CONVEYANCE OF REFUGE WATER SUPPLY

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND

INITIAL STUDY

SOUTH SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY STUDY AREA

Kern National Wildlife Refuge

Pixley National Wildlife Refuge

Lead Agencies:

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

California Department of Fish and Game

PUBLIC DRAFT

August 2003
RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC)

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

Mid-Pacific Region

Sacramento, California

DRAFT FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

CONVEYANCE OF REFUGE WATER SUPPLY

SOUTH SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY STUDY AREA

Approved: ____________________________ _______________

Study Manager Date

Concur: ____________________________ ________________

Regional Environmental Officer Date

Approved: ____________________________ ________________

Chief, Division of Planning Date
RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) II 08/01/03

Draft Finding of No Significant Impact

Conveyance of Refuge Water Supply

South San Joaquin Valley Study Area

Lead Agency:

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

2800 Cottage Way

Sacramento, CA 95825

In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, and the Council

on Environmental Quality’s Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA (40 CFR

Parts 1500-1508), the Mid-Pacific Regional Office of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) has found

that the preferred alternatives would not significantly affect the quality of the environment. Therefore, an

Environmental Impact Statement is not required. Implementation of the preferred alternatives may take

place immediately.

Background

The USBR in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the California

Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) proposes to construct and/or improve existing facilities to convey

water supplies to the Kern and Pixley National Wildlife Refuges (NWR) within the southern San Joaquin

Valley in California. These facilities would convey firm, average annual historical water deliveries

(Level 2) in addition to an incremental amount of water supplies required for optimal wildlife

management (Level 4) from Central Valley Project (CVP) or State Water Project (SWP) facilities to the

boundary of each refuge as specified in Section 3406 (d)(5) of the Central Valley Project Improvement

Act (CVPIA), Public Law 102-575, Title XXIV, enacted October 1992.

Alternative conveyance methods were identified for each of the two refuges, including taking no-action.

Facilities included existing canals and conveyance facilities, in addition to new canals and pipelines. Each

alternative was addressed in an equal level of detail, and a proposed action selected for each of the

refuges. The identification of all potential alternatives was evaluated through feasibility studies and public

meetings which are presented in the April 1995 Decision Document Report of Recommended Alternatives

Refuge Water Supply and San Joaquin Basin Action Plan Lands. Additionally, the USBR and the USFWS

further refined the alternatives selected in the Decision Document in May 1995 document titled Refuge

Water Supply Conveyance Alternatives Refinement Memorandum. USBR further refined the preferred

alternative for the Kern NWR in 2003.

Proposed Actions

The following are the proposed actions for each of the refuge areas:

1. Kern NWR – Alternative KER-1A/1B. Use existing Buena Vista Water Storage District facilities;

improve West Side Canal; and use existing Main Drain Canal as a supplemental conveyance facility.

2. Pixley NWR – Alternative PIX-4B. Delano-Earlimart Irrigation District (DEID) facilities plus

pipeline to refuge.
DRAFT FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) III 08/01/03

The No-Action Alternative was not selected because it would not comply with Sections 3406 (d)(1) and

(d)(2) of the CVPIA, which specifies increasing water supplies to each of the refuges listed above.

Environmental Impacts

Implementation of the proposed actions are anticipated to result in the following beneficial impacts:

1. Increasing on-refuge habitat maintenance and enhancement opportunities

2. Decreasing disease outbreaks, especially botulism

The USBR prepared a draft Environmental Assessment/Initial Study (EA/IS) in March 1997, which

analyzed the impacts of the alternatives. The draft document was circulated for public review but was not

finalized. Subsequently, the USBR determined that a preferred alternative for conveying water supplies to

the Pixley NWR involving new and existing facilities associated with DEID was preferable to other

alternatives evaluated previously. In addition, further refinements were made to the preferred alternative

in 2003 for the Kern NWR. Consequently, a new draft EA/IS was prepared and circulated for

review in August 2003. The reasons why the impacts of the proposed actions are not significant, which

are discussed in detail in the EA/IS, are as follows:

1. Impacts to land use will be less than significant because short- and long-term impacts to agricultural

lands will be mitigated by the terms and conditions resulting from directly negotiations between the

“USBR/water purveyor/district” and affected property owners/operators.

2. Impacts to wildlife and vegetation will be less than significant because the following measures will be

implemented (complete mitigation measures are discussed fully in the Biological Resources section

of the EA/IS):

• Preconstruction surveys will be conducted in accordance with accepted protocols to determine the

presence/absence of special-status plant and wildlife species.

• Avoidance and minimization measures for the San Joaquin kit fox, Tipton kangaroo rat, bluntnosed leopard lizard, and Buena Vista Lake shrew will be implemented in accordance with

current USFWS guidance.

• Avoidance and minimization measures for vernal pool habitat will be implemented in accordance

with current USFWS guidance.

• Preconstruction surveys for Swainson’s hawks and other raptors will be conducted in accordance

with the CDFG protocol and impacts mitigated if raptors are present.

• Disturbed riparian habitat will be restored at a 2:1 replacement ratio. Success will be ensured

through monitoring.

• Impacts to wetlands will be minimized and replaced at a 2:1 ratio if avoidance is not possible.

Success will be ensured through monitoring.

3. Short-term impacts to air quality may occur because of construction. Mitigation measures will be

implemented that will reduce the level of impact to less than significant.

4. No impacts to hydrology/water quality are expected because instream construction will be limited to

turbidity levels no greater than 20 percent over background levels, or as specified by the Central

Valley RWQCB. Also, an Erosion Control and Sedimentation Plan and a Storm Water Pollution

Prevention Plan will be developed and implemented.

5. No impacts to cultural resources are anticipated.
DRAFT FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) IV 08/01/03

6. The proposed actions will not affect any Indian Trust Assets.

7. The proposed actions will not result in any disproportionately high and adverse human health effects

on low-income or minority populations.

Finding

The USBR has found that implementation of the proposed actions will not have significant adverse

impacts on the quality of the human environment. This finding is based on analysis of environmental

impacts in the final EA/IS, which is incorporated by reference.
RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) V 08/01/03

Negative Declaration

Conveyance of Refuge Water Supply

South San Joaquin Valley Study Area

Lead Agency:

California Department of Fish and Game

1416 Ninth Street

Sacramento, CA 95814

Project Description and Alternatives

The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(USFWS) and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) proposes to construct and/or

improve existing facilities to convey water supplies to the Kern and Pixley National Wildlife Refuges

(NWR) within the southern San Joaquin Valley. These facilities would convey firm, average annual

historical water deliveries (Level 2) in addition to an incremental amount of water supplies required for

optimal wildlife management (Level 4) from Central Valley Project (CVP) or State Water Project (SWP)

facilities to the boundary of each refuge as specified in Section 3406 (d)(5) of the Central Valley Project

Improvement Act (CVPIA).

Alternative conveyance methods were identified for each of the two refuges, including taking no action.

Facilities included existing canals and conveyance facilities, in addition to new canals and pipelines. Each

of the alternatives was addressed in an equal level of detail, and a recommended alternative selected for

each of the refuges. The identification of all potential alternatives was evaluated through feasibility

studies and public meetings which are were presented in the April 1995 Decision Document Report of

Recommended Alternatives Refuge Water Supply and San Joaquin Basin Action Plan Lands.

Additionally, the USBR and the USFWS further refined the alternatives selected in the Decision

Document in a May 1995 document titled Refuge Water Supply Conveyance Alternatives Refinement

Memorandum. Additional efforts took place in 2003 to refine the preferred alternative for the Kern NWR.

The USBR and the CDFG prepared a draft Environmental Assessment/ Initial Study (EA/IS) in March

1997, which analyzed the impacts from the alternatives. The draft document was circulated for public

review but was not finalized. Subsequently, the USBR determined that a preferred alternative for

conveying water supplies to the Pixley NWR involving new and existing facilities associated with the

Delano-Earlimart Irrigation District (DEID) was preferable to other alternatives evaluated previously. In

addition, further refinements were made to the preferred alternative for the Kern NWR. Consequently, a

new draft EA/IS was prepared and circulated for review in August 2003.

The following alternatives are recommended for each of the refuge areas:

• Kern NWR – Alternative-1A/1B. Use existing Buena Vista Water Storage District facilities; improve

West Side Canal; and use existing Main Drain Canal as a supplemental conveyance facility.

• Pixley NWR – Alternative PIX-4B. DEID facilities plus new pipeline to refuge.

The No-Action Alternative was not selected because it would not comply with Sections 3406(d)(1) and

(d)(2) of the CVPIA, which specifies increasing water supplies to each of the refuges listed above.
NEGATIVE DECLARATION

RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) VI 08/01/03

Project Location

The projects incorporate existing and proposed facilities adjacent to the Kern and Pixley NWRs within

Kern and Tulare Counties in the southern San Joaquin Valley.

Finding

Implementation of the proposed projects are anticipated to result in the following environmental effects:

• Short- and long-term impacts to agricultural lands

• Short-term potential impacts to the habitat of the following federal and/or state listed species:

− Tipton kangaroo rat

− San Joaquin kit fox

− Blunt-nosed leopard lizard

− Buena Vista Lake shrew

• Short-term impacts to vegetation and wildlife habitat, including wetlands

• Short-term impacts to water quality because of erosion

• Potential disturbance of subsurface cultural resources

• Short-term impacts to local air quality

Mitigation Measures

The following mitigation measures have been identified to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level.

A more detailed list is included in the Initial Study prepared for the projects.

Land Use

• Short- and long-term impacts to agricultural lands will be directly negotiated between the

“USBR/water/purveyor/district” and the affected property owners/ operators.

Wildlife and Vegetation

• Preconstruction surveys will be conducted in accordance with accepted protocols to determine the

presence/absence of special-status plant and wildlife species.

• Avoidance and minimization measures for the San Joaquin kit fox, Tipton kangaroo rat, blunt-nosed

leopard lizard, and Buena Vista Lake shrew will be implemented in accordance with current USFWS

guidance.

• Avoidance and minimization measures for vernal pool habitat will be implemented in accordance

with current USFWS guidance.

• Preconstruction surveys will be conducted for Swainson’s hawks and other raptors in accordance with

the CDFG protocol and impacts mitigated if raptors are present.

• Disturbed riparian habitat will be restored at a 2:1 replacement ratio. Success will be ensured through

monitoring.

• Impacts to wetlands will be minimized and replaced at a 2:1 ratio if avoidance is not possible.

Success will be ensured through monitoring.
NEGATIVE DECLARATION

RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) VII 08/01/03

Hydrology/Water Quality

• Instream construction will be conducted to limit turbidity levels to no greater than 20 percent over

background levels, or as specified by the Central Valley RWQCB.

• An Erosion Control and Sedimentation Plan and a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan will be

developed and implemented.

Cultural Resources

• A qualified archaeologist will be notified if any previously unidentified cultural materials or human

remains are discovered during construction.

Air Quality

• All active construction areas will be watered daily as necessary.

• Dust producing activities will be suspended when high winds create construction-induced visible dust

plumes moving beyond the site in spite of dust control measures.

• All trucks hauling soil and other loose material will be covered.

• Soil stabilizers, such as paving, watering, or the application of gravel, will be applied to all unpaved

access roads and staging areas at construction sites.

• Streets will be swept as necessary if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets.

• Stockpiles will be covered or applied with a soil stabilizer when necessary.

• Traffic speeds will be limited to 15 miles per hour on unpaved roads.

Based on the above, and as further detailed in the attached EA/IS, CDFG has determined that the

proposed projects will not have any significant environmental effects.

Determination

On the basis of this evaluation:

a. The projects will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially

reduce the habitat of a fish and wildlife species, cause a fish and wildlife population to drop below

self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or

restrict the range of a rare and endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the

major periods of California history or prehistory.

b. The projects will not have the potential to achieve short-term goals to the disadvantage of long-term

environmental goals.

c. The projects will not have effects that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable.

d. The projects will not have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human

beings, either directly or indirectly.

e. No substantial evidence exists that the projects will have a negative effect on the environment.
NEGATIVE DECLARATION

RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) VIII 08/01/03

This Negative Declaration is filed following the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines.

Comments may be submitted to CDFG at the address identified above.

_____________________________________________ 

Deputy Director, Wildlife and Inland Fisheries Division Date
RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) IX 08/01/03

Table of Contents

Items Page

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations .....................................................................................................xiii

I Introduction and Statement of Purpose and Need................................................................... I-1

Introduction....................................................................................................................................I-1

Purpose and Need ..........................................................................................................................I-1

II Background ................................................................................................................................II-1

Relationship of this EA/IS to the CVPIA .................................................................................... II-1

Introduction to South San Joaquin Valley Project Study Area.................................................... II-1

Conveyance of Refuge Water Supplies ....................................................................................... II-1

Kern National Wildlife Refuge.................................................................................................... II-1

Pixley National Wildlife Refuge.................................................................................................. II-4

CVPIA Water Requirements........................................................................................................ II-4

Current Delivery Methods ........................................................................................................... II-4

III Description of Alternatives...................................................................................................... III-1

Introduction.................................................................................................................................III-1

Alternatives Development and Screening Criteria......................................................................III-1

Public Involvement and Scoping ................................................................................................III-1

Recommended Alternatives ........................................................................................................III-2

No-Action Alternative ................................................................................................................III-3

Conveyance Alternatives Screening for Kern NWR ..................................................................III-3

KER-1A/1B Existing Canal Improvements..................................................................III-4

KER-7!Existing Canal Improvements ..........................................................................III-6

Conveyance Alternatives Screening for Pixley NWR ................................................................III-6

PIX-2B!Gravity Pipeline ..............................................................................................III-9

PIX-4B!New Pipeline and Existing Facilities ..............................................................III-9

PIX-8!Six New Groundwater Wells .............................................................................III-9

PIX-9!Gravity Pipeline...............................................................................................III-10

Mitigation Included in the Alternatives ....................................................................................III-10

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study..................................................III-10

Required Permits and Approvals ..............................................................................................III-20

IV Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences .................................................. IV-1

Typical Construction and Operations/Maintenance Impacts ......................................................IV-1

Pipeline ..........................................................................................................................IV-4

Pump ..............................................................................................................................IV-4

Wells ..............................................................................................................................IV-4

Turnout Structure or Weir..............................................................................................IV-4

Land Use.....................................................................................................................................IV-4

Affected Environment....................................................................................................IV-4

Environmental Consequences........................................................................................IV-5

Mitigation ......................................................................................................................IV-7

Biological Resources ..................................................................................................................IV-7

Affected Environment....................................................................................................IV-8

Environmental Consequences......................................................................................IV-11

Mitigation ....................................................................................................................IV-28
TABLE OF CONTENTS

RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) X 08/01/03

Cultural Resources....................................................................................................................IV-32

Affected Environment..................................................................................................IV-32

Environmental Consequences......................................................................................IV-34

Mitigation ....................................................................................................................IV-35

Hydrology and Water Quality...................................................................................................IV-36

Affected Environment..................................................................................................IV-36

Environmental Consequences......................................................................................IV-37

Mitigation ....................................................................................................................IV-38

Recreation .................................................................................................................................IV-38

Affected Environment..................................................................................................IV-38

Environmental Consequences......................................................................................IV-39

Mitigation ....................................................................................................................IV-40

Socioeconomics ........................................................................................................................IV-40

Affected Environment..................................................................................................IV-40

Environmental Consequences......................................................................................IV-40

Mitigation ....................................................................................................................IV-41

Energy.......................................................................................................................................IV-41

Affected Environment..................................................................................................IV-41

Environmental Consequences......................................................................................IV-41

Mitigation ....................................................................................................................IV-42

Air Quality ................................................................................................................................IV-42

Affected Environment..................................................................................................IV-42

Environmental Consequences......................................................................................IV-42

Mitigation ....................................................................................................................IV-43

V Cumulative and Growth-Inducing Impacts ............................................................................V-1

Cumulative Impacts .....................................................................................................................V-1

Growth-Inducing Impacts ............................................................................................................V-2

VI Environmental Commitment Checklist ................................................................................. VI-1

VII Consultation and Coordination .............................................................................................VII-1

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act.......................................................................................... VII-1

Endangered Species Act ........................................................................................................... VII-2

Cultural Resources Coordination.............................................................................................. VII-2

Indian Trust Assets ................................................................................................................... VII-2

Coordination with Water Purveyors ......................................................................................... VII-3

Public Involvement Activities................................................................................................... VII-3

Summary of Public Comments ................................................................................................. VII-3

Environmental Justice............................................................................................................... VII-3

Farmlands Policy ...................................................................................................................... VII-3

Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management .................................................................... VII-4

Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands ...................................................................... VII-4

Clean Water Act........................................................................................................................ VII-4

Clean Air Act ............................................................................................................................ VII-4

VIII References.............................................................................................................................. VIII-1

IX List of Preparers ...................................................................................................................... IX-1

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation ..........................................................................................IX-1

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ......................................................................................IX-1

California Department of Fish and Game......................................................................IX-1

Environmental Team......................................................................................................IX-1
TABLE OF CONTENTS

RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) XI 08/01/03

CH2M HILL ..................................................................................................................IX-1

North State Resources....................................................................................................IX-1

Peak Associates..............................................................................................................IX-1

Public Affairs Management ...........................................................................................IX-1

Appendices

A Alternatives Screening Process South San Joaquin Valley Study Area

B CEQA Environmental Checklist Form

C Cultural Resources Assessment

List of Figures

I-1 Wildlife Refuge Areaas Identified in CVPIA................................................................................I-2

II-1 South San Joaquin Study Area Existing Streams and Canals...................................................... II-2

III-1 Kern NWR Proposed Alternatives..............................................................................................III-5

III-2 Pixley NWR Proposed Alternatives............................................................................................III-8

IV-1 Kern NWR Construction Areas by Alternative ..........................................................................IV-2

IV-2 Pixley NWR Construction Areas by Alternative ........................................................................IV-3

IV-3 Kern NWR Potential Biological Resource Areas .....................................................................IV-15

IV-4 Pixley NWR Potential Biological Resource Areas ...................................................................IV-16

List of Tables

II-1 Water Supply Requirements for Kern NWR ............................................................................... II-3

II-2 Water Supply Requirements for Pixley NWR ............................................................................. II-5

III-1 Results of Alternative Screening Process for Kern NWR ..........................................................III-4

III-2 Proposed Facilities for Alternative KER-1A/1B ........................................................................III-6

III-3 Proposed Facilities for Alternative KER-7 .................................................................................III-6

III-4 Results of Alternative Screening Process for Pixley NWR ........................................................III-7

III-5 Proposed Facilities for Alternative PIX-2B................................................................................III-9

III-6 Proposed Facilities for Alternative PIX-4B................................................................................III-9

III-7 Proposed Facilities for Alternative PIX-8.................................................................................III-10

III-8 Proposed Facilities for Alternative PIX-9.................................................................................III-10

III-9 Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures............................................................III-11

IV-1 Construction and Operations and Maintenance Impacts for Proposed Facilities........................IV-1

IV-2 Land Use Impacts and Mitigation Measures...............................................................................IV-6
TABLE OF CONTENTS

RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) XII 08/01/03

List of Tables (continued)

Items Page

IV-3 Potential Floral Species of Concern at the South San Joaquin Valley Study Area...................IV-10

IV-4 Potential Wildlife Species of Concern at the South San Joaquin Study Area...........................IV-12

IV-5 Potential Resource Issues by Proposed Improvement Site or Corridor ....................................IV-17

IV-6 KER-1A/1B – Impacts by Habitat Type and Mitigation Measures ..........................................IV-17

IV-7 KER-7 – Impacts by Habitat Type and Mitigation Measures...................................................IV-18

IV-8 PIX-2B – Impacts by Habitat Type and Mitigation Measures..................................................IV-18

IV-9 PIX-4B – Impacts by Habitat Type and Mitigation Measures..................................................IV-19

IV-10 PIX-9 – Impacts by Habitat Type and Mitigation Measures ....................................................IV-19

IV-11 KER-1A/1B – Jurisdictional Wetlands Acreage Impacts .........................................................IV-20

IV-12 KER-7 – Jurisdictional Wetlands Acreage Impacts..................................................................IV-20

IV-13 PIX-2B – Jurisdictional Wetlands Acreage Impacts.................................................................IV-20

IV-14 PIX-4B – Jurisdictional Wetlands Acreage Impacts.................................................................IV-20

IV-15 PIX-9 – Jurisdictional Wetlands Acreage Impacts ...................................................................IV-21

IV-16 Biological Resources Impacts and Mitigation Measures..........................................................IV-21

IV-17 Cultural Resource Impacts and Mitigation Measures ...............................................................IV-34

IV-18 Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts and Mitigation Measures ............................................IV-37

IV-19 Recreation Impacts and Mitigation Measures...........................................................................IV-39

IV-20 Socioeconomic Impacts and Mitigation Measures ...................................................................IV-40

IV-21 Energy Impacts and Mitigation Measures ................................................................................IV-41

IV-22 Air Quality Impacts and Mitigation Measures..........................................................................IV-43

VI-1 Environmental Commitment Checklist.......................................................................................VI-1

VII-1 Review, Permits, and Licenses Required for the Conveyance of Refuge Water Supply.......... VII-1
RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) XIII 08/01/03

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

μg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter

ac-ft acre-feet

BVWSD Buena Vista Water Storage District

CDFG California Department of Fish and Game

CEQA California Environmental Quality Act

cfs cubic feet per second

CNDDB Natural Diversity Database

CNPS California Native Plant Society

CVP Central Valley Project

CVPIA Central Valley Project Improvement Act

DEID Delano-Earlimart Irrigation District

EA/IS Environmental Assessment/Initial Study

ESA Endangered Species Act

gpm gallons per minute

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NWR National Wildlife Refuge

PEIS Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

PID Pixley Irrigation District

PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns

RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board

SWP State Water Project

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USBR U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) I-1 08/01/03

Chapter I

Introduction and Statement of Purpose and Need

Introduction

The Refuge Water Supply Program was

implemented pursuant to Section 3406 (d)(5) of

the Central Valley Project Improvement Act

(CVPIA).1 As a component of the overall

program, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

(USBR), in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the California

Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), is

proposing to convey water supplies to the Kern

National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) and Pixley

NWR within the southern San Joaquin Valley in

California (see Figure I-1). This Environmental

Assessment/ Initial Study (EA/IS) identifies the

potential environmental impacts (both beneficial

and adverse) that are associated with developing

conveyance facilities for firm, historical average

annual water deliveries (Level 2), and the

incremental amounts of water required for

optimal wildlife management (Level 4).

