - C'
C'

SOUTHEAST
Zw <{W
0 ::i a: ::i Oz a: z ww Zw ui ffi I
CCID
No. 16B

EXPLANATION
F;:~I Gravel or Gravel and Sand Mixture
l'/}j Sand
Sandy Clay, Clayey Sand or Sand and
Clay Mixture
j:--.:::-:::1 Clay
Corcoran Clay
CCI[° 14 :,:o:::,:d::::Uoc
T.D. 208 Total Depth (feet)
Water-Levels:
----sz._ __
- Shallowest
--.x.. • • Deepest
0 1,000
Horizontal Scale (feet)
9 -200
0 - -iOO
-
- -200 - -300
m
r
m
0 z
:0
m
r
< m
--l
0 s:
m
)>
z
Cf)
m
)>
r
m
<
m
r
--- ""Tl
(I) (I)
...+
..._.
1714
10 Clay, at a depth of 350 feet. Sand is predominant along the cross section, although there are more fine-grained deposits within the uppermost 150 feet to the northwest along this section. The A-clay was apparently at a depth of about 50 feet at CCID Well 16B and about 70 feet deep at TH-13. Some stream channel deposits were found at Well 16B. The C-clay was indicated to be present at the three test holes and at former CCID Well No. 16B.

CONSTRUCTION DATA FOR WELLS
Active City Wells
Table 1 shows construction data for the six active City wells. Cased depths range from 180 to 230 feet. The tops of the perforations range from 115 to 165 feet in depth. The more recent City wells generally have shallower depths to the top of the perforations compared to older wells. Annular seals range from 80 to 155 feet in depth.

CCID Wells
Table 2 shows construction data for two active CCID wells (No. 29 and 41) in the study area. Cased depths of these wells range from 236 to 248 feet, and the top of the perforations range from 86 to 93 feet deep.
1715
TABLE 1-CONSTRUCTION DATA FOR ACTIVE CITY WELLS
Perforated
Date Total Depth Cased Depth Casing Diameter Interval
No. Drilled (feet) (feet) (inches) (feet) --11 6/91 205 200 16 165-190 12 1/94 190 180 16 155-180
13 5/97 210 200 16 160-200
15 4/05 245 230 16 115-220
16 4/05 235 230 16 115-220
17 6/14 220 200 16 140-185
Records from well completion reports.

Annular Seal
(feet)
0-155
0-80
0-155
0-105
0-105
0-120
1-l
1-l
1716
Date
No. Drilled --29 01/64
41 3/67
Data from CCID.

TABLE 2-CONSTRUCTION DATA FOR CCID WELLS
Perforated
Total Depth Cased Depth Casing Diameter Interval
(feet) (feet) (inches) (feet)
- 248 18 93-105
245 236 16 86-236
Annular Seal
(feet)
....

I\)
1717

WATER LEVELS
Depths and Elevations
13 Water levels in the upper aquifer in the Firebaugh area have been relatively shallow, primarily due to the small amount of groundwater that has been pumped for irrigation in the area west of the river (due to poor groundwater quality). The CCID Camp 13 Drainage District area is immediately west of Highway 33. Historically, groundwater wasn't pumped for irrigation in this area and water logging and subsurface drainage problems developed.

Tile drainage systems were installed decades ago to allow irrigation to continue. Water levels are generally deeper in the area east of the river, because conjunctive use is practiced and a significant amount of groundwater is pumped for irrigation.

Groundwater in that area is generally of suitable quality for irrigation. The shallowest and deepest water levels in CCID Wells No. 29 and 41 are shown on Cross Section B-B'. The shallowest levels generally coincide with the stage of the San Joaquin River. The CCID measures water levels in a number of shallow observation wells in the Camp 13 Drainage District. These measurements indicate that shallow groundwater flows into the San Joaquin River.

KOSA (2006) prepared water-level elevation maps for the upper aquifer in and near the Firebaugh area for Fall 1981 and Spring 1992. These maps were intended to portray normal conditions and drought conditions, respectively. Both of these maps indicated a 1718
14 northeast to north-northeast direction of groundwater flow.

Groundwater was moving from beneath the CCID and Firebaugh Canal Water District (between the Main Canal and Third-Lift Canal) to the northeast, and into Madera County (Figure 6). The directions of groundwater flow shown on the map for Spring 1992 are indicated to be representative of current conditions.

Time Trends
Water-level and pumpage hydrographs were obtained from the CCID for the two District wells in the study area. Figure 7 is a long-term hydrograph for Well No. 29 and Figure 8 is one for Well No. 41. Depth to water in these wells has usually ranged from about 5 to 40 feet. The deepest water levels were during the early 1990's, in 1996, and in 2014 during heavy pumping episodes for irrigation wells in the vicinity. On the long-term, water levels in upper aquifer wells in the Firebaugh area have been relatively stable, and there is no evidence of groundwater overdraft.

AQUIFER CHARACTERISTICS
Well Capacities
Table 3 contains a summary of the results of pump tests conducted on five of the six active City wells during 2008. Pumping rates ranged from about 920 to 1,350 gpm. Specific capacities for these wells ranged from 11 to 53 gpm per foot. The highest 1719
----130
0 Contour of Water-Level
Elevation Above Mean
Sea Level (Feet)
Direction of Groundwater
Flow N
6,000
Scale (feet) 1
1 5
FIGURE 6 - WATER-LEVEL ELEVATION CONTOURS AND DIRECTION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW FOR UPPER AQUIFER (SPRING 1992) 1720

DEPTH TO 'NATER SURFACE BELOW
NATURAl GROUND (FEET}
8 :l: !,. 0 ill t: Q .:..
6SS i I ' 66S • 67S •
' 685
-
'\.
"Tl 69S \. + " - 70$ • R R G) F
715 ,,. 6 6
C
-
.. "1'
725 N N
;o lO \D ns •
m 745 , ..... • ... s
. m -o
-....J 75S - :,, m r- C
_,
76S
- m
... rr 77S
0 ' ]RS • \. z 79S i -- - --"'- G) w: - -
I 81F -I -- I I I I _ __ L_-:]l
m 82F 83f ·, ;o 84F ! I I L -- --1 I I I I I •. "Tl s: , _ _ 85F 86F
87F
0~ 88f
om 89F _;:;o 90F
o r1- 91F
~m 9if
m< 93F
rm 94F
rr 95F
96F
oz 97F .o 98F
N"1J S9F
c.o C
OF
s: lF
:I I I I J I I I I
µ> G) 72
m SF
~§· I~ I I I: I
11 I -< 0 £ I ;o 0
G) 12F
;o I ---- I_ -1 ---.. 13F
"1J 14F
)> !SF
,~ 16F ~; ::.. I I I I I_ 1- I I
8 8 8 8 g .. g & 0 0 0 8 0
ANNUi,\ ACRE·FEET PUMPED
9~
1721
DEPTH TO WATER SURFACE BELOW NATURAL GROUND (fEET)
. ' ' . . ' ' . . i E B 8 t g s t & 8 * t o
6SS
66S
67S
685 T-
"Tl 69S I
- 70S • n n G) ,, Q Q .71S 0 0
C .. 725 .i,. .&,,
;o ..... 735
m 745 --1 s: m .,,
00 75S :;,o m ... 0 m
76$ iii
... ,_ - - - --- - ,_ - -- r 77S
0 ~:Ef 1 I I ·1 I I I I I l I I
1 1
111 lJ_ i---1 I I Ii z G)
I 81F
82F m 83F ! I I I I I t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I --· 1 I I I I 1 _,;,,i ;o 84F "Tl SSF I 1 I I I I I I. I I I I I I I I t I I 1 --.-- ,-,-,-,,---i- :::.- 86F 87F
(")~ 88F o m 89F
:~:

E! 1 l I ! 1

1. -
1I I I I I I I ! I I I I I I J.dt' _;o
Or
~m 92f
m< 93F
rm 9;4F
rr 95F
z)>
% F
oz 97F 98F I I I I I I I J I I l I I I I -I -I l_~L=J:3--1-17--=L~:i~ .o ~""'CJ 99F
C OF
lf
21'
3F
G)
:: IJ J
DI I F l 11 1 1 I I
1-
1-liEI
1-1 I_I_J I;}; m
I 7F
-< SF a 0 9f -
...
;a lOF ...
,.· 0 11F ,.- ,.-
G) 12F L
;a BF .,,. I .J!:
""'CJ HF
)> 15F
I ::
:g 11 I I I I I I 11 I I I I I I 177 I I flS (/) 0 :'l w ... "' w "' 0 0 0 " 8 0 0 g 0 0 0 ANIIUAi"-CaE·FEET P\IMPEO
L~
1722
TABLE 3-PUMP TEST DATA FOR CITY WELLS
Pumping Static Pumping Drawdown
No. Date Rate (2Em) Level. (feet) Level. (feet) (feet)
11 4/25/08 919 29 111 82
12 4/25/08 952 46.5 122 76
13 9/19/08 1,011 68.5 106 38
15 9/19/08 1,230 34 66.5 33
16 9/17/08 1,352 27.5 53 26
17 7/15/14 1,500 31 97 66
Data from City of Firebaugh
Specific Capacity
(gpm Eer foot)

11.2 12.6

27.0 37.8
53 23
1-l
(X)
1723
19 specific capacities (exceeding 25 gpm per foot) were for Wells No. 13, 15, and 16. The casings in the last two of these wells are perforated significantly shallower (115 feet) than the other active City wells.

Table 4 contains a summary of the results of pump tests that were conducted on the two CCID wells during late September 2016.

Pumping rates ranged from about 1,520 to 1,640 gpm, and specific capacities ranged from about 20 to 24 gpm per foot.

Aquifer Tests
On May 11, 2005, Gleim-Crown Pump Co. of Fresno conducted a 12-hour step drawdown test on new City Well No. 15. At a pumping rate of 1,000 gp:n, the drawdown was 18.5 feet and the specific capacity was

54.0 gpm per foot. Uncorrected recovery measurements for these measurements indicated a transmissivity of 87,000 gpd per foot.

Uncorrected values can be used when the drawdown stabilized or nearby stabilized by the end of the pumping period. This value pertains to deposits between a depth of 115 and 200 feet (above the C-clay). During October 28-29, 1996, a 24-hour constant discharge test was conducted on CCID Well No. 41 (KDSA, 1997b). The average pumping rate was 2,210 gpm, and the specific capacity was 30 gpm. Corrected recovery measurements for this test indicated a transmissivity of 78,000 gpd per foot. This value pertains to deposits between 115 and 220 feet in depth. The results of these tests are in good agreement in terms of transmissivity. 1724
No.
29 41
Date
10/15/16
10/15/16
TABLE 4-PUMP TEST DATA FOR CCID WELLS
Pumping
Rate (gpm)
1,638
1,520
Static
Level (feet)

20.0 19.0
Pumping
Level (feet)

89.0 95.0
Drawdown
(feet)

69.0 76.0
Specific Capacity
(gpm per foot)

23.7 19.9
Pump test results from Central California Irrigation District, Los Banos.

I\)
0 1725
21 The A-clay partly separates shallow groundwater associated with San Joaquin River streamflow from water tapped by City wells.

The vertical hydraulic conductivity of the A-clay at Firebaugh has not been determined. However, several leaky aquifer tests have been conducted near Mendota, which allowed values of this parameter to be determined in that area. An average vertical hydraulic conductivity of about 0.02 gpd per square foot was determined for the A-clay. Groundwater below the A-clay is normally confined or partially confined. The storage coefficient for strata below the Aclay and above the Corcoran Clay near Mendota averaged about

0.001. These values are considered applicable to the Firebaugh study area.

PUMPAGE
Table 5 provides the annual City pumpage during 2003-07 and 2012-17. The annual pumpage ranged from 2,170 acre-feet in 2012 to 2,575 acre-feet in 2014. During 2012-13 and 2015-17, the annual pumpage was less due to water conservation measures. The average annual pumpage was 2,390 acre-feet per year.

Table 6 provides annual pumpage for the two active CCID wells in the Firebaugh area for 2003-2016. Annual pumpage has varied significantly, depending on the availability of surface water supplies in the District. The pumpage from these two wells ranged from about 325 acre-feet during 2006 to about 3,040 feet during 2007. The average pumpage from the two CCID wells was 1726
TABLE 5-ANNUAL PUMPAGE FROM

CITY OF FIREBAUGH WELLS
Year
2003
2004 2005 2006 2007
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Average
Pumpage (acre-feet
2,436
2,538 2,418 2,434 2,569 2,170 2,349
2,575
2,312
2,248
2,270 2,390
Records from City of Firebaugh
22 1727
TABLE 6-ANNUAL PUMPAGE FROM CCID WELLS
Year
2003 2004 2005 2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011 2012
2013 2014 2015 2016
Average
Pumpage (acre-feet)
2,623 2,925
1,059
326
3,039
2,856
2,001
1,117
1,131
3,033 3,011
2,089 2,116
575
1,990
23 Records from Central California Irrigation District, Los Banos. 1728
24 about 1,990 acre-feet per year during 2003-16.

Annual pumpage from private wells in the study area was estimated by the CCID for six years between 2003 and 2016. This punpa.ge ranged from 67 acre-feet in 2016 to 1,737 acre-feet in 2015.

CANAL WATER DELIVERIES
CCID provided records of canal water deliveries to 1,300 acres of irrigated lands in the study area for 2003-16. Canal deliveries ranged from 3,000 to 4,300 acre-feet per year and averaged 3,700 acre-feet per year, or about 2.8 acre-feet per acre.

CONSUMPTIVE USE
Rural
The CCID provided estimates of evapotranspiration for irrigated crops in the study area. Evapotranspiration of applied water ranged from 2,000 to 3,400 acre-feet per year and averaged 2,800 acre-feet per year for 2003-16, or an average of 2.2 acrefeet per year. There was some private irrigation well pumpage to supplement the canal deliveries.

Urban
The urban consumptive use is estimated by first substracting the sewage effluent for the pumpage to determine the outside water use. For 2003-16, this would be 2,400 acre-feet per year minus (700 acre-feet per year+ 525 acre-feet per year for Toma1729 25 tek), or 1,175 acre-feet per year. The consumptive use for outside irrigation was estimated to be 70 percent of this value, or 820 acre-feet per year. An additional 340 acre-feet per year was consumed by crop irrigation of Tomatek effluent and 100 acre-feet were evaporated from the City effluent ponds. The total urban consumptive use was 1,260 acre-feet per year.

The total urban and rural consumptive use was thus about 4,000 acre-feet per year, or about 300 acre-feet per year greater than the canal water deliveries.

SOURCES OF RECHARGE
The primary sources of recharge to groundwater in the Firebaugh Area are canal seepage, deep percolation of applied irrigation water, San Joaquin River seepage, and groundwater inflow from the southwest. Normal streamflow in the river at Firebaugh, in the absence of upstream floodflows in the Fresno Slough and the San Joaquin River east of Mendota, is due to operational releases of water from the Mendota Pool. This water is delivered to the San Luis Canal Company at Sack Dam (east of Dos Palos).

Operational releases down the river range from about 50 cfs during non-irrigation periods to about 500 cfs during summer irrigation periods. The best sources of recharge to groundwater in the Firebaugh area in terms of chemical quality are river seepage and 1730
26 canal seepage. The poorest source of recharge in terms of groundwater is groundwater inflow from the southwest. The more recent City wells have generally been drilled adjacent to the San Joaquin River and have had shallower perforations. This has minimized the influence of inflow of poor quality groundwater from the southwest and maximized the influence of river seepage on the chemical quality of water from City wells.

There are a number of canals southwest of Firebaugh. The CCID Main Canal passes through Firebaugh primarily west of Highway 33, and a lateral, the Poso Canal, passes through the north part of the City. The Main Canal is about four miles long within the City's sphere of influence. The Poso Canal is about a mile and a half long within the City's sphere of influence. The CCID Outside Canal passes through the area west of Firebaugh. This canal is an average of about a half mile southwest of the Main Canal. CCID has estimated the amounts of seepage from District canals. The average seepage is about 0.6 cfs per mile of canal for the Poso Canal and about 1.0 cfs per mile of canal for the Main Canal. For the Main and Poso Canals in the City sphere of influence, the estimated seepage is about 2,800 acre-feet per year. The Delta-Mendota Canal (DMC) and three Firebaugh Canal Water District lift canals are located farther southwest and upgradient of the City of Firebaugh. 1731
27 GROUNDWATER QUALITY
Inorganic Chemical Constituents
The total dissolved solids (TDS) concentrations of groundwater in the upper aquifer increase significantly to the southwest in the Firebaugh-Mendota area (Figure 9). This illustration was modified from KDSA (2006), and represents conditions in the early to mid-2000's. Electrical conductivities in micromhos per centimeter at 25°C can be multiplied by two-thirds to estimate TDS concentrations. Electrical conductivities of the groundwater in the upper aquifer were about 2,000 micromhos per centimeter at 25°C near the Main Canal and about 4,000 to 6,000 micromhos near the Outside Canal.

Table 7 shows the results of analyses of water collected from City wells during 2016-17 for analyses of inorganic chemical constituents and alpha activity. TDS concentrations ranged from 460 to 660 mg/1. The lowest TDS concentrations were in wells located adjacent to the river that had relatively shallow perforations.

The primary source of recharge of this low salinity groundwater is indicated to be from seepage from the San Joaquin River. Water were of the sodium-mixed anion type. Nitrate concentrations in water from City wells were not detectable, indicative of reduced conditions in the groundwater. Fluoride concentrations were all well below the maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 2.0 mg/1. Iron concentrations in water from four of the wells ranged 1732
-..........3,ooo
Snyder
3,745
0 Contour of Electrical Conductivity of Water
(micromhos/cm@25°C)
Well, Identification and
Electrical Conductivity
(micromhos/cm@25°C)
N
1 6,000 Scale (feet)
Modified from KOSA (1997b).

FIGURE 9 ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY OF WATER FROM WELLS TAPPING UPPER AQUIFER 1733
28 TABLE 7-CHEMICAL QUALITY OF WATER FROM CITY OF FIREBAUGH WELLS Constituent (mg/1)
Calcium
Magnesium
Sodium
Bicarbonate
Sulfate
Chloride
Nitrate
Fluoride
pH
Electrical Conductivity
(micromhos/cm@ 25°C)
Total Dissolved Solids
(@180°C)
Iron
Manganese
Arsenic
Hexavalent Chromium (ppb)
Selenium
Alpha Activity (pc/1)
Date
Perforated Interval (ft)
No. 11
43 30
100
220
110
140
<2
<0.1

7.4 910
550

0.55 0.73

7.6 <1
<5

7.8 1/10/17
165-190
No. 12
56 31
140
317
78 210
<2
<0.1

7.3 1,100
660

0.51 0.85

7.2 <1
<5

4.5 1/10/17
155-180
No. 13
24 10
130
159
94 140
<2
<0.1

7.8 810
460
<0.1

0.27 6.5
<1
<5
<3
1/10/17
160-170&
185-200
No. 15
38 24
150
159
87 170
<2

0.2 7.8
890
540

0.50 0.53
13 <1
<5
<3
1/10/17
115-220
No. 16
30 13
140
146
83 220
<2

0.1 7.8
920
530

0.23 0.40

6.3 <1
<5

4.8 4/9/16
115-220
Samples for determination of hexavalent chromium were collected on 8/15/14.

No. 17
49 32
130
342
49 170
<2
<0.1

7.9 1,000
580

0.26 0.58

6.4 <1
<5

15.4 1/10/17
140-185
fl.)
\0
1734
30 from 0.3 to 0.6 mg/1, at or exceeding the MCL of 0.3 mg/1. Manganese concentrations ranged from 0.27 to 0.85 mg/1, exceeding the recommended MCL of 0.05 mg/1. The arsenic concentration in water from one of the wells (No. 15) was 13 ppb, exceeding the MCL of 10 ppb. Arsenic concentrations in water from Well No. 15 were below the MCL during two other sampling rounds in 2017. Arsenic concentrations in the other wells ranged from 6 to 8 ppb, below the MCL. Water from Wells No. 16 has had arsenic concentrations of 11 ppb for two other sampling rounds in 2017.

Selenium concentrations in water from the City wells were less than 5 ppb, below the MCL. The primary constituents of concern in water from City wells are thus iron, manganese, and arsenic.

Water from the City wells is treated for removal of these constituents.

Table 8 shows results of analyses of inorganic chemical constituents in water from two CCID wells, both of which are located along the Poso Canal. TDS concentrations ranged from 410 to 1,000 mg/1. Nitrate concentrations were less than 1 mg/1. Water from the wells was of the sodium chloride type.

Radiological Constituents
Alpha activities in water from the City wells were 8 picocuries per liter or less, well below the MCL of 15 picocuries per liter, except for Well No. 17, which had 15 picocuries per liter, (at the MCL).
1735
TABLE 8- CHEMICAL QUALITY OF

WATER FROM CCID WELLS
Constituent (mg/1} Well 29
Calcium 93
Magnesium 19
Sodium 300
Potassium 4
Carbonate <10
Bicarbonate 150
Sulfate 250
Chloride 330
Nitrate <1
Boron 0.6
pH 8.0
Electrical Conductivity
(micromhos/cm@ 25°C} 1,800
Total Dissolved Solids
(@180°C} 1,000
Date 7/19/17
Perforated Interval 92-243
Well 41
75 14
98 3
<10
96 88
100
<1

0.4 0.3
700
410
7/19/17
86-236
Analyses by BSK Laboratory of Fresno, from
Central California Irrigation District.
w
....
1736
32 Trace Organic Chemical Constituents
Comprehensive Title 22 drinking water analyses for trace organics are periodically done for City wells. Concentrations of these constituents have generally been well below MCLs or problem levels.

WATER BUDGET FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS
CCID delivered an average of 3,700 acre-feet per year to 1,300 acres of irrigated land in the study area during 2003-16.

CCID determined the evapotranspiration of crops in the study area for 2003-16. For 2003-08, the evapotranspiration of applied water ETiw was determined from the ITRC water use study report for 1994-2008 (crop coefficient method). For 2009-16, the total evapotranspiration (ETc) was determined from the ITRC metric report (landsat data). The average ETc for crops in the study area was 3,300 acre-feet per year. The average ETiw/ETc was 86 percent. Thus the estimated evapotranspiration of applied water for 2003-16 in the study area was 2,800 acre-feet per year. There was an additional ETiwfor the Tomatek effluent. An average of 525 acre-feet per year of effluent was applied to 160 acres of crops during 2003-16. The average ETiwwas 380 acre-feet per year. Thus the average total evapotranspiration of applied water by crops in the study area for 2003-16 was 3,200 acre-feet per year. The urban consumptive use was estimated by deducting the 1737
amount of City and Tomatek wastewater (combined 1,230 acre-feet per year) from the average City pumpage (2,390 acre-feet per year). This yielded 1,160 acre-feet per year of outside water 33 use. Using an average urban irrigation efficiency of 70 percent, the urban consumptive use averaged about 800 acre-feet per year.

The total consumptive use in the study area was about 4,000 acrefeet per year.

Groundwater is pumped within the study area by the City, CCID, the Eastside Acres water system, the High School, private irrigators, and several industries. Groundwater recharge comes from canal seepage, river seepage, deep percolation from irrigated areas including Tomatek wastewater, percolation of City WWTF effluent, and groundwater inflow.

In 2003-17, the estimated pumpage average within the study area was:

Entity
City
CCID
Eastside Acres
High School
Private Wells
Total
Pumpage (AF/yr)
2,390
1,990
100
70 690
4,550
The CCID pumpage is an average value over the long-term. The estimated total pumpage in the study area was about 4,600 acre-feet per year. In addition, about 500 acre-feet per year of tile drainage in the Camp 13 Drainage District was exported from within the 1738
34 City sphere of influence (personal communication from CCID).

The City sewer collection system serves the City and Eastside Acres. The City WWTF is located northwest of the Firebaugh Wasteway, between the Main Canal and the San Joaquin River (Figure 1). There are about 30 acres of percolation ponds near the WWTF for City effluent, and another 160 acres of irrigated land where Tomatek wastewater was used. All of the City effluent was percolated from the ponds.

The average amount of City effluent was about 700 acre-feet per year for 2003-16. The average amount of Tomatek wastewater was about 525 acre-feet per year during this period. Percolation from the City wastewater ponds is estimated to have been about 700 acre-feet per year.

Amounts of recharge to the groundwater in the study area are estimated as follows:

Item
Effluent and Tomatek Wastewater
Percolation
Canal Seepage
River Seepage
Deep Percolation from Crop Irrigation
Groundwater Inflow
Amount (AF/yr)
800
2,800 2,500
900
2,000
The total estimated recharge to the groundwater in the City sphere of influence during 2003-16 was about 9,000 acre-feet per.

The excess of recharge above the combination of pumpage and exported tile drainage (5,050 acre-feet per year) was equal to the 1739
groundwater outflow from the sphere of influence (about 3,950 acre-feet per year).

REFERENCES
35 Kenneth D. Schmidt & Associates, 2008, "Groundwater Conditions in the Vicinity of the City of Firebaugh" report prepared for City of Firebaugh, 39p
1740
Appendix V. Update on Groundwater
Conditions in the Mendota Sub-Area of
the SJREC GSP

1741

UPDATE ON GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS IN THE

MENDOTA SUB-AREA OF THE SJREC GSP
prepared for
San Joaquin River Exchange
Contractors GSA
Los Banos, California
and
City of Mendota GSA
Mendota, California
by
Kenneth D. Schmidt & Associates
Groundwater Quality Consultants
Fresno, California
May 2019
1742
KENNETH D. SCHMIDT AND ASSOCIATES

GROUNDWATER QUALITY CONSULTANTS
600 WEST SHAW AVE., SUITE 250
FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93704
TELEPHONE (559) 224-4412
Mr. Chris White, Executive Director
San Joaquin River Exchange
Contractors GSA
P. 0. Box 2115
Los Banos, CA 93635
Re: Gustine Sub-Area of the

SJREC GSP
Dear Chris:

May 31, 2019
Submitted herewith is our report on groundwater conditions in the Gustine Sub-area of the SJREC GSP. We appreciate the cooperation of the CCID and City of Gustine in providing information for this report.

Sincerely Yours,
1<{-;f~
Kenneth D. Schmidt
Geologist No. 1578
Certified Hydrogeologist 176
1743

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

INTRODUCTION

SUBSURFACE GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS

WATER SUPPLY WELLS

WATER LEVELS
Water-Level Elevations
Time Trends

AQUIFER CHARACTERISTICS

POMPAGE
City of Mendota
CCID

CITY EFFLUENT

CANAL WATER DELIVERIES

CONSUMPTIVE USE
Urban
Rural
Total

LAND SUBSIDENCE

CHANGE IN GROUNDWATER STORAGE GROUNDWATER QUALITY
City Wells
Public Supply Wells
Fordel Wells
CCID Wells

WATER BUDGET

REFERECNCES
i
Page
ii
iii
1 3
10 12
12 15
22 26
26 28
28 29
29 29 29
30 30
32 32 32
33 33 36
36 39
1744

LIST OF TABLES
No. Title Page
1 Construction Data for City of Mendota Public Supply Wells 11 2 Construction Data for CCID Wells 13
3 Pump Test Data for City of Mendota Public Supply Wells 24 4 Pump Test Data for CCID Wells 25
5 Annual Pumpage from City of Mendota Wells 27
6 CCID Canal Water Deliveries to Lands in Study Area
7 8
9 Chemical Quality of Water from City of Mendota Public Supply Wells
Chemical Quality of Water from City of Mendota Fordel
Wells
Chemical Quality of Water from CCID Wells
ii
34 35
37 1745
No.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11
12 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Title
Location of Mendota Sub-Area, Study Area Boundary,
and Selected Wells
Location of Selected Test Holes and Wells and SubSurface Geologic Cross Sections Subsurface Geologic Cross Section H-H'
Subsurface Geologic Cross Section J-J'
Water-Level Elevations and Direction of Groundwater
Flow for the Shallow Zone (Winter 2016-17)
Water-Level Elevations and Direction of Groundwater
Flow for the Deep Zone (Winter 2016-17)
Water-Level Hydrograph for City of Mendota Well No.

Water-Level Hydrograph for City of Mendota Fordel
Well M-1
Water-Level Hydrograph for City of Mendota Fordel
Well M-2
Water-Level Hydrograph for CCID Well SA Water-Level Hydrograph for CCID Well 35A Compaction and Water Levels at the Fordel Recorder
iii
7 2
5 7
9 14
16 17
18 20
21 23
31 1746

UPDATE ON GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS IN THE

MENDOTA SUB-AREA OF THE SJREC GSP

INTRODUCTION
As part of the Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) for the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors (SJREC) service area, GSPs for a number of cities, including Mendota, are being incorporated into the SJREC GSP. Kenneth D. Schmidt and Associates (KOSA, 1999 and 2008) prepared two reports on groundwater conditions in the vicinity of the City of Mendota for the Central California Irrigation District (CCID) and the City.

This report is intended to provide an update on groundwater conditions within the Mendota Study Area boundary (Figure 1).

This boundary encompasses lands that are planned for future urban development. This study area is generally bounded by Bass Avenue on the north, N. Ohio Avenue on the west, West California Avenue on the south, and San Benito Avenue on the east. Lands northeast of Mendota are in the Aliso Water District GSA, lands north of Mendota are in the SJREC GSA, and lands east of the Mendota Sub-area are in the Farmers Water District (FWD) GSA.

Several areas near the study area are in Fresno County Management Areas "A" and "B". 1747
0 W SAN JOSE AVE
20 w SHIELDS AVE
29 z
I
I
28 w JOLIVEAVE

0.5 1
\ N
' \
n ,
W+E

WBELMONT
AV_E
~
,z ,, "'
0 ,
~i
vj WHITESBRIDGE AVE
2 a,
m
!I"' ,, "' Q >
zz
0 m
3 z
0 :,:
0 W CALIFORNIA
AVE
I
V>
>o <:,:
mo 4
Miles
I
2A 10+~
·<01,z,
Legend
Q,) MENOOTA_WELLS
~ Mendota Study Boundary i:::r SJREC GSA BOUNDARY
r:::::J Fresno County Management B GSA
- City of Mendota GSA
mm Fresno County Management A GSA
- Farmers Water District GSA
FIGURE 1-LOCATION OF MENDOTA SUB-AREA, STUDY AREA BOUNDARY,

AND SELECTED WELLS
s
N
1748
Of particular interest in this update are: 1) groundwater quality issues 2) the extent of groundwater overdraft, 3) land subsidence, and 4) the historical water budget and that for future urban development of the study area.

The Mendota Sub-area study area is within a larger area associated with a monitoring program for the Mendota Pool Group (MPG) pumping program. Some of the MPG wells are located west of the Fresno Slough branch of the Mendota Pool area near the study area. Substantial monitoring of pumpage, water levels, land subsidence, and groundwater quality has been done for the MPG program during the past 15 years. The last annual report on this monitoring was provided by Luhdorff & Scalmanini (L&S) and KOSA (2018) and provided useful information for this report.

SUBSURFACE GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
Alluvial deposits comprise the aquifer in the Mendota area.

Subsurface deposits near Mendota are termed the older alluvium and the Tulare Formation. KDSA (2019) indicated that the base of the usable aquifer in the Mendota area, or bottom of the basin in SGMA terminology, was about 500 to 800 feet deep. A major confining bed is present beneath much of the west side of the San Joaquin Valley, including the Mendota area. This clay is termed the Corcoran Clay, and divides the aquifer system into upper and lower aquifers. The Corcoran Clay is readily discern3 1749
ible from the drillers logs for most wells in the area, due to its blue color. The over-lying and under-lying deposits are usually tan or brown in color.

Two other confining beds that are more localized and shallower than the Corcoran Clay are important in the Mendota area.

One of these is the A-Clay, which is present at an average depth of about 70 feet, and another is the C-Clay, which is present at an average depth of about 250 feet. Shallow groundwater above the A-Clay (locally termed the "shallow zone") is pumped from a number of shallow MPG wells west of the Fresno Slough between Mendota Dam and Whitesbridge Road. Groundwater between the AClay and Corcoran Clay is locally termed the "deep zone".

Groundwater below the Corcoran Clay (the lower aquifer) is generally not tapped in the Mendota area due to higher salinity.

KOSA (1999) developed tw~ subsurface geologic cross sections extending through the City (Figure 2). These were developed as part of a process to develop a new City well field, following degradation of groundwater quality in the City Bass Avenue well field. Drillers and electric logs for water wells and test holes were obtained from the City, the CCID, and the California Department of Water Resources in Fresno for use in developing these cross sections. Cross Section H-H' extends from north to south through the study area. Cross Section J-J' extends from 4 1750
\\
·. \;
i'
~5;;,
i ::'.
·:,J"'
'I• [.__·:.
;:
•• 1--.-:-:
w/w
"q"ILC) .'.• .. ,-1,- 1 '
a:: a:'
;· ........
·· .....
1~::~:-":;<:,:. ............................. , ..... "! ··;;,:{(;_,<:-.'':,_.,, 1'-,1 ,•,?, '<, --?_:
~~~~
~t'.t~:;;;:;~,
~~.:..
,-5.
;t'
\,:t:>0
STUDY AREA ...
;:
( .
':,
:'7
Avenue6
., ..
.. ~·
Avenues
.,,
·. -~
,':\
i.

EXPLANATION
e 12B Well or Test Hole and Identification
(291) Total Depth (Feet)
"<SI H I
e......_ H Location of Subsurface Geologic
~ Cross Section
ffl Proposed Well Field and Site
Identification N
1 0 2,000 4,000
Scale (Feet)
9 1q
'~t(~:(~·;~~{~ Avenue 4
.,.,,;!·(240
. i
\1.1''.,:
\ I\,···-· \ cy\:? ;:ttJ.vl
:f/( :5 / :"
·,0\SIT~C,
:-:.-\/· I
~.;
17 '\ .. ,, , .... , t Land Test , coun Y -
•.J--. -,-,
P1f{;'i:f,/ i
l ,~v. ·, ~~,y
j
RM .t
.::::
' 1r;C 'l6 i
lS
I
''•u .I ',
\ \ SITE
·--'\:J- _,... . 1
Ashlan Avenue,:,,
T.

I
·\\,<·! Weil
·· ~~~ ·' - · _ 18Q (Not Use d . rn Cross .,s. ect1on) Avenue 3 13 /\,, (2
S,, .. ·•.',_-___ , , .,e,; ', lMl'.N),lP':1AM
1 \\ . ,., , '.;i/i·'t:i:'.>:i!!~.: -½~~:jp:,\;f; .. (~r*)tI>,.~;~<~Z 21 Shields\venue ,. . 1~: ,,,~ ,,
290
) 29C SJE D _.
'\ - - - (26
··.:,::~;x . . . . .... .· <;, ,, tf~f '''[j~jj,fc· _,..-; '(~ ;g) ; ,, ~i <· ,~.;. . . ,,,,:·:-·· SITE ' F /. ,/::~r .'.'T:; /f: 3d\ E ! ~};:'";;'"'s,ai-,~,,cc, :,;;;- · •.. '~ i
·-·~·•.. 'Lil w · •.
. ··:~··l.::·:
,cJinton Avenue
\ \:!; . \\,\; . \ ·:- : .:: •·.
/.\
!
·~?<
f.
32 'j!
I
'·,.'►. 32H
_;$(~70)
.1/.JJ l <~.
. 32J\>. HI (410);.
33 . I
l
;/i:
: ll.<~
,_; ,. i,:~· .....
,•' \,< ; ;~~-... -... , •. ,_., ___ , -
27 3 ..
..

FIGURE 2-LOCATION OF SELECTED TEST HOLES AND WELLS AND

SUBSURFACE GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTIONS
:~';
,:;
.,
"
u,
1751
the northwest to the southeast, north of Mendota.

Subsurface Geologic Cross Section H-H' (Figure 3) extends from near the extension of Avenue 6 on the north, to the southeast along the San Joaquin River, through the City wastewater treatment facility, to east of the former Mendota Biomass Plant.

Only three wells or test holes along this section apparently are deep enough to have reached the Corcoran Clay. The top of the Corcoran Clay is about 400 feet deep along this section. Since the section is nearly perpendicular to the inferred dip of the Corcoran Clay, the top of the clay appears to be nearly flat along this cross section . The thickness of this clay increases to the north along the section, from about 30 feet to more than 70 feet.
6 The A-Clay appears to be more continuous beneath the part of the section south of Mendota Dam. In this area the top of this clay ranges from about 70 to 100 feet in depth below the land surface. The clay is normally about 10 to 20 feet thick, except near the south part of the cross section. The clay is usually only about 10 feet thick and is missing at some locations along the part of the section north of the Dam. This discontinuity may be associated with the influence of the ancestral San Joaquin River in this area. Although Section H-H' does not pass through the City wells which are along Bass Avenue south of the Main Lift Canal (No. 2, 3, and 4), geologic and electric logs for these 1752
7 H H'
NORTH w <( w w ::) w I- ::> ::) SOUTH z w ::J
w 0 z z ::> z I ...J 0 ...J ui w w
r.o z w 0 <( w > > > I- z z <( <( <( <( w 0 0 <( UJ z :::, a:: z 0 :?:: <( (I) (I) z z <( ?;: <( z z ~o (I) 0 0 UJ ...J ...I ...I <( <( ...I I- ...I <( I w OJ ill z 200- :::> I (/) :c z UJ ::r: :J ro (/) <( 0 (/) 0 -200
e,___ ·: ·-_ ... - :- : ·-·~.---
1---. ----=--- ·~ ... :--=.-·._--;:-·-.·•
T.D. 600
-500- '---500
0 1,000 2,000
FIGURE 3-SUBSURFACE GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION H-H' HORIZONTAL SCALE (FEET) 1753
wells indicate that the A-Clay is also missing in this area. No other laterally extensive, significant confining beds are indicated to be present along this section. Sand and gravel are common above the A-Clay along this section, and several major sand strata are present below the A-Clay and above the Corcoran Clay. These coarse-grained deposits are derived from the Sierra Nevada and are generally highly permeable.

Cross Section J-J' (Figure 4) extends from near Shaw Avenue to the southeast, along the San Joaquin River branch of the Mendota Pool to near San Mateo Avenue. Site D (Figure 2) was eventually selected for the new City well field. Eight wells or test holes along this section reached the Corcoran Clay, and many of these also penetrated the base of this clay. The top of the Corcoran Clay appears to be slightly deeper beneath the southeast part of the section. The Corcoran Clay ranges from about 40 to 60 feet in thickness along this section.

The A-Clay appears to be missing along most of this section west of the San Joaquin River. Where it is present, the clay appears to be somewhat discontinuous, and to be present at two different depths in the part of the section east of the San Joaquin River. Near and east of Site C, the top of the A-Clay is about 20 to 50 feet deep, and the clay is about 5 to 20 feet thick. Farther east, the clay is deeper, and the top ranges from about 70 to 90 feet in deep. The A-Clay appears to thicken 8 1754
_I
w
> w
_I
<(
w
Cf)
z
<(
w
0 1-
w
>
_I
w
a:
z
0 > w
_I
w
J

NORTHWEST
200-
100
-400-
-soo-
....J
<(
z
<(
<( 0
~g 00
z
w
....J
<(
z
<(
()
z
<(

EXPLANATION
fo:/H Sand
Sand and Gravel
Sandy clay, clayey
sand, and silt
Clay
12N Well and Identification
:d_ Perforations
T.D. 380 Total Depth (feet)
0 1,000 2,000
I I

HORIZONTAL SCALE (FEET)
u.i u..i
'S;j- l{) ra: ri
(') (".)
18L
z
5 0 a: 0 LU
<( >
cc
<(
CJ)
T.D.440

BASE OF

CORCORAN CLAY
20G 16P 21H 22N •• 22P
FIGURE 4-SUBSURFACE G.EOLOGIC CROSS SECTION J-J'
JI

SOUTHEAST
22R 27A
'
.- 200
0 -- ------ - -400
---------
---------
-----
·-· -
T.D. 595
--soo
rn r rn
0 z
JJ
rn r
)>
-I
<
rn
-I
0 rn
)>
z
Cf)
rn
)>
r
rn
< rn
r
,.-.,
"Tl
CD CD
c
9 1755
10 to the east along this section, from about five feet at Well 16P almost 40 feet at Well 27A. The results of groundwater monitoring north of the San Joaquin River in the area along the east part of this section indicate that the A-Clay is a significant confining bed in this area. No other laterally extensive confining beds are indicated to be present along this section. Numerous sand and some gravel layers are present above the Corcoran Clay. These deposits are also derived from the Sierra Nevada and are generally indicated to be highly permeable.

WATER SUPPY WELLS
Figure 1 shows locations of City of Mendota and CCID wells in the study area. The active City public supply wells (No. 7, 8, and 9) are located at the B&B Ranch south of the San Joaquin River. Table 1 summarizes construction data for these wells. The wells were constructed in Summer 2001, all-have cased depth of 405 feet, and they tap strata between the C-Clay and the Corcoran Clay. The City also has six wells near the north end of the~- dota Pool (the Fordel wells). Five of these wells are perforated from 50 to 100 feet in depth and primarily tap strata above·the A-Clay. The sixth well (termed Fordel M-1) is perforated from 200 to 300 feet in depth, and taps strata between the A-Clay and Corcoran Clay. Water from the Fordel wells is pumped into the Mendota Pool, as part of an agreement with the B&B Ranch allowing the 1756
TABLE 1-CONSTRUCTION DATA FOR CITY OF MENDOTA PUBLIC SUPPLY WELLS Date Drilled Cased Casing Perforated
No. Drilled -- Depth (feet) Depth (feet) Diameter (inches) Interval (feet) 7 06/01 420 405 14 260-395
8 08/01 405 405 14 240-375
9 08/01 405 405 16 260-395
Records from well completion reports.

Annular Seal
(feet)
0-240
0-230
0-240
-.I.
....i.
1757
City to pump water from the City public supply wells on the B&B Ranch.

Table 2 shows construction data for four CCID wells in the Headgate area. Cased depths of these wells range from 210 to 360 feet, and the top of the perforations range from 80 to 200 feet deep. Two of these wells (SA and 32C) tap strata between the A-Clay and the C-Clay. The two other wells (28D and 35A) tap strata between the A-Clay and the Corcoran Clay.

WATER LEVELS
Water-Level Elevations
12 Water-level elevations contour and direction of groundwater flow maps are routinely prepared in the Mendota area by Luhdorff & Scalmanini for the MPG pumping program. One set of maps is for the "shallow zone", or above the A-Clay. Another is for the "deep zone", which is between the A-Clay and the Corcoran Clay.

Figure 5 shows water-level elevations and the direction of groundwater flow for the shallow zone in Winter 2016-17. Waterlevel elevations ranged from 180 feet above mean sea level southwest of Mendota to less than 70 feet north-northeast of Mendota. Two pumping depressions were indicated. One was southeast of the City, around a number of MPG shallow wells west of the Fresno Slough branch of the pool. Another was east of the City of Firebaugh and west of the Chowchilla Bypass. A 1758
TABLE 2-CONSTRUCTION DATA FOR CCID WELLS
Date Drilled Cased Casing Perforated Annular Seal
No. Drilled -- Depth (feet) Depth (feet) Diameter (inches) Interval (feet) (feet) SA 04/90 270 260 16 100-260 0-20
28D 04/03 378 360 17.4 200-360 0-50
32C 04/06 210 210 16 80-200 0-50
35A 02/66 311 154 16 90-154 0-30
311 14 154-311
Data from well completion reports.
-.I.
w
1759
. Well Name and Water Level Elevation
,------,
1 __ J Recharge Ponds
-,~~ij1~~1_ ..... Water Level Elevation Contour (NAVO 88) (approximate where dashed)
FIGURE 5-WATER-LEVEL ELEVATIONS AND DIRECTION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW FOR THE SHALLOW ZONE (WINTER 2016-17) ~
1760
recharge ridge was indicated beneath the San Joaquin River branch of the pool. None of the MPG wells in the FWD (south of the east branch of the pool) are perforated above the A-Clay. 15 Figure 6 is a water-level elevation and direction of groundwater flow map for the deep zone in Winter 2016-17. Water-level elevations ranged from 160 feet above mean sea level southwest of Mendota less than 40 feet in the area west of the Chowchilla Bypass and north of Avenue 5. Groundwater was flowing from the southwest and south toward a pumping depression in the north part of the Aliso Water District. The direction of groundwater flow beneath the City was to the east. The water-level elevations for the deep zone do not indicate a recharge ridge beneath the San Joaquin River, and this is due to the A-Clay.

Time Trends
Figure 7 is a water-level hydrograph for City of Mendota Public Supply Well No. 7 for 2003-16. Depth to water has ranged from about 50 feet to about 160 feet. Overall, the shallowest levels in the winter have been relatively stable, but the deepest levels have shown a decline averaging about 4.8 feet per year.

Figure 8 is a water-level hydrograph for City of Mendota Fordel Well No. M-1 for 1993-2016. This well taps strata between the A-Clay and Corcoran Clay. Depth to water ranged from about 30 to more than 120 feet. Overall, the shallowest seasonal water levels rose from 1993-1998, associated with a reduction 1761
Modified from Luhdorff & Scalmanini. .

Deep We'll Name and Water Level Elevation

6. Composite Well Name and Water Level Elevation
~1- Water Level Elevation Contour (NAVO 88)
, r.---,
Recharge Ponds
FIGURE 6-WATER-LEVEL ELEVATIONS AND DIRECTION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW FOR THE DEEP ZONE (WINTER 2016-17)
a)
1762
-.....

Cl)
J!!
-I.
.e
cu
== .s
.c:
.....

C.

Cl)
C
City of Mendota Well No. 7
0 20
40 IJ
60 80
100
- I
~II '~· t' ., .} . I~
:d ~ i If • '
•• ., ~· .r· ·r i
120
140
160
180
200
2000 2005
Modified from Luhdorff & Scalmanini.
-
I
~ I ~
, II
,k
I~
.~.
,.

II
2010
Date
J ■
V \ I
\ /
I
V II
- II ~·
, ...
2015
I . 11
I
II
J•
.
1 11.· 1*
.~
2020
._.i.

FIGURE 7-WATER-LEVEL HYDROGRAPH FOR CITY OF MENDOTA WELL NO. 7 ~ 1763
Z"
Cl)
~
-:i..

JB
ns
3:
.s
. .c
....

C.

Cl)
C
.,,---
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
-
I . l
\ -I[ \
■ \
\ \ \
' • 1
80 90
100
\ ~
\ \ .. \ ■
■
110
120
130
140
150
Fordel M-1
I,
I ~.-. I ·. H .1
I II I
I
I l
I 11
II I I
I Ii
\ I II
\ .
\ I
II
Ill ■■
. 11
II
Reference Elevation: 162 feet NAVD88
Perforated Interval: 200 - 300 feet .

I lh ~ .• \~ I~-,
I ■\· ·~ II
~
11 \ I I
\ ,n
~- * ,.
■
I'
I
I
'
Total Depth: 300 feet
Depth Zone: DEEP
·~· IL .· ■ .

II I I . 1'.
\
\
I \
n.

II
·•·
1990 1995 2000 2005
Date
2010 2015
Modified from Luhdorff & Scalmanini.

FIGURE 8-WATER-LEVEL HYDROGRAPH FOR CITY OF MENDOTA
FORDEL WELL M-1
2020
~
0::,
1764
19 in pumping from deep MPG wells along the Fresno Slough branch of the pool . The shallowest levels were then relatively stable through early 2013, then fell during 2013-16. The deepest seasonal levels have varied significantly.

Figure 8 is a water-level hydrograph for City of Mendota Forde! Well No . M-2 for 1993-2016. This well primarily taps strata above the A-Clay . Depth to water ranged from about 15 to almost 50 feet. The shallowest seasonal levels rose after 1993 through 1997, associated with a reduction in pumpage from shallow MPG wells west of the Fresno Slough branch of the pool . Overall, the shallowest levels were relatively stable from 1997 through 2011, then fell during 2012-16 . Deepest seasonal levels have slightly risen during the period of record.

Figure 9 is a water-level hydrograph for CCID Well No. SA, which is located close to Mendota Dam and taps strata between the C-Clay and Corcoran Clay. Depth to water ranged from about 10 to 55 feet. The shallowest seasonal water levels fell during 1993-94 due to heavy pumping from deep MPG wells west of the Fresno Slough branch of the Mendota Pool. Shallow water levels recovered after 1994, and were relatively stable until late 2011. Shallow water levels then fell during 2012-16. Deep water levels have fluctuated significantly, but show a relatively stable trend.
1765
Z"
Cl)
~
-:i...

JB
cu
~
.s
.c: .....,
C.

Cl)
C
Fordel M-2
Reference Elevation: 161.45 feet NAVD88 Total Depth: 100 feet perforated Interval: 50 - 100 feet Depth Zone: SHALLOW
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
~· ! ·~i \ - . - .

I I". I
.. ' ( I I i
II · )1 • . fr ) I .) I .~ ... I ,
,I I 1 ~ I r I \ I \I . I~. ~ ' \ I
{1 I I . ~I~ ll I LI \
I \ 1 .. ■ \J I -\~ ~- ' \ j I ii II .. . , I :\. \· ~ ~ \ ■ -- ~ :-i ~ \l L- I I
,, ' .• II .
-· "J I I
• . II Ill
I
50 II
55 60
65 70
75 1990 1995 2000 ·200-5
Date
2010 2015
Modified from Luhdorff & Scalmanini.

FIGURE 9-WATER-LEVEL HYDROGRAPH FOR CITY OF MENDOTA
FORDEL WELL M-2
2020
tv
0 1766
Z"
(1)
~
-:r...
s
ns
s:
.9
.c: .....,
C.
(1)
C
0 5
10 "
15 20
25 30
35 40
45 50
55 60
65 70
75 1990
t' ■
\ \
\ \
j \
i
,.__. ~ ,I
" "' i
~
\
\
~
1995
Modified from Luhdorff & Scalmanini.

CCID Well No. SA
. )1
/
. I·
·I \ I I I I
I II ii.. I
I . ~
• I \ l'
11, 1 . 111
: II • .. ••
• I I 1
111 I .

I . II
I •• I ~ II
2000
Reference Elevation: 155.52.feetNAVDBB Total Depth: 260 feet Perforated Interval: 100 - 260 feet Depth Zone: DEEP
. 1i ••
II ~ ' 11 I ·'.t. -~ ·1
II ~ '. \
\
t
2005
Date
-1
·-~ I
II
• ·I

1. 11 I
I • I u~ •. II
\
~~
I~~ I ,· ■
,.i.·
2010
I I I . j Iii
. I / •
I I ·I
I
•· I . I • 1 \I'. I I•
I
-~
I . I
11· .. II .

J . II .. ,. .. 111 :
1-,.
-
2015
FIGURE 10-WATER-LEVEL HYDROGRAPH FOR CCID WELL SA
2020
l\J
~
1767
22 Figure 11 is a water-level hydrograph for ccm Well 35A, which is located about a mile and a half north of Well No. SA. Records extend fran 1966 to 2016. This well taps strata between the A-Clay and the Corcoran Clay. Depth to water ranged from about 5 to 35 feet. Water levels were relatively stable over the long-term, with declines during dry periods and recoveries in the following years.

AQUIFER CHARACTERISTICS
Table 3 shows pump tests for City of Mendota public supply wells in November 2016. Pumping rates ranged from about 1,080 to 1,230 gpm, and specific capacities ranged from about 37 to 46 gpm per foot of drawdown. The specific capacity values are higher than they should be, because true static water levels weren't measured. Thus the drawdowns shown aren't as large as they actually were.

Table 4 shows pump tests for the four CCID wells in the study area from 2017. Pumping rates ranged from about 600 to 1, 760 gpm, and specific capacities ranged from about 8 to 37.5 gpm per foot.

KOSA (1999) summarized information on aquifer characteristics in the Mendota area. Transmissivity values for most of the tested wells tapping strata below the A-clay and above the Corcoran Clay averaged 72,000 gpd per foot. A storage coefficient of 0.001 was determined from a two-week long aquifer test on Well T13S/R14E-24Ml, north of Mendota, in 1988-89. A constant 1768
:;:;-
Cl)
~
-s...
.$
cu .
3:
.s
..c:
...

C.

Cl)
0 0
5 10
15 20
25 111
\{
30 35
40 45
50 55
60 65
70 75
1965
j
11 f'\
~ . \ / "1
,;
II
1970
.I . i
1(
I \1
H a:.... I . n /
"'i{ 11
1975 1980
Modified from Luhdorff & Scalmanini.

CCID Well No. 35 & 35A
■
,.. ■ \. ... i ~ ■
f ■ -~
Reference Elevation: 153 feet NAVD88
Perforated Interval: . 80 - 190 fe~t
-
-~- ~~ , ..
t ' \
- \
• • . If l . I
~ f: I -~
,L, I•
\ ~ ·• .. ~J ■ "
~ I \ . 1111 . -
-
J
,_
r·
I
Total Depth: 190 feet
Depth Zone: DEEP
~ I
I .
~-~ u~ ,. ~ ~~ •• Ill
- , ~I
-
,I ----
'•
1985 1990 1995
Date
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
FIGURE 11-WATER-LEVEL HYDROGRAPH FOR CCID WELL 35A
t--.J
w
1769
TABLE 3-PUMP TEST DATA FOR CITY OF MENDOTA WELLS
Date Pumping Static Pumping Drawdown Specific Capacity
No. Tested Rate (feet) Level (feet) Level (inches) (feet) (gpm/ft) --7 11/30/16 1,200 88.0 114.0 26.0 46.2 8 11/30/16 1,231 87.0 115.0 28.0 44.0
9 11/30/16 1,081 85.0 114.0 29.0 37.3
"Static levels" are 5-minute recovery levels, and are thus deeper than true static levels.

N
i.i:::.
1770
TABLE 4-PUMP TEST DATA FOR CCID WELLS
Date Pumping Static Pumping Drawdown
No. Tested Rate (feet) Level (feet) Level (feet)) (feet) --SA 7/30/18 1,179 31.7 180.8 149.1 28D 7/31/18 1,650 41.0 95.0 44.0
32C 7/30/18 600 27.0 90.0 63.0
35A 7/31/15 1,756 19.5 94.2 74.7
Data from Central Irrigation District.

Specific Capacity
(gpm/ft)

7.9 37.5

9.5 23.5
N
u,
1771
26 discharge test was conducted on City Well No. 9 in July 2001 .

The average pumping rate was 1,000 gpm, the specific capacity was 30.0 gpm per foot, and a transmissivity of 69,000 gpd per foot was obtained from recovery measurements. This was in good agreement with the average transmissivity for most of the previous tests in the Mendota area.

KOSA conducted a 72-hour constant discharge test on two Coburn Ranch wells in November 2014. These wells (No. 65 and 66) were located about a mile east of CCID Well No . 28C, just west of the Helm Ditch. These wells were about 260 feet deep and tapped strata primarily between the A-Clay and C-Clay. Five other deep zone wells were used as observation wells for the test. A specific capacity of 25 gpm per foot was obtained for Well 65 and 14 gpm per foot for Well 66 . A distance-drawdown plot indicated a transmissivity of 116,000 gpd per foot and a storage coefficient of 0.0013 . Corrected recovery measurements for five of the wells indicated an average t ransmissiv ity of 118,000 gpd per foot . Thus the best transmissivity value for the test was 117,000 gpd per foot.

PUMPAGE
City of Mendota
Table 5 shows annual pumpage from City of Mendota public supply wells for 2003-2017. The highest pumpage was in 2008-12 1772
TABLE 5-ANNUAL PUMPAGE FROM

CITY OF MENDOTA WELLS
Pwn;eag:e (acre-feet)
Year Public su;e;el:r: Fordel
2003 1,589 1,840
2004 1,665 1,825
2005 1,622 1,993
2006 1,632 1,219
2007 1,800 1,788
2008 1,803 2,473
2009 1,954
2010 1,800 988
2011 1,912
2012 1,800 1,813
2013 1,511 2,464
2014 1,388 1,966
2015 1,397 1,972
2016 1,727 2,038
2017 1,841 83
27 1773
28 and in 2017 (1,800 to about 1,840 acre-feet per year). During the drought in 2014-15 the pumpage was about 1,400 acre-feet per year.

The San Luis Delta Mendota Water Authority provided annual pumpage values for the City Fordel wells from 2003-2017. These values represent pumpage from the wells minus a five percent loss that was applied to each month while pumping occurred. Annual pumpage ranged from 83 acre-feet in 2017 to about 2,470 acre-feet in 2008 and 2013. Low pumpage years were when San Joaquin and/or Kings River water was entering the Mendota Pool and transfer pumping was minimal.

CCID
Pumpage from nine CCID wells in the Headgate well field was about 690 acre-feet in 2016. Of that amount, about 300 acrefeet was from wells in the study area.

CITY EFFLUENT
City of Mendota effluent is discharged to 76 acres of percolation ponds at a site west of the Fresno Slough branch of the pool and south of the San Joaquin River branch . In 2017, about 1,180 acre-feet of effluent were discharged. It is estimated that about 300 acre-feet per year of the effluent were evaporated each year, and the reminder, or about 880 acre-feet per year percolated to the groundwater.
1774

CANAL WATER DELIVERIES
The Columbia Canal Co. delivers canal water to 800 acres of land in the study area. From 2003-2016, an average of 1,630 acre-feet per year of water were delivered.

CONSUMPTIVE USE
Urban
29 The amount of outside water use is estimated by deducting the amount of sewage effluent from the pumpage. For 2017, the estimated City pumpage was about 1,840 acre-feet per year and the effluent flow was about 1,180 acre-feet per year. The outside water use for the City was thus 660 acre-feet per year. Assuming an irrigation efficiency of 70 percent, the consumptive use would be about 460 acre-feet per year. Combined with about 300 acre-feet per year of evaporation from the effluent ponds, the total urban consumptive use was about 760 acre-feet per year.

Rural
For 2003-08, values of evapotranspiration of applied water (ETrw) were taken from ITRC 1997-2018 water use study report.

For 2009-16, the total evapotranspiration of crops (ETc) was calculated based on the relationship between Eto and Kc values.

For the 800 acres of irrigated land in the Columbia Canal Co. service area south of the San Joaquin River, the estimated evap1775 otranspiration of applied water averaged about 2,800 acre-feet per year.

Total
30 The estimated total consumptive use in the study area as of 2017 was 3,560 acre-feet per year. There was an estimated 3,740 acre-feet of canal water and Mendota Pool water used in the study area. Considering the error of estimate, the surface water used was slightly greater than the total consumptive use.

LAND SUBSIDENCE
As of 1972, there had been about four feet of land subsidence at Mendota. Because there has been little pumpage from below the Corcoran Clay at and near Mendota, this subsidence was attributed to pumping from below the Corcoran Clay in the area southwest of Mendota and also in Madera County, northeast of Mendota. The Fordel compaction recorder was installed near the Mendota Airport by the MPG in 1999. This recorder monitors subsidence due to compaction above the Corcoran Clay. Figure 12 shows co~paction for the Fordel recorder for 1999-2018. Although there was a small amount of compaction (about 0.05 foot) above the Corcoran Clay, most of this compaction was reversible.

That is, once water levels recovered after pumping episodes, the land surface rebounded.
1776
-0.05 9 0,05
g

0.00 .. 0.05
.s
o.o.o
·o.05
c» 0;10 e 0
Cl) 0.15 C

0.10 g 0.15 C:

Cl) .0
Ji 0.20 -a; 0,25 12
0 Us 0,30
....
tu
0,35
D 0,40 C
l! 0.45 e 0 0.50 (.)

0.20 I 0.25 0
m

0.30 a.. .g 0.36 'Cl
C

0.40 Cl)
:&
I 0.,45 ,; C
0 I 0,50 = i
i 0.55 C
.a
< p.60 C
0 ·0.65
Q.

0.55 E 0.6Q 8
o.es Inl
a. 0.70 E 0.7()
0 0 0.75 0.75
OeSO ._____..__........_ .......... ......_.........,==--------- -----.....!,,,=~......1.----------------........ ____. 0.80 J.al\-99 Jan-01 JcUH)3 - J,an-05 Jsn-07 Jan~ J:an-11 jime13 J~15 Ja.~17 Jai,9 19 · ----Fordel Compaction Recorder o Fordeff Dial Indicator - PBO Station P304 Compaction (10 day average) g
....
s
.•C,
0 -
i
a.

Q
90 100
110
120 130
140
l50
160
170
180
l I
I i
190 · j
200 · : 113-S1R15E-3U6 ls a lower aquifer we l with perforations'. 4&0; 90 feet bel w grounds rface 210 I 1 I , I I 1 22.0 1..-....:... _____ ____: ___ ._ __ ..._ __ ...._ __ ....:... __ .....1., __ ----: ___ .......,_ J~9 Jan-01 Jan-03 Ja.n-06 Jan-07 Jan-0~ . Jan-11 Jan:.13 Jan-15 Jan-17 _....,._Depth to Water(Manual} Depth to Water (Transducer) FIGURE 12 - COMPACTION AND WATER LEVELS

ATTHEFORDEL RECORDER
Jan-19
31 1777
32 There is a GPS monitoring station (P304) south of Mendota between Highway 33 and the Fresno Slough branch of the Mendota Pool. This station measures land subsidence due to compaction from the land surface to the depths of the deepest wells in the area (about 1,200 feet deep). There was little land subsidence at the station during 2004-2006. Total subsidence was about 0.8 feet between January 2007 and January 2018.

CHANGE IN GROUNDWATER STORAGE
Because there was no significant change in water levels for the unconfined aquifer (shallow zone) prior to the recent drought, there was no storage change over the hydrologic base period. The lower aquifer remained full of water, even though the water levels fell about 100 feet between January 2007 and January 2017. This was due to pumping in the Westlands W.D. and in Madera County, as there was insignificant pumpage from the lower aquifer in the Mendota area. There was a change in storage for the confining beds (Corcoran Clay and deeper ones). Multiplying the 0.8 foot decline in land surface elevation over a 2,400-acre area, this would be equivalent to a storage change of about 1,920 feet over ten years, or an average of about 190 acre-feet per year.

GROUNDWATER QUALITY
City Wells
1778
33 Public Supply Wells
Table 7 provides chemical analyses of water from the City of Mendota Public Supply Wells. The samples were collected primarily in November 2015. The waters were of the sodium-mixed anion type. Total dissolved solids (TDS) concentrations ranged from 270 to 520 mg/1. Nitrate concentrations were less than 1 mg/1, likely indicative of anaerobic conditions, which are common in the Mendota area. Iron, manganese, arsenic, hexavalent chromium, and selenium concentrations and alpha activities were below the respective MCLs. The boron concentration was 1.1 mg/1, high enough to affect boron sensitive crops.

Fordel Wells
Table 8 provides chemical analyses of water from City of Mendota Fordel wells. Well M-1 is perforated below the A-Clay and above the Corcoran Clay. The total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration was 2,370 mg/1, much higher for this well compared to the nearby shallow Fordel wells. Water from this well was of the sodium sulfate-chloride type. The sulfate concentration was 550 mg/1, exceeding the MCL of 250 mg/1. The manganese concentration was 0.29 mg/1, exceeding the MCL of 0.05 mg/1.

Water from three other Fordel wells that were sampled, which primarily tap strata above the A-clay, had TDS concentrations ranging from about 570 to 900 mg/1. Water from these wells was 1779
TABLE 7-CHEMICAL QUALITY OF WATER FROM

CITY OF MENDOTA PUBLIC SUPPLY WELLS
Constituent (mg/1)
Calcium
Magnesium
Sodium
Bicarbonate
Sulfate
Chloride
Nitrate
Fluoride
pH
Electrical Conductivity
(micromhos/cm@ 25°C)
Total Dissolved Solids
(@ 180°C)
Iron
Manganese
Arsenic (ppb)
Hexavalent Chromium (ppb)
Selenium (ppb)
Alpha Activity
(picocuries per liter)
Date
Perforated Interval (feet)
No. 7
3 <1
170
195
110
95 <1

0.6 8.2
810
520
<0.1

0.03 6.7
<1
<5

6.1 11/24/15
260-395
No. 8
<1
<1
84 122
26 47
<1

0.4 8.5
400
270

0.17 <0.02
<2
<1
<5

3.9 11/24/15
210-375
No. 9
3 <1
150
180
80 89
<1

0.5 8.3
730
460
<O.l

0.02 <2
<1
<5
<3
11/24/15
260-395
MCL
45 500

0.3 0.05
10 10
10 15
Samples for hexavalent chromium were collected on 12/23/14 and for alpha activity were collected on 2/12/13. w
~
1780
TABLE 8-CHEMICAL QUALITY OF WATER FROM

CITY OF MENDOTA FORDEL WELLS
Constituent (mg/1) M-1 M-2 M-3
Calcium 42 28 33
Magnesium 5 11 15
Sodium 466 124 125
Potassium 6 3 4
Carbonate <10 <10 <10
Bicarbonate 200 120 140
Sulfate 550 86 114
Chloride 300 98 127
Nitrate <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
Fluoride 0.3 0.2 0.2
Boron 1.1 0.4 0.4
Iron 0.10 2.2 3.5
Manganese 0.29 0.48 0.55
pH 7.7 6.9 6.6
Electrical Conductivity
(micromhos/cm@ 25°C) 2,370 760 900
Total Dissolved Solids 1,570 470 558
Sodium Adsorption Ratio 18.1 5.0 4.5
Date 8/26/15 8/26/15 8/26/15
Perforated Interval (feet) 200-300 50-100 50-100
Analyses by FGL Environmental of Santa Paula
M-4
29 14
64 3
<10
130
38 77
<0.5

0.2 0.2

2.6 0.70

6.7 571
355

2.4 8/26/15
50-100
w
u,
1781
36 of the sodium bicarbonate-chloride type. Concentrations of iron and manganese exceeded the respective recommended MCLs of 0.3 and 0.05 mg/1. The chemical quality of shallow groundwater at these wells is primarily due to seepage for the Mendota Pool and the nearby City effluent ponds. Boron concentrations ranged from 0.2 to 0.4 mg/1, suitable for irrigation of crops.

CCID Wells
Table 9 provides chemical analyses of water from four CCID wells near Mendota from July 2016. TDS concentrations ranged from 680 to 1,100 mg/1. Sulfate concentrations ranged from 220 to 460 mg/1, compared to the recommended MCL of 250 mg/1. Nitrate concentrations were less than 0.2 mg/1, indicative of anaerobic conditions in the groundwater. Boron concentrations ranged from 0.4 to 1.6 mg/1. Historical analyses of water from a number of wells in the Headgate area indicate degradation in salinity, due to inflow of poor quality groundwater from the southwest, and possibly from downward flow from poor quality shallower groundwater.

WATER BUDGET
The Columbia Canal Co. delivered an average of 1,630 acrefeet per year of canal water to 800 acres of crops in the study area during 2003-16. The urban consumptive use was 760 acre1782 TABLE 9-CHEMICAL QUALITY OF WATER FROM CCID WELLS
Constituent (mg/1) Well 5-A 28D 32C 35A -- Calcium 26 24 75 70 Magnesium 6 4 31 34
Sodium 200 340 230 180
Potassium 4 4 5 6
Bicarbonate 159 183 171 171
Sulfate 220 320 460 320
Chloride 120 230 140 170
Nitrate <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2
Boron 0.48 0.96 1.6 0.4
pH 8.1 8.0 7.9 7.5
Electrical Conductivity
(micromhos/cm@ 25°C) 1,100 1,700 1,600 1,400
Total Dissolved Solids 680 1,100 1,100 880
Date 7/28/16 7/28/16 7/28/16 7/28/16
Perforated Interval (feet) 100-260 200-360 80-200 90-311 Analyses by BSK Associates of Fresno.
w
-..J
1783
38 feet per year during that period. For the rural area, the evapotranspiration of applied water averaged 2,800 acre-feet per year. The estimated total consumptive use in the study area was thus 3,560 acre-feet per year during 2003-16. There was an estimated 3,740 acre-feet per year of canal water and Mendota Pool water used in the study area. This value thus slightly exceeded the estimated total consumptive use in the study area.

The average annual pumpage for City of Mendota wells (including the Fordel wells) was about 3,500 acre-feet per year . There was another 300 acre-feet per year for CCID wells. The total pwnpage was about 3,800 acre-feet per year. Sources of recharge include seepage of City effluent (880 acre-feet per year), deep percolation from urban irrigation (200 acre-feet per year), and deep percolation from irrigated lands in the CCC (about 500 acre-feet per year). There was an additional recharge due to seepage from the Mendota Pool and groundwater inflow in the upper aquifer. Water-level records indicate that there was essentially no change in storage in the unconfined aquifer during 2003-16. The groundwater inflows and outflows (above and below the A-clay) acted to maintain the water budget . This indicates that the groundwater inflow and pool seepage exceeded the outflow by about 2,400 acre-feet per year . 1784
39 REFERENCES Kenneth D. Schmidt & Associates, 1999, "Groundwater Conditions in the Vicinity of the City of Mendota" report prepared for CCID and City of Mendota, SSp.

Kenneth D. Schmidt & Associates, 2008, "Groundwater Conditions in the Vicinity of the B&B Ranch, Northeast of Mendota" report prepared for City of Mendota, 20p.

Kenneth D. Schmidt & Associates, 2019, "Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model and Groundwater Conditions for the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Service Area GSP" draft report prepared for SJREC GSA, Los Banos, California, 134p.

Luhdorff & Scalmanini and Kenneth D. Schmidt and Associates, 2018, "Mendota Pool Group Pumping and Monitoring Program: 2017 Annual Report", prepared for SJRECWA, Wonderful Orchards, and Mendota Pool Group.
1785
Appendix W. Groundwater Conditions in
the Turner Island Water District – 2 GSA

1786

GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS IN THE
TURNER ISLAND WATER DISTRICT-2 GSA
prepared for
San Joaquin River Exchange
Contractors GSA
Los Banos, California
by
Kenneth D. Schmidt & Associates
Groundwater Quality Consultants
Fresno, California
May 2019
1787
KENNETH D. SCHMIDT AND ASSOCIATES

GROUNDWATER QUALITY CONSULTANTS
600 WEST SHAW AVE., SUITE 250
FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93704
TELEPHONE (559) 224-4412
Mr. Chris White, Executive Director
San Joaquin River Exchange
Contractors GSA
P.O. Box 2115
Los Banos, CA 93635
Re: Turner Island W.D. GSP of the

SJREC GSP
Dear Chris:

May 31, 2019
Submitted herewith is our report on groundwater conditions in the Turner Island W.D. GSP. We appreciate the cooperation of the CCID and Turner Island W.D. in providing information for this report.

Sincerely Yours,
t~/f~~A'b
Kennett D. Schmidt
Geologist No. 1578
Certified Kydrogeologist 176
1788

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

INTRODUCTION

SUBSURFACE GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS

WELL DATA

WATER LEVELS

PUMP TEST DATA

PUMPAGE

SLCC WATER DELIVERIES

CONSUMPTIVE USE

CHANGE IN GROUNDWATER STORAGE

WATER BUDGET

LAND SUBSIDENCE

GROUNDATER QUALITY

APPENDIX A WATER-LEVEL HYDROGRAHS FOR DISTICT WELLS
i
Page
ii
iii
1 1
3 3
11 11
11 14
14 14
15 15
1789
No.
1 2

LIST OF TABLES
Title
Construction Data for Turner Island WD
Wells
Pumpage from Turner Island WD Wells
3 SLCC Canal Water Deliveries and Crop
Evapotranspiration
4 Chemical Quality of Water from Turner
Island WD Wells
ii
6 12
13 17
1790
No.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Title
Location of Turner island Water District
Study Area
Locations of District Wells and Subsurface
Geologic Cross Section A-A'
Subsurface Geologic Cross Section A-A'
Water-Level Elevations and Direction of
Groundwater Flow for February 13, 2019
Water-Level Hydrograph for Turner Island
WD Well No. 1
Water-Level Hydrograph for Turner Island
WD Well No. 3
Land Subsidence (December 2011-July 2013)
iii
2 4
5 8
9 10
16 1791

GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS IN THE
TURNER ISLAND WATER DISTRICT-2 GSA

INTRODUCTION
As part of the Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) for the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors (SJREC) GSP service area, GSPs for a number of cities and other areas in Merced County, ineluding part of the Turner Island W.D., are being incorporated into the SJREC GSP. The District (Figure 1) is located south of the San Joaquin River and west of Poso Drive, northeast of the City of Los Banos. The study area is located just to the north of lands in the service area of the San Luis Canal Co., which are part of the SJREC GSA. The report is intended to provide information on groundwater conditions within and near the Turner Island W.D. study area.

SUBSURFACE GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
The Corcoran Clay is a regional confining bed that extends throughout much of the west part of the San Joaquin Valley. This clay divides the groundwater into an overlying upper aquifer and underlying lower aquifer. The top of the Corcoran Clay is about 180 feet deep beneath the study area. There is a shallow clay layer that is less extensive in the valley, but is important beneath the District. This is termed the A-Clay. The top of the Aclay ranges from about 25 to 60 feet deep above the District. 1792
15 14 13 18
22 23 24 19
T
H
SA
R.1
1 E
R.1
2 E
!( !(
!(
!(!(
0 0.5 1 0.25
Miles
.

FIGURE 1 - LOCATION OF TURNER ISLAND WATER DISTRICT STUDY AREA 1 4
2 17
3 T.9S
EXPLANATION;

SJREC GSA
Merced County GSA
!(
TIWD-2 GSA
Well and Number For Wells
Within Turner Island Water District
17932
Shallow groundwater is often present beneath this clay layer. As part of this evaluation, a subsurface geologic cross section (A-A') was prepared (Figure 2) based on logs for District wells. 3 Cross Section A-A" (Figure 3) extends from District Well No. 3-TH to the northwest to the southeast through Well No.4-TH, then to the east-northeast to Well 16. The holes for Wells No. 3 and 4 extend below the Corcoran Clay. Fine-grained deposits were predominant above the Corcoran Clay at the test hole for Well No. 4, whereas coarse-grained deposits (sand) were more ccmnon above the Corcoran Clay at the test hole for Well No. 3 and at Well No. 16. The Corcoran Clay extended from about 180 to 230 feet in depth at the test hole Well No. 3 and from about 165 to 218 feet in depth at the test hole for Well No. 4.

Coarse grained strata were common below the Corcoran Clay and above a depth of about 370 feet at the test hole for Wells No. 3 and 4.

WELL DATA
Table 1 provides construction data for the five wells within the District. These wells aren't owned by Districts. All of the wells tap the upper aquifer.

WATER LEVELS
Depth to water is shallow in the area, including for both upper aquifer and lower aquifer wells. A water-level elevation map is available for the upper aquifer in the San Luis Canal Co. service 1794
. I\•,
\ I~ 4t \•· .:,) ~ C::;" . . .. < I , ~1
1 1
( • 1 !
,. _ _, i-. ..... jj- 3·· ' ,.;-, - . : :; I --"-1 .. I,.,. I' .• ~~j.
-\ _,.·.·1 ···. - ;J "l"~---1·· .
,,; , I l
-=·-, .-.. , .. :\ ,,,/ . ·., I 'l
". \•.~,! ~- . ·~!., [ ::t,.
~· .....
_ . .:.:J°'.-•Ni.,r L
-~ ; ... /
.. : _9 ·,
·-,i "
...._ _. -"'\'" i
:-, .... t i
...... :J
df
lt
10~"
~1) -v-~~-=-.. / _...--. 7,--.1-. ~
-~• ........ ,;,
··:.:.
\ h . :' "~ If,)
\ ~1:,:- '._j _-.,.- ""--..
, .• -;i,_ ·>· -.. J\~~ - ' .;;:;..:,i\ f.;•_~;:\?:1•' . ' ,, T. 1
9 1/l
S __ ~"': -_,._.,-1(.'"t~--
1-. lJio. 17
• .. ~- ,.;'. a ·11 ':,.• .... ,r./.; i:t' '.'!;'_;_,~!'~ )·~,l lJ• • ·~1 lr' -, H:.:..~ •.J ~l1 ·, t• • -· 'I I t:,uo;p: · )(1 .• ,,~ r,',, l,, I- . .. : • I f~ _!i.16-• C t "' R C
t_1, - .;:_ 'L
I
E •-~--
'/!;
, . . ,.
1· ,-
ul; .)' - .
i,~-:.· .. --:,_-..,.-=--~-:: = •i, •-•-: "'!_-~:'i.. L :• • I
I 'j, ,/'
-'i --.: ·---
~ - [l
t ' -
( 'I.~ - ...
~:;.}~;?,~} ::•~~;/Jt.,,,,c I I ,·':. • •- - /I .- '
1,-:~t~,t: _,'_ -ill ~;.·_--;.>-{; :.ti ' C I 1 's !. 't,_. 'i ·~';
l !/ : 'l:t
\. I , ...
'-~ 22 _.,j"W. -.a:
"\1,,
,r
_;, .. ,l,,,- .
:-:-·.::;---·
·: i . ·
-.
,l -~-/' ....
1~1 ,;•-
t ...
._..,,t "\
,.. . . ,:'~
" -c,"'-·
·•.-..: ·· -::'t.:, '."n
.,": 1- .I,;~ 7~'

EXPLANATION
1 l . -t --1 -· ' ; 1L_ .";)'1,ft.'/ilr• :.....,
;!I I I I•, • ' l'i:~r. ,: -"t';;:, i· • •
!fi""u•·,-.=·•·w• .. , •• ., -,;-..,- •:.,.w..,. ·1 __ • .,1 ·· · ·•••·~!!!' _ - W W ,. 2 1 I 1 I. •.._ I t . I '''.·-- T""" N : ' , ( ! :· - ,~ ~
\ 6 II -1, .... -:--
District Well and Identification
A 1~,1 l : I ; •
t··-::•-··-t . a: ; ~- l a ,. :rt ---::-.. r _I _ 1 1 i 1 ;.-·: : Subsurface Geologic Cross Section I ["--···---.. -~-- .. -...~,-A,•~---··i
a'. - u t· - - : 111:- ;': ·r,~ll'JJ / ·--.,..,,._,:·--·- ~ ---- -~...... I:. I " ,, ·- ·•-~ ..... ,. I ; ·: • j
.i,
111
.i '1\ ~ ... 12
!\ -~, l:r~-~f~;,:; ~-~; .. -· ::-~--~~
·,. t\.,\_ .... •~. '·':/ ri 'f •'.~"'~•~; .... . ..... ,...... 1., ·•-t \ ..,,.,,.,••-r \,. =
. ,:.:~t.1- A
1---2~· -- ., ,LT e
l~.-"i,,~-+-- -~ .

I.\
·, I
l 2fi
..~ .
,~, ll!
-~~~--
.. i 't('i-'11_,.;~,4.~ ""$--..·\, ....
"'i.:..:":i,,,-.,
- -~"'
' - !a.,W
.:.1!'!
i +l.l l N , :: ... , , 0
I
4,000
I
Q a
I
7 ~I
Scale (feet)
.. -
I
t
1,
t /•-
~- , ~M•"4, I
t i~>··,
1~
r...1i,
t~ 1
~1'01 1.-
1 No. 24 _.,,.• ,·· ii Bl•\ A"~'-.
- ·•. · N 21 ,· -~ - . 0. ;;,;Toi,,.
~
: _./:;
~ iar~~ .. _ l~j ,"'.,"' _,.·• ~-r .. -,.1 ::..1. ' '~ V V --·'""- ' '•~ :s --.,
.. • .~_.7'o,d '"-.. :. --tr~,- ~\ . 'ti•
-, rn·· <11,_, !'i: / Ji
~-- ~.,, ·"---. 1 :_.-;,~:..f';jJ..,,,. .. ·,
""'Turner Island WO,.
--in-..,..
~-•,. Ii;. -~
ii'
\
'
-\J'
A .N T 1•<~• ;~ - -i
19 ; •,,,!'~~;.;;:~ , ""-- •l•'i,.

Boundary
-~ t_ !"-~~ R ~-: ,~.. '\." -,- • ~~)t.!:>.-.·1 -T i!;- ~.,,_ - ·' .,,_,.-,,,, ~ - -. ,:o'lili6) . ·-•l/~ -.. .

I
~ · ·th~'· 2#
~
I , - · "-,~
(t,¾- /l • '- ~..,.-fa-"''? -.A-' ' '-.,•t~ -•
·,_ : .- . =,:"_ (~,,. - ·
-,
if; '!'
~ re .. 1---
,;"--,,y'
''"
·~1~
N
1 .... ·1p
,1 __ _ __ ... __ .,::-,. ..
1 ·•-
:.•
••!";:-- ~- -
.
i'~
,I ~~-~ i \
. ;
I
,-, lG
. -~..,~
2~
FIGURE 2 - LOCATIONS OF DISTRICT WELLS AND
SUBSURFACE GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION A-N.
.I'>
1795
~
if
_J
w
>
w
_J
<C
w
Cf)
z
<C
w
~
f2
w
>
~ _J
w
a:
z
0 ~ >
w
_J
w
120
80 40
0 -40
-so
-120
-160
-200
-240
-280
-320
-360
-400
-440
A
WEST
----=----- ~------ ____ ._,,,..._....,_,._. __ ---·--- • :;y- +-:=-· .,,... __ ;;._:~ ~-=--: ccc"-;-:-,-,.-~- -_. _= -zy--"'ir-·:c:>-. :-..,,.. _:,,r ~ .. -..,-..... - _..., ___ -- :--<:-----=<· .... _- ...... '-"'--="--,_,.•= ._.__..,_,__,,-""· ----- . ..,._.=-
T.D. 510
A'
EAST
T1 Farm s No. 24
• -...::..•,.-;::.;,:,;;::.:.-::., ,-~...:...;;;:_,..-=.,•.-= .• - ·-=-=-~ -------· - _ .. ·-- ----··-- - --.- _-·---···- -·-- -· -···--·-···- ----_: -·•--. :_-~--- - . ___ .,.,._ __ -::.= •-= -~c--"".::.,:- · ........,,,,,...,_.,,.. ·=•'-"'•=--=--~- ==-·-=-~:-_,,=-- ----~_-...,,_, ·...;~U=.:;{~-~\ =:---:;--"--- - - .,--. -__ ·--- . -.·• - -- . - ·•------ ··- .. --- --- - '"=-"'-·-~,.,;:;.-= ..: .. _-...,,,. _--=o:=,..·.-· . - --=-=-·- .-c-.-. ·.-:..:,..-_ -____ ~----:-_-_,.-~--- ---·:·....:.

T.D. 480
FIGURE 3 - SUBSURFACE GEOLOG IC CROSS SECTION A - A'
5 120
80 m
r
m 40 5;;
'-I EXPLANATION 6
0 z [J sand )J
m § Sandy Clay, Clayey Sand,
r or Mixture of Sand & Clay
~ 0c1ay
-40
< EZ2J A-Clay m
-I [ill] C-Clay
0 ~ Corcoran Clay $
-so
m T1 Farms No.16 Well or Hole )>
z
a and Identification
(/)
m Perforated Interval
)>
r
m T.D. 12O Total Depth (feet)
<
m ~ Water Level (1921)
r (Feb. 13, 2017)
71 0 1,000 (D
-1 20 ~ Horizontal Scale (Feet)
-160
-200
1796
Date
No. Constructed
1 2
3 9/12
4 9/12
17 TABLE 1 - CONSTRUCTION DATA FOR TURNER

ISLAND WO WELLS
Casing
Depth Drilled Cased Depth Diameter
(feet) (feet) (inches)
150 17.4
180 17.4
- 205 16 - 140 16
140 16
Perforated Annular
Interval Seal
(feet) (feet)
50- 180
60 - 180
80- 200 0 - 50
60- 140 0 - 50
C)
1797
7 area for February 2017. This map indicates water level elevations ranged from about 83 to 88 feet above mean sea level beneath the study area. The regional direction of groundwater flow was to the northwest, generally parallel to the San Joaquin River. Monthly water-level elevations are available for the Turner Island WO wells in the study area. Water level elevations on February 13, 2017 (Figure 4) ranged from about 84 to 86 feet above mean sea level. Locally near the San Joaquin River, the direction of groundwater flow was to the southwest. On February 13, there was little difference in depth to water between the upper aquifer and lower aquifer wells.

The San Luis Canal Co. has prepared long-term water-level hydrographs for nine wells in their service area. These hydrographs extend back to the late 1990's, and show stable water levels and no indication of groundwater overdraft.

Water-level hydrographs for the five District wells in the study area for 2015-18 are provided in Appendix A. All of these hydrographs indicated rising water levels during this period.

Figure 5 is considered a representative hydrograph for the upper aquifer (Well No. 1). Depth to water ranged from about five to thirteen feet. Figure 6 is considered a representative hydrograph for the lower aquifer (Well No. 3). Depth to water ranged from five to more than 36 feet. 1798

EXPLANATION
Well Location and Identification
and Water-Level Elevation (feet)
Relative to Mean Sea Level
Contour of Water-Level Elevation
"' Above Mean Sea Level (feet)
Direction of Groundwater Flow
0 2,000 I I
Scale (feet)
FIGURE 4 - WATER-LEVEL ELEVATIONS AND DIRECTION OF
GROUNDWATER FLOW FOR FEBRUARY 13, 2017
R
1799
4 ~ ____ i____ 1 I I i~C-~-----;- I I I
1--: I ! a. 1 I ! '
I I i 5 ==r=crL+J_J__~-:--:-+--:--i--i--:--1-+1--~-tr11T-r-:r:--i-71 , , 1· ! 1 , 1 , , 1 1 , I ' i I i I I i I I ' I I I J , 1 r 1 1 1 .:

I .Y i
i ):-~ '_l_-~~-=L~~-~-t_-t-t1--=r:=~t1-T-l-~~--=--T---=--=---1 6 ==c=:===~-,-i-+-~--l--r-:---r-1 --:-~----:-~--;--:-----,-~TI L_,
!fii=±+=N: :7 ~l---t-,-~,-;-'--l----i--~~-"------i7 1 I i ! 1 ! _I'---'-' -l----'---i--,'-+--'----------',-'---'-----1 I I ! I i i I I I i I I I I I I I 1 _: :

I , 1 I 1 ; /' \ 1 I 'I ; 11/ 1 1 U I J 1 i 1 i 1
: 1 ; l 1: : ; 1\ n .-, i ! ! I I I I I- I I I I i i i i :/ i : JL i i I W 8
, ! : i I ii II ' : ' i U-' I , ' , ' r i , : i I I ~ , A_ , r .Lr'r , , I ' , , Ii ; I i ; w I i i i )1: I;'( I )1 TT : (') i : i : i I ' ,I i I/ ! ! ,,, ; I ' ! ~ : i i i I : I I : / / ! \ i ,- / /'\ i i I : i h....,_l_lf"'t) : I i i l I : i i ! i :\ _(, i I I i I i i ' V ~ i I I :
0:::
1 1 l
1 : 1 I . \ il I I i ~ 1 \ / : / , 1 1 1 ; I , I , 1 ,
1 ~ 9 . I , ,' • . ' ~ 'w...., II ~ I 1/ )_ i I I I I i I • , ' ~ i i i r, K i 7 i ! y : I/ '-" I I i I I I : i > - : 1 I/ \ ! J 1 / -1 : I 1 1'nn , , 1 1
1 ' ' I I ' '
> i : ' \' / \i / : i I I I I I i i I i I - : I I I I i : i ! i 1-
0 10 i ! i ..I \.l w. i -I : I i : : I : : : i i : ! ! y ~ I ' I ! i I : : I i : i : i I ! : I I l I ! i I
~ ; I ! / : ! i i I I I I i i : I I I I : i i I i I : I I I : : I I : : i i ! i i I fu 11 I I i /, I I : I : l ! ! • i i i ! ! i I : : ! i i i i • ! I ;J i : 1 i I i • I ! ! I :
0 I / ! -i : : I ! l '. : : : i I ; I I I I ! i : I i I I I : i '! I I J i I i i I ! j I I I : i : i I I I : j I i I i I l I i ! ' ' l l 1 i : i I : : , , ' -
12 I I ! I ! I ) : i I f I I i i \ I ! I I I I ! I
13 I I i
! !
l 1 l1I I 11: 1 ------· : __
I : 'LJ I i I I I I '_i _, i j 1 I I
14 ! i
i
I I I i I I I I i
l : I ! I
15 I ! I l ! i .-, I I I I I 1 : j
2015 2016 2017 2018
FIGURE 5-WATER-LEVEL HYDROGRAPH FOR TURNER ISLAND WO WELL NO. 1 \.D
1800
0 5
10 ,..-....
1--
w W 15
LL
'--'
0:::
w
I--:
~ 20
0 II
la.. 25
w
0 30
35 40
i
i
I I
I •
: I
i i i
I
I ,
I
I
i
i i
i
i
•
I i
i
l l
i
i :
! i
I
: I
i
!
l
!
i
I
I
I
i
i
I
:
! i
I
:
i
i
r.

I
I
I
I
I
i !
i
I
i
I
I
i I
I
i
I
i
I i : i i ! i I : i i : I I I I i I i I I
: I I I i i I I ! i i : i I i ! i I
-: I i i : i : I I I
f i -, I i I I I
; : I : i : l i j ; I : I : : : : I
i I
i i I I I i ! I I ,_f) : i l I !. : I I I I I i I I
; .I i 1 : I I I I i,.,: 'n-0. i I !
I i i I
] : ! : I i : /lwil i I ;
j i I : : : i
Ir'\
: i I i I i I : i"'-.ll , I I I I
I : i I ! •
~-r'\ l I i I '7"'0 i I i j I -
1/ : µ::)UJ"1 !
I I I I !
I I i / I i i 171.li I I ; ! ~ l i I I I
I
~ ~ I I ~ ' I l i ,- I , I : !
I I I / I i : \ r1 -r- I I
i
/ I :-\.._ I : I 1. I i i I I i -!
ry 7 "'\..) I : I i \ : ~ : i I I
. I i I I
I i ii I I I I i i I i
•
I I ! ! I ! I I : i i I I
I :
i i I : J, i I : .l i : I ! T ; I
: :

J : i l 1 i \ i I I i : ; : i I n I I I
i -. I I I i I ! i I 1
I i : I I i I
,1.. i i i ! i : ! I
i : I I i I ' I I i
i y I •
I I I
I I i I I I : I
:

I I -! I l i I '; i I ' : I I [ i
i
: : : i 1 ! I : ! I
I i I I I I i I •
I I i i I : i I i i i I I I I : ;
I i i ! I i : I i i I ; i ~I I
I ! I
I i i ! i !
I : I i

I I I I
•
I I : i ! I I
I
: : I : : ! i i i I :

I I I I I i i I : i
!
I i : i I •
! : I i i : -: I i I
I
I I i i : : i : i I i : I I ; I I I I
i I I I ; i : i
i i i i : ! ! I ' :
i : i i i
I : : : i I
i ! . I ;
- i :. I I I i I : I : I . i I I ! : i i
I ! i ! I i i : i i ! I ! l I I
:'- i I l I : I i ! I I i i i I
I i
! I i I ! i : I I I I
! : ,0 I I
! I i i I : I i : ' l i i
:

I i i i :

I I I i I -,
I I I I ! i i i i I I . I
I : I t i l [ :
' : I
I ! I I I I i I i ! i I
2015 2016 2017 2018
FIGURE 6-WATER-LEVEL HYDROGRAPH FOR TURNER ISLAND WO WELL NO. 3 I i i
i
i i :
-i :
i I
I i :
i I
I i :
! :

I I i ;
I I :
l I i
! :
-r • I
I :

I i
i I !
i I ! i i i :

I i I i
I I ! i
I i

I I I I I
i i
I :

I i i
I
I I i I
! I , I
i •
! I I
I i i
i I I
I ! :
; i I I
: I l
I I i i i
I I : I
' I i
' i l , I '
i i ! • !
I->
0 1801

PUMP TEST DATA
Pump test results are not available for the District Wells.

However, reported pumping rates for these wells range from about 800 to 2,000 gpm.

PUMPAGE
11 Table 2 shows Turner Island WD pumpage for wells in the study area during 2010-16. The annual pumpage ranged from about 730 to 3,330 acre-feet, and the average pumping during this period was about 1,530 acre-feet per year. Of this pumpage, an average of 370 acre-feet per year was used for irrigation of crops in the District. The remaining 1,160 acre-feet per year was pumped to locations outside of the study area.

SLCC WATER DELIVERIES
Water deliveries to the District from the San Luis Canal Co. for 2003-16 are provided in Table 3. From 1,600 to 1,700 acres of land were irrigated with this water each year. The annual amount of surface water delivered ranged from 3,100 acre-feet to 6,500 acre-feet. The surface water deliveries averaged about 5,100 acre-feet per year. During the dry years of 2014-16, the District wells were used to supplement the SLCC deliveries.
1802
1 2
TABLE 2-PUMPAGE FROM TURNER ISLAND WD WELLS
GW Pumped to
Year Outside Basin (ac-ft) GW Pumped to Crops (ac-ft) Total GW Pumped (ac-ft) 2010 731 0 731 2011 760 0 760
2012 1,142 0 1,142
2013 871 0 871
2014 2,553 775 3,328 2015 1,507 982 2,489
2016 557 865 1,422
1803
TABLE 3-SLCC CANAL WATER DELIVERIES AND CROP EVAPOTRANSPIRATION Water Year 2000. 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2000 2010 Wll 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Acreage 1,GOO 1,600 1,100 1,7001 1,700 1,700 1,700 1,700 1)700 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 ll,600 Surface Water .Applied (ac•ft) 6,300 5,700' 6,000 6,5001 6,300 5,800 4,900 4,71 00 S,200 4,300 5,000 3,,800 3,100 3,500
Groundw:ater Appiredi (ac•ltl - - 800 1,000 900
Total: Applied Watl!r (ac-ft) •6,300 5,700 '6,000 6,5001 6,300 S,800 4;900 4,700 S,200 4,300 S,000 4,.,mm 4,000 4.400 He (.ac-ft), 4,500 4,200 3:,700 4,7001 41,400· 3,800 3,700 3,SOO 4,400 4,200 4,300 4,000 2,600 3;900 ETiw{ac:.£1:) 3,600 3,200 2,700 3,600< 3,700, 3,200 2,:900 2,600 3,500 3,400 3,400 3,2tl0 1;900 3,000 _,.
w
1804
14 CONSUMPTIVE USE
Table 3 also shows the evapotranspiration of applied water for 2003-16. These estimates were taken from the ITRC water use and ITRC metric data. The annual evapotranspiration of applied water ranged from 1,900 to 3,700 acre-feet. The average evapotranspiration of applied water was 3,100 acre-feet per year. There was thus an average surplus of about 2,000 acre-feet per year of the amount of surface water compared to the evapotranspiration of applied water by crops.

CHANGE IN GROUNDWATER STORAGE
Based on long-term water-level hydrographs for wells in the area, there has been no long-term change in groundwater storage in the District.

WATER BUDGET
An average of 5,100 acre-feet of water was delivered to the District from the SLCC during 2003-16. This exceeded the average evapotranspiration of applied water (3,100 acre-feet per year) by an average of 2,000 acre-feet per year. The average groundwater pumpage was 1,530 acre-feet per year. An average of 1,160 acrefeet per year of groundwater was pumped to locations outside of the study area during 2010-16. The net difference in the water budget (excluding groundwater flows) was an average surplus of 1805
15 about 470 acre-feet per year.

LAND SUBSIDENCE
Figure 7 shows land subsidence in the area for December 2011- July 2013. One of the GPS stations (T987 CADWR) used in preparing this map was near Sandy Mush Road and the Eastside Bypass, near the Crane Ranch. Subsidence of 0.1 to 0.2 foot per year was indicated beneath most of the Turner Island Ranch and the Crane Ranch over this period. The greatest subsidence has been south of Washington Road, in the El Nido and Red Top areas. Land subsidence in the Red Top area has been reduced by decreasing lower aquifer pumpage by various means, including imported surface water, and development of more upper aquifer wells.

GROUNDWATER QUALITY
Table 4 shows the results of chemical analyses of water from from two of the TIWD wells, based on samples collected by KDSA in December 2013. Well No. 2 taps the upper aquifer and Well No. 4 taps the lower aquifer. The total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration in water from Well No. 2 was 1,310 mg/1 and the water was of the sodium chloride type. The chloride concentration was 444 mg/1. For the lower aquifer, the lowest TDS concentrations in the vicinity are for wells near the San Joaquin River. The TDS concentration in water from Well No. 4 was 1,990 mg/1 and the water 1806
W987'
CA0WR :& . .
'·
[l s
P ,11
Subsidence Rates (feet/year)
December 2011 to July 2013
0-0.1
-0.05-0
-0.1 to -0.05
-0.2 to -0.1
-0.5 to -0.4
-0.6 to -0.5
GPS Coordinates
@ Used for July 2012 surveys and after
A . Used in all surveys
I 1111 f
iKIBLIL 1 ~54
A -!RBPJJ 0 @
. 1£Jl,ID
F:JM
---

RECLAMATION
Mw1/Jging \li11ain tht:l\b1
Reclamation Subsidence
GPS Stations
Subsidence rates calculated by comparing July
2013 survey values at GPS Stations with December 2011 survey values. 0 1 2 3 4
Miles
• I h t" I
l3TIJ!OM
-F1053
.
-
__ .,~ .... ' ! AVJ
,. N
lesri,
r
ce
FIGURE ?-LAND SUBSIDENCE (DECEMBER 2011-JULY 2013)
1 6
1807
TABLE 4-CHEMICAL ANALYSES OF TURNER ISLAND W.D. WELLS
Constituent (mg/1) Well No. 2 Well No.

Calcium 101 160
Magnesium 47 72
Sodium 243 388
Potassium 4 3
Carbonate <10 <10
Bicarbonate 230 220
Sulfate 240 360
Chloride 444 790
Nitrate <1 1
SAR 5.0 6.4
Boron 0.2 0.2
pH 7.4 7.4
Electrical Conductivity
(micromhos/cm@ 25°C) 1,960 3,000
Total Dissolved Solids
(@ 180°C) 1,310 1,990
Date Sampled 12/3/13 12/3/13
Perforated Interval 60-180 230-450
Analyses by FGL Environmental of Santa Paula.
4 ....
--.1
1808
18 was also of the sodium chloride type. The chloride concentration was 790 mg/1. Sampling of other lower aquifer wells in the area indicates that TDS concentrations are lower to the northeast, and highest to the southwest and south. Also, TDS and chloride concentrations are higher in the deeper groundwater. 1809

THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
1810
TO:

FROM:

DATE:

LOsBanos
\ I I , -mi/o 11i<1
Agenda Staff Report
Mayor Faria and City Council Members
Stacy Souza Elms, Community and Economic Development Director~ July 6, 2022
TYPE OF REPORT: Public Hearing
SUBJECT: Consideration of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH #2021090191 ), General Plan Amendment #2020-02 and Zone Change #2020-02 for F Street Multi-Family Project
Recommendation:

Staff recommends that the City Council open the public hearing, receive public comment, and consider the following actions:
1 . Adopt Resolution No. 6520 approving Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH #2021090191) and Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Plan for F Street Multi-Family Project;

2. Adopt Resolution No. 6521 approving General Plan Amendment #2020-02 to redesignate approximately 0.9 acres from Industrial to High Density Residential located at 1133 F Street; and

3. Waive the second reading and adopt Ordinance No. 1198 by title to adopt Zone Change #2020-02 to re-zone approximately 0.9 acres from the General Commercial (C-1) Zoning District to High Density Residential (R-3) Zoning District located at 1133 F Street.
1 1811
Background:

On June 15, 2022, the Los Banos City Council approved a motion of intent to adopt Resolution Nos. 6520 and 6521 and waived the first reading and introduced by title Ordinance No. 1198 for the F Street Street Multi-Family Project.

Discussion:

PROJECT LOCATION:

The proposed project site is located at 1133 F Street. The project site is outlined in yellow on the area map below.
2 1812
LAND USE:

The surrounding zoning is depicted on the map below. Note that the pink color is General Commercial (C-1 ), brown is High Density Residential (R-3), red is Highway Commercial (H-C) and purple is the Rail Corridor (R-C).

Property Land Use
Project Site Undeveloped
North Residential
East Commercial (Vacant)
South Commercial
West Commercial
C-1 = General Commercial
R-3 = High Density Residential
Zone
C-1
R-3
H-C
C-1
C-1
General Plan
Industrial (I)
Medium Density Residential (MOR)
Commercial (C)
Industrial (I)
Industrial (I)
I = Industrial
MOR = Medium Density Residential
C = Commercial
3 1813
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:

Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City of Los Banos Environmental Quality Guidelines, an initial study was prepared to identify and assess potential environmental impacts of the project. Pursuant to Section 15070(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared for a project when the Initial Study identifies potential environmental impacts. Staff has identified potential significant impacts and mitigation measures. Staff finds that the implementation of mitigation measures would reduce impacts to less than significant. The following mitigation measure shall be incorporated into the proposed project:

Mitigation Measure V-1:

In the event of the accidental discovery of recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, the following steps shall be taken:

1. There shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until; a. The corner of Merced County is contacted to determine that no investigation of the cause of death is required; and
b. If the corner determines the remains to be Native American:
i. The corner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours.
ii. The Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descended from the deceased Native American.

The most likely descendent may make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in Pubic Resources Code Section 5097.98
PROJECT ANALYSIS:

Existing Setting
The proposed project site is vacant and is surrounded by urban development on four sides, along with associated street and utility improvements. The property has a General Plan land use designation of Industrial and is zoned General Commercial (C-1 ). There are no structures on the project site.

Proposed Uses and Density
The project includes a General Plan Amendment from Industrial to High Density Residential. The General Plan and Zoning Maps are included as attachments.

Pursuant to the Los Banos Municipal Code Title 9, Chapter 3, Article 8, the uses permitted in the High Density Zoning District are as follow:
4 1814
(a) Multifamily uses;
(b) Apartments;
(c) Triplexes;
(d) Group dwellings with more than six (6) residents;
(e) Public schools;
(f) Public parks and playgrounds;
(g) Employee needs housing for more than six (6) unrelated persons; (h) Residential care facility for more than six (6) unrelated persons; (i) Special needs housing for more than six (6) unrelated persons; U) Transitional and/or supportive housing for more than six (6) unrelated persons; (k) Emergency homeless shelter;
(I) Accessory buildings;
(m) Small family daycare;
(n) Home occupations; and
(o) Public utility distribution and transmission line towers and poles and underground facilities for the distribution of gas, water, communications, and electricity.

Compatibility with Adjacent Uses
The proposed High Density Residential General Plan Amendment and Zone Change will abut existing commercial uses to the west and south and High Density Residential uses to the north. The applicant is proposing to develop 16 multi-family units, which is a permitted use om the High Density Zoning District. The proposed development will be compatible and enhance the surrounding neighborhood character and will assist with the Housing Element compliance efforts to provide a variety of housing units to support all income levels throughout the community.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

A public hearing notice was published in the Merced Sun-Star and notices were mailed out to property owners within a 300' radius of the Project site on June 3, 2022. As of the date of this staff report, no comments were received.
5 1815
Attachments:
1 . Resolution - Mitigated Negative Declaration
Exhibit A: CEQA Findings
Exhibit B: Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Plan

2. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH #2021090191)

3. Resolution - General Plan Amendment
Exhibit A: CEQA Findings
Exhibit B: Findings for Approval
Exhibit C: Conditions of Approval

4. Ordinance -Zone Change

5. General Plan Land Use Map

6. Zoning Map

7. Site Plan

8. Public Hearing Notice - June 3, 2022
6 1816
RESOLUTION NO. 6520

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF LOS BANOS APPROVING MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION (SCH#2021090191)

AND MITIGATION MONITORING/REPORTING

PLAN FOR F STREET MULTI-FAMILY PROJECT
LOCATED AT 1133 F STREET, MORE

SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED AS ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NUMBER: 025-152-005
WHEREAS, Stonefield Home, Inc., (Applicant) filed an application for a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to redesignate approximately 0.9 acres from Industrial to High Density Residential (R-3) and rezone from General Commercial (C-1) to High Density Residential (R-3) for the development of two (2) multi-family structures to consisting of a total of 16 dwelling units; and
WHEREAS, an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Plan were prepared for the project in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15070; and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for F Street Multi-Family Project was submitted to the State Clearing House and posted at the Merced County Clerk's Office for a 30 day public review period commencing on September 10, 2021, and ending on October 11, 2021; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Intent was published in the Los Banos Enterprise on September 10, 2021; and
WHEREAS, the Los Banos Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 13, 2022, for the purpose of considering the Project and at the completion of the public hearing, duly considered the evidence presented and recommended approval to the Los Banos City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Los Banos scheduled and duly noticed a public hearing in accordance with California Government Code Section 65091 by advertisement and notices by mail to property owners within a 300 foot radius of the project boundaries on June 3, 2022, to consider and take testimony regarding these matters on June 15, 2022; and
WHEREAS, at the June 15, 2022, City Council Meeting the Los Banos City Council, heard and considered testimony, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard; reviewed the staff report; studied the compatibility of the applicant's request with adjacent 1 1817
land uses; has considered the applicant's request in accordance with the criteria established in the Los Banos Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Los Banos City Council has reviewed and considered the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH #2021090191) for F Street Multi-Family Project incorporated herein by reference and finds that there are no significant effects on the environment with the implementation of the identified mitigation measures as stated in the Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Plan.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Los Banos does hereby make the appropriate findings set forth in Exhibit A (CEQA Findings), attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference and approves Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH #2021090191) and Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Plan, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit B, for the F Street Multi-Family Project located at 1133 F Street, more specifically identified as Assessor's Parcel Number: 025- 152-005.

The foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Los Banos held on the 6th day of July 2022, by Council Member ___ who moved its adoption, which motion was duly seconded by Council Member ___ and the Resolution adopted by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:

Manuel Thomas Faria 111, Mayor
ATTEST:

Lucille L. Mallonee, City Clerk
2 1818

EXHIBIT A

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) FINDINGS FOR F STREET

MULTI-FAMILY PROJECT
Pursuant to the requirements of California Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. ("CEQA") and Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq. (the "CEQA Guidelines"), the City as Lead Agency under CEQA adopts the following findings required by CEQA, along with the facts and evidence upon which each finding is based.

The City of Los Banos City Council hereby finds as follows:

1. Pursuant to CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Los Banos Environmental Quality Guidelines, the F Street Multi-Family Project was evaluated in an Initial Study which determined that the project would not involve any significant environmental effects, provided that the mitigation measures described in the Initial Study were implemented and a Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH #2021090191) was made.

2. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was adequately noticed and circulated for public review and no public comments on the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration were received. The City distributed the Notice of Intent with copies of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and posted the Notice of Intent at the Merced County Clerk's office on September 10, 2021, to October 11, 2021.

3. On the basis of the whole record, including the Mitigated Negative Declaration and public comment, the City Council finds that there is no substantial evidence that the Project may have a significant effect on the environment with proper mitigation.

4. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in compliance with CEQA and on the basis of the whole record, there is no substantial evidence of significant new information or changes in the environmental setting have occurred that would result in new or greater significant effects not studied in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration.

5. The City of Los Banos Community and Economic Development Department, located at 520 J Street in Los Banos, is the custodian of the documents that constitute the record of proceedings upon which the determination to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration is based upon.

6. Upon approval of the project analyzed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the City of Los Banos will monitor the implementation of the mitigation measures in accordance with the Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program.

7. Prior to considering the proposed Project, the City Council considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the F Street Multi-Family Project. 3 1819

THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
1820
Environmental
Issue
Cultural
Resources
Exhibit B
City of Los Banos
F Street Multi-Family Project
Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program
SCH# 2021090191
Mitigation
Monitoring
Proposed Mitigation Reporting
Responsibility
&Timing
In the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human Public Works remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, the Department, following steps shall be taken: During Project
Construction

1. There shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until;
a) The coroner of the County in which the remains are
discovered must be contacted to determine that no
investigation of the cause of death is required; and,
b) If the coroner determines the remains to be Native
American:

1. The coroner shall contact the Native American
Heritage Commission within 24 hours.

2. The Native American Heritage Commission shall
identify the person or persons it believes to be the
most likely descended from the deceased Native
American.

The most likely descendent may make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.
2 Mitigation Reporting and/or
Monitoring Program
During project construction, the
Project Engineer and
Construction Manager shall
monitor construction activities
for any discovery of human
remains.
1821

THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
1822
LOsBanos
flltf
Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration
F Street Multi-Family
General Plan Amendment #2020-02 Zone Change #2020-02,
and Site Plan Review #2020-06
September 10, 2021
Lead Agency:

City of Los Banos
Community and Economic Development Department
Contact: Rudy Luquin
Associate Planner
City Hall 520 J St.

Los Banos, CA 93635
(209) 827-2432
www.losbanos.org
1 of 38
1823
Purpose
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that public agencies document and consider the potential environmental effects of any agency actions that meet CEQA's definition of a "Project". Briefly summarized, a "Project" is an action that has the potential to result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. A Project includes the agency's direct activities as well as activities that involve public agency approvals or funding. Guidelines for an agency's implementation of CEQA are found in the "CEQA Guidelines" (Title 14, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations).

Provided that a Project is not found to be exempt from CEQA, the first step in the agency's evaluation of the potential environmental effects of the Project is the preparation of an Initial Study. The purpose of an Initial Study is to determine whether the Project would involve "significant" environmental effects as defined by CEQA and to describe feasible mitigation measures that would be necessary to avoid the significant effects or reduce them to a less than significant level. In the event that the Initial Study does not identify significant effects, or identifies mitigation measures that would reduce all of the significant effects of the Project to a less than significant level, the agency may prepare a Negative Declaration. If this is not the case, the agency must prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR); the agency may also decide to proceed directly with the preparation of an EIR without preparation of an Initial Study.

The purpose of this Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) is to identify the potential environmental impacts and proposed mitigation measures associated with the proposed Stonefield Home, Inc. Project located within the City of Los Banos, County of Merced.

Pursuant to Section 15367 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City is the Lead Agency in the preparation of this IS/MND, and any additional environmental documentation required for the Project. The City has responsibility for approval or denial of the Project application. The intended use of this document is to provide information to support conclusions regarding the potential environmental impacts of the Project. The IS/MND provides the basis for input from public agencies, organizations, and interested members of the public.

Project Location
The Project site is located within the City of Los Banos, County of Merced. Specifically, the project is located at 1133 F Street (APN:025-152-005) on approximate 0.90 acres on the south west comer of Santa Rita Avenue and F Street. The uses surrounding the site include:

East: Vacant commercial parcel
South: Existing business
West: Existing mechanic shop
North: Existing multi-family residential development
2of38
1824
Project Description
The proposed project consists of a General Plan Amendment of 0.90 acres from Industrial to High Density Residential; a Zone Change of 0.90 acres from General Commercial (C-1) to High Density Residential (R-3); and the construction of two (2) multi-family buildings (9,068 square feet each) with a total of 16 residential dwelling units. The proposed parcel will be developed in accordance with Title 9, Chapter 3, Article 8, High Density Residential (R-3) of the Los Banos Municipal Code and the High Density Residential (HOR) land use designation from the Los Banos 2030 General Plan.

A copy of the proposed project's Site Plan is included as part of this Initial Study as Exhibit A.

Domestic water services will be provided by the City of Los Banos by connecting to an existing eight (8) inch water line located on Santa Rita Avenue. Sanitary sewer services will be provided by connecting to the City of Los Banos off of Santa Rita Avenue. Storm drain services will be provided by connecting to an existing eighteen (18) inch line located on F St. Fire hydrants will also be installed in accordance with the City of Los Banos Fire Department standards and specifications. Dry utilities (i.e. gas and electric) will be provided via Pacific Gas and Electric.

The existing site includes disked vacant land. No structures currently exist on the site.

Environmental Determination:

The Lead Agency has prepared an Initial Study, following, which considers the potential environmental effects of the proposed project. The Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the Lead Agency, that the project may have a potentially significant effect on the environment, provided that the following mitigation measures are included in the project.

MITIGATION MEASURES:

The following mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the proposed project:

Mitigation Measure V-1:

In the event of the accidental discovery of recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, the following steps shall be taken:
1 . There shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until; a. The corner of Merced County is contacted to determine that no investigation of the cause of death is required; and
b. If the corner determines the remains to be Native American:
i. The corner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours.
ii. The Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descended from the deceased Native American.
3 of 38
1825
Mitigation Measure Vlll-1:

Prior to the approval of the proposed project's Improvement Plans, the applicant, or project proponent, shall prepare and submit to the City of Los Banos Community and Economic Development Department a Phase 1 /Environmental Site Assessment (ESA).

The recommendations of the Phase 1/ESA shall be incorporated into the proposed project, as deemed necessary by City staff.

The most likely descendent may make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in Pubic Resources Code Section 5097 .98
Therefore, the Lead Agency proposed to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project, in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines.

Date
4of38
1826
City of Los Banos
520 J Street
Los Banos, CA 93635
(209) 827-7000
Environmental Checklist Form
Project Title
F Street Multi-Family - GPA #2020-02, ZC #2020-02, and SPR #2020-06 Lead Agency Name and Address
City of Los Banos
520 J Street
Los Banos, CA 93635
Contact Person and Phone Number
Rudy Luquin, Associate Planner
Phone: (209) 827-2432
[email protected]
Project Sponsor's Name and Address
Stonefield Home, Inc.
923 E. Pacheco Blvd
Los Banos, CA 93635
Project Location and Setting
The Project site is located within the City of Los Banos, County of Merced. Specifically, the project is located on approximately0.90 acres at 1133 F Street (APN: 025-152-005) on the south west corner of Santa Rita Avenue and F Street. The uses surrounding the site include:

East: Vacant commercial parcel
South: Existing business
West: Existing mechanic shop
North: Existing multi-family development
Figure 1 - Location Map, provides an illustration of the proposed project's regional location.

Figure 2 - Vicinity Map, provides an illustration of the proposed projects actual site.

The proposed project site has been vacant and undeveloped for over 30 years. Urban development has occurred surrounding the project site, along with associated street and utility improvements. Topography of the site is relatively flat. There is small vegetation located throughout the project site. The vegetation will be removed as part of the development of the proposed project. There are no structures located on the project site.
5of 38
1827
General Plan and Zoning Designations
General Plan: Industrial
Zoning: General Commercial
Project Description
The proposed project consists of a General Plan Amendment of 0.90 acres from Industrial to High Density Residential; a Zone Change of 0.90 acres from General Commercial (C-1) to High Density Residential (R-3); and the construction of two (2) multi-family buildings (9,068 square feet each) with a total of 16 residential dwelling units. The proposed project will be developed in accordance with Title 9, Chapter 3, Article 8, High Density Residential (R-3) of the Los Banos Municipal Code and the High Density Residential land use designation from the Los Banos 2030 General Plan.

A copy of the proposed project's Site Plan is included as part of this Initial Study as Exhibit A.

Domestic water services will be provided by the City of Los Banos by connecting to an existing eight (8) inch water line located on Santa Rita Avenue. Sanitary sewer services will be provided by connecting to the City of Los Banos off of Santa Rita Avenue. Storm drain services will be provided by connecting to an existing eighteen (18) inch line located on F Street. Fire hydrants will also be installed in accordance with the City of Los Banos Fire Department standards and specifications. Dry utilities (i.e. gas and electric) will be provided via Pacific Gas and Electric.

The existing site includes disked vacant land. No structures currently exist on the site. 6of38
1828
Project
Site
Figure 1 - Location Map
7 of 38
1829
Figure 2 - Vicinity Map
8of 38
1830
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: (Boxes are checked below if the proposed project has the potential to cause significant impacts. If none then "No Significant Impacts" may be checked)
D Aesthetics
IZI Biological Resources
D Greenhouse Gas Emissions
D Land Use/ Planning
D Population/ Housing
IZI Transportation/ Traffic
D Mandatory Findings of
Significance
D Agriculture and Forestry Resources
IZI Cultural Resources
IZI Hazards & Hazardous Materials
□ Mineral Resources
□ Public Services
□ Tribal Cultural Resources
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:

D Air Quality
D Geology/ Soils
D Hydrology/ Water Quality
D Noise
□ Recreation
D Utilities/Service Systems
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 X 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 significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effect (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standard, 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. q/ l0/2-/
Date
9of 38
1831
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:

Notes:

1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources cited in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported If the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No lmpacr 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).

2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site, as well as on-site, cumulative, as well as project-level, indirect, as well as direct, and construction, as well as operational impacts.

3. Once a determination has been made that a particular physical impact may occur, the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate If there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

4. "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses,· may be cross-referenced).

5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impact Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.

6. Information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances) have been incorporated into the checklist references. Reference to a previously prepared or outside document, where appropriate, includes a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.

7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list is attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted are cited in the discussion.

8. This initial study format is the format suggested in the 2018 CEQA Guidelines.

9. The explanation of each issue identifies:
a. the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b. the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant 10 of 38
1832
ENVIRONMENT AL REVIEW CHECKLIST: (A brief answer to all questions is provided) Categories and Issues:

I. Aesthetics. Would the proposal:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Potentially
Significant
Impact
□
Less than
Significant w/
Mitigation
Incorporated
□
Less than
Significant
Impact
181
No
Impact
□
Comments: According to the City of Los Banos 2030 General Plan and Environmental Impact Report (EIR), the proposed project area is not considered a scenic vista. Therefore, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact. b. Substantially damage scenic resources including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
□ □ □ 181
Comments: The proposed project is not located on a State designated highway. Based on a review of the California Department of Transportation website (http://www.dot.ca.gov/ha/LandArch/16 livability/scenic hiqhways/index.htm ), the nearest State scenic highway is Interstate 5, between the SR 152 and north to the San Joaquin County line. The proposed project is not located on or adjacent to Interstate 5 or SR 152, and therefore will have no impact to a State scenic highway.

C. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? □ □ 181 D
Comments: The proposed project is located on an approximately 0.90 acre vacant site within the City of Los Banos and is currently surrounded by urban development on all four sides. The existing visual character of the proposed project and its surroundings consists of commercial and multi-family residential development. The construction of multi-family structures consisting of 16 dwelling units in this area would alter the existing visual character of the project site; however, given that it would be located adjacent to existing commercial and multi-family residential development within the City limits, it would be considered contextually consistent with surrounding land uses.
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? □ □ 181 □ Comments: Development of the proposed project will include the installation of street lighting and lighting associated with multifamily residential development. As such, the proposed project will result in a new source of light. However, any street lighting installed will be installed in accordance with the City of Los Banos standards and specifications. In addition, the project site is surrounded by existing development on four sides and associated lighting (i.e. street lighting, residential lighting, etc.). Therefore, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact to lighting and glare. 11 of 38
1833
Categories and Issues:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant w/
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
II. Agriculture and Forest Resources In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts of forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring program of the California Resource Agency, to nonagricultural use? □ □ □
Comments: According to the State of California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, the proposed project is located on land classified as "Urban and Built-Up Land" and is not located on soils classified as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. Therefore, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact. b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract? □ □ □ 181
Comments: The proposed project is currently zoned General Commercial and the General Plan land use designation is Industrial.

The applicant is requesting the adoption of a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change that would allow High Density Residential uses. The project site was evaluated by the City of Los Banos 2030 General Plan/EIR and identified as being "Urban and Built-Up Land", and therefore, is not considered to be agricultural or forest land. In addition, a Williamson Act Contract does not exist for the project site. Therefore, the proposed project will have no impact.

C. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section
12220(9)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(9))?
Comments: Please refer to comment I1.b.
d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
□
□
□ □
□ □
Comments: The proposed project is located on existing vacant land, and is surrounded by existing commercial and multi-family residential land uses. The project site is not situated on lands considered to be forest land. Therefore, the proposed project will have no impact.
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?
□ □ 181 □
Comments: As noted above, the proposed project is located on existing vacant land that is not in production for agricultural crops.

The project site is surrounded by existing commercial and multi-family residential land uses and it is designated and zoned for urban development by the City of Los Banos 2030 General Plan and the Los Banos Municipal Code. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change will retain the urban development designation. Therefore, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact.
12 of 38
1834
Categories and Issues:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant w/
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Ill. Air Quality Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a.
b.

C.
d.
e.

Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?
Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursor)?
Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
BACKGROUND DISCUSSION:
□
□
□
□
□
□ 181
□ 181
□
□ 181
D 181
The proposed project is located in west Merced County, which is a portion of the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB). Air quality management under the federal and state Clean Air Acts is the responsibility of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD).

The Federal and State governments have adopted ambient air quality standards (AAQS) for the primary air pollutants of concern, known as "criteria" air pollutants. Air quality is managed by the SJVAPCD to attain these standards.

Primary standards are established to protect the public health; secondary standards are established to protect the public welfare. The attainment status of the SJVAB for Merced County with respect to the applicable AAQS are shown in the following table.

The SJVAB is considered non-attainment for ozone and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), because the AAQS for the pollutants are sometimes exceeded. The SJVAB is Attainment/Unclassified for carbon monoxide, but select areas, not including the City of Los Banos, are required to abide by adopted carbon monoxide maintenance plans.

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) through the Air Toxics Program is responsible for the identification and control of exposure to air toxics, and notification of people that are subject to significant air toxic exposure. A principal air toxic is diesel particulate matter, which is a component of diesel engine exhaust.

The SJVAPCD has adopted regulations establishing control over air pollutant emissions associated with land development and related activities. These regulations include:

Regulation VIII (Fugitive Dust Rules)
Rule 4101 (Visible Emissions)
Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review)

SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY FEDERAL AND STATE

AAQS ATTAINMENT STATUS
Pollutant
Ozone, 1-hour
Ozone, 8-hour
PM10
PM2.5
Carbon Monoxide
Nitrogen Dioxide
Sulfur Dioxide
Lead (particulate)
Hydrogen Sulfide
Sulfates
Visibility-Reducing Particles
Vinyl Chloride
8See 40 CFR Part 81
Designation / Classification
Federal Standards8
No federal standard1
Nonattainment / Extreme8
Attainment"
Nonattainmentd
Attainment / Unclassified
Attainment/ Unclassified
Attainment/ Unclassified
No designation
No federal standard
No federal standard
No federal standard
No federal standard
13 of 38
State Standardsb
Nonattainment / Severe
Nonattainment
Nonattainment
Nonattainment
Attainment/ Unclassified
Attainment
Attainment
Attainment
Unclassified
Attainment
Unclassified
Attainment
D
D
D
D
D
1835
bSee CCR Title 17 Sections 60200-60210
con September 25, 2008, EPA redesignated the San Joaquin Valley to Attainment for the PM1 O National AAQS and approved the PM10 Maintenance Plan
<IThe SJV is designated nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA designated the SJV as nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5 on November 13, 2009 {effective December 14, 2009}. 8Though the SJV was initially classified as serious nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, EPA approved reclassification of the SJV to extreme nonattainment in the Federal Register on May, 2010 {effective June 4, 2010.
'Effective June 15, 2005, the EPA revoked the federal 1-hour ozone standard, including associated designations and classifications. EPA has previously classified the SJV as extreme nonattainment for this standard. EPA approved the 2004 Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan on March 8, 2010 (effective April 7, 2010}.

Many applicable requirements for extreme 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas continue to apply to the SJVAB.

The SJVAPCD has adopted a CEQA impact analysis guideline titled Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI}. The GAMAQI is utilized in the following air quality impact analysis where applicable. The GAMAQI establishes impact significance thresholds for the non-attainment pollutant PM10 and precursors to the nonattainment pollutant ozone: reactive organic gases (ROG} and oxides of nitrogen (NOx}.

ROG 1 O tons/year
NOx 10 tons/year
PM10 15 tons/year
Projects that do not generate emissions in excess of these thresholds are considered to have less than significant air quality impacts. In accordance with Table 5-3(a} of GMAQI, the proposed project is considered a small project according to the Small Project Analysis Level (SPAL}, as It the project will produce 16 multi-family units which is less than threshold of the stated 590 multi-family units. Because the proposed project qualifies as small project in accordance to SPAL, GAMAQI notes that it has no possibility of exceeding emission thresholds.

Project construction will be subject to SJVAPCD rules related to control of construction emissions, including the various rules comprising Regulation VIII. The application of these rules to the project will further limit the potential air quality effects of the project.

The project will generate small amounts of new on-road traffic and associated ROG, NOx and PM emissions during project operation. Operation of the project site will not generate any substantial air emissions. As shown in the table below, potential emissions from project operation will be incidental and will not approach the GAMAQI significance thresholds.

Potentially significant emissions related to the construction and operation of land development projects are subject to regulation under SJVAPCD Rule 9510 Indirect Sources. Development associated with the proposed project will exceed the thresholds triggering the requirements of Rule 9510. Therefore, the project proponent will be required to comply with Rule 9510 and conduct an Indirect Source Review {ISR} process with the SJVAPCD.

COMMENTS:
a) The proposed project will not involve any conflict with, or potential to obstruct, implementation of, applicable Air Quality Attainment Plans. As discussed above, project related air emissions will be minor and below the threshold identified in GMAQI. Therefore, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact. b) Proposed project construction emissions will be minor and short-term, and will not contribute to or cause violation to any air quality standards. The proposed project will not involve any substantial operational emissions. Therefore, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact. c) The proposed project will result in minor ROG, NOx, and particulate matter emissions during project construction, which will contribute to existing non-attainment status of the SJVAB for ozone and particulate matter. However, in accordance with GMAQI, these emissions are considered to be below the threshold and therefore be less than significant. The proposed project will be required to comply with Rule 9510, and conduct an ISR process with the SJVAPCD. The ISR process will determine the proposed project's actual emission and subsequently, allow for mitigation under Rule 9510. Therefore, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact.
d} Sensitive receptors are defined as facilities that house or attract children, the elderly, people with illnesses, or others who are especially sensitive to the effects of air pollutants. Hospitals, schools, convalescent facilities, and residential areas are examples of sensitive receptors.

The proposed project is located in the vicinity of residential areas as it is surrounded on three sides by existing residential development. However, because the proposed project is considered a Small Project 14 of 38
1836
Analysis Level (SPAL) under GMAQI, the proposed project has no possibility of exceeding the emission thresholds and therefore, will have a less than significant impact. e) The proposed project does not involve any features that will generate odors. Therefore, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact.
15 of 38
1837
Categories and Issues:

IV. Biological Resources Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulation, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
□
Less than
Significant w/
Mitigation
Incorporated
□
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
□
Comments: As noted previously, the proposed project is located on vacant land and is surrounded by urban development.

However, based on a review of the City's 2030 General Plan EIR, and most notably, Figure 3.8-1, the proposed project Is not located within any areas known for the potential of containing special status species and or habitats. Therefore, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact.
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified In local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
□ □ □
Comments: Based on the Los Banos 2030 General Plan and EIR, the proposed project is not located within an area known to contain riparian habitat. Most, if not all, of the riparian habitat located within the City is located along Los Banos Creek. The proposed project is not located within, or adjacent to Los Banos Creek. Therefore, the proposed project will have no impact.

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?
□ □ □
Comments: Based on the Los Banos 2030 General Plan and EIR, there are no identified wetlands within the project site.

Therefore, the proposed project will have no impact.
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?
□ □ □
Comments: The proposed project is surrounded by existing commercial and multi-family residential development. New multi-family residential development created as a result of the proposed project would have no impacts to wildlife corridors as surrounding urban development already exists. Therefore, the proposed project will have no Impact. e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? □ □ □
Comments: Development of the proposed project will not require the removal of any trees. Therefore, the proposed project will have no impact.
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan?
□ □ □
Comments: The City of Los Banos, including the proposed project, is not located within an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Plan. Therefore, the proposed project will have no impact. 16of 38
1838
Categories and Issues:

V. Cultural Resources Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in section 15064.5?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
□
Less than Significant Less than
w/ Mitigation Significant
Incorporated Impact No Impact
□ □
Comments: The proposed project site is currently vacant with minimal vegetation and does not contain any buildings or structures.

Based on a review of the Los Banos 2030 General Plan EIR, there are thirteen (13} historic resource sites within the City's Planning Area, primarily in the downtown area. None of these sites include the proposed project. As such, there are no historic resources or sites as defined by Section 15064.5 of the Government Code within the proposed project area. Therefore, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact.
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to section 15064.5? □ □ □ Comments: Based on a review of the Los Banos 2030 General Plan and EIR, the Los Banos Creek area has been identified as a highly sensitive area for potential archaeological sites. The proposed project is not located within the Los Banos Creek area, and therefore, potential impacts to archaeological resources are considered to be minimal. The project site has been disked yearly to reduce potential fire hazards and given the disturbed nature of the project site it would be unlikely that unknown cultural resources would be found on-site during grading and excavation associated with construction and installation of utilities for the new development. Therefore, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact. c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? □ □ □
Comments: The Los Banos 2030 General Plan and EIR do not Identify any unique paleontological resources or sites or unique geologic features within the proposed project area. As noted in the 2030 General Plan, paleontological resources have been typically identified within the Los Banos Creek area. Therefore, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact. d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries? □ □ □
Comments: It is not anticipated that the proposed project will disturb any human remains. However, through development and construction of the proposed project, human remains may be identified, particularly during activities requiring ground disturbance (i.e. grading, trench digging, etc.}. As such, the proposed project shall incorporate Mitigation Measure No. V-1, specified below, in accordance with Section 15064.5(e} of the CEQA Guidelines, to reduce any potentially significant impacts to a level of less than significant.

Mitigation Measure V-1: In the event of the accidental discovery of recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, the following steps shall be taken:

2. There shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until;
a. The comer of Merced County is contacted to determine that no investigation of the cause of death is required; and b. If the comer determines the remains to be Native American:
i. The comer shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. ii. The Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descended from the deceased Native American.
iii. The most likely descendent may make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in Pubic Resources Code Section 5097.98 17 of 38
1839
Less than
Potentially Significant w/ Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
Categories and Issues:

VI. Geology and Soils Would the project:
a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
involving:
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death □ □ □ 1) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alqulst-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.
2) Strong seismic ground shaking?
□ □ 181 □
3) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? □ □ 181 □ 4) Landslides? □ □ 181 □
Comments: No known earthquake faults traverse the project site. The effects of seismic activity were addressed in the Los Banos General Plan EIR and found to be potentially significant. Implementation of General Plan policies S-I-8 mitigates this potentially significant impact to a less than significant level. Policy S-I-8 requires all new buildings be built according to the seismic requirements of the Unifonn Building Code. Therefore, these potential impacts are considered less than significant. No further environmental review is necessary.
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? □ □ 181 □ Comments: Development of the proposed project will include grading of the site to allow for the installation of multi-family residential building units. Thus, said grading would result in the loss of topsoil. However, through the preparation of Improvement Plans, the proposed project will be required to obtain a Grading Permit from the City of Los Banos. The Grading Pennit process will ensure the proposed project is graded in accordance with the City of Los Banos Standards and Specifications. Therefore, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact. 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?
□ □ 181 □
Comments: According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) https://websoilsurvey.sc.eqov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx the soils in the area are of the project site are primarily Stanislaus-Dosamigos-Urban land complex on flat or nearly flat ground that may be subject to vertical displacement under seismic or static conditions. Such movement could include settlement, compaction, or liquefaction. Future development on the project site (e.g. single-family dwelling units and access driveways) would implement standard engineering and seismic safety design techniques in conformance with the recommendation of a project specific design level geotechnical investigation as a standard condition of development would reduce potential impacts to less than significant. d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-8 of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
□ □ 181 □
Comments: As noted above, the soils within the project area are generally Stanislaus-Dosamigos-Urban land complex. The soil is well drained, but has moderate expansion potential. Future development on the project site would be required to follow the recommendations of a project-specific design-level geotechnical investigation as a standard condition of development.

Development within the City of Los Banos would require review and approval by the Los Banos Building Department and the City Engineer. Given that the proposed project would be required to conform to the recommendations of the geotechnical report and the requirements of the City of Los Banos, the potential risks associated with expansive soils would be reduced to less than significant levels.
18of 38
1840
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
□ □ □
Comments: The proposed project consists of a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Site Plan Review for the development of 16 multi-family residential units, which will be served by City of Los Banos sanitary sewer system. The use of septic tanks or alternative water systems are not part of the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project will have no impact. 19 of 38
1841
Categories and Issues:

VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Would the project:
a.
b.

Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment
Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
Background Discussion:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
□
□
Less than
Significant w/
Mitigation
Incorporated
□
□
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
181 □
181 □
Human-generated emissions greenhouse gases (GHGs} are understood to be an important cause of global climate change, which is a subject of increasing scientific, public concern, and government action. Atmospheric concentrations of GHGs that trap heat in the earth's atmosphere and lead to a variety of effects, including increasing temperature, changes in patterns and intensity of weather and various secondary effects resulting from those changes, including potential effects on public health and safety.

California AB 32 identifies global climate change as a "serious threat to the economic well-being, public health, natural resources and the environment of California." As a result, global climate change is an issue that needs to be considered under CEQA.

GHGs include carbon dioxide (CO2). the most abundant GHG, as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases, each of which have GHG potential that is several times that of CO2. GHG emissions result from combustion of carbon-based fuels; major GHG sources in California include transportation (40.7%), electric power generation (20.5%), industrial (20.5%), agriculture and forestry (8.3%) and others (8.3%).

The State of California is actively engaged in developing and implementing strategies for reducing GHG emissions. State programs for GHG reduction include a regional cap-and-trade program, new Industrial and emission control technologies, alternative energy generation technologies, advanced energy conservation in lighting, heating, cooling and ventilation, reduced-carbon fuels, hybrid and electric vehicles. and other methods of improving vehicle mileage reduction programs. Using these and other strategies. the State's Global Climate Change Scoping Plan, adopted in December 2008, proposes to achieve a 29% reduction in projected business-as-usual emission levels for 2020.

The City of Los Banos 2030 General Plan and EIR Includes policies and mitigation measures that reduce the impact level that is less than significant. Policies POSR-1-46, 52, 53, and C-1-4 of the City's 2030 General Plan include measures. that upon implementation, helps reduce the amount of greenhouse gases generated per capita in the City. It is important to note that the proposed project is consistent with the City's 2030 General Plan.

The SJVAPCD adopted a Climate Change Action Plan in 2008, and issued guidance for development project compliance with the plan in 2009. The guidance adopted an approach that relies on the use of Best Performance Standards to reduce GHG emissions.

Projects Implementing Best Performance Standards would be determined to have a less than cumulatively significant impact. For projects not implementing Best Performance Standards, demonstration of a 29% reduction in GHG emissions from business-asusual conditions is required to determine that a project would have a less than cumulatively significant impact.

Comments:

VII-a) The proposed project would not generate any substantial greenhouse gas emissions beyond what has previously been identified in the City's 2030 General Plan and EIR. The proposed project is consistent with the 2030 General Plan, and will comply with the Policies noted in the discussion above.

Vll-b) The proposed project will not involve any known conflict with any adopted plan, policy, or regulation for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The City of Los Banos also requires that all buildings conform to the energy conservation requirements of the California Administrative Code Title 24, as well as the California Green Building Standards (CALGreen) code, which includes requirements for energy and water conservation in new construction. 20 of 38
1842
Categories and Issues:

VIII. Hazards and Hazardous Material Would the project:
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
□
Less than
Significant w/
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
□
No
Impact
□
Comments: General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and development of multi-family residential structures do not typically involve the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. However, the project site was historically used for agricultural purposes over 30 years ago, and as such, there may be hazardous materials within the soil. Therefore, prior to the approval of the proposed project's Improvement Plans and Final Map, the applicant, or project proponent, shall prepare and submit to the City a Phase I/Environmental Site Assessment (ESA). The recommendations of the Phase 1/ESA shall be incorporated into the proposed project, as necessary. Therefore, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. Refer to Mitigation Measure Vlll-1, below.
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
□ □ 181 □
Comments: It is not anticipated that through the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Plan Review, and development of the proposed project, foreseeable upset and accident conditions will occur. Development of the proposed project will comply with all Federal, State, and local policies and regulations related to the construction of the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact.

C. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within onequarter mile of an existing or proposed school? □ □ 181 □
Comments: The proposed project is located approximately 0.35 miles to the nearest school which is greater than the stated quarter mile proximity. However, as noted above in VIII-a, the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Plan Review, and development of a multi-family residential do not typically involve the emission of handling of hazardous materials are identified, all Federal, State, and local policies and regulations related to hazardous materials shall be complied with. Therefore, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact.
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 create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
□ □ □
Comments: Appendix A of the Los Banos 2030 General Plan provides a list of hazardous sites within the City of Los Banos. Based on a review of Appendix A, the proposed project is not located on a site identified as hazardous. Therefore, the proposed project will have no impact.
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 for people
residing or working in the project area?
□ □ □
Comments: The Los Banos Municipal Airport is located within the City of Los Banos and is a general aviation facility with a single paved runway 3,800 feet in length. According to the Merced County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, adopted June 21, 2012, the proposed project is not located within the airport's "Airport Influence Area•. Therefore, the proposed project will have no impact. f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
□ □ □ 181
Comments: The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, the proposed project will have no impact.
21 of 38
1843
g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
□ □ □
Comments: The Los Banos Fire Deparbnent has reviewed the proposed project, and provided feedback to ensure the proposed project complies with any emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. To ensure this compliance, the project proponent will be required to submit for approval to the Los Banos Fire Department the proposed project's Improvement Plans. This approval shall occur prior to the approval of the Improvement Plan. Therefore, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact. h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wild lands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
□ □ □ [8J
Comments: The proposed project is located within an urban area and within the City of Los Banos, and is surrounded by existing development. As such, no wildlands exist within or adjacent to the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project will have no impact.

Mitigation Measure Vlll-1: Prior to the approval of the proposed project's Improvement Plans, the applicant, or project proponent, shall prepare and submit to the City of Los Banos Community and Economic Development Deparbnent a Phase 1/Environmentaf Site Assessment (ESA). The recommendations of the Phase 1/ESA shall be incorporated into the proposed project, as deemed necessary by City staff.
22 of 38
1844
Less than
Potentially Significant w/ Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Categories and Issues:

IX. Hydrology and Water Quality Would the project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? □ □ ~ □
Comments: The proposed project will not violate any Federal, State, or local water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Prior to the Building Permit issuance, the Applicant will be required to obtain approval from the City of Los Banos for the project's Improvement Plans. These Improvement Plans include the design of infrastructure (i.e. water, sanitary sewer, storm drainage) required for the proposed project. Review and approval by City staff will ensure the proposed project complies with any applicable water quality standards and waste discharge requirements. Therefore, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact.
b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with ground water recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which
would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?
□ □ □
Comments: The domestic water infrastructure proposed as part of the proposed project consists of connecting to the City of Los Banos existing domestic water system. According to Section 8.2 of the Los Banos 2030 General Plan, "the 2008 Urban Water Management Plan estimates that this supply is sufficient to meet City needs through 2030." Therefore, it is anticipated that the City has sufficient supply to meet the demands of the proposed project. As such, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact.
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
□ □ □
Comments: The proposed project will alter the existing drainage pattern of the site through construction and converting the site from vacant land to urban development. However, the proposed project, and its storm drainage design, will comply with the City's Drainage Design Manual and City Standards and Specifications. Compliance will be ensured through the proposed project's Improvement Plan process. Therefore, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact. d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
□ □ □
Comments: The proposed project will contribute runoff water by adding 16 multi-family residential units and associated improvements (i.e. streets, water, sanitary sewer, storm drainage, etc.). However, through the design of the proposed project's storm drainage system, the project proponent will be required to comply with the Los Banos Drainage Design Manual and the City's Standards and Specifications. Therefore, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact. e. 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?
□ □ ~ □
Comments: The proposed project will not degrade water quality within the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact.
f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? □ □ 181 □ Comments: Please refer to the comments and determination above, for IX-a. 23 of 38
1845
g. Place housing within a 100-yearflood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary of Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
map?
D D D
Comments: Based on a review of FEMA Flood Map No. 06047C0850G, dated December 2, 2008, which includes the proposed project site, the proposed project is not located within a 100-year flood plain. Therefore, the proposed project will have no impact. h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? D
Comments: Please refer to the comments and detennination above, for IX-g. i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
□
□ □ 181
D □
Comments: The proposed project is located within the Planning Area as it defined in the Los Banos 2030 General Plan. According to Section 7.2 of the Los Banos 2030 General Plan, "three dams close to Los Banos have the potential of inundating portions or the whole of the Planning Area. Flood zone mapping by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers indicates that all of the Planning Area is located within the San Luis Reservoir dam inundation area. Northern portions of the Planning Area are also located within the Los Banos Detention Reservoir and the Uttle Panache Reservoir Dam inundation area. n All three dams are owned by the Bureau of Redamation, and are inspected regularly for their structural integrity. In response to the potential of inundation by a result of dam failure, the City has adopted General Plan policies, which include coordination with the U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers on potential flooding risks, and ensuring that City staff and Emergency Response Services are trained to respond to catastrophic dam failure.

Therefore, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact. j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? □ D □ 181 Comments: The City of Los Banos, including the proposed project, is located approximately sixty-six (66) miles east of the Pacific Ocean. Exposure of future residents within the proposed project to the risk of seiches, tsunami, or mudflows is minimal. Therefore, the proposed project will have no impact.
24 of 38
1846
Less than
Potentially Significant w/ Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Categories and Issues:

X. Land Use and Planning Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established community? □ □ IZI □ Comments: The proposed project is located within the City of Los Banos, which is an urbanized City located along State Route 152 and State Route 165. Specifically, the proposed project is surrounded by existing residential and commercial urban development on the north, south, east, and west sides of the project site. No new streets are proposed to be developed as a result of the proposed development. Therefore, the proposed project would not physically divide the established community, and would have no impact. b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect?
□ □ □
Comments: The proposed project would be consistent with existing uses in the project vicinity and would not result in substantial land use conflicts with the surrounding residential uses in the area. The project proposes to amend the General Plan to designate the approximate 0.90 acre project site from Industrial to High Density Residential and rezone the property from General Commercial (C1) to High Density Residential (R-3), which would be consistent with the surrounding area that is primarily a mixture of single-family and multi-family dwelling units. The High Density Residential Zoning District (R-3) is intended to stabilize and maintain the residential character of the district for multi-family living with substantial space for cooperatively-used facilities and open spaces, which would be consistent with the surrounding area. Thus, the proposed General Plan Amendment to the land use designations and Zone Change would be consistent with the overall intent of the Los Banos 2030 General Plan and the Los Banos Municipal Code. c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? D □ □ 181
Comments: The proposed project is not located within an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan. Therefore, the proposed project will have no impact. 25 of 38
1847
Potentially Less than
Significant Significant w/ Less than
Impact Mitigation Significant No
Incorporated Impact Impact
Categories and Issues:

XI. Mineral Resources Would the project:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the D D □ residents of the state? b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important general
mineral resource
plan, specific
recovery
plan
site
or other
delineated
land use
on
plan?
a local D D □
Comments Xl-a,b: Section 5.6 of the Los Banos 2030 General Plan, dated July 15, 2009, states, "According to the Department of Conservation: Mines and Geology, there are no known significant mineral resources located within the Planning Area. The Planning Area contains parts of San Luis Ranch alluvium and Modesto alluvium, known mineral occurrences of underdetermined mineral resources significance. According to the State Office of Mine Reclamation, sand and gravel is currently mined within portions of the Los Banos Creek Fan, located southwest of the Planning Area. Afthough further exploration of the Planning Area could result in the reclassification of specific localities, no mineral resources have been historically exploited or are being currently exploited commercially within the Planning Area."
The proposed project is located within the Planning Area as It is defined in the Los Banos 2030 General Plan, and is consistent with the land use designation prescribed by the General Plan. Therefore, as determined in the Los Banos 2030 General Plan, the proposed project will have no impact to mineral resources of Statewide or local importance. 26 of 38
1848
Categories and Issues:

XII. Noise Would the project:
a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
Less than
Significant w/
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
□
Comments: Within the City of Los Banos, a primary source of noise is vehicle traffic. Under the City of Los Banos 2030 General Plan noise standards, the maximum allowable noise exposure to ground transportation is 60 dB CNEL for outdoor activity areas in residential, transient lodging, medical facilities, and church land uses. These land uses, which include the proposed project (residential), require a maximum allowable noise level of 45 dB CNEL for interior spaces. The proposed project will increase the number of vehicle trips within the project area. However, based on a review of Figure 3.11-3 of the Los Banos 2030 General Plan EIR, the proposed project is not located within an area identified as exceeding the City's General Plan noise standard upon build-out of the City's "Planning Area." Therefore, the proposed project will not exceed the Los Banos General Plan noise standards, and will have a less than significant impact.
b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundbome noise levels? D D 181 □ Comments: Construction of the proposed project will expose residence within the surrounding area to groundbome vibration and noise levels. However, that exposure will be temporary, and the project proponent will be required to comply with the Los Banos Noise Control Ordinance, Article 27. Therefore, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact.

C. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
D D □
Comments: The Los Banos 2030 General Plan EIR states, ''The future noise contours suggest that even at build-out there is virtually no land, other than directly on the roadways, being exposed to noise levels above 60 dB." Figure 3.11-3 of the 2030 General Plan EIR further illustrates areas within the City that would be exposed to noise levels above the City's standard. Development of the proposed project will increase noise levels in the project area. However, the proposed project is not located within an area anticipated to generate noise levels above the standard identified in the Los Banos 2030 General Plan. Therefore, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact.
d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
Comments: Please refer to Xll-c for comments and determination. 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 expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
D D □
D D D
Comments: Figure 3-11.2 of the 2030 General Plan EIR illustrates the existing noise contours as it relates to the airport. The 55 dBA CNEL noise contour line for the airport does not enter the project site, so noise levels from aircraft operations do not exceed standards. Therefore, the proposed project will have no impact. f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
D D □ 181
Comments: The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, no impacts would occur related to noise from a private airstrip.
27 of 38
1849
Categories and Issues:

XIII Population and Housing Would the project:
a. Induce substantial 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)?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
□
Less than
Significant w/
Mitigation
Incorporated
□
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
□
Comments: According to the California Department of Finance, 2021 E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates (January 1, 2021 ), the population of Los Banos is 42,869 persons with an average of 3.57 persons per household. The proposed project would enable the future development of 16 multi-family dwelling units within the City of Los Banos. With an average of 3.57 persons per household, the addition of 16 multi-family dwelling units within the City of Los Banos could add up to 57.12 people to the City. The potential population increase as a result of the project implementation is relatively low. Thus the proposed project would not induce substantial population growth. Therefore, the proposed project will have a less than significant Impact. b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
□ □ □ 181
Comments: The proposed project will not require the displacement of existing housing which would necessitate the construction of replacement housing. Therefore, the proposed project will have no impact.

C. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? □ □ □
Comments: The proposed project site is currently vacant, and at build-out will not displace substantial number of existing housing.

Therefore, the proposed project will have no impact.
28 of 38
1850
Less than
Potentially Significant w/ Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Categories and Issues:

XIV. Public Services
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 perfonnance objectives for any of the public
services:
1) Fire protection? □ □ 18] D
2} Police protection? □ □ 18] D
3} Schools? □ □ 18] D
4} Parks? □ □ 18] D
5} Other public facilities? □ □ 18] D
Comments: The proposed project consists of a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Plan Review, and development of 16 multi-family residential units. The addition of these units and future residents will impact public services such as fire protection, police protection, schools, and parks.

Fire and police protection are provided by the City of Los Banos via the Los Banos Fire Department and Los Banos Police Department. To offset any potential impacts to fire and police services as a result of the proposed project, the proposed project will be required to pay the appropriate Capital Facilities Fees at the time a Building Pennit is issued. In addition, as a Condition of Approval for the proposed project, the project will be required to annex into Community Facilities District (CFO} No. 2002-01 (Public Safety Services}, which is an annual tax assessed to each new parcel within the proposed project. Therefore, potential impacts to fire and police protection services will be offset by payment of the applicable Capital Facilities Fees and annexing into CFO 2002-01.

Therefore, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact.

The proposed project is located within the Los Banos Unified School District (LBUSD}. According to LBUSD School Facility Needs Analysis and Justification Study, dated June 2020, the proposed project will generate sixteen (16) students within the LBUSD. 2030 General Plan Policy LU-1-8 states, "Require new development to pay its proportionate share of the costs of public infrastructure, services and transportation facilities. This shall include parks, fire, and police stations, schools, utilities, roads, and other needed infrastructure."
Specifically, based on the Table 1-8, Student Generation Rates, of the LBUSD School Facilities Needs Analysis, the proposed project will generate the following students per grade group:

Grade Group Multi-Family Student Generation Number of Students Generated by Rate Proposed Project
K~6 0.611 10
7-8 0.157 3
9-12 0.211 3
Total 16
According to the LBUSD Boundary Map, these students generated by the proposed will likely attend the following schools:
• RM. Miano Elementary, which would see an increase of 10 students generated by the proposed project:
• Creekside Junior High School, which would see an increase of 3 students generated by the proposed project; and, • Los Banos High School, which would see an increase of 3 students generated by the proposed project.

The LBUSD School Facility Needs Analysis and Justification Study, dated June 2020, states, "The District's 2019-120 enrollment is greater than the capacities listed above for the K-6, 7-8 and 9-12 grade groups. The District, therefore, has no existing excess capacity available for students from new residential development in the K-6, 7-8, 9-12 grade groups." In addition, as noted above, the Los Banos Unified School District {"District") has prepared and adopted a School Facility Needs 29 of 38
1851
Analysis, and in accordance with Senate Bill 50, has adopted Level II and Ill impact fees. On June 11, 2020 the Los Banos Unified District School Board adopted a Level II Fee of $10.36 per square foot and a Level Ill Fee of $20.72 per square foot for new residential development. Prior to building permit issuance for the project, the developer will be required to pay the Level II fees to the Los Banos Unified School District in consistency with State Law. The payment of the fees will offset impacts by funding LBUSD for future development of schools and/ or facilities to accommodate the potential new students.

The proposed project will impact parks and recreational facilities by adding additional residential units and residents within the City.

However, to offset any potential Impacts, the developer of the proposed project shall pay the applicable Capital Facilities Fees at the time of building permit issuance. Therefore, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact. 30 of 38
1852
Categories and Issues:
xv.
a.

Recreation
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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
□
less than
Significant w/
Mitigation
Incorporated
□
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
□
Comments: The proposed project will increase the use of existing park facilities in the City of Los Banos. However, as noted previously in this Initial Study, the developer of the proposed project will be required to pay the applicable Capital Facilities Fees, which include park facilities, at the time of building permit issuance. This Capital Facilities Fee is intended to offset impacts of new development to public services, including parks and park facilities. Therefore, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact.
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?
□ □ 181 □
Comments: The proposed project does not consist of the development of new recreational facilities, nor will it necessitate the construction or expansion of existing recreational facilities. As noted above, the developer of the proposed project will be required to pay the applicable Capital Facilities Fee at the time of the building permit issuance. The intent of the Capital Facilities Fee is to offset any potential impacts to public services and facilities, including parks and recreational facilities, as a result of new development.

Therefore, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact. 31 of 38
1853
Categories and Issues:

XVI. I Transportation / Traffic: Would the project:
a. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
□
Less than
Significant w/
Mitigation
Incorporated
□
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
□
Comments: The City's 2030 General Plan Circulation Element provides the guiding policies and implementing actions associated with transportation in the City. Specifically, Implementing Action C-I-12 of the 2030 General Plan states, "Require traffic impact studies for all proposed new developments that will generate significant amounts of traffic (100 or more peak hour trips):

The project will develop two multi family structure totaling 16 units. it is not anticipated that the project will generate 100 or more peak hour trips based on the 16 units with 32 associated off-street parking spaces. b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or
highways?
Comments: Please see the comment above in item XVI-a.
c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks?
□
□
D 181 D
D D
Comments: The proposed project will not result in the change of air pattems, most notably from the Los Banos Municipal Airport.

Therefore, the proposed project will no impact.
d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? □ D 181 D
Comments: Street improvements installed as part of the proposed project will be done in accordance with Caltrans and City standards and specifications. As such, hazards due to a design feature are not anticipated to occur. Therefore, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact.
e. Result in inadequate emergency access? D D D 181
Comments: The proposed project is considered infill on an existing street where the access to multi-family development will be from two (2) points, one access at F Street and the second on Santa Rita Avenue. The project will have adequate emergency access avallable. Therefore, the proposed project will have a no impact. f. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such
facilities?
□ D □
Comments: The frontages of F Street and Santa Rita Avenue currently have curb and gutter with no sidewalk, however the development of the sidewalk shall meet the adopted polices and plans for pedestrian/bicycle access and shall also meet the City of Los Banos Standards. Public transit is not located within near proximity to the project site. The proposed project will not decrease the performance or safety of these existing facilities. Therefore, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact. 32 of 38
1854
Categories and Issues:

XVII. Tribal Cultural Resources
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:

1. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code
section 5020.1 (k), or
Potentially
Significant
Impact
□
Less than
Significant w/
Mitigation
Incorporated
□
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
□
Comments: Tribal cultural resources are generally defined by Public Resources Code 21074 as sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe. A Sacred Lands File Search, performed by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for the immediate project area did not indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate project area. The project site has been annually disked and is surrounded by existing developments. As such, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact.

2. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by a substantial evidence, to
be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead
agency shall consider the significance of the resource
to a California Native American tribe.
□ □ □
Comments: The project site is not known to contain any identified Native American tribal cultural resources and is not a known Native American sacred site. The City of Los Banos has not received any letters from any Native American tribes requesting tribal consultation per Public Resources Code, Section 210080.3.1(b) regarding the potential for a Native American tribal cultural resource to be located on or near the project site. A Sacred Lands File Search, performed by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for the immediate project area failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate area.

In addition, Mitigation Measure V-1, as previously discussed, would ensure that the proposed project would not cause any substantial adverse changes in the significance of previously unknown tribal cultural resources. Given the results of the NAHC and compliance with Mitigation Measure V-1, impacts related to tribal cultural resources, in accordance with the criteria set forth in Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, would be considered less than significant. 33 of 38
1855
Less than
Potentially Significant w/ Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Categories and Issues:

XVIII. Utilities and Service Systems: Would the project:
a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? □ □ 181 □ Comments: The proposed project will connect to the City's existing sanitary sewer system. The City has sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed project and will not exceed any treatment requirements imposed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Therefore, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact. b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects? □ □ □
Comments: The proposed project will connect to the City's existing water and sanitary sewer system. As part of this connection, the proposed project will not be required to increase the size of existing water and sanitary sewer lines in order to serve the project. The City has sufficient capacity in its domestic water and sanitary sewer systems to accommodate development within the proposed project. In addition, the proposed project will be required to pay the applicable Capital Facilities Fees, which include water and sanitary sewer fees, at the time of Building Permit issuance. Therefore, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact.

C. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects? □ □ □
Comments: The proposed project will connect to the City's existing storm drainage system via connecting to an existing storm drain line located on F Street. The design and installation of the proposed project's storm drainage system will be done in accordance with the City's Drainage Design Manual, and does not require the construction or expansion of new/existing facilities. Therefore, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact. d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
□ □ 181 □
Comments: It has been determined that there is sufficient water supply capacity available to serve the proposed project. The proposed project does not require the construction of new or expansion of existing facilities. e. 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?
□ □ □
Comments: It has been determined that there is sufficient waste water supply capacity available to serve the proposed project. The proposed project does not require the construction of new or expansion of existing facilities. f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal
needs? □ □ 181 □
Comments: Solid waste in the City of Los Banos is managed by the Merced County Association of Governments. The majority of the City's solid waste is taken to Billy Wright Landfill and additional waste is taken to Highway 59 Landfill. The City's 2030 General Plan EIR determined that there are sufficient options for expansion or relocation of services to meet the demand created by future growth in Los Banos. Therefore, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact. 34 of 38
1856
g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste? □ □ D
Comments: The proposed project will comply with all Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste.

Therefore, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact. 35 of 38
1857

MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
□
Less than
Significant w/
Mitigation
Incorporated
□
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
□
Comments: Finding (a) is checked as "Less Than Significant Impact" on the basis of the proposed project's potential impact on biological resources, as described in Category 4 of this Initial Study. Potential impacts were identified in this issue area but they were identified to be less than significant.
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? □ □ □
Comments: As described in this Initial Study, the potential environmental effects of the proposed project will either be less than significant, or will have no impact at all. Where the proposed project involves potentially significant impacts, these impacts would have a less than significant impact with mitigation measures incorporated.

The potential environmental impacts identified in this Initial Study have been considered in conjunction with each other as to their potential to generate other potentially significant impacts. The various potential environmental impacts of the proposed project will not combine to generate any potentially significant cumulative impacts.

The City of Los Banos 2030 General Plan and EIR comprehensively account for ongoing and foreseeable urban development within the City's "Planning Area" and the cumulative environmental impacts of planned development. Future urban development in Los Banos includes the provision of roads, utilities, schools, and recreational facilities needed to serve City residents and visitors as their demands for urban services increase over time.

The proposed project will contribute to planned urban development in the City of Los Banos, by adding 16 multi-family residential units. The potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed project represent a portion of the environmental consequences of the planned growth and development permitted by the 2030 General Plan. The proposed project may involve a minor addition to the potential environmental impacts identified in the 2030 General Plan EIR, but the proposed project will not result in any substantial contribution to any of the significant cumulative impacts identified in the 2030 General Plan EIR. c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? □ □ 1:8:1 □
Comments: This Initial Study has considered the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project in the discrete issue areas outlined in the CEQA Environmental Checklist. During the environmental analysis, the potential for the proposed project to result in substantial impacts on human beings in these issue areas, as well as the potential for substantial impacts on human beings to occur outside of these issue areas, was considered, and no other such impacts were identified.

REFERENCES
City of Los Banos 2030 General Plan
City of Los Banos Municipal Code
CEQA
All reference material may be reviewed at the City of Los Banos Community Development Department, 520 J Street, Los Banos, CA 93635. 36 of 38
1858

APPENDIX A
Site Plan
37 of 37
1859
-z-
....
•
...:.---=r~...::lltllll 0 E>NlAiAHnS GNV'I I BNIIIBlf)N:I 11A~ ':)NI '9NIH~Nl9N3 llHVIIH:>N3B .

I 11 I II I 11 I
h I 11 I
II I
'"
,,,
,,t
,,
,,
,,
,,
,,
,,
,,
,,
,,
,,-
---- A"IIIWil.'1111 .LBIU8 .,_
IIYW '10lllN03 'IV.I.NOZIIOII
I
I
I
I
i
~~
!t
'c-,-------------- - - ---- ------ 1\ \ '---------------------------------------- ~ '~--.. l - "=--:.. ·:.::. ·:.::::::.:-:.:-:.-::..-:.-:.-:..-:. •;::.-:..-:.. "=-"=--::-:. "":::. ·::-:.-:.. ":.-:. ·::.:~:·:.::.::::::.::.::. - • - ----------------------'------------------------------------- ------------,
=-~~&';,.~=.=-..-.,:-=.:::=1&,1,:n::.;.r::re.:::.;-.;pri~\ ~j
I II
I 1t1 I 111
I 111
I 111
I ,1
I
>1'1 111 I 1IJ
I 111
t- 111
1,
1,
II
ii
1•1
,,,
,11
,,,
II
h
II
,,, "'
111
,,,
I
"'
,,,
,,,
,,,
,,,
,,,
,,,
,,,
"'
,,,
"'
,,,
,,,
It
,,,
,,,
,,,
,,,
"'
,,,
,,,
,,,
,,,
,,,
111
,,,
,,,
,,,
,,,
,,
,,
,,
,,,
,,,
111
.,_ IJ
I II
I 111 I 111
I
t-111
~I I Ill
I 11/ I IIJ
I 111 I Ill
I Ill
I 111 I 111 I 111
111
:11- I In I
111 I 111 I
11 :u: I 1H I 111 I 111 I 111 I
111 I 111 I
la
11~1 I I 1 1-_ _..,__ _ _________ ___ _ _ _ __,
. I
---.---,- \ I
~
I
I
I
1860
RESOLUTION NO. 6521

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF LOS BANOS APPROVING GENERAL
PLAN AMENDMENT #2020-02 TO REDESIGNATE
APPROXIMATELY 0.9 ACRES LOCATED AT 1133

F STREET, MORE SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 025-152-005

FROM INDUSTRIAL TO HIGH DENSITY

RESIDENTIAL
WHEREAS, Stonefield Home Inc., as the project applicant, has requested an amendment to the General Plan Land Use Map to facilitate the development of 16 multifamily dwelling units located at 1133 F Street, more specifically identified as Assessor's Parcel Number: 025-152-005; and
WHEREAS, the Los Banos General Plan was adopted in July 2009, and is the guiding document for land use in the City of Los Banos; and WHEREAS, the proposal is consistent with the intent of the General Plan and the Zoning Code regulations; and
WHEREAS, the proposal is compatible with adjacent properties and the surrounding area in general; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City of Los Banos Environmental Quality Guidelines, General Plan Amendment #2020- 02 and Zone Change #2020-02 for F Street Multi-Family Project was adequately evaluated in Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH #2021090191); and WHEREAS, the Los Banos Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 13, 2022, for the purpose of considering General Plan Amendment #2020-02 and Zone Change #2020-02 and at the completion of the public hearing, duly considered the evidence presented and recommended approval to the Los Banos City Council; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was duly noticed for the Los Banos City Council meeting of June 15, 2022, in accordance with California Government Code Section 65091 by advertisement in the Merced Sun-Star and by mail to property owners within 300 feet of the project boundaries on June 3, 2022, to consider and take testimony regarding General Plan Amendment #2020-02 and Zone Change #2020-02; and WHEREAS, at the June 15, 2022, City Council Meetings the Los Banos City Council, heard and considered testimony, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard; reviewed the Project and staff report; studied the compatibility of the applicant's request 1 1861
with adjacent land uses; has considered the applicant's request in accordance with the General Plan Amendment criteria established in Title 9, Chapter 3, Article 24 of the Los Banos Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Los Banos hereby makes the appropriate findings set forth in Exhibit A (California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Findings), and Exhibit B (Findings for Approval), attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Los Banos does hereby approve General Plan Amendment #2020-02 to redesignate approximately 0.9 acres located at 1133 F Street from Industrial to High Density Residential subject to the Conditions of Approval set forth in Exhibit C, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

The foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Los Banos held on the 6th day of July 2022, by Council Member ___ who moved its adoption, which motion was duly seconded by Council Member ___ and the Resolution adopted by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:

Manuel Thomas Faria Ill, Mayor
ATTEST:

Lucille L. Mallonee, City Clerk
2 1862

EXHIBIT A

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) FINDINGS FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT #2020-02 FOR F STREET MULTI-FAMILY PROJECT Pursuant to the requirements of California Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. ("CEQA") and Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq. (the "CEQA Guidelines"), the City as Lead Agency under CEQA adopts the following findings required by CEQA, along with the facts and evidence upon which each finding is based.

The City of Los Banos City Council hereby finds as follows:

1. Pursuant to CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Los Banos Environmental Quality Guidelines, the F Street Multi-Family Project was evaluated in an Initial Study which determined that the project would not involve any significant environmental effects, provided that the mitigation measures described in the Initial Study were implemented and a Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH #2021090191) was made.

2. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was adequately noticed and circulated for public review and no public comments on the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration were received. The City distributed the Notice of Intent with copies of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and posted the Notice of Intent at the Merced County Clerk's office on September 10, 2021, to October 11, 2021.

3. On the basis of the whole record, including the Mitigated Negative Declaration and public comment, the City Council finds that there is no substantial evidence that the Project may have a significant effect on the environment with proper mitigation.

4. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in compliance with CEQA and on the basis of the whole record, there is no substantial evidence of significant new information or changes in the environmental setting have occurred that would result in new or greater significant effects not studied in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration.

5. The City of Los Banos Community and Economic Development Department, located at 520 J Street in Los Banos, is the custodian of the documents that constitute the record of proceedings upon which the determination to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration is based upon.

6. Upon approval of the project analyzed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the City of Los Banos will monitor the implementation of the mitigation measures in accordance with the Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program.

7. Prior to considering the proposed Project, the City Council considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the F Street Multi-Family Project. 3 1863

EXHIBIT B
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT #2020-02 FOR F STREET MUL Tl-FAMILY PROJECT
The City of Los Banos City Council hereby finds as follows:

1. The Los Banos General Plan was adopted by the City on July 15, 2009, and the Project was prepared in accordance with it;

2. The General Plan Amendment and Zone Change will not be detrimental to the health, safety, comfort, or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the City of Los Banos, or injurious to property or improvements in the surrounding neighborhoods or within the City;
EVIDENCE: The High Density Residential land use: (1) are consistent with adjacent residential uses in the vicinity of the project site; and (2) will improve the neighborhood with development that meet local and state building standards (3) the project provides for the unaccommodated need for multi-family units in accordance with the Los Banos Housing Element 2014-2023 Program 1 D.

3. The use is compatible with the adjacent uses, properties, and neighborhoods, and will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City and will not result in detrimental effects to neighboring properties or to City services;
EVIDENCE: The project will enhance the surrounding area, because: (1) it will develop contiguous property surrounded by urban development, (2) it will improve aesthetics of the neighborhood with development which meets the City's Community Design Guidelines; and (3) it was analyzed in an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration that determined that all potentially significant impacts on neighboring properties are reduced to a less than significant level by the incorporation of Mitigation Measures.
4 1864

EXHIBITC
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT #2020-02 FOR F STREET MUL Tl-FAMILY PROJECT

1. The property and use shall be in substantial conformance with the High Density Residential Zoning District (R-3) for the development of multi-family residential units.

2. The applicant or successor(s) in interest agrees as a condition and in consideration of the approval of this and related approvals that it shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Los Banos or its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul this approval, which action is brought within the time period provided for under law, including but not limited to, Government Code Section 66499.37, as applicable.

3. The applicant or successor(s) in interest shall reimburse the City for any court costs and attorney's fees that the City may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. City may, at its sole discretion, participate in the defense of such action; but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition. An agreement to this effect shall be recorded upon demand of City Council concurrent with the issuance of permits or use of the property, whichever occurs first and as applicable. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding, and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense thereof. If the City fails to promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense thereof, the applicant shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold the City harmless.

4. Prior to approval of any improvement plans, Developer shall form or annex the Property to a community facilities district created for the purposes of funding public safety, as authorized by Government Code section 53313(a) and (b). The form, terms and conditions and the tax rate for the formation of the Mello-Roos district, or in the alternative the annexation of the Property to an existing district, shall be as approved by the City Council, as determined in its sole and exclusive discretion. District formation or annexation shall be at the sole cost of the Developer.

5. Prior to approval of any improvement plans, the Developer shall form or annex the Property to a Lighting and Landscaping District created for purposes of maintaining public landscape areas, signage and public lighting including a share of traffic signal maintenance costs as authorized pursuant to the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2 of Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code, and Article XIIID of the California Constitution. The form, terms and conditions and the tax rate for the formation of the Lighting and Landscaping District, or in the alternative the annexation of the Property to an existing district, shall be as approved by the City Council, as determined in its sole and exclusive discretion. It 5 1865
is the intent of the parties that the assessment of the Property will be apportioned to each parcel in proportion to the special benefit it receives. District formation or annexation shall be at the sole cost of the Developer.

6. The Developer shall implement all Mitigated Measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the project (SCH #2021090191), incorporated herein by this reference.

Notice: The conditions of project approval set forth herein include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code section 66020(d)(1 ), these conditions constitute a written notice of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. The applicant is hereby notified that the 90-day protest period commences from the date of approval of the project. If the applicant fails to file a protest regarding any of the fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, or other exactions contained in this notice, complying with all the requirements of section 66020, the applicant will be legally barred from challenging such exactions.
6 1866
ORDINANCE NO. 1198

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF LOS BANOS AMENDING THE OFFICIAL

ZONING MAP BY REZONING PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 1133 F STREET ON ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NUMBER: 025-152-005 FROM
GENERAL COMMERCIAL (C-1) TO HIGH
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-3)
The City Council of the City of Los Banos does hereby ordain as follows:

Section 1. The property identified as Assessor's Parcel Number: 025-152-005 is hereby rezoned as shown on said map from General Commercial (C-1) to High Density Residential (R-3).

Section 2. The City Clerk is hereby directed to make the appropriate markings on the Official Zoning Map in conformance with this Ordinance and the provisions of the Los Banos Municipal Code.

Section 3. This Ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and operation thirty (30) days after its final passage and adoption. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause the same to be posted and published once within fifteen days after passage and adoption as may be required by law; or, in the alternative the City Clerk may cause to be published a summary of this Ordinance and a certified copy of the text of this Ordinance shall be posted in the Office of the City Clerk five days prior to the date of adoption of this Ordinance; and, within fifteen days after adoption, the City Clerk shall cause to be published, the aforementioned summary and shall post a certified copy of this Ordinance, together with the vote for and against the same, in the Office of the City Clerk.

Introduced by Council Member __ and seconded by Council Member __ Passed on the _ day of July, 2022 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:

Manuel Thomas Faria 111, Mayor
1867
ATTEST:

Lucille L. Mallonee, City Clerk
2 1868
Legend
LosBanos_GPLU
GPLU
,----- Agriculture/Rural
- Civic/lnsmutional
- Commercial
LJ Employment Pall<
LJ High Density ResldenUal
D Industrial
~ I Low Densny Residential
CJ Medium Density Residential
- Mixed Use
- Neighborhood Commercial
C-, Parl<
L7 Professional Office
- SR 152 Bypass Corridor
~ ~.,
rl~
/117~;, ~~
/
~ ! ., . . • .. -
General Plan Land Use Map
F Street Multi-Family Project
f 5T
SAH LUIS Sl
~
~
~
• ;
,-.. >-----~
~-~~ l11,,1j LUIS ST
I
I

I I I I
I - !-.I. , _· ,
j· r1--t1J~·:
: I I • ' • I I
- I - I ... , I •
"'
1869
·o
Q)
t5
a.

L...

C
o,U.
~~
m·-
c.~
. .!.. ·- ... 0
c-
::,
N~
L1.
(/)
... ~
Q)
...
'
'
I .
'
"'~....._.,,,,, ,
~
I
t .• '
I
~ ~ ~ _ 3 ; ~ I ~ ~ ~
:1/\Y VJ.I~ VJ.NW
.. ' I
>

II IJIII DI
OH SONltklS l,if:)l:t:lf'I
~
~
I
I
I
·-'-
1870
LEGEND
DIIS11NC PflfJPOS£D
..mt•lf' .....,_ .......
nttHtlJIW6 A A
"""""' * * SWiOIIIIMW«r--...'-- -----
l'101Ml-.O • •
..mi,.,,. - - cm-- ------!Dl--
J#l!IMl" S(IIP' --<DJ--- -an--- ,..,~ - -<151- - ---<il!D-- =----- -----
ABBREJIIA1IONS
. " ~
.. ~•£WM
" ~
A$IHII.TCDIICJ/0£ _,_ ~,
-'"' "'
_,,._ .. "' aCDJIIG.5(191ar(frC
... IIIUHlsrnw:Jtl..r' " ' "" """<T""""" .. "" ""'"""""' ~ a
~
~- "" ~
" ar,,on ,.,,
""' - "" CO CAICH~ = = "'~ '" a _..,,
.. _, .. W ~Cl/iOlll'ff ..... : =~WIS (1lru£D DMI) .,
~ CC (NOOF,l/l!'o'f
a aa111a1.a ,. "" CP ((JC(()F.l'KK- ? ,UV .,.._
-
00!'/~
--
0/ISfN/
" ~(tllllCl([7( ,c nRC- m
" 'f.0.-lllll ITTil"
' """ ..., "' ~
---- " .. - 1/IGHDCNSHY"POt'fC11f'f!IMP,F(,,,,
~ ,MM ""' - =~H ~" 8 ~
' '"fDl""1€1i11r17) ., "' !:"':a?tM"Mm1 ., V . - -
=::J r:_J
-t,01 = ,a sou:
""" ~~/~
-·~ """"'" POHf or lln'[JISC CWMITLl'i'C
-
FUIIJCUll.nY(~
PQ.Mm.Cl4.Dllt/Jl.Pff: :~CDHCR£1£~
... ,.,,,,_
_, '61ST..w«IIILI.£ '"'"'
,,....,
=NM!l(SJ(JN
=-
~,
l:::"""" -,,-- =UIC
---
~.Ml
=WC/NISCN01CD
"'1'llllr.R rurN'E
"""'"""' =,,,..._,
PfllSOlt~/lfOfDOCI}

CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN

F STREET MULTI FAMILY

LOS BANOS, CALIFORNIA
Bf/NC ALL OF LOTS 1-4 OF BLOCK 7J AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN OFF/CW. PIAT FILED FOR RECORD ON J!/1.Y 6, 1948 IN BOOK 11 OF OFFICIAL PLATS AT PACE 48, MERCED COUNTY RECORDS, SITUATED IN THE NORTHERN HAI.F OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTI/, RANGE 10 £,IST, /JOUNT OIABI.O I/ASE ANO MERIOfAN, IN THE CfTY OF LOS BANOS, MERCED COUNTY. STATE: OF CAI.IFORNIA i -.1111=
I I 1i1 I I 111 ,..,,, cl---:----~~~:~~-----=;;----=-=======:::;;;::======:;~;;;;;;;;;;;;;~~~/ I :::a_:::,S=-=:=a=~~W==:=::=~~~i 1,- • I
~ .. -~: I
I :'1: I I j1
~ J/ l.u I
: :ii I j
I :··(: ~
·•,;: '< ·, --- ~ . : : ~
~~==~~~==~~q~~====~~======~i~;-~OJ: ~, =-=- - --fac=~- --=~=--< __ : :!1 I I I ! 1: 11 f I l ';Ji I
41 I
,: I I 025-15-02 I I 025-15-03 11 OP 48 -1' I
11 OP 48 - I I
i: __ ,: I
ii I
SHEET NO DE9CIW"l10N , ..,,.,.,,_
, 3 -- ~Hl'IZCNCl.«:W71fCI.PUII
4 ~GRAlllMJANOOMN4tiERAN
IS ODlaJ'TUM. ururt'PUN
, ~&M7QWI
7 ~Gc:URREMJBWG , ~tMtD51Q411!'11,,,W
-
""""""""'"""" 11JE'ASTPtltCHEW~SW£C
UJS~01"4,ts
(lflll)~7200
l1flI<S
{AS R£OfC1DI llrCll'Y 0Fl0$ &w0$ ~ C00C ARllQ.C to Ir 5"'1ICW P-.UOJ,) I) 1'£~$1l" ISINrENIJEDR'Jtl£/lltl.1lllllll.l'lli!f'.WlEMW.. 2) Sl1C~IIJ.1FS111EEf
U)$~ot9JAJ5
.J}~IMl:tl.NO.IUS-15Z-ot:t,
4J
.5) l'II0'05£DGDCJll(ICMICH
~ caaw ftUJt ~
.fJOISl1Ylit'.SaMIW.
4) £'1151M,~~~~•J
1JflfltJIIIO:it1}Zr;,IIINC;MQIOOtSl1'rl/£SIDOmlltl(ll'-J) a} E1IOS/OIII ~ ,a arr OF tos 111t1DS IJIQNN2S" MID SWiDWIS I) ltMIDi'Sl.ffll'!rretrrOFUJSll4M:IS.U-SHD91Dlt1HISWP.

IO)SlJWZo:s,QS,ll,ilrrCITYOFlOS8ANtJSASJMIMIC#DIISW.
ll)S10RIIIIIMINIIGt":(lfCll'YOFL0$8ANOSIISSNr/llNONFH$1MP'. 11)mm:m,raMWM;rN«,1l'.lf!Jt$tll!lll1ffl)AT'1Ell!E'OF'flNC#Wlat.,IWI', IJ)TIIIEtffl'tNIOtOCUIO't!iHN.Ll!ilE~llrrHl:~NfCtfMCT,
lf)WAIDi'SlfflYNIIJS[IMGt'DISPCJSJ,l.SlMUfl!CaM'l.Ulfl1HJ/SP0r~fOF 1111.CIOf'THCtuCPAl.an:

I~ 11.l. M"lff7IODl'l'Jftt •MSrMHDt111aws1IILC1[0J.T FHC IM"or~ lf)IU.loRIMIDl'l'J~IIC~rll~"'1HA'ffllUS4NIO~OF' mu, rT !ht'~ t'ClO(. ~-"" STNCWaa 11)EU'l!l1DfSSHOMtMEa&sn>11NAnwst1MTrrllE'Dl'IWlll'oaa:,ac1C. ..,_ ll)#Oll#l"ASSl&(t'11l'.ll'«HM1'CWlll'TM'J.S~awtCCsrrJRtl. 11') NO 5TRfJCWliD PIICOtJlr £)(ISf ON SITf.
20)ttmv.Mtl!OFTHCIIIRCD.lS4JOACn:UCONWNNG41'Afim.S.

Zl)IHCW1SlltOIOTHCmYOFtr1Sllw:ISa1iC#IINIKlQQUnlONIICOl!MlONA PDl!ElPl'Ol.£0N1HCNOtll'IPSTa:JR#CltorrS1RaTN1DW/STRCCT.

PARK/NG SUW4R:t
O.tJQl ltC#O
W.n ,.,.._r If" 18"'5 'IPP V"9 ¥2\ffll
-«11,-_l'i ZrJIT-sf1faTSPAGD'PfJtrACH/JVIICINrDF~DffMMf'BallliOOII! snr mnsncs·
I..ANMl:N'CflLQUlltCIID6•--0l'S11£MD1(POtct1Ysm. 1--Z.1) .JfA:.~Nll!ll•.121'
tii :z-
-► ~~•1 :iii ;~~,
~ .. 1 .. :Zc,
Wz; ~;~t
C: zli!i :Eui' :czuwm
:z ..... w> mu
~
m
i
I
~
! I i ;!
[,.
....
~
..,~
'""'--"'---
~ CJ~
1871

THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
1872
I
•
'
,I~ l ......... . _
7 m,i-::: - - .. - " - - . - •. ---·DAI COLOR RENDEIIINO 0 BENCHMARK ENGINEERING, INC.

CIVIL ENGINEERING & LAND SURVEYING
1 1 1 1 1 ·-··-~~Lll-F~ILY 1111111~....,,..MllOEIITC/;~- ... -.- 1873
1874
1875
"'
"'
,.
"
,.
~
..
•
:
(>
..
•
•
"'
·\.
..
~
1876
1877

THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
1878
LOsBanos

COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Date: June 3, 2022
Regarding: Notice of Public Hearing
Proposal: General Plan Amendment #2020-02, Zone Change #2020-02, and Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH#2021090191) - F St. Multi Family NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT a Public Hearing will be held by the Los Banos City Council to consider a General Plan Amendment 2020-02, Zone Change #2020-02, and Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH #2021090191) for the development of two (2) multi-family structures totaling 18,136 square feet with 16 residential units. The purpose of the General Plan Amendment is to amend current Industrial General Plan land use designation to proposed High Density Residential land use designation and Zone Change from General Commercial Zoning District to High Density Residential Zoning District. The project site is located at 1133 F St.; more specifically identified as Assessor's Parcel Numbers: 025-152-005.

The Los Banos Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 13, 2022, for the purpose of considering the above mentioned project. At the completion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission duly considered all evidence presented and recommended approval to the Los Banos City Council.

A PUBLIC HEARING on this matter will be held at the next scheduled meeting of the Los Banos City Council on Wednesday, June 15, 2022, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of Los Banos City Hall located at 520 "J" Street. Questions regarding the above-referenced item may be directed to Stacy Souza Elms, Commuity and Economic Development Director at City Hall or at (209) 827-2433.

All persons are invited to be present at the public hearing. Written and oral testimony is invited. Notice is hereby further given that if you challenge the above described Project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this Notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing.

Additional information may be obtained from Community & Economic Development Department at 520 J Street, Los Banos, California. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Office of the City Clerk at (209) 827-7000. Notification at least 72 hours prior to the public hearing will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to allow participation at this hearing

THE CITY OF LOS BANOS
Stacy Souza Elms
Community and Economic Development Director
1879

← All documents from this meeting