APPROXIMATE LATITUDE & LONGITUDE OF PROPERTY:36.427213, -119.100226 SOURCE OF LAT & LONG: LOMA LOGIC
COMMUNITY AND MAP PANEL INFORMATION LEGAL PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
COMMUNITY
AFFECTED
MAP PANEL
NUMBER: 06107C0686E
DATE: 6/16/2009
FLOODING SOURCE: WEST OVERFLOW ANTELOPE
CREEK
CITY OF WOODLAKE, TULARE
COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
A portion of Section 25, Township 17 South, Range 26 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, as described in the Short Form Deed of Trust and Assignment of Rents recorded as Document No.
2021-0028967, in the Office of the Recorder, Tulare County, California The portion of property is more particularly described by the following COMMUNITY NO.: 065071 metes and bounds:
DATUM: NAD 83
DETERMINATION DOCUMENT (REMOVAL)
LETTER OF MAP REVISION BASED ON FILL
DETERMINATION
STREET FLOOD
ZONE
LOWEST
LOT
ELEVATION
(NAVD 88)
BLOCK/
SECTION LOT SUBDIVISION
OUTCOME 1% ANNUAL
CHANCE
FLOOD
ELEVATION
(NAVD 88)
LOWEST
ADJACENT
GRADE
ELEVATION
(NAVD 88)
WHAT IS REMOVED
FROM THE SFHA
-- X -- -- 458.5 feet
(unshaded)
Portion of Property
(Lot 1)
-- -- 894 North Palm Street
Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) - The SFHA is an area that would be inundated by the flood having a 1-percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year (base flood).
ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS (Please refer to the appropriate section on Attachment 1 for the additional considerations listed below.)
LEGAL PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
DETERMINATION TABLE (CONTINUED)
FILL RECOMMENDATION
PORTIONS REMAIN IN THE SFHA
STATE LOCAL CONSIDERATIONS
This document provides the Federal Emergency Management Agency's determination regarding a request for a Letter of Map Revision based on Fill for the property described above. Using the information submitted and the effective National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) map, we have determined that the described portion(s) of the property(ies) is/are not located in the SFHA, an area inundated by the flood having a 1-percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year (base flood). This document revises the effective NFIP map to remove the subject property from the SFHA located on the effective NFIP map; therefore, the Federal mandatory flood insurance requirement does not apply.
However, the lender has the option to continue the flood insurance requirement to protect its financial risk on the loan.
This determination is based on the flood data presently available. The enclosed documents provide additional information regarding this determination. If you have any questions about this document, please contact the FEMA Mapping and Insurance eXchange (FMIX) toll free at (877) 336-2627 (877-FEMA MAP) or by letter addressed to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, LOMC Clearinghouse, 3601 Eisenhower Avenue, Suite 500, Alexandria, VA 22304-6426.
Patrick “Rick” F. Sacbibit, P.E., Branch Chief
Engineering Services Branch
Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration
Exhibit G
210
Date: Case No.: 23-09-1117A LOMR-F
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Washington, D.C. 20472
LETTER OF MAP REVISION BASED ON FILL
DETERMINATION DOCUMENT (REMOVAL)
ATTACHMENT 1 (ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS)
LEGAL PROPERTY DESCRIPTION (CONTINUED)
LOT 1: Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Section 25; thence, South 79°06'40" West, 224.19 feet to the Northeast corner of said Lot 1; thence, South 00°00'11" West, 83.99 feet to the True Point of Beginning being Southeast corner of said Lot 1; thence, South 89°54'26" West, along the South line thereof 94.85 feet; thence, North 00°00'11" East, 73.99 feet; thence, North 89°54'32" East, 94.85 feet to the East line of said Lot 1; thence, South 00°00'11" West, along said East line 73.99 feet to the True Point of Beginning.
LOT 2: Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Section 25; thence, South 79°06'40" West, 224.19 feet to the Northeast corner of said Lot 1; thence, South 00°00'11" West, 146.99 feet the True Point of Beginning being Southeast corner of said Lot 2; thence, South 89°54'26" West, along the South line thereof 94.85 feet; thence, North 00°00'11" East, 63.00 feet to the North line of said Lot 2; thence, North 89°54'32" East, along said North line, 94.85 feet to the East line of said Lot 2; thence, South 00°00'11" West, along said East line 63.00 feet to the True Point of Beginning.
LOT 3: Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Section 25; thence, South 79°06'40" West, 224.19 feet to the Northeast corner of said Lot 1; thence, South 00°00'11" West, 209.99 feet to the True Point of Beginning being the Southeast corner of said Lot 3; thence, South 89°54'26" West, along the South line thereof 94.85 feet; thence, North 00°00'11" East, 63.00 feet to the North line of said Lot 3; thence, North 89°54'32" East, along said North line, 94.85 feet to the East line of said Lot 3; thence, South 00°00'11" West, along said East line 63.00 feet to the True Point of Beginning.
LOT 4: Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Section 25; thence, South 79°06'40" West, 224.19 feet to the Northeast corner of said Lot 1; thence, South 00°00'11" West, 272.99 feet to the True Point of Beginning being the Southeast corner of said Lot 4; thence, South 89°54'26" West, along the South line thereof 94.85 feet; thence, North 00°00'11" East, 63.00 feet to the North line of said Lot 4; thence, North 89°54'32" East, along said North line, 94.85 feet to the East line of said Lot 4; thence, South 00°00'11" West, along said East line 63.00 feet to the True Point of Beginning.
LOT 5: Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Section 25; thence, South 79°06'40" West, 224.19 feet to the Northeast corner of said Lot 1; thence, South 00°00'11" West, 335.99 feet to the True Point of Beginning being the Southeast corner of said Lot 5; thence, South 89°54'26" West, along the South line thereof 94.85 feet; thence, North 00°00'11" East, 63.00 feet to the North line of said Lot 5; thence, North 89°54'32" East, along said North line, 94.85 feet to the East line of said Lot 5; thence, South 00°00'11" West, along said East line 63.00 feet to the True Point of Beginning.
LOT 6: Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Section 25; thence, South 79°06'40" West, 224.19 feet to the Northeast corner of said Lot 1; thence, South 00°00'11" West, 398.99 feet to the True Point of Beginning being the Southeast corner of said Lot 6; thence, South 89°54'26" West, along the South line thereof 94.85 feet; thence, North 00°00'11" East, 63.00 feet to the North line of said Lot 6; thence, North 89°54'32" East, along said North line, 94.85 feet to the East line of said Lot 6; thence, South 00°00'11" West, along said East line 63.00 feet to the True Point of Beginning.
LOT 7: Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Section 25; thence, South 79°06'40" West, 224.19 feet to the Northeast corner of said Lot 1; thence, South 00°00'11" West, 461.99 feet to the True Point of Beginning at the Southeast corner of said Lot 7; thence, South 89°54'26" West, along the South line thereof 94.85 feet; thence, North 00°00'11" East, 63.00 feet to the North line of said Lot 7; thence, North 89°54'32" East, along said This attachment provides additional information regarding this request. If you have any questions about this attachment, please contact the FEMA Mapping and Insurance eXchange (FMIX) toll free at (877) 336-2627 (877-FEMA MAP) or by letter addressed to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, LOMC Clearinghouse, 3601 Eisenhower Avenue, Suite 500, Alexandria, VA 22304-6426.
Patrick “Rick” F. Sacbibit, P.E., Branch Chief
Engineering Services Branch
Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration
211
Date: Case No.: 23-09-1117A LOMR-F
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Washington, D.C. 20472
LETTER OF MAP REVISION BASED ON FILL
DETERMINATION DOCUMENT (REMOVAL)
ATTACHMENT 1 (ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS)
North line, 94.85 feet to the East line of said Lot 7; thence, South 00°00'11" West, along said East line 63.00 feet to the True Point of Beginning.
LOT 8: Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Section 25; thence, South 79°06'40" West, 224.19 feet to the Northeast corner of said Lot 1; thence, South 00°00'11" West, 524.99 feet to the True Point of Beginning being the Southeast corner of said Lot 8; thence, South 89°54'26" West, along the South line thereof 94.85 feet; thence, North 00°00'11" East, 63.00 feet to the North line of said Lot 8; thence, North 89°54'32" East, along said North line, 94.85 feet to the East line of said Lot 8; thence, South 00°00'11" West, along said East line 63.00 feet to the True Point of Beginning.
LOT 9: Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Section 25; thence, South 79°06'40" West, 224.19 feet to the Northeast corner of said Lot 1; thence, South 00°00'11" West, 524.99 feet to the True Point of Beginning being the Northeast corner of said Lot 9; thence, South 00°00'11" West, along the East line thereof 59.88 feet; thence, South 89°58'54" West, 94.85 feet; thence, North 00°00'11" East, 59.76 feet to the North line of said Lot 9; thence, North 89°54'26" East, along said North line 94.85 feet to the Northeast corner of said Lot 9 and the True Point of Beginning.
LOT 11: Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Section 25; thence, South 49°03'05" West, 784.89 feet to the Northwest corner of said Lot 11 and the True Point of Beginning; thence, South 00°00'52" West, along the East line thereof 97.91 feet; thence, South 89°58'54" West, 65.90 feet; thence, North 00°00'52" East, 97.94 feet to the North line of said Lot 11; thence, South 89°59'49" East, along said North line 65.90 feet to the Northeast corner of said Lot 11 and the True Point of Beginning.
LOT 12: Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Section 25; thence, South 49°03'05" West, 784.89 feet to the Northwest corner of said Lot 11; thence, South 89°59'49" East, 131.80 feet to the Northeast corner of said Lot 12 the True Point of Beginning; thence, South 00°00'52" West, along the East line thereof 97.89 feet; thence, South 89°58'54" West, 65.90 feet; thence, North 00°00'52" East, 97.91 feet to the North line of said Lot 12; thence, South 89°59'49" East, along said North line 65.90 feet to the Northeast corner of said Lot 12 and the True Point of Beginning.
LOT 13: Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Section 25; thence, South 49°03'05" West, 784.89 feet to the Northwest corner of said Lot 11; thence, South 89°59'49" East, 131.80 feet to the Northwest corner of said Lot 13 the True Point of Beginning; thence, South 89°59'49" East, along the North line thereof 56.00 feet; thence, South 00°00'11" West, 97.87 feet; thence, South 89°58'54" West, 56.00 feet to the West line of said Lot 13; thence, North 00°00'52" East, along said West line, 97.89 feet to the Northwest corner of said Lot 13 and the True Point of Beginning.
LOT 14: Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Section 25; thence, South 49°03'05" West, 784.89 feet to the Northwest corner of said Lot 11; thence, South 89°59'49" East, 131.80 feet to the Southwest corner of said Lot 14 the True Point of Beginning; thence North 00°00'52" East, along the West line thereof 118.94 feet; thence, South 89°59'49" East, 55.97 feet; thence, South 00°00'11" West, 118.94 feet to the South line of said Lot 14; thence, North 89°59'49" West, along said South line, 56.00 feet to the Southwest corner of said Lot 14 and the True Point of Beginning.
LOT 15: Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Section 25; thence, South 49°03'05" West, 784.89 feet to the Northwest corner of said Lot 11; thence, South 89°59'49" East, 65.90 feet to the Southwest corner of said Lot 15 the True Point of Beginning; thence North 00°00'52" East, along the West line thereof 91.21 feet; thence, This attachment provides additional information regarding this request. If you have any questions about this attachment, please contact the FEMA Mapping and Insurance eXchange (FMIX) toll free at (877) 336-2627 (877-FEMA MAP) or by letter addressed to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, LOMC Clearinghouse, 3601 Eisenhower Avenue, Suite 500, Alexandria, VA 22304-6426.
Patrick “Rick” F. Sacbibit, P.E., Branch Chief
Engineering Services Branch
Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration
212
Date: Case No.: 23-09-1117A LOMR-F
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Washington, D.C. 20472
LETTER OF MAP REVISION BASED ON FILL
DETERMINATION DOCUMENT (REMOVAL)
ATTACHMENT 1 (ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS)
northeasterly 41.40 feet along a non-tangent curve, concave northwesterly with a radius of 80.00 feet, a central angle of 29°39'05" and a beginning radial which bears North 13°41'15" West; thence, easterly 22.69 feet along a reverse curve, concave southerly with a radius of 30.00 feet and a central angle of 43°20'30"; thence, South 89°59'49" East, 9.34 feet to the East line of said Lot 15; thence, South 00°00'52" West, along said East line, 118.94 feet to the Southeast corner of said Lot 15; thence, North 89°59'49" West, along the South line of said Lot 15, a distance of 65.90 feet to the Southwest corner of said Lot 15 and the True Point of Beginning.
LOT 16: Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Section 25; thence, South 49°03'05" West, 784.89 feet to the Southwest corner of said Lot 16 the True Point of Beginning; thence North 00°00'52" East, along the West line thereof 104.17 feet; thence, easterly 69.31 feet along a non-tangent curve, concave northerly with a radius of
80.00 feet, a central angle of 49°38'16" and a beginning radial which bears North 35°57'01" East to the East line of said Lot 16; thence, South 00°00'52" West, along said East line, 91.21 feet to the Southeast corner of said Lot 16; thence, North 89°59'49" West, along the South line of said Lot 16, a distance of 65.90 feet to the Southwest corner of said Lot 16 and the True Point of Beginning.
LOT 20: Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Section 25; thence, South 68°49'44" West, 494.30 feet to the Northeast corner of said Lot 20 the True Point of Beginning; thence, South 00°00'52" West, along the East line of said Lot 20 a distance of 116.95 feet; thence, North 89°59'49" West, 9.36 feet; thence, northwesterly 22.69 feet along a curve concave northeasterly with a radius of 30.00 feet and a central angle of 43°20'30"; thence, westerly 41.37 feet along a reverse curve concave southerly with a radius of 80.00 feet and a central angle of 29°37'43" to the West line of said Lot 20; thence, North 00°00'52" East, along the West line of said Lot 20, a distance of 89.15 feet to the Northwest corner of said Lot 20; thence, North 89°55'50" East, along the North line of said Lot 20, a distance of 65.90 feet to the Northeast corner thereof and the True Point of Beginning.
LOT 21: Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Section 25; thence, South 68°49'44" West, 494.30 feet to the Northwest corner of said Lot 21 the True Point of Beginning; thence, North 89°55'50" East, along the North line of said Lot 21, a distance of 55.93 feet; thence, South 00°00'11" West, 117.02 feet; thence, North 89°59'49" West, 55.95 feet to the West line of said Lot 21; thence, North 00°00'52" East, along said West line, 116.95 feet to the Northwest corner of said Lot 21 and the True Point of Beginning.
LOT 22: Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Section 25; thence, South 68°49'44" West, 494.30 feet to the Southwest corner of said Lot 22 the True Point of Beginning; thence, North 00°00'52" East, along the West line of said Lot 22 a distance of 115.79 feet; thence, North 89°54'32" East, 55.91 feet; thence, South 00°00'11" West, 115.81 feet to the South line of said Lot 22; thence, South 89°55'50" West, along said South line, 55.93 feet to the Southwest corner of said Lot 22 and the True Point of Beginning.
LOT 23: Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Section 25; thence, South 68°49'44" West, 494.30 feet to the Southwest corner of said Lot 23 the True Point of Beginning; thence, North 00°00'52" East, along the West line of said Lot 22 a distance of 115.76 feet; thence, North 89°54'32" East, 65.90 feet to the East line of said Lot 23; thence, South 00°00'52" West, along said East line, 115.79 feet to the South line of said Lot 23; thence, South 89°55'50" West, along said South line, 65.90 feet to the Southwest corner of said Lot 23 and the True Point of Beginning.
DETERMINATION TABLE (CONTINUED)
This attachment provides additional information regarding this request. If you have any questions about this attachment, please contact the FEMA Mapping and Insurance eXchange (FMIX) toll free at (877) 336-2627 (877-FEMA MAP) or by letter addressed to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, LOMC Clearinghouse, 3601 Eisenhower Avenue, Suite 500, Alexandria, VA 22304-6426.
Patrick “Rick” F. Sacbibit, P.E., Branch Chief
Engineering Services Branch
Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration
213
Date: Case No.: 23-09-1117A LOMR-F
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Washington, D.C. 20472
LETTER OF MAP REVISION BASED ON FILL
DETERMINATION DOCUMENT (REMOVAL)
ATTACHMENT 1 (ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS)
LOWEST
LOT
ELEVATION
(NAVD 88)
LOWEST
ADJACENT
GRADE
ELEVATION
(NAVD 88)
1% ANNUAL
CHANCE
FLOOD
ELEVATION
(NAVD 88)
FLOOD
ZONE
BLOCK/ SUBDIVISION STREET
SECTION LOT
WHAT IS
REMOVED FROM
THE SFHA
OUTCOME
-- -- -- 240 Kaweah Street Portion of Property
(Lot 11)
X
(unshaded)
-- -- 457.1 feet
-- -- -- 222 Kaweah Street Portion of Property
(Lot 12)
X
(unshaded)
-- -- 456.9 feet
-- -- -- 202 Kaweah Street Portion of Property
(Lot 13)
X
(unshaded)
-- -- 456.2 feet
-- -- -- 203 Yokut Court Portion of Property
(Lot 14)
X
(unshaded)
-- -- 457.0 feet
-- -- -- 223 Yokut Court Portion of Property
(Lot 15)
X
(unshaded)
-- -- 457.3 feet
-- -- -- 243 Yokut Court Portion of Property
(Lot 16)
X
(unshaded)
-- -- 457.3 feet
-- -- -- 868 North Palm Street Portion of Property
(Lot 2)
X
(unshaded)
-- -- 458.2 feet
-- -- -- 222 Yokut Court Portion of Property
(Lot 20)
X
(unshaded)
-- -- 457.9 feet
-- -- -- 202 Yokut Court Portion of Property
(Lot 21)
X
(unshaded)
-- -- 458.0 feet
-- -- -- 203 West Cajon
Avenue
Portion of Property
(Lot 22)
X
(unshaded)
-- -- 458.4 feet
-- -- -- 223 West Cajon
Avenue
Portion of Property
(Lot 23)
X
(unshaded)
-- -- 458.0 feet
This attachment provides additional information regarding this request. If you have any questions about this attachment, please contact the FEMA Mapping and Insurance eXchange (FMIX) toll free at (877) 336-2627 (877-FEMA MAP) or by letter addressed to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, LOMC Clearinghouse, 3601 Eisenhower Avenue, Suite 500, Alexandria, VA 22304-6426.
Patrick “Rick” F. Sacbibit, P.E., Branch Chief
Engineering Services Branch
Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration
214
Date: Case No.: 23-09-1117A LOMR-F
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Washington, D.C. 20472
LETTER OF MAP REVISION BASED ON FILL
DETERMINATION DOCUMENT (REMOVAL)
ATTACHMENT 1 (ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS)
LOWEST
LOT
ELEVATION
(NAVD 88)
LOWEST
ADJACENT
GRADE
ELEVATION
(NAVD 88)
1% ANNUAL
CHANCE
FLOOD
ELEVATION
(NAVD 88)
FLOOD
ZONE
BLOCK/ SUBDIVISION STREET
SECTION LOT
WHAT IS
REMOVED FROM
THE SFHA
OUTCOME
-- -- -- 858 North Palm Street Portion of Property
(Lot 3)
X
(unshaded)
-- -- 457.8 feet
-- -- -- 846 North Palm Street Portion of Property
(Lot 4)
X
(unshaded)
-- -- 457.5 feet
-- -- -- 836 North Palm Street Portion of Property
(Lot 5)
X
(unshaded)
-- -- 457.2 feet
-- -- -- 824 North Palm Street Portion of Property
(Lot 6)
X
(unshaded)
-- -- 457.0 feet
-- -- -- 814 North Palm Street Portion of Property
(Lot 7)
X
(unshaded)
-- -- 456.6 feet
-- -- -- 804 North Palm Street Portion of Property
(Lot 8)
X
(unshaded)
-- -- 456.3 feet
-- -- -- 802 North Palm Street Portion of Property
(Lot 9)
X
(unshaded)
-- -- 456.4 feet
FILL RECOMMENDATION (This Additional Consideration applies to the preceding 19 Properties.) The minimum NFIP criteria for removal of the subject area based on fill have been met for this request and the community in which the property is located has certified that the area and any subsequent structure(s) built on the filled area are reasonably safe from flooding. FEMA’s Technical Bulletin 10-01 provides guidance for the construction of buildings on land elevated above the base flood elevation through the placement of fill. A copy of Technical Bulletin 10-01 can be obtained by calling the FEMA Mapping and Insurance eXchange toll free at (877) 336-2627 (877-FEMA MAP) or from our web site at https://www.fema.gov/emergency-managers/risk-management/building-science/national-flood-insurance-tec hnical-bulletins. Although the minimum NFIP standards no longer apply to this area, some communities may have floodplain management regulations that are more restrictive and may continue to enforce some or all of their requirements in areas outside the Special Flood Hazard Area.
This attachment provides additional information regarding this request. If you have any questions about this attachment, please contact the FEMA Mapping and Insurance eXchange (FMIX) toll free at (877) 336-2627 (877-FEMA MAP) or by letter addressed to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, LOMC Clearinghouse, 3601 Eisenhower Avenue, Suite 500, Alexandria, VA 22304-6426.
Patrick “Rick” F. Sacbibit, P.E., Branch Chief
Engineering Services Branch
Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration
215
Date: Case No.: 23-09-1117A LOMR-F
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Washington, D.C. 20472
LETTER OF MAP REVISION BASED ON FILL
DETERMINATION DOCUMENT (REMOVAL)
ATTACHMENT 1 (ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS)
PORTIONS OF THE PROPERTY REMAIN IN THE SFHA (This Additional Consideration applies to the preceding 19 Properties.)
Portions of this property, but not the subject of the Determination/Comment document, may remain in the Special Flood Hazard Area. Therefore, any future construction or substantial improvement on the property remains subject to Federal, State/Commonwealth, and local regulations for floodplain management.
STATE AND LOCAL CONSIDERATIONS (This Additional Consideration applies to all properties in the
LOMR-F DETERMINATION DOCUMENT (REMOVAL))
Please note that this document does not override or supersede any State or local procedural or substantive provisions which may apply to floodplain management requirements associated with amendments to State or local floodplain zoning ordinances, maps, or State or local procedures adopted under the National Flood Insurance Program.
This attachment provides additional information regarding this request. If you have any questions about this attachment, please contact the FEMA Mapping and Insurance eXchange (FMIX) toll free at (877) 336-2627 (877-FEMA MAP) or by letter addressed to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, LOMC Clearinghouse, 3601 Eisenhower Avenue, Suite 500, Alexandria, VA 22304-6426.
Patrick “Rick” F. Sacbibit, P.E., Branch Chief
Engineering Services Branch
Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration
216
City of Woodlake
AGENDA ITEM V-E
January 8, 2024
Prepared by Ramon Lara, City Staff
SUBJECT:
Action: Adoption of Resolution: Approval of the City of Woodlake’s Audited Basic Financial Statements of the Measure R Revenue Fund and the Local Transportation Special Revenue Fund for the Year Ended June 30, 2023
BACKGROUND:
The City of Woodlake undergoes an annual independent audit of its basic financial statements of its governmental activities, its business-type activities, each of its major funds, and its aggregate remaining fund information. For Fiscal Year 2022/2023, the City of Woodlake in conjunction with the Tulare County Association of Governments contracted Brown Armstrong Certified Public Accountants to perform the audit.
The audit is conducted with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Those standards require that the audit is performed to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the City financial statements are free of material misstatement. The audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. The audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and the significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. The audit will also consider the City’s internal controls over financial reporting and test its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements and other matters.
DISCUSSION:
Staff has reviewed the independent auditor’s report for the year ended June 30, 2023, and concurs with the report. The financial statements present fairly, in all material respects and there were no findings for the audit ending June 30, 2023.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that Council approve the City of Woodlake’s Audited Basic Financial Statements of the Measure R Revenue Fund and the Local Transportation Special Revenue Fund for the Year Ended June 30, 2023.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact.
ATTACHMENTS:
217
1. Resolution: Approval of the City of Woodlake’s Audited Basic Financial Statements of the Measure R Revenue Fund and the Local Transportation Special Revenue Fund for the Year Ended June 30, 2023
2. Attachment No. 1: City of Woodlake’s Audited Basic Financial Statements of the Measure R Revenue Fund and the Local Transportation Special Revenue Fund for the Year Ended June 30, 2023
3. Attachment No.2 SAS 114 Letter Final
218
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF WOODLAKE
COUNTY OF TULARE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In the matter of:
APPROVAL OF THE CITY OF WOODLAKE’S ) Resolution No.
AUDITED BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS )
OF THE MEASURE R REVENUE FUND AND THE )
LOCAL TRANSPORTATION SPECIAL REVENUE )
FUND FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2023 )
Councilmember ______ offered the following resolution and moved its adoption. Approve the City of Woodlake’s Audited Basic Financial Statements of the Measure R Revenue Fund and the Local Transportation Special Revenue Fund for the Year Ended June 30, 2023.
WHEREAS, the City of Woodlake undergoes an annual independent audit of its basic financial statements of its governmental activities, its business-type activities, each of its major funds, and its aggregate remaining fund information; and
WHEREAS, for Fiscal Year 2022/2023 the City of Woodlake in conjunction with the Tulare County Association of Government contracted Brown Armstrong Certified Public Accountants to perform its independent audit; and
WHEREAS, the audits are conducted with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF WOODLAKE DOES RESOLVE to approve the attached City of Woodlake’s Audited Basic Financial Statements of the Measure R Revenue Fund and the Local Transportation Special Revenue Fund for the Year Ended June 30, 2023, and attached notes.
The foregoing resolution was adopted upon a motion of Councilmember __________ and seconded by Councilmember ___________ and carried by the following vote at the City Council meeting held on January 8, 2024.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
________________________
Rudy Mendoza, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Irene Zacarias, City Clerk
219
CITY OF WOODLAKE
TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUNDS AND
MEASURE R TRANSPORTATION FUNDS
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED
JUNE 30,2023
WITH COMPARATIVE TOTALS
220
CITY OF WOODLAKE
TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUNDS AND
MEASURE R TRANSPORTATION FUNDS
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30' 2023
WITH COMPARATIVE TOTALS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
lndependent Auditor's RePort
Financial Statements
Balance Sheet - Local Transportation Fund""""""
Statement of Revenues' Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance - Local Transportation Fund ...'...."'
Balance Sheet - Measure R Fund...""'
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance - Measure R Fund..'......
Notes to the Financial Statements
Other RePort
Paqe
1 4
11 5
6 7
8 lndependent Auditor's Report on internal control over Financial Reporting "n'J
on compliance "nd'oth"r
Matters Based on an Audit of Financial
StatementsPerformedinAccordancewithGoyernmentAuditing
Standards,theTransportationDevelopmentAct,andMeasureR........'... 221
Bnowx
AnusrnoNG CI trrurt) I'uBl k. A{a{:{rt'1\IA\r
u'ww,ba,r:pa
661-324-497"t
INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT
To the Board of Directors
Tulare County Association of Governments
Visalia, California
To the City Council
City of Woodlake
Woodlake, California
Report on the Audit of the Financial Statements
Opinions
We have audited the accompanying financial statements of the Measure R Fund and the Local Transportation Fund (collectively, the Measure R Fund and the Transportation Development Act (TDA) Fund) of the City of Woodlake (the City), as of and for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023, and the related notes to ihe financial statements, which collectively comprise the City's Measure R Fund's and TDA Fund's basic financial statements as listed in the table of contents. The June 30, 2022, summarized comparative information has been derived from the 2022 financial statements and is included for additional analysis only.
ln our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the respective financial position of the Measure R Fund and the TDA Fund, as of June 30, 2023, and the respective changes in financial position, thereof for the fiscal year then ended in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.
Basis for Opinions
We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Sfandards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Our responsibilities under those standards are further described in the Auditor's Responsibilities for the Audit of the Financial Statements section of our report. We are required to be independent of the City and Tulare County Association of Governments, and to meet our other ethical responsibilities, in accordance with the relevant ethical requirements relating to our audit. We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our audit opinions.
Emphasis of a Matter
As discussed in Note 1, these financial statements present only the Measure R Fund and the TDA Fund and do not purport to, and do not, present fairly the financial position of the City as of June 30, 2023, or the changes in its financial position for the fiscal year then ended in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Our opinion is not modified with respect to this matter.
BAKtiltsl lt;t.l)
l2(}(] lilr\{un r\\Tnue, Suitr' 3tll}
llakt'rsiiclLl, l]\ ti3-]iF)
Lf.1 1l.l-,le7l
FKttsNC)
1tl lli|t r I'rrk I'|.r.il l:ait, Sr!it.' 2i)s
l'rcsno. LA 9372(1
55qr .l7f' ,iar]?
S1'()(:KTON
l.lll \\tsl \llrrh l-arrt', Suite lL)l
Slr)rkk)n. L\ t)i:{):
20!r,.lil,.lltl3
222
Res pon si bi I iti es of M a n ag em e nt for th e Fi n a n ci a I Sfa femenfs Management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of the financial statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America, and for the design, implementation, and maintenance of internal control relevant to the preparation and fair presentation of financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error.
ln preparing the financial statements, management is required to evaluate whether there are conditions or events, considered in the aggregate, that raise substantial doubt about the Measure R Fund's and the TDA Fund's ability to continue as a going concern for twelve months beyond the financial statement date, including any currently known information that may raise substantial doubt shortly thereafter.
Auditor's Responsibilities for the Audit of the Financial Statements Our objectives are to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements as a whole are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error, and to issue an auditor's report that includes our opinions. Reasonable assurance is a high level of assurance but is not absolute assurance and therefore is not a guarantee that an audit conducted in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and Government Auditing Standards will always detect a material misstatement when it exists. The risk of not detecting a material misstatement resulting from fraud is higher than for one resulting from error, as fraud may involve collusion, forgery, intentional omissions, misrepresentations, or the override of internal control. Misstatements are considered material if there is a substantial likelihood that, individually or in the aggregate, they would influence the judgment made by a reasonable user based on the financial statements. ln performing an audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and Government Auditing Sfandards, we:
Exercise professional judgment and maintain professional skepticism throughout the audit. ldentify and assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to fraud or error, and design and perform audit procedures responsive to those risks. Such procedures include examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements.
Obtain an understanding of internal control relevant to the audit in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the City's internal control relating to the Measure R Fund and the TDA Fund. Accordingly, no such opinion is expressed.
Evaluate the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of significant accounting estimates made by management, as well as evaluate the overall presentation of the financial statements.
Conclude whether, in our judgment, there are conditions or events, considered in the aggregate, that raise substantial doubt about the Measure R Fund's and the TDA Fund's ability to continue as a going concern for a reasonable period of time.
We are required to communicate with those charged with governance regarding, among other matters, the planned scope and timing of the audit, significant audit findings, and certain internal control-related matters that we identified during the audit.
Required Supplementary Information
Management has omitted the Management's Discussion and Analysis, Budgetary Comparison Schedules, the Schedule of the City Transit Fund's Proportionate Share of the City's Net Pension Liability, and the Schedule of Contributions that accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America require to be presented to supplement the basic financial statements. Such missing information, although not a part of the basic financial statements, is required by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board who considers it to be an essential part of financial reporting for placing the basic financial statements in an appropriate operational, economic, or historical context. Our opinion on the basic financial statements is not affected by this missing information. 2 a
a
223
Other Reporting Required by Government Auditing Standards ln accordancewith Government Auditing Standards, we have also issued our report dated December 27, 2023, on our consideration of the City's internal control over financial reporting relating to the Measure R Fund and TDA Fund and on our tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements and other matters. The purpose of that report is solely to describe the scope of our te-ting of internal control over financial reporting and compliance relating to the Measure R Fund and TDA Fund and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the effectiveness of the City's internal control over financial reporting or on compliance relating to the Measure R Fund and TDA Fund. That report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards in considering the City's internalcontroloverfinancial reporting and compliance relating to the Measure R Fund and TDA Fund.
BROWN ARMSTRONG
ACCOUNTANCY CORPORATION
&?,,,, 4,-*rr7.
Vqa'Lft,tu
Bakersfield, California
December 27,2023
3 224
CITY OF WOODLAKE
LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND
BALANCE SHEET
JUNE 30, 2023
WTH COMPARATIVE TOTALS
2023 2022
ASSETS
Cash and cash equivalents
Due from other governments
Due from other Funds
TOTAL ASSETS
LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCE
LIABILITIES
Accounts payable
TOTAL LIABILITIES
FUND BALANCE
Restricted
FUND BALANCE
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCE
$ 75,131 $
228,402
358.730
74,969
440,829
$ 662,263 $ 515,798
$ 1.921 $
1 921
660 342 515.798
660.342 5 15.798
$ 658,421 $ 515.298
--
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 4 225
CITY OF WOODLAKE
LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FU ND
STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES' AND
CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30' 2023
WITH COMPARATIVE TOTALS
2023
REVENUES
Local transPortation funds
lnterest
TOTAL REVENUES
EXPENDITURES
Construction and maintenance
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
Excess of revenues over expenditures
OTHER FINANCING USES
Transfers out to other CitY funds
Total other financing uses
Net change in fund balance
Fund balance, beginning
Fund balance, ending
2022
$ 228,402 $ 440,829
581
229.983 440.829
2,590 187 078
2,590 187 078
227,393 253,751
(82.849) (1 83,990)
82.849) 183.990)
144.544 69 761
5't5,798 446.037
342 $ 515,798
1 $ 660
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 5 226
CITY OF WOODLAKE
MEASURE R FUND
BALANCE SHEET
JUNE 30, 2023
WITH COMPARATIVE TOTALS
ASSETS
Due from other governments
TOTAL ASSETS
LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCE
LIABILITIES
Accounts payable
Due to other funds
TOTAL LIABILITIES
FUND BALANCE
Restricted
2023 2022
$ e3,935
$ 93,e35
$ 371,985
_q_3?1,e85_
$ 25,541 $ 26,062
68 394 345 923
93,935 371 985
FUND BALANCE
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCE $ 93,935 $ 371,985
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 6 227
CITY OF WOODLAKE
MEASURE R FUND
STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND
CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2023
WITH COMPARATIVE TOTALS
2023 2022
REVENUES
Measure R special projects
TOTAL REVENUES
EXPENDITURES
Special projects
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
Net change in fund balance
Fund balance, beginning
Fund balance, ending
$ss 9.1 94 $ 685,256
359 194
359 194
359 194
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 7 685,256
685.256
685,256
$ $
228
CITY OF WOODLAKE
TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUNDS AND
MEASURE R TRANSPORTATION FUNDS
NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2023
W|TH COMPARATIVE TOTALS
NOTE 1 - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
The financial statements of the Measure R Fund and the Local Transportation Fund (collectively, the Measure R Fund and the Transportation Development Act (TDA) Fund) of the City of Woodlake (the City) have been prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America as applied to governmental units pursuant to Section 99245 of the Public Utilities Code. The Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) is the accepted standard-setting body for establishing governmental accounting and financial reporting principles. The more significant of the City's accounting policies are described below.
Measure R
The Tulare County Transportation Authority (the Authority), a component unit of the Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG), California, was established on August 7, 2006. The primary purpose of the Authority is to impose within the incorporated and unincorporated territory of Tulare County a retail transaction and use tax for transportation purposes in accordance with the provisions as provided in Division 19 (commencing with Section 180000) of the California Public Utilities Code and Paft
1.6 (commencing with Section 7251) of Division 2 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code.
The tax rate shall be one-half of one percent (0.5%) per dollar for a period of thirty (30) years commencing on the operative date of this ordinance (Measure R). This tax shall be in addition to any other taxes authorized by law, including any existing or future state or local sales tax or transactions and use taxes.
The revenue derived from the tax shall be used for transportation purposes only and may include, but is not limited to, the administration of the Measure R Expenditure Plan. These purposes include expenditures for planning, environmental review, engineering, and design costs, related special and expert consulting costs, and related right-of-way acquisition and associated administrative and legal costs.
A. Reportinq Entitv
The financial statements are intended to reflect the financial position, results of operation, and compliance of the Measure R Fund and TDA Fund allocated for non-transit and transit purposes of the City with the laws, rules, and regulations of the TDA, Measure R, and TCAG. They do not present fairly the financial position and results of operations of the City in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.
B. Fund Accountinq
The accounts of the City are organized on the basis of funds, each of which is considered a separate accounting entity. The operations of each fund are accounted for with a separate set of self-balancing accounts that comprise its assets, liabilities, fund balance, revenues, and expenditures, as appropriate. Government resources are allocated to and accounted for in individual funds based upon the purpose for which they are to be spent and the means by which spending activities are controlled.
The Measure R Fund and TDA Fund are used to account for the proceeds of specific revenue sources that are legally restricted to expenditures for specified purposes. 8 229
D
NOTE 1 - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Continued) C. Measurement Focus and Basis of Accountino
The Measure R Fund and TDA Fund are reported using the current financial resources measurement focus and the modified accrual basis of accounting. Under this method, revenues are recognized when they become measurable and available, and expenditures are recognized when the fund liabilities ire incurred. "Measurable" means the amount of the transaction can be determined, and "available" means collectible within the current period, or soon enough thereafter to be used to pay liabilities of the current period. The City uses an availability period of 60 days. Revenues that are susceptible to accrual include Local Transportation Fund (LTF) allocations and interest income.
The Measure R Fund and TDA Fund report unearned revenue on their balance sheets. Unearned revenue for these funds arises when potential revenue does not meet the "measureable" and "available" criteria for recognition in the current period or when resources are received in advance of meeting eligibility requirements. ln subsequent periods, when both revenue recognition criteria are met, or wfren the City has legal claim to resources, the liability for unearned revenue is removed from the balance sheets and revenue is recognized.
No new accounting policies were adopted and the application of existing policies was not changed during the year.
Cash and Cash Equivalents
All City monies are invested in a cash and investments pool, whereby funds can spend cash at any time without prior notice or penalty.
E. Fund Balance
The Measure R Fund's and TDA Fund's financial statements utilize a fund balance representation.
Fund balance is categorized as follows:
Restricted Fund Balance - This category represents amounts with constraints placed on the use of the resource that are either (a) externally imposed by creditors, grantors, contributors, or laws or regulations of other governments; or (b) imposed by law through constitutional provisions or enabling legislation.
F. Grants
Grant revenues and receivables are recorded when earned (when eligible costs are incurred) on grants, which have been approved and funded by the grantor. Grant sources include the Federal iransit Administration (FTA), State Transit Assistance (STA), and LTF. The LTF and STA were created by the State Legislature under the TDA.
G. Use of Estimates
The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenditures during the reporting period. Accordingly, actual results could differ from those estimates.
H. Comparative Data
Comparative totals for the prior year have been presented in the accompanying financial statements in order to provide an understanding of changes in financial position and operations of the City's Measure R Fund and TDA Fund.
I
230
NOTE 1 - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Continued) l. Reclassifications
Certain amounts in the prior year financial statement have been reclassified for comparative purposes to conform with the presentation in the current year financial statements.
J. Contingencies
The City receives funding for specific purposes that are subject to review and audit by the granting agencies funding source. Such audits could result in a request for reimbursement for expenditures disallowed under terms and conditions of the contracts. Management is of the opinion that no material liabilities will result from such potential audits.
The City is party to claims and lawsuits arising in the ordinary course of business. The City's management and legal counsel are of the opinion that the ultimate liability, if any, arising from these claims will not have a material adverse impacton the financial position of the City's Measure R Fund and TDA Fund.
NOTE 2 _ CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS
Cash balances of the City's Measure R Fund and TDA Fund are pooled with those of other funds and invested by the City to maximize investment opportunities and yields. lnvestment income resulting from this pooling is allocated among the funds based upon each respective fund's average cash balance in relation to the aggregate investment balance, except that project funds are excluded from this allocation due to the fact that most cash balances in project funds are advanced from the City's General Fund.
Further information regarding the City's cash and cash equivalents pool may be found in the City's financial statements.
NOTE 3 _ STATE OF GOOD REPAIR
On April 28, 2017, the Governor signed the Road Repair and Accountability Act ol 2017 , Senate Bill (SB) 1 (Chapter 5, Statutes of 2017), which includes a program that will provide additional revenues for transit infrastructure repair and service improvements, known as the State of Good Repair (SGR) Program. This program receives funding of approximately $105 million annually. SGR funds are to be made available for eligible transit maintenance, rehabilitation, and capital projects. During the fiscal years ended June 30, 2023 and 2022, the City's TDA Fund had no SGR funding.
NOTE 4 - SUBSEQUENT EVENTS
The date to which events occurring after June 30,2023, have been evaluated for possible adjustments to the financial statements or disclosures is December 27,2023, which is the date that the financial statements were available to be issued. There were no events brought to our attention that were deemed to be reportable at that time.
10 231
OTHER REPORT
232
trI Bnowx
AnusrnoNG
C.t,atur,t, Pt-fi rc A(({r\l,rNri
u,r.vrv,ba,cpa
661-324-497'l
INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER
FINANCIAL REPORTING AND ON COMPLIANCE AND OTHER MATTERS BASED ON AN
AUDIT OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOYERNMENT
AUDITING STANDARDS, THE TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT, AND MEASURE R To the Board of Directors
Tulare County Association of Governments
Visalia, California
To the City Council
City of Woodlake
Woodlake, California
We have audited, in accordance with the auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Sfandards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, the financial statements of the of the Measure R Fund and the Local Transportation Fund (collectively, the Measure R Fund and the Transportation Development Act (TDA) Fund) of the City of Woodlake (the City), as of and for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023, and the related notes to the financial statements, which collectively comprise the City's Measure R Fund's and TDA Fund's basic financial statements, and have issued our report thereon dated December 27,2023.
Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting
ln planning and performing our audit of the financial statements, we considered the City's internal control over financial reporting (internal control) relating to the Measure R Fund and TDA Fund as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances for the purpose of expressing our opinions on the financial statements, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the City's internal control relating to the Measure R Fund and TDA Fund. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the City's internal control relating to the Measure R Fund and TDA Fund.
A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct, misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the entity's financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected on a timely basis. A significant deficiency is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control that is less severe than a material weakness, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with governance.
Our consideration of internal control was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph of this section and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control that might be material weaknesses or significant deficiencies. Given these limitations, during our audit we did not identify any deficiencies in internal control that we consider to be material weaknesses. However. material weaknesses or significant deficiencies may exist that have not been identified. 11 BAKHrsFril.t)
'lfoll'llu\ttur A\1rlLtc, Srit.' .ltlll
llakcr slirltl. (-l\ ti.'1.109
{'(. I -3l.l..lq;; I
FIu.sNo
l{! IlirTr llrrk I'licc l:irsl. Suilc fi]3
l-lcsno. (r\ !]37f11
55e,.1?r-.:1it.12
STOCK-t-oN
l.:123 \\'i':t \larrh l.arrr', 5rrile l{]2
Stockton, C-\ (.J510i
l0rl .li1 .l$3i
233
Report on Compliance and Other Matters
As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the Measure R Fund's and TDA Fund's financial statements are free from material misstatement, we performed tests of the City's compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the financial statements. Our audit was further made to determine that TDA funds allocated to and received by the City were expended in conformance with applicable statutes, rules, and regulations of the TDA and the allocation instructions and resolutions of Tuiare County Association of Governments as required by Sections 6666 and 6667 of Title 21 of the California Code of Regulations. However, providing an opinion on compliance with those provisions was not an objective of our audit, and accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The results of our tests disclosed no instances of noncompliance or other matters that are required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards, the TDA, or Measure R.
As part of the audit, we performed testing of the following program:
SB-1- State of Good Repair (SGR)
On April 28,2017, the Governor signed the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017, Senate Bill (SB) 1 (Chapter 5, Statutes of 2017), which includes a program that will provide additional revenues for transit infiastructure repair and service improvements, known as the SGR Program. This program receives funding of approximately $105 million annually. SGR funds are to be made available for eligible transit maintenance, rehabilitation, and capital projects.
As of June 30,2023, The City's TDA fund had no SGR funding.
Purpose of this Report
The purpose of this report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control and compliance and ihe'results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the effectiveness of the City's internal control or on compliance relating to the Measure R Fund and TDA Fund. This report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards in considering the City's internal control and compliance relating to the Measure R Fund and TDA Funds. Accordingly, this communication is not suitable for any other purpose.
BROWN ARMSTRONG
ACCOUNTANCY CORPORATION
&?r"r,4^"+*'f
(-*,-r+"*,7 4e *t"*-
Bakersfield, California
December 27,2023
12 234
City of Woodlake
AGENDA ITEM V-F
January 8, 2024
Prepared by Emmanuel Llamas, City Staff
SUBJECT:
Action: Adoption of Resolution: Approval of a Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) for the City of Woodlake’s Proposed Water System Upgrades Projects – PUBLIC HEARING BACKGROUND:
A PER is a planning document required by many state and federal agencies as part of the process of obtaining financial assistance for development of drinking water, wastewater, solid waste, and stormwater projects. The City contracted with engineering firm 4Creeks, Inc. in late 2021 to develop the Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) to determine the current and future needs of the City water system.
DISCUSSION:
With the PER completed, the City can formally adopt the report in order to leverage the data and recommendations for future water system infrastructure funding grants.
Overall, the PER stated that the water system is currently adequate and able to support the City’s water demands. The study does recommend that the City should pursue projects as soon as possible to maintain our level of service, which included items such as: add a 1.5 mg storage tank, replace aging water lines, install a 1,250 GPM booster pump at new storage tank location, and adding a new well.
RECCOMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that Council approve the Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) for the City of Woodlake’s Proposed Water System Upgrades Projects.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Water System Preliminary Engineering Report (PER)
2. Resolution: Approval of a Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) for the City of Woodlake’s Proposed Water System Upgrades Projects
235
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF WOODLAKE
COUNTY OF TULARE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In the matter of:
CITY OF WOODLAKE ADOPTS THE PRELIMINARY ) Resolution: 24-
ENGINEERING REPORT FOR THE CITY OF )
WOODLAKE’S PROPOSED WATER SYSTEM UPGRADE )
PROJECTS )
WHEREAS, The City of Woodlake contracted 4Creeks Inc. to develop the Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) to determine the current and future needs of the City water system; and WHEREAS, The PER planning document is required by many state and federal agencies as part of the process of obtaining financial assistance for development of drinking water, wastewater, solid waste, and stormwater projects; and
WHEREAS, The report did identify water system infrastructure needs for the City; and WHEREAS, adoption of this PER legitimizes the planning document and authorizes responsible agencies to carry out their responsibilities under the plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Woodlake does formally approve and adopt the Preliminary Engineering Report for the City of Woodlake’s proposed water system upgrade projects; and
The foregoing resolution was adopted upon a motion of Councilmember _______________ and seconded by Councilmember __________________ and carried by the following vote at the City Council meeting held on January 8, 2024.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
_____________________________________
Rudy Mendoza, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Irene Zacarias, City Clerk
236
e
237
2 238
3 Preliminary Engineer Report (PER)
CITY OF WOODLAKE, CA
Proposed 2023 Water System
Upgrade Project
Prepared for:
City of Woodlake
350 N. Valencia Street
Woodlake, CA 93286
(559) 564-8055
Prepared By:
4Creeks, Inc.
324 S. Santa Fe Street, Suite A
Visalia, CA 93292
(559) 802-3052
Preparation Date:
10/01/2023
239
4 240
5 Table of Contents
SECTION 1: PROJECT PLANNING .................................................................................................... 9
1.1 PROJECT PURPOSE ....................................................................................................................... 9
1.2 LOCATION .................................................................................................................................... 9
1.3 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES PRESENT ....................................................................................... 11
1.2.1 PROJECT LOCATION .................................................................................................................... 11
1.4 PREVIOUS PROJECTS FOR THE COMMUNITY .................................................................................. 11
2.1 LOCATION MAP ........................................................................................................................... 12
2.2 HISTORY .................................................................................................................................... 14
2.3 CONDITION OF EXISTING FACILITIES ............................................................................................. 15
2.3.1. WATER SUPPLY .......................................................................................................................... 15 I. WATER SYSTEM DEMAND ............................................................................................................ 15 II. SURFACE WATER SUPPLY - NOT APPLICABLE (NO SURFACE WATER SUPPLY) .................................. 15 III. GROUNDWATER SUPPLY .............................................................................................................. 15 IV. WATER SUPPLY REGULATORY COMPLIANCE ................................................................................. 16
2.3.2. WATER QUALITY ......................................................................................................................... 16
2.3.3. WATER TREATMENT PLANT – NOT APPLICABLE / NO TREATMENT PLANT IN SYSTEM ....................... 16
2.3.4. STORAGE ................................................................................................................................... 16
2.3.5. PIPELINES .................................................................................................................................. 17
2.3.6. PUMP STATIONS: ........................................................................................................................ 22
2.3.7. OPERATIONAL MANAGEMENT ....................................................................................................... 22
2.4 FINANCIAL STATUS OF EXISTING FACILITIES ................................................................................. 23
2.5 WATER/ENERGY/WASTE AUDITS .................................................................................................. 23
3.1 HEALTH, SANITATION AND SECURITY ............................................................................................ 25
3.2 AGING INFRASTRUCTURE ............................................................................................................. 25
3.3 REASONABLE GROWTH ............................................................................................................... 25 SECTION 4: ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ................................................................................................... 26 A. DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................................................. 26 B. COST ESTIMATES - FOLLOWING ARE THE PROBABLE COSTS OF EACH ALTERNATIVE: ........................ 30 C. FEASIBILITY OF ALTERNATIVES:................................................................................................... 30
5.1 LIFE CYCLE COST ANALYSIS ............................................................................................ 31
5.2 NON-MONETARY FACTORS ANALYSIS .................................................................................. 31
6.1 DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................................................. 32
6.2 PROJECT SCHEDULE ................................................................................................................... 32 241
6 6.3 PERMIT REQUIREMENTS .............................................................................................................. 32
6.4 TOTAL PROJECT COST ESTIMATE ................................................................................................. 33
6.5 ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET ...................................................................................................... 33
6.1. INCOME ...................................................................................................................................... 33
6.2. ANNUAL OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE (O&M) COSTS: ............................................................. 34
6.3. DEBT REPAYMENTS ..................................................................................................................... 34
6.4. RESERVES .................................................................................................................................. 34
6.4.1. DEBT SERVICE RESERVES ........................................................................................................... 34
6.4.2. SHORT-LIVED ASSET RESERVE .................................................................................................... 35 SECTION 7: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................. 35 APPENDIX B............................................................................................................................... 38 APPENDIX C............................................................................................................................... 39 APPENDIX D............................................................................................................................... 40 APPENDIX E ............................................................................................................................... 41 APPENDIX F ............................................................................................................................... 42 APPENDIX G............................................................................................................................... 43 APPENDIX H............................................................................................................................... 44 APPENDIX I ................................................................................................................................ 45 Table of Figures
Figure 1 ................................................................................................................................................ 10 Figure 2 ................................................................................................................................................ 13 Figure 3 ................................................................................................................................................ 18 Figure 4 ................................................................................................................................................ 19 Figure 5 ................................................................................................................................................ 21 Figure 6 ................................................................................................................................................ 36 242
7 Table of Tables
Table 1: Population Trends ................................................................................................................ 11 Table 2: Water System History.......................................................................................................... 14 Table 3: Well Information .................................................................................................................. 15 Table 4: Tank Information ................................................................................................................ 17 Table 5: Water Usage ......................................................................................................................... 22 Table 6: Water Usage ......................................................................................................................... 23 Table 7: Pump Test Results ............................................................................................................... 24 Table 8: Alternatives ........................................................................................................................... 27 Table 9: Probable Cost of Each Alternative ..................................................................................... 30 Table 10: Updating current facilities ................................................................................................ 31 Table 11: Installing new storage tank and booster pump ............................................................... 31 Table 12: Project Construction .......................................................................................................... 32 Table 13: Project Schedule ................................................................................................................. 32 Table 14: Rate schedule ...................................................................................................................... 33 Table 15: Income ................................................................................................................................. 34 Table 16: Annual Operations and Maintenance Cost ..................................................................... 34 Table 17: Annual Funding for each Account ................................................................................... 35 243
8 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AADF Annual Average Daily Flow
AB Assembly Bill
CARB California Air Resources Control Board
BPS Best Performance Standards
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
NEQA National Environmental Quality Act
GPD Gallons per day
GPM Gallons per minute
MDD Maximum Daily Demand
PHD Peak Hour Demand
ppm parts per million
ppt parts per trillion
ROW Right-of-way, Rights-of-way
SB Senate Bill
SCE Southern California Edison
SJVAPCD San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District sf square foot, square feet
VOC Volatile Organic Compound
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
SCADA Supervisory control & data acquisition
MGD Million Gallons per Day
MG Million Gallons
EDU Equivalent Dwelling Unit
DPH Department of Public Health
DWR Department of Water Resources
DBCP Dibromochloropropane
O&M Operations and Maintenance
P.W. Public Works
244
9 SECTION 1: PROJECT PLANNING
1.1 PROJECT PURPOSE
This project will involve updating existing water components, updating the system, and installing new water infrastructure. A full water model was prepared of the existing system to thoroughly analyze the necessary improvements. A full city-wide water master plan will be needed to design a system that will account for future population growth.
1.2 LOCATION
The City of Woodlake, California is located in north central Tulare County at the intersection of CA 216 and CA 245 approximately four (4) miles north of CA 198. Please see the regional map (Figure 1). It is located in California Congressional District No. 22. Woodlake was incorporated as a city in 1941.
The City of Woodlake water system has a service area of about 1½ square miles. The attached aerial photo (see Figure 2) shows the service area boundaries and location of the water system’s primary facilities (wells and storage tanks).
245
City of Woodlake
Figure 1 - Regional Map
Friant-Kern Cana
·|þ}63 l
·|þ}216
·|þ}198
·|þ}201
·|þ}245
·|þ}65
·|þ}201
Kaweah River
Exeter
Tonyville
Lemon
Cove
Lindcove
Woodlake
Ivanhoe
Elderwood
Cutler
Legend
City Limits
Major Roads
Streets
Waterways
0 1.125 2.25
Miles
1 inch = 2.25 miles
Lake Kaweah
Project Location
Tulare County
246
11 1.3 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES PRESENT
1.2.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The project is located primarily within the existing corporate limits of the City of Woodlake, CA with the exception of an area known as the Wells tract, which is a developed subdivision just outside of the Woodlake City Limits that has historically been served by the City. The entire project area is urbanized and previously developed. No farmland is affected. None of the work will occur in wetlands or a floodplain. No known cultural resources are affected by the project. No known biological resources are affected nor are any endangered species affected by the project. Most of the work will occur within existing public rights-of-way (ROW) or on property already owned by the City.
It is believed that this work will be a categorical exemption. Enclosed Are the following:
• Initial Study Checklist (Appendix A)
• NEPA (Appendix B)
• CEQA (Appendix C)
The City of Woodlake has had one of the lowest growth rates of the eight incorporated cities in Tulare County. During the period between 1980 and 2000 there was only a 2.15 percent increase from 4,343 to 6,651. From 2000 to 2010 the population growth rate slowed and only increased about 1.59 percent.
Over the next 20 years, if Woodlake’s population follows the same trend the population is projected to be:
Table 1: Population Trends
POPULATION TRENDS*
Year Population
2008 7,524
2018 9,307
2028 11,514
* Source: U.S. Census Bureau and State Department of Finance
1.4 PREVIOUS PROJECTS FOR THE COMMUNITY
This project was initially discussed with the development of the 2006 City of Woodlake Water System Master Plan. After this plan was initiated, the City undertook two water system improvements, with the installation of two 500,000-gallon tank projects. During this time the water meter project was also implemented. As part of the 2008 USDA Water Storage Project, a 500,000 gallon storage tank, booster pump, and transmission main were installed, and the 2009 USDA Water System Improvement Project was completed, which replaced existing water lines at several locations and made well site improvements at Wells #8, 9, 10, and 12. Additionally, following the 2014 Water System Preliminary Engineering Report; water meters, a SCADA system, and additional chlorination was installed in order to meet the immediate needs of the community and to provide for compliance with State water regulations.
247
12 SECTION 2: EXISTING FACILITIES
2.1 LOCATION MAP
The City of Woodlake Water System Map (Figure 2) shows the location of the major components of the water system, specifically the locations of existing wells, storage tanks, and pumps. Pipe sizes, composition of the mains and services are not shown.
248
%2%2
%2 %2
%2
%2 %2
%2
%2
%2 %2
%2
%2
%2
*#
*#
Friant-Kern Canal
ROAD 204
ROAD 196
ROAD 200
N CYPRESS ST
AVENUE 344
AVENUE 352
N VALENCIA BLVD
AVENUE 332
E SIERRA AVE
RIVERSIDE AVE
E LAKEVIEW AVE
E NARANJO BLVD
S VALENCIA BLVD
OLIVERA DR
ROAD 192
ROAD 222
N PALM ST
ROAD 220
MILLWOOD DR
AVENUE 336
W BRAVO AVE
ROAD 206
ROAD 212
AVENUE 360
AVENUE 328
·|þ}216
·|þ}245
WELL6
(Not in Service)
WELL9
WELL8
WELL11
WELL12 WELL10
WELL14
WELL13
Woodlake
Legend
City Limits
Major Roads
Streets
*# Water Tanks
%2 Water Wells
%2
New Water Wells
Post-2014
Water Pipelines
New Water Pipelines
Post-2014
City of Woodlake
Figure 2 - Existing Water System
0 1,200 2,400
Feet
1 inch = 2,400 feet
Bravo
Lake
A n te l o p e
M o u n t a i n
C o l v i n M o u n t a i n
9,000-gal
Hydropneumatic Tank
0.5-MG
Water Tank
0.5-MG
Water Tank
249
14 2.2 HISTORY
The following table is a summary of the components of the City of Woodlake Water system:
Table 2: Water System History
WATER SYSTEM HISTORY
System
Component
Year
Constructed
Year (s)
Renovated
Description of Renovation
Water Wells
# 6
# 8
#9
#10
#11
#12
#13
#14
1951
1964
1967
1971
1985
1996
2015
2016
N/A
2001, 2007,
2010, 2012
2008, 2010,
2011
1985,
2006,2008,
2010
2010
N/A
N/A
Out of service since 1981, unacceptably high nitrate levels (> 93 mg/l) 2001, major overhaul; 2007, repairs; 2010, standby power (diesel), 2012, pump overhaul
2008, minor repairs; 2010, standby power (diesel), new bowls and bearing; 2011, overhaul
1985, motor repair; 2006, minor repairs; 2010, flow meter replacement; 2008, minor repairs; 2010, standby power (diesel)
2010, flow meter replacement
N/A
N/A
N/A
Storage Tanks
Hydro-pneumatic
Tank
Castle Rock Hill
Tank #1 (West)
Castle Rock Hill
Tank #2 (East)
2001
2009
2010
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Transmission
Mains
2014 –
Current
2022 New pipeline extension
Pipelines 1937 (initial) 2022 USDA Water System Improvement Project - water main improvements Booster Pumps 2008 N/A N/A
250
15 2.3 CONDITION OF EXISTING FACILITIES
2.3.1. WATER SUPPLY
The City of Woodlake’s water supply is exclusively from ground water sources, specifically from seven (7) active wells. All active wells are located on the south side of the City of Woodlake near the south shore of Bravo Lake and along the north side of St. John’s River. An eighth well (#6) has been disconnected from the system due to unacceptably high nitrate levels (greater than 93 mg/l) since 1981. It has been leased to a local farmer and is used to irrigate agricultural crops since 1998. i. WATER SYSTEM DEMAND
According to Historical Water Production the existing wells in the City of Woodlake system have the ability to produce a total of 3,122 GPM, which is 4.5 MGD, based on the data from 2021.
Coupled with the available storage the maximum available firm supply is 3.2 MGD (which is water supply with the largest producing well on standby). According to the Akel Engineering, Existing System Evaluation report, October 2022 the Average Day Demand is 1.41 MGD. Maximum Daily Demand (MDD) is 2.82 MGD and the Peak Hour Demand (PHD) is 4.23 MGD. The model shows an excess daily capacity of 0.4 MGD; therefore, the current supply exceeds the current demand.
Based on population growth and the age of the current wells, it would be expected that the City will need to develop and bring a new water supply well in the next 5-10 years.
For water storage capacity, the City needs to provide for the Average Day Demand of 1.41 MG, plus 0.84 MG for fire protection. The total required to be provided is 2.25 MG. Currently the City has 1.0 MG of storage at the two Castle Rock Hill tanks; therefore the City needs to develop 1.3 MG of additional water storage to meet 50% of the MDD and fire protection (3,500 GPM for 4 hours – Industrial).
ii. SURFACE WATER SUPPLY - NOT APPLICABLE (NO SURFACE WATER SUPPLY) iii. GROUNDWATER SUPPLY
The City of Woodlake’s water supply comes exclusively from seven (7) active wells drilled along the St. Johns River. These wells are described in the following table:
Table 3: Well Information
Name/Number Well #6 Well #8 Well #9 Well #10 Well #11 Well #12 Well #13 Well #14 Pumping/Flow
Rate (GPM)*
516
GPM
212 GPM 365 GPM 913 GPM 380 GPM 549GPM 308 GPM 395 GPM
Pump Motor Size
(HP)
41 HP 30 HP 40 HP 150 HP 50 HP 60 HP 50 HP 75 HP
Pump Depth (ft.) 80.4’ 71.3’ 70.9’ 70.6’ 70.6’ 89.9’ 125’ 110’ Well Depth (ft.) 178’ 186’ 162’ 218’ 205’ 195’ 230’ 250’ Well Yield (GPM) 569
GPM*
252 GPM * 284 GPM * 1,363
GPM*
400 GPM * 593 GPM * 282
GPM*
408 GPM*
Well Casing Mtrl. Steel Steel;
steel
Steel;
steel
Steel; steel Steel;
steel
Steel;
steel
Steel;
steel
Steel
Well Casing
Diameter
16”;12” 16”; 12” 12” 16”; 12” 30”; 14” 30”; 14” 30”; 14” 36”; 24” Age (yrs.) 64 years 58 years 55 years 51 years 37 years 26 years 6 years 6 years Regulatory
Contaminants
Nitrates
> 93
mg/l
NonDetect NonDetect Non-Detect NonDetect Nitrate
12mg/
mitigated
via nitrate
blending**
NonDetect Non-Detect
251
16 *Hydraulic Well Test Results received from City staff on 10/21/2021 ** Well 6 is not connected to the public water system. Its quantities are not included when calculating the city’s capacity, or to contribute to demand. *** Well 12 exceeded mcl in June 2022, nitrate blending plan approved by SWRCB implemented for mitigation
Water production from the seven (7) active wells as designed was to deliver an estimated 4,200 gallons per minutes (GPM), an average of 600 GPM per well. As tested by SCE, the system is able to produce 3,122 GPM, an average of 446 GPM per well. Staff will be working with a local pump consultant to determine ways to improve the efficiency of the pumps with the intent of increasing the average yield.
Well #6 has been physically disconnected from the system and is not being used by the City of Woodlake. This well, built in 1951, contains unacceptably high levels of Nitrates (greater than 93 mg/l). It is currently being leased to a local olive farmer and is used for irrigating trees (since 1998).
iv. WATER SUPPLY REGULATORY COMPLIANCE
Based on the August 23, 2019, State of California Department of Public Health Sanitary Survey; the City of Woodlake has an adequate source and storage capacity to meet the mandatory four (4) hours of peak hourly demand. This conclusion was made using the historical data from the 10 years prior to the study and found that the City had a reduction in usage after the installation of water meters. It was also found that the maximum day and peak hour demand rates were 3,864 GPM and 5,796 GPM. With the information that was collected it was deemed that the City has the sources and the storage to meet California Waterworks Standards.
2.3.2. WATER QUALITY
Active source raw water for the City of Woodlake water system meets all current applicable and proposed State of California primary and secondary drinking water standards for water quality. This is primary due to the fact that in 2018 the City constructed a new chlorination and sand separator system. The only well that does not meet drinking water standards is Well #6, which has not been connected to the system since 1981.
In the years leading up to the installation of the chlorination and sand separator systems, the City of Woodlake’s Annual Drinking Water Quality Reports typically reported detections of Coliform Bacteria.
In 2014 the highest number of detections in one (1) month was 9, and there were violations every year until 2019. The results of the 2022, the most recent, Annual Drinking Water Quality Report the system showed no detections of coliform bacteria matching the results of the 2019 report.
2.3.3. WATER TREATMENT PLANT – NOT APPLICABLE / NO TREATMENT PLANT IN SYSTEM
2.3.4. STORAGE
The City of Woodlake has two storage tanks that provide sufficient storage to supply water to the system for 17 hours (0.71 days) in the event of a catastrophic power failure and in the absence of any back-up power on the City’s water supply wells. Additionally, the City operates a 9,000-gallon hydro-pneumatic pressure tank that is primarily used in conjunction with a sand separator, which is emptied daily by the system’s chief operator.
252
17 Table 4: Tank Information
Reservoir/Tank No. Hydropneumatic Tank #1 Tank #2
Storage Capacity (gal) 9,000 gal 500,000 gal 500,000 gal Elevated or on-grade On-grade On-grade, hillside On-grade, hillside Material (steel, concrete, plastic, etc.) Steel Steel Steel Construction type (bolted, welded, etc.) Welded Welded Steel Welded Steel Age (years) 21 years 13 years 12 Years
2.3.5. PIPELINES
Reference should again be made to Figure 2, City of Woodlake’s Existing Water System. The City of Woodlake water distribution system consists of over 5.3 miles of water mains ranging in sizes from six (6) inches in diameter to eighteen (18) inches in diameter. Prior to 2010, there were more than 4,500 feet of four (4) inch diameter mains. All four (4) inch lines were replaced with eight (8) inch diameter water mains with the USDA 2010 Water System Improvement Project. Existing pipeline materials include asbestos-cement (85% of the system), steel and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) primarily in the newer areas of the city. Currently there are no areas of the system that experience fire code required water pressure issues (less than 20 psi); this is verified annually by flow testing performed annually by the City of Woodlake Fire Department. Based on recent flow tests and modeling the current water systems, there have been areas of the City identified as underperforming on service pressures to provide adequate pressure to homes and businesses for residential fire sprinkler or shower pressures. The City adopted a design criteria of 35 psi for functional service and a maximum of 80 psi. These pipelines have been identified in Figures 3 & 4. 253
254
255
20 In addition, the model analyzed the existing system for compliance with City adopted design guidelines for available fire flow with a residual pressure of 20 psi to meet fire code requirements. The model provided the following areas identified to not meet the adopted fire flow requirements, see Figure 5. 256
257
22 2.3.6. PUMP STATIONS:
The City of Woodlake operates one (1) pump station, located adjacent to the newer of the two (2) 500,000-gallon steel tanks located on Castle Rock Hill. This facility was constructed at the same time the second tank was constructed and it is in good condition. It is intended to boost water pressure in a 1,000-gallon pressure tank in a small mobile home park. It is properly functioning as it was intended.
Based on the updated model, there are areas of the City identified as under-performing pressure zones. We are recommending that the City install a new 1,250 gpm booster pump as part of a new water tank in the southwestern part of the City to stabilize fire flow pressures to the western industrial developments.
2.3.7. OPERATIONAL MANAGEMENT
Water Meters:
The City of Woodlake recently installed water meters city wide. New meters are installed with all new users or developments. The following table shows a summary of user type and usage that has been attained since the installation of water meters within the City of Woodlake:
Table 5: Water Usage
User Type Average Annual Water
Usage – 2021
(Million Gallons)
Number of Users
(Connections) 2021
Average Monthly Usage
per Connection
(Million Gallons)
Number of
EDUs
Single Family
Residential
285 1,796 0.3369 1,796
Commercial 22 83 0.2651 65
Industrial 12 24 0.5000 36
Other 32 27 1.1852 95
TOTAL 351 1,930 N/A 1,992
Supply wells:
The City of Woodlake operates seven (7) water supply wells. The City has recently replaced all well meters and all are currently operating properly. An eighth well (#6) is disconnected from the system as it has unacceptably high levels of Nitrates.
SCADA System:
A SCADA system has been installed and has been operational since 2019. The system operates on an independent computer system located at the City’s corporation yard that is tied to each individual well and storage tank via an unlicensed radio frequency.
Other System Management Issues:
The State of California Department of Health Services classifies the City of Woodlake water system as a D2 system. State regulations require a chief operator with a D2 certification and a shift operator with a D1 certification. The City has a shift operator with a D2 certification on staff as well as two (2) staff members with D1 certifications.
258
23 2.4 FINANCIAL STATUS OF EXISTING FACILITIES
According to the FY 2021-2022 Budget the City of Woodlake expects to receive revenues from the sale of water of $1,165,000 and revenues from all sources of $1,297,600. Projected expenses for FY 2021- 2022 are $1,474,963. This results in net expenses over revenues of $177,363.
Given the expenses for FY 2021-2022 the City of Woodlake needs to extract an average of $63.69 per customer per month ($1,474,963 / 1,930 / 12 = $63.69).
Table 6: Water Usage
User Type Average Annual Water
Usage - 2021
(Million Gallons)
Number of Users
(Connections)
2021
Average Monthly
Usage per
Connection
(Million Gallons)
Number of
EDUs
SF Residential 285 1,796 0.3369 1,796
Commercial 22 83 0.2651 65
Industrial 12 24 0.5000 36
Other 32 27 1.1852 95
TOTAL 351 1,930 N/A 1,992
A detailed operating budget for the City of Woodlake water system is attached to the project application.
It lists the detailed expenses associated with operating the water system, annual repairs and maintenance as well as set-asides for professional services, debt service and capital reserves. It also lists revenues expected from user fees, developer fees, and all other sources. At the present time the City of Woodlake does not have any extraordinary expenses for repairs to wells, treatment equipment, pumps, storage tanks, pipeline leakage, or other miscellaneous costs to maintain the water system.
The City of Woodlake has two (2) outstanding loans attributed to the water system. An amount of $96,432 is budgeted each year toward paying off the first loan and an additional $84,000 is paid per year towards the second loan. These loans were obtained in order to install the city’s water meters, chlorination system, sand separators, and the newest of the tanks installed.
2.5 WATER/ENERGY/WASTE AUDITS
The City of Woodlake completed a water system audit in 2019.
Excerpted copies of the most recent Sanitary Survey is enclosed in this PER as Appendix “D”.
Additionally, the City of Woodlake has pump efficiency tests performed on all wells on a periodic basis by Southern California Edison (SCE), the local power provider. The last such tests were conducted in January 2020. Additionally, each well is equipped with standby power units (diesel or natural gas). The pump test results and standby power unit descriptions are as follows:
259
24 Table 7: Pump Test Results
Power Type Electric Motor Standby Power
Well #
kWh per
Acre Foot
Overall Plant
Efficiency Motor Size Type
Year /
Manufacture
#6 N/A N/A None N/A N/A
#8 511 40.8% QSB 4.5 C-130 Diesel 07/Cummins
#9 476 48.8% QSB 4.5 C-130 Diesel 07/Cummins
#10 494 56.2% 125 BHP Diesel 93Deutz
#11 494 57.6% QSB 4.5 C-130 Diesel 07/Cummins
#12 366 64.7% QSB 4.5 C-130 Diesel 07/Cummins
#13 402 66.7% 50.0 HP Diesel 15/Goulds
#14 343 69.2% 75.0 HP Diesel 16/Flowserve
There are no recent pump efficiency tests available for Well #6. There is no standby power attached to this well.
260
25 SECTION 3: NEED FOR PROJECT
3.1 HEALTH, SANITATION AND SECURITY
As was identified in Section 2.3.2., the City of Woodlake had multiple years leading up to the installation of chlorine and sand separation systems where it was in violation of the “Total Coliform Maximum Contaminant Level” acceptable by the State of California Department of Public Health.
Violations:
• 2017 Annual Drinking Water Quality Report for City of Woodlake, during July 2017, out of 19 monthly samples two (2) of the samples were positive for Coliform Bacteria. • 2018 Annual Drinking Water Quality Report for City of Woodlake, out of the 12 – 15 monthly samples taken there were three (3) violations detected, during the months of June and December 2018.
After the addition of the chlorination and sand separators systems in 2018, and once the water system was connected to SCADA, no samples have shown the presence of total Coliform Bacteria.
3.2 AGING INFRASTRUCTURE
Generally, the City of Woodlake water system is believed to not be in serviceable condition. Based on the updated water model, flow test calibrations, and system analysis; there are sections of the City with undersized or not enough pipeline connectivity. This is leading to lower than acceptable fire flow around the City, especially in the industrial areas, and also lower than acceptable operational pressures at homes. These areas have been identified for pipeline upsizing, upgrades, and additional pipes to increase the water network functionality.
Although, there are currently no known significant repair and maintenance expenses anticipated to keep the system operational.
3.3 REASONABLE GROWTH
The City of Woodlake is in the process of preparing an updated water system masterplan, the previously completed plan was in 2006. The plan has identified a series of water system improvements that will need to take place over the next 20-years to meet the projected population growth. The master plan had projected a 2028 population of 11,514 based on population growth trends in 2008, an increase of about 3,500 persons; therefore, the master plan’s program of improvements should track well with actual system needs based on current population trends. Based on the current number of customers and applying the projected growth factor (1.59), the City can expect to serve approximately 600 new customers without adding additional water supply to the system.
The system went through an evaluation in 2021, it was found that the Average Day Demand was 1.41 MGD.
With a population increase of 3,500 people estimated, there are some infrastructure improvements that the City of Woodlake will need to make. These include upsizing existing pipelines and adding an additional storage tank with a new booster station to accompany it.
261
26 SECTION 4: ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
A. DESCRIPTION
The critical needs facing the City of Woodlake water system are a) Supply demands due to the increasing population, b) Fire water storage capacity, and c) Meeting adequate system pressure levels. Once these issues are addressed, the City will meet fire flow, pipeline, and supply demand. To address these critical needs the following alternatives were developed:
1) OPTIMIZE THE CURRENT FACILITIES (“NO CONSTRUCTION”) ALTERNATIVE A:
a. PUMP EXISTING WELLS LONGER TO KEEP UP WITH DEMAND
UNDER THIS ALTERNATIVE, THE CITY OF WOODLAKE WILL LIKELY FAIL TO MEET STATE OF
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT AND AWWA STANDARDS FOR SYSTEM OPERATION
AND WILL NOT MEET FIRE CODE PRESSURE AND STORAGE REQUIREMENTS IN VARIOUS AREAS OF THE CITY.
2) UPGRADE THE CURRENT FACILITIES OPERATION ALTERNATIVE B:
a. Rehabilitate existing and/or replace existing wells and add supply wells as the community grows and demand is demonstrated;
b. Add 1.5MG of additional storage in the southwest quadrant of the City; c. Install a 1,250GPM booster pump at the new storage tank to assist in meeting minimum system pressures, and;
d. Replace/add water distribution lines that are considered undersized to comply with Fire Code pressures and operational minimum system pressures.
UNDER THIS ALTERNATIVE THE CITY OF WOODLAKE WOULD BE ABLE TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE FIRE
WATER SUPPLY AND STORAGE FACILITIES IN THE NEAR FUTURE, IN ADDITION TO MEETING MINIMUM SYSTEM PRESSURES FOR USERS IN THE SYSTEM. THIS IS THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE. 3) INTERCONNECT WITH OTHER SYSTEMS ALTERNATIVE C: NOTE - THE CLOSEST PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM TO WOODLAKE IS EXETER, CA (TEN MILES TO THE SOUTH). CONNECTION TO THIS SYSTEM WOULD LIKELY REQUIRE THE FOLLOWING:
a. Development of legal agreements to allow the connection and provide water supply; b. Prepare a master facility plan for the inter-connection project (including the development source water supply and conveyances);
c. Preparation of plans and specifications;
d. Obtain the required permits (County, DPH, Caltrans, DWR, etc.), ROW and easements for the placement of 10 miles of water transmission mains and related facilities; e. Add 1.5MG of additional storage in the southwest quadrant of the City; f. Install a 1,250GPM booster pump at the new storage tank to assist in meeting minimum system pressures;
g. Replace/add water distribution lines that are considered undersized to comply with Fire Code pressures and operational minimum system pressures;
h. Bidding, construction, construction management, and project closeout, and; i. The estimated construction cost would be in excess of $50 million. 262
27 BY ITSELF, THIS ALTERNATIVE ONLY ADDRESSES THE POTENTIAL WATER SUPPLY ISSUE THAT THE CITY OF WOODLAKE COULD HAVE. THIS ALTERNATIVE WOULD NOT FIX THE SYSTEM PRESSURE ISSUE OR THE FIRE WATER STORAGE THAT IS NEEDED. ADDITIONALLY, THIS ALTERNATIVE IS NOT COST EFFECTIVE.
4) CONSTRUCT NEW FACILITIES FOR REGIONAL/JOINT MANAGEMENT USE ALTERNATIVE D: NOTE - THE
CONSTRUCTION OF NEW FACILITIES FOR REGIONAL/JOINT MANAGEMENT WOULD INVOLVE OBTAINING SURFACE WATER SUPPLY FROM THE KERN/FRIANT CANAL, BRAVO LAKE OR OTHER LOCAL WATER/IRRIGATION DISTRICTS. AT THIS TIME THE CITY OF WOODLAKE HAS NO RIGHT TO ACCESS ANY OF THESE SOURCES. THIS WOULD INVOLVE THE FOLLOWING STEPS:
a. Development of legal agreements to allow the access; b. Prepare a master facility plan for the inter-connection project, including the intake and treatment of the source water supply and conveyances to the City of Woodlake water system; c. Preparation of plans and specifications;
d. Obtain the required permits (County, DPH, Caltrans, DWR, etc.), ROW and easements for the placement of the water main and related facilities;
e. Add 1.5MG of additional storage in the southwest quadrant of the City; f. Install a 1,250GPM booster pump at the new storage tank to assist in meeting minimum system pressures;
g. Replace/add water distribution lines that are considered undersized to comply with Fire Code pressures and operational minimum system pressures;
h. Bidding, construction, construction management and project closeout, and; i. The estimated construction cost of this approach would be in excess of $150 million.
THIS ALTERNATIVE ADDRESSES THE POTENTIAL WATER SUPPLY ISSUE THAT THE CITY OF
WOODLAKE HAS, IT IS EXCEEDINGLY NOT COST EFFECTIVE FOR THE SIZE OF SYSTEM AND NUMBER OF USERS.
Following is a description of the preferred/proposed project’s alternatives as described in Alternative (B) above:
Table 8: Alternatives
Proposed Project
Component
Alternatives Description
Water Supply
Develop additional
groundwater wells for
system supply.
Water supply alternatives:
Option 1 – Develop new groundwater wells based on hydrogeologists study Option 2 – Rehab/treat Well No. 6
Treatment N/A
Storage
Build additional storage
tanks
Option 1– Build an additional 1.5MG gravity storage tank or similar.
Pipelines Option 1 – Replace and or install new sections of water pipelines to provide for adequate system pressures and fire water supply.
263
28 Pump Stations Option 1– Install 1,250 GPM booster station to accompany new gravity storage tank.
Operational Management N/A
264
29 TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
1) Agreements: Alternatives A will require no agreements. Alternatives B, C and D, will require the agreement to build new infrastructure.
2) Groundwater supply: Alternatives A and B may eventually require that the City develop additional groundwater supply. The likely area where adequate source water is available is in the area around the St. John’s River and Bravo Lake. Ground water in other parts of the service area (north, west and east) typically contains constituents in the aquifer that make source water supply unusable without extensive treatment (DBCP and nitrates). Due to the proximity of bedrock, deep wells are not possible.
3) Surface Water Supply: Alternative D, depends on the new facility to provide a sufficient water supply, and at this moment there is no way to determine the production amount. 4) Compliance Issues/Design Criteria: All work associated with the project will be consistent with applicable Federal, State, City of Woodlake, and AWWA standards.
Alternative A is likely to have minimal design-related costs.
Alternative B will require typical costs to design facilities necessary to implement projects identified with this alternative.
Alternative C will have a very large design cost associated with it as well as permitting required to encroach on multiply city organizations.
Alternative D will require typically higher costs to design the new facilities necessary to implement a project identified with this alternative.
5) Map: This item is not applicable as all work is to be done within the City Limits of Woodlake and its public rights-of way or on property currently owned by the City. 6) Environmental Impacts: Since Alternatives C and D are not cost effective, they will not be discussed further.
The environmental impacts of Alternatives A and B are expected to be minimal, if any. No farmland, wetlands, or environmentally sensitive lands would be involved with either of these alternatives, as all work would likely be done within areas previously urbanized and within public ROW or on existing public property.
7) Land Requirements: With Alternatives A and B, it is anticipated that all work will be done within existing public ROW or on City property. The exception to this situation might be if there was a need to do minor work on private property immediately adjacent to public ROW. 8) Potential Construction Problems: Alternative A is expected to have few if any construction problems, as essentially no new construction would be done. Alternative B would have typical construction problems associated with rehabilitating or replacing existing water pipelines.
Construction durations and materials needed for the water storage tank and booster pump could be delayed.
9) Sustainability Considerations:
a. Water Efficiency - Alternative A will result in no improvement in the efficient use of water.
Alternative B is likely to result in improvement in water usage as improve water system losses/leakage and operate sprinkler systems more efficiently due to improved system pressures while operating existing wells more efficiently. Overall, there should not be a real increase in water usage; this is mainly to get the system to operate more effectively and meet Fire Code requirements in the case of a fire event. 265
30 b. Energy Efficiency - Alternative A will have no improvement in energy efficiency as compared to current conditions. Alternative B is likely to cause an increase in energy consumption as an additional booster pump is added to the system.
B. COST ESTIMATES - FOLLOWING ARE THE PROBABLE COSTS OF EACH ALTERNATIVE:
Table 9: Probable Cost of Each Alternative
OPTIONS CONSTRUCTION
COST
NONCONSTRUCTION
COST
OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE COSTS
REMARKS:
EFFECTIVENESS
ALTERNATIVE
A
N/A N/A ADDITIONAL COST AND
MAINTENANCE TO RUN AN
MAINTAIN PUMPS
LONGER.
NO ADDITIONAL
TRAINING WILL BE
REQUIRED, BUT THE
SYSTEM WILL NOT
MEET MINIMUM
OPERATIONAL
PRESSURES AND FIRE
CODE
REQUIREMENTS.
ALTERNATIVE
B
$10,165,110 N/A ADDITIONAL STORAGE
TANK AND BOOSTER PUMP
WILL REQUIRE
ADDITIONAL OPERATIONS
AND MAINTENANCE
(O&M) COSTS. THE
REPLACEMENT OF WATER
PIPELINES WILL
DECREASE O&M COSTS.
NO ADDITIONAL
TRAINING WILL BE
REQUIRED. CURRENT
STAFF ARE ALREADY
TRAINED ON TANK
OPERATIONS.
ALTERNATIVE WILL
MEET OPERATIONAL
PRESSURES AND ALSO
FIRE CODE.
C. FEASIBILITY OF ALTERNATIVES:
Alternative A is “not feasible” as it continues to proliferate inadequate system pressures for sanitary code and a system that is unable to meet Fire Code requirements for various sections of the City.
Alternative B is “feasible” as it would allow Woodlake to operate its water system within its State Permit limits pursuant to the recent Sanitary Survey and its adopted water system master plan. To facilitate its implementation, however, this project could easily be phased.
Alternatives C and D are technically “feasible”, but due to the excessive cost that would be incurred and passed along to rate payers; these alternatives are deemed “infeasible” at this time. 266
31 SECTION 5: SELECTION OF AN ALTERNATIVE
5.1 LIFE CYCLE COST ANALYSIS
Following is a life cycle analysis of the following project components; upgrade the current facilities and installing a new storage tank and booster pump station:
Table 10: Updating current facilities
Project
Components
Alternatives
A
Total
Project
Cost
B
Annual
O&M
C
P.W. O&M
P/A,
1.6%, 20 years
(P.W. Factor
17.169)
D
Salvage Value
(20%, Total
Project Cost)
E
P.W. Salvage
P/F 1.6%,
20yrs (P.W.
Factor –
0.7425)
A+C-E
Net present
worth
Water pipeline
replacements &
new installations
$3,894,958 $50,000 $858,450.00 $778,991.64 $578,401.29 $4,175,006.91 Table 11: Installing new storage tank and booster pump
Project
Components
Alternatives
A
Total
Project
Cost
B
Annual
O&M
C
P.W. O&M
P/A,
1.6%, 20 years
(P.W. Factor
17.169)
D
Salvage Value
(20%, Total
Project Cost)
E
P.W. Salvage
P/F 1.6%, 20yrs
(P.W. Factor –
0.7425)
A+C-E
Net present
worth
Install new
1.5MG Water
Tank & 1,250
GPM Booster
Pump
$4,731,000 $85,000 $1,459,365.00 $946,200.00 $702,553.50 $5,487,811.50
5.2 NON-MONETARY FACTORS ANALYSIS
Option #2 is recommended for Implementation.
267
32 SECTION 6: PROPOSED PROJECT (RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVES) The proposed project should consist of the following components:
1. Remove and replace 17,470 LF of existing water pipelines, ranging from 8” – 18”.
2. Install 10,480 LF of new water pipelines, ranging from 8” – 18”.
3. Install 1.5 MG water storage tank in southwest Woodlake.
4. Install 1,500 GPM water booster pump at new storage tank.
See Figure 6 for a map of proposed project Improvements.
6.1 DESCRIPTION
It is proposed that the project be constructed as follows:
Table 12: Project Construction
Proposed Project
Component
Proposed Alternative Description Estimated Cost
Mobilization-related Mobilization/demobilization, clearing/grubbing, traffic control, SWWWP, dust control
$315,000
Water Main Replacement Replace leaking aged undersized water mains with 8”- 18” PVC water main based upon findings of systemwide study (~17,470 LF)$1,888,450 Water Main Installations Install 8”-18” PVC water mains based upon findings of system-wide study (~10,480 LF) $1,528,180
Water Storage Install 1.5 MG water storage tank to meet firm water supply and meet AWWA standards/Fire Code $4,000,000
Booster Pump Install 1,250 GPM booster pump at new water tank site $150,000
Non-construction Costs Legal, Design, Project Admin, CM/CA, Contingencies $2,253,480 TOTAL PROJECT COST $10,135,110
6.2 PROJECT SCHEDULE
Table 13: Project Schedule
Milestone Schedule
Water Pipeline replacement/upgrade project October 2024 – June 2026 New Water Main project October 2024 – April 2026
New 1.5 MG Water Storage Tank & Booster Pump January 2024 – June 2026
6.3 PERMIT REQUIREMENTS
The project will warrant an application with the State of California Department of Public Health to amend the City of Woodlake Water Supply Permit. This process is fairly straightforward and, since the project components are all items that the State has directed the City to address, this process should be accomplished within a 60-day interval.
This project will not require any permits as everything is happening within the City’s existing ROW. 268
33 SUSTAINABILITY CONSIDERATION
Water Efficiency:
Replacing existing aged and undersized water mains will result in more efficient water usage in the City’s system. In addition, undersized water mains result in excessive pipeline velocities and inadequate system pressures. This results in taxing water wells and pumping to keep up and/or produce the system pressures.
Sizing water mains appropriately will result in a more efficient system with less leakage and more efficient water usage.
In addition, the additional water storage tank will allow the City to store more water for usage during peak times and create greater reliability within the system; again decreasing stress on the water wells to be utilized to meet peak demands.
Energy Efficiency:
In addition, the additional water storage tank will allow the City to pump water during the evening and have more water on hand during the day when energy costs are higher. This will provide for more efficient use of electricity during peak usage hours.
6.4 TOTAL PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
See Appendix “G” for the Total Project Cost Estimate for this project. See Appendix “H” for detailed cost estimates of the project components.
6.5 ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET
6.1. INCOME
As a result of the project, the City of Woodlake will need to adopt a revised water rate schedule, reflecting a 18.7% increase, that will be effective once the water meters are fully installed and the billing systems is fully operational. It is recommended that the increase be done over two (2) years to lessen the impact on the ratepayers. The rate schedule, once fully in place, would be as follows:
Table 14: Rate schedule
Account Type Current Monthly
Rates
Proposed Monthly Rates
(rounded to nearest $.10)
Single-Family Res. $37.00 $44.00
Duplex/Apartments $74.00 $87.00
¾ inch line $37.00 $33.60
1 inch line $37.00 $44.00
1.5 inch line $74.00 $87.00
2 inch line $99.00 $117.00
3 inch line $148.00 $175.00
4 inch line $197.00 $232.00
6 inch line $296.00 $349.00
The City of Woodlake can expect to receive the following income as a result of this project:
269
34 Table 15: Income
Activity
2021-22 Adopted
Budget / Revenue
Revised Budget
Revenue*, Postproject
Additional Revenue
Due to Project
Interest Income $1,000 $1,000 $0
Reimbursements, etc. $0 $0 $0
Service Charges $1,650,000 $1,958,550 $0
Installations $5,000 $5,000 $0
Penalties $20,000 $20,000 $0
Turn on/off Charges $5,000 $5,000 $0
Water Impact Fees $100,000 $100,000 $0
TOTAL REVENUE $1,297,600 $1,606,150 $0
* The proposed revenue needs to cover the operating budget including the equipment reserve.
6.2. ANNUAL OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE (O&M) COSTS:
Following is the annual operations and maintenance cost that the City of Woodlake can expect to incur after the project is completed:
Table 16: Annual Operations and Maintenance Cost
O&M Cost Estimate
Personnel (salary, benefits, payroll tax, insurance, training) $675,000 Administrative Costs (office supplies, printing, etc.) $14,000 Auditing Services $15,000
Legal Services $1,000
Energy Costs (fuel and electrical) $140,000
Process Chemical (chlorine production) [Special Dept Expense?] $70,000 Training $2,000
Vehicle Maintenance $15,000
Capital Outlay $5,000
SCADA $10,000
Professional Services, Contractual Services $75,000
Loan #1 (1st Tank) P&I $84,330
Loan #2 (2014 Water Improvements) – P&I $115,629
Costs Applied – Maint Shop $19,810
Costs Applied – Non-Department $29,588
Depreciation / Replacement $385,603
Total: $1,655,660
6.3. DEBT REPAYMENTS
Debt repayment will be from increased revenues from the new rate schedule for provision of water service and the addition of new customers over time. No other sources of funds are anticipated for use to make debt service payments for this project.
6.4. RESERVES
6.4.1. DEBT SERVICE RESERVES
The City of Woodlake will establish a debt service reserve account that will, at a minimum, 10% in addition to the annual debt service payment requirement.
270
35 6.4.2. SHORT-LIVED ASSET RESERVE
To ensure that the City of Woodlake has adequate resources to replace the components of this project in the future an asset replacement account will be established that will set aside an annual allocation so that these components can be replaced as they wear out or become functionally obsolete. The following is a schedule that shows the level of annual funding that will be placed in this account.
Table 17: Annual Funding for each Account
Equipment
Useful Life
(years)
Replacement
Cost
Annual
Reserve
Level Sensors in Tanks 10 years $10,000 $1,000
Miscellaneous Valving 15 years $50,000 $3,333
Booster Pump 15 years $100,000 $6,666
Totals: $10,999
SECTION 7: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The proposed project will allow the City of Woodlake to correct several specific water system deficiencies identified in the October 2022, Existing Systems Evaluation - Technical Memorandum conducted by AKEL Engineering Group, INC. The recommendations provided by AKEL will be as follows:
1. Allow the City to maintain adequate system pressures to meet minimum operational and sanitary function of the water system by installing 5.3 Miles of pipeline improvements ranging from 8-inch to 18-inch in diameter.
2. Allow the City to provide the Fire Code firm water capacity and increase water system energy efficiency by installing a new 1.5 MG water storage tank.
3. Allow the City to meet firm water capacity and stabilize system pressures by installing a 1,250 GPM booster pump at the new water tank site.
It is the recommendation of 4Creeks, Inc., serving as the City of Woodlake’s engineer for this project, that the project be funded, and implemented as described in this Preliminary Engineering Report (PER). 271
272
37 APPENDIX A
INITIAL STUDY
273
38 APPENDIX B
NEPA
274
39 APPENDIX C
CEQA
275
40 APPENDIX D
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
276
41 APPENDIX E
EXCERPTS
AUGUST 23, 2019 SANITARY SURVEY
CITY OF WOODLAKE WATER SYSTEM
277
42 APPENDIX F
CITY OF WOODLAKE
ANNUAL BUDGET – FISCAL YEAR 21-22
278
43 APPENDIX G
CITY OF WOODLAKE
PROPOSED WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECT COST
279
44 APPENDIX H
CITY OF WOODLAKE
PROPOSED WATER SYSTEM PROJECT
DETAILED COST ESTIMATES
PROJECT COMPONENTS
280
45 APPENDIX I
CITY OF WOODLAKE
CURRENT WATER RATE SCHEDULE
Current Water Meter Line Rates
Unit Size 3/4" & 1" 1.5" 2" 3" 4" 6"
1 (SFH Included) $37 $74 $99 $148 $197 $296
2 $74 $148 $198 $296 $394 $592
3 $111 $222 $297 $444 $591 $888
4 $148 $296 $396 $592 $788 $1,184
5 $185 $370 $495 $740 $985 $1,480
6 $222 $444 $594 $888 $1,182 $1,776
7 $259 $518 $693 $1,036 $1,379 $2,072
8 $296 $592 $792 $1,184 $1,576 $2,368
9 $333 $666 $891 $1,332 $1,773 $2,664
10 $370 $740 $990 $1,480 $1,970 $2,960
11 $407 $814 $1,089 $1,628 $2,167 $3,256
12 $444 $888 $1,188 $1,776 $2,364 $3,552
13 $481 $962 $1,287 $1,924 $2,561 $3,848
14 $518 $1,036 $1,386 $2,072 $2,758 $4,144
15 $555 $1,110 $1,485 $2,220 $2,955 $4,440
16 $592 $1,184 $1,584 $2,368 $3,152 $4,736
17 $629 $1,258 $1,683 $2,516 $3,349 $5,032
18 $666 $1,332 $1,782 $2,664 $3,546 $5,328
19 $703 $1,406 $1,881 $2,812 $3,743 $5,624
20 $740 $1,480 $1,980 $2,960 $3,940 $5,920
21 $777 $1,554 $2,079 $3,108 $4,137 $6,216
22 $814 $1,628 $2,178 $3,256 $4,334 $6,512
23 $851 $1,702 $2,277 $3,404 $4,531 $6,808
24 $888 $1,776 $2,376 $3,552 $4,728 $7,104
25 $925 $1,850 $2,475 $3,700 $4,925 $7,400
26 $962 $1,924 $2,574 $3,848 $5,122 $7,696
27 $999 $1,998 $2,673 $3,996 $5,319 $7,992
28 $1,036 $2,072 $2,772 $4,144 $5,516 $8,288
29 $1,073 $2,146 $2,871 $4,292 $5,713 $8,584
30 $1,110 $2,220 $2,970 $4,440 $5,910 $8,880
281
46 31 $1,147 $2,294 $3,069 $4,588 $6,107 $9,176
32 $1,184 $2,368 $3,168 $4,736 $6,304 $9,472
33 $1,221 $2,442 $3,267 $4,884 $6,501 $9,768
34 $1,258 $2,516 $3,366 $5,032 $6,698 $10,064
35 $1,295 $2,590 $3,465 $5,180 $6,895 $10,360
36 $1,332 $2,664 $3,564 $5,328 $7,092 $10,656
37 $1,369 $2,738 $3,663 $5,476 $7,289 $10,952
38 $1,406 $2,812 $3,762 $5,624 $7,486 $11,248
39 $1,443 $2,886 $3,861 $5,772 $7,683 $11,544
40 $1,480 $2,960 $3,960 $5,920 $7,880 $11,840
41 $1,517 $3,034 $4,059 $6,068 $8,077 $12,136
42 $1,554 $3,108 $4,158 $6,216 $8,274 $12,432
43 $1,591 $3,182 $4,257 $6,364 $8,471 $12,728
44 $1,628 $3,256 $4,356 $6,512 $8,668 $13,024
45 $1,665 $3,330 $4,455 $6,660 $8,865 $13,320
46 $1,702 $3,404 $4,554 $6,808 $9,062 $13,616
47 $1,739 $3,478 $4,653 $6,956 $9,259 $13,912
48 $1,776 $3,552 $4,752 $7,104 $9,456 $14,208
49 $1,813 $3,626 $4,851 $7,252 $9,653 $14,504
50 $1,850 $3,700 $4,950 $7,400 $9,850 $14,800
51 $1,887 $3,774 $5,049 $7,548 $10,047 $15,096
52 $1,924 $3,848 $5,148 $7,696 $10,244 $15,392
53 $1,961 $3,922 $5,247 $7,844 $10,441 $15,688
54 $1,998 $3,996 $5,346 $7,992 $10,638 $15,984
55 $2,035 $4,070 $5,445 $8,140 $10,835 $16,280
56 $2,072 $4,144 $5,544 $8,288 $11,032 $16,576
57 $2,109 $4,218 $5,643 $8,436 $11,229 $16,872
58 $2,146 $4,292 $5,742 $8,584 $11,426 $17,168
59 $2,183 $4,366 $5,841 $8,732 $11,623 $17,464
60 $2,220 $4,440 $5,940 $8,880 $11,820 $17,760
61 $2,257 $4,514 $6,039 $9,028 $12,017 $18,056
62 $2,294 $4,588 $6,138 $9,176 $12,214 $18,352
63 $2,331 $4,662 $6,237 $9,324 $12,411 $18,648
64 $2,368 $4,736 $6,336 $9,472 $12,608 $18,944
65 $2,405 $4,810 $6,435 $9,620 $12,805 $19,240
66 $2,442 $4,884 $6,534 $9,768 $13,002 $19,536
67 $2,479 $4,958 $6,633 $9,916 $13,199 $19,832
68 $2,516 $5,032 $6,732 $10,064 $13,396 $20,128
69 $2,553 $5,106 $6,831 $10,212 $13,593 $20,424
70 $2,590 $5,180 $6,930 $10,360 $13,790 $20,720
282
City of Woodlake
AGENDA ITEM V-G
January 8, 2024
Prepared by Emmanuel Llamas, City Staff
SUBJECT:
Action: Adoption of Resolution: Approval of a Categorical Exemption and Categorical Exclusion for the Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) Planning Document BACKGROUND:
A PER is a planning document required by many state and federal agencies as part of the process of obtaining financial assistance for development of drinking water, wastewater, solid waste, and stormwater projects. The City contracted with engineering firm 4Creeks, Inc. in late 2021 to develop the Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) to determine the current and future needs of the City water system.
DISCUSSION:
Overall, the PER stated that the water system is currently adequate and able to support the City’s water demands. The study does recommend that the City should pursue projects as soon as possible to maintain our level of service, which included items such as: add a 1.5 mg storage tank, replace aging water lines, install a 1,250 GPM booster pump at new storage tank location, and adding a new well.
The City, with support from environmental consultants at 4Creeks Inc, has evaluated the project within the context of CEQA and has determined that the project qualifies for Categorical Exemption 15332 (c), and Categorical Exclusion 1970.54(a)(4).
RECCOMENDATIONS:
City staff recommends that Council approves a Categorical Exemption and Categorical Exclusion for the City of Woodlake’s Preliminary Engineering Report for proposed water system upgrades projects.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. CEQA Categorical Exemption
2. NEPA Categorical Exclusion
3. Resolution: Approval of a Categorical Exemption and Categorical Exclusion for the Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) Planning Document
283
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF WOODLAKE
COUNTY OF TULARE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In the matter of:
APPROVE A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION ) Resolution No. 24-
AND CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION )
FOR THE CITY OF WOODLAKE )
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT )
FOR PROPOSED WATER SYSTEM )
UPGRADES PROJECTS )
Councilmember_________________, offered the following resolution and moved its adoption. :
Approve a Categorical Exemption and Categorical Exclusion for the Preliminary Engineering Report for proposed water system upgrades projects.
WHEREAS, The City of Woodlake contracted 4Creeks Inc. to develop the Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) to determine the current and future needs of the City water system; and WHEREAS, The PER planning document is required by many state and federal agencies as part of the process of obtaining financial assistance for development of drinking water, wastewater, solid waste, and stormwater projects; and
WHEREAS, The City has evaluated the project within the context of CEQA and has determined that the project qualifies for Categorical Exemption 15332 (c).
WHEREAS, The City has evaluated the project within the context of NEPA and has determined that the project qualifies for Categorical Exclusion 1970.549 (a)(4).
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF WOODLAKE DOES RESOLVE to approve a Categorical Exemption and Categorical Exclusion for the Preliminary Engineering Report for proposed water system upgrades projects and authorizes the City Administrator to file a Notice of Exemption and Notice of Exclusion.
The foregoing resolution was adopted upon a motion of Councilmember____________________, and seconded by Councilmember___________________, and carried by the following vote at the City Council meeting held on January 8, 2024.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT: ___________________
Rudy Mendoza, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________
Irene Zacarias, City Clerk
284
Statutory Exemptions. State code number:
_______________________________________________
Print Form
Notice of Exemption Appendix E
To: Office of Planning and Research From: (Public Agency): ____________________________ P.O. Box 3044, Room 113 _______________________________________________ Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 County Clerk
(Address)
___________________________
___________________________
County of: __________________
Project Title: ____________________________________________________________________________ Project Applicant: ________________________________________________________________________ Project Location - Specific:
Project Location - City: ______________________ Project Location - County:
Description of Nature, Purpose and Beneficiaries of Project:
_____________________
Name of Public Agency Approving Project: _____________________________________________________ Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project: ________________________________________________ Exempt Status: (check one):
Ministerial (Sec. 21080(b)(1); 15268);
Declared Emergency (Sec. 21080(b)(3); 15269(a));
Emergency Project (Sec. 21080(b)(4); 15269(b)(c));
Reasons why project is exempt:
Lead Agency
Contact Person: ____________________________ Area Code/Telephone/Extension: _______________ If filed by applicant:
1. Attach certified document of exemption finding.
2. Has a Notice of Exemption been filed by the public agency approving the project? Yes No Signature: ____________________________ Date:
Signed by Lead Agency Signed by Applicant
Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21110, Public Resources Code. Date Received for filing at OPR:
Reference: Sections 21108, 21152, and 21152.1, Public Resources Code. _______________
Categorical Exemption. State type and section number: ____________________________________ ______________________________________________
______________ Title: _______________________
Revised 2011
285
NEPA CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
RURAL DEVELOPMENT
CITY OF WOODLAKE
RELIMINARY ENGINEER REPORT (PER)
Proposed 2023 Water System Upgrade Project
December 2023
PREPARED BY:
4-Creeks, Inc.
324 S Santa Fe, STE A
Visalia, CA 93292
PREPARED FOR:
City of Woodlake
350 N. Valencia Street
Woodlake, CA 93286
286
December 19, 2023
USDA Rural Development Office
3530 W Orchard Ct.
Visalia, CA 93277
RE: Categorical Exclusion Application for City of Woodlake 2023 Water System Upgrade Project To whom it may concern,
4-Creeks Inc. respectfully submits a Categorical Exclusion (CE) Application on behalf of the City of Woodlake for the City of Woodlake 2023 Water System Upgrade Project Preliminary Engineer Report (PER). We believe this project is crucial for ensuring the continued provision of safe and reliable water services to the residents of Woodlake. We have diligently compiled this application to align with the guidelines set by the USDA Rural Development and are committed to adhering to the highest standards of environmental stewardship.
Enclosed in this application package, you will find The USDA RD Environmental Checklist for Categorical Exclusions, the Environmental Report, and other relevant documentation to support a Categorical Exclusion determination.
Thank you for your assistance in the completion of this project. If you have any questions or concerns regarding this application, please email me at [email protected]. 4-Creeks Inc. will expedite any request for additional information or clarification.
Sincerely,
Molly Baumeister, AICP
Planner
List of Enclosed Attachments:
Attachment 1: NEPA Categorical Exclusion Environmental Report Attachment 2: CEQA Notice of Exemption
Attachment 3: Existing Water System Map
Attachment 4: Project Vicinity Map
Attachment 5: Proposed Project Map
Attachment 6: FEMA Floodplain Map
Attachment 7: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service IPaC Resource List Attachment 8: National Wetlands Inventory Map
287
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE RURAL DEVELOPMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FOR CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS
1. APPLICANT NAME: City of Woodlake
2. NAME OF PROPOSAL (provide brief description):
City of Woodlake Preliminary Engineer Report (PER) Proposed 2023 Water System Upgrade Project.
3. ADDRESS OR GENERAL LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: City of Woodlake, CA
4. FEDERAL
ACTION:
Loan Grant Guarantee
Construction Work Plan or
Loan/System Design
5. APPLICABLE RD PROGRAM:
6. THIS PROPOSAL QUALIFIES AS A CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION IN ACCORDANCE WITH § 1970.53 OR § 1970.54 (a)(4)
7. * ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT PREPARED FOR RD: YES NO
*This form can be used to document the consideration and incorporation by reference of environmental information from any source
8. S. 106 Findings: No Potential to Affect
No Historic Properties Affected No Adverse Effect to Historic Properties
9. Endangered Species Act, Section 7 Findings: Species/Habitat - Not Present Species/Habitat Present - No Effect
Species/Habitat Present - May Affect, Not Likely To Adversely Affect
10. IF PREPARED, ATTACH ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT (SEE EXHIBIT C) For the items listed below, indicate either a “Yes” or “No” in the appropriate columns. If the answer is ”Yes” in the “Adversely Affected” column for any listed resources, then an extraordinary circumstance exists and the proposed action is not eligible for a Categorical Exclusion.
288
Resources
Resources
Present Effects to Resources
Yes No No Effect Affected Adversely
Affected
a. Historic Properties/Cultural Resources (Historic Properties listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, sites of cultural or religious significance to tribes)
b. Threatened or Endangered Species, Critical Habitat, State Listed Species
c. Wetlands
d. Floodplains (100 or 500 year floodplains)
e. Formally Classified Lands (State/Federal Parks, Monuments, Natural Landmarks, Wilderness Areas, Wild and Scenic Rivers, National Forest System Lands, other Federal or State Lands, etc.) f. Water Resources (Sole Source Aquifers, Well-head protection areas, Watershed Protection Areas, etc.)
g. Coastal Resources (Coastal Barrier Resources System or Coastal Zone Management Areas)
h. Coral Reefs or Protected aquatic habitats (Only applies to American Samoa, Florida, Guam, Hawaii, Northern Marianna Islands, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands)
Questions Yes No
i. Is the proposal located on Important Farmland (Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Farmland of Local Importance) and if so, has Form AD-1006 been completed? j. Does the project threaten a violation of local, state, or federal statutory, regulatory, or permitting requirements and have all necessary permits been identified?
k. Is the proposal located within EPA-designated Non-Attainment or Maintenance Areas for Air Quality Criteria Pollutants?
l. Does the proposal result in the production of unpermitted hazardous materials or waste, or consist of construction of a new RCRA hazardous materials handling facility?
m. Does the proposal have any Environmental Justice concerns or disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations or low-income populations? n. Is the proposal controversial for environmental reasons? If so, attach a summary of the controversy(ies) and any actions taken and resolutions necessary to respond to the concerns.
o. Is the proposal controversial for other than environmental reasons? If so, attach a summary of the controversy(ies) and any actions taken and resolutions necessary to respond to the concerns. 289
11. FINDING: I find that the proposal meets the criteria established in 7 CFR §§1970.53, “Categorical Exclusions Involving No or Minimal Disturbance,” or 1970.54 (c), “Categorical Exclusions Involving Small-scale Development.” Upon review of the proposal’s description or the Environmental Report I find that the proposal is consistent with 40 CFR §1508.4, “Categorical Exclusion" and does not have any extraordinary circumstances or that the proposal individually or cumulatively does not have a significant effect on the human environment and, therefore, neither an Environmental Assessment nor an Environmental Impact Statement is required.
290
12. SIGNATURES:
12/20/23
12a. SIGNATURE OF PREPARER DATE
Molly Baumeister, AICP Planner (4-Creeks, Inc.)
NAME OF PREPARER
TITLE
12b. SIGNATURE OF STATE ENVIRONMENTAL
COORDINATOR OR NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL STAFF DATE
NAME OF STATE ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATOR OR
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL STAFF
TITLE
12c. SIGNATURE OF APPROVING OFFICIAL DATE
NAME OF APPROVING OFFICIAL TITLE
291
NEPA CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT
Attachment 1
292
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION – ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT
City of Woodlake Proposed 2023 Water System Upgrade Project United States Department of Agriculture
December 19, 2023
Purpose and Need for Action: The City of Woodlake Proposed 2023 Water System Upgrade project will affect a multitude of areas within the City of Woodlake, located North East of the City of Visalia at Latitude 36° 24’ 48.82”N and Longitude 119° 5’ 55.38”W. The proposed improvements will allow the City of Woodlake to correct several specific water system deficiencies identified in the October 2022, Existing Systems Evaluation - Technical Memorandum conducted by AKEL Engineering Group, INC. The proposed improvements include the following components:
1. Allow the City to maintain adequate system pressures to meet minimum operational and sanitary function of the water system by installing 5.3 Miles of pipeline improvements ranging from 8-inch to 18-inch in diameter.
2. Allow the City to provide the Fire Code firm water capacity and increase water system energy efficiency by installing a new 1.5 MG water storage tank.
3. Allow the City to meet firm water capacity and stabilize system pressures by installing a 1,250 GPM booster pump at the new water tank site.
Generally, the City of Woodlake water system is believed to not be in serviceable condition.
Based on the updated water model, flow test calibrations, and system analysis; there are sections of the City with undersized or not enough pipeline connectivity. This is leading to lower than acceptable fire flow around the City, especially in the industrial areas, and also lower than acceptable operational pressures at homes. These areas have been identified for pipeline upsizing, upgrades, and additional pipes to increase the water network functionality. The following objectives must be addressed to better operate the City of Woodlake Water System:
• Achieve and maintain adequate system pressures to meet minimum operational and sanitary requirements.
• Ensure compliance with the Fire Code's firm water capacity requirements and improve overall water system efficiency.
• Stabilize system pressures and ensure consistent firm water capacity across the network.
A map of the proposed project features is provided in Attachment 5: Proposed Project Map.
Land Ownership and Land Use: The proposed project would effect approximately 6.5 acres of land within the City of Woodlake. The project area is located entirely within the existing Rightof-Way and City-owned properties. The site does not contain any formally classified lands such as parks, wilderness areas, state or national forests, etc. 293
Surrounding land uses are mainly paved pervious surfaces which will not be affected by the proposed project. There are no zoning restrictions, as the project areas are located within the public ROW and City owned property, and the proposed project is consistent with the Cities Master Plan adopted in July 2006.
Two census tracts are associated with the project area (6107000702 & 6107000701). These tracts include high levels of low income and minority populations. These populations would not be adversely affected by the proposed project, which seeks to improve the effectiveness of the public water system.
Maps of the project area are provided in Attachment 4 and Attachment 5.
Historic Preservation: After referencing the California Register of Historical Resources and the National Register of Historic Places online mapping tool, the project is not located on any tribal lands and there are no known cultural or historic resources occurring within the project area.
Additionally, the Nationwide Programmatic Agreement between USDA RD and SHPO identifies the project type as one that does not have the potential to cause effects on historic properties (See SHPO RD NPA, Appendix A).
Threatened and Endangered Species/Biological Resources: The proposed project will not affect any federally listed endangered or threatened species or listed critical habitat. This determination was made based on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) public database and the classification of project (See Attachment 7). Affected environments are limited to previously disturbed areas within the Ctiy’s existing water/street system and there are no identified critical habitats within the project site. Therefore, the Project would not adversely effect threatened and endangered species or other biological resources.
Wetlands: Following a review of the National Wetlands Inventory online mapping tool, the proposed project does not have the potential to effect any wetlands. There is only one site where the project intersects with a mapped wetland. At this site, a wetland, classified as a “Riverine” by the National Wetlands Inventory, crosses W Naranjo Blvd and intersects with the proposed pipeline. However, this riverine is already piped under the existing roadway and would not be effected by the proposed project. There are no other mapped wetlands within the project area, so the project would not have the potential to adversely impact wetlands. See Attachment 8: National Wetlands Inventory Map.
Floodplains: The proposed Project includes activities located within a floodplain, however these activities are limited to buried utility lines and would, therefore, not have the potential to adversely affect the hydrologic character of the floodplain. A map of the floodplains within the project area is provided in Attachment 6: FEMA Floodplain Map.
Coastal Areas: The project is located in an inland area and there are no coastal zone management areas or Coastal Barrier Resource Areas.
294
Important Farmland: The proposed project is located entirely within the City ROW and on City owned property and does not have the potential to convert agricultural lands to nonagricultural use.
Environmental Risk Management: The California Department of Toxic Substances Control’s (DTSC’s) Envirostor was used to identify any sites known to be associated with releases of hazardous materials or wastes within the project area. This research confirmed that the project would not be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to California Government Code Section 65962.5.
Project construction activities may involve the use and transport of hazardous materials, such as fuels, oils, and other chemicals (e.g., pains, lead, adhesives, etc.) typically used during construction. Improper use, transportation, and storage of hazardous materials could result in accidental releases or spills that could pose health risks to workers, the public, and the environment. However, all materials used during construction would be contained, stored, and handled in compliance with all applicable standards and regulations established by DTSC, the EPA, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).
Once constructed, the proposed project would not generate, release, or involve the routine use of any hazardous materials. There is no reasonably foreseeable condition or incident involving the project that could result in release of hazardous materials into the environment Other Resources: The proposed project is located within the Kaweah Wastershed Basin. Water supplies of the Kaweah Basin are continually under threat from issues such as water rights conflicts, the possible impacts of climate change, exportation, loss of flood flows, and water quality issues. The basin is located in the south central portion of the San Joaquin Valley and lies in portions of both Tulare and Kings Counties. The total acreage of the basin is 340,000 acres.
The proposed Project site is not located within or near any key water resource areas, such as sole source aquifers, wellhead protection areas or coral reef ecosystems. 295
CEQA NOTICE OF EXEMPTION
Attachment 2
296
Statutory Exemptions. State code number:
_______________________________________________
Print Form
Notice of Exemption Appendix E
To: Office of Planning and Research From: (Public Agency): ____________________________ P.O. Box 3044, Room 113 _______________________________________________ Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 County Clerk
(Address)
___________________________
___________________________
County of: __________________
Project Title: ____________________________________________________________________________ Project Applicant: ________________________________________________________________________ Project Location - Specific:
Project Location - City: ______________________ Project Location - County:
Description of Nature, Purpose and Beneficiaries of Project:
_____________________
Name of Public Agency Approving Project: _____________________________________________________ Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project: ________________________________________________ Exempt Status: (check one):
Ministerial (Sec. 21080(b)(1); 15268);
Declared Emergency (Sec. 21080(b)(3); 15269(a));
Emergency Project (Sec. 21080(b)(4); 15269(b)(c));
Reasons why project is exempt:
Lead Agency
Contact Person: ____________________________ Area Code/Telephone/Extension: _______________ If filed by applicant:
1. Attach certified document of exemption finding.
2. Has a Notice of Exemption been filed by the public agency approving the project? Yes No Signature: ____________________________ Date:
Signed by Lead Agency Signed by Applicant
Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21110, Public Resources Code. Date Received for filing at OPR:
Reference: Sections 21108, 21152, and 21152.1, Public Resources Code. _______________
Categorical Exemption. State type and section number: ____________________________________ ______________________________________________
______________ Title: _______________________
Revised 2011
297
EXISTING WATER SYSTEM MAP
Attachment 3
298
%2%2
%2 %2
%2
%2 %2
%2
%2
%2 %2
%2
%2
%2
*#
*#
Friant-Kern Canal
ROAD 204
ROAD 196
ROAD 200
N CYPRESS ST
AVENUE 344
AVENUE 352
N VALENCIA BLVD
AVENUE 332
E SIERRA AVE
RIVERSIDE AVE
E LAKEVIEW AVE
E NARANJO BLVD
S VALENCIA BLVD
OLIVERA DR
ROAD 192
ROAD 222
N PALM ST
ROAD 220
MILLWOOD DR
AVENUE 336
W BRAVO AVE
ROAD 206
ROAD 212
AVENUE 360
AVENUE 328
·|þ}216
·|þ}245
Woodlake
WELL6
(Not in Service)
WELL9
WELL8
WELL11
WELL12 WELL10
WELL14
WELL13
Legend
City Limits
Major Roads
Streets
*# Water Tanks
%2 Water Wells
%2
New Water Wells
Post-2014
Water Pipelines
New Water Pipelines
Post-2014
City of Woodlake
Figure 2 - Existing Water System
0 1,200 2,400
Feet
1 inch = 2,400 feet
Bravo
Lake
A n te l o p e
M o u n t a i n
C o l v i n M o u n t a i n
9,000-gal
Hydropneumatic Tank
0.5-MG
Water Tank
0.5-MG
Water Tank
299
PROJECT VICINITY MAP
Attachment 4
300
Cypress Street
Riverside Ave
Road 220
Road 204
Valencia Blvd
Naranjo
Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community, Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the Date: 12/18/2023 GIS User Community 1 in = 3,000 feet
Project Area
Legend
Woodlake City Limits
Exhibit A
301
Date: 12/18/2023 Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, 1 in = 3,000 feet USGS Topographic Map
Legend
Woodlake City Limits
Exhibit B
302
PROPOSED PROJECT MAP
Attachment 5
303
")
")
")
!?
!? !?
!?
!?
!?
'4
")
#0
Cypress Street
Riverside Ave
Road 220
Road 204
Valencia Blvd
Naranjo
Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User City of Woodlake
Date: 12/19/2023 1 in = 3,000 feet
PROPOSED 2023 WATER SYSTEM UPGRADE PROJECT
Legend
PER Identified New Pipeline
PER Identified Pipeline Improvements
#0 PER Identified Storage Improvements
") Existing Sand Separater
'4 Existing SCADA Control System
!? Existing Water Wells
") Existing Water Tank
Existing Water Pipes
Woodlake City Limits
PROPOSED PROJECT
304
FEMA FLOODPLAIN MAP
Attachment 6
305
#0
Cypress Street
Riverside Ave
Road 220
Road 204
Valencia Blvd
Naranjo
Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User City of Woodlake
Date: 12/19/2023 1 in = 3,000 feet
PROPOSED 2023 WATER SYSTEM UPGRADE PROJECT
Legend
#0 PER Identified Storage Improvements
PER Identified New Pipeline
PER Identified Pipeline Improvements
Woodlake City Limits
FEMA Flood Zone
A
AE
AH
FEMA FLOOD ZONE MAP
306
U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE
IPaC RESOURCE LIST
Attachment 7
307
IPaC resource list
This report is an automatically generated list of species and other resources such as critical habitat (collectively referred to as trust resources) under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) jurisdiction that are known or expected to be on or near the project area referenced below. The list may also include trust resources that occur outside of the project area, but that could potentially be directly or indirectly affected by activities in the project area. However, determining the likelihood and extent of effects a project may have on trust resources typically requires gathering additional sitespecific (e.g., vegetation/species surveys) and project-specific (e.g., magnitude and timing of proposed activities) information.
Below is a summary of the project information you provided and contact information for the USFWS office(s) with jurisdiction in the defined project area. Please read the introduction to each section that follows (Endangered Species, Migratory Birds, USFWS Facilities, and NWI Wetlands) for additional information applicable to the trust resources addressed in that section.
Location
Tulare County, California
Local office
Sacramento Fish And Wildlife Office
(916) 414-6600
(916) 414-6713
Federal Building
2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605
Sacramento, CA 95825-1846
IPaC Information for Planning and Consultation U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 308
Endangered species
This resource list is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an analysis of project level impacts.
The primary information used to generate this list is the known or expected range of each species.
Additional areas of influence (AOI) for species are also considered. An AOI includes areas outside of the species range if the species could be indirectly affected by activities in that area (e.g., placing a dam upstream of a fish population even if that fish does not occur at the dam site, may indirectly impact the species by reducing or eliminating water flow downstream). Because species can move, and site conditions can change, the species on this list are not guaranteed to be found on or near the project area. To fully determine any potential effects to species, additional site-specific and project-specific information is often required.
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of such proposed action" for any project that is conducted, permitted, funded, or licensed by any Federal agency. A letter from the local office and a species list which fulfills this requirement can only be obtained by requesting an official species list from either the Regulatory Review section in IPaC (see directions below) or from the local field office directly.
For project evaluations that require USFWS concurrence/review, please return to the IPaC website and request an official species list by doing the following:
1. Draw the project location and click CONTINUE.
2. Click DEFINE PROJECT.
3. Log in (if directed to do so).
4. Provide a name and description for your project.
5. Click REQUEST SPECIES LIST.
Listed species and their critical habitats are managed by the Ecological Services Program of the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the fisheries division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA Fisheries ).
Species and critical habitats under the sole responsibility of NOAA Fisheries are not shown on this list.
Please contact NOAA Fisheries for species under their jurisdiction.
1. Species listed under the Endangered Species Act are threatened or endangered; IPaC also shows species that are candidates, or proposed, for listing. See the listing status page for more information. IPaC only shows species that are regulated by USFWS (see FAQ).
2. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce.
The following species are potentially affected by activities in this location:
Mammals
1 2
309
Birds
Reptiles
Amphibians
Insects
NAME STATUS
Fisher Pekania pennanti
There is proposed critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3651
Endangered
San Joaquin Kit Fox Vulpes macrotis mutica
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2873
Endangered
Tipton Kangaroo Rat Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7247
Endangered
NAME STATUS
California Condor Gymnogyps californianus
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8193
Endangered
NAME STATUS
Northwestern Pond Turtle Actinemys marmorata
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1111
Proposed Threatened
NAME STATUS
California Tiger Salamander Ambystoma californiense
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2076
Threatened
NAME STATUS
310
Crustaceans
Flowering Plants
Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743
Candidate
NAME STATUS
Conservancy Fairy Shrimp Branchinecta conservatio
Wherever found
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8246
Endangered
Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp Branchinecta lynchi
Wherever found
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/498
Threatened
Vernal Pool Tadpole Shrimp Lepidurus packardi
Wherever found
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2246
Endangered
NAME STATUS
Greene's Tuctoria Tuctoria greenei
Wherever found
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1573
Endangered
Hoover's Spurge Chamaesyce hooveri
Wherever found
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3019
Threatened
San Joaquin Adobe Sunburst Pseudobahia peirsonii
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2931
Threatened
311
Critical habitats
Potential effects to critical habitat(s) in this location must be analyzed along with the endangered species themselves.
There are no critical habitats at this location.
You are still required to determine if your project(s) may have effects on all above listed species.
Bald & Golden Eagles
There are bald and/or golden eagles in your project area.
For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, see the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY below to see when these birds are most likely to be present and breeding in your project area.
San Joaquin Valley Orcutt Grass Orcuttia inaequalis
Wherever found
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5506
Threatened
Bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act .
Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to bald or golden eagles, or their habitats , should follow appropriate regulations and consider implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described in the links below. Specifically, please review the "Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles".
Additional information can be found using the following links:
Eagle Management https://www.fws.gov/program/eagle-management Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds
https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/avoiding-and-minimizing-incidental-take-migratory-birds Nationwide conservation measures for birds
https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/nationwide-standard-conservationmeasures.pdf Supplemental Information for Migratory Birds and Eagles in IPaC https://www.fws.gov/media/supplemental-information-migratory-birds-and-bald-and-goldeneagles-may-occur-project-action 1 2
3 312
BREEDING SEASON
Probability of Presence Summary
The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read "Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles", specifically the FAQ section titled "Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting to interpret this report.
Probability of Presence ( )
Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project overlaps during a particular week of the year. (A year is represented as 12 4-week months.) A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey effort (see below) can be used to establish a level of confidence in the presence score. One can have higher confidence in the presence score if the corresponding survey effort is also high.
How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps:
1. The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in the week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events for that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted Towhee was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is 0.25.
2. To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of presence is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence in week 20 for the Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week 12 (0.25) is the maximum of any week of the year. The relative probability of presence on week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is
0.05/0.25 = 0.2.
3. The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical conversion so that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the probability of presence score.
To see a bar's probability of presence score, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.
Breeding Season ( )
NAME
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus
This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities.
Breeds Jan 1 to Aug 31
Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos
This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1680
Breeds Jan 1 to Aug 31
313
probability of presence breeding season survey effort no data Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time-frame inside which the bird breeds across its entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project area.
Survey Effort ( )
Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. The number of surveys is expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys.
To see a bar's survey effort range, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.
No Data ( )
A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week.
Survey Timeframe
Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant information. The exception to this is areas off the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse.
SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Bald Eagle
Non-BCC
Vulnerable
Golden Eagle
Non-BCC
Vulnerable
What does IPaC use to generate the potential presence of bald and golden eagles in my specified location? The potential for eagle presence is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets and is queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identified as warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act requirements may apply). To see a list of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the Rapid Avian Information Locator (RAIL) Tool.
What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs of bald and golden eagles in my specified location?
The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) and other species that may warrant special attention in your project location.
The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets and is queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identified as warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act requirements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to offshore activities or development.
Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your project area. It is not representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the Rapid Avian Information Locator (RAIL) Tool. 314
What if I have eagles on my list?
If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid violating the Eagle Act should such impacts occur. Please contact your local Fish and Wildlife Service Field Office if you have questions.
Migratory birds
The birds listed below are birds of particular concern either because they occur on the USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) list or warrant special attention in your project location. To learn more about the levels of concern for birds on your list and how this list is generated, see the FAQ below. This is not a list of every bird you may find in this location, nor a guarantee that every bird on this list will be found in your project area. To see exact locations of where birders and the general public have sighted birds in and around your project area, visit the E-bird data mapping tool (Tip: enter your location, desired date range and a species on your list). For projects that occur off the Atlantic Coast, additional maps and models detailing the relative occurrence and abundance of bird species on your list are available. Links to additional information about Atlantic Coast birds, and other important information about your migratory bird list, including how to properly interpret and use your migratory bird report, can be found below.
For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, see the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY below to see when these birds are most likely to be present and breeding in your project area.
BREEDING SEASON
Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act .
Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to migratory birds, eagles, and their habitats should follow appropriate regulations and consider implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described in the links below. Specifically, please review the "Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles".
1. The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918.
2. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940.
Additional information can be found using the following links:
Eagle Management https://www.fws.gov/program/eagle-management Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds
https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/avoiding-and-minimizing-incidental-take-migratory-birds Nationwide conservation measures for birds https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/ documents/nationwide-standard-conservation-measures.pdf Supplemental Information for Migratory Birds and Eagles in IPaC https://www.fws.gov/media/supplemental-information-migratory-birds-and-bald-and-goldeneagles-may-occur-project-action 1 2
3 NAME
315
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus
This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities.
Breeds Jan 1 to Aug 31
Belding's Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8
Breeds Apr 1 to Aug 15
Black Tern Chlidonias niger
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3093
Breeds May 15 to Aug 20
Bullock's Oriole Icterus bullockii
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA
Breeds Mar 21 to Jul 25
California Gull Larus californicus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
Breeds Mar 1 to Jul 31
Clark's Grebe Aechmophorus clarkii
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
Breeds Jun 1 to Aug 31
Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas sinuosa
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2084
Breeds May 20 to Jul 31
Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos
This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1680
Breeds Jan 1 to Aug 31
Lawrence's Goldfinch Carduelis lawrencei
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9464
Breeds Mar 20 to Sep 20
316
Probability of Presence Summary
The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read "Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles", specifically the FAQ section titled "Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting to interpret this report.
Probability of Presence ( )
Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project overlaps during a particular week of the year. (A year is represented as 12 4-week months.) A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey effort (see below) can be used to establish a level of confidence in the presence score. One can have higher confidence in the presence score if the corresponding survey effort is also high.
How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps:
1. The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in the week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events for that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted Towhee was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is 0.25.
Marbled Godwit Limosa fedoa
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9481
Breeds elsewhere
Nuttall's Woodpecker Picoides nuttallii
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9410
Breeds Apr 1 to Jul 20
Oak Titmouse Baeolophus inornatus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9656
Breeds Mar 15 to Jul 15
Tricolored Blackbird Agelaius tricolor
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3910
Breeds Mar 15 to Aug 10
Western Grebe aechmophorus occidentalis
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6743
Breeds Jun 1 to Aug 31
317
probability of presence breeding season survey effort no data
2. To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of presence is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence in week 20 for the Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week 12 (0.25) is the maximum of any week of the year. The relative probability of presence on week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is
0.05/0.25 = 0.2.
3. The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical conversion so that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the probability of presence score.
To see a bar's probability of presence score, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.
Breeding Season ( )
Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time-frame inside which the bird breeds across its entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project area.
Survey Effort ( )
Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. The number of surveys is expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys.
To see a bar's survey effort range, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.
No Data ( )
A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week.
Survey Timeframe
Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant information. The exception to this is areas off the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse.
SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Bald Eagle
Non-BCC
Vulnerable
Belding's Savannah
Sparrow
BCC - BCR
Black Tern
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Bullock's Oriole
BCC - BCR
California Gull
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Clark's Grebe
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
318
Common
Yellowthroat
BCC - BCR
Golden Eagle
Non-BCC
Vulnerable
Lawrence's
Goldfinch
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Marbled Godwit
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Nuttall's
Woodpecker
BCC - BCR
Oak Titmouse
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Tricolored
Blackbird
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Western Grebe
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Tell me more about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds.
Nationwide Conservation Measures describes measures that can help avoid and minimize impacts to all birds at any location year round. Implementation of these measures is particularly important when birds are most likely to occur in the project area. When birds may be breeding in the area, identifying the locations of any active nests and avoiding their destruction is a very helpful impact minimization measure. To see when birds are most likely to occur and be breeding in your project area, view the Probability of Presence Summary. Additional measures or permits may be advisable depending on the type of activity you are conducting and the type of infrastructure or bird species present on your project site.
What does IPaC use to generate the list of migratory birds that potentially occur in my specified location? The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) and other species that may warrant special attention in your project location.
The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets and is queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identified as warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act requirements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to offshore activities or development.
Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your project area. It is not representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the Rapid Avian Information Locator (RAIL) Tool. 319
What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs for the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location?
The probability of presence graphs associated with your migratory bird list are based on data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). This data is derived from a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets.
Probability of presence data is continuously being updated as new and better information becomes available. To learn more about how the probability of presence graphs are produced and how to interpret them, go the Probability of Presence Summary and then click on the "Tell me about these graphs" link.
How do I know if a bird is breeding, wintering or migrating in my area? To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding, wintering, migrating or yearround), you may query your location using the RAIL Tool and look at the range maps provided for birds in your area at the bottom of the profiles provided for each bird in your results. If a bird on your migratory bird species list has a breeding season associated with it, if that bird does occur in your project area, there may be nests present at some point within the timeframe specified. If "Breeds elsewhere" is indicated, then the bird likely does not breed in your project area.
What are the levels of concern for migratory birds?
Migratory birds delivered through IPaC fall into the following distinct categories of concern:
1. "BCC Rangewide" birds are Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) that are of concern throughout their range anywhere within the USA (including Hawaii, the Pacific Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands);
2. "BCC - BCR" birds are BCCs that are of concern only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA; and
3. "Non-BCC - Vulnerable" birds are not BCC species in your project area, but appear on your list either because of the Eagle Act requirements (for eagles) or (for non-eagles) potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities (e.g. offshore energy development or longline fishing).
Although it is important to try to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, efforts should be made, in particular, to avoid and minimize impacts to the birds on this list, especially eagles and BCC species of rangewide concern. For more information on conservation measures you can implement to help avoid and minimize migratory bird impacts and requirements for eagles, please see the FAQs for these topics.
Details about birds that are potentially affected by offshore projects For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species and groups of bird species within your project area off the Atlantic Coast, please visit the Northeast Ocean Data Portal. The Portal also offers data and information about other taxa besides birds that may be helpful to you in your project review.
Alternately, you may download the bird model results files underlying the portal maps through the NOAA NCCOS Integrative Statistical Modeling and Predictive Mapping of Marine Bird Distributions and Abundance on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf project webpage.
Bird tracking data can also provide additional details about occurrence and habitat use throughout the year, including migration. Models relying on survey data may not include this information. For additional information on marine bird tracking data, see the Diving Bird Study and the nanotag studies or contact Caleb Spiegel or Pam Loring.
What if I have eagles on my list?
If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid violating the Eagle Act should such impacts occur.
320
Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report The migratory bird list generated is not a list of all birds in your project area, only a subset of birds of priority concern.
To learn more about how your list is generated, and see options for identifying what other birds may be in your project area, please see the FAQ "What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location". Please be aware this report provides the "probability of presence" of birds within the 10 km grid cell(s) that overlap your project; not your exact project footprint. On the graphs provided, please also look carefully at the survey effort (indicated by the black vertical bar) and for the existence of the "no data" indicator (a red horizontal bar). A high survey effort is the key component. If the survey effort is high, then the probability of presence score can be viewed as more dependable. In contrast, a low survey effort bar or no data bar means a lack of data and, therefore, a lack of certainty about presence of the species. This list is not perfect; it is simply a starting point for identifying what birds of concern have the potential to be in your project area, when they might be there, and if they might be breeding (which means nests might be present). The list helps you know what to look for to confirm presence, and helps guide you in knowing when to implement conservation measures to avoid or minimize potential impacts from your project activities, should presence be confirmed. To learn more about conservation measures, visit the FAQ "Tell me about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds" at the bottom of your migratory bird trust resources page.
Facilities
National Wildlife Refuge lands
Any activity proposed on lands managed by the National Wildlife Refuge system must undergo a 'Compatibility Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the individual Refuges to discuss any questions or concerns.
There are no refuge lands at this location.
Fish hatcheries
There are no fish hatcheries at this location.
Wetlands in the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI)
Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes.
For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District.
321
Please note that the NWI data being shown may be out of date. We are currently working to update our NWI data set. We recommend you verify these results with a site visit to determine the actual extent of wetlands on site.
This location overlaps the following wetlands:
NOTE: This initial screening does not replace an on-site delineation to determine whether wetlands occur. Additional information on the NWI data is provided below.
Data limitations
The Service's objective of mapping wetlands and deepwater habitats is to produce reconnaissance level information on the location, type and size of these resources. The maps are prepared from the analysis of high altitude imagery.
Wetlands are identified based on vegetation, visible hydrology and geography. A margin of error is inherent in the use of imagery; thus, detailed on-the-ground inspection of any particular site may result in revision of the wetland boundaries or classification established through image analysis.
The accuracy of image interpretation depends on the quality of the imagery, the experience of the image analysts, the amount and quality of the collateral data and the amount of ground truth verification work conducted. Metadata should be consulted to determine the date of the source imagery used and any mapping problems.
Wetlands or other mapped features may have changed since the date of the imagery or field work. There may be occasional differences in polygon boundaries or classifications between the information depicted on the map and the actual conditions on site.
FRESHWATER EMERGENT WETLAND
PEM1C
PEM1Cx
PEM1Fh
FRESHWATER FORESTED/SHRUB WETLAND
PFOC
FRESHWATER POND
PUBKx
PUBHx
PUBFx
PUSAx
LAKE
L1UBHx
RIVERINE
R2UBHx
R2UBH
R4SBCx
R4SBC
R5UBF
A full description for each wetland code can be found at the National Wetlands Inventory website 322
Data exclusions
Certain wetland habitats are excluded from the National mapping program because of the limitations of aerial imagery as the primary data source used to detect wetlands. These habitats include seagrasses or submerged aquatic vegetation that are found in the intertidal and subtidal zones of estuaries and nearshore coastal waters. Some deepwater reef communities (coral or tuberficid worm reefs) have also been excluded from the inventory. These habitats, because of their depth, go undetected by aerial imagery.
Data precautions
Federal, state, and local regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands may define and describe wetlands in a different manner than that used in this inventory. There is no attempt, in either the design or products of this inventory, to define the limits of proprietary jurisdiction of any Federal, state, or local government or to establish the geographical scope of the regulatory programs of government agencies. Persons intending to engage in activities involving modifications within or adjacent to wetland areas should seek the advice of appropriate Federal, state, or local agencies concerning specified agency regulatory programs and proprietary jurisdictions that may affect such activities.
323
NATIONAL WETLANDS INVENTORY MAP
Attachment 8
324
")
")
")
!?
!? !?
!?
!?
!?
'4
")
#0
Cypress Street
Riverside Ave
Road 220
Road 204
Valencia Blvd
Naranjo
Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User City of Woodlake
Date: 12/19/2023 1 in = 3,000 feet
PROPOSED 2023 WATER SYSTEM UPGRADE PROJECT
Legend
PER Identified New Pipeline
PER Identified Pipeline Improvements
#0 PER Identified Storage Improvements
") Existing Sand Separater
'4 Existing SCADA Control System
!? Existing Water Wells
") Existing Water Tank
Existing Water Pipes
Woodlake City Limits
Wetlands
NATIONAL WETLANDS INVENTORY MAP
325
City of Woodlake
AGENDA ITEM V-H
January 8, 2024
Prepared by Ramon Lara, City Staff
SUBJECT:
Action: Adoption of Resolution: Authorize Staff to Submit a CMAQ or CRP Application for the City of Woodlake Roundabout at Mulberry St. and Naranjo Blvd. (SR-216) – Public Comment BACKGROUND:
The City of Woodlake’s Roundabout at Mulberry St. and Naranjo Blvd. (SR-216) will minimize congestion at the intersection and cut down on vehicular emissions and fuel consumption by reducing the vehicle idle time.
The project will also increase pedestrian and bike safety on Mulberry St. and Naranjo Blvd. with the addition of curb, gutters, sidewalks, crosswalks, streetlights, bike lanes and ADA ramps.
At its May 23, 2022, Council meeting, the Woodlake City Council approved the City to enter into an agreement with the Tulare County Transportation Authority to fund design of the project. At this meeting, Council, after staff and public input, prioritized the project to help improve current and future pedestrian, cycling and vehicular conditions do to the continued increased in commercial, industrial, and residential growth in the area.
At its July 25, 2022, meeting the design of the project was awarded to QK, Inc.
DISCUSSION:
City staff, Caltrans and QK, Inc. continue to have monthly meetings to address the design, environmental and right of way portions of the project. The project has continued to move along all necessary phases to have it ready for construction. At the same time the City, Caltrans and QK, Inc have continued to work with adjacent developers to assure that their improvements are compatible with the future roundabout and they are completing their fair share of improvements.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the City Submit a CMAQ or CRP application for the City of Woodlake Roundabout at Mulberry St. and Naranjo Blvd. (SR-216). The project will cut down on vehicular emissions and fuel consumption by reducing the vehicle idle time and increase pedestrian and bike safety.
FISCAL IMPACT:
All expenditures associated with the engineering and design portion of the project will be covered by TCTA Measure R and local street funds. The City is currently working with TCAG and Caltrans to procure construction funding.
326
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution: Authorize Staff to Submit a CMAQ or CRP Application for the City of Woodlake Roundabout at Mulberry St. and Naranjo Blvd. (SR-216)
2. Attachment No. 1 – Project Site Plan
327
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF WOODLAKE
COUNTY OF TULARE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In the matter of:
SUBMIT A CMAQ OR CRP APPLICATION FOR ) Resolution No.
THE CITY OF WOODLAKE ROUNDABOUT AT )
MULBERRY ST. AND NARANJO BLVD (SR-216) )
Councilmember ________, offered the following resolution and moved its adoption. Authorize staff to submit a CMAQ or CRP Application for the City of Woodlake Roundabout at Mulberry St. and Naranjo Blvd. (SR-216) after taking public comment.
WHEREAS, the City of Woodlake wishes to cut down on vehicular emissions and fuel consumption by reducing the vehicle idle time and increase pedestrian and bike safety at the intersection of Mulberry St. and Naranjo Blvd (SR-216); and WHEREAS, the design of the project will be covered with Measure R and local street funds; and WHEREAS, the City is currently working with TCAG and Caltrans to procure construction funding.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF WOODLAKE DOES RESOLVE to authorize staff to submit a CMAQ or CRP Application for the City of Woodlake Roundabout at Mulberry St. and Naranjo Blvd. (SR-216) after taking public comment while authorizing the City Administrator to execute all necessary documents.
The foregoing resolution was adopted upon a motion of Councilmember ________ and seconded by Councilmember ________ and carried by the following vote at the City Council meeting held on January 8, 2024.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
_____________________
Rudy Mendoza, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________
Irene Zacarias, City Clerk
328
NARANJO (SR 216) BOULEVARD
MULBERRY STREET
Ó
N
329
Ó
330