This document also updates a prior version,

prepared in March 1997, that was circulated for

public review but was not finalized. Subsequent

to public review of the 1997 EA/IS, the USBR

determined that a new alternative for conveying

water supplies to the Pixley NWR was

preferable to alternative that was previously

identified as preferable. In addition, further

refinements were made to the preferred

alternative for the Kern NWR.

This EA/IS was developed to meet the

requirements of the National Environmental

Policy Act (NEPA) and California

Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The

USBR, Mid-Pacific Region is the lead federal

agency for NEPA, on behalf of the Department

of Interior, in cooperation with the USFWS.

CDFG is acting as the lead state agency for

CEQA.

Purpose and Need

The USBR, in cooperation with the USFWS and

the CDFG, is proposing to provide and/or

improve existing local conveyance facilities to

deliver those quantities of water required for

optimal wildlife management on the Kern and

Pixley NWRs.

This conveyance project will provide or upgrade

local facilities to support the peak flow and yearround delivery of water supply requirements of

the Kern and Pixley NWRs.

The need for the project is due to capacity

constraints and/or maintenance requirements in

existing local delivery systems. Currently, water

supplies from non-federal entities are conveyed

on an as-available basis, which is not consistent

with refuge needs per CVPIA for reliable yearround supply.

___________________________________

1

 The CVPIA was signed into law on October 30, 1992, as Title XXXIV of Public Law 102-575. The CVPIA mandated changes in Central

Valley Project (CVP) management, particularly to protect, restore, and enhance fish and wildlife. The CVPIA includes approximately

103 programs and activities.
	









	

	

		
	



























































		 !

"

	#!

	 !

"


!	 !

"

			 !

"

	 !

"


"!			!


!	 !

"












		
RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) II-1 08/01/03

Chapter II

Background

Relationship of this EA/IS

to the CVPIA

In January 2001, the USBR completed a

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

(PEIS) evaluating the impact of CVPIA

implementation. The PEIS provided NEPA

compliance for Level 2 supplies and also

addressed effects associated with the use of

refuge and return flows associated with full

Level 4 supplies. In addition, the PEIS also

evaluated the impacts of implementing other

provisions of the CVPIA, including the renewal

of water supply contracts and the dedication of

project yield for fish, wildlife, and habitat

restoration. Specific conveyance improvements

required to deliver Level 2 and Level 4 water

supplies to the refuges were not evaluated in the

PEIS, thereby requiring project-specific

environmental review when such improvements

were proposed. In addition, acquisition of

Level 4 water supplies will be further analyzed

in subsequent site-specific documents.

Introduction to South San Joaquin

Valley Project Study Area

The South San Joaquin Valley project study area

encompasses portions of Kern and Tulare

Counties (Figure II-1). The project study area

generally spans from the Friant-Kern Canal west

to the Pixley NWR, and from the California

Aqueduct (located near Interstate 5) to the Kern

NWR. The area is primarily agricultural and

rural. At one time, the project study area

supported vast wetland habitats for migrating

waterfowl. Although much of this land has been

converted to agricultural use, small habitat areas

remain. Agricultural land use surrounding the

wetland habitat areas in this project study area

involves the production of field crops,

vineyards, and orchards. These lands are

intensively farmed using irrigation supplies from

surface-water rights, federal and state contracts,

and groundwater pumping.

Two habitat areas, Kern and Pixley NWRs, were

created to provide habitat within the project

study area. The USFWS manages both refuges.

The Buena Vista Water Storage District

(BVWSD) serves Kern NWR, and the USBR

provides the water supply. The water supply is

delivered to the BVWSD via the California

Aqueduct, which is part of the State Water

Project (SWP). Pixley NWR is primarily served

by an onsite well. The Pixley Irrigation District

(PID) via Deer Creek also supplies water when

surplus and flood flows are available.

Conveyance of Refuge Water

Supplies

The CVPIA requires that the USBR provide

Level 2 and Level 4 water supplies to the Kern

and Pixley NWRs. Existing facilities that could

be used to provide water to both refuges were

not designed to convey peak refuge

requirements. Various factors, including existing

in-District customer demands or maintenance

needs, effect existing capacity constraints, and

therefore, are precluded from year-round

delivery capability. Facility capacities must be

able to support scheduled maximum peak flows

for those refuge areas in the USBR’s March

1989 Report on Refuge Water Supply

Investigations, Central Valley Hydrologic Basin,

California, which was incorporated by reference

into the CVPIA. The report specified two

primary levels of water supplies, Level 2 and

Level 4. Water supplies must be provided for

full habitat development needs of refuges. The

following sections discuss specific refuge water

supply requirements and constraints to meeting

those requirements.

Kern National Wildlife Refuge

The Kern NWR was created by the Migratory

Bird Conservation Commission in 1958. The

approximately 10,600-acre refuge is located

approximately 6 to 7 miles east of Interstate 5,
	





	






















	









 



















 !"





CHAPTER II, BACKGROUND

RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) II-3 08/01/03

approximately 35 miles northwest of the City of

Bakersfield, and 19 miles west of the City of

Delano, in northern Kern County.

Because of its strategic location along the

Pacific Flyway, the Kern NWR serves as winter

habitat for thousands of early migrant pintail

ducks that once concentrated in the Tulare Lake

Basin in August and September. Given water

supplies necessary for full habitat management

(Level 4), the Kern NWR has the potential to

provide 7,000 acres of migratory waterfowl/

waterbird habitat. The refuge’s current Master

Plan sets aside 2,260 acres as a natural research

area for desert plants and three endangered

species, the blunt-nosed leopard lizard, the San

Joaquin kit fox and the Tipton kangaroo rat

(USFWS, 1986). Cattle grazing is permitted

when winter rains are sufficient to provide

adequate forage from winter annual grasses.

In addition to providing habitat for migratory

waterfowl, the Kern NWR was established to

restore a portion of the wetland habitat lost

because of the drainage of Buena Vista, Kern,

Goose, and Tulare Lakes. Land uses include

wetlands, croplands, and uplands.

CVPIA Water Requirements

Water supply requirements for the Kern NWR

are presented in Table II-1. Historical water

delivery to the refuge is identified as Level 2,

and the required water delivery to meet the

objectives of Public Law 102-575, Title 34 of

the CVPIA is Level 4. Conveyance losses

associated with delivery of Level 2 and Level 4

supplies are also identified.

Management/water application of Level 2 water

consists of spring and summer irrigation of

moist soil units and fall/winter flooding of units

for wintering and migrating waterfowl and water

birds. This quantity of water allows for the

maintenance of 1,300 to 3,000 acres of

seasonally flooded marsh and riparian habitat.

TABLE II-1

Water Supply Requirements for Kern NWR

Month

Level 2 Needsa

(ac-ft)

Level 4 Needs

(ac-ft)

January 0 1,000

February 0 700

March 0 600

April 0 400

May 1,900 1,900

June 850 1,500

July 0 1,500

August 0 2,500

September 2,400 3,800

October 1,200 4,300

November 1,800 3,800

December 1,800 3,000

Total 9,950 25,000

Conveyance Losses 1,487b 3,250b

Total Amount to be Diverted 11,437 28,250

a

USBR. 1989a. Report on Refuge Water Supply Investigations. March.

b

Conveyance loss on CVP water is assumed to be 13 percent.

Note:

ac-ft = acre-feet
CHAPTER II, BACKGROUND

RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) II-4 08/01/03

The increase to the Level 4 water supply

(25,000 ac-ft per year) will increase available

habitat and water for spring/summer irrigations.

On-refuge habitat needs and management are

described in the EA/IS for Refuge Water Supply

– Long-term Contracts (South San Joaquin

Valley).

Current Delivery Methods

The Kern NWR currently receives Level 2 water

supplies from BVWSD facilities via the

California Aqueduct. Water is diverted at

BVWSD Turnout 1B and conveyed through a

pipeline to either the West Side Canal or the

Main Drain Canal, which in turn convey the

water to the Goose Lake Canal. The Goose Lake

Canal conveys the water to the southern

boundary of the Kern NWR, where it is diverted

into the refuge’s internal distribution system.

Capacity in the West Side and Main Drain

Canals lack capacity to the full Level 2 and

Level 4 refuge water supplies.

Both the West Side Canal and the Main Drain

Canal have capacity limitations during peak

demand periods. The Goose Lake Canal is

normally shut down for 2 to 3 weeks in late

September or early October and again in March

for seasonal maintenance. In wet years, Kern

NWR takes floodwaters from Poso Creek.

Pixley National Wildlife Refuge

The Pixley NWR was established in 1959, and

consists of approximately 6,300 acres of

grasslands and wetlands. The refuge is located in

southwest Tulare County, approximately

12 miles northeast of the Kern NWR and 5 miles

southwest of the community of Pixley. Portions

of the Pixley NWR lie within the historical

Tulare Lake Bed.

Approximately 5,040 acres are set aside as

habitat for three federally endangered species,

the blunt-nosed leopard lizard, the San Joaquin

kit fox, and the Tipton kangaroo rat and are also

currently used for livestock grazing. In addition

to providing habitat for migratory waterfowl, the

primary objective of the Pixley NWR is habitat

restoration for the endangered lizard.

The refuge has no firm surface water supplies. In

the past, floodwaters from Deer Creek have been

diverted by PID, which provides excess water to

a small area within the refuge for groundwater

recharge. The refuge is located in an area of

groundwater overdraft with groundwater levels

between 100 to 200 feet below the ground

surface. Groundwater is currently the only

reliable water available to the refuge. The

groundwater is suitable for refuge uses.

CVPIA Water Requirements

Water supply requirements for the Pixley NWR

are presented in Table II-2. Historical water

delivery to the refuge is identified as Level 2,

and the required water delivery to meet the

objectives of Public Law 102-575, Title 34 of

the CVPIA is Level 4. Conveyance losses

associated with delivery of Level 2, and Level 4

supplies are also identified.

Management/water application of Level 2 water

consists of spring and summer irrigation of

moist soil units and fall/winter flooding of units

for wintering and migrating waterfowl and water

birds. Existing wetland impoundments allow for

a total of 950 acres, which the Level 2 quantity

of water can support only 500 acres.

The increase to the Level 4 water supply

(6,000 ac-ft per year) will increase available

habitat and water for spring and cropland

irrigations. At Level 4, an additional 4,720 ac-ft

will be used for irrigation and fall/winter habitat

maintenance. The crops and irrigated pasture

will provide food resources for waterfowl and

other wildlife.

Current Delivery Methods

The Pixley NWR currently relies almost

exclusively on a single groundwater well for

regular water supply. The well was installed in

1993 near the southern boundary of the refuge.

The well draws from the deep aquifer beneath

the Corcoran clay layer and production varies

depending upon the season. The well produces
CHAPTER II, BACKGROUND

RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) II-5 08/01/03

approximately 1,700 to 1,800 gallons per minute

(gpm), or 3.8 to 4.0 cubic feet per second (cfs) in

the spring months, and approximately 1,300 to

1,500 gpm, or 2.9 to 3.3 cfs later in the season.

The well is 1,200 feet deep and has a

150-horsepower pump motor. Well capacity is

minimally sufficient to meet Level 2 needs.

During extremely wet years when flood flows

occur in Deer Creek, surface-water diversions

from the creek can be made at check structures

along the southern boundary of the refuge. This

has occurred only twice since the early 1980s

and is not considered a reliable water supply.

TABLE II-2

Water Supply Requirements for Pixley NWR

Month

Level 2 Needsa,b

(ac-ft)

Level 4 Needsa

(ac-ft)

January 500 250

February 600 250

March 100 0

April 80 400

May 0 650

June 0 350

July 0 350

August 0 600

September 0 800

October 0 950

November 0 700

December 0 700

Total 1,280 7,060

 Conveyance Losses 0 1,060c

Total Amount to be Diverted 1,280 6,900

a

USBR. 1989a. Report on Refuge Water Supply Investigations. March.

b

Estimated amounts, flood flows not measured.

c

Conveyance loss on CVP water is assumed to be 15 percent.

Note:

May 2001 memo to the USBR.
RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) III-1 08/01/03

Chapter III

Description of Alternatives

Introduction

This section provides additional background

information on alternatives development and

identifies alternative conveyance methods for

providing firm refuge water supplies to the Kern

and Pixley NWRs, including the alternative of

No Action. The preferred alternative for each

refuge and selection process is identified in the

refuge-specific alternative descriptions below.

Alternatives Development and

Screening Criteria

Alternative means of providing Level 2 and

Level 4 supplies have been considered. The

initial consideration of alternatives was based, in

part, on the previous studies completed by the

USBR regarding refuge water supply. Four

primary investigations were considered in the

initial development of the following alternatives:

C Report on Refuge Water Supply

Investigations, Central Valley Hydrologic

Basin, California, 1989

C San Joaquin Basin Action Plan/Kesterson

Mitigation Action Plan Report, 1989

C Refuge Water Supply Study, Plan

Coordination Team Interim Report, 1992

C Refuge Water Supply, Proposed Plan of

Study Report, 1993

In addition to the recommendations presented in

these investigations, the study team considered

additional alternatives. The alternatives that

were considered during this effort included

various means of providing Level 2 and Level 4

supplies, including conjunctive use of

groundwater resources and alternative

conveyance routing options.

Following the development of the preliminary

alternatives for each refuge, an initial screening

process was employed. This initial screening

process was used to eliminate from further

consideration any alternatives that had fatal

flaws, resulting from excessive costs,

unreasonable engineering requirements, or

unacceptable environmental impacts. Following

initial screening of the alternatives, the

remaining alternatives were further developed.

The process used to determine feasibility and the

results of these investigations are presented in

the April 1995 Decision Document Report of

Recommended Alternatives Refuge Water Supply

and San Joaquin Basin Action Plan Lands. In

addition, the USBR and the USFWS further

refined the alternatives selected in the Decision

Document in a May 1995 document titled

Refuge Water Supply Conveyance Alternatives

Refinement Memorandum. This process included

discussions with each of the potential water

purveyors to verify system constraints and

necessary improvements.

This EA/IS analyzes alternatives that were

determined feasible as presented in the

Memorandum. Primary screening criteria used to

determine feasibility included the following:

• Cost

• Reliability of water supply

• Environmental constraints

• Social/institutional constraints

In addition, selections were predicated on

ensuring a broad, reasonable range of

alternatives to carry through the NEPA/CEQA

process. This EA/IS evaluates the potential

environmental impacts of implementing any of

the proposed alternatives to each refuge, in

addition to discussing the anticipated social and

institutional constraints.

Public Involvement and Scoping

Public involvement meetings were held with

interested parties for refuge water supplies,

including meetings in Tulare (June 5, 1995) and

Santa Nella (June 6, 1995) that specifically

addressed the Kern and Pixley NWRs. A key
CHAPTER III, DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) III-2 08/01/03

objective of these meetings was to review the

alternatives being considered for the

investigation, receive input and comments on

these alternatives, and solicit additional

alternatives for consideration.

The primary issues raised included the

following:

• Clear descriptions of Level 2 water and

Level 4 water quantities

• Impacts to land use from taking of property

and disruption of farming activities

• Endangered species concerns related to

increased species populations

• Water delivery timing

• Anticipated source of water supplies

• Third-party impacts resulting from water

transfers/land retirement

• Concern regarding groundwater overdraft,

particularly in the South San Joaquin Valley

given existing groundwater overdraft

• Cost savings associated with using existing

water systems versus new conveyance

systems

• Appropriateness of using CVP power for

refuge uses

Additional comments beyond the scope of this

environmental document included questions

about project funding and agreements and terms

with water districts in the vicinity of each

refuge. While these issues are not analyzed in

this document, they are key issues in

determining a recommended alternative for each

refuge and were used in the selection process.

Recommended Alternatives

Following the selection of a reasonable range of

alternatives to be carried forward for detailed

evaluation, additional screening took place to

select a preferred alternative for each refuge.

The selection of a recommended alternative for

each refuge area was based on input from the

USBR, USFWS, and CDFG staff, including

staff from the refuges. In order to document the

selection process, it was determined that a

number of factors should be identified, which

could be used across refuge areas and weighted

according to their relative importance. The

following six factors were identified (the

proportionate weighting factor is indicated in

parenthesis) as best capturing the primary issues:

• Water supply reliability (30)

• Water quality (15)

• Environmental issues (20)

• Cost effectiveness (20)

• Implementation (10)

• Engineering (5)

Using these six factors and weighting approach,

matrices were created to rank each of the

alternatives addressed in detail in this EA/IS.

The recommended alternative was the

alternative that received the highest overall

score. A summary of the alternative selection

process is described below. A full description of

each alternative, including No-Action, follows

this discussion. See Appendix A for additional

information on the alternatives screening

process.

The following two alternatives for providing

Level 2 and Level 4 supplies to the Kern NWR

were carried forward for detailed analysis:

• KER-1A/1B. Use existing Buena Vista

facilities; improve West Side Canal and use

existing Main Drain Canal as a supplemental

conveyance facility.

• KER-7. Use existing Lost Hills Irrigation

District facilities and clean Burhan Canal to

reduce water losses.

The KER-1A/1B alternative was selected as the

recommended alternative and ranked higher than

KER-7 in all categories except water quality

because of the greater potential for interaction

with agricultural return flows. Comparisons

across factors were close, including capital cost.

The greatest differential was within the

environmental category, where KER-1A/1B was

ranked higher because of fewer construction

impacts and fewer resultant impacts.
CHAPTER III, DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) III-3 08/01/03

The following four alternatives for providing

Level 2 and Level 4 supplies to the Pixley NWR

were carried forward for detailed analysis:

• PIX-2B!New pipeline from Friant-Kern

Canal to refuge

• PIX-4B!Delano-Earlimart Irrigation District

(DEID) facilities plus new pipeline to refuge

• PIX-8!Conjunctive use program with new

on-refuge ground water wells, in lieu

recharge with the PID

• PIX-9!New pipeline similar to PIX-2B,

upsized to include lands in the PID

The PIX-4B alternative was selected as the

recommended alternative because of its costeffectiveness, water supply reliability and water

quality ranking. PIX 2B and PIX-9 were ranked

lower but were viewed as close in most

categories except cost, where PIX-9 was

determined to be the most costly. While PIX-8

was the least capital-intensive alternative, it was

ranked lowest based on a number of factors,

including groundwater management concerns

and difficult implementation issues.

No-Action Alternative

Implementation of the No-Action Alternative

would result in no additional firm supplies for

the two refuge areas. Each refuge would

continue to receive deliveries through the

existing delivery systems according to existing

agreements. These supplies would not be firm in

many cases and would not exceed Level 2

supplies.

The No-Action Alternative incorporates ongoing

activities, projects, and the operation and

maintenance of projects that would continue

regardless of the proposed actions. In terms of

related future actions, this document is based on

the assumptions developed in the preparation of

the CVPIA PEIS. Therefore, this alternative

incorporates anticipated development and

conditions in 2020. This year was selected to

provide a reasonable basis from which to

compare alternatives. It is assumed that by 2020

CVP and SWP supplies will be essentially fully

used because of urban growth and continued

agricultural demands. Other key overall

assumptions that are a part of the No-Action

Alternative for the CVPIA PEIS include the

following:

• Existing CVP and SWP project features and

management policies (such as 1992 CVP

Long-term Operating Criteria and Plan) as

of October 1, 1995, remain in effect

• CVPIA implementation programs existing

as of October 1, 1995, would continue

• Long-term biological opinion for winter-run

Chinook salmon, and the 1995 biological

opinion for Delta smelt would be met by the

CVP and SWP in compliance with the

federal and state Endangered Species Acts

(ESA)

• Use of existing CVP and SWP facilities

would continue in accordance with the

Coordinated Operations Agreement between

the USBR and the Department of Water

Resources

• May 1995 Bay-Delta Water Quality Control

Plan standards would be met

Conveyance Alternatives Screening

for Kern NWR

The results of the alternatives screening process

for the Kern NWR are presented in Table III-1.

Alternatives determined to be feasible, as

presented in the Memorandum, are highlighted

in bold.

This section describes the two feasible

alternatives for providing a reliable water supply

for the Kern NWR (Figure III-1). Conveyance

facilities that would be needed on-refuge are not

included. Facility sizing was based on the design

criteria presented in previous documents and on

the Level 4 design flow.
CHAPTER III, DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) III-4 08/01/03

Table III-1

Results of Alternative Screening Process for Kern NWR

Alternative

Selection

(Y/N) Reason for Selection/Elimination

Potential Issues/Conflicts

(Selected Alternatives Only)

KER-1A/1B Y Feasible Alternative – Provides for reasonable

range of alternatives. Enlarge an existing canal.

Modify and replace hydraulic structures.

Impacts to wildlife/habitat from

enlarging an existing canal.

KER-3

(SWSD Intake

Canal/Goose Lake

Storage Project

N Goose Lake Project has met with significant

opposition, including the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers (USACE). Potential for perched water

table impacts.

N/A

KER-4

(SWSD Intake

Canal/Pond-Poso

Canal/Poso Creek)

N A 61-mile conveyance route through Poso Creek

with potentially high water losses.

N/A

KER-5 N High losses expected within Poso Creek, also

concerns about water availability.

N/A

KER-6

(Groundwater

Banking/Poso Creek)

N A 61-mile conveyance route through Poso Creek

with potentially high water losses.

N/A

KER-7 Y Feasible Alternative – Provides for reasonable

range of alternatives. Use existing pipeline and

canal; canal may be decreased in size and/or

relined with concrete.

Conveyance losses associated with

use of unlined canals, and impacts to

wildlife/habitat from disturbing or

relining existing canals.

KER-1A/1B – Existing Canal

Improvements

Under the KER-1A/1B alternative, water would

be diverted from the California Aqueduct at

Buena Vista’s Turnout 1B (or potentially

Turnouts 2 or 6) and conveyed through an

existing pipeline (BVWSD Pipeline) to the West

Side Canal. The Main Drain Canal will be used

for supplementary conveyance purposes. Water

from either the West Side Canal (via the Cross

Canal) or the Main Drain Canal would be

discharged into the Goose Lake Canal for

ultimate delivery to the refuge’s turnout

structure.

The maximum future delivery flow-rate to the

Kern NWR is estimated to be approximately

80 cfs. This maximum flow is based on

providing 2,500 ac-ft in August, over a 15-day

period, as needed to avoid conflicts with Buena

Vista’s normal irrigation operations.

The West Side Canal’s existing capacity is

approximately 30 cfs, while the projected peak

delivery rate to the refuge is 90 cfs (includes

10 cfs to account for conveyance losses in the

canal). Improvements to the West Side Canal are

necessary so that it can be used as the primary

conveyance system. Improvements will include

adding a new takeout structure, modification of

a check structure, replacement of two culverts,

and 2 miles of canal enlargement.

A new takeout structure will be constructed to

deliver water from the BVWSD pipeline to the

downstream side of a check structure in the

West Side Canal. This takeout will be installed

in addition to the existing takeout that currently

conveys water to the upstream side of the check

structure. This check structure, which is located

near the existing BVWSD Pipeline, will be

modified to allow water to be checked up on the

upstream and downstream side. The culverts to

be replaced are located at the beginning and the

end of the Cross Canal and will each consist of

two 48-inch pipes. The entire length of the

Cross. Canal will be enlarged and regraded,

consisting of widening the canal prism by 4 feet

and lowering the invert by 6 inches to 1 foot.
   

	

	


	



 




























	


	 


!	"	!#$!%
&
!




CHAPTER III, DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) III-6 08/01/03

Most of the excavation will likely take place on

the south side of the Cross Canal.

Once these modifications to KER-1A/1B have

been completed, the West Side Canal will serve

as the primary conveyor for Kern NWR.

However, most flow deliveries during the

summer irrigation period would likely be made

from the Main Drain Canal because it will be

conveying water already.

Seepage from the West Side Canal could

increase when duration and magnitude of flows

are increased after canal improvements are

implemented. However, in recent years, much of

the land adjacent to the West Side Canal is no

longer used for regular irrigation purposes.

In addition, this alternative assumes that a longterm agreement will be in place to convey refuge

water supplies through Buena Vista’s facilities.

Facilities needed for this alternative are

presented in Table III-2.

Table III-2

Proposed Facilities for Alternative KER-1A/1B

Item Description

1 New Takeout Structure from BV-1B

turnout pipeline

2 Modify existing check structure

3 Replace two culvert structures

• Capacity: 90 cfs

4 Enlarge and regrade Cross Canal

• Length: 2 miles

KER-7!Existing Canal

Improvements

This alternative would use existing Lost Hills

Irrigation District facilities to deliver water from

the California Aqueduct to the Kern NWR.

Water diverted from the California Aqueduct

would be conveyed through an existing pipeline

to a canal that runs past the southwest corner of

the refuge. A new pump station would transfer

the water into the Burhan Canal, which parallels

the southern edge of the refuge, for conveyance

to the Goose Lake Canal. From the Goose Lake

Canal, the water would be distributed to the

refuge lands.

Based on estimated evaporation and seepage

losses of 25 percent, 112 cfs would be diverted

from the California Aqueduct, providing 89 cfs

of delivery to the refuge. Actual losses will need

to be determined for the canal alignments.

Ownership of the Burhan Canal has not been

established at this time. The grade, capacity, and

condition of the canal are not known. Portions of

the canal viewed during the field visit contained

heavy vegetation in and along the canal.

Approximately 90 percent of the vegetation loss

would be salt cedar (tamarisk), which is an

exotic tree (USFWS, 1996).

In addition, this alternative assumes that a longterm agreement will be in place to convey refuge

water supplies through Buena Vista’s facilities.

Facilities required for this alternative are

presented in Table III-3.

Table III-3

Proposed Facilities for Alternative KER-7

Item Description

1 Pump Station at Canal Transfer Point

• Total dynamic head: 10 feet

• Design flow: 89 cfs

• Horsepower: 135

Conveyance Alternatives Screening

for Pixley NWR

The alternatives screening process results for

Pixley NWR are presented in Table III-4.

Alternatives determined to be feasible as

presented in the Memorandum are highlighted in

bold.

This section describes the four proposed

alternatives for developing an increased, reliable

water supply for the Pixley NWR (Figure III-2).

Conveyance facilities that would be needed onrefuge are not included. Facility sizing was

based on the design criteria presented in

previous documents and on the Level 4 design

flow, and on the results of cursory groundwater

modeling of the area.
CHAPTER III, DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) III-7 08/01/03

Table III-4

Results of Alternative Screening Process for Pixley NWR

Alternative Selection

(Y/N)

Reason for Selection/Elimination Potential Issues/Conflicts

(Selected Alternatives Only)

PIX-1

(FKC/Deer Creek)

N A 17-mile conveyance route using Deer Creek

with potentially high water losses.

N/A

PIX-2A

(FKC/concrete canal)

N Concerns over encumbrance of agricultural

land; vineyards present to the east.

N/A

PIX-2B Y Feasible Alternative – Provides for

reasonable range of alternatives.

“Nonmechanical” conveyance alternative.

Temporary impacts to agricultural

operations/loss of production.

PIX-2C

(FKC/pressure pipeline)

N Most costly of the parallel system alternatives

(PIX-2A, PIX-2B, and PIX-2C); considered

less reliable than PIX-2B (gravity pipeline

along the same alignment).

N/A

PIX-3

(new wells on Pixley

NWR/recharge in Deer

Creek from FKC)

N Water quality concerns, expected losses

through Deer Creek.

N/A

PIX-4A

(New wells and recharge

basins on Pixley

NWR/DEID pipeline to

recharge)

N Limited capacity of DEID facilities; large

capital costs.

N/A

PIX-4B Y Feasible Alternative – Provides for

reasonable range of alternatives. Brought

back per discussions with DEID and the

USFWS.

Temporary impacts to agricultural

operations/loss of production.

PIX-5A

(FKC/Deer Creek/DEID

pipeline)

N A 17-mile conveyance route using Deer Creek

with potentially high water losses.

N/A

PIX-5B

(Same as PIX-5A/new wells

on Pixley NWR)

N Water quality and reliability concerns N/A

PIX-6

(Same as PIX-3/PIDsponsored conservation

program)

N Water quality and reliability were determined

to be potential issues; cost is undefined.

Difficult to quantify benefits.

N/A

PIX-7

(Water banking

program/Deer Creek)

N Similar concerns as PIX-6 in addition to

expected losses within Deer Creek during

conveyance to the refuge.

N/A

PIX-8 Y Feasible Alternative – Provides for

reasonable range of alternatives. In lieu of

groundwater exchange between PID and

Pixley NWR.

Water quality and water levels

associated with new groundwater

wells.

PIX-9 Y Feasible Alternative – Provides for

reasonable range of alternatives. Brought

back per discussions with DEID and the

USFWS.

Temporary impacts to agricultural

operations/loss of production.




	








 
!

 
" #
$
 






	


















 	
















CHAPTER III, DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) III-9 08/01/03

PIX-2B!Gravity Pipeline

This alternative would divert water from the

Friant-Kern Canal and convey water through a

proposed 67,000-foot gravity pipeline to the

center of the Pixley NWR’s southern boundary.

Design flow for the pipeline would be 14 cfs,

and the pipeline diameter would be 27 inches. In

addition, this alternative assumes that a longterm agreement will be in place to convey water

through the Friant-Kern Canal. Facilities

required for this alternative are presented in

Table III-5. A layout of the pipeline alignment is

presented on Figure III-2.

Table III-5

Proposed Facilities for Alternative PIX-2B

Item Description

1 Turnout Structure, Friant-Kern Canal into

Pipeline

• Design flow: 14 cfs

2 Gravity RCP Pipeline

• Length: 67,000 linear feet

• Diameter: 27 inches

• Design flow: 14 cfs

3 Pipeline Crossings – Bore-and-Jack

• Highway 99

• Southern Pacific Railroad

4 Pipeline Crossings – Trenching

• Ten local road crossings

PIX-4B!New Pipeline and Existing

Facilities

This alternative conveys water diverted from the

Friant-Kern Canal to the refuge via DEID

Lateral 111.6W and a new gravity pipeline. It

should be noted that Lateral 111.6W is a buried

pipeline not an open canal. This new 30-inchdiameter pipeline would be approximately

55,000 feet long and would be designed to carry

up to 16 cfs. The connection to Lateral 111.6W

would be north of the lateral between Road 160

and Deer Creek Road. Existing deliveries along

Lateral 111.6W would not be affected. The

pipeline would be designed and located to

deliver water from August through May, to the

NWR to meet fluctuating seasonal water

demands. A new well would be needed to

provide required flows during the months of

June and July. The capacity of the diversion of

the Friant-Kern Canal into Lateral 111.6W

would need to be increased by approximately

16 cfs. In addition, this alternative assumes that

a long-term agreement will be in place to convey

refuge water supplies through DEID facilities.

Facilities required for this alternative presented

in Table III-6.

Table III-6

Proposed Facilities for Alternative PIX-4B

Item Description

1 Gravity RCP Pipeline

• Length: 55,000 linear feet

• Diameter: 30 inches

• Design flow: 16 cfs

2 Pipeline Crossings – Bore-and-Jack

• Highway 99

• Southern Pacific Railroad

3 Pipeline Crossings – Trenching

• Eight local road crossing

• Deer Creek (siphon)

4 Extraction Well

• Depth 1,200 feet

• Design withdrawal: 1,600 gpm

PIX-8!Six New Groundwater Wells

This alternative was developed during

discussions with personnel from Pixley NWR

and PID. It would involve an in-lieu

groundwater exchange between PID and the

Pixley NWR. Currently, some members of the

district pump from the deep aquifer to irrigate

their lands. Under the exchange proposal, these

members would decrease their annual pumping

by 6,000 ac-ft and receive an equivalent amount

of surface water from the Friant-Kern Canal

through existing district facilities. This

6,000 ac-ft of surface water would be the water

normally purchased to supply the refuge.

Six new deep aquifer groundwater wells would

be installed on the refuge and used to provide

the full Level 4 demand of 6,000 ac-ft. The net

change in annual withdrawals from the deep

aquifer would be zero. Facilities required for this

alternative are presented in Table III-7. 
CHAPTER III, DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) III-10 08/01/03

Table III-7

Proposed Facilities for Alternative PIX-8

Item Description

1 Extraction Wells

• Number: Six

• Depth: 1,200 feet

• Depth to groundwater: 250 feet

• Design withdrawal: 1,000 gpm each

• Casing diameter: 16 inches

• Pumps: 6 total, 150 horsepower each

2 Well Field Transmission Pipelines

• Length: 21,000 feet

• Diameter: 10 to 18 inch

• Design Flow: 1.75 to 7 cfs

PIX-9!Gravity Pipeline

This alternative was developed during

discussions with PID staff. This alternative is

similar to PIX-2B in that it would use a new

gravity flow pipeline to convey water from the

Friant-Kern Canal to the refuge. However, the

pipeline would be sized and routed to supply

both the Pixley NWR and the southern portion

of the PID service area. An agreement for shared

funding of the pipeline would be developed. The

percentage of flow capacity in the pipeline

dedicated to each of the two uses could be the

basis for cost-sharing. Because the pipeline

would be owned and maintained by PID, this

alternative assumes that a long-term agreement

will be in place to convey refuge water supplies

through PID facilities. Facilities required for this

alternative are presented in Table III-8.

Table III-8

Proposed Facilities for Alternative PIX-9

Item Description

1 Turnout Structure, FKC into Pipeline

• Design flow: 24 to 64 cfs

2 Gravity RCP Pipeline

• Length: 66,000 feet

• Diameter: 36 to 48 inch

• Design flow: 24 to 64 cfs

3 Pipeline Crossings – Bore-and-Jack

• Highway 99

• Southern Pacific Railroad

4 Pipeline Crossings – Trenching

• 10 local road crossings: 400 feet

Mitigation Included in the

Alternatives

Table III-9 summarizes all anticipated impacts

and recommended mitigation for the

construction of the conveyance alternatives to

each refuge area. As indicated in the table,

implementation of the recommended mitigation

will result in all impacts being less than

significant. Impacts and mitigation associated

with each of the issue areas, such as Biological

Resources, are further discussed in Chapter IV,

Affected Environment and Environmental

Consequences.

Alternatives Considered but

Eliminated from Detailed Study

As described previously in the Screening

Criteria section, USBR investigated a number of

alternatives capable of delivering additional

water supplies to each of the refuges. These

alternatives are presented in Tables III-1 and

III-4, with a brief representation of the selected

alternatives. Alternatives, which were

determined to be infeasible based on the

screening criteria, included variations of the

selected alternatives, and incorporated pipelines,

canals, pump stations, and other facilities. A full

account of the selection process and

identification of eliminated alternatives is

available in the April 1995 Decision Document.
CHAPTER III, DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) III-11 08/01/03

Table III-9

Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Impact Mitigation

Level of

Significance

After

Mitigation

Land Use

LU-a Alternatives PIX-2B, PIX-4B, or PIX-9

could temporarily impact between 250

and 350 agricultural production acres for

one season.

LU-1 Schedule construction to minimize impacts to

crop production.

LU-2 Minimize workspace required to install facilities.

LU-3 Compensate landowners for any loss of crop

production or impacts to agricultural operations.

LS

LU-b Alternative PIX-2B could permanently

impact residential and other structures.

LU-4 Route conveyance facilities to avoid residences

and other structures.

LU-5 Compensate landowners for any loss of property.

LS

LU-c Alternatives KER-7, PIX-2B, PIX-4B,

and PIX-9 could impact existing

residential powerlines.

LU-6 Route conveyance facilities to avoid powerlines. LS

Biological Resources

BR-a Alternatives KER-1A/1B, KER-7,

PIX-2B, PIX-4B, and PIX-9 could

impact special-status plants.

BR-1 Conduct pre-construction surveys prior to final

design to identify locations of special-status

plants following the procedures outlined in

Guidelines for Assessing the Effects of Proposed

Developments on Rare and Endangered Plants

and Plant Communities. Surveys must be timed

to coincide with the flowering seasons of the

targeted species. Following pre-construction

surveys, develop measures to avoid impacts to

special-status plants.

LS

BR-2 Where avoidance of special-status plants is not

practicable, develop and implement measures for

mitigating impacts, including relocation or reestablishment of special-status plant populations.

Mitigation would involve creating suitable

habitat in non-suitable habitat by providing soil,

water, and vegetation to replicate conditions

needed to establish special-status species

populations.

BR-b Alternatives PIX-2B, PIX-4B, and

PIX-9 could impact 2.7 acres of riparian

habitat.

BR-3 Prior to final design, map and quantify riparian

habitat and other important natural plant

communities. Develop measures to avoid or

minimize impacts to these habitats.

LS

BR-4 Develop and implement mitigation measures for

unavoidable impacts to riparian habitat. Where

possible, disturbed riparian habitat should be

restored onsite following completion of

construction activities. Permanently eliminated

riparian habitat should be replaced at a 2:1 ratio

(i.e., 2 acres of habitat created for each acre

eliminated). Mitigation would involve creating

riparian habitat in non-riparian habitat by

providing soil, water, and vegetation.

Notes:

LU = Land Use

BR = Biological Resources

LS = Less than Significant
CHAPTER III, DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) III-12 08/01/03

Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Impact Mitigation

Level of

Significance

After

Mitigation

Biological Resources

BR-b continued BR-5 Develop and implement a revegetation plan for

temporarily disturbed construction sites. The

revegetation plan should incorporate seeding

and planting of species that will resist invasion

by noxious weeds.

BR-6 Develop and implement a monitoring plan to

assess the success of mitigation measures for

impacts to vegetation and special-status species.

Plantings on the revegetation and compensation

sites should be monitored during the growing

season (March through September) to determine

growth rates for 3 years from the date of

transplant or planting. A yearly report should be

submitted to USFWS, including dates of

watering, growth rates, cover rates, and

mortality figures. Monitoring could be curtailed

after 3 years if success is demonstrated.

(Success is achieved when plant cover of the

mitigation site is at least 80 percent of the cover

at the impact site prior to project disturbance

and vegetative composition of the dominant [>

20 percent of the cover] and characteristic

species [typical, regularly occurring in the

habitat but not dominant] exceeds 80 percent of

that which was present at the impact site.)

Monitoring of special-status plant mitigation

sites could be curtailed after 3 years if overall

survival rates of seeded, planted, or transplanted

plants exceed 80 percent of projected survival

rates.

BR-7 Pre-construction surveys should be conducted

for raptors prior to the peak March through

August nesting period. Construction during the

critical nesting period (March through August)

will be avoided; or, if nesting pairs and

fledglings are identified within 0.25 mile of

construction, a monitoring program will be

initiated in consultation with the CDFG.

If Swainson’s hawks are present, site surveys

will be conducted to identify nesting activity. If

nests are located within 0.5 miles of the project

site with a direct line of sight to the activity,

CDFG will be consulted to establish proper

mitigation. As stated above for other raptors,

seasonal restrictions (March through August) on

project activities may be appropriate.

LS

Notes:

BR = Biological Resources

LS = Less than Significant
CHAPTER III, DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) III-13 08/01/03

Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Impact Mitigation

Level of

Significance

After

Mitigation

Biological Resources

BR-c Alternatives KER-1A/1B, KER-7,

PIX-2B, and PIX-9 could impact

habitat used by San Joaquin kit fox.

BR-8 Before staging and construction, have a USFWSapproved biologist survey for dens and other kit fox

sign such as scat, prey remains, and tracks. The

biologist shall follow the USFWS’s Standard

Recommendations for Avoidance of the San

Joaquin Kit Fox(1997). If any evidence of kit fox

activity is found, contact the USFWS’s Sacramento

Fish and Wildlife Office to initiate consultation.

A USFWS-approved worker awareness program

shall be conducted for all projects located in areas

that provide, or may provide, habitat for this

species. Confine surface disturbance to areas that do

not exhibit the habitat types and sign listed above

with an adequate buffer (not less than 200 feet). The

biologist must stake and flag to exclude construction

activities within 200 feet of potential habitat.

To avoid inadvertent entrapment of animals in holes

during construction, all excavated, steep-walled

holes or trenches more than 2 feet deep should be

covered at the close of each working day by

plywood or similar materials or provided with one

or more escape ramps constructed of earth fill or

wooden planks.

All construction pipes, culverts, or similar

structures, with a diameter of 4 inches or greater that

are stored at a construction site for one or more

overnight periods, should be thoroughly inspected

for kit foxes before the pipe is subsequently buried,

capped, or otherwise used or moved in any way.

No work shall be conducted between sunset and

sunrise within 0.5 mile of potential habitat.

No domestic animals (pets) shall be allowed on the

project site.

On unposted roads, vehicle speeds shall not exceed

25 miles per hour.

Trash shall be disposed of in covered containers and

removed daily.

Restrict use of rodenticides and herbicides to

prevent secondary poisoning.

In the event that take cannot be avoided, contact the

USFWS for information before starting the action.

LS

Notes:

BR = Biological Resources

LS = Less than Significant
CHAPTER III, DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) III-14 08/01/03

Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Impact Mitigation

Level of

Significance

After

Mitigation

Biological Resources

BR-d Alternatives KER-1A/1B, KER-7,

PIX-2B, PIX-4B, and PIX-9 could

impact habitat used by Tipton kangaroo

rat.

BR-9 Before any ground-disturbing activities, have a

USFWS-approved biologist survey for the

presence of the plant associations considered

habitat for the Tipton kangaroo rat. The

USFWS-approved biologist must survey for the

presence of Tipton kangaroo rat sign such as

burrow systems, haystacks, and areas of clipped

vegetation.

A USFWS-approved worker awareness

program shall be conducted for all projects

located in areas that provide, or may provide,

habitat for this species.

Confine surface disturbance to areas that do not

exhibit the signs listed above with an adequate

buffer (not less than 200 feet). The biologist

must stake and flag to exclude construction

activities within 200 feet of potential habitat.

No work shall be conducted between sunset and

sunrise within 0.5 mile of potential habitat.

No domestic animals (pets) shall be allowed on

the project site.

On unposted roads, vehicle speeds shall not

exceed 25 miles per hour.

Trash shall be disposed of in covered

containers.

In the event that take cannot be avoided, contact

the USFWS for information before starting the

action.

LS

BR-e Alternative KER-1A/1B, KER-7,

PIX-2B, PIX-4B, and PIX-9 could

impact habitat used by blunt-nosed

leopard lizard.

BR-10 Before staging and construction, have a

USFWS-approved biologist survey for the

presence of the habitat types used by this

species and signs of leopard lizards such as

burrows. The protocol developed by the CDFG

shall be used to survey for this species. During

the blunt-nosed leopard lizard’s hibernation

time, surveys are unreliable and cannot be used

to determine absence of this species. Notice

will be given to the CDFG and the USFWS

30 days before beginning construction to

determine whether capture is desired.

LS

Notes:

BR = Biological Resources

LS = Less than Significant
CHAPTER III, DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) III-15 08/01/03

Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Impact Mitigation

Level of

Significance

After

Mitigation

Biological Resources

BR-e continued For projects from 5 to 10 acres in size (or 5 to

10 linear miles), within suitable habitat, should

schedule surface disturbance activities during

the active season (approximately April 15 to

October 15).

A USFWS-approved biologist will survey any

trenches in the morning and late afternoon to

remove lizards that fall into the trench.

A USFWS-approved worker awareness

program shall be conducted for all projects

located in areas that provide, or may provide,

habitat for this species.

Confine surface disturbance to areas that do not

exhibit the habitat types and sign listed above

with an adequate buffer (not less than 200 feet).

The biologist must stake and flag to exclude

construction activities within 200 feet of

potential habitat.

No work shall be conducted between sunset and

sunrise within 0.5 mile of potential habitat.

No domestic animals (pets) shall be allowed on

the project site.

On unposted roads, vehicle speeds shall not

exceed 25 miles per hour.

Trash shall be disposed of in covered containers

and removed daily.

In the event that take cannot be avoided, contact

the USFWS for information before starting the

action.

BR-f Alternative KER-7 contains potential

vernal pools and swales.

BR-11 If any vernal pools or vernal swales will be

impacted (i.e., if construction activities will

occur within 250 feet of the edge of a pool or

swale), pre-construction surveys should be

conducted for fairy shrimp and tadpole shrimp.

During final design, avoid by 250 feet all

features containing listed shrimp. Surveys

should be conducted according to methods

LS

Notes:

BR = Biological Resources

LS = Less than Significant
CHAPTER III, DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) III-16 08/01/03

Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Impact Mitigation

Level of

Significance

After

Mitigation

Biological Resources

BR-f continued outlined in Interim Guidelines for Surveys for the

Endangered Conservancy Fairy Shrimp,

Longhorn Fairy Shrimp, Riverside Fairy Shrimp,

Vernal Pool Tadpole Shrimp, and the Threatened

Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp.

Stay at least 250 feet from the margin of the

pool/swale edge. When conducting activities

beyond 250 feet from habitat, be careful to avoid

activities that will eventually result in effects to

the pool/swale through changes in hydrology,

sedimentation, or contamination of the habitat.

Adequate fencing will be placed and maintained

around any avoided (preserved) vernal pool

habitat to prevent impacts from vehicles.

If habitat is avoided (preserved) onsite, then a

USFWS-approved biologist (monitor) will

inspect any construction-related activities at the

proposed project site to ensure that no

unnecessary take of listed species or destruction

of their habitat occurs. The biologist will have

the authority to stop all activities that may result

in take or destruction until appropriate corrective

measures have been completed. The biologist

also will be required to report immediately any

unauthorized impacts to the USFWS and CDFG.

All onsite construction personnel will receive

instruction regarding the presence of listed

species and importance of avoiding impacts to

these species and their habitat.

The applicant will ensure that activities that are

inconsistent with the maintenance of the

suitability of remaining habitat and associated

onsite watershed are prohibited. This includes,

but is not limited to, the following:

- Alteration of existing topography or any

other alteration or uses for any purposes

- Use of fire protection activities not required

to protect existing structures at the project

site

Notes:

BR = Biological Resources

LS = Less than Significant
CHAPTER III, DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) III-17 08/01/03

Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Impact Mitigation

Level of

Significance

After

Mitigation

Biological Resources

BR-f continued - Use of pesticides or other toxic chemicals,

including the exploration for or

development of mineral extraction

Placement of any new structures on these

parcels

- Dumping, burning, and/or burying of

rubbish, garbage, or any other wastes or fill

materials

- Building of any new roads or trails

- Killing, removal, alteration, or replacement

of any existing native vegetation

- Placement of stormwater drains

In the event that take cannot be avoided, contact

the USFWS for information before starting the

action.

BR-12 A monitoring plan should be developed and

implemented to assess the success of mitigation

measures for impacts to special-status wildlife.

Success criteria should be clearly defined for all

measures implemented to mitigate for project

impacts to wildlife. Yearly reports should be

submitted to the USFWS and the CDFG. If

success criteria are being met after 3 years of

monitoring, no additional monitoring is

necessary.

BR-g Alternatives KER-1A/1B, KER-7,

PIX-2B, PIX-4B, and PIX-9 could

impact habitat used by Buena Vista

Lake shrew.

BR-13 Before any ground-disturbing activities, have a

USFWS-approved biologist survey for the

presence of the wetland plant associations

considered habitat for the Buena Vista Lake

shrew. Avoid areas in, or adjacent to, the Kern

Lake Preserve.

A USFWS-approved worker awareness program

shall be conducted for all projects located in

areas that provide, or may provide, habitat for

this species.

Confine surface disturbance to areas that do not

exhibit the signs listed above with an adequate

buffer (not less than 200 feet). The biologist must

stake and flag to exclude construction activities

within 200 feet of potential habitat.

LS

Notes:

BR = Biological Resources

LS = Less than Significant
CHAPTER III, DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) III-18 08/01/03

Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Impact Mitigation

Level of

Significance

After

Mitigation

Biological Resources

BR-g continued No work shall be conducted between sunset and

sunrise within 0.5 mile of potential habitat.

No domestic animals shall be allowed on the

project site.

On unposted roads, vehicle speeds shall not

exceed 25 miles per hour.

Trash shall be disposed of in covered containers

and removed daily.

In the event that take cannot be avoided, contact

the USFWS for information before starting the

action.

BR-h KER-7, PIX-2B, PIX-4B, and PIX-9

could impact between 2.4 to 8.2 acres

of jurisdictional wetland.

BR-14 Pre-construction delineations should be

conducted of wetlands and other waters of the

U.S. Request a verification of the delineated

boundaries from the USACE. Following

verification of the delineation boundaries,

measures to avoid impacts to jurisdictional

wetlands should be developed.

BR-15 After final design, impacts to wetlands and other

waters should be quantified. Submit to USACE a

permit application for discharge of fill material

into waters of the U.S., following Section 404 of

the Clean Water Act.

BR-16 Install and maintain appropriate erosion and

sedimentation controls during and following

construction as specified in the required Erosion

Control Plan (see Hydrology and Water Quality

section).

BR-17 A streambed alteration agreement with the

CDFG should be obtained, following Section

1601 of the Fish and Game Code, before

initiating construction within the 100-year

floodplain of any stream crossing.

BR-18 Develop and implement mitigation plans for

impacts to wetlands. Eliminated wetlands should

be replaced at a 2:1 ratio. Temporarily impacted

wetlands should be restored onsite. Stockpile

topsoil removed from wetlands and store in

upland landscape positions. Following

construction disturbance, restore the land surface

contours and backfill the top 6 to 12 inches with

stockpiled topsoil.

LS

Notes:

BR = Biological Resources

LS = Less than Significant
CHAPTER III, DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) III-19 08/01/03

Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Impact Mitigation

Level of

Significance

After

Mitigation

Biological Resources

BR-h continued BR-19 Following project completion, monitor the site to

assess mitigation success. Success criteria should

be clearly defined for all measures implemented

to mitigate for project impacts to wetlands.

Yearly reports should be submitted to the

USFWS and the USACE. If success criteria are

being met after 3 years of monitoring, no

additional monitoring is necessary.

Cultural Resources

CR-a Alternative KER-7 could impact a

prehistoric site.

CR-1 Restrict KER-7 construction activities in the area

of CA-KER-2100 to the existing canal alignment

and restrict the movement of equipment to the

south levee in this area. As the south levee has

by far the better road surface, this should not

impose a burden on the construction crew.

LS

CR-b Alternatives PIX-2B, PIX-4B, and

PIX-9 could impact adjacent historical

residences.

CR-2 Avoid the three historical structures near the

PIX-2B, PIX-4B, and PIX-9 alignments. If

avoidance of impact to any of these structures is

not feasible, then additional historical research

should be conducted to determine significance

and develop a suitable plan for mitigation of

adverse effect, if necessary.

LS

Hydrology and Water Quality

HWQ-a Alternatives KER-1A/1B, KER-7,

PIX-2B, PIX-4B, and PIX-9 would

temporarily impact surface water

quality.

HWQ-1 Schedule construction within the banks of all

streams during the dry season.

HWQ-2 Develop and implement an Erosion and

Sediment Control and Storm Water Pollution

Prevention plan that identifies methods to

minimize sedimentation during construction.

LS

Recreation

No mitigation is required.

Socioeconomics

No mitigation is required.

Energy

No mitigation is required.

Notes:

BR = Biological Resources

CR = Cultural Resources

LS = Less than Significant

HWQ = Hydrology and Water Quality
CHAPTER III, DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) III-20 08/01/03

Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Impact Mitigation

Level of

Significance

After

Mitigation

Air Quality

AQ-a Alternatives KER-1A/1B, PIX-2B,

PIX-4B, PIX-8, and PIX-9 would

temporarily impact air quality.

AQ-1 All active construction areas will be watered daily

as necessary.

AQ-2 Dust producing activities will be suspended when

high winds create construction-induced visible

dust plumes moving beyond the site in spite of

dust control measures.

AQ-3 All trucks hauling soil and other loose material

will be covered.

AQ-4 Soil stabilizers, such as paving, watering, or the

application of gravel, will be applied to all

unpaved access roads and staging areas at

construction sites.

AQ-5 Streets will be swept, as necessary, if visible soil

material is carried onto adjacent public streets.

AQ-6 Stockpiles will be covered or applied with a soil

stabilizer when necessary.

AQ7 Traffic speeds will be limited to 15 miles per hour

on unpaved roads.

LS

Notes:

AQ = Air Quality

LS = Less than Significant

Required Permits and Approvals

Construction of either of the preferred

alternatives is subject to review and approval by

several other agencies, and is described as

follows:

• USACE. Construction of the PIX-4B

alternative is expected to require a

Nationwide Permit in accordance with

Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act.

This requirement is associated with

construction activities within jurisdictional

waters of the U.S. (e.g., Deer Creek). A

permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water

Act is not expected be required for the

KER-1A/1B alternative.

• Regional Water Quality Control Board

(RWQCB). In accordance with an existing

statewide permit, construction of both the

PIX-4B and KER-1A/1B alternatives will

require that Stormwater Pollution Prevention

Plans be developed prior to the start of

construction. In addition, any required

Nationwide Permit under Section 404 of the

Clean Water Act will also require

consultation with the RWQCB.

• CDFG. Construction of the PIX-4B

alternative is expected to require a

Streambed Alteration Agreement for the

crossing of Deer Creek in accordance with

Section 1601 of the California Fish and

Game Code. A permit under Section 1601 is

not expected to be required for the

KER-1A/1B alternative.

• USFWS. A Biological Opinion was issued

for construction of refuge water supply

conveyance facilities on June 28, 1999. In

accordance with the requirements of the

Biological Opinion, detailed accounting of

site-specific impacts will be provided to the
CHAPTER III, DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) III-21 08/01/03

USFWS during the final engineering design

effort.

• State Historic Preservation Officer. The

State Historic Preservation Office issued a

letter on September 3, 1997 concurring that

USBR has satisfied its requirements under

Section 106 of the National Historic

Preservation Act. No further action is

required.
RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) IV-1 08/01/03

Chapter IV

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

This chapter describes the environmental

conditions that may be affected by the

construction of any of the conveyance

alternatives for the two refuge areas. All

mitigation is incorporated into each of the

alternatives. The criteria for determining

significance are presented for each issue area

and are based on guidance from the NEPA

Regulations, CEQA Guidelines, and

professional judgment. The scoping process

determined the following issue areas warranted

analysis:

• Land Use

• Biological Resources

• Cultural Resources

• Hydrology/Water Quality

• Recreation

• Socioeconomics

• Energy

• Air Quality

Other issues typically discussed in a NEPA/

CEQA document, such as geology, aesthetics,

and public health and safety, are either discussed

as part of other issue area analyses, or, in the

case of geology, are determined to be unaffected

by the proposed actions.

Typical Construction and

Operations/Maintenance Impacts

Construction impacts would vary for each of the

conveyance alternatives depending on the type

of facility used to convey water. Alternatives

that incorporate new conveyance facilities would

typically involve some degree of clearing,

excavating, and grading along a linear corridor.

Impacts associated with turnout structures,

siphons, weirs, or pumps would be limited and

site-specific in nature. Impacts resulting from

operations and maintenance would also depend

on the facility constructed. The typical impacts

associated with the various facilities required

among the alternatives are described in the

following sections. The particular facilities

proposed for each alternative are presented in

Table IV-1. Figures IV-1 and IV-2 illustrate the

areas of construction associated with each

alternative by refuge.

Table IV-1

Construction and Operations and Maintenance

Impacts for Proposed Facilities

Alternative

Pipeline

(distance in feet) Pump

Install

Groundwater

Wells

Improve Existing

Canal

Turnout Structure,

Siphon, and/or Weir

Kern NWR

KER-1A/1B X X

KER-7 X X X

Pixley NWR

PIX-2B X

(67,000)

X

PIX-4B X

(55,000)

X X

PIX-8 X

PIX-9 X

(66,000)

X






	











 

!"
#$


	
































































	










 !
 

" 
#$
 














	










	



 	



	




	




	





CHAPTER IV, AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) IV-4 08/01/03

Pipeline

Impacts for the construction of an underground

pipeline would tend to be short term because

vegetation, other than large trees, would be

either re-seeded or allowed to naturally

reestablish within the impacted area. The

anticipated width of impact for pipeline

installation ranges from approximately 150 to

200 feet. Clearing and grading would typically

be limited because of the flat terrain and absence

of trees. Large creek crossings, canals, and roads

would likely be accomplished by boring or

installing siphons. Although this technique

requires excavation on either side of the feature

and subsequently a greater right-of-way width

than the open-cut method, impacts to stream

habitats, road and rail traffic, and water

conveyance would be minimized. Minor road,

creek, and canal crossings would be installed by

open trenching across the feature. Installation of

a pipeline within a roadway would require

pavement cutting if the road were paved or

simply trenching if the road were unpaved. No

clearing would be required.

Impacts from operations and maintenance would

be limited to the unlikely need to repair the

pipeline or remove a large tree from the right-ofway.

Pump

The installation of pumps to lift water from one

conveyance facility to another would

temporarily impact no more than approximately

0.25 acre. Impacts associated with operations

and maintenance would be limited to periodic

inspections and repair as necessary.

Wells

Impacts associated with the construction of

wells would be primarily short term in nature

and would be limited to an area no greater than

500 square feet to install the well and necessary

pumps. Additional impacts would occur from

the installation of ancillary pipelines (see

Pipeline section) to connect the wells to the

discharge points. In most cases, electric

distribution lines would need to be installed to

provide power to each well or group of wells.

All lines required on-refuge would be placed

underground according to USFWS policy.

Monitoring wells would not require pipeline

interconnections. Approximately 10 square feet

of area would be permanently affected by each

well. Long-term impacts would likely be

inconsequential. Operation and maintenance

impacts would be limited to routine maintenance

and the unlikely need to replace a well.

Turnout Structure or Weir

New turnout structures or the enlargement of

existing structures on streams and canals

designated as water sources are required as part

of many of the alternatives. The size and type of

these structures will vary depending on the

alternative, but would likely impact a small area

(less than one acre) adjacent to the water source.

Impacts associated with operations and

maintenance would be limited to the unlikely

need to repair a structure resulting in potential

impacts to water quality of the watercourse.

Land Use

Affected Environment

The Kern NWR study area is situated in

northern Kern County. The Kern study area, as

shown on Figure IV-1, contains a small portion

of the California Aqueduct at the BVWSD

Turnout 1B and portions of the BVWSD

pipeline, Goose Lake Canal, BVWSD West Side

Canal, BVWSD Main Drain Canal, BVWSD

Cross Canal, LHID Lateral 6-1, and LHID

Burhan Canal. The terrain is relatively flat and is

traversed by numerous irrigation ditches and

creeks. Large tracts of rangeland and lands

dominated by native vegetation are also

prevalent within the Kern NWR study area.

Goose Lake Canal crosses through the center of

the Kern NWR study area and Interstate 5, two

electric transmission lines, and an underground

pipeline traverse the study area in a northwestsoutheasterly direction. County roads run

east/west and north/south.
CHAPTER IV, AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) IV-5 08/01/03

The Pixley NWR study area is situated in the

valley floor portion of Tulare County at the

southern end of the San Joaquin Valley. The

Pixley study area, as shown on Figure IV-2,

contains portions of Deer Creek and the FriantKern Canal, near DEID Lateral 111.6W, and

parallels Deer Creek Avenue, Road 160, and

Avenue 80 between the towns of Pixley and

Earlimart. The terrain is relatively flat and is

traversed by numerous irrigation ditches and

creeks. State Highway 99 and the SPRR cross

through the center of the Pixley NWR study

area, in addition to county roads that run

east/west and north/south.

Agricultural. The primary land use within the

Kern NWR study area is agricultural. Kern

County designates lands within the study area as

Agriculture. Typical parcel minimums are

20 acres or larger. The majority of these lands

are irrigated for the production of field crops.

Typical crops within the region include cotton

and other field crops. The primary land use

within the Pixley NWR study area is

agricultural. Tulare County designates lands

within the study area as Rural Valley Lands. The

majority of these lands are irrigated for the

production of field crops. Vineyards are present

within the easternmost portion of the study area.

The planting and/or harvesting schedules for

hay, and orchard crops typically include the

periods of February through March and

September through November.

Residential/Structural. Structures within the

Pixley NWR project area include residences

along Deer Creek Avenue, Road 160, and

Avenue 80 (PIX-2B and PIX-9 alignments) and

the Dole processing plant on Road 160 (PIX-9).

There are no structures in the vicinity of the

Kern NWR alternative alignments.

Infrastructure. Residential powerlines are

located along Deer Creek Avenue, Road 160,

and Avenue 80 (PIX-2B and PIX-9 alignments)

within the Pixley NWR study area. Pipelines and

electric transmission lines run northwestsoutheast approximately one to three miles west

of the Kern NWR study area. Additionally,

natural gas lines lie along, across and adjacent

to, KER-1A/1B.

Environmental Consequences

Criteria for Determining Significance.

Impacts to existing land use would be

considered significant if they would result in any

one of the following:

• Conflicts with adopted environmental plans

and goals of the community where the

project is located

• Encroachment on residential uses, including

substantial increases in noise levels

• Conversion of prime agricultural land to

non-agricultural use

• Impairment of the agricultural productivity

of prime agricultural land

• Demolition of a residence or a permanent

agricultural structure

Land use impacts and mitigation measures are

summarized in Table IV-2.

Agricultural. Given that the majority of lands

are used for agricultural purposes, land use

impacts include temporary loss of production of

up to 362 acres and inconvenience to farming

operations. All alternatives would impact

agricultural operations and crop production in

the short term, depending on the time of year

construction is scheduled.

The alternatives that involve construction of new

pipeline facilities (PIX-2B, PIX-4B, and PIX-9)

would impose a temporary short-term (oneseason) impact on crop production and

operations. Although production would be

expected to fully recover within 1 to 3 years, this

would be a significant impact. Land disturbance

could also result in the spread of noxious weeds.

Impacts by alternative are as follows:

• KER-1A/1B. Improvements to existing

Buena Vista Water Storage District

facilities. No significant disturbance to

crops.

• KER-7. Improvements to existing Lost Hills

Irrigation District facilities. No significant

disturbance to crops.
CHAPTER IV, AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) IV-6 08/01/03

• PIX-2B. The PIX-2B alignment follows the

length of Deer Creek Avenue (a distance of

approximately 4.5 miles) and goes crosscountry for approximately 8.5 miles.

Installation of a pipeline along the PIX-2B

alignment would create a temporary

disturbance within the approximately 200-

foot-wide corridor centered along Deer

Creek Avenue. Crops surround the PIX-2B

alignment along its entire length. Crops

planted along the PIX-2B alignment include

cotton, grapes, alfalfa, grain sorghum, and

deciduous orchards. The temporary loss of

agricultural production associated with this

approximately 13-mile corridor corresponds

to approximately 312 acres.

• PIX-4B. The PIX-4B alignment follows

Road 160 for approximately 0.75 miles, and

goes cross-country for approximately

9.75 miles. Installation of a pipeline along

the PIX-4B alignment would create a

temporary disturbance within the

approximately 200-foot-wide corridor.

Crops surround the PIX-4B alignment along

most of its length. Crops planted along the

PIX-4B alignment include cotton, grapes,

alfalfa, and grain sorghum. The temporary

loss of agricultural production associated

with this approximately 10.5-mile corridor

corresponds to approximately 246 acres.

• PIX-8. On-refuge improvements. No impact

to land use.

• PIX-9. The PIX-9 alignment follows

Avenue 80 for approximately 2.5 miles,

Road 160 for approximately 2 miles, Deer

Creek Avenue for approximately 3.5 miles

and goes cross-country for approximately

7.5 miles. Installation of a pipeline along the

PIX-9 alignment would create a temporary

disturbance within the approximately

200-foot-wide corridor. Crops surround the

PIX-9 alignment along its entire length.

Crops planted along the PIX-9 alignment

include cotton, grapes, alfalfa, and

deciduous orchards. The temporary loss of

agricultural production associated with this

approximately 15.5-mile corridor

corresponds to approximately 362 acres.

Table IV-2

Land Use Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Impact Mitigation

Level of

Significance

After Mitigation

LU-a Alignments PIX-2B, PIX-4B,

or PIX-9 could temporarily

impact agricultural

production of 250 to 350

acres for one season.

LU-1 Schedule construction to minimize

impacts to crop production and

operations.

LU-2 Minimize workspace required to install

facilities.

LU-3 Compensate landowners for any loss of

crop production or impacts to

agricultural operations.

LS

LU-b Alignment PIX-2B could

permanently impact

residential and other

structures.

LU-4 Route conveyance facilities to avoid

residences and other structures.

LU-5 Compensate landowners for any loss of

property.

LS

LU-c Alignments KER-7, PIX-2B,

PIX-4B, and PIX-9 could

impact existing residential

powerlines.

LU-6 Route conveyance facilities to avoid

powerlines.

LS

Note:

LU = Land Use

LS = Less than Significant
CHAPTER IV, AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) IV-7 08/01/03

Residential/Structural. Permanent residences

and/or outbuildings are located within, or

directly adjacent to, the 200-foot-wide pipeline

corridors. Impacts to buildings located within

this corridor would be permanent; impacts to

buildings adjacent to the corridor would be

temporary and limited to the construction period.

Such impacts would be considered significant.

Impacts by alternative are as follows:

• KER-1A/1B. No structures present.

• KER-7. No structures present.

• PIX-2B. One residence on the south side of

Deer Creek Avenue, and one on the north

side. All structures are located within 50 feet

of Deer Creek Avenue.

• PIX-4B. No structures present.

• PIX-8. No structures present.

• PIX-9. No structures present.

Infrastructure. Interstate 5, Highway 46, two

electric transmission lines, and an underground

pipeline traverse the Kern study area in a

northwest-southeasterly direction. County roads

(Lost Hills Road and Carmel Road) run

east/west and north/south. State Highway 99 and

the SPRR cross through the center of the Pixley

study area. County roads (Deer Creek Avenue,

Road 160, and Avenue 80) run east/west and

north/ south through the area.

Impacts by alternative are as follows:

• KER-1A/1B. Improvements to existing

Buena Vista Water Storage District

facilities; no significant disturbance to

infrastructure.

• KER-7. Residential powerlines run along

north side of the existing Lost Hills Water

District Burhan Canal.

• PIX-2B. Residential powerlines along the

entire length (approximately 4.5 miles) of

Deer Creek Avenue, alternating back and

forth on the north and south sides of the

road.

• PIX-4B. Residential powerlines along the

0.75-mile stretch of Road 160 just south of

Deer Creek Avenue that pertains to this

alternative.

• PIX-8. On-refuge improvement.

• PIX-9. Residential powerlines along the

entire length (approximately 4.5 miles) of

the alignment (2.5 miles along Avenue 80

and 2.0 miles cross-country), alternating

back and forth on the north and south sides

of the road.

Residential powerpoles in the Pixley NWR

study area may need to be relocated on occasion.

The potential presence of underground utilities

in both the Kern and Pixley study areas will be

investigated prior to the commencement of

construction.

Mitigation

The following mitigation measures are included

as part of each alternative and will reduce the

impacts identified above to a less-thansignificant level:

• LU-1. Schedule construction to minimize

impacts to crop production and operations.

• LU-2. Minimize workspace required to

install facilities to lessen impacts to

available cropland and decrease potential for

spread of noxious weeds.

• LU-3. Compensate landowners for any loss

of crop production or impacts to agricultural

operations.

• LU-4. Route conveyance facilities so as to

avoid residences and other structures.

• LU-5. Compensate landowners for any loss

of property.

• LU-6. Route conveyance facilities so as to

avoid powerlines.

Biological Resources

This section discusses the existing biological

setting and anticipated impacts to biological

resources in the study area. The USFWS,

through joint initial site evaluation field

meetings conducted on November 14 and 15,

1994, for the South San Joaquin Valley refuges,
CHAPTER IV, AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) IV-8 08/01/03

provided guidance for the preparation of this

section. Subsequent surveys were conducted in

the fall of 1995 and spring of 2003 (Kern NWR

only). Additional database record searches and

updating of mitigation requirements were

conducted January 2003. The USFWS’s

Endangered Species Division provided further

guidance in April 1996 and January 2003. In

addition, the USFWS provided species lists and

suggested surveys be conducted to determine the

potential effects of the action on federally listed,

proposed, and species of concern or their habitat.

Information and guidance was also provided by

the CDFG in 1994 and 2003.

This section also summarizes on-refuge benefits

related to additional habitat associated with

providing additional water supplies. The benefits

would be identical for each alternative, as all

alternatives would convey water supplies up to

the Level 4 quantity, which will be used to

enhance and provide additional habitat.

Affected Environment

Vegetation. Vegetation in the vicinity of the two

refuges has been strongly influenced by

agricultural conversion and associated water

diversions. Currently, the vast majority of the

study area is intensively managed as farmland.

The most prevalent agricultural practice in the

study area is cotton and grape farming. Alfalfa

fields and orchards are also common. Unfarmed

and fallow lands are used for grazing.

Prior to agricultural conversion, the study area

was a vast complex of marshes, riparian forests,

valley grasslands, and alkali sinks and scrub

lands. Under existing conditions only remnant

examples of these plant communities occur,

primarily in isolated or fragmented patches

which are often associated with ditches or

canals. Because of agricultural conversion and

other landscape alterations, plant species in areas

where these native habitats still occur have also

become isolated, influenced by exotic species,

and in some cases, extirpated. The refuge areas

themselves are the primary source of habitat for

waterfowl.

Plant communities within the alternative

corridors and impact areas were classified

according to the habitats defined in the

California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS)

Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of

California (Tibor, 2001). CNPS habitats

observed in the study area include chenopod

scrub, valley and foothill grassland, marshes and

swamps, riparian woodland, and riparian scrub.

Special-Status Species. Special-status plant

species are vascular plants that are as follows:

• Designated as rare, threatened, or

endangered by the state or federal

governments

• Proposed for rare, threatened, or endangered

status

• Designated as state candidates or federal

species of concern

• Included on the CNPS Lists 1A, 1B, and 2

(Skinner and Pavlik, 2001)

Special-status plant species that potentially

occur in the anticipated impact areas were

determined by the following:

• Reviewing the most current lists of specialstatus plants (USFWS, 1995a, 1995b;

Federal Register, 1996)

• Conducting literature review and searches of

the CDFG’s California Natural Diversity

Database (CNDDB) and the CNPS

Electronic Inventory

• Reviewing species lists provided by the

USFWS (USFWS, 2003)

• Conducting reconnaissance-level habitat

evaluations at each proposed refuge

conveyance system site or corridor

Field evaluations conducted in the fall of 1995

and spring 2003 consisted of driving and

walking proposed corridors and improvement

sites to determine potential occurrences of

special-status plant species. These

determinations were based on the types and

conditions of existing habitats within the

proposed corridors and improvement sites. Field

notes were recorded describing plant

communities within the proposed corridors and

improvements sites. These notes describe

vegetation, locations of sensitive resource areas
CHAPTER IV, AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) IV-9 08/01/03

where special-status plants are most likely to

occur (e.g., vernal pools, alkali scrub), and

observed locations of special-status plants. No

substantial change in land use that has occurred

since 1995 has altered habitat presence.

Table IV-3 displays the special-status plant

species that could potentially occur in the area.

These special-status plant species occur in the

following six CNPS-defined habitat types:

• Valley and foothill grassland

• Chenopod scrub

• Vernal pools

• Cismontane woodland

• Riparian scrub

• Marshes and swamps

Of these six habitat types, valley and foothill

grassland, chenopod scrub, and riparian scrub

were observed in the impact areas and

alternative corridors.

Listed plants that have the potential to occur in

valley and foothill grassland habitat are Atriplex

erecticaulis (Earlimart orache), Atriplex subtilis

(subtle orache), and Layia munzii (Munz’s tidytips). Listed plants that have the potential to

occur in chenopod scrub habitat are limited to

Atriplex vallicola (Lost Hills crownscale).

Threatened or endangered plants that have the

potential to occur in the project area are

Lembertia congdonii (San Joaquin

woollythreads) and Eremalche kernensis

(Kern mallow).

Wildlife. The South San Joaquin Valley region

is an important area for several endangered

species, and is a key area for migratory species

of the Pacific Flyway, thereby attracting large

numbers of ducks, geese, and shorebirds during

the fall and winter months. Many resident and

migratory wildlife species occur within the

South San Joaquin Valley region. Resident

species include numerous amphibians and

reptiles, large and small mammals, and various

shorebirds, waterfowl, raptors, and songbirds.

Wildlife habitats present in the study area were

characterized according to A Guide to the

Wildlife Habitats of California (Mayer and

Laudenslayer, 1988). Wildlife habitats occurring

within the proposed project sites or corridors

include valley-foothill riparian, alkali desert

scrub, annual grassland, fresh emergent wetland,

pasture, riverine, and cropland.

Special-Status Species. For the purposes of this

evaluation, special-status wildlife species

include taxa that are as follows:

• Designated as threatened or endangered by

the state or federal governments (i.e., “listed

species”)

• Proposed or petitioned for federal or state

threatened or endangered status

• Designated as state or federal candidate

species

• Identified by the USFWS as a “Species of

Concern” or by CDFG as a “Species of

Special Concern”

Potential presence of special-status wildlife

species within the study area was determined by

the following:

• Reviewing the most current lists of specialstatus wildlife species (USFWS, 1995a,

1995b; Federal Register, 1996)

• Conducting literature review and record

searches of the CNDDB

• Reviewing species lists provided by the

USFWS (2003)

• Coordinating field surveys

Field evaluations were undertaken in fall of

1995 and spring 2003 and consisted of driving

and walking proposed corridors and

improvement sites to determine potential

occurrences of special-status wildlife species.

These determinations were based on the types

and conditions of existing wildlife habitats

within the proposed corridors and improvement

sites. Field notes were recorded describing

wildlife habitats within the proposed corridors

and improvement sites.

These notes describe habitats, locations of

habitat elements where special-status wildlife

species are most likely to occur (e.g., vernal

pools, alkali scrub, riparian woodland), and

Wildlife-Habitat Relationship plant

communities, which were delineated on

1:24,000-scale maps. No substantial change in
CHAPTER IV, AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) IV-10 08/01/03

Table IV-3

Potential Floral Species of Concern at the

South San Joaquin Valley Study Area

Scientific Name Common Name Habitata

Statusb

Fed/CA/CNPS

Atriplex cordulata Heartscale ChScr, VFGrs SC/-/1B

Atriplex depressa Brittlescale ChScr, VFGrs -/-/1B

Atriplex erecticaulis Earlimart orache VFGrs SC/-/1B

Atriplex persistens Vernal pool smallscale VnPls SC/-/1B

Atriplex subtilis Subtle orache VFGrs SC/-/1B

Atriplex vallicola Lost Hills crownscale ChScr, VFGrs SC/-/1B

Caulanthus californicus California jewelflower ChScr, VFGrs FE/CE/1B

Cirsium crassicaula Slough thistle RpScr, ChScr, VFGrs SC/-/1B

Delphinium recurvatum Recurved larkspur CmWld, ChScr, VFGrs SC/-/1B

Eremalche kernensis Kern mallow ChScr, VFGrs FE/-/1B

Eriastrum hooveri Hoover’s eriastrum CmWld, VFGrs FT/-/4

Lasthenia glabrata ssp.coulteri Coulter’s goldfields VNPls, MshSw -/-/1B

Layia munzii Munz’s tidy tips ChScr, VFGrs SC/-1B

Lembertia congdonii San Joaquin woollythreads ChScr, VFGrs FE/-/1B

Myosurus minimus Little mousetail VnPls SC/-/3 a

Habitat Definitions:

VFGrs Valley and Foothill Grassland

ChScr Chenopod Scrub

VnPls Vernal Pools

CmWld Cismontane Woodland

MshSw Marshes and Swamps

RpScr Riparian Scrub

b

Status Definitions:

Federal

FE Federally Listed Endangered

FT Federally Listed Threatened

SC Federal Species of Concern

State

CE California Endangered

CNPS

1B Considered rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere

3 Plants about which more information is needed (The CNPS Review List)

4 Plants of limited distribution
CHAPTER IV, AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) IV-11 08/01/03

land use that has occurred since 1995 has altered

habitat presence.

Table IV-4 displays the special-status wildlife

species that could potentially occur in the study

area. Of these, four species were determined to

be of particular concern based on listing status

(i.e., federally and/or state-listed as threatened or

endangered) and observations of their habitats

within the project corridors and sites. These

species include the following:

• Tipton kangaroo rat

• San Joaquin kit fox

• Blunt-nosed leopard lizard

• Buena Vista Lake Shrew

Burrows were observed during the spring 2003

survey along the West Side Canal and a portion

of the Main Drain Canal that may provide

habitat for the kangaroo rat species listed in

Table IV-4. Vernal pools and swales were

observed adjacent to the study corridor at

KER-7, and may provide habitat for the fairy

shrimp and tadpole shrimp species listed in

Table IV-4.

Wetlands/Waters. Wetlands are defined for

regulatory purposes as “areas that are inundated

or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a

frequency and duration sufficient to support, and

that under normal circumstances do support, a

prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for

life in saturated soil conditions.” Features

potentially meeting the required hydric

vegetation, hydric soil, and wetland hydrology

criteria were observed during the surveys. Other

waters of the U.S. that likely do not qualify as

wetlands are present at various stream crossings

(e.g., Deer Creek crossing of the Pixley NWR

alternatives).

The study area contains an extensive network of

irrigation canals and ditches. Unlined canals and

ditches may support wetland and riparian

vegetation, but these features generally do not

qualify as jurisdictional wetlands. Similarly,

some agricultural fields and other croplands in

the study area may be located on former

wetlands, but these are likely regarded as

“prior-converted wetlands” by federal regulatory

agencies.

On-Refuge Wetlands/Waters. The Kern and

Pixley NWRs contain thousands of acres of

permanent ponds, seasonal wetlands, irrigated

watergrass units, and uplands. These habitat

types and particularly the wetlands support

watergrass and invertebrate populations that

serve as a foodsource for migratory waterfowl,

marsh, and other water birds. Upland areas of

the refuge support large concentrations of geese,

upland birds, and other wildlife species.

Environmental Consequences

As part of the evaluation of the potential impacts

to vegetation and wildlife, all habitat types

within a corridor/alternative alignment were

evaluated. The majority of habitat within the

study area is intensively managed cropland. This

habitat provides benefits to many common

wildlife species found in the Valley, including

waterfowl, marsh and water birds, pheasants,

and small mammals. However, the evaluation of

the alternatives found that any permanent

impacts to croplands would be very small, and

therefore, less than significant for the proposed

actions.

Potential project-related effects on biological

resources of installing the proposed conveyance

facilities will result primarily from the

vegetation clearing and ground disturbance

associated with construction activities. These

types of construction impacts for pipeline

installation are generally temporary.

Construction of facilities, such as siphons,

entails both permanent impact areas (the

footprint of the constructed feature) and

temporary impact areas (e.g., equipment staging

sites). Intensively managed agricultural fields

typically have either (1) low biological functions

and values, or (2) the functions and values are

distributed broadly over large areas.

Most potential adverse impacts to biological

resources will be minimal if pipelines are placed

in existing roadways wherever practicable.
CHAPTER IV, AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) IV-12 08/01/03

Table IV-4

Potential Wildlife Species of Concern at the South San Joaquin Study Area

Scientific Name Common Name

Statusa

Fed/CA

Invertebrates

Branchinecta lynchi Vernal pool fairy shrimp FE/-

Desmocerus californicus dimorphus Valley elderberry longhorn beetle FT/-

Linderiella occidentalis California linderiella fairy shrimp SC/-

Lytta hoppingi Hopping’s blister beetle SC/-

Lytta molesta Molestan blister beetle SC/-

Amphibians

Rana aurora draytonii California red-legged frog FT/CSC

Scaphiopus hammondii Western spadefoot SC/CSC

Reptiles

Clemmys marmorata Western pond turtle SC/CSC

Gambelia sila Blunt-nosed leopard lizard FE/CE

Masticophis flagellum ruddocki San Joaquin whipsnake SC/-

Anniella pulchra pulchra Silvery legless lizard SC/CSC

Phyrnosoma coronatum frontale California horned lizard SC/-

Birds

Plegadis chihi White-faced ibis SC/CSC

Buteo regalis Ferruginous hawk SC/CSC

Buteo swainsoni Swainson’s hawk SC/CT

Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald eagle FT/CE

Falco peregrinus anatum American peregrine falcon SC/CE

Ammodramus savannarum Grasshopper sparrow SC/-

Spizella breweri Brewer’s sparrow SC/-

Grus canadensis tabida Greater sandhill crane -/CT

Charadrium montanus Mountain plover PT/CSC

Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus Western snowy plover SC/CSC

Numenius americanus Long-billed curlew -/CSC

Chlidonias niger Black tern SC/CSC

Asio flammeus Short-eared owl -/CSC

Speotyto cunicularia Burrowing owl SC/CSC

Chaetura vauxi Vaux’s swift -/CSC

Empidonax traillii Willow flycatcher -/CE

Elanus leucurus White-tailed kite SC/FP

Lanius ludovicianus Loggerhead shrike SC/CSC

Agelaius tricolor Tricolored blackbird SC/CSC
CHAPTER IV, AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) IV-13 08/01/03

Table IV-4

Potential Wildlife Species of Concern at the South San Joaquin Study Area

Scientific Name Common Name

Statusa

Fed/CA

Melanerpes lewis Lewis’ woodpecker SC/-

Selasphorus rufus Rufous hummingbird SC/-

Calypte costae Costa’s hummingbird SC/-

Carduelis lawrencei Lawrence’s goldfinch SC/-

Toxostoma redivivum California thrasher SC/-

Mammals

Sorex ornatus relictus Buena Vista Lake shrew FE/-

Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii Pacific western big-eared bat SC/CSC

Myotis yumanensis Yuma myotis SC/-

Myotis volans Long-legged myotis SC/-

Myotis cilolabrum Western small-footed myotis SC/-

Eumops perotis californicus California mastiff bat SC/CSC

Ammospermophilis nelsoni San Joaquin antelope squirrel SC/CT

Dipodomys nitratoides exilis Fresno kangaroo rat FE/CE

Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides Tipton kangaroo rat FE/CE

Dipodyms nitratoides bevinasus Short-nosed kangaroo rat SC/-

Onychomys torridus ramona Southern grasshopper mouse SC/CSC

Onychomys torridus tularensis Tulare grasshopper mouse SC/CSC

Perognathus inornatus inornatus San Joaquin pocket mouse SC/-

Vulpes macrotis mutica San Joaquin kit fox FE/CT

aStatus Definitions:

Federal

FE Federal Endangered

FT Federal Threatened

SC Federal Species of Concern

State

FP Fully Protected

CE California Endangered

CT California Threatened

CSC California Species of Special Concern
CHAPTER IV, AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) IV-14 08/01/03

Outside of roadways, pipelines and canals routed

around wetland and aquatic habitats (including

non-jurisdictional canal habitat) will also

minimize adverse impacts to biological

resources.

Anticipated Benefits. The construction of any

of the conveyance alternatives will result in onrefuge habitat benefits by providing an

additional, reliable water supply as detailed in

the Background section, including the following:

• Increased availability of habitat and water

for spring/summer irrigations.

• Maintenance of additional acres of both

summer water and permanent pond habitat

types of both wildlife use and vegetation

improvement.

• Increased acreage of watergrass (millet) and

increased frequency of irrigations, if

necessary, to provide a high-quality

carbohydrate food source; while easing

potential waterfowl crop depredation

problems.

• Increased “flow-through” of maintenance

water levels in all wetlands habitat units to

decrease the potential of disease outbreaks,

especially botulism, in wildlife species using

these habitats.

• Maintenance of water depths, using the

year-round water delivery, which provide

optimum foraging conditions for the

majority of avian species.

Criteria for Determining Significance. The

following identifies the criteria used to

determine the significance of potential impacts

to vegetation, wildlife, and wetlands/waters

resources.

Vegetation. Impacts to vegetation are considered

significant if they would result in any one of the

following:

• Eliminate portions of important natural

communities such as freshwater marshes or

riparian habitats

• Cause direct mortality of state-listed or

federally listed plant species

• Substantial reductions in the size of a

special-status plant species population

• Substantial reductions in the extent or value

of habitats in which special-status plant

populations occur

Wildlife. Impacts to wildlife are considered

significant if they would result in any one of the

following:

• Direct mortality of state-listed or federally

listed wildlife species

• Temporary impacts to habitats such that

listed species suffer increased mortality or

lowered reproductive success

• Permanent loss of habitat critical to listed

wildlife species

• Substantial reductions in the size of a

special-status wildlife species population

• Substantial reduction in the extent or value

of habitats in which special-status and other

wildlife populations occur

Wetlands. Impacts to wetlands and other waters

are considered significant if they would result in

any one of the following:

• Permanent elimination of any amount of

high-quality wetland and/or riparian habitat

such as freshwater marshes, riparian, or

annual grassland habitats

• Temporary or permanent damage or

elimination of substantial amount of any

wetland and/or aquatic habitat

• Substantial degradation of water quality

Figures IV-3 and IV-4 show the location of

habitat (including wetlands) that could be used

by special-status species along each alternative

corridor. Table IV-5 displays a matrix of plant,

wildlife, and wetland resource issues by

proposed improvement corridor/site that are

anticipated to be impacted by project

construction activities. These potential impacts

are discussed below. Tables IV-6 through IV-15

identify habitat type, temporary and permanent

impact acreage and mitigation for alternatives

that will result in impacts. These estimates are

conservative and may over-estimate impacts, as

they assume the entire 200-foot corridor would

be impacted. It is the intent of Interior to

minimize impacts to the greatest extent possible

during final routing. Table IV-16 summarizes

impacts and mitigation measures.
   

	

	


	



	


	


		



	



































 

 










	






				 		!"	#$	







	





 


	











	


	

CHAPTER IV, AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) IV-17 08/01/03

Table IV-5

Potential Resource Issues by Proposed Improvement Site or Corridor

Proposed Site or

Corridor Name

Special-Status Plant

Issuesa Special Status Wildlife Issues

Number of Stream

Crossingsb

KER-1A/1B ChScr, MshSw, and RpScr San Joaquin kit fox, Tipton kangaroo rat,

blunt-nose leopard lizard, and Buena

Vista Lake shrew

0

KER-7 ChScr, MshSw, and VnPls

species

San Joaquin kit fox, Tipton kangaroo rat,

blunt-nose leopard lizard, Buena Vista

Lake shrew, Kern mallow, San Joaquin

woollythreads and Fairy/tadpole shrimp

0

PIX-2B ChScr, MshSw, RpScr and

VnPls species

San Joaquin kit fox, Tipton kangaroo rat,

blunt-nose leopard lizard, Buena Vista

Lake shrew, San Joaquin woollythreads,

and Kern mallow

1

PIX-4B ChScr, MshSw, RpScr and

VnPls species

San Joaquin kit fox, Tipton kangaroo rat,

blunt-nose leopard lizard, Buena Vista

Lake shrew, San Joaquin woollythreads,

and Kern mallow

1

PIX-9 ChScr, MshSw, RpScr and

VnPls species

San Joaquin kit fox, Tipton kangaroo rat,

blunt-nose leopard lizard, Buena Vista

Lake shrew, San Joaquin woollythreads,

and Kern mallow

1

a

Habitat Definitions:

ChScr = Chenopod Scrub

MshSw = Marshes and Swamps

RpScr = Riparian Scrub

VnPls = Vernal Pools

b

Does not include canals or irrigation ditches; only jurisdictional features.

Table IV-6

KER-1A/1B!Impacts by Habitat Type and Mitigation Measures

Habitat Approximate Impact Acreage

Type Permanent Temporary Total

Potential Special

Status Wildlife

Potential Listed

Plantsa

Mitigation

Measures

ASC 0 19.22 19.22 Yes Yes 1-19

CRO 0 55.04 55.04 Yesa No 7, 8, 12

VRI 0 6.46 6.46 Yes Yes 2-10, 12-19 a

Cropland habitats may contain microsites that have special-status species.

Notes:

VRI = Valley Foothill Riparian

ASC = Alkali Desert Scrub

CRO = Cropland
CHAPTER IV, AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) IV-18 08/01/03

Table IV-7

KER-7!Impacts by Habitat Type and Mitigation Measures

Habitat Approximate Impact Acreage

Type Permanent Temporary Total

Potential Special

Status Wildlife

Potential

Listed Plantsa

Mitigation

Measures

FEW 0 11.2 11.2 Yes Yes 2-10,12-19

ASC 0 12.7 12.7 Yes Yes 1-19

CRO 0 9.45 9.45 Yes No 7, 8, 12

BAR 0 3.25 3.25 No No N/A

a

Potential impacts to plants coincide with ASC and FEW Habitat Types and occur in limited locations. See Figure IV-4.

Notes:

FEW = Fresh Emergent Wetland

ASC = Alkali Desert Scrub

CRO = Cropland

BAR = Barren

Table IV-8

PIX-2B!Impacts by Habitat Type and Mitigation Measures

Approximate Impact Acreage

Habitat

Type Permanent Temporary Total Potential SpecialStatus Wildlife

Potential

Listed Plantsa

Mitigation

Measuresb

VRI 0 2.7 2.7 Yes No 2-14,17-23

ASC 0 42.2 42.2 Yes Yes 1-23

OVN/CRO 0 236.5 236.5 Yes No 7-10,17

URB 0 2.1 2.1 No No 7, 17

BAR 0 25.5 25.5 No No N/A

RIV 0 3.0 3.0 No Yes 1, 2, 6

a

Potential impacts to plants coincide with ASC and RIV Habitat Types and occur in limited locations. See Figure IV-4. b

Impacts and mitigation are summarized in Table IV-16.

Notes:

VRI = Valley Foothill Riparian

ASC = Alkali Desert Scrub

OVN = Orchard/Vineyard

CRO = Cropland

URB = Urban (Rural Residential/Commercial)

BAR = Barren

RIV = Riverine
CHAPTER IV, AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) IV-19 08/01/03

Table IV-9

PIX-4B!Impacts by Habitat Type and Mitigation Measures

Approximate Impact Acreage

Habitat

Type Permanent Temporary Total Potential SpecialStatus Wildlife

Potential

Listed Plantsa

Mitigation

Measures

VRI 0 2.7 2.7 Yes No 2-14,17-23

ASC 0 42.8 42.8 Yes Yes 1-23

OVN/CRO 0 194.5 194.5 Yes No 7-10,17

URB 0 1.5 1.5 No No 7, 17

BAR 0 13 13 No No N/A

RIV 0 3.0 3.0 No Yes 1, 2, 6

a

Potential impacts to plants coincide with ASC and RIV Habitat Types and occur in limited locations. See Figure IV-4.

Notes:

VRI = Valley Foothill Riparian

ASC = Alkali Desert Scrub

OVN = Orchard/Vineyard

CRO = Cropland

URB = Urban (Rural Residential/Commercial)

BAR = Barren

RIV = Riverine

Table IV-10

PIX-9!Impacts by Habitat Type and Mitigation Measures

Habitat Approximate Impact Acreage

Type Permanent Temporary Total

Potential Special

Status Wildlife

Potential

Listed Plantsa

Mitigation

Measures

VRI 0 2.7 2.7 Yes No 2-10,12-19

ASC 0 41.8 41.8 Yes Yes 1-19

OVN/CRO 0 297.8 297.8 Yes No 7, 8, 12

URB 0 31 31 No No 7, 12

BAR 0 2.5 2.5 No No N/A

RIV 0 3.0 3.0 No Yes 1, 2, 6

a

Potential impacts to plants coincide with ASC and RIV Habitat Types and occur in limited locations. See Figure IV-4.

Notes:

VRI = Valley Foothill Riparian

ASC = Alkali Desert Scrub

OVN = Orchard/Vineyard

CRO = Cropland

URB = Urban (Rural Residential/Commercial)

BAR = Barren

RIV = Riverine
CHAPTER IV, AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) IV-20 08/01/03

Table IV-11

KER-1A/1B!Jurisdictional Wetlands Acreage Impacts

Impact Acreage

Wetland Type Permanent Temporary

ASC 0 16.64

VRI 0 6.45

Notes:

VRI = Valley Foothill Riparian

ASC = Alkali Desert Scrub

Table IV-12

KER-7!Jurisdictional Wetlands Acreage Impacts

Impact Acreage

Wetland Type Permanent Temporary

ASC/FEW 0 2.4

Notes:

ASC = Alkali Desert Scrub

FEW = Fresh Emergent Wetland

Table IV-13

PIX-2B!Jurisdictional Wetlands Acreage Impacts

Impact Acreage

Wetland Type Permanent Temporary

VRI 0 2.7

ASC/AGR 0 8.2

RIV 0 3

Notes:

VRI = Valley Foothill Riparian

ASC = Alkali Desert Scrub

AGR = Annual Grassland

RIV = Riverine

Table IV-14

PIX-4B!Jurisdictional Wetlands Acreage Impacts

Impact Acreage

Wetland Type Permanent Temporary

VRI 0 2.7

ASC/AGR 0 8.2

RIV 0 3

Notes:

VRI = Valley Foothill Riparian

ASC = Alkali Desert Scrub

AGR = Annual Grassland

RIV = Riverine
CHAPTER IV, AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) IV-21 08/01/03

Table IV-15

PIX-9!Jurisdictional Wetlands Acreage Impacts

Impact Acreage

Wetland Type Permanent Temporary

VRI 0 2.7

ASC/AGR 0 8.2

RIV 0 3

Notes:

VRI = Valley Foothill Riparian

ASC = Alkali Desert Scrub

AGR = Annual Grassland

RIV = Riverine

Table IV-16

Biological Resources Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Impact Mitigation

Level of

Significance

After

Mitigation

BR-a Alternatives KER-1A/1B,

KER-7, PIX-2B, PIX-4B,

and PIX-9 could impact

special-status plants.

BR-1 Conduct pre-construction surveys prior to final design to

identify locations of special-status plants following the

procedures outlined in Guidelines for Assessing the Effects of

Proposed Developments on Rare and Endangered Plants and

Plant Communities. Surveys must be timed to coincide with

the flowering seasons of the targeted species. Following preconstruction surveys, develop measures to avoid impacts to

special-status plants.

LS

BR-2 Where avoidance of special-status plants is not practicable,

develop and Implement measures for mitigating impacts,

including relocation or re-establishment of special-status

plant populations. Mitigation would involve creating suitable

habitat in non-suitable habitat by providing soil, water, and

vegetation to replicate conditions needed to establish specialstatus species populations.

BR-3 Prior to final design, map and quantify riparian habitat and

other important natural plant communities. Develop

measures to avoid or minimize impacts to these habitats.

BR-b Alternatives PIX-2B, LS

PIX-4B, and PIX-9 could

impact 2.7 acres of

riparian habitat. BR-4 Develop and implement mitigation measures for unavoidable

impacts to riparian habitat. Where possible, disturbed

riparian habitat should be restored onsite following

completion of construction activities. Permanently eliminated

riparian habitat should be replaced at a 2:1 ratio (i.e., 2 acres

of habitat created for each acre eliminated). Mitigation would

involve creating riparian habitat in non-riparian habitat by

providing soil, water, and vegetation.

BR-5 Develop and implement a revegetation plan for temporarily

disturbed construction sites. The revegetation plan should

incorporate seeding and planting of species that will resist

invasion by noxious weeds.

BR-6 Develop and implement a monitoring plan to assess the

success of mitigation measures for impacts to vegetation and

special-status species. Plantings on the revegetation and
CHAPTER IV, AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) IV-22 08/01/03

Table IV-16

Biological Resources Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Impact Mitigation

Level of

Significance

After

Mitigation

compensation sites should be monitored during the growing

season (March through September) to determine growth rates

for 3 years from the date of transplant or planting. A yearly

report should be submitted to USFWS, including dates of

watering, growth rates, cover rates, and mortality figures.

Monitoring could be curtailed after 3 years if success is

demonstrated. (Success is achieved when plant cover of the

mitigation site is at least 80 percent of the cover at the impact

site prior to project disturbance and vegetative composition

of the dominant [> 20 percent of the cover] and characteristic

species [typical, regularly occurring in the habitat but not

dominant] exceeds 80 percent of that which was present at

the impact site.) Monitoring of special-status plant mitigation

sites could be curtailed after 3 years if overall survival rates

of seeded, planted, or transplanted plants exceed 80 percent

of projected survival rates.

BR-7 Pre-construction surveys should be conducted for raptors

prior to the peak March through August nesting period.

Construction during the critical nesting period (March

through August) will be avoided; or, if nesting pairs and

fledglings are identified within 0.25 mile of construction, a

monitoring program will be initiated in consultation with the

CDFG.

If Swainson’s hawks are present, site surveys will be

conducted to identify nesting activity. If nests are located

within 0.5 miles of the project site with a direct line of sight

to the activity, CDFG will be consulted to establish proper

mitigation. As stated above for other raptors, seasonal

restrictions (March through August) on project activities may

be appropriate.

LS

BR-c Alternatives KER-1A/1B,

KER-7, PIX-2B, and

PIX-9 could impact habitat

used by San Joaquin kit

fox.

BR-8 Before staging and construction, have a USFWS-approved

biologist survey for dens and other kit fox sign such as scat,

prey remains, and tracks. The biologist shall follow the

USFWS’s Standard Recommendations for Avoidance of the

San Joaquin Kit Fox (1997). If any evidence of kit fox

activity is found, contact the USFWS’s Sacramento Fish and

Wildlife Office to initiate consultation.

A USFWS-approved worker awareness program shall be

conducted for all projects located in areas that provide, or

may provide, habitat for this species. Confine surface

disturbance to areas that do not exhibit the habitat types and

sign listed above with an adequate buffer (not less than

200 feet). The biologist must stake and flag to exclude

construction activities within 200 feet of potential habitat.

To avoid inadvertent entrapment of animals in holes during

construction, all excavated, steep-walled holes or trenches

more than 2 feet deep should be covered at the close of each

working day by plywood or similar materials or provided

with one or more escape ramps constructed of earth fill or

wooden planks.

LS
CHAPTER IV, AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) IV-23 08/01/03

Table IV-16

Biological Resources Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Impact Mitigation

Level of

Significance

After

Mitigation

All construction pipes, culverts, or similar structures, with a

diameter of 4 inches or greater that are stored at a construction

site for one or more overnight periods, should be thoroughly

inspected for kit foxes before the pipe is subsequently buried,

capped, or otherwise used or moved in any way.

No work shall be conducted between sunset and sunrise

within 0.5 mile of potential habitat.

No domestic animals (pets) shall be allowed on the project

site.

On unposted roads, vehicle speeds shall not exceed 25 miles

per hour.

Trash shall be disposed of in covered containers and removed

daily.

Restrict use of rodenticides and herbicides to prevent

secondary poisoning.

In the event that take cannot be avoided, contact the USFWS

for information before starting the action.

BR-d Alternatives KER-1A/1B,

and KER-7, PIX-2B,

PIX-4B, and PIX-9 could

impact habitat used by

Tipton kangaroo rat.

BR-9 Before any ground-disturbing activities, have a USFWSapproved biologist survey for the presence of the plant

associations considered habitat for the Tipton kangaroo rat.

The USFWS-approved biologist must survey for the presence

of Tipton kangaroo rat sign such as burrow systems,

haystacks, and areas of clipped vegetation.

A USFWS-approved worker awareness program shall be

conducted for all projects located in areas that provide, or

may provide, habitat for this species.

Confine surface disturbance to areas that do not exhibit the

signs listed above with an adequate buffer (not less than 200

feet). The biologist must stake and flag to exclude

construction activities within 200 feet of potential habitat.

No work shall be conducted between sunset and sunrise

within 0.5 mile of potential habitat.

No domestic animals (pets) shall be allowed on the project

site.

On unposted roads, vehicle speeds shall not exceed 25 miles

per hour.

Trash shall be disposed of in covered containers.

In the event that take cannot be avoided, contact the USFWS

for information before starting the action.

LS
CHAPTER IV, AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) IV-24 08/01/03

Table IV-16

Biological Resources Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Impact Mitigation

Level of

Significance

After

Mitigation

BR-e Alternative KER-1A/1B,

and KER-7, PIX-2B,

PIX-4B, and PIX-9 could

impact habitat used by

blunt-nosed leopard lizard.

BR-10 Before staging and construction, have a USFWS-approved

biologist survey for the presence of the habitat types used by

this species and signs of leopard lizards such as burrows. The

protocol developed by the CDFG shall be used to survey for

this species. During the blunt-nosed leopard lizard’s

hibernation time, surveys are unreliable and cannot be used to

determine absence of this species. Notice will be given to the

CDFG and the USFWS 30 days before beginning

construction to determine whether capture is desired.

For projects from 5 to 10 acres in size (or 5 to 10 linear

miles), within suitable habitat, should schedule surface

disturbance activities during the active season (approximately

April 15 to October 15).

A USFWS-approved biologist will survey any trenches in the

morning and late afternoon to remove lizards that fall into the

trench.

A USFWS-approved worker awareness program shall be

conducted for all projects located in areas that provide, or

may provide, habitat for this species.

Confine surface disturbance to areas that do not exhibit the

habitat types and sign listed above with an adequate buffer

(not less than 200 feet). The biologist must stake and flag to

exclude construction activities within 200 feet of potential

habitat.

No work shall be conducted between sunset and sunrise

within 0.5 mile of potential habitat.

No domestic animals (pets) shall be allowed on the project

site.

On unposted roads, vehicle speeds shall not exceed 25 miles

per hour.

Trash shall be disposed of in covered containers and removed

daily.

In the event that take cannot be avoided, contact the USFWS

for information before starting the action.

LS

BR-f Alternative KER-7

contains potential vernal

pools and swales.

BR-11 If any vernal pools or vernal swales will be impacted (i.e., if

construction activities will occur within 250 feet of the edge

of a pool or swale), pre-construction surveys should be

conducted for fairy shrimp and tadpole shrimp. During final

design, avoid by 250 feet all features containing listed

shrimp. Surveys should be conducted according to methods

outlined in Interim Guidelines for Surveys for the

Endangered Conservancy Fairy Shrimp, Longhorn Fairy

Shrimp, Riverside Fairy Shrimp, Vernal Pool Tadpole

Shrimp, and the Threatened Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp.
CHAPTER IV, AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) IV-25 08/01/03

Table IV-16

Biological Resources Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Impact Mitigation

Level of

Significance

After

Mitigation

Stay at least 250 feet from the margin of the pool/swale edge.

When conducting activities beyond 250 feet from habitat, be

careful to avoid activities that will eventually result in effects

to the pool/swale through changes in hydrology,

sedimentation, or contamination of the habitat.

Adequate fencing will be placed and maintained around any

avoided (preserved) vernal pool habitat to prevent impacts

from vehicles.

If habitat is avoided (preserved) onsite, then a USFWSapproved biologist (monitor) will inspect any constructionrelated activities at the proposed project site to ensure that no

unnecessary take of listed species or destruction of their

habitat occurs. The biologist will have the authority to stop

all activities that may result in take or destruction until

appropriate corrective measures have been completed. The

biologist also will be required to report immediately any

unauthorized impacts to the USFWS and the CDFG.

All onsite construction personnel will receive instruction

regarding the presence of listed species and importance of

avoiding impacts to these species and their habitat.

The applicant will ensure that activities that are inconsistent

with the maintenance of the suitability of remaining habitat

and associated onsite watershed are prohibited. This includes,

but is not limited to, the following:

- Alteration of existing topography or any other alteration

or uses for any purposes

- Use of fire protection activities not required to protect

existing structures at the project site

- Use of pesticides or other toxic chemicals, including the

exploration for or development of mineral extraction

- Placement of any new structures on these parcels

- Dumping, burning, and/or burying of rubbish, garbage,

or any other wastes or fill materials

- Building of any new roads or trails

- Killing, removal, alteration, or replacement of any

existing native vegetation

- Placement of stormwater drains

In the event that take cannot be avoided, contact the USFWS

for information before starting the action.

LS
CHAPTER IV, AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) IV-26 08/01/03

Table IV-16

Biological Resources Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Impact Mitigation

Level of

Significance

After

Mitigation

BR-12 A monitoring plan should be developed and implemented to

assess the success of mitigation measures for impacts to

special-status wildlife. Success criteria should be clearly

defined for all measures implemented to mitigate for project

impacts to wildlife. Yearly reports should be submitted to the

USFWS and the CDFG. If success criteria are being met after

3 years of monitoring, no additional monitoring is necessary.

BR-g Alternatives KER-1A/1B,

KER-7, PIX-2B, PIX-4B,

and PIX-9 could impact

habitat used by Buena

Vista Lake shrew.

BR-13 Before any ground-disturbing activities, have a USFWSapproved biologist survey for the presence of the wetland

plant associations considered habitat for the Buena Vista

Lake shrew. Avoid areas in, or adjacent to, the Kern Lake

Preserve.

A USFWS-approved worker awareness program shall be

conducted for all projects located in areas that provide, or

may provide, habitat for this species.

Confine surface disturbance to areas that do not exhibit the

signs listed above with an adequate buffer (not less than

200 feet). The biologist must stake and flag to exclude

construction activities within 200 feet of potential habitat.

No work shall be conducted between sunset and sunrise

within 0.5 mile of potential habitat.

No domestic animals shall be allowed on the project site.

On unposted roads, vehicle speeds shall not exceed 25 miles

per hour.

Trash shall be disposed of in covered containers and removed

daily.

In the event that take cannot be avoided, contact the USFWS

for information before starting the action.

LS

BR-h KER-7, PIX-2B, PIX-4B,

and PIX-9 could impact

between 2.4 to 8.2 acres of

jurisdictional wetland.

BR-14 Pre-construction delineations should be conducted of

wetlands and other waters of the U.S. Request a verification

of the delineated boundaries from the USACE. Following

verification of the delineation boundaries, measures to avoid

impacts to jurisdictional wetlands should be developed.

BR-15 After final design, impacts to wetlands and other waters

should be quantified. Submit to USACE a permit application

for discharge of fill material into waters of the U.S.,

following Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

BR-16 Install and maintain appropriate erosion and sedimentation

controls during and following construction as specified in the

required Erosion Control Plan (see Hydrology and Water

Quality section).
CHAPTER IV, AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) IV-27 08/01/03

Table IV-16

Biological Resources Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Impact Mitigation

Level of

Significance

After

Mitigation

BR-17 A streambed alteration agreement with the CDFG should be

obtained, following Section 1601 of the Fish and Game

Code, before initiating construction within the 100-year

floodplain of any stream crossing.

BR-18 Develop and implement mitigation plans for impacts to

wetlands. Eliminated wetlands should be replaced at a

2:1 ratio. Temporarily impacted wetlands should be restored

onsite. Stockpile topsoil removed from wetlands and store in

upland landscape positions. Following construction

disturbance, restore the land surface contours and backfill the

top 6 to 12 inches with stockpiled topsoil.

BR-19 Following project completion, monitor the site to assess

mitigation success. Success criteria should be clearly defined

for all measures implemented to mitigate for project impacts

to wetlands. Yearly reports should be submitted to the

USFWS and the USACE. If success criteria are being met

after 3 years of monitoring, no additional monitoring is

necessary.

LS

Notes:

LS = Less than Significant

BR = Biological Resources

Vegetation. As described previously, impacts to

plant communities are likely to result from

vegetation clearing and ground disturbances

related to construction activities. If avoidance of

special-status plants is determined infeasible,

impacts associated with pipeline construction

would typically be short term, but may be

significant. Temporarily disturbed habitat is also

susceptible to invasion by noxious weeds and

non-native grasses.

Although not prevalent, significant impacts are

also most likely to occur in the form of

eliminated riparian and wetland habitat. While

vernal pools were observed only within the

KER-7 alignment, some of the “vernal pool”

plant species listed in Table IV-3 often occur in

other seasonally wet features. Therefore,

potential impacts to listed plant species are

possible.

Wildlife. Construction impacts to wildlife would

occur primarily because of habitat disturbance

and, potentially, as disruptions of breeding

efforts by special-status species.

Direct mortality to listed species may occur

during clearing, grading, and excavating

activities if relatively immobile species are

encountered. Of the listed species discussed

previously, the San Joaquin kit fox, Tipton

kangaroo rat, blunt-nosed leopard lizard, and

Buena Vista Lake shrew are vulnerable to

construction-related disruption during their

vulnerable nesting periods. During the

vulnerable periods, the burrows are more active.

Construction could potentially disturb the

burrow, and therefore, disrupt the species’

nesting period.

The vulnerable period for the San Joaquin kit

fox is generally from February to July. The fox

will occupy the burrow for these 6 months

during the birth and weaning of the offspring.

The Tipton kangaroo rat occupies the burrow

year-round and are generally more active during

the spring; however, they can breed throughout

the year. The remaining time the burrow is

unoccupied. The blunt-nosed leopard lizard has

a vulnerable nesting period from June to August.
CHAPTER IV, AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) IV-28 08/01/03

The lizard does live in the burrow year-round;

however, most construction-related disturbance

would occur during the nesting period. The

Buena Vista Lake shrew has a vulnerable nest

period from February through October. The

shrew prefers moist microhabitats, though it is

widespread in terms of occupied habitat

(Vestal, 1938).

Wetlands/Waters. Potentially significant

impacts to wetlands and other waters may result

from the following:

• The discharge of fill into these habitats

• The dewatering of wetland and aquatic

habitats

• Substantial temporary increases in water

turbidity or pollutants

These impacts can occur wherever the project

corridors bisect wetlands or other waters.

Alternatives that contain greater estimated

wetland acreage and a greater number of stream

crossings (see Tables IV-11 through

Table IV-15) are more likely to have impacts.

On-Refuge Wetlands/Waters. The increase in

water available for use on the Kern and Pixley

NWRs from increasing total supplies to Level 4

will result in a number benefits, which are

further described earlier in this section and the

Background section. Benefits include the ability

for earlier flood-up for seasonal marsh to allow

for increased use, including increased flexibility

in terms of habitat management throughout other

times of the year. The increased supplies will

also allow for increased “flow through” of

maintenance water levels in all wetlands habitat

units which will in turn reduce the potential of

disease outbreaks such as botulism. The

additional increment of water will also be used

to increase the acreage of water grass (millet),

and early marsh. The existing and proposed

management plans and policies for the two

refuges are further detailed in the following

documents:

• Kern National Wildlife Refuge Master Plan,

April 1986

• Pixley National Wildlife Refuge Master

Plan, April 1986

Mitigation

The following mitigation measures are included

as part of each alternative and will reduce all

impacts to vegetation, wildlife, and

wetlands/waters discussed above to less-thansignificant levels.

Vegetation. Following are the mitigation

measures for biological resource impacts to

vegetation:

• BR-1. Conduct pre-construction surveys

prior to final design to identify locations of

special-status plants following the

procedures outlined in Guidelines for

Assessing the Effects of Proposed

Developments on Rare and Endangered

Plants and Plant Communities. Surveys

must be timed to coincide with the flowering

seasons of the targeted species. Following

pre-construction surveys, develop measures

to avoid impacts to special-status plants.

• BR-2. Where avoidance of special-status

plants is not practicable, develop and

implement measures for mitigating impacts,

including relocation or reestablishment of

special-status plant populations. Mitigation

would involve creating suitable habitat in

non-suitable habitat by providing soil, water,

and vegetation to replicate conditions

needed to establish special-status species

populations.

• BR-3. Prior to final design, map and

quantify riparian habitat and other important

natural plant communities. Develop

measures to avoid or minimize impacts to

these habitats.

• BR-4. Develop and implement mitigation

measures for unavoidable impacts to

riparian habitat. Where possible, disturbed

riparian habitat should be restored onsite

following completion of construction

activities. Permanently eliminated riparian

habitat should be replaced at a 2:1 ratio

(i.e., 2 acres of habitat created for each acre

eliminated). Mitigation would involve

creating riparian habitat in non-riparian
CHAPTER IV, AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) IV-29 08/01/03

habitat by providing soil, water, and

vegetation.

• BR-5. Develop and implement a

revegetation plan for temporarily disturbed

construction sites. The revegetation plan

should incorporate seeding and planting of

species that will resist invasion by noxious

weeds.

• BR-6. Develop and implement a monitoring

plan to assess the success of mitigation

measures for impacts to vegetation and

special-status species. Plantings on the

revegetation and compensation sites should

be monitored during the growing season

(March through September) to determine

growth rates for 3 years from the date of

transplant or planting. A yearly report

should be submitted to USFWS, including

dates of watering, growth rates, cover rates,

and mortality figures. Monitoring could be

curtailed after 3 years if success is

demonstrated. (Plant cover of the mitigation

site is at least 80 percent of the cover at the

impact site prior to project disturbance and

vegetative composition of the dominant

[> 20 percent of the cover] and characteristic

species [typical, regularly occurring in the

habitat but not dominant] exceeds 80 percent

of that which was present at the impact site.)

Monitoring of special-status plant mitigation

sites could be curtailed after 3 years if

overall survival rates of seeded, planted, or

transplanted plants exceed 80 percent of

projected survival rates.

Wildlife. Following are the mitigation measures

for impacts to wildlife:

• BR-7. Pre-construction surveys should be

conducted for raptors prior to the peak

March-through-August nesting period.

Construction during the critical nesting

period (March through August) will be

avoided, or if nesting pairs and fledglings

are identified within 0.25 mile of

construction, a monitoring program will be

initiated in consultation with the CDFG.

If Swainson’s hawks are present, site

surveys will be conducted to identify nesting

activity. If nests are located within 0.5 miles

of the project site with a direct line of sight

to the activity, CDFG will be consulted to

establish appropriate mitigation. As stated

above for other raptors, seasonal restrictions

(March through August) on project activities

may be appropriate.

• BR-8. Before staging and construction, have

a USFWS-approved biologist survey for

dens and other kit fox sign such as scat, prey

remains, and tracks. The biologist shall

follow the USFWS’s Standard

Recommendations for Avoidance of the San

Joaquin Kit Fox (1997). If any evidence of

kit fox activity is found, contact the

USFWS’s Sacramento Fish and Wildlife

Office to initiate consultation.

A USFWS-approved worker awareness

program shall be conducted for all projects

located in areas that provide, or may

provide, habitat for this species. Confine

surface disturbance to areas that do not

exhibit the habitat types and sign listed

above with an adequate buffer (not less than

200 feet). The biologist must stake and flag

to exclude construction activities within

200 feet of potential habitat.

To avoid inadvertent entrapment of animals

in holes during construction, all excavated,

steep-walled holes or trenches more than

2 feet deep should be covered at the close of

each working day by plywood or similar

materials or provided with one or more

escape ramps constructed of earth fill or

wooden planks.

All construction pipes, culverts, or similar

structures, with a diameter of 4 inches or

greater that are stored at a construction site

for one or more overnight periods, should be

thoroughly inspected for kit foxes before the

pipe is subsequently buried, capped, or

otherwise used or moved in any way.

No work shall be conducted between sunset

and sunrise within 0.5 mile of potential

habitat.

No domestic animals (pets) shall be allowed

on the project site.
CHAPTER IV, AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) IV-30 08/01/03

On unposted roads, vehicle speeds shall not

exceed 25 miles per hour.

Trash shall be disposed of in covered

containers and removed daily.

Restrict the use of rodenticides and

herbicides to prevent secondary poisoning.

In the event that take cannot be avoided,

contact the USFWS for information before

starting the action.

• BR-9. Before any ground-disturbing

activities, have a USFWS-approved

biologist survey for the presence of the plant

associations considered habitat for the

Tipton kangaroo rat. The USFWS-approved

biologist must survey for the presence of

Tipton kangaroo rat sign such as burrow

systems, haystacks, and areas of clipped

vegetation.

A USFWS-approved worker awareness

program shall be conducted for all projects

located in areas that provide, or may

provide, habitat for this species.

Confine surface disturbance to areas that do

not exhibit the signs listed above with an

adequate buffer (not less than 200 feet). The

biologist must stake and flag to exclude

construction activities within 200 feet of

potential habitat.

No work shall be conducted between sunset

and sunrise within 0.5 mile of potential

habitat.

No domestic animals (pets) shall be allowed

on the project site.

On unposted roads, vehicle speeds shall not

exceed 25 miles per hour.

Trash shall be disposed of in covered

containers.

In the event that take cannot be avoided,

contact the USFWS for information before

starting the action.

• BR-10. Before staging and construction,

have a USFWS-approved biologist survey

for the presence of the habitat types used by

this species and signs of leopard lizards such

as burrows. The protocol developed by the

CDFG shall be used to survey for this

species. During the blunt-nosed leopard

lizard’s hibernation time, surveys are

unreliable and cannot be used to determine

absence of this species. Notice will be given

to the CDFG and the USFWS 30 days

before beginning construction to determine

whether capture is desired.

For projects from 5 to 10 acres in size

(or 5 to 10 linear miles), within suitable

habitat, should schedule surface disturbance

activities during the active season

(approximately April 15 to October 15).

A USFWS-approved biologist will survey

any trenches in the morning and late

afternoon to remove lizards that fall into the

trench.

A USFWS-approved worker awareness

program shall be conducted for all projects

located in areas that provide, or may

provide, habitat for this species.

Confine surface disturbance to areas that do

not exhibit the habitat types and sign listed

above with an adequate buffer (not less than

200 feet). The biologist must stake and flag

to exclude construction activities within

200 feet of potential habitat.

No work shall be conducted between sunset

and sunrise within 0.5 mile of potential

habitat.

No domestic animals (pets) shall be allowed

on the project site.

On unposted roads, vehicle speeds shall not

exceed 25 miles per hour.

Trash shall be disposed of in covered

containers and removed daily.

In the event that take cannot be avoided,

contact the USFWS for information before

starting the action.

• BR-11. If any vernal pools or vernal swales

will be impacted (i.e., if construction

activities will occur within 250 feet of the

edge of a pool or swale), pre-construction

surveys should be conducted for fairy
CHAPTER IV, AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) IV-31 08/01/03

shrimp and tadpole shrimp. Surveys should

be conducted according to methods outlined

in Interim Guidelines for Surveys for the

Endangered Conservancy Fairy Shrimp,

Longhorn Fairy Shrimp, Riverside Fairy

Shrimp, Vernal Pool Tadpole Shrimp, and

the Threatened Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp.

Stay at least 250 feet from the margin of the

pool/swale edge. When conducting activities

beyond 250 feet from habitat, be careful to

avoid activities that will eventually result in

effects to the pool/swale through changes in

hydrology, sedimentation, or contamination

of the habitat.

Adequate fencing will be placed and

maintained around any avoided (preserved)

vernal pool habitat to prevent impacts from

vehicles.

If habitat is avoided (preserved) onsite, then

a USFWS-approved biologist (monitor) will

inspect any construction-related activities at

the proposed project site to ensure that no

unnecessary take of listed species or

destruction of their habitat occurs. The

biologist will have the authority to stop all

activities that may result in take or

destruction until appropriate corrective

measures have been completed. The

biologist also will be required to report

immediately any unauthorized impacts to

the USFWS and the CDFG.

All onsite construction personnel will

receive instruction regarding the presence of

listed species and the importance of

avoiding impacts to these species and their

habitat.

The applicant will ensure that activities that

are inconsistent with the maintenance of the

suitability of remaining habitat and

associated onsite watershed are prohibited.

This includes, but is not limited to the

following:

− Alteration of existing topography or any

other alteration or uses for any purposes

− Use of fire protection activities not

required to protect existing structures at

the project site

− Use of pesticides or other toxic

chemicals, including the exploration for

or development of mineral extraction

− Placement of any new structures on

these parcels

− Dumping, burning, and/or burying of

rubbish, garbage, or any other wastes or

fill materials

− Building of any new roads or trails

− Killing, removal, alteration, or

replacement of any existing native

vegetation

− Placement of stormwater drains

In the event that take cannot be avoided,

contact the USFWS for information before

starting the action.

• BR-12. A monitoring plan should be

developed and implemented to assess the

success of mitigation measures for impacts

to special-status wildlife. Success criteria

should be clearly defined for all measures

implemented to mitigate for project impacts

to wildlife. Yearly reports should be

submitted to the USFWS and the CDFG. If

success criteria are being met after 3 years

of monitoring, no additional monitoring is

necessary.

• BR-13. Before any ground-disturbing

activities, have a USFWS-approved

biologist survey for the presence of the

wetland plant associations considered

habitat for the Buena Vista Lake shrew.

Avoid areas in, or adjacent to, the Kern Lake

Preserve.

A USFWS-approved worker awareness

program shall be conducted for all projects

located in areas that provide, or may

provide, habitat for this species.

Confine surface disturbance to areas that do

not exhibit the signs listed above with an

adequate buffer (not less than 200 feet). The

biologist must stake and flag to exclude

construction activities within 200 feet of

potential habitat.
CHAPTER IV, AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) IV-32 08/01/03

No work shall be conducted between sunset

and sunrise within 0.5 mile of potential

habitat.

No domestic animals shall be allowed on the

project site.

On unposted roads, vehicle speeds shall not

exceed 25 miles per hour.

Trash shall be disposed of in covered

containers and removed daily.

In the event that take cannot be avoided,

contact the USFWS for information before

starting the action.

Wetlands/Waters. The following are the

mitigation measures for impacts to

wetlands/waters:

• BR-14. Pre-construction delineations should

be conducted of wetlands and other waters

of the U.S. Request a verification of the

delineated boundaries from the USACE.

Following verification of the delineation

boundaries, measures to avoid impacts to

jurisdictional wetlands should be developed.

• BR-15. After final design, impacts to

wetlands and other waters should be

quantified. Submit to the USACE a permit

application for discharge of fill material into

waters of the U.S., following Section 404 of

the Clean Water Act.

• BR-16. Install and maintain appropriate

erosion and sedimentation controls during

and following construction as specified in

the required Erosion Control Plan (see

Hydrology and Water Quality section).

• BR-17. A streambed alteration agreement

with the CDFG should be obtained,

following Section 1601 of the Fish and

Game Code, before initiating construction

within the 100-year floodplain of any stream

crossing.

• BR-18. Develop and implement mitigation

plans for impacts to wetlands. Eliminated

wetlands should be replaced at a 2:1 ratio.

Temporarily impacted wetlands should be

restored onsite. Stockpile topsoil removed

from wetlands and store in upland landscape

positions. Following construction

disturbance, restore the land surface

contours and backfill the top 6 to 12 inches

with stockpiled topsoil.

• BR-19. Following project completion,

monitor the site to assess mitigation success.

Success criteria should be clearly defined for

all measures implemented to mitigate for

project impacts to wetlands. Yearly reports

should be submitted to USFWS and

USACE. If success criteria are being met

after 3 years of monitoring, no additional

monitoring is necessary.

Cultural Resources

Affected Environment

Prehistoric/Ethnographic Resources. The

Central Valley region was among the first in the

state to attract intensive fieldwork, and research

has continued to the present day. This has

resulted in a substantial accumulation of data,

but the emphasis has been in the northern

portion of the valley.

Because of this early work, an elaborate culture

complex was defined for the late prehistoric

period. This complex can be ascribed to the

Yokuts and their direct ancestors. The material

culture of this late temporal period complex

included steatite vessels and beads, finely made

projectile points, pottery, shaped stone mortars,

Tivela disc beads, use of asphaltum, and the

presence of metates and manos. Flexed burials

were the predominant interment mode. Earlier

mortuary practices included extended rather than

flexed burial position, a situation analogous to

that of the northern valley (Gifford and Schenck,

1926; Lillard, et al., 1939; Moratto, 1972).

Ethnographic literature is often uncertain in

definition of cultural boundaries for Indian

groups. Early displacement by white intrusion

resulted in population shifts to avoid conflict

with the Spanish, and later with the miners and

settlers. The ravages of disease and warfare

decimated the native people, further weakening

cultural identity. Informants were often
CHAPTER IV, AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) IV-33 08/01/03

uncertain of original territories of the various

tribal groupings.

The Southern Valley Yokuts were members of

the Penutian language family which occupied all

of the Central Valley, San Francisco Bay Area,

and the Pacific Coast from Marin County to near

Point Sur. The Yokuts differed from other

California Indians in that they had true tribal

divisions with group names. Each tribe spoke an

individual dialect, although these were similar

enough to other Yokuts dialects that they were

mutually intelligible (Kroeber, 1925). The tribe

controlling the Pixley study area at the time of

Euro-American contact was the Wowol, who

controlled the southern shores of Tulare Lake.

Their principal village, Sukwutnu, was some

distance south of the lake, 15 miles west of

Delano (Latta, 1949). The lower Kern River,

incorporating the Kern project area, was the

homeland of the Chuxoxi (Wallace, 1978).

Settlements were oriented along the water ways,

with their village sites normally placed adjacent

to these features for nearby water and food

resources. House structures varied in size and

shape (Latta, 1949; Kroeber, 1925). Housepit

depressions ranged in diameter from between

3 to 18 meters.

Trade was well developed, with mutually

beneficial interchange of needed or desired

goods. Obsidian, rare in the San Joaquin Valley,

was obtained by trade with Paiute and Shoshoni

groups on the eastern side of the Sierra Nevada,

where numerous sources of this material are

located, and to some extent from the Napa

Valley to the north. Shell beads, obtained by the

Yokuts from coastal people, and acorns, rare in

the Great Basin, were among many items

exported to the east by Yokuts traders

(Davis, 1961).

The rivers, streams, and sloughs, which formed

a maze within the valley, provided abundant

food resources such as fish, shellfish, and turtles.

Game, wild fowl, and small mammals were

trapped and hunted to provide protein

augmentation of the diet. In general, the eastern

portion of the San Joaquin Valley provided a

lush environment of varied food resources, with

the estimated large population centers reflecting

this abundance (Cook, 1955; Baumhoff, 1963).

Historical Resources. Most of the Pixley NWR

study area lies in an area of checkerboard land

grants to the railroad. Portions of the study area

were swamp and overflow land that could not be

worked for agriculture until USBR work had

taken place. Early settlers in the sections open to

settlement tried to homestead the land in the

1870s and 1880s, but they never proved up, and

a number of claims were cancelled in the 1880s.

The 1920s topographic maps show a number of

small rectangular ponds and a system of ditches,

apparently part of the irrigation system for the

region.

Historical site types that might be present in the

study area include residential structures, farm or

ranch outbuildings, fences, ditches, canals, water

diversion or impound features, wells, and

railroad construction or maintenance camps. The

overall sensitivity for the presence of historical

sites could be rated as low.

In the Kern NWR study area, there is an Indian

site shown on the General Land Office plat of

1854 at the edge of Tulare Lake near the study

area. Apparently, the site was still occupied at

that time by a large group of Indians. This site

appears to correspond to the location of “Bubal,”

a village on the shore of Tulare Lake first visited

by Spanish missionaries from Mission San

Miguel in 1804. The village was visited

repeatedly by the Spanish and Mexicans who

ventured into the San Joaquin Valley. A wellmarked trail existed from Bubal to the Mission

in the 1820s. The Indians of this study area were

rounded up and sent to a reservation at Fort

Tejon in 1859, and camps relating to this could

be present.

The study area lies in the swampy remnant of

sloughs associated with Tulare Lake. Prior to

USBR efforts, the land had little value for

agriculture; and consequently, there were few

early settlers in the study area. There were some

attempts to homestead the land in the 1880s to

1910s, but many of the homesteads were

relinquished once or twice before they were

finally taken up in the 1920s to 1940s. One of

the main land uses in the 1920s appears to have

been the establishment of gun clubs for

waterfowl hunting.
CHAPTER IV, AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) IV-34 08/01/03

Historical site types could include early trails,

campsites, roads, fences, farm complexes,

levees, canals, and other water control features,

and structures for the gun clubs. The presence of

a protohistoric site with known early Mission

contacts that endured into the 1850s, early trails,

and potential for other post-contact sites

indicates that the area could be a sensitive one

for historical resources.

Environmental Consequences

Criteria for Determining Significance. Under

federal regulations, significant cultural resources

are those that qualify for inclusion in the

National Register of Historic Places. The criteria

for inclusion on the register are as follows:

The quality of significance in American history,

architecture, archeology, engineering, and

culture is present in districts, sites, buildings,

structures, and objects that possess integrity of

location, design, setting, materials,

workmanship, feeling, and association, and

A. that are associated with events that have

made a significant contribution to the broad

patterns of our history; or

B. that are associated with the lives of persons

significant in our past; or

C. that embody the distinctive characteristics of

a type, period, or method of construction or

that represent the work of a master, or that

possess high artistic values, or that

represent a significant and distinguishable

entity whose components may lack

individual distinction; or

D. that have yielded, or may be likely to yield,

information important in prehistory or

history. (36 CFR 60.4)

Exceptions are made to these criteria for

cemeteries, birthplaces or graves of historical

figures, religious properties, structures that have

been moved, reconstructed historical buildings,

properties that are primarily commemorative in

nature, and properties less than 50 years old.

Such properties may be eligible for the register

if they are of exceptional importance.

Cultural Resource impacts and mitigation

measures are summarized in Table IV-17.

Prehistoric/Ethnographic Resources. A record

search was requested from the South San

Joaquin Valley Information Center of the

California Historical Resources Information

System at California State University,

Bakersfield. The reply from that agency

indicated that no cultural resources exist within

or closely adjacent to the Pixley NWR. Two

Table IV-17

Cultural Resource Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Impact Mitigation

Level of

Significance After

Mitigation

CR-a Alignment KER-7 could impact a

prehistoric site.

CR-1 Restrict KER-7 construction activities in the area

of CA-KER-2100 to the existing canal alignment

and restrict the movement of equipment to the

south levee in this area. As the south levee has by

far the better road surface, this should not impose

a burden on the construction crew.

LS

CR-b Alignments PIX-2B, PIX-4B, and

PIX-9 could impact adjacent

historical residences.

CR-2 Avoid the three historical structures near the

PIX-2B, PIX-4B, and PIX-9 alignments. If

avoidance of impact to any of these structures is

not feasible, then additional historical research

should be conducted to determine significance

and, if necessary, develop a suitable plan for

mitigation of adverse effect.

LS

Notes:

CR = Cultural Resources

LS = Less than Significant
CHAPTER IV, AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) IV-35 08/01/03

previous cultural resources inventories

incorporated small portions of the current study

area, however, no resources were recorded

during these surveys. The Kern NWR has eight

prehistoric sites recorded in the vicinity,

primarily within the wildlife refuge (Arguellas

and Moratto, 1983). One of these, CA-KER2100, was recorded adjacent to the KER-7

alignment and may extend under the levee on

the north side of the existing ditch that forms the

centerline of the proposed project. This site is a

diffuse and highly disturbed surface scatter of

lithic tools and debitage. Another site, CA-KER168, is a major village located south of the

alignment based on ethnographic writings by

Frank Latta in 1950. This location has not been

verified by field examination.

Three Indian and three non-Indian sites are

recorded on the Pixley NWR (Arguelles and

Moratto, 1983). The KER-7 alignment follows

an existing canal, dry at the time of the survey,

excavated some 4 or 5 feet below ground level

with large levees on both sides. This degree of

disturbance suggests that the survival of intact

cultural resources within the immediate

construction area would be low.

The location of CA-KER-2100 adjacent to the

KER-7 alignment was carefully inspected, but

no artifacts could be found on the surface. The

location examined was correct because the

sketch map accompanying the site record by

Breschini and Haversat was detailed and

accurate. The 1986 site record notes that

artifacts were only observed on eroded surfaces

at widely scattered locations. The site consisted

largely of obsidian, chert, and basalt debitage

(waste flakes from lithic tool manufacture). Only

two completed tools were observed in a site area

defined as 105 meters by 80 meters in extent. It

is not uncommon for a diffuse lithic scatter of

this type to “disappear” due to differing light

conditions and angles (the previous survey was

in April) and soil erosion over time. We assume

that a site, of some sort, is still present at the

location.

CA-KER-168 was recorded, minimally, in 1950.

There is no description of the appearance of the

site other than the notation “Indian village site”

on the site record. It is not clear from the record

if Latta ever was physically on the site. The

location is given only as “at the old Broder well

or tule pump.” The location is apparently near

the south side of the KER-7 alignment where

ground visibility is poor. On the other hand, the

extensive disturbance of this area over the

45 years since the site was recorded argues

against preservation of the site in this area, even

if it extended this far north in the first place.

There is some possibility that the agricultural

use of the area could have obscured evidence of

the site; however, no soil discoloration existed in

the area that would indicate a midden associated

with a long-term residential site.

Historical Resources. The only potential

historical resources identified in the Pixley

NWR survey area were existing occupied

residences at the edges of the PIX-2B, PIX-4B,

and PIX-9 corridors. Because no existing

structures will be impacted by the proposed

project, the field crew did not record these

structures. Three of these structures appear on

the 1929 U.S. Geological Survey maps of the

area: T23S, R25E north boundary of Section 30

about 1,600 feet west of the northeast section

corner; Section 24, center of south boundary of

section; and T23S, R26E, southeast corner of

Section 19. The latter is closest to the PIX-2B

alignment and is a modest, but well maintained,

example of a rural craftsman bungalow. The

only structure in the KER-7 corridor is a small

pump house.

Mitigation

The following mitigation measures are

incorporated as part of each alternative and will

reduce the impacts identified to a less than

significant level:

• CR-1. Restrict KER-7 construction activities

in the area of CA-KER-2100 to the existing

canal alignment and restrict the movement

of equipment to the south levee in this area.

As the south levee has by far the better road

surface, this should not impose a burden on

the construction crew. If this is done, impact

to CA-KER-2100 can be avoided. The area

involved is approximately 140 meters in

length extending east from the southwest
CHAPTER IV, AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) IV-36 08/01/03

corner of the refuge. If this recommendation

is not feasible, then a program of

exploratory subsurface testing should be

conducted to define the boundaries and

research significance of the site. Because the

site is within a federal NWR, this would

require the consent of the USFWS and an

excavation permit under the Archaeological

Resources Protection Act would be required.

• CR-2. Avoid the three historical structures

near the PIX-2B, PIX-4B, and PIX-9

alignments. If avoidance of impact to any of

these structures is not feasible, then

additional historical research should be

conducted to determine significance and

develop a suitable plan for mitigation of

adverse effect, if necessary.

There is no indication that other subsurface

cultural deposits are in either project area.

However, the possibility of buried cultural

remains cannot be totally eliminated. If artifacts

or unusual amounts of stone, bone, or shell are

uncovered during construction activities,

excavation should cease in the area of the find

and a qualified archeologist should be consulted

for on-the-spot evaluation. If bone is uncovered

on non-federal lands that could be human, state

law requires that the County Coroner be

contacted. If the coroner determines that the

bone is likely to be Native American in origin,

then activities must comply with state law and

regulation. On federal lands, the Native

American Graves Protection and Repatriation

Act and its regulations must be followed.

Hydrology and Water Quality

Affected Environment

Surface Water. The primary source of water for

the two refuge areas varies from surface water

supplies from the CVP and SWP, and

groundwater. Kern NWR is primarily served by

the Buena Vista Water Storage District, which

obtains SWP water from the Kern County Water

Agency through the California Aqueduct. In

addition, Kern NWR infrequently receives water

from the USBR through the Friant-Kern Canal

and subsequently Poso Creek. The PID via Deer

Creek primarily serves Pixley NWR when

surplus flows are available. PID obtains water

from the Friant-Kern Canal at Millerton Lake.

Groundwater. Currently, Pixley NWR has one

operating well and Kern NWR has nine wells,

including one domestic well. The Pixley NWR

well draws water from the deep aquifer and

supplies the refuge with a portion of the Level 2

supplies. Wells on the Kern NWR have not been

used for a significant water supply since the

early 1970s because of a receding water table

and high operation costs. The wells on both

refuges are used on an as-needed basis.

Groundwater resources in the area are

experiencing continued overdraft conditions

(USBR, 1994).

Drainage. Both of the refuge areas sit within the

Tulare Lake Bed, which covers approximately

200,000 acres. While the vast majority of this

lake bed is under cultivation, the area still has

been inundated as recently as 1983. The

historical hydrology has been greatly altered,

with the majority of flow, which at one time

reached the lake bed, now controlled through

dams, reservoirs, and irrigation features. The

primary drainage features within the study area

are Deer Creek, Poso Creek, the Goose Creek

Canal, and the Kern River Channel. There are no

return flows from either Pixley or Kern NWRs

except in extremely wet years. Kern NWR is

used to accept floodwater from Poso Creek.

Water Quality. Surface-water quality in

Millerton Lake, the San Joaquin River at and

upstream of the PID diversion, and in

subsequent canals and systems is adequate for

refuge and agricultural uses (USBR, 1994). For

example, this water is widely used for irrigation

and drinking water after disinfection. Water

quality within the Friant-Kern Canal and PID

and Buena Vista conveyance canals is similar in

quality to water from Millerton Lake. This is

demonstrated by its current, successful use for

irrigation of sensitive agricultural crops and

wildlife habitat.

Studies conducted by the U.S. Geological

Survey found that few pesticides were detected

at each refuge site and that those detected were

far below levels at which adverse effects would
CHAPTER IV, AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) IV-37 08/01/03

be apparent. Trace element concentrations were

also found to be low and pose little threat to

wildlife.

Environmental Consequences

Criteria for Determining Significance.

Impacts to hydrology and water quality would

be considered significant if they would result in

any one of the following:

• Substantial degradation of water quality

• Contamination of public water supply

• Substantial degradation or depletion of

groundwater resources

• Substantial interference with groundwater

discharge

Hydrology and water quality impacts and

mitigation measures are in Table IV-18.

Surface Water. Construction of any of the

conveyance alternatives for the two refuge areas

would have no effect on San Joaquin River

water quality. Impacts to water quality would be

limited to the short term during the construction

at the following locations:

• KER-1A/B: West Side Canal, Cross Canal,

Main Drain Canal

• KER-7: Burham Canal (canal has not been

maintained, supports extensive riparian

vegetation dominated by tamarisk).

• PIX-2B: Deer Creek

• PIX-4B: (Same as PIX-2B)

• PIX-9: (Same as PIX-2B)

Impacts from the installation of the alternatives

at the locations listed above would require

disturbing the streambed, resulting in increases

in turbidity and the generation of sediment. This

impact would be considered significant because

of potential impacts to beneficial uses.

Groundwater. Impacts to groundwater are not

anticipated from the construction of any of the

conveyance facilities because the disturbance

will be short term and will generally be limited

to activities above the groundwater aquifer.

Hydrographs were analyzed for 12 groundwater

wells in or within the confined aquifer beneath

the Corcoran Clay layer. Four of the wells were

located in the Pixley NWR and eight were

within 7,500 feet of the boundary. Groundwater

elevations in three wells within the refuge have

not decreased significantly over the last

30 years; one of the wells exhibited a slight

increase in elevation. Groundwater elevations in

three wells north of the refuge have decreased

up to 75 feet over the last 35 and 45 years.

Southwest of the refuge, groundwater elevations

have decreased up to 100 feet in two wells.

These wells were monitored between 1987 and

1994, which was a general period of drought.

Southeast of the refuge, groundwater elevations

have remained approximately constant in three

wells and have increased slightly in one well

since 1960. Results of this analysis indicate that

Table IV-18

Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Impacts Mitigation

Level of Significance

After Mitigation

HWQ-a Alignments KER-1A/1B, KER-7,

PIX-2B, PIX-4B, PIX-9 would

temporarily impact surface water

quality.

HWQ-1 Schedule construction within the

banks of all streams during the dry

season.

HWQ-2 Develop and implement an Erosion

and Sediment Control and Storm

Water Pollution Prevention plan

that identifies methods to minimize

sedimentation during construction.

LS

Note:

LS = Less than Significant

HWQ = Hydrology and Water Quality
CHAPTER IV, AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) IV-38 08/01/03

groundwater elevations in the aquifer have been

relatively stable since 1960. According to the

Department of Water Resources, water levels

have increased during the past decade,

particularly since the end of the drought in the

1990s (DWR, 2002). The current and proposed

wells on the Pixley NWR pump from the

confined aquifer beneath the Corcoran Clay

layer, which is not necessarily influenced by the

upper aquifer monitored by DWR. However,

deep well production, while it fluctuates

seasonally, rebounds each year to original levels,

indicating that there is adequate recharge in the

aquifer beneath the clay.

The installation of one additional well on the

Pixley NWR associated with PIX-4B would not

be considered a significant impact to

groundwater supplies. The design withdrawal

would be up to 1,600 gpm, and the well would

only be used to supplement deliveries during the

months of June and July.

The installation of six additional wells on the

Pixley NWR associated with PIX-8 would be

considered a significant impact to groundwater

supplies given the current status of the aquifer;

however, an in-lieu recharge via the Friant-Kern

Canal is incorporated as part of this alternative

in response to this concern. The Pixley NWR

currently pumps Level 2 supplies of up to

1,280 ac-ft annually from the deep aquifer. For

PIX-8, to supply the refuge with Level 4

supplies of 6,000 ac-ft, other agricultural

interests, which also pump from this aquifer,

would be delivered 6,000 ac-ft of surface-water

supplies from the Friant-Kern Canal in lieu of

pumping. The proposed on-refuge pumps,

included as part of this alternative, and existing

pump would draw 6,000 ac-ft annually. The net

impact on the aquifer would be positive because

the refuge would increase their draw from the

aquifer by 4,720 ac-ft (the difference between

Level 2 and Level 4), while agricultural

demands on the same aquifer would decrease by

6,000 ac-ft. Implementation of this alternative

would result in a net reduction of aquifer

withdrawal by 1,280 ac-ft. This would be

considered a beneficial impact; no mitigation

would be required.

Drainage. Increasing flows from Level 2 to

Level 4 will not alter the existing status of the

two refuge areas to accept all water without any

subsequent drainage or return flow. Therefore,

there will be no drainage-related impact to offrefuge water quality.

Water Quality. Potential impacts to water

quality are discussed under the Surface Water,

Drainage, and Groundwater sections.

Mitigation

The following mitigation measures are

incorporated as part of each alternative and will

reduce impacts identified above to a less than

significant level:

• HWQ-1. Schedule construction within the

banks of all streams listed above within the

dry season when these channels have

reduced flows, or as specified by the CDFG

and/or the USACE when obtaining permit

approvals from these agencies. Isolate flows

to the extent possible to minimize

downstream siltation.

• HWQ-2. Develop and implement an Erosion

and Sediment Control Plan and Storm Water

Pollution Prevention Plan that identifies

methods to minimize sedimentation during

construction in addition to slope

stabilization and revegetation techniques.

This plan should be prepared in coordination

with the CDFG, Central Valley RWQCB,

and USACE.

Recreation

Affected Environment

Recreational opportunities in the vicinity of the

refuges include hunting, nature viewing, fishing,

and water-related activities. Within the region,

the Kern River traverses the San Joaquin Valley,

offering a large variety of recreational venues.

Private hunting clubs are scattered around the

perimeter of the refuges and are heavily used.

Recreational opportunities exist at Millerton and

other CVP reservoirs. Other forms of recreation
CHAPTER IV, AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) IV-39 08/01/03

are somewhat limited because of a lack of public

land and extensive agricultural land use

(USBR, 1994).

The NWRs are intensively managed areas that

provide wildlife habitat in addition to the

hunting (consumptive) and wildlife viewing

(non-consumptive) recreational opportunities.

Most recreationalists use the Kern and Pixley

NWRs in a non-consumptive manner, for

activities such as wildlife viewing and walking

or driving the auto-tour route. Pixley NWR is

closed to all but non-consumptive uses such as

bird watching and wildlife photography. These

activities are restricted to specific areas. Portions

of Kern NWR are designated for hunting uses

and are managed accordingly. Hunting is

allowed only on designated days, and the

number of hunters is regulated (USBR, 1994).

Environmental Consequences

Criteria for Determining Significance. Criteria

for determining the significance of impacts from

the perspective of recreational opportunities at

Kern and Pixley NWRs include the following:

• Introducing conflicts with established

recreational uses of the area

• Conflicts with local or regional recreation

management plans

Recreation impacts and mitigation measures are

summarized in Table IV-19.

Recreational opportunities along the Kern River

and local reservoirs would not change because

of the delivery of additional water to wetland

habitat areas via any of the conveyance

alternatives. No impact would occur.

Recreational opportunities on the Kern NWR

will increase at full development (Level 4).

Nonconsumptive visitors will have access to two

auto tour routes with turn-outs and hiking trails.

An expanded visitor contact point will be

developed at the Refuge entrance. The tour

routes will have developed turn-out and

interpretive signs and displays. Currently only

one auto tour route is available with limited

interpretive signs.

Hunting opportunities will also increase with the

increase in available habitat. The Refuge

Compatibility Statement for waterfowl and

upland game (pheasant) hunting states that the

refuge will provide 1,000 acres of closed area or

sanctuary before any waterfowl hunting begins.

After the sanctuary is established and as

additional wetlands are created, hunting will

increase to a 55/45 percent ratio of sanctuary to

hunt area. Based on alternatives in the Draft EA

for the Kern NWR Comprehensive Conservation

Plan, hunting will be permitted on a maximum

of 40 percent of refuge lands while 60 percent

will be closed to hunting. If this alternative is

selected, approximately 4,000 acres of wetlands

will be open to hunting. This procedure will only

apply at Level 4 or full development and in

years when the full water supply is available.

Available hunting would start small and

increase, as the habitat is flooded, until full

capacity is reached.

Currently, the Kern NWR receives

approximately 6,300 visits annually. This

includes approximately 3,100 visitor days from

waterfowl hunters. At Level 4 water supply

visitation will increase dramatically with an

increase in available user facilities and public

hunting area. An estimate of visitation at full

development for non-consumptive use is

approximately 20,000 visits per year with

additional 4,800 visits for waterfowl hunting for

24,800 visits annually.

Table IV-19

Recreation Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Impacts Mitigation

Level of Significance

After Mitigation

No mitigation is required.
CHAPTER IV, AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) IV-40 08/06/03

Recreational opportunities on the Pixley NWR

will increase at full development (Level 4). At

Level 2 non-consumptive visitation is limited to

a self-guided interpretive trail or by Special Use

Permit or special guided tour. At full

development, visitors will be directed to two

visitor contact points by directional signing and

have access to parking areas, observation points

and two self-guided foot trails. No consumptive

(hunting or fishing) use is now available and

will not be available at full development.

Currently, visitor use at Pixley is approximately

350 visits annually. At full development visitor

use will increase approximately 5,000 visits

annually.

Mitigation

No mitigation is required.

Socioeconomics

Affected Environment

The socioeconomic environment for this EA/IS

encompasses the Fresno, Kings, Tulare, and

Kern Counties. The study area is essentially

rural in nature, with the major urban areas being

Fresno, Bakersfield, and Visalia. The primary

industry is agriculture.

Outdoor Recreation. As described in the

Recreation discussion, recreational opportunities

vary from on-refuge hunting and nature viewing

to off-refuge hunting and recreation associated

with local reservoirs and the Kings Canyon area.

On-refuge recreational use contributes primarily

to the local economies of Pixley, Earlimart,

Delano, and Wasco because of their proximity to

the refuges through purchases of supplies, food,

and lodging. