Agenda packet — McFarland City Council, January 29, 2026 (part 2 of 3)

City of McFarland - Elmo Well Facility Detailed Report, 4/15/2025 49 / 126
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.95 3.95 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.01 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.65 0.65 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.66 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.19. Piping & Appurtenances (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.11 0.09 0.89 1.29 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.02 — 0.02 — 196 196 0.01 < 0.005 — 197 Onsite
truck

0.01 0.01 0.12 0.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 26.8 26.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 26.9 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Page 174 of 454 ends

City of McFarland - Elmo Well Facility Detailed Report, 4/15/2025 50 / 126
Off-Roa
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 4.44 4.44 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.46 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 52.8 52.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.17 53.5 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.53 0.53 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.55 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.59 6.59 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.68 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.09 1.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.11 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.20. Piping & Appurtenances (2026) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Page 175 of 454 ends

City of McFarland - Elmo Well Facility Detailed Report, 4/15/2025 51 / 126
Off-Roa
Equipment

0.11 0.09 0.89 1.29 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.02 — 0.02 — 196 196 0.01 < 0.005 — 197 Onsite
truck

0.01 0.01 0.12 0.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 26.8 26.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 26.9 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 4.44 4.44 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.46 Onsite
truck

Page 176 of 454 ends

City of McFarland - Elmo Well Facility Detailed Report, 4/15/2025 52 / 126
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.09 1.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.11 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.21. Pump & Motor Installation (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.44 0.37 3.45 3.07 0.01 0.14 — 0.14 0.13 — 0.13 — 990 990 0.04 0.01 — 993 Onsite
truck

0.01 0.01 0.09 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 27.1 27.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 27.2 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Page 177 of 454 ends

City of McFarland - Elmo Well Facility Detailed Report, 4/15/2025 53 / 126
Off-Roa < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 4.49 4.49 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.51 d
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.55 0.55 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.56 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.53 0.53 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.55 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.22. Pump & Motor Installation (2026) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Page 178 of 454 ends

City of McFarland - Elmo Well Facility Detailed Report, 4/15/2025 54 / 126
Off-Roa
Equipment

0.44 0.37 3.45 3.07 0.01 0.14 — 0.14 0.13 — 0.13 — 990 990 0.04 0.01 — 993 Onsite
truck

0.01 0.01 0.09 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 27.1 27.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 27.2 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 4.49 4.49 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.51 Onsite
truck

Page 179 of 454 ends

City of McFarland - Elmo Well Facility Detailed Report, 4/15/2025 55 / 126
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.23. Hydropneumatic Tank (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.16 0.13 1.24 1.53 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.04 — 0.04 — 308 308 0.01 < 0.005 — 309 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 8.44 8.44 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.46 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Page 180 of 454 ends

City of McFarland - Elmo Well Facility Detailed Report, 4/15/2025 56 / 126
Off-Roa < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.40 1.40 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.40 d
Onsite
truck

3.24. Hydropneumatic Tank (2026) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Page 181 of 454 ends

City of McFarland - Elmo Well Facility Detailed Report, 4/15/2025 57 / 126
Off-Roa
Equipment

0.16 0.13 1.24 1.53 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.04 — 0.04 — 308 308 0.01 < 0.005 — 309 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.40 1.40 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.40 Onsite
truck

Page 182 of 454 ends

City of McFarland - Elmo Well Facility Detailed Report, 4/15/2025 58 / 126
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.25. Site Electrical (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.16 0.14 1.37 2.43 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 367 367 0.01 < 0.005 — 368 Onsite
truck

0.02 0.02 0.17 0.30 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 45.2 45.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 45.4 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Page 183 of 454 ends

City of McFarland - Elmo Well Facility Detailed Report, 4/15/2025 59 / 126
Off-Roa < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 7.48 7.48 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.51 d
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.55 0.55 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.56 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.53 0.53 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.55 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.26. Site Electrical (2026) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Page 184 of 454 ends

City of McFarland - Elmo Well Facility Detailed Report, 4/15/2025 60 / 126
Off-Roa
Equipment

0.16 0.14 1.37 2.43 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 367 367 0.01 < 0.005 — 368 Onsite
truck

0.02 0.02 0.17 0.30 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 45.2 45.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 45.4 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 7.48 7.48 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.51 Onsite
truck

Page 185 of 454 ends

City of McFarland - Elmo Well Facility Detailed Report, 4/15/2025 61 / 126
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.27. Backup Generator (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.07 0.06 0.56 0.62 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 160 160 0.01 < 0.005 — 161 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 6.58 6.58 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.60 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Page 186 of 454 ends

City of McFarland - Elmo Well Facility Detailed Report, 4/15/2025 62 / 126
Off-Roa < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.09 1.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.09 d
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.55 0.55 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.56 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.53 0.53 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.55 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.28. Backup Generator (2026) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Page 187 of 454 ends

City of McFarland - Elmo Well Facility Detailed Report, 4/15/2025 63 / 126
Off-Roa
Equipment

0.07 0.06 0.56 0.62 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 160 160 0.01 < 0.005 — 161 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 6.58 6.58 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.60 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.09 1.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.09 Onsite
truck

Page 188 of 454 ends

City of McFarland - Elmo Well Facility Detailed Report, 4/15/2025 64 / 126
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.29. Paving & Sidewalk (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.42 0.35 2.96 3.44 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.11 — 0.11 — 543 543 0.02 < 0.005 — 545 Paving 0.02 0.02 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.02 0.02 0.14 0.16 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 25.5 25.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 25.6 Paving < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Page 189 of 454 ends

City of McFarland - Elmo Well Facility Detailed Report, 4/15/2025 65 / 126
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 4.22 4.22 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.23 Paving < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.83 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.21 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 203 203 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 205 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.89 9.89 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 10.0 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.64 1.64 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.66 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.30. Paving & Sidewalk (2026) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e

Page 190 of 454 ends

City of McFarland - Elmo Well Facility Detailed Report, 4/15/2025 66 / 126
Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.42 0.35 2.96 3.44 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.11 — 0.11 — 543 543 0.02 < 0.005 — 545 Paving 0.02 0.02 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.02 0.02 0.14 0.16 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 25.5 25.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 25.6 Paving < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 4.22 4.22 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.23 Paving < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Page 191 of 454 ends

City of McFarland - Elmo Well Facility Detailed Report, 4/15/2025 67 / 126
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.83 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.21 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 203 203 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 205 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.89 9.89 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 10.0 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.64 1.64 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.66 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.31. Paving & Sidewalk (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.41 0.34 2.91 3.45 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.11 — 0.11 — 543 543 0.02 < 0.005 — 545 Paving 0.02 0.02 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Page 192 of 454 ends

City of McFarland - Elmo Well Facility Detailed Report, 4/15/2025 68 / 126
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 5.31 5.31 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.33 Paving < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.76 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.21 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 199 199 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 201 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.02 2.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.05 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Page 193 of 454 ends

City of McFarland - Elmo Well Facility Detailed Report, 4/15/2025 69 / 126
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.33 0.33 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.34 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.32. Paving & Sidewalk (2027) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.41 0.34 2.91 3.45 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.11 — 0.11 — 543 543 0.02 < 0.005 — 545 Paving 0.02 0.02 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 5.31 5.31 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.33 Paving < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Page 194 of 454 ends

City of McFarland - Elmo Well Facility Detailed Report, 4/15/2025 70 / 126
Off-Roa < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.88 0.88 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.88 d
Paving < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.76 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.21 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 199 199 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 201 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.02 2.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.05 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.33 0.33 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.34 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.33. Site Painting (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Page 195 of 454 ends

City of McFarland - Elmo Well Facility Detailed Report, 4/15/2025 71 / 126
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.21 0.17 1.32 1.45 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 198 198 0.01 < 0.005 — 199 Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.02 0.02 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.02 0.01 0.11 0.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 16.3 16.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 16.4 Architect
ural
Coating
s
< 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

Page 196 of 454 ends

City of McFarland - Elmo Well Facility Detailed Report, 4/15/2025 72 / 126
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.86 0.86 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.87 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.34. Site Painting (2027) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Page 197 of 454 ends

City of McFarland - Elmo Well Facility Detailed Report, 4/15/2025 73 / 126
Off-Roa
Equipment

0.21 0.17 1.32 1.45 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 198 198 0.01 < 0.005 — 199 Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.02 0.02 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

Page 198 of 454 ends

City of McFarland - Elmo Well Facility Detailed Report, 4/15/2025 74 / 126
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.86 0.86 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.87 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.35. Underground Pipeline (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.22 0.18 1.61 2.51 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 355 355 0.01 < 0.005 — 357 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Page 199 of 454 ends

City of McFarland - Elmo Well Facility Detailed Report, 4/15/2025 75 / 126
Off-Roa
Equipment

0.22 0.18 1.61 2.51 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 355 355 0.01 < 0.005 — 357 Onsite
truck

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

0.02 0.01 0.11 0.17 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 24.3 24.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 24.4 Onsite
truck

Page 200 of 454 ends

City of McFarland - Elmo Well Facility Detailed Report, 4/15/2025 76 / 126
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.18 6.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.26 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.02 1.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.04 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.36. Underground Pipeline (2026) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.22 0.18 1.61 2.51 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 355 355 0.01 < 0.005 — 357 Onsite
truck

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

0.22 0.18 1.61 2.51 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 355 355 0.01 < 0.005 — 357 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Page 201 of 454 ends

City of McFarland - Elmo Well Facility Detailed Report, 4/15/2025 77 / 126
Off-Roa 0.02 0.01 0.11 0.17 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 24.3 24.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 24.4 d
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 99.0 99.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.33 100 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 86.8 86.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 87.9 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.18 6.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.26 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.02 1.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.04 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Page 202 of 454 ends

City of McFarland - Elmo Well Facility Detailed Report, 4/15/2025 78 / 126
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.37. Underground Electrical (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.13 0.11 1.03 1.53 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 229 229 0.01 < 0.005 — 230 Onsite
truck

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

0.13 0.11 1.03 1.53 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 229 229 0.01 < 0.005 — 230 Onsite
truck

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

0.01 0.01 0.07 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 15.7 15.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.7 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Page 203 of 454 ends

City of McFarland - Elmo Well Facility Detailed Report, 4/15/2025 79 / 126
Off-Roa < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.60 2.60 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.61 d
Equipm
Onsite
truck

3.38. Underground Electrical (2026) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e

Page 204 of 454 ends

City of McFarland - Elmo Well Facility Detailed Report, 4/15/2025 80 / 126
Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.13 0.11 1.03 1.53 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.02 — 0.02 — 229 229 0.01 < 0.005 — 230 Onsite
truck

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

0.13 0.11 1.03 1.53 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.02 — 0.02 — 229 229 0.01 < 0.005 — 230 Onsite
truck

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

0.01 0.01 0.07 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 15.7 15.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.7 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.60 2.60 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.61 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Page 205 of 454 ends

City of McFarland - Elmo Well Facility Detailed Report, 4/15/2025 81 / 126
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 99.0 99.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.33 100 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 86.8 86.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 87.9 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.18 6.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.26 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.02 1.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.04 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e

Page 206 of 454 ends

City of McFarland - Elmo Well Facility Detailed Report, 4/15/2025 82 / 126
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
User
Defined
Industrial

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
User
Defined
Industrial

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
User
Defined
Industrial

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4.1.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
User
Defined
Industrial

Page 207 of 454 ends

City of McFarland - Elmo Well Facility Detailed Report, 4/15/2025 83 / 126
User
Defined
Industrial

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
User
Defined
Industrial
— — — — — — — — — — — — 335 335 0.05 0.01 — 339
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 335 335 0.05 0.01 — 339
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
User
Defined
Industrial
— — — — — — — — — — — — 335 335 0.05 0.01 — 339
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 335 335 0.05 0.01 — 339
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
User
Defined
Industrial
— — — — — — — — — — — — 55.5 55.5 0.01 < 0.005 — 56.1

Page 208 of 454 ends

City of McFarland - Elmo Well Facility Detailed Report, 4/15/2025 84 / 126
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 55.5 55.5 0.01 < 0.005 — 56.1

4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
User
Defined
Industrial
— — — — — — — — — — — — 335 335 0.05 0.01 — 339
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 335 335 0.05 0.01 — 339
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
User
Defined
Industrial
— — — — — — — — — — — — 335 335 0.05 0.01 — 339
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 335 335 0.05 0.01 — 339
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
User
Defined
Industrial
— — — — — — — — — — — — 55.5 55.5 0.01 < 0.005 — 56.1
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 55.5 55.5 0.01 < 0.005 — 56.1

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Page 209 of 454 ends

City of McFarland - Elmo Well Facility Detailed Report, 4/15/2025 85 / 126
User
Defined
Industrial

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
User
Defined
Industrial

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
User
Defined
Industrial

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00

4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
User
Defined
Industrial

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00

Page 210 of 454 ends

City of McFarland - Elmo Well Facility Detailed Report, 4/15/2025 86 / 126
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
User
Defined
Industrial

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Product
s
< 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s
< 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.02 Total < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.02 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Product
s
< 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Page 211 of 454 ends

City of McFarland - Elmo Well Facility Detailed Report, 4/15/2025 87 / 126
Architect
Coatings
< 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Product
s
< 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s
< 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 Total < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005

4.3.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Product
s
< 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s
< 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.02

Page 212 of 454 ends

City of McFarland - Elmo Well Facility Detailed Report, 4/15/2025 88 / 126
Total < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.02 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Product
s
< 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s
< 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Product
s
< 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s
< 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 Total < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e

Page 213 of 454 ends

City of McFarland - Elmo Well Facility Detailed Report, 4/15/2025 89 / 126
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
User
Defined
Industrial
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
User
Defined
Industrial
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
User
Defined
Industrial
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00

4.4.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
User
Defined
Industrial
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Page 214 of 454 ends

City of McFarland - Elmo Well Facility Detailed Report, 4/15/2025 90 / 126
User
Defined
Industrial
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
User
Defined
Industrial
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
User
Defined
Industrial
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
User
Defined
Industrial
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
User
Defined
Industrial
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00

Page 215 of 454 ends

City of McFarland - Elmo Well Facility Detailed Report, 4/15/2025 91 / 126
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00

4.5.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
User
Defined
Industrial
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
User
Defined
Industrial
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
User
Defined
Industrial
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e

Page 216 of 454 ends

City of McFarland - Elmo Well Facility Detailed Report, 4/15/2025 92 / 126
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

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

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)

Page 217 of 454 ends

City of McFarland - Elmo Well Facility Detailed Report, 4/15/2025 93 / 126
Equipm TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e ent
Type
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

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

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

Page 218 of 454 ends

City of McFarland - Elmo Well Facility Detailed Report, 4/15/2025 94 / 126

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

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Emerge
ncy
Generat
or

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Emerge
ncy
Generat
or

0.04 0.03 0.15 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 0.00 15.2 15.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 15.3 Total 0.04 0.03 0.15 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 0.00 15.2 15.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 15.3

4.8.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e

Page 219 of 454 ends

City of McFarland - Elmo Well Facility Detailed Report, 4/15/2025 95 / 126
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Emerge
ncy
Generat
or

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

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

Page 220 of 454 ends

City of McFarland - Elmo Well Facility Detailed Report, 4/15/2025 96 / 126
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

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

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetati
on
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Page 221 of 454 ends

City of McFarland - Elmo Well Facility Detailed Report, 4/15/2025 97 / 126
Urban — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — — — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — — — 0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Urban — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — — — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — — — 0.00
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Urban — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — — — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — — — 0.00

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Urban — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — — — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — — — 0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Urban — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — — — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — — — 0.00
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Urban — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — — — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — — — 0.00

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)

Page 222 of 454 ends

City of McFarland - Elmo Well Facility Detailed Report, 4/15/2025 98 / 126
Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Page 223 of 454 ends

City of McFarland - Elmo Well Facility Detailed Report, 4/15/2025 99 / 126
Remove — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
d
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetati
on
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Urban — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — — — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — — — 0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Urban — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — — — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — — — 0.00
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Urban — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — — — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — — — 0.00

4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Urban — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — — — 0.00

Page 224 of 454 ends

City of McFarland - Elmo Well Facility Detailed Report, 4/15/2025 100 / 126
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — — — 0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Urban — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — — — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — — — 0.00
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Urban — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — — — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — — — 0.00

4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Page 225 of 454 ends

City of McFarland - Elmo Well Facility Detailed Report, 4/15/2025 101 / 126
Sequest — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ered
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Demolition Demolition 1/1/2026 1/15/2026 5.00 10.0 Existing Fencing/Sidewalk Site Preparation Site Preparation 9/30/2025 10/13/2025 5.00 10.0 Clearing & Grubbing Rough Grading & Over-ex Grading 10/14/2025 11/10/2025 5.00 20.0 Rough Grading Finish Grading Grading 11/17/2026 12/7/2026 5.00 15.0 Finish Grading Well Site Fencing Building Construction 11/11/2025 12/22/2025 5.00 30.0 Block Wall & Gates Well Drilling Building Construction 12/23/2025 4/6/2026 5.00 75.0 Well Drilling Water Tank Construction Building Construction 4/7/2026 7/6/2026 5.00 65.0 Tank Construction & Coating

Page 226 of 454 ends

City of McFarland - Elmo Well Facility Detailed Report, 4/15/2025 102 / 126
Treatment System Building Construction 6/2/2026 7/13/2026 5.00 30.0 Treatment System Piping & Appurtenances Building Construction 7/14/2026 9/21/2026 5.00 50.0 Above Ground Piping & Appurtenances
Pump & Motor Installation Building Construction 5/5/2026 5/18/2026 5.00 10.0 Well Pump & Motor Hydropneumatic Tank Building Construction 5/19/2026 6/1/2026 5.00 10.0 Hydropneumatic Tank Site Electrical Building Construction 7/28/2026 9/28/2026 5.00 45.0 Electrical Equipment Backup Generator Building Construction 8/25/2026 9/14/2026 5.00 15.0 Backup Generator Paving & Sidewalk Paving 12/8/2026 1/5/2027 5.00 21.0 Site Paving & Tie-in Location
Site Painting Architectural Coating 1/5/2027 2/15/2027 5.00 30.0 Paint Piping & Storage Tanks
Underground Pipeline Trenching 9/22/2026 10/26/2026 5.00 25.0 Underground Piping Underground Electrical Trenching 9/1/2026 10/5/2026 5.00 25.0 Underground Electrical

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 84.0 0.37
Demolition Skid Steer Loaders Diesel Average 1.00 4.00 71.0 0.37 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Rough Grading &
Over-ex
Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 148 0.41
Rough Grading &
Over-ex
Rollers Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 367 0.40
Rough Grading &
Over-ex
Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 84.0 0.37

Page 227 of 454 ends

City of McFarland - Elmo Well Facility Detailed Report, 4/15/2025 103 / 126
Finish Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 367 0.40 hoes
Finish Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Well Site Fencing Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 4.00 84.0 0.37
Well Drilling Bore/Drill Rigs Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.29 Well Drilling Forklifts Diesel Average 1.00 4.00 82.0 0.20 Well Drilling Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 84.0 0.37
Well Drilling Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 84.0 0.37
Water Tank
Construction
Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 2.00 367 0.29
Water Tank
Construction
Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 82.0 0.20
Water Tank
Construction
Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Water Tank
Construction
Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48
Treatment System Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 1.00 367 0.29 Treatment System Generator Sets Diesel Average 2.00 2.00 14.0 0.20 Treatment System Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Piping &
Appurtenances
Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 4.00 84.0 0.29
Piping &
Appurtenances
Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 4.00 82.0 0.20
Pump & Motor
Installation
Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.29
Hydropneumatic Tank Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 1.00 367 0.29 Hydropneumatic Tank Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 4.00 84.0 0.37
Hydropneumatic Tank Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 3.00 14.0 0.74

Page 228 of 454 ends

City of McFarland - Elmo Well Facility Detailed Report, 4/15/2025 104 / 126
Site Electrical Forklifts Diesel Average 1.00 4.00 82.0 0.20 Site Electrical Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 2.00 4.00 84.0 0.37
Backup Generator Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 1.00 367 0.29 Backup Generator Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 1.00 84.0 0.37
Paving & Sidewalk Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 4.00 84.0 0.37
Paving & Sidewalk Cement and Mortar
Mixers
Diesel Average 4.00 6.00 10.0 0.56
Paving & Sidewalk Pavers Diesel Average 1.00 4.00 81.0 0.42 Paving & Sidewalk Rollers Diesel Average 1.00 4.00 36.0 0.38 Site Painting Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48 Site Painting Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 5.00 14.0 0.74 Underground Pipeline Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 84.0 0.37
Underground Pipeline Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 4.00 36.0 0.38 Underground Pipeline Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 3.00 37.0 0.48 Underground
Electrical
Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 4.00 36.0 0.38
Underground
Electrical
Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 4.00 84.0 0.37
Underground
Electrical
Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 1.00 14.0 0.74

5.2.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 84.0 0.37
Demolition Skid Steer Loaders Diesel Average 1.00 4.00 71.0 0.37 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41

Page 229 of 454 ends

City of McFarland - Elmo Well Facility Detailed Report, 4/15/2025 105 / 126
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37 Rough Grading &
Over-ex
Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 148 0.41
Rough Grading &
Over-ex
Rollers Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 367 0.40
Rough Grading &
Over-ex
Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Finish Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 367 0.40
Finish Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Well Site Fencing Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 4.00 84.0 0.37
Well Drilling Bore/Drill Rigs Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.29 Well Drilling Forklifts Diesel Average 1.00 4.00 82.0 0.20 Well Drilling Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 84.0 0.37
Well Drilling Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 84.0 0.37
Water Tank
Construction
Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 2.00 367 0.29
Water Tank
Construction
Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 82.0 0.20
Water Tank
Construction
Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Water Tank
Construction
Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48
Treatment System Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 1.00 367 0.29 Treatment System Generator Sets Diesel Average 2.00 2.00 14.0 0.20 Treatment System Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Piping &
Appurtenances
Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 4.00 84.0 0.29

Page 230 of 454 ends

City of McFarland - Elmo Well Facility Detailed Report, 4/15/2025 106 / 126
Piping & Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 4.00 82.0 0.20 Appurtenances
Pump & Motor
Installation
Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.29
Hydropneumatic Tank Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 1.00 367 0.29 Hydropneumatic Tank Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 4.00 84.0 0.37
Hydropneumatic Tank Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 3.00 14.0 0.74 Site Electrical Forklifts Diesel Average 1.00 4.00 82.0 0.20 Site Electrical Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 2.00 4.00 84.0 0.37
Backup Generator Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 1.00 367 0.29 Backup Generator Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 1.00 84.0 0.37
Paving & Sidewalk Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 4.00 84.0 0.37
Paving & Sidewalk Cement and Mortar
Mixers
DieselAverage 4.00 6.00 10.0 0.56
Paving & Sidewalk Pavers Diesel Average 1.00 4.00 81.0 0.42 Paving & Sidewalk Rollers Diesel Average 1.00 4.00 36.0 0.38 Site Painting Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48 Site Painting Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 5.00 14.0 0.74 Underground Pipeline Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 84.0 0.37
Underground Pipeline Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 4.00 36.0 0.38 Underground Pipeline Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 3.00 37.0 0.48 Underground
Electrical
Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 4.00 36.0 0.38
Underground
Electrical
Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 4.00 84.0 0.37
Underground
Electrical
Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 1.00 14.0 0.74

Page 231 of 454 ends

City of McFarland - Elmo Well Facility Detailed Report, 4/15/2025 107 / 126

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition — — — —
Demolition Worker 5.00 17.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor — 10.6 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 0.10 20.0 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT
Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 5.00 17.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 10.6 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 1.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Rough Grading & Over-ex — — — —
Rough Grading & Over-ex Worker 7.50 17.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Rough Grading & Over-ex Vendor — 10.6 HHDT,MHDT
Rough Grading & Over-ex Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Rough Grading & Over-ex Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving & Sidewalk — — — —
Paving & Sidewalk Worker 17.5 17.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving & Sidewalk Vendor — 10.6 HHDT,MHDT
Paving & Sidewalk Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving & Sidewalk Onsite truck — — HHDT
Site Painting — — — —
Site Painting Worker 0.08 17.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Painting Vendor — 10.6 HHDT,MHDT
Site Painting Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT

Page 232 of 454 ends

City of McFarland - Elmo Well Facility Detailed Report, 4/15/2025 108 / 126
Site Painting Onsite truck—— HHDT
Finish Grading————
Finish Grading Worker 5.00 17.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Finish Grading Vendor— 10.6 HHDT,MHDT
Finish Grading Hauling 2.00 20.0 HHDT
Finish Grading Onsite truck—— HHDT
Well Site Fencing————
Well Site Fencing Worker 6.00 17.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Well Site Fencing Vendor 0.02 10.6 HHDT,MHDT
Well Site Fencing Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Well Site Fencing Onsite truck—— HHDT
Well Drilling————
Well Drilling Worker 6.00 17.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Well Drilling Vendor 0.02 10.6 HHDT,MHDT
Well Drilling Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Well Drilling Onsite truck—— HHDT
Water Tank Construction————
Water Tank Construction Worker 4.00 17.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Water Tank Construction Vendor 0.02 10.6 HHDT,MHDT
Water Tank Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Water Tank Construction Onsite truck—— HHDT
Treatment System————
Treatment System Worker 4.00 17.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Treatment System Vendor 0.02 10.6 HHDT,MHDT
Treatment System Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Treatment System Onsite truck—— HHDT
Piping & Appurtenances————
Piping & Appurtenances Worker 4.00 17.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2

Page 233 of 454 ends

City of McFarland - Elmo Well Facility Detailed Report, 4/15/2025 109 / 126
Piping & Appurtenances Vendor 0.02 10.6 HHDT,MHDT
Piping & Appurtenances Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Piping & Appurtenances Onsite truck—— HHDT
Pump & Motor Installation————
Pump & Motor Installation Worker 0.04 17.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Pump & Motor Installation Vendor 0.02 10.6 HHDT,MHDT
Pump & Motor Installation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Pump & Motor Installation Onsite truck—— HHDT
Hydropneumatic Tank————
Hydropneumatic Tank Worker 0.04 17.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Hydropneumatic Tank Vendor 0.02 10.6 HHDT,MHDT
Hydropneumatic Tank Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Hydropneumatic Tank Onsite truck—— HHDT
Site Electrical————
Site Electrical Worker 0.04 17.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Electrical Vendor 0.02 10.6 HHDT,MHDT
Site Electrical Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Electrical Onsite truck—— HHDT
Backup Generator————
Backup Generator Worker 0.04 17.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Backup Generator Vendor 0.02 10.6 HHDT,MHDT
Backup Generator Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Backup Generator Onsite truck—— HHDT
Underground Pipeline————
Underground Pipeline Worker 7.50 17.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Underground Pipeline Vendor— 10.6 HHDT,MHDT
Underground Pipeline Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Underground Pipeline Onsite truck—— HHDT

Page 234 of 454 ends

City of McFarland - Elmo Well Facility Detailed Report, 4/15/2025 110 / 126
Underground Electrical — — — —
Underground Electrical Worker 7.50 17.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Underground Electrical Vendor — 10.6 HHDT,MHDT
Underground Electrical Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Underground Electrical Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.3.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition — — — —
Demolition Worker 5.00 17.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor — 10.6 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 0.10 20.0 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT
Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 5.00 17.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 10.6 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 1.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Rough Grading & Over-ex — — — —
Rough Grading & Over-ex Worker 7.50 17.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Rough Grading & Over-ex Vendor — 10.6 HHDT,MHDT
Rough Grading & Over-ex Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Rough Grading & Over-ex Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving & Sidewalk — — — —
Paving & Sidewalk Worker 17.5 17.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving & Sidewalk Vendor — 10.6 HHDT,MHDT
Paving & Sidewalk Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving & Sidewalk Onsite truck — — HHDT

Page 235 of 454 ends

City of McFarland - Elmo Well Facility Detailed Report, 4/15/2025 111 / 126
Site Painting————
Site Painting Worker 0.08 17.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Painting Vendor— 10.6 HHDT,MHDT
Site Painting Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Painting Onsite truck—— HHDT
Finish Grading————
Finish Grading Worker 5.00 17.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Finish Grading Vendor— 10.6 HHDT,MHDT
Finish Grading Hauling 2.00 20.0 HHDT
Finish Grading Onsite truck—— HHDT
Well Site Fencing————
Well Site Fencing Worker 6.00 17.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Well Site Fencing Vendor 0.02 10.6 HHDT,MHDT
Well Site Fencing Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Well Site Fencing Onsite truck—— HHDT
Well Drilling————
Well Drilling Worker 6.00 17.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Well Drilling Vendor 0.02 10.6 HHDT,MHDT
Well Drilling Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Well Drilling Onsite truck—— HHDT
Water Tank Construction————
Water Tank Construction Worker 4.00 17.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Water Tank Construction Vendor 0.02 10.6 HHDT,MHDT
Water Tank Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Water Tank Construction Onsite truck—— HHDT
Treatment System————
Treatment System Worker 4.00 17.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Treatment System Vendor 0.02 10.6 HHDT,MHDT

Page 236 of 454 ends

City of McFarland - Elmo Well Facility Detailed Report, 4/15/2025 112 / 126
Treatment System Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Treatment System Onsite truck—— HHDT
Piping & Appurtenances————
Piping & Appurtenances Worker 4.00 17.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Piping & Appurtenances Vendor 0.02 10.6 HHDT,MHDT
Piping & Appurtenances Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Piping & Appurtenances Onsite truck—— HHDT
Pump & Motor Installation————
Pump & Motor Installation Worker 0.04 17.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Pump & Motor Installation Vendor 0.02 10.6 HHDT,MHDT
Pump & Motor Installation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Pump & Motor Installation Onsite truck—— HHDT
Hydropneumatic Tank————
Hydropneumatic Tank Worker 0.04 17.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Hydropneumatic Tank Vendor 0.02 10.6 HHDT,MHDT
Hydropneumatic Tank Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Hydropneumatic Tank Onsite truck—— HHDT
Site Electrical————
Site Electrical Worker 0.04 17.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Electrical Vendor 0.02 10.6 HHDT,MHDT
Site Electrical Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Electrical Onsite truck—— HHDT
Backup Generator————
Backup Generator Worker 0.04 17.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Backup Generator Vendor 0.02 10.6 HHDT,MHDT
Backup Generator Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Backup Generator Onsite truck—— HHDT
Underground Pipeline————

Page 237 of 454 ends

City of McFarland - Elmo Well Facility Detailed Report, 4/15/2025 113 / 126
Underground Pipeline Worker 7.50 17.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Underground Pipeline Vendor — 10.6 HHDT,MHDT
Underground Pipeline Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Underground Pipeline Onsite truck — — HHDT
Underground Electrical — — — —
Underground Electrical Worker 7.50 17.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Underground Electrical Vendor — 10.6 HHDT,MHDT
Underground Electrical Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Underground Electrical Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water unpaved roads twice daily 55% 55%
Limit vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 25 mph 44% 44% Sweep paved roads once per month 9% 9%

5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Site Painting 0.00 0.00 150 50.0 —

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (Cubic
Yards)
Material Exported (Cubic
Yards)
Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (Ton of
Debris)
Acres Paved (acres)

Page 238 of 454 ends

City of McFarland - Elmo Well Facility Detailed Report, 4/15/2025 114 / 126
Demolition 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 —
Site Preparation 40.0 40.0 0.90 0.00 —
Rough Grading & Over-ex 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.00 —
Finish Grading 233 0.00 0.90 0.00 —
Paving & Sidewalk 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied Frequency (per day) PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water Exposed Area 3 74% 74%

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
User Defined Industrial 0.20 100%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2026 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
2025 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
2027 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year User Defined
Industrial

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Page 239 of 454 ends

City of McFarland - Elmo Well Facility Detailed Report, 4/15/2025 115 / 126

5.9.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year User Defined
Industrial

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.1.2. Mitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
0 0.00 150 50.0 —

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

5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180

Page 240 of 454 ends

City of McFarland - Elmo Well Facility Detailed Report, 4/15/2025 116 / 126

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) User Defined Industrial 600,000 204 0.0330 0.0040 0.00

5.11.2. Mitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) User Defined Industrial 600,000 204 0.0330 0.0040 0.00

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) User Defined Industrial 0.00 0.00

5.12.2. Mitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) User Defined Industrial 0.00 0.00

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
User Defined Industrial 0.00 —

Page 241 of 454 ends

City of McFarland - Elmo Well Facility Detailed Report, 4/15/2025 117 / 126

5.13.2. Mitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
User Defined Industrial 0.00 —

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced

5.14.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

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

5.15.2. Mitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Year Horsepower Load Factor Emergency Generator Diesel 1.00 0.00 40.0 1,000 0.73

Page 242 of 454 ends

City of McFarland - Elmo Well Facility Detailed Report, 4/15/2025 118 / 126

5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)

5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres Urban Entisols 0.90 0.90

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres Urban Entisols 0.90 0.90

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
Urban 0.90 0.90

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
Urban 0.90 0.90

Page 243 of 454 ends

City of McFarland - Elmo Well Facility Detailed Report, 4/15/2025 119 / 126

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

5.18.2.2. Mitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.

Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 26.3 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 0.75 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 0.00 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

Page 244 of 454 ends

City of McFarland - Elmo Well Facility Detailed Report, 4/15/2025 120 / 126
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 3 1 5 1
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought 3 4 4 2
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 5 2 4 2
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 3 1 8 N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought 3 3 8 N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 5 2 7 N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

Page 245 of 454 ends

City of McFarland - Elmo Well Facility Detailed Report, 4/15/2025 121 / 126
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

6.4.1. Temperature and Extreme Heat
User Selected Measures Co-Benefits Achieved Exposure Reduction Sensitivity Reduction Adaptive Capacity Increase EH-5: Upgrade to Efficient
Equipment/Infrastructure
Energy and Fuel Savings — — 3.00
MH-1: Strengthen Energy
Infrastructure
Enhanced Energy Security, Improved
Air Quality, Social Equity
— 2.00 —
MH-22: Improve Poor Drainage Improved Public Health — 1.00 — MH-39: Implement Pervious and
Climate-Smart Surfaces
Energy and Fuel Savings, Improved
Air Quality, Improved Ecosystem
Health, Improved Public Health,
Water Conservation
— 1.00 —

6.4.2. Drought
User Selected Measures Co-Benefits Achieved Exposure Reduction Sensitivity Reduction Adaptive Capacity Increase D-4: Educate on Water Conservation Water Conservation — — 1.00 D-7: Diversify Water Supply Sources Improved Public Health, Social Equity
— — 4.00
D-8: Develop Groundwater
Sustainability Plan
Improved Ecosystem Health — — 2.00
MH-39: Implement Pervious and
Climate-Smart Surfaces
Energy and Fuel Savings, Improved
Air Quality, Improved Ecosystem
Health, Improved Public Health,
Water Conservation
— 1.00 —

6.4.3. Air Quality Degradation
User Selected Measures Co-Benefits Achieved Exposure Reduction Sensitivity Reduction Adaptive Capacity Increase EH-5: Upgrade to Efficient
Equipment/Infrastructure
Energy and Fuel Savings — — 3.00

Page 246 of 454 ends

City of McFarland - Elmo Well Facility Detailed Report, 4/15/2025 122 / 126

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 82.5
AQ-PM 96.7
AQ-DPM 61.9
Drinking Water 73.1
Lead Risk Housing 64.7
Pesticides 81.9
Toxic Releases 27.4
Traffic 23.8
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 0.00
Groundwater 32.4
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 16.6
Impaired Water Bodies 0.00
Solid Waste 52.9
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 68.7
Cardio-vascular 98.6
Low Birth Weights 32.0
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 94.0
Housing 66.1
Linguistic 89.5

Page 247 of 454 ends

City of McFarland - Elmo Well Facility Detailed Report, 4/15/2025 123 / 126
Poverty 94.5
Unemployment 95.5

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 1.552675478
Employed 3.400487617
Median HI 11.75413833
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 4.427049917
High school enrollment 25.31759271
Preschool enrollment 34.72346978
Transportation —
Auto Access 64.27563198
Active commuting 19.79982035
Social —
2-parent households 50.76350571
Voting 12.78070063
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 49.9550879
Park access 29.77030669
Retail density 26.49813936
Supermarket access 55.357372
Tree canopy 2.617733864
Housing —
Homeownership 47.60682664

Page 248 of 454 ends

City of McFarland - Elmo Well Facility Detailed Report, 4/15/2025 124 / 126
Housing habitability 38.31643783
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 48.49223662 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 47.02938535
Uncrowded housing 13.80726293
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 12.98601309
Arthritis 0.0
Asthma ER Admissions 32.6
High Blood Pressure 0.0
Cancer (excluding skin) 0.0
Asthma 0.0
Coronary Heart Disease 0.0
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 0.0
Diagnosed Diabetes 0.0
Life Expectancy at Birth 81.6
Cognitively Disabled 72.6
Physically Disabled 92.6
Heart Attack ER Admissions 17.5
Mental Health Not Good 0.0
Chronic Kidney Disease 0.0
Obesity 0.0
Pedestrian Injuries 19.6
Physical Health Not Good 0.0
Stroke 0.0
Health Risk Behaviors —
Binge Drinking 0.0
Current Smoker 0.0
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 0.0

Page 249 of 454 ends

City of McFarland - Elmo Well Facility Detailed Report, 4/15/2025 125 / 126
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 7.8
Elderly 98.1
English Speaking 7.8
Foreign-born 68.8
Outdoor Workers 0.6
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 77.5
Traffic Density 46.9
Traffic Access 0.0
Other Indices —
Hardship 96.5
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 16.1

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 86.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 6.00 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) Yes Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) Yes Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

7.4. Health & Equity Measures

Page 250 of 454 ends

City of McFarland - Elmo Well Facility Detailed Report, 4/15/2025 126 / 126
Measure Title Co-Benefits Achieved
CCD-1: Consult Pre-existing Community Knowledge/Priorities Social Equity IE-1: Prioritize Outreach to Communities of Color and Underserved Groups Social Equity IE-4: Inclusive Community Meetings Social Equity

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Land Use Actual lot acreage
Construction: Construction Phases Estimated project schedule Construction: Off-Road Equipment Estimated Construction Equipment Needed for each phase Construction: Dust From Material Movement Lot Area added for Total Acres Graded Construction: Trips and VMT Estimated # One-way Trips/day added for each phase.

Construction: On-Road Fugitive Dust Construction phase estimates added Construction: Architectural Coatings —
Construction: Paving Actual paved area.

Operations: Energy Use Based on estimated electricity demand

Page 251 of 454 ends

CITY OF McFARLAND

WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT & TREATMENT PROJECT
(PROJECT NO. EDWG-1510013-003C)

EXHIBIT D
“BIOLOGICAL CLEARANCE SURVEY”

Page 252 of 454 ends

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE EVALUATION
General Plan Amendment/Zone Change
Assessor’s Parcel Map Number
201-010-36
County of Kern
McFarland, California
Prepared for:

Dee Jaspar & Associates, Inc.
2730 Unicorn Road, Bldg A
Bakersfield, California 93308
Prepared by:

Pruett Biological Resource Consulting
8819 Latera Court
Bakersfield, California 93314
661.421.0006
28 July 2025

Page 253 of 454 ends

Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 201-010-36
July 2025

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Pruett Biological Resource Consulting, Inc. (PruettBio) has prepared this biological resource evaluation for a proposed Site Plan Review of a portion of Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APN) 201-010-36. The project consists of approximately 1.16 gross acres (0.47 hectares)(project) Section 12, Township 26 South, Range 25 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian. The project is located approximately 400 feet southwest of the intersection of Elmo Highway and Davis Ave, within the incorporated limits of the City of McFarland, County of Kern, California.

The project is located within the geographic range of several federal-, and state-listed, threatened and/or endangered plant and animal taxa. Several non-listed, special-status species also have the potential to occur in the vicinity of the project.

The purpose of this report is to document biological resources identified during a reconnaissance-level field study of the project site and include potential biological resources identified during a literature review of the site and vicinity, identify potential impacts to biological resources resulting from the project.

Evaluation of potential impacts to plant and animal species are required under federal and state regulation during a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Appendix G thresholds have been used to evaluate potential impacts to the biological resources from the proposed project development. Avoidance and minimization measures for implementation prior to and during project activities are recommended as appropriate.

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) have not been contacted regarding the preparation of this report. Appendix B, Special-Status Plant and Animal Evaluations, satisfy the requirements for an initial determination of potential impacts under the CEQA Appendix G thresholds. If CEQA threshold determinations warrant, further consultation may be required with CDFW and USFWS. If additional consultation with the agencies results in the need for Application for a California Incidental Take Permit, Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 783.2 outlines requirements for detailed species-specific take analysis, proposed measures to minimize and fully mitigate impacts, compliance monitoring, and funding. A detailed description satisfying Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 783.2 is not required to meet the CEQA Appendix G thresholds.

A literature review was conducted of the site and vicinity, prior to the field study, of the biological resources known to occur based on recorded, direct observation, or potentially occurring in the project impact area based on current or historical habitat conditions. During the field study, existing habitat conditions, direct observations and/or species sign was recorded to assess the potential for occurrence of special-status species. This report includes an evaluation of the potential for those special-status biological resources not observed during the field study, with the potential to occur on the property based on the habitat conditions observed.

The project is in northwestern McFarland in an area historically farmed. Urban development has increased along the margins of McFarland in the past 50 years and has resulted in the conversion of farmland to residential and commercial properties. The project is solely vacant land. The project is surrounded by intensive agricultural production, residential development, and commercial development.

No undisturbed, native, or recovering habitat is present on the site or adjacent parcels.

The federal and state database queries yielded 12 special-status plant species and 18 special-status animal species as potentially occurring within the vicinity of the project site. Of these, 5 plant species, and 10 animal species have federal-, and/or state-listing and are afforded protection under federal or state law.

A query of the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) database was made for the quadrangle in which the project exists and the eight-quadrangles surrounding the project. The CNPS tracks plant species that

Page 254 of 454 ends

Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 201-010-36
July 2025
do not meet the CEQA Section 15380 criteria for listing as threatened or endangered and are afforded no protection under federal or state law. A United States Geologic Service (USGS) nine-quadrangle query additionally includes a search area beyond a standard 10-mile radius. Plant species meeting the criteria for Special Status Plants as defined in Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities (CDFW 2018) and evaluated under CEQA Section 15380 have been included in this report.

Some California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) 4 taxa may meet the Section 15380 definition of an endangered, rare, or threatened species, and in the definition of CRPR 4, CNPS and CDFW suggest additional reasons for including CRPR 4 taxa in a CEQA analysis. These reasons include Regionally Rare Taxa. Considered locally significant plants, that is, plants that are not rare from a statewide perspective but are rare or uncommon in a local context such as within a county or region (CEQA Guidelines, § 15125, subd. (c)), or as designated in local or regional plans, policies, or ordinances (CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G). “Locally rare” has not been generally defined, but in counties where a “locally rare” policy exists, it applies to taxa with only five to 10 known occurrences in that county.

The California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC), and CNPS lists were cross-referenced for consistency. A separate CNDDB query for the County of Kern was also generated to evaluate plant species for local significance.

No special-status plants or animals or their sign were observed during the field study. The development of the proposed project is not expected to result in direct and indirect impacts, in the form of “incidental take” of a threatened, endangered, or otherwise protected species. The proposed project will not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat, federally protected wetlands, native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or other sensitive natural community. The project will not conflict with existing or adopted Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Community Conservation Plans, local or regional conservation plans, or local ordinances protecting biological resources. Implementation of standard measures for the protection of biological resources are recommended to avoid and minimize potential impact to general wildlife.

Page 255 of 454 ends

Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 201-010-36
July 2025
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................................... 1 PROJECT LEGAL DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................................................. 1 PROJECT SETTING AND PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION....................................................................................................... 1 METHODS............................................................................................................................................................. 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................................................................ 2 FIELD STUDY ............................................................................................................................................................. 2 RESULTS ............................................................................................................................................................... 3 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES AND LAND COVER...................................................................................................... 3 SOILS ........................................................................................................................................................................ 3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.......................................................................................................................................... 3 Special-Status Plant Species................................................................................................................................ 3 Special-Status Animal Species ............................................................................................................................. 5 Designated Critical Habitat ................................................................................................................................. 5 Jurisdictional Water Resource Features .............................................................................................................. 5 Special-Status Natural Communities................................................................................................................... 5 Wildlife Migration Corridors and Nursery Sites................................................................................................... 5 Regional and Local Policies.................................................................................................................................. 6 IMPACT ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES ....................................................................... 6 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................................................... 9 APPENDIX A .......................................................................................................................................................13 PROJECT VICINTY AND SITE ................................................................................................................................13 APPENDIX B........................................................................................................................................................18 SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT AND ANIMAL EVALUATION...........................................................................................18 APPENDIX C........................................................................................................................................................32 PLANTS AND ANIMALS OBSERVED ON THE PROJECT ..........................................................................................32

Page 256 of 454 ends

Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 201-010-36
July 2025
1 INTRODUCTION
Pruett Biological Resource Consulting, Inc. (PruettBio) has prepared this biological resource evaluation for the proposed development within APN 201-010-36. The project consists of 1.16 gross acres (0.47 hectares)(project) Section 12, Township 26 South, Range 25 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian. The project is approximately 400 feet southwest of the intersection of Elmo Highway and Davis Ave, within the incorporated limits of the City of McFarland, County of Kern, California. The report documents biological resources identified during fieldwork conducted on the project site and those identified through a literature search as potentially occurring based on known observations or historic habitat conditions. The report uses the information collected during the field study and literature search to evaluate potential impacts to biological resources, resulting from the project. The report is intended to assist in the analysis of the proposed project for a Site Plan Review.

Listed plant and animal species are protected under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) and the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). Protection of other non-listed, special-status species is afforded under additional regulation including the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) impacts to non-listed, special-status species must be evaluated. Where necessary, the report recommends avoidance and minimization measures for implementation prior to and during project activities. The report is intended to provide technical information in support of a CEQA preliminary review. For the purposes of this report, potential impacts to the biological resources of the proposed project were evaluated in accordance with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines (2025).

PROJECT LEGAL DESCRIPTION
The project consists of approximately 1.16 gross acres (0.47 hectares) of APN 201-010-36. The project site is located approximately 400 feet southwest of the intersection of Elmo Highway and Davis Ave, Section 12, Township 26 South, Range 25 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian.

PROJECT SETTING AND PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION
The project site is in the southern San Joaquin Valley; a broad, treeless plain in the rain shadow of the Inner Coast Ranges. The region’s climate can be characterized as Mediterranean; with hot, dry summers and cool, moist winters. Summer high temperatures typically exceed 100 °Fahrenheit (°F); with an average of 110 days per year over 90 °F. Winter temperatures in the San Joaquin Valley are mild, with an average of only 16 days per year with frost (Twisselmann 1967).

Rainfall varies, increasing from west to east, with the west side of the valley receiving an average of around 4 inches (10 centimeters) per year and the east side averaging about 6 inches (15 centimeters) per year. Winter fog, called Tule fog, sometimes forms during the months of November, December, and January, supplementing the annual precipitation. Approximately 90% of the rainfall in the region occurs between November 1 and April 1. Drought cycles occur periodically, becoming severe enough that plant and animal populations can experience large fluctuations. The vegetation communities in the San Joaquin Valley are distinguishable from the Mojave Desert to the east due to Tule fog, higher humidity, and isolation from continental climatic influences by mountain ranges (Twisselmann 1967).

The general topography of the area is generally flat at about 345 feet (108 meters) above mean sea level.

The project is solely vacant land and the parcel of the project also includes a sump. The project is surrounded by residential and commercial development. The project and vicinity were historically farmed for decades. The area north of the project remains land used for intensive agricultural production.

Historical aerial imagery and records shows residential development southeast and commercial development east of the project beginning in 1987. Residential development has since continued to the west and south of the project. A second commercial building adjacent to and east of the project was completed in 2024. No undisturbed, native, or recovering habitat is present on the project site or adjacent parcels.

Page 257 of 454 ends

Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 201-010-36
July 2025
2 METHODS

LITERATURE REVIEW
PruettBio conducted a literature review to identify known observations and potential for listed, or otherwise special-status, species to occur in the vicinity of the project site. A standard, 10-mile (16- kilometer) radius query was performed. Database records reviewed included:
• United States Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) IPaC: The IPaC report generates a list of federal-listed species and other resources under the jurisdiction of the USFWS, including designated critical habitat for listed species, National Wildlife Refuge lands, and Wetlands in the National Wetlands Inventory. The list includes resources that are outside of the project site, but that have the potential to be impacted by project activities. • USFWS National Wetlands Inventory: The Wetlands Mapper is an online inventory integrating digital map data and other resources to provide current information regarding the status of national wetlands, riparian, and deepwater habitats.
• United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) WebSoil Survey: The report is an online database providing soil data produced by the National Cooperative Soil Survey, a joint effort of the USDA and other federal, state, and local agencies. The information drawn for the Soil Survey of Kern County, California, Northwestern Part was originally drawn from fieldwork completed in 1981 with soil names and descriptions approved in 1982. • California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB-RareFind 5): The CNDDB is a database of listed, or otherwise special-status, plant and animal species and sensitive communities maintained by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). The information queried for this report included a standard 10-mile radius of the project site. • California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants:

CNPS is a private, professional organization that maintains a database evaluating the current conservation status of California’s rare, threatened, and endangered plant species. The information queried for this report included a standard 10-mile radius of the project site. The list includes resources that are outside of the project site, but that have the potential to be impacted by project activities based on known historic or current habitat features. The data base was compared to the CNDDB and IPaC queries for consistency.

FIELD STUDY
A reconnaissance-level, biological field study was conducted by Jacob Spriester on July 25, 2025. The project was surveyed by walking the perimeter and random transects to evaluate all representative habitat features of the site. The field study conducted, allowed for 100% visual coverage of the project site. Field notes included observations of all plant and wildlife species observed. Direct observations and/or species sign was recorded to assess the potential for occurrence. Land cover types and general habitat conditions were recorded and photographed. Special-status species and habitat features, such as vegetation communities or ephemeral channels, were also recorded and photographed if observed.

Coordinates for important biological resource elements and direct observations of special-status species were recorded using a handheld geographic positioning system unit. If observed, San Joaquin kit fox (SJKF) dens were classified as defined by the USFWS Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance (2011). All plant taxa encountered were identified to the extent possible given the diagnostic features present. Identifications were made using keys contained in The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California and online updates containing revisions to taxonomic treatments (Baldwin et al. 2012; Jepson Flora Project 2015).

Page 258 of 454 ends

Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 201-010-36
July 2025
3 RESULTS
This section summarizes the results of the field study conducted on the project site and evaluates those results for the known or potential for occurrence of special-status species based on the literature review and database queries and pursuant to statutory regulation. Discussions are provided describing the existing habitat conditions including vegetation communities, land cover and current use; soils; specialstatus biological resources potentially occurring in the vicinity of the project site; the potential for jurisdictional resources including designated critical habitat and riparian/wetland/water resource features; the potential for wildlife migration corridors and nursery sites; and regional and local policy.

VEGETATION COMMUNITIES AND LAND COVER
The project site is located at the northwest edge of urban development of McFarland. Before conversion to farmland, the original vegetive communities of the project site were Non-native Grassland (Holland 42200) and Valley Saltbush Scrub (Holland 36220). No undisturbed, native, or recovering habitat is present on the project site, adjacent parcels, or general vicinity of the project. The project is solely vacant land and the parcel of the project also includes a sump. The project is surrounded by intensive agricultural production, residential development, and commercial development. The project and vicinity were historically farmed for decades. Historical aerial imagery going back to 1985 shows residential development of the project with much of the surrounding land under row crops. Aerial imagery shows that by 1987, residential and commercial development had begun along Davis Ave in the immediate vicinity of the project. Residential and commercial development has continued to the south and west since. Land north of the project remains under row crops. No undisturbed, native, or recovering habitat is present on the project site or adjacent parcels. The potential for any native herbaceous species is extremely low due to ongoing disturbance. The project site and margins are dominated by ruderal/invasive plant species.

SOILS
Map Unit
Symbol
Map Unit Name Description
192 McFarland loam This soil is loam found on flood plains and alluvial fans and is formed of alluvium derived from granite material.

Source: NRCS 2025

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The literature review and database queries yielded 12 special-status plant species as potentially occurring within the vicinity of the project site. Eighteen animal species were identified as potentially occurring in the region of the project site. No evidence of any listed animal species was observed during the field study. No evidence of any locally rare plant or animal species was observed. No evidence of otherwise special-status plant or animal species, or animal species sign was observed during the field study.

No focused, protocol-level surveys were conducted for the preparation of this report. The field study was conducted outside of the blooming period for many of the special-status plant species potentially occurring in the vicinity of the project. The evaluation of special-status species that were found during the literature review with a potential to occur in the region are included in Appendix B.

Special-Status Plant Species
The federal and state database queries yielded 12 special-status plant species as potentially occurring within the vicinity of the project site. A query of the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) database was made for the nine-quadrangles surrounding the project. A USGS nine-quadrangle query additionally includes a search area beyond a standard 10-mile radius. Plant species meeting the criteria for Special Status Plants as defined in Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant

Page 259 of 454 ends

Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 201-010-36
July 2025
4 Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities (CDFW 2018) were evaluated under CEQA Section 15380.

Special-status plant species considered in this evaluation include all plant species that meet one or more of the following criteria:
• Listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered under ESA or candidates for possible future listing as threatened or endangered under the ESA (50 CFR §17.12). • Listed or candidates for listing by the State of California as threatened or endangered under CESA (Fish and Game Code §2050 et seq.). A species, subspecies, or variety of plant is endangered when the prospects of its survival and reproduction in the wild are in immediate jeopardy from one or more causes, including loss of habitat, change in habitat, over-exploitation, predation, competition, disease, or other factors (Fish and Game Code §2062). A plant is threatened when it is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future in the absence of special protection and management measures (Fish and Game Code §2067). • Listed as rare under the California Native Plant Protection Act (Fish and Game Code §1900 et seq.). A plant is rare when, although not presently threatened with extinction, the species, subspecies, or variety is found in such small numbers throughout its range that it may be endangered if its environment worsens (Fish and Game Code §1901). • Meet the definition of rare or endangered under CEQA §15380(b) and (d). Species that may meet the definition of rare or endangered include the following:
o Species considered by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) to be “rare, threatened or endangered in California” (Lists 1A, 1B and 2);
o Species that may warrant consideration on the basis of local significance or recent biological information.
o Some species included on the California Natural Diversity Database’s (CNDDB) Special Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List (California Department of Fish and Game 2008). • Considered a locally significant species, that is, a species that is not rare from a statewide perspective but is rare or uncommon in a local context such as within a county or region (CEQA §15125 (c)) or is so designated in local or regional plans, policies, or ordinances (CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G). Examples include a species at the outer limits of its known range or a species occurring on an uncommon soil type.

Some CRPR 4 taxa may meet the Section 15380 definition of an endangered, rare, or threatened species, and in the definition of CRPR 4, CNPS and CDFW suggest additional reasons for including CRPR 4 taxa in a CEQA analysis. These reasons include Regionally Rare Taxa. Considered locally significant plants, that is, plants that are not rare from a statewide perspective but are rare or uncommon in a local context such as within a county or region (CEQA Guidelines, § 15125, subd. (c)), or as designated in local or regional plans, policies, or ordinances (CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G). “Locally rare” has not been generally defined, but in counties where a “locally rare” policy exists, it applies to taxa with only five to 10 known occurrences in that county. The CNDDB, IPaC, and CNPS lists were crossreferenced for consistency.

Precipitation has been well above average to date, resulting in a good year for annual plant species observations. Of the 12 special-status plant species returned during database queries for the project vicinity, 5 species are either federally- or state-listed as threatened or endangered. Although CEQA requires consideration for impacts to locally significant plant species, no mitigation is legally required to compensate for impacts to non-listed plant species. No listed, or otherwise special-status plant species was observed during the fieldwork conducted for the preparation of this report. No listed, or otherwise special-status plant species, has been recorded as occurring within the project site.

Page 260 of 454 ends

Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 201-010-36
July 2025
5 Special-Status Animal Species
The federal and state database queries yielded 18 special-status animal species as potentially occurring within the vicinity of the project site. Of these, 10 animal species have federal-, and/or state-listing and are afforded protection under federal or state law. Special-status animal species considered in this evaluation include those that may occur in the project vicinity that have statutory protections. This includes federal- and state-listed (rare, threatened, or endangered; fully protected) species and candidates for listing under the respective endangered species acts. Species that are of special concern to the CDFW or the USFWS are included in this evaluation. Special-status bird species that are afforded protection under the MBTA which may nest on or within an approximate 10-mile (16-kilometer) radius of the project site are also evaluated. No evidence of any listed animal species was observed during the field study. No evidence of otherwise special-status animal species, or animal species sign was observed during the field study.

Designated Critical Habitat
The USFWS IPaC report and USFWS Designated Critical Habitat Mapper lists no Designated Critical Habitat (USFWS 2025). Designated Critical Habitats closest to the project site include vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi) approximately 13 miles north, Buena Vista Lake shrew (Sorex ornatus relictus) approximately 18.3-miles west/southwest of the project site, and California condor (Gymnogyps californianus) approximately 18.5-miles east. No suitable habitat for any of these species exists on the project site.

Jurisdictional Water Resource Features
Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) regulates discharge of dredged and fill material into Waters of the United States. Wetlands are included under this jurisdiction. Proposed activities that may result in discharge of material into Waters of the U.S. require a permit review process by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as set forth under CWA section 404(b)(1). Fish and Game Code section 1602 requires any person, state or local governmental agency, or public utility to notify CDFW before beginning any activity that will substantially modify a river, stream, or lake.

A search of the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory resulted in no riparian, wetlands, or other jurisdictional water features mapped on the project site (USFWS 2025). These results are consistent with the observed conditions within the survey area.

Special-Status Natural Communities
No special-status vegetation communities on the project site were identified by the USFWS IPaC query, the CNDDB, or the CNPS Inventory (USFWS 2025, CDFW 2025, CNPS 2025). These results are consistent with the observed conditions within the survey area.

Wildlife Migration Corridors and Nursery Sites
Wildlife corridors can be defined as connections between wildlife blocks that meet specific habitat needs for species movement generally during migratory periods but seasonally as well. Wildlife corridors generally contain habitat dissimilar to the surrounding vicinity and include examples such as riparian areas along rivers and streams, washes, canyons, or otherwise undisturbed areas within urbanization.

Corridor width requirements can vary based on the needs of the species utilizing them. Development of the project would not impact wildlife migration corridors or nursery sites.

Page 261 of 454 ends

Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 201-010-36
July 2025
6 Regional and Local Policies
The proposed project will not conflict with existing or adopted Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Community Conservation Plans, local or regional conservation plans, or local ordinances protecting biological resources.

IMPACT ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES
CEQA Appendix G thresholds have been used to evaluate potential impacts to the biological resources from the proposed project. Appendix G provides an analysis of the impacts of the proposed project following the standards of CEQA and provides recommendations that, when implemented, would reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels. It is important to note that potential take of any federal- or statelisted species from project activities would require contacting the appropriate wildlife agency (the USFWS and/or the CDFW).

The project would create a significant impact to biological resources, based on the specifications in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, if the following were to occur:

1. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;

2. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;

3. 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;

4. 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;

5. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance;

6. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

The following analysis discusses potential impacts associated with the development of the project and provides recommendations where appropriate to further reduce potential impacts.

1. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, by the CDFW, or the USFWS?

Page 262 of 454 ends

Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 201-010-36
July 2025
7 Direct and indirect impacts, in the form of “incidental take” of a threatened, endangered, or otherwise protected species, are not expected as a result of the development of the proposed project.

Implementation of standard measures for the protection of biological resources are recommended to avoid and minimize potential impact to general wildlife. These measures include, but may not be limited to:
• A biological resource pre-activity survey conducted by a qualified biologist no more that 30- days before the start of construction activities,
• Biological resource monitoring during each initial phase of ground disturbance, • Compliance reporting provided to the required oversight agencies for all biological resource field surveys, monitoring, and additional tasks as warranted.

If known or natal SJKF dens are identified at any time during construction, protocols enumerated in the USFWS Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance (2011) should be implemented, and the appropriate agencies contacted for guidance.

The project is within the historic range of Tipton kangaroo rat. The project was not included in the southwest focus area for the species in the previous habitat conservation plan. The most recent habitat suitability modeling (2021) does not include the project in any of the four tiers enumerated for suitability.

Trapping would be required to confirm small mammal species occupying the project.

2. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations, or by the CDFW or the USFWS?
No riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or United States Fish and Wildlife Service exists on the project site. No adverse effect will occur as a result of the development of the proposed project and no mitigation measures are recommended.

3. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No features, identified in wetland categories, appear on the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory mapping (USFWS 2025) on the proposed, modified project site. No federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act were identified during the field study conducted for the preparation of this report. No substantial adverse effect will occur as a result of the development of the project. No mitigation measures are recommended.

4. Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? No migratory wildlife corridors were identified during the literature search or field study. The project will not interfere substantially with the movement of any native fish of wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. The following recommendations are provided for the general protection of bird species that may occur on the project site or vicinity in compliance with the MBTA:

If ground-disturbing activities are planned during the nesting season for migratory birds that may nest on or near the site (generally February 1 through August 31), nesting bird surveys are recommended prior to the commencement of ground disturbance for project activities. If nesting birds are present, no new construction or ground disturbance should occur within an appropriate avoidance area for that species until young have fledged, unless otherwise approved and monitored by a qualified onsite biologist.

Page 263 of 454 ends

Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 201-010-36
July 2025
8 Appropriate avoidance should be determined by a qualified biologist. In general, minimum avoidance zones for active nests should be implemented as follows: 1) ground or low-shrub nesting non-raptors – 300 feet (91 meters); 2) burrowing owl – as appropriate based on nest location, existing surrounding activity, and evaluation of owl behavior. Coordination with CDFW may be warranted. 3) Sensitive raptors (e.g., prairie falcon, golden eagle) – 0.5 miles (0.8 kilometers); 3) other raptors – 500 feet (152 meters).

5. Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? There are no biological resources on the site which are protected by local policies. Impacts from conflicts with local policies will not occur. No additional mitigation measures are recommended.

6. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

The project does not conflict with any Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. No additional mitigation measures are recommended.

RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES
The following Avoidance and Minimization Measures (AMM) represent the authors professional opinion regarding reducing the probability of take occurring during project activities. The following AMMs are generally regarded as best management practices during construction activities in the southern San Joaquin valley, however they are not a substitute for procuring the appropriate state and federal permits to allow for take of special-status species during project activities and do not provide coverage should take occur during project activities. Communication with state and federal agencies regarding proposed AMMS is recommended prior to initial ground disturbance to fully comply with FESA, CESA, and CEQA.

These measures include, but may not be limited to:
• A biological resource pre-activity survey conducted by a qualified biologist no more that 30- days before the start of construction activities,
• Biological resource monitoring during each initial phase of ground disturbance, • Compliance reporting provided to the required oversight agencies for all biological resource field surveys, monitoring, and additional tasks as warranted, • A Worker Environmental Awareness Program outlining special-status species that may access, use or otherwise transverse the project area will be implemented, • If known or natal SJKF dens are identified at any time during construction, protocols enumerated in the USFWS Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance (2011) should be implemented, and the appropriate agencies contacted for guidance. • Vertical sided trenching deeper than 2-feet will include escape ramps at no more than a 1:1 ratio every 100 feet,
• Vertical sided holes that are not capable of being ramped should be covered or otherwise secured to the greatest extent practicable
• Pipes, conduit and similar material 3 inches or greater should be capped to prevent wildlife from becoming inadvertently trapped in the piping
The following recommendations are provided for the general protection of bird species that may occur on the project site or vicinity in compliance with the MBTA:

Page 264 of 454 ends

Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 201-010-36
July 2025
9 until young have fledged, unless otherwise approved and monitored by a qualified onsite biologist.

Appropriate avoidance should be determined by a qualified biologist. In general, minimum avoidance zones for active nests should be implemented as follows:
1) Ground or low-shrub nesting non-raptors – 300 feet (91 meters), 2) Burrowing owl – as appropriate based on nest location, existing surrounding activity, and evaluation of owl behavior. Coordination with CDFW may be warranted, 3) Sensitive raptors (e.g., prairie falcon, golden eagle) – 0.5 miles (0.8 kilometers), 4) Other raptors – 500 feet (152 meters).

Page 265 of 454 ends

Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 201-010-36
July 2025
10 REFERENCES
Baldwin, B. G., Goldman, D. H., Keil, D. J., Patterson, R., Rosatti, T. J., & Wilken, D. H. (Eds.). (2012).

The Jepson manual: Vascular plants of California (2nd ed.). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1568 pp.

CDFG. (2009). Protocols for surveying and evaluating impacts to special status native plant populations and natural communities. Sacramento, CA: Author. 7 pp.

CDFG. (2012). Staff report on burrowing owl mitigation. Sacramento, CA: Author.

CNDDB. (2025). Occurrence for U.S. Geologic Survey 7.5 minute quadrangles. Sacramento, CA: CDFW California Endangered Species Act of 1970, C.F.G.C § 2050 et seq. (2025).

California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, 13 P.R.C. § 21000 et seq. (2025).

California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 Guidelines, 14 C.C.R. § 15000 et seq. (2025).

California Native Plant Society (CNPS). (2025). Inventory of rare and endangered plants (Online edition, v8-01a) 7.5 minute quadrangles and corresponding plant species accounts. Sacramento, CA: Author.

California Native Plant Protection Act of 1977, C.F.G.C § 1904 et seq. (2025).

Clean Water Act of 1972, 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq. (2014).

Cypher, B., Phillips, S.E., Westall, T., Tennant, E.N., Saslaw, L., Kelly, E., Van Horn Job, C. (2021).

Conservation of endangered Tipton kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides): status surveys, habitat suitability, and conservation recommendations. California Fish and Wildlife Special CESA Issue:382-397.

Dunn, J. L., & Alderfer, J., (Eds.). (2008). Field guide to the birds of western North America. Washington, DC: National Geographic Society. 447 pp.

Ehrlich, P. R., Dobkin, D. S., & Wheye, D. (1988). The birder’s handbook: A field guide to the natural history of North American birds. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster, Inc. 785 pp.

Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq. (2025).

Harris, J. H., & Stearns, D. M. (1991). Population density, census methods, habitat relationships, and home range of the San Joaquin antelope squirrel, 1988–89. California Department of Fish and Game, Nongame Bird and Mammal Section, Report 91-02. Oakland, CA: CDFG. Retrieved from http://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=2953
Jennings, M. R., Hayes, M. P., & Metro Washington Park Zoo. (1994). Amphibian and reptile species of special concern in California (Final report to the California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division, Contract No. 8023). Rancho Cordova, CA: CDFG. 255 pp.

Jepson Flora project (Eds.). (2015). Jepson eFlora. Retrieved from http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/IJM.html Luce, B. (2005). Eumops perotis: Western mastiff bat. In C. Chambers & M. Herder, (Eds.), Species accounts. Portland, OR: Western Bat Working Group. 5 pp. Retrieved from http://www.wbwg.org/speciesinfo/species_accounts/molossidae/eupe.pdf

Page 266 of 454 ends

Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 201-010-36
July 2025
11 Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, 16 U.S.C. § 703 et seq. (2025).

Nafis, G. (2000–2021a). North American legless lizards - Anniella. A Guide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of California. Retrieved from http://www.californiaherps.com/lizards/pages/a.pulchra.html Nafis, G. (2000–2021b). San Joaquin coachwhip – Coluber flagellum ruddocki. A Guide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of California. Retrieved from
http://www.californiaherps.com/snakes/pages/c.f.ruddocki.html Nafis, G. (2000–2021c). Blainville’s horned lizard – Phrynosoma blainvillii. A Guide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of California. Retrieved from http://www.californiaherps.com/lizards/pages/p.blainvillii.html Native Fish and Wildlife Endangered Species, 32 Fed. Reg. 4001 (Mar. 11, 1967). Retrieved from http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/federal_register/fr18.pdf
Papenfuss, T. J., Parham, J. F. (2013). Four new species of California legless lizards (Anniella). Breviora 536, 1–17. Retrieved from
http://mczbase.mcz.harvard.edu/specimen_images/publications/Breviora_536.pdf Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, C.W.A. § Section 13000 et seq. (2025).

Reid, F. A. (2006). Mammals of North America (Peterson field guide). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company. 579 pp.

Sherwin, R. (2005). Antrozous pallidus: Pallid bat. In D. A. Rambaldini, (Eds.). Species accounts.

Portland, OR: Western Bat Working Group. 5 pp. Retrieved from http://www.wbwg.org/speciesinfo/species_accounts/vespertilonidae/anpa.pdf Shuford, W. D., Gardali, T., (with Comrack, L.A.). (Eds.). (2008). California bird species of special concern: a ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Sacramento, CA: CDFG.

Stebbins, R. C. (1985). A field guide to western reptiles and amphibians (Peterson field guide), (2nd ed.).

Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company. 336 pp.

Stebbins, R. C. (2003). A field guide to western reptiles and amphibians (Peterson field guide), (3rd ed.).

Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company. 533 pp.

Twisselmann, E. C. (1967). A flora of Kern County, California. The Wasmann Journal of Biology, 25, 1– 395.

Uptain, C. E. (1989). Survey for Tipton kangaroo rats (Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides) on the proposed Delano prison site, Kern County, California (Prepared for the California Department of Corrections).

Sacramento, CA: 11 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). (1996). California condor recovery plan, third revision. Portland, OR: Author. 62 pp.

USFWS. (1998). Recovery plan for upland species of the San Joaquin Valley, California. Portland, OR:

Author. Retrieved from http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/980930a.pdf USFWS. (2011). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service standardized recommendations for protection of the endangered San Joaquin kit fox prior to or during ground disturbance. Sacramento, CA: Author. 9 pp.

Retrieved from http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/Survey-ProtocolsGuidelines/Documents/kitfox_standard_rec_2011.pdf

Page 267 of 454 ends

Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 201-010-36
July 2025
12 USFWS. (2013). California condor recovery program population size and distribution, December 31, 2013 overview page. Retrieved from
http://www.fws.gov/uploadedFiles/Region_8/NWRS/Zone_1/Hopper_Mountain_Complex/Hopper_Mounta in/Sections/News/News_Items/PDFs/2013-12-31.pdf
USFWS. (2025a). Federal endangered and threatened species that may occur in or may be affected by project in the counties and/or USGS 7 ½ minute quads you requested: quadrangle [February]. Author.

Retrieved from http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es_species/Lists/es_species_lists-form.cfm USFWS. (2025b). National Wetlands Inventory Website [February]. Washington, D.C.: Author. Retrieved from http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/
Williams, D. F. (1980). Distribution and population status of the San Joaquin antelope squirrel and giant kangaroo rat. (Nongame Wildlife Investigation Final Report E-W-4). Sacramento, CA: CDFG. 48 pp.

Williams, D. F. (1986). Mammalian species of special concern in California (Prepared for the State of California, The Resources Agency Department of Fish and Game). Turlock, CA: CSUS. 112 pp. Retrieved from http://esrp.csustan.edu/resources/publications/pdf/mammalian scc ca esrp5.pdf Zeiner, D. C., Laudenslayer, W. F., Jr., Mayer, K. E., & White, M., (Eds.). (1990a). California’s wildlife volume II birds (California Statewide Wildlife Habitat Relationships System). Sacramento, CA: CDFG.

Zeiner, D. C., Laudenslayer, W. F., Jr., Mayer, K. E., & White, M., (Eds.). (1990b). California’s wildlife volume III mammals (California Statewide Wildlife Habitat Relationships System). Sacramento, CA:

CDFG.

Page 268 of 454 ends

APPENDIX A

PROJECT VICINTY AND SITE

Page 269 of 454 ends

Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 201-010-36
July 2025
Figure A-1. Aerial photograph of the project and vicinity.

Page 270 of 454 ends

Page 271 of 454 ends

Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 201-010-36
July 2025
Figure A-3. Photograph of the project site taken from the NW corner facing E (July 25, 2025).

Figure A-4. Photograph of the project site taken from near the NW corner facing S (July 25, 2025).

Page 272 of 454 ends

Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 201-010-36
July 2025
17 Figure A-5. Photograph of the project site from near the SE corner facing W (July 25, 2025).

Figure A-6. Photograph of the project site taken from the SE corner facing N (July 25, 2025).

Page 273 of 454 ends

APPENDIX B

SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT AND ANIMAL EVALUATION

Page 274 of 454 ends

Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 201-010-36
July 2025
Table B-1: Special-status Plants That May Occur in the Vicinity of the Project.

Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Fed/State/CNPS Description Blooming Period
Field Study
Results/Potential for
Occurrence
Atriplex cordulata var.
erecticaulis
Earlimart orache
S/-/1B.2 Annual herb in the Chenopodiaceae family found in valley and foothill grassland between 130 and 330 feet (40-100 meters) in elevation. Known to occur in Fresno, Kern,
Kings, and Tulare Counties.

August to September
(November)
Not Observed/Not
Expected. Decades of
intensive farming has
resulted in vegetation limited
to invasive/ruderal species.

The nearest known
occurrence found was 3.6
miles away from 1989. A
more recent occurrence was
found 5.7 miles away and
recorded in 2017.

Calochortus striatus
Alkali mariposa-lily
S/-/1B.2 Bulbiferous perennial herb in the Liliaceae family found in chaparral, chenopod scrub, meadows and seeps, and
Mojavean desert scrub in alkaline and mesic soils between 230 and 5235 feet (70–1,595 meters). Known to occur in
the Inyo, Kern, Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and Tulare Counties.

April to June Not Observed/Not
Expected. Decades of
intensive farming has
resulted in vegetation limited
to invasive/ruderal species.

No occurrences were found
within the vicinity, but this
species is known to occur in
the quad to the northwest.

Caulanthus californicus
California jewelflower
E/E/1B.1 Annual herb in the Brassicaceae family found in chenopod scrub, pinyon and juniper woodland, and valley and foothill grassland habitats on sandy soils between 200 and 3,280 feet (61 – 1000) in elevation.

February to May Not Observed/Not
Expected. Decades of
intensive farming has
resulted in vegetation limited
to invasive/ruderal species.

Two known occurrences
were found 4.5 and 6.9
miles away and are
presumed extirpated.

Page 275 of 454 ends

Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 201-010-36
July 2025
20 Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Fed/State/CNPS Description Blooming Period
Field Study
Results/Potential for
Occurrence
Delphinium recurvatum
Recurved larkspur
S/-/1B.2 Perennial herb in the Ranunculaceae family found in chenopod scrub, cismontane woodland, and valley and
foothill grassland habitats below 2,590 feet (790 meters) in elevation. Known to occur in Kern and Tulare Counties.

March to June Not Observed/Not
Expected. Decades of
intensive farming has
resulted in vegetation limited
to invasive/ruderal species.

The nearest known
occurrence found was 5.8
miles away and presumed
extirpated. The nearest
known, extant occurrence
found was 6.6 miles away
from 1973.

Eremalche parryi ssp.
kernensis
Kern mallow
E/-/1B.2 Annual herb in the Malvaceae family found in chenopod scrub, pinyon and juniper woodland, and valley and foothill grassland habitats in clay, dry, openings, and sandy soils often at the edge of balds between 230 and 4,230 feet (70 – 1,290 meters) in elevation. Known to occur in Kern,
Kings, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Tulare, and
Ventura Counties.

January to May Not Observed/Not
Expected. Decades of
intensive farming has
resulted in vegetation limited
to invasive/ruderal species.

The nearest known
occurrence found was 5.2
miles away recorded in
2017.

Eryngium
spinosepalum
Spiny-sepaled buttoncelery
S/-/1B.1 Annual or perennial herb in the Apiaceae family found in valley and foothill grassland and vernal pools at elevations between 260 and 3,200 feet (80-975 meters). Known to
occur in Calaveras, Contra Costa, Fresno, Kern, Madera, Mariposa, Merced, San Luis Obispo, Stanislaus, Tulare,
and Tuolumne Counties.

April to June Not Observed/Not
Expected. Decades of
intensive farming has
resulted in vegetation limited
to invasive/ruderal species.

The only known occurrence
found was 3.0 miles away
and recorded in 1965.

Lasthenia chrysantha
Alkali-sink goldfields
-/-/1B.1 Annual herb in the Asteraceae family found in vernal pools on alkaline soils at elevations below 655 feet (200 meters).

Known to occur in Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Merced,
Sacramento, Solano, Stanislaus, and Tulare Counties.

February to April Not Observed/Not
Expected. Decades of
intensive farming has
resulted in vegetation limited
to invasive/ruderal species.

The nearest known
occurrence found was 6.5
miles away and recorded in
1979.

Page 276 of 454 ends

Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 201-010-36
July 2025
21 Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Fed/State/CNPS Description Blooming Period
Field Study
Results/Potential for
Occurrence
Layia munzii
Munz’s tidy-tips
S/-/1B.2 Annual herb in the Asteraceae family found in chenopod scrub and valley and foothill grassland on alkaline or clay soils at elevations between 490 and 2,295 feet (150-700 meters). Known to occur in Fresno, Kern, Madera, Merced, San Benito, San Luis Obispo, and Ventura Counties.

March to April Not Observed/Not
Expected. Decades of
intensive farming has
resulted in vegetation limited
to invasive/ruderal species.

The nearest known
occurrence found was 3.8
miles away and is presumed
extirpated.

Monolopia congdonii
San Joaquin woollythreads
E/-/1B.2 Annual herb in the Asteraceae family found in chenopod scrub and valley and foothill grassland habitats on sandy soils between 195 and 2,625 feet (60 – 800 meters) in
elevation. Known to occur in Fresno, Kern, Kings, San
Benito, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Tulare
Counties.

February to May Not Observed/Not
Expected. Decades of
intensive farming has
resulted in vegetation limited
to invasive/ruderal species.

No occurrences were found
within the vicinity, but this
species is known to occur in
the quad to the south.

Opuntia basilaris var.
treleasei
Bakersfield cactus
E/E/1B.1 Perennial stem succulent in the Cactaceae family found in chenopod scrub, cismontane woodland, and valley and
foothill grasslands between 330 and 4,755 feet (100–1450 meters) in elevation. Known to occur in the Southeast San Joaquin Valley and Southern Sierra Nevada Foothills in
Kern County.

April to May Not Observed/Not
Expected. Decades of
intensive farming has
resulted in vegetation limited
to invasive/ruderal species.

No occurrences were found
within the vicinity, but this
species is known to occur in
the quad to the southeast.

Pseudobahia peirsonii
San Joaquin adobe
sunburst
T/E/1B.1 Annual herb in the Asteraceae family found in cismontane woodland and valley and foothill grassland on adobe or clay soils between 295 and 2,625 feet (90–800 meters) in
elevation. Known from locations in Kern, Los Angeles,
Monterey, and San Luis Obispo Counties.

February to April Not Observed/Not
Expected. Decades of
intensive farming has
resulted in vegetation limited
to invasive/ruderal species.

No occurrences were found
within the vicinity, but this
species is known to occur in
the quad to the northeast.

Page 277 of 454 ends

Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 201-010-36
July 2025
22 Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Fed/State/CNPS Description Blooming Period
Field Study
Results/Potential for
Occurrence
Schoenoplectiella
saximontana
Rocky Mountain
bulrush
-/-/2B.1 Annual rhizomatous herb in the Cyperaceae family found in marshes and swamps and vernal pools on sandy soils
between 150 and 2,360 feet (45–720 meters) in elevation.

Known to occur in Butte, Fresno, Kern, Los Angeles,
Riverside, San Diego, San Luis Obispo, Tehama, and
Ventura Counties.
(March to May) June to
September (October)
Not Observed/Not
Expected. Decades of
intensive farming has
resulted in vegetation limited
to invasive/ruderal species.

The only known occurrence
found was 5.5 miles away
and possibly extirpated.

STATUS: Federal and State Listing Code
D Delisted
E Federally or State-listed Endangered
T Federally or State-listed Threatened
CNPS
1A Plants presumed extirpated in California, and either rare or extinct elsewhere 1B.1 Plants considered rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere; seriously threatened in California 1B.2 Plants considered rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere; fairly threatened in California 2B.1 Plants considered rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere; seriously threatened in California

4.2 Plants of limited distribution in California; fairly threatened in California

Page 278 of 454 ends

Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 201-010-36
July 2025
23 Table B-2: Special-status Animals That May Occur in the Vicinity of the Project.

Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Federal/State General Habitat Survey Results/Regional or Nearest Occurrence* Invertebrates
Bombus crotchii
Crotch’s bumble bee
-/C Occurs in grasslands and shrublands in the
Mediterranean region, Pacific coast, western desert,
and adjacent foothills throughout California’s southwest region. Food plant genera include but is not limited to Antirrhinum, Clarkia, Eriogonum. and Phacelia.

Not Observed/Not Expected. No
Antirrhium, Clarkia, Eriogonum, or
Phacelia were observed during the field
study. The only known occurrence found
was 8.3 miles away and recorded in
1965.

Branchinect lynchi
Vernal pool fairy shrimp
T/- Found in vernal pools throughout California. Exist as cysts during the dry season and reproduce when pools
are filled with water again.

Not Present. No suitable habitat present.

No known records in the vicinity of the
project.

Danaus plexippus
Monarch butterfly
PT/- Occur for migration between San Diego and British
Colombia. Asclepias spp. are used for egg laying
throughout the range and are a crucial part of their life cycle.

Not Observed/Not Expected. No known
records in the vicinity of the project. No
Asclepias spp. observed on the project.

Fishes
Lampetra hubbsi
Kern brook lamprey
-/CSC Requires silty backwaters of large rivers in foothill regions. Known to occur in six isolated populations in
the Friant-Kern Canal and lower reaches of the Merced
River, Kaweah River, Kings River, San Joaquin River,
and the Kings River above Pine Flat Reservoir.

Not Present. No suitable habitat present.

The only known occurrence found was

5.5 miles away and recorded in 1972 in
the Friant-Kern Canal east of Delano.

Amphibians
Spea hammondii
Western spadefoot toad
PT/ CSC Central valley and adjacent foothills, Coast Ranges from Point Conception south to the Mexico border;
valley-foothill grasslands and valley-foothill hardwood, shallow temporary pools used for breeding, below
4,472 feet (1,363 meters).

Moderate Probability of Occurrence.

Marginal habitat present on the project
and potential breeding habitat in the
sump south of the project. The nearest
known occurrence found was 0.9 miles
away and recorded in 1973. A more
recent occurrence was found 3.3 miles
away and recorded in 2006.

Reptiles
Actinemys marmorata
Northwestern pond turtle PT/CSC
Found in streams, ponds, lakes and permanent and
ephemeral streams.

Not Present. No suitable habitat present.

No known records in the vicinity of the
project.

Arizona elegans occidentalis
California glossy snake -/CSC
Found in low elevation scrub, grasslands and chaparral
habitats.

Not Present. No suitable habitat present.

The only occurrence in the vicinity found
was 5.4 miles away and recorded in
1935.

Page 279 of 454 ends

Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 201-010-36
July 2025
24 Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Federal/State General Habitat Survey Results/Regional or Nearest Occurrence* Gambelia sila
Blunt-nosed leopard lizard (BNLL)

E/E,SFP
Found only in the San Joaquin Valley, adjacent Carrizo
Plain, Elkhorn Plain, Cuyama Valley, and Panoche
Valley; inhabits sparsely vegetated plains, lower canyon slopes, on valley floors, and washes; open grassland,
saltbush scrub, and alkali sink are more common
habitat types.

Not Present. No suitable habitat present.

The nearest known occurrence found
was 1.6 miles away, recorded in 1959,
and possibly extirpated. The only known
occurrence recorded since 2000 was 9.7
miles away and recorded in 2019.

Phrynosoma blainvillii
Coast horned lizard
S/CSC
Inhabits valley-foothill hardwood, coniferous and
riparian, as well as pine-cypress, juniper, and annual
grasslands, in Sierra Nevada below 3,937 feet (1,200
meters) and in mountains of Southern California and
into the adjacent valleys.

Not Present. No suitable habitat present.

The only known occurrence found in the
vicinity was 7.4 miles away and recorded
in 1991.

Birds
Agelaius tricolor
Tricolored blackbird
S/T
Forages in grasslands, wetlands, rice fields, croplands, and weedy uplands dominated by mustards and
thistles, etc.; breeds in marshes containing heavy
growth of bulrushes, cattails, and blackberries; found
throughout the Central Valley.

Not Present/Low Probability of
Occurrence in the Project Vicinity. No
suitable nesting habitat on the site.

Potential for marginal foraging habitat in
farmlands in the vicinity of the project.

The nearest known occurrence found
was 4.2 miles away and recorded in
2014.

Athene cunicularia
Burrowing owl
S/C
Inhabits dry, open grasslands, rolling hills, desert floors, prairies, savannas, agricultural land, and other areas of open, bare ground. These owls will also inhabit open
areas near human habitation, such as airports, golf
courses, shoulders of roads, railroad embankments,
and the banks of irrigation ditches and reservoirs.

Not Observed/Moderate Probability of
Occurrence in the Project Vicinity.

Suitable habitat for nesting and foraging
in the vicinity of the project. No burrowing
owls or owl burrows observed. The
nearest known occurrence found was 4.7
miles away and recorded in 1982. A more
recent occurrence was found 8.7 miles
away and recorded in 2007.

Buteo swainsoni
Swainson’s hawk
S/T
Riparian and sometimes large isolated trees used for
nesting; grasslands and agricultural lands used for
foraging; in California, breeds primarily in the
Sacramento Valley, with occasional nesting to the south through Kern County; migrate through the Central and
San Joaquin Valleys to their wintering grounds in South America.

Not Observed/Low Probability of
Occurrence in the Project Vicinity. No
suitable nesting sites on the project. Low
suitable foraging habitat exists across the
row-crop farmland around McFarland.

The only known occurrence found in the
vicinity was 7.8 miles away and recorded
in 1929.

Gymnogyps californianus
California condor

E/E,SFP
Forages over large expanses of land including but not
limited to, grasslands, foothills, coastal mountain
ranges. Nests on cliff faces, large trees or manmade
structures.

Not Observed/Low Probability of
Occurrence in the Project Vicinity. No
suitable nesting habitat on the site.

Potential for marginal foraging habitat in
farmlands in the vicinity of the project.

Page 280 of 454 ends

Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 201-010-36
July 2025
25 Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Federal/State General Habitat Survey Results/Regional or Nearest Occurrence* Mammals
Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides
Tipton kangaroo rat
E/E
Found in arid communities on the valley floor portions
of Kern, Tulare, and Kings counties in scrub and
grassland communities in level to near-level terrain with alluvial fan-floodplain soil (fine sands and sandy loams) with sparse grasses and woody vegetation such as
iodine bush, saltbush, seep weed, and mesquite.

Not Present. No suitable habitat on the
project. No stereotypical kangaroo rat
burrows were observed. Small mammal
trapping would be required to determine
species occupation. The nearest and
most recent known occurrence was 4.0
miles away and recorded in 1993.

Onychomys torridus tularensis
Tulare grasshopper mouse
S/CSC
Found in valley grasslands habitats, blue oak savanna,
desert associations dominated by annual grasses and
California ephedra, alkali sink scrub, saltbush scrub,
and upper Sonoran shrub associations, dominated by
ephedra.

Not Observed/Not Expected. No
suitable habitat present. The nearest
known occurrence found was 4.5 miles
away and recorded in 1900. The only
other known occurrence found was 5.4
miles away and recorded in 1907.

Sorex ornatus relictus
Buena Vista Lake shrew
E/CSC
Formerly occupied marshlands of the San Joaquin
Valley and the Tulare Basin. Its range has become
much restricted due to the loss of lakes and sloughs in the area. It has been recorded from the Kern Lake
Preserve area and the Kern National Wildlife Refuge.

Current distribution is unknown but likely to be very
restricted due to the loss of habitat.

Not Present. No suitable habitat present.

No records of occurrence were found in
the vicinity.

Taxidea taxus
American badger -/CSC
Uncommon resident found through California; in less
disturbed grassland and shrubland habitats in San
Joaquin Valley.

Not Present No suitable habitat. The
only known occurrence found was 9.1
miles away and recorded in 1989.

Vulpes macrotis mutica
San Joaquin kit fox (SJKF)
E/T
Found in valley saltbush scrub, valley sink scrub,
Interior Coast Range saltbush scrub, upper Sonoran
sub-shrub scrub, non-native grassland, and valley
sacaton grassland in the Central Valley and adjacent
foothills and valleys, infrequently to the outer Coast
Ranges; generally not found in densely wooded areas,
wetland areas, or areas subject to frequent periodic
flooding.

Moderate Probability of Occurrence.

No potential, known, or natal dens were
observed. SJKF potential for occurrence
moderate in the vicinity of the project.

The nearest known occurrence found
was 1.1 miles away and recorded in
1975. A more recent occurrence was
found 4.2 miles away and recorded in
2005.

STATUS:

Federal
S Listed as a BLM Sensitive Species
D Delisted
E Listed as Endangered
PT Proposed as Threatened
T Listed as Threatened
C Candidate for Endangered Status
State
CSC California Department of Fish and Wildlife Designated Species of Special Concern
D Delisted
E Listed as Endangered
SFP California Department of Fish and Wildlife Designated Fully Protected
T Listed as Threatened

Page 281 of 454 ends

Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 201-010-36
July 2025
26 Figure B-1. CNDDB special-status plant species occurrences within a 10-mile radius of the project (CDFW 2025).

Page 282 of 454 ends

Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 201-010-36
July 2025
27 Figure B-2. CNDDB special-status bird species occurrences within a 10-mile radius of the project (CDFW 2025).

Page 283 of 454 ends

Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 201-010-36
July 2025
28 Figure B-3. CNDDB special-status amphibian and reptile species occurrences within a 10-mile radius of the project (CDFW 2025).

Page 284 of 454 ends

Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 201-010-36
July 2025
29 Figure B-4. CNDDB special-status mammal species occurrences within a 10-mile radius of the project (CDFW 2025).

Page 285 of 454 ends

Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 201-010-36
July 2025
30 Figure B-5. CNDDB special-status invertebrate species occurrences within a 10-mile radius of the project (CDFW 2025).

Page 286 of 454 ends

Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 201-010-36
July 2025
31 Figure B-6. CNDDB special-status fish species occurrences within a 10-mile radius of the project (CDFW 2025).

Page 287 of 454 ends

APPENDIX C

PLANTS AND ANIMALS OBSERVED ON THE PROJECT

FIELD STUDY CONDUCTED
July 25, 2025

Page 288 of 454 ends

Biological Resource Evaluation
APN 201-010-36
July 2025
Table C-1. Vascular plant species observed during the field study conducted on the project site.

Scientific Name Common Name
Amaranthaceae
Amaranthus albus Pigweed amaranth
Amaranthus palmeri Palmer’s amaranth
Asphodelaceae
Aloe vera Aloe vera
Asteraceae
Encelia farinosa Brittlebush
Helianthus annuus Common sunflower
Lactuca seriola Prickly lettuce
Boraginaceae
Amsinkia sp. Fiddleneck
Chenopodiaceae
Salsola tragus Russian thistle
Convolvulaceae
Convolvulus arvensis Field bindweed
Malvaceae
Malva parviflora Cheeseweed
Poaceae
Bromus diandrus Ripgut
Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens Red brome
Elymus triticoides Beardless wild rye
Solanaceae
Solanum elaeagnifolium Silverleaf nightshade
Zygophyllaceae
Tribulus terrestris Puncturevine
Table C-2. Vertebrate animal species observed during the field study conducted on the project site.

Scientific Name Common Name
Birds
Zenaida macroura Mourning dove

Page 289 of 454 ends

CITY OF McFARLAND

WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT & TREATMENT PROJECT
(PROJECT NO. EDWG-1510013-003C)

EXHIBIT E
“CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT”

Page 290 of 454 ends

CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
Elmo Highway Well Site Project
McFarland, Kern County, California
October 15, 2025

Page 291 of 454 ends

CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
Elmo Highway Well Site Project
McFarland, Kern County, California
Prepared for:

Curtis M. Skaggs, PE
Dee Jasper & Associates, Inc.

Bakersfield-Porterville
Prepared by:

Joseph Orozco, M.A., RPA
Contributions by John J.P. G Defachelle Jr., B.A; George Brentner, B.A.

BCR Consulting
Claremont, California 91711
Project No. DJA2501
National Archaeological Data Base Information:

Type of Study: Cultural Resources Assessment/Inventory
Resources Recorded: None
Keywords: McFarland
USGS Quadrangle: 7.5-minute McFarland, California (1969) October 15, 2025

Page 292 of 454 ends

O C T O B E R 1 5 , 2 0 2 5 B C R C O N S U L T I N G

C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T

E L M O H I G H W A Y W E L L S I T E P R O J E C T
iii

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
BCR Consulting LLC (BCR Consulting) is under contract to Dee Jasper & Associates, Inc. to complete a Cultural Resources Assessment of the proposed Elmo Highway Well Site Project (project) in the City of McFarland (City), Kern County, California. A cultural resources records search, intensive-level pedestrian field survey, Sacred Lands File Search through the Native American Heritage Commission, and vertebrate paleontological resources assessment were conducted for the project in partial fulfillment of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The records search revealed that 13 cultural resource studies have taken place resulting in the recording of nine cultural resources within one mile of the project site. One of the 13 previous studies has previously assessed the project site for cultural resources and no cultural resources have been previously recorded within its boundaries. During the field survey BCR Consulting archaeologists identified no cultural resources or sensitivity for buried resources within the project site boundaries. Based on these results, no significant impact related to historical resources is anticipated and no further investigations are recommended for the proposed project unless:
• The proposed project is changed to include areas that have not been subject to this cultural resource assessment;
• Cultural materials are encountered during project activities.

The current study attempted to determine whether significant archaeological deposits were present on the proposed project site. Although none were yielded during the records search and field survey, ground-disturbing activities have the potential to reveal buried deposits not observed on the surface. Prior to the initiation of ground-disturbing activities, field personnel should be alerted to the possibility of buried prehistoric or historic cultural deposits. In the event that field personnel encounter buried cultural materials, work in the immediate vicinity of the find should cease and a qualified archaeologist should be retained to assess the significance of the find. The qualified archaeologist shall have the authority to stop or divert construction excavation as necessary. If the qualified archaeologist finds that any cultural resources present meet eligibility requirements for listing on the California Register or the National Register of Historic Places (National Register), plans for the treatment, evaluation, and mitigation of impacts to the find will need to be developed. Prehistoric or historic cultural materials that may be encountered during ground-disturbing activities include:
• historic-period artifacts such as glass bottles and fragments, cans, nails, ceramic and pottery fragments, and other metal objects;
• historic-period structural or building foundations, walkways, cisterns, pipes, privies, and other structural elements;
• prehistoric flaked-stone artifacts and debitage (waste material), consisting of obsidian, basalt, and or cryptocrystalline silicates;
• groundstone artifacts, including mortars, pestles, and grinding slabs; • dark, greasy soil that may be associated with charcoal, ash, bone, shell, flaked stone, groundstone, and fire affected rocks;
• human remains.

Findings were negative during the Sacred Lands File search with the NAHC. The Legislature added requirements regarding tribal cultural resources for CEQA in Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52)

Page 293 of 454 ends

O C T O B E R 1 5 , 2 0 2 5 B C R C O N S U L T I N G

C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T

E L M O H I G H W A Y W E L L S I T E P R O J E C T
iv
that took effect July 1, 2015. AB 52 requires consultation with California Native American tribes and consideration of tribal cultural resources in the CEQA process. By including tribal cultural resources early in the CEQA process, the legislature intended to ensure that local and Tribal governments, public agencies, and project proponents would have information available, early in the project planning process, to identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources. By taking this proactive approach, the legislature also intended to reduce the potential for delay and conflicts in the environmental review process.

To help determine whether a project may have such an effect, the Public Resources Code requires a lead agency to consult with any California Native American tribe that requests consultation and is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of a Proposed Project. Since the lead agency will initiate and carry out the required AB52 Native American Consultation, the results of the consultation are not provided in this report. However, this report may be used during the consultation process, and BCR Consulting staff is available to answer questions and address concerns as necessary.

According to CEQA Guidelines, projects subject to CEQA must determine whether the project would “directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource”. The Paleontological Overview provided in Appendix D has recommended that:

The geologic units underlying this project are mapped as fan and basin deposits from the Holocene epoch (Smith, 1964). Holocene alluvial units are considered to be of high preservation value, but material found is unlikely to be fossil material due to the relatively modern associated dates of the deposits. However, if development requires any substantial depth of disturbance, the likelihood of reaching Pleistocene alluvial sediments would increase. The Western Science Center does not have localities within the project area or within a 1 mile radius, however this may be due in part to the project’s distance from the museum and should not be taken as indicative of paleontological sensitivity. Other repositories may have localities in the area.

While the presence of any fossil material is unlikely, if excavation activity disturbs deeper sediment dating to the earliest parts of the Holocene or Late Pleistocene periods, the material would be scientifically significant. Excavation activity associated with the development of the project area is unlikely to be paleontologically sensitive, but caution during development should be observed.

If human remains are encountered during the undertaking, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 48 hours of notification by the NAHC.

Page 294 of 454 ends

O C T O B E R 1 5 , 2 0 2 5 B C R C O N S U L T I N G

C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T

E L M O H I G H W A Y W E L L S I T E P R O J E C T
v

TABLE OF CONTENTS
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY ................................................................................................. ii INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................1 REGULATORY SETTING ...............................................................................................1 NATURAL SETTING.............................................................................................................4 CULTURAL SETTING...........................................................................................................5 PREHISTORY.................................................................................................................5 HISTORY ........................................................................................................................5 PERSONNEL........................................................................................................................5 METHODS............................................................................................................................6 RESEARCH ....................................................................................................................6 FIELD SURVEY ..............................................................................................................6 RESULTS .............................................................................................................................6 RESEARCH ....................................................................................................................6 FIELD SURVEY ..............................................................................................................6 RECOMMENDATIONS.........................................................................................................7 REFERENCES......................................................................................................................9

FIGURES
1: Project Location Map ........................................................................................................2 TABLES
A: Cultural Resources and Reports Within One Mile of the Project Site ................................6

APPENDICES
A: RECORDS SEARCH BIBLIOGRAPHY
B: PROJECT PHOTOGRAPHS
C: NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION SACRED LANDS FILE SEARCH D: PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES OVERVIEW

Page 295 of 454 ends

O C T O B E R 1 5 , 2 0 2 5 B C R C O N S U L T I N G

C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T

E L M O H I G H W A Y W E L L S I T E P R O J E C T
1 INTRODUCTION
BCR Consulting LLC is under contract to Dee jasper & Associates, Inc. to conduct a Cultural Resources Assessment of the proposed Elmo Highway Well Site Project in the City of McFarland, Kern County, California. The project site is located in Section 12 of Township 26 South, Range 25 East, Mount Diablo Baseline and Meridian. It is depicted on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) McFarland, California (1969) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle (Figure 1). The work is being performed in fulfillment of requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

REGULATORY SETTING
The California Environmental Quality Act. CEQA applies to all discretionary projects undertaken or subject to approval by the state’s public agencies (California Code of Regulations 14(3), § 15002(i)). Under CEQA, “A project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment” (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14(3), § 15064.5(b)). State CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(a) defines a “historical resource” as a resource that meets one or more of the following criteria:
• Listed in, or eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register)
• Listed in a local register of historical resources (as defined at Cal. Public Res. Code § 5020.1(k))
• Identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of § 5024.1(g) of the Cal. Public Res. Code
• Determined to be a historical resource by a project's lead agency (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14(3), § 15064.5(a))
A historical resource consists of “Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California…Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be ‘historically significant’ if the resource meets the criteria for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources” (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14(3), § 15064.5(a)(3)).

The significance of a historical resource is impaired when a project demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for the California Register. If an impact on a historical or archaeological resource is significant, CEQA requires feasible measures to minimize the impact (State CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4 (a)(1)). Mitigation of significant impacts must lessen or eliminate the physical impact that the project will have on the resource.

Section 5024.1 of the Cal. Public Res. Code established the California Register. Generally, a resource is considered by the lead agency to be “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing in the California Register (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14(3), § 15064.5(a)(3)).

The eligibility criteria for the California Register are similar to those of the National Register of Historic Places (National Register), and a resource that meets one or more of the eligibility criteria of the National Register will be eligible for the California Register.

Page 296 of 454 ends

Page 297 of 454 ends

O C T O B E R 1 5 , 2 0 2 5 B C R C O N S U L T I N G

C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T

E L M O H I G H W A Y W E L L S I T E P R O J E C T
3 The California Register program encourages public recognition and protection of resources of architectural, historical, archaeological, and cultural significance, identifies historical resources for state and local planning purposes, determines eligibility for state historic preservation grant funding and affords certain protections under CEQA. Criteria for Designation:

1. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States.

2. Associated with the lives of persons important to local, California or national history.

3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values.

4. Has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California or the nation.

In addition to meeting one or more of the above criteria, the California Register requires that sufficient time has passed since a resource’s period of significance to “obtain a scholarly perspective on the events or individuals associated with the resources.” (CCR 4852 [d][2]).

Fifty years is normally considered sufficient time for a potential historical resource, and in order that the evaluation remain valid for a minimum of five years after the date of this report, all resources older than 45 years (i.e. resources from the “historic-period”) will be evaluated for California Register listing eligibility, or CEQA significance. The California Register also requires that a resource possess integrity. This is defined as the ability for the resource to convey its significance through seven aspects: location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.

Finally, CEQA requires that significant effects on unique archaeological resources be considered and addressed. CEQA defines a unique archaeological resource as any archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria:

1. Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and there is a demonstrable public interest in that information.

2. Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type.

3. Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 Appendix G includes significance criteria relative to archaeological and historical resources. These have been utilized as thresholds of significance here, and a project would have a significant environmental impact if it would:
a) cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in section 10564.5;

Page 298 of 454 ends

O C T O B E R 1 5 , 2 0 2 5 B C R C O N S U L T I N G

C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T

E L M O H I G H W A Y W E L L S I T E P R O J E C T
4 b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 10564.5;
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.

Tribal Cultural Resources. The Legislature added requirements regarding tribal cultural resources for CEQA in Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) that took effect July 1, 2015. AB 52 requires consultation with California Native American tribes and consideration of tribal cultural resources in the CEQA process. By including tribal cultural resources early in the CEQA process, the legislature intended to ensure that local and Tribal governments, public agencies, and project proponents would have information available, early in the project planning process, to identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources. By taking this proactive approach, the legislature also intended to reduce the potential for delay and conflicts in the environmental review process. To help determine whether a project may have such an effect, the Public Resources Code requires a lead agency to consult with any California Native American tribe that requests consultation and is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of a Proposed Project. Since the City will initiate and carry out the required AB52 Native American Consultation, the results of the consultation are not provided in this report. However, this report may be used during the consultation process, and BCR Consulting staff are available to answer questions and address comments as necessary.

Paleontological Resources. CEQA provides guidance relative to significant impacts on paleontological resources, indicating that a project would have a significant impact on paleontological resources if it disturbs or destroys a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. Section 5097.5 of the California Public Resources Code specifies that any unauthorized removal of paleontological remains is a misdemeanor. Further, California Penal Code Section 622.5 sets the penalties for damage or removal of paleontological resources. CEQA documentation prepared for projects would be required to analyze paleontological resources as a condition of the CEQA process to disclose potential impacts. Please note that as of January 2018 paleontological resources are considered in the geological rather than cultural category. Therefore, paleontological resources are not summarized in the body of this report. A paleontological overview completed by the Western Science Center is provided as Appendix D.

NATURAL SETTING
The elevation of the project is approximately 345 feet above mean sea level. It is located in the southern portion of southern San Joaquin Valley. Local rainfall averages approximately eight inches per year, and the runoff is channeled from northeast to southwest. Most of the local vegetation currently consists of non-native seasonal grasses. Prior to the introduction of large-scale agriculture, the San Joaquin River and Tulare Lake’s system of channels, sloughs, and tule-choked marshes defined the local ecosystem (Wallace 1978:462). As a result, the biotic character of the valley was historically much more diversified than is presently evident.

Large freshwater marshes and vast expanses of grassland supported a variety of wildlife, including grizzly bears and wolves (both locally extinct), tule elk, jackrabbits, quail, and numerous fish, rodents, reptiles and birds (Twisselmann 1967, Osborne 1992, Cogswell 1977, and Moyle 1976).

Page 299 of 454 ends

O C T O B E R 1 5 , 2 0 2 5 B C R C O N S U L T I N G

C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T

E L M O H I G H W A Y W E L L S I T E P R O J E C T
5 CULTURAL SETTING
Prehistory
The project is situated within the traditional boundaries of the Southern Valley Yokuts. This prehistoric population depended heavily on the Tulare, Buena Vista, and Kern Lakes and their connecting sloughs and rivers for sustenance and transportation (Wallace 1978:448). The local Southern Valley Yokuts, referred to as the Chuxoxi, represented one of the southernmost Yokut political units and were associated with the channels and sloughs of the Kern River delta (Wallace 1978:449; Kroeber 1925:483). Chuxoxi trade routes and rights to the delta allowed them to reap the benefits of the related perennial water sources. This enabled local populations to pursue a relatively sedentary lifestyle in an otherwise arid climate.

Prehistorically, such sedentism often coincides with a village-style residential model in which residential bases remain the same or seasonal, while specialized procurement parties are deployed to more remote areas to collect specialized resources (Binford 1980, Thomas 1983).

This village model has been locally supported by early ethnographers, who considered Yokuts unique in California for forming "true tribes" and for developing an unparalleled array of dialects (Kroeber 1925:474).

History
The first Europeans to establish contact with the Southern Valley Yokuts were Spanish troops led by Captain Don Pedro Fages in pursuit of deserters. Father Francisco Garces also travelled through the San Joaquin Valley searching for an overland route from Yuma to Monterey. During his travels, Garces noted positive interactions with locals (see Smith 1939, Bailey 1984). The Mexican era (1821-1848) saw little notable cultural exchange between Mexicans and Southern Valley Yokuts, although an 1833 malaria epidemic devastated the local native population (Wallace 1978:460). The ensuing American era, punctuated by California’s annexation into the United States in 1848, resulted in overwhelming Anglo settlement and seizing of Indian lands, and disrupted any remaining prehistoric Yokut influence in the San Joaquin Valley. Mining and ranching represented the early historical focus of the San Joaquin Valley, although the region’s abundant natural water supply, mild climate, and huge tracts of arable land soon led to the successful development of agriculture. The resulting diversion of local water and skyrocketing real estate values transformed the physical and economic character of the valley and have allowed it to remain one of the most productive agricultural regions in the world to this day (Preston 1981).

PERSONNEL
David Brunzell, M.A., RPA, acted as the Principal Investigator for the current study. Joseph Orozco, M.A., RPA, acted as the Project Manager for the current study and complied the technical report. Mr. Orozco completed the cultural resources records search at the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center (SSJVIC) at California State University, Bakersfield.

BCR Consulting Staff Archaeologist Doug Kazmier, B.A., PGC conducted the pedestrian field survey, and BCR Consulting Staff Archaeologists John J.P. G Defachelle Jr, B.A. and George Brentner B.A. contributed to the technical report.

Page 300 of 454 ends

O C T O B E R 1 5 , 2 0 2 5 B C R C O N S U L T I N G

C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T

E L M O H I G H W A Y W E L L S I T E P R O J E C T
6 METHODS
Research
Prior to fieldwork, an archaeological records search was conducted at the SSJVIC. This included a review of all recorded historic and prehistoric cultural resources, as well as a review of known cultural resources, and survey and excavation reports generated from projects located within one mile of the project site (see Appendix A). In addition, a review of the National Register, the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register), local listings, and the Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD) were performed. The BERD comprises a list of official California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) determinations of eligibility for historic-period built environment resources.

Field Survey
Mr. Kazmier conducted a pedestrian field survey of the project on April 7, 2025. The survey was conducted by walking parallel transects spaced approximately 15 meters apart across 100 percent of the project. Soil exposures, including natural and artificial clearings were carefully inspected for evidence of cultural resources

RESULTS
Research
Data from the SSJVIC revealed that 13 cultural resource studies have taken place and nine cultural resources were discovered within a one-mile radius of the project site. Of the 13 previous studies, one has previously assessed the project site, resulting in the recording of no cultural resources within its boundaries (see Appendix A).

Table A. Cultural Resources and Reports Within One Mile of the Project Site USGS 7.5
Min Quad Cultural Resources Within One Mile of Project Site Studies W/in One Mile McFarland, CA
(1969)
P-15-2050: Southern Pacific Railroad (.35 Miles NE)
P-15-8491: Historic-Period Single Family Property (.80 Miles SE) P-15-8494: Historic-Period Single Family Property (.20 Miles SE) P-15-8495: Historic-Period Single Family Property (.82 Miles SE) P-15-8497: Historic-Period Urban Open Space (.80 Miles SE) P-15-8498: Historic-Period Single Family Property (.65 Miles SE) P-15-8499: Historic-Period Single Family Property (.70 Miles SE) P-15-8501: Historic-Period Single Family Property (.95 Miles SE) P-15-8502: Historic-Period Single Family Property (.95 Miles SE) KE-805, 830, 841,
1448, 1832, 2056,
2917, 3043, 3528,
3760*, 4333, 4764,
4813
*Within project boundaries
Field Survey
During the field survey, Mr. Kazmier carefully inspected the project site and identified no cultural resources of any kind within its boundaries. Surface visibility was approximately 80 percent within the project site. Soil in the area comprised moist brown sandy loam with traces of gravel inclusions. Vegetation was characterized as native weeds and season grasses.

Ground disturbances were severe and resulted from a variety of factors including grading, modern pavement installation, and modern refuse deposits.

Page 301 of 454 ends

O C T O B E R 1 5 , 2 0 2 5 B C R C O N S U L T I N G

C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T

E L M O H I G H W A Y W E L L S I T E P R O J E C T
7 RECOMMENDATIONS
BCR Consulting conducted a Cultural Resources Assessment of the Elmo Highway Well Site Project in the City of McFarland, Kern County, California. This work was completed pursuant to CEQA. The records search and field survey did not identify any cultural resources (including prehistoric or historic archaeological sites or historic buildings) within the project site.

Furthermore, research results combined with surface conditions have failed to indicate sensitivity for buried cultural resources. Based on these results, BCR Consulting recommends a finding of no historical resources affected for this undertaking. Based on these results, no significant impact related to historical resources is anticipated and no further investigations are recommended for the proposed project unless:
• The proposed project is changed to include areas that have not been subject to this cultural resource assessment;
• Cultural materials are encountered during project activities.

Findings were negative during the Sacred Lands File search with the NAHC. The Legislature added requirements regarding tribal cultural resources for CEQA in Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) that took effect July 1, 2015. AB 52 requires consultation with California Native American tribes and consideration of tribal cultural resources in the CEQA process. By including tribal cultural resources early in the CEQA process, the legislature intended to ensure that local and Tribal governments, public agencies, and project proponents would have information available, early in the project planning process, to identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources. By taking this proactive approach, the legislature also intended to reduce the potential for delay and conflicts in the environmental review process.

Page 302 of 454 ends

O C T O B E R 1 5 , 2 0 2 5 B C R C O N S U L T I N G

C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T

E L M O H I G H W A Y W E L L S I T E P R O J E C T
8 To help determine whether a project may have such an effect, the Public Resources Code requires a lead agency to consult with any California Native American tribe that requests consultation and is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of a Proposed Project. Since the lead agency will initiate and carry out the required AB52 Native American Consultation, the results of the consultation are not provided in this report. However, this report may be used during the consultation process, and BCR Consulting staff is available to answer questions and address concerns as necessary.

Page 303 of 454 ends

O C T O B E R 1 5 , 2 0 2 5 B C R C O N S U L T I N G

C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T

E L M O H I G H W A Y W E L L S I T E P R O J E C T
9 REFERENCES
Bailey, Richard C.
1984 Heart of the Golden Empire: An Illustrated History of Bakersfield. Windsor Publications, Inc., Woodland Hills, California.

Binford, L.
1980 Willow Smoke And Dog’s Tails: Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems and Archaeological Site Formation. American Antiquity 45:1-17.

Cogswell, Howard L.
1977 Water Birds of California. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Kroeber, Alfred L.
1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin No. 78.

Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution. Reprinted 1976, Dover. New York.

Moyle, Peter B.
1976 Inland Fishes of California. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Osborne, Richard H.
1992 An Ethnographic Overview of the Southern Valley Yokuts. Kern County Archaeological Society Journal 3:36-65.

Preston, William L.
1981 Vanishing Landscapes. University of California Press, Berkeley Smith, Arthur A.
1964 Geologic Map of California, Bakersfield Sheet. 1:250,000. The Resources Agency Department of Conservation.

Smith, Wallace
1939 Garden of the Sun. Lymanhouse, Los Angeles.

Thomas, D.H.
1983 The Archaeology of Monitor Valley I: Epistemology. New York: American Museum of Natural History Anthropological Papers 58:1.

Twisselmann, Ernest C.
1967 A Flora of Kern County, California. University of San Francisco Press.

United States Geological Survey
1969 McFarland, California 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map.

Wallace, William J.
1978 The Southern Valley Yokuts, and The Northern Valley Yokuts. In Handbook of the North American Indians, Vol. 8, California, edited by W.L. d’Azevedo, pp. 448-470.

W.C. Sturtevant, General Editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.

Page 304 of 454 ends

O C T O B E R 1 5 , 2 0 2 5 B C R C O N S U L T I N G

C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T

E L M O H I G H W A Y W E L L S I T E P R O J E C T

APPENDIX A

RECORDS SEARCH BIBLIOGRAPHY

Page 305 of 454 ends

Report List
Report No. Other IDs Year Author(s) Title Affiliation Resources Resources
KE-00805 1989 An Archaeological Assessment of Nine Acres of Land in McFarland, Kern County, California
Cultural Resource Facility,
California State University,
Bakersfield
NADB-R - 1140475; Parr, Robert E.

Submitter - CRF-89-
62 KE-00830 1991 Cultural Resource Assessment of Two
Structures at McFarland Mutual Water
Company Well No. 1
Cultural Resource Facility,
California State University,
Bakersfield
NADB-R - 1140499 Parr, Robert E.

KE-00841 1992 An Archaeological Assessment of Tentative Tract #5177 in McFarland, Kern County,
California
Cultural Resource Facility,
California State University,
Bakersfield
NADB-R - 1140510; Parr, Robert E.

Submitter - CRF-92-
32 KE-01448 1994 Archaeological Survey of the McFarland Garden Apartments
Schiffman, Robert A. Bakersfield College
KE-01832 1995 Cultural Resources Inventory Report for the Proposed Mojave Northward Expansion
Project
Woodward-Clyde
Consultants
Hatoff, Brian, Voss, Barb,
Waechter, Sharon, Wee,
Stephen, and Benté,
Vance
NADB-R - 1140863
KE-02056 1997 Cultural Resource Survey for the Selma to Bakersfield Fiberoptic Line, Southern San
Joaquin Valley, California
Wickstrom, Brian and KEA Environmental, Inc.

Anderson, Emily
KE-02917 2004 Cultural Resource Survey for an 80-Acre
Mixed Use Development, Between Elmo
Avenue and Perkins Avenue Near McFarland,
Kern County, CA
Archaeological Associates
of Kern County
Schiffman, Robert and
Gold, Alan
KE-03043 2005 A Cultural Resources Assessment for the
Proposed City of McFarland, 329 Single
Family Residential Project, McFarland, Kern
County, CA
Sierra Valley Cultural
Planning
Roper, Kristina
KE-03528 2006 Cultural Resources Final Report of Monitoring and Findings for the Qwest Network
Construction Project, State of California
SWCA Environmental
Consultants
Arrington, Cindy, Bass,
Bryon, Brown, Joan,
Corey, Chris, and Hunt,
Kevin
Submitter - SWCA
Cultural Resources
Report Database No.
06-507;
Submitter - SWCA
Project No. 10715-
180
KE-03760 2010 A Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for
Thomas Family Property, City of McFarland,
California
Hudlow Cultural Resource
Associates
Hudlow, Scott M.

KE-04333 2012 Determination of Eligibility and Effect for the McFarland Senior Apartments Project, City of
McFarland Kern County, California
Submitter - Job #12- Peak, Melinda A. Peak & Associates, Inc. 079

Page 1 of 2 ends

Page 306 of 454 ends

Report List
Report No. Other IDs Year Author(s) Title Affiliation Resources Resources
KE-04764 2015 A Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for NW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 12, City of
McFarland, California
Hudlow Cultural Resource
Associates
IC Record Search Hudlow, Scott
Nbr - 15-497
KE-04813 2016 A Phase I Cultural Resource Survey Keandra Place Apartments, City of McFarland,
California
Hudlow Cultural Resource
Associates
Hudlow, Scott

Page 2 of 2 ends

Page 307 of 454 ends

Primary No. Trinomial
Resource List
Other IDs Type Age Attribute codes Recorded by Reports
P-15-002050 CA-KER-002050H Resource Name - Southern
Pacific Railroad;
Other - KS-1; FCG-27; Old
Southern Pacific Railroad Grade;
NOTS Railroad Spur; US
Government Railroad;
Other - Asphalto Line of the
South Pacific Railroad; Union
Pacific (1996);;
Other - Southern Pacific Railroad,
McKittrick Branch; MidwaySunset 2;
Other - Southern Pacific Railroad
(San Francisco and New Orleans
Line), Union Pacific
KE-00861, KE00865, KE-01267,
KE-01958, KE01994, KE-02162,
KE-02278, KE02452, KE-02560,
KE-04056, KE04361, KE-04383,
KE-04414, KE04503, KE-05045,
KE-05448, KE-05450
Structure,
Object, Site
Historic AH01; AH02; AH04;
AH06; AH07; AH15;
HP04; HP08; HP11;
HP17; HP19; HP37;
HP39
1985 (R. Apple, J. Underwood,
Wirth Environmental Services);
1987 (R. Schiffman, Unknown);
1992 (J. Berg, et. Al., Far Western
Anthropological Research Group,
Inc.);
1993 (M. Macko, Macko
Archaeological Consulting);
1993 (Unknown, JRP Historical
Consulting Services);
1993 (J. Costello, J. Marvin, C.

Brownson, Foothill Resources, Ltd.);
1994 (Bruce Steidl, Keith Colvin,
Helen Johnson, Woodward-Clyde
Cosultants);
1995 (R.E. Parr, Center for
Archaeological Research, California
State University, Bakersfield);
1995 (James C. Killen, Department
of Energy);
1996 (R. Tidmore, J. Gardner, R.E.

Parr, J. Hinshaw, Center for
Archaeological Research, California
State University, Bakersfield);
1996 (James C. Killen, Department
of Energy);
1998 (B. Hatoff, P. Frazier, D.

Lawler, Woodward-Clyde
International-Americas);
1998 (P. Frazier, L. Wear, B.

Hattoff, D. Lawler, Woodward-Clyde
International-Americans);
1999 (Unknown, Pacific Legacy,
Inc.);
1999 (Mike Avina, Jones & Stokes
Associates, Inc.);
1999 (Mike Aviña, Jones & Stokes
Associates, Inc.);
1999 (Brian Wickstrom, Caltrans);
1999 (B. Hatoff, B. Bass, D. Lawler,
URS Greiner Woodward-Clyde);
2000 (Jackson Underwood, KEA
Environmental, Inc.);
2001 (William G. White, Harry Reid
Center for Environmental Studies);
2005 (Dorothy Fleagle, Catherine

Page 1 of 3 ends

Page 308 of 454 ends

Primary No. Trinomial
Resource List
Other IDs Type Age Attribute codes Recorded by Reports
Lewis Pruett, Three Girls and a
Shovel);
2007 (Brian Wickstrom, Caltrans);
2007 (Wayne Glenny, EDAW);
2009 (S. Melvin, R. Flores, JRP
Historical Consulting, LLC);
2009 (Jason D. Jones, Unknown);
2009 (Jeremy Hollins, URS Corp);
2009 (H. Calicher, R. Rolston, N.

Lawson, CH2M Hill);
2009 (K.R. Way, J.M. Hamad, J.

Sprague, G. Sprague, Pacific
Legacy, Inc.);
2009 (K.R. Way, J. Sprague, N.

Sims, P. Sharp-Garcia, C. Davis, M.

Armstrong, A Stevenson, Pacific
Legacy, Inc.);
2010 (M. Millett, J. P. Glover, J. W.

Dougherty, Unknown);
2010 (L. Hoffman, J. Covert, SWCA
Environmental Consultants);
2011 (M. Dalope, S. Andrews, C.

Whitley, J. Neal, ASM Affiliates,
Inc.);
2012 (S. Andrews, ASM Affiliates,
Inc.);
2012 (A. Bell, C. Rambo, C. Whitley,
S. Escamilla, A. Troupin, R.

Azpitrate, ASM Affiliates, Inc.);
2013 (N. Lawson, CH2M Hill);
2013 (D. Martinez, C. Connolly, Far
Western Anthropological Research
Group, Inc.);
2013 (Linda Honey, Great Basin
Sage, Inc.);
2016 (P. Carey, ASM Affiliates,
Inc.);
2017 (B. Armstrong, M. Wooderson,
and A. Schmidt, Epsilon Systems
Solutions, Inc.);
2018 (Marcos Ramos Ponciano,
Andrew York, AECOM);
2019 (Unknown, Urbana
Preservation & Planning, LLC);
2019 (Merrick et al., Rincon
Consultants, Inc.);

Page 2 of 3 ends

Page 309 of 454 ends

Primary No. Trinomial
Resource List
Other IDs Type Age Attribute codes Recorded by Reports
2019 (Alexandra Madsen, Rincon
Consultants, Inc.);
2020 (Unknown, Urbana
Preservation & Planning, LLC);
2020 (Unknown, Urbana
Preservation & Planning, LLC);
2020 (Trevor Gittelhough; Kyle
Montgomery, SWCA Environmental
Consultants);
2021 (D. Gravey, C. Caywood, Far
Western Anthrpological Research
Group, Inc.);
2021 (Jenna Farrell and Gena
Granger, Tetra Tech, Inc.)
P-15-008491 OHP Property Number - 065687;
OTIS Resource Number - 467867
Building Historic HP02 1989
P-15-008494 OHP Property Number - 066910;
OTIS Resource Number - 469113
Building Historic HP02 1989
P-15-008495 OHP Property Number - 066829;
OTIS Resource Number - 469033
Building Historic HP02 1988
P-15-008497 OHP Property Number - 066110;
OTIS Resource Number - 468260
Building Historic HP31 1989
P-15-008498 OHP Property Number - 066387;
OTIS Resource Number - 468533
Building Historic HP02 1988
P-15-008499 OHP Property Number - 066559;
OTIS Resource Number - 468701
Building Historic HP02 1988
P-15-008501 OHP Property Number - 066552;
OTIS Resource Number - 468694
Building Historic HP02 1988
P-15-008502 OHP Property Number - 065686;
OTIS Resource Number - 467866
Building Historic HP02 1989

Page 3 of 3 ends

Page 310 of 454 ends

O C T O B E R 1 5 , 2 0 2 5 B C R C O N S U L T I N G

C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T

E L M O H I G H W A Y W E L L S I T E P R O J E C T

APPENDIX B

PROJECT PHOTOGRAPHS

Page 311 of 454 ends

O C T O B E R 1 5 , 2 0 2 5 B C R C O N S U L T I N G

C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T

E L M O H I G H W A Y W E L L S I T E P R O J E C T
Photo 1: Overview of Project Site (View W)
Photo 2: Overview of Project Site (View E)

Page 312 of 454 ends

O C T O B E R 1 5 , 2 0 2 5 B C R C O N S U L T I N G

C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T

E L M O H I G H W A Y W E L L S I T E P R O J E C T
Photo 3: Overview of Project Site (View SE)
Photo 4: Overview of Project Site (View SW)

Page 313 of 454 ends

O C T O B E R 1 5 , 2 0 2 5 B C R C O N S U L T I N G

C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T

E L M O H I G H W A Y W E L L S I T E P R O J E C T
Photo 5: Overview of Project Site (View E)
Photo 6: Overview of Project Site (View W)

Page 314 of 454 ends

O C T O B E R 1 5 , 2 0 2 5 B C R C O N S U L T I N G

C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T

E L M O H I G H W A Y W E L L S I T E P R O J E C T

APPENDIX C

NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION SACRED LANDS

FILE SEARCH

Page 315 of 454 ends

STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor

NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION

Page 1 of 1 ends

April 7, 2025
David Brunzell
BCR Consulting, LLC
Via Email to: [email protected]
Re: Elmo Highway Well Site (DJA2501) Project, Kern County To Whom It May Concern:

As requested, a record search of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) was completed based on information submitted for the above referenced project. The results were negative. Please note that tribes do not always record their sacred sites in the SLF, nor are they required to do so. As such, a SLF search is not a substitute for consultation with all tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with a project’s geographic area.

Attached is a list of Native American tribes who may also have knowledge of cultural resources in the project area. This list should provide a starting place in locating areas of potential adverse impact within the proposed project area. Please contact all of those listed; if they cannot supply information, they may recommend others with specific knowledge. If within two weeks of notification, a response has not been received, the Commission requests that you follow-up with a telephone call or email to ensure that the project information was received.

If you receive notification of a change of address or phone number from a tribe, please notify the NAHC so that we can assure that our lists contain current information.

In addition to engaging in tribal consultation, you should consult the appropriate regional California Historical Research Information System (CHRIS) archaeological Information Center to determine whether it has information regarding the presence of recorded archaeological sites within the project area.

If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Melina Carlos
Cultural Resources Analyst
Attachment

CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagaling
Chumash

VICE-CHAIRPERSON
Buffy McQuillen
Yokayo Pomo, Yuki,
Nomlaki

SECRETARY
Sara Dutschke
Miwok

PARLIAMENTARIAN
Wayne Nelson
Luiseño

COMMISSIONER
Isaac Bojorquez
Ohlone-Costanoan

COMMISSIONER
Stanley Rodriguez
Kumeyaay

COMMISSIONER
Reid Milanovich
Cahuilla

COMMISSIONER
Bennae Calac
Pauma-Yuima Band of
Luiseño Indians
Commissioner
Vacant

ACTING EXECUTIVE

SECRETARY

STEVEN QUINN

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

Page 316 of 454 ends

Page 317 of 454 ends

Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Contact List
Kern County
4/7/2025
This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code and Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.

This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources assessment for the proposed Elmo Highway Well Site (DJA2501) Project, Kern County.

Record: PROJ-2025-001816
Report Type: List of Tribes
04/07/2025 04:22 PM
2 of 2

Page 318 of 454 ends

O C T O B E R 1 5 , 2 0 2 5 B C R C O N S U L T I N G

C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T

E L M O H I G H W A Y W E L L S I T E P R O J E C T

APPENDIX D

PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES OVERVIEW

Page 319 of 454 ends

2345 Searl Parkway ♦ Hemet, CA 92543 ♦ phone 951.791.0033 ♦ fax 951.791.0032 ♦ WesternScienceCenter.org August 27th, 2025
BCR Consulting, LLC
Joseph Orozco
505 W. 8th St.

Claremont, CA 91711
Dear Mr. Orozco,
This letter presents the results of a record search conducted for the Elmo Highway Well Site Project located in McFarland, Kern County, CA. The project site is located south of Elmo Highway and west of California State Route 99 on Township 26 South, Range 25 East, Section 12 on the McFarland, CA USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle.

If you have any questions, or would like further information, please feel free to contact me at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Brittney Elizabeth Stoneburg, MSc
Collections Manager

Page 320 of 454 ends

Page 321 of 454 ends

CITY OF McFARLAND

WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT & TREATMENT PROJECT
(PROJECT NO. EDWG-1510013-003C)

EXHIBIT F
“NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION – CULTURAL RESOURCES RESEARCH”
(See Appendix C of the Cultural Resources Assessment attached hereto as Exhibit E)

Page 322 of 454 ends

CITY OF McFARLAND

WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT & TREATMENT PROJECT
(PROJECT NO. EDWG-1510013-003C)

EXHIBIT G
“NATIONAL COOPERATIVE SOIL SURVEY – WEB SOIL SURVEY MAP”

Page 323 of 454 ends

United States
Department of
Agriculture
A product of the National
Cooperative Soil Survey,
a joint effort of the United
States Department of
Agriculture and other
Federal agencies, State
agencies including the
Agricultural Experiment
Stations, and local
participants
Custom Soil Resource
Report for
Kern County,
California,
Northwestern Part
Elmo Well Site, McFarland, CA
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service
July 31, 2025

Page 324 of 454 ends

Preface
Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 2

Page 325 of 454 ends

alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
3

Page 326 of 454 ends

Contents
Preface....................................................................................................................2 How Soil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................5 Soil Map.................................................................................................................. 8 Soil Map................................................................................................................9 Legend................................................................................................................10 Map Unit Legend................................................................................................ 11 Map Unit Descriptions.........................................................................................11 Kern County, California, Northwestern Part....................................................13 192—McFarland loam.................................................................................13 References............................................................................................................15 4

Page 327 of 454 ends

How Soil Surveys Are Made
Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity.

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

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

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

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

Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil 5

Page 328 of 454 ends

scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and Custom Soil Resource Report
6

Page 329 of 454 ends

identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately.

Custom Soil Resource Report
7

Page 330 of 454 ends

Soil Map
The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit. 8

Page 331 of 454 ends

Page 332 of 454 ends

Page 333 of 454 ends

Map Unit Legend
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 192 McFarland loam 1.3 100.0%
Totals for Area of Interest 1.3 100.0%
Map Unit Descriptions
The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit.

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

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

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

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

Custom Soil Resource Report
11

Page 334 of 454 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Custom Soil Resource Report
12

Page 335 of 454 ends

Kern County, California, Northwestern Part
192—McFarland loam
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: hkk8
Elevation: 290 to 400 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 5 to 7 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 63 to 66 degrees F
Frost-free period: 250 to 275 days
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated
Map Unit Composition
Mcfarland and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Mcfarland
Setting
Landform: Flood plains, alluvial fans
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread, talf
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Alluvium derived from granite
Typical profile
A - 0 to 24 inches: loam
C - 24 to 64 inches: loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 2 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: Rare
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 5 percent
Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: High (about 9.3 inches) Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 1
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7c
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Ecological site: R017XY906CA - Non-Alkali San Joaquin Valley Desert Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Wasco
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: Alluvial fans
Custom Soil Resource Report
13

Page 336 of 454 ends

Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Hydric soil rating: No
Kimberlina
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: Alluvial fans
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Hydric soil rating: No
Panoche
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: Alluvial fans
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Hydric soil rating: No
Custom Soil Resource Report
14

Page 337 of 454 ends

References
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition.

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00.

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31.

Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States.

Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States.

Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States.

National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries.

Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_054262
Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053577 Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053580 Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands Section.

United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y-87-1.

United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.

National forestry manual. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/ home/?cid=nrcs142p2_053374
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.

National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/ detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084 15

Page 338 of 454 ends

United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.

National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nrcs142p2_054242
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/? cid=nrcs142p2_053624
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf Custom Soil Resource Report
16

Page 339 of 454 ends

CITY OF McFARLAND

WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT & TREATMENT PROJECT
(PROJECT NO. EDWG-1510013-003C)

EXHIBIT H
“FLOOD ZONE MAP”

Page 340 of 454 ends

Page 341 of 454 ends

CITY OF McFARLAND

WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT & TREATMENT PROJECT
(PROJECT NO. EDWG-1510013-003C)

EXHIBIT I
“U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE – NATIONAL WETLANDS
INVENTORY MAP”

Page 342 of 454 ends

Page 343 of 454 ends

CITY OF McFARLAND

WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT & TREATMENT PROJECT
(PROJECT NO. EDWG-1510013-003C)

EXHIBIT J
“MAP OF SCHOOLS IN THE PROJECT VICINITY”

Page 344 of 454 ends

Page 345 of 454 ends

CITY OF McFARLAND

WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT & TREATMENT PROJECT
(PROJECT NO. EDWG-1510013-003C)

EXHIBIT K
“LIST OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SITES PER CALIFORNIA DEPT. OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL”

Page 346 of 454 ends

Page 347 of 454 ends

Page 348 of 454 ends

Page 349 of 454 ends

Page 350 of 454 ends

Page 351 of 454 ends

Page 352 of 454 ends

Page 353 of 454 ends

Page 354 of 454 ends

Page 355 of 454 ends

CITY OF McFARLAND

WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT & TREATMENT PROJECT
(PROJECT NO. EDWG-1510013-003C)

EXHIBIT L
“COMMENT LETTERS AND RESPONSES”

Page 356 of 454 ends

State Water Resources Control Board
December 17, 2025
Yerlys Hernandez
City of McFarland
401 West Kern Avenue
McFarland, CA 93250

CITY OF MCFARLAND (CITY), INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE

DECLARATION (IS/MND) FOR THE WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT AND TREATMENT PROJECT (PROJECT), STATE CLEARINGHOUSE # 2025111093 Dear Yerlys Hernandez:

Thank you for the opportunity to review the IS/MND for the proposed Project. The State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board), Division of Drinking Water (DDW), issues domestic water supply permits under the Safe Drinking Water Act. This Project falls under DDW's Visalia District jurisdiction. The Visalia District issues permit amendments according to the Title 22 California Code of Regulations (Cal. Code Regs.) chapter 16. Public water systems need a permit amendment for modification of the water supply including new sources, new reservoirs with 100,000-gallon capacity or greater, service area expansions of twenty percent or more, and treatment design capacity or process changes as per Cal. Code Regs. § 64556. The City will need to apply for a water supply permit amendment for the new drinking water source, storage tank, and treatment changes.

The State Water Board, DDW, as a responsible agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), has the following comments on the IS/MND:
· The IS/MND indicates the Project is a replacement well (PDF pages 63 and pages 70). As part of Section IV. Project Description and all references throughout the IS/MND, please clarify whether the new well will replace the capacity lost from the Browning Road well and if the Browning Road Well will be destroyed.
· Wells that are not properly destroyed may be sources of groundwater contamination. If the Browning Road Well will be destroyed, discuss how the well will be properly destroyed according to the Department of Water Resources (DWR) regulations.
· The Project falls within the San Joaquin Valley-Kern County Subbasin, a high priority and critically overdrafted basin according to the DWR Sustainable Groundwater Management Act prioritization dashboard.

Page 357 of 454 ends

Page 358 of 454 ends

Yerlys Hernandez - 3 - December 17, 2025
State Clearinghouse
Adam Forbes
District Engineer
Visalia District
Lauren Pham
Water Resource Control Engineer
Visalia District

Page 359 of 454 ends

Page 360 of 454 ends

2 for nitrate and 1,2,3-TCP have resulted in a reduction of the capacity of the well to about 242 acrefeet per year (300 gpm). With a design capacity of approximately 1,371 acre-feet per year (1,500 gpm), the new well will replace the capacity lost from the Browning Road Well and the historical baseline will not be exceeded.

Comment #4
o Please also discuss recharge commitments in acre feet per year, that will be used to balance the new well’s pumping, if applicable.
 If the Baseline will not be exceeded, please reconsider the City’s determination in the Hydrology and Water Quality Section, question (b) regarding the Project substantially decreasing groundwater supplies, including the possibility of removing the HYD-1 mitigation measure, as needed.
 If the Baseline will be exceeded, please include in the HYD-1 mitigation measure, monitoring during the wells operation, not just construction, and include what actions will be taken to reduce groundwater overdraft based on the monitoring. Please note, monitoring by itself will not prevent significant impacts (E.g. overdraft of the groundwater basin).

Comment noted. As the historical baseline will not be exceeded, no recharge commitments will be necessary to balance the new well’s pumping. Additionally , the CEQA Determination in the Hydrology and Water Quality Section, question (b) has been revised to No Impact, and mitigation measure HYD-1 has been removed.

Comment #5
o Please then update the Utilities and Service Systems Section discussion on sufficient water supplies to be consistent with the Hydrology and Water Quality Section, question (b). (PDF page 70).

Comment noted. The CEQA Determination in the Utilities and Service Systems Section, question (c) has been corrected to No Impact.

Sincerely,
Kristopher R. Wilcox, P.E.

Page 361 of 454 ends

CITY OF McFARLAND

WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT & TREATMENT PROJECT
(PROJECT NO. EDWG-1510013-003C)

EXHIBIT M
“MITIGATION MONITORINGING AND REPORTING PROGRAM”

Page 362 of 454 ends

Page 363 of 454 ends

PREFACE
Section 21081 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a Lead Agency to adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program whenever it approves a project for which measures have been required to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The purpose of the monitoring and reporting plan is to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures during project implementation.

The Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration concluded that implementation of the project could result in less-than-significant effects on the environment. Mitigation measures were incorporated into the proposed project to further reduce potential impacts or as required as a condition of project approval. This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program addresses those measures in terms of how and when they will be implemented.

Page 364 of 454 ends

Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsibility for Implementation Method of Compliance Timing of Compliance AES-1: The project lighting will be less than 20-ft tall and the light fixtures shielded and directed downward to comply with the Kern County "Dark Skies Ordinance". AES-2: The site will be painted a neutral color (tan), be screened with an 8-ft tall masonry block wall, and have landscaping installed around the perimeter of the site.

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Aesthetics
Potential impacts to aesthetics with a new source of light or glare which could adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.

Construction Contractor The Construction Manager will Prior to project acceptance. confirm that the lighting, painting, block wall, and site landscaping are constructed and installed as detailed on the plans and specifications. 1 of 10

Page 365 of 454 ends

Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsibility for Implementation Method of Compliance Timing of Compliance

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Potential impacts to air quality: although construction emissions will be temporary and below CEQA thresholds, the proposed project will cause temporary negligible increases in ambient air pollutant concentrations that could increase local human exposure to air contaminants.

AQ-1: Water will be applied to the project site during construction grading, trenching, and backfilling operations to control dust and keep the project area clean.

Construction Contractor The Construction Manager shall
provide necessary training to construction workers regarding emission control measures, will monitor implementation of these measures, and direct corrective actions when and where necessary.

Prior to and during all phases of construction.

AQ-2: The contract documents will require the Contractor to obtain and comply with a San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Authority to Construct and a Permit to Operate Permit for the emergency backup diesel generator.

Air Quality
2 of 10

Page 366 of 454 ends

Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsibility for Implementation Method of Compliance Timing of Compliance

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Potential impacts if construction activities planned during the nesting season for migratory birds that may nest on or near the site (generally February 1 through August 31).

BIO-1: A biological resource pre-activity survey conducted by a qualified biologist no more that 30- days before the start of construction activities.Biological resource monitoring shall be conducted during each initial phase of ground disturbance.Compliance reporting shall be provided to the required oversight agencies for all biological resource field surveys, monitoring, and additional tasks as warranted.

Qualified Biologist A Qualified Biologist will be
responsible for training construction workers, conducting preconstruction surveys, monitoring buffer areas prior to construction and setting up and taking down any avoidance zones.

Prior to and during all phases of construction.

Potential impacts to environmental species and the general avoidance measures to be followed.

BIO-2: All personnel entering the project site should attend a worker orientation program. The worker orientation program will present measures required to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to biological resources and will include, at a minimum, the following federeal and state endangered species acts; biolgoical survey results for the current construction area; life history informatinn for the species of concern; biological resource avoidance, minimization, and mitigation requirements; consequences for failure to successfully implement requirements; and procedures to be followed if dead or injured wildlife are located during project activities. Upon completion of the orientation, employees should sign a form stating that they attended the program and understand all biological resource mitigation measures and receive a hard hat sticker or other means of identifying that they have attended the worker orientation. Forms verifying worker attendance should be filed at the applicant's office and be accessible to county, USFWS, and CDFW staff. No untrained personnel will be allowed to work onsite with the exception of delivery trucks that are only oniste for one day or less, and are under the supervision of a trained employee.

Construction Contractor The Construction Manager shall
provide necessary training to construction workers regarding best management practices and measures, will monitor implementation of these measures, and direct corrective actions when and where necessary.

Prior to and during all phases of construction.

Biological Resources
3 of 10

Page 367 of 454 ends

Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsibility for Implementation Method of Compliance Timing of Compliance

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
BIO-3: If known or natal SJKF dens are identified at any time during construction, protocols enumerated in the USFWS Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance (2011) should be implemented, and the appropriate agencies contacted for guidance.BIO-4: Vertical sided trenching deeper than 2-feet will include escape ramps at no more than a 1:1 ratio every 100 feet.Vertical sided holes that are not capable of being ramped should be covered or otherwise secured to the greatest extent practicable.BIO-5: All construction pipes, poles, culverts, hoses or similar structures stored at the construction site for one or more overnight periods should be capped or the ends covered in a way that prevents wildlife entrapment. Unburied pipes laid in trenches overnight should be capped. If a kit fox or other listed species is discovered inside a pipe, that section of pipe will not be moved until the animal leaves on its own, or the USFWS and the CDFW have been consulted.BIO-6: Traffic restraints and signs should be established to minimize temporary disturbances during construction. All construction traffic should be restricted to designated access roads and routes, project site, storage areas, and staging and parking areas. Off-road traffic outside designated project boundaries will be prohibited. A 15 mile-per-hour (32 kilometer-per-hour) speed limit should be observed in all project construction areas, except as otherwise posted on county roads and state and federal highways.

Potential impacts to environmental species and the general avoidance measures to be followed.

Prior to and during all phases of construction.
4 of 10

Page 368 of 454 ends

Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsibility for Implementation Method of Compliance Timing of Compliance

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
BIO-7: All equipment storage and parking during construction activities should be confined to the designated construction area or to previously disturbed off-site areas that are not habitat for listed species.BIO-8: All project construction activities involving excavation or surface disturbance should be limited to daylight hours with the exception of well drilling activities.BIO-9: Trenches should be inspected for entrapped wildlife each morning, prior to the onset of construction. Before such holes or trenches are filled, they should be thoroughly inspected for entrapped animals. Any animals so discovered shall be allowed to escape voluntarily, without harassment, before construction activities resume, or removed from the trench or hole by a qualified biologist and allowed to escape unimpeded.BIO-10: All food-related trash items such as wrappers, cans, bottles and food scraps generated by project activities shall be disposed of in closed containers and removed at least once each week from the site. Deliberate feeding of wildlife is prohibited.BIO-11: To prevent harassment of special-status species, construction personnel should not be allowed to have firearms or pets on the project site.BIO-12: All equipment and work-related materials shall be contained in closed ontainers either in the work area or on vehicles. Loose items (e.g., rags, hose, etc.) should be stored within closed containers or enclosed in vehicles when on the work site.BIO-13: All liquids should be in closed, covered containers. Any spills of hazardous liquids should not be left unattended until cleanup has been completed.

Prior to and during all phases of construction.

The Construction Manager shall provide necessary training to construction workers regarding best management practices and measures, will monitor implementation of these measures, and direct corrective actions when and where necessary.

Potential impacts to environmental Construction Contractorspecies and the general avoidance measures to be followed. 5 of 10

Page 369 of 454 ends

McFarland City CouncilJanuary 29, 2026

McFarland City Council
January 29, 2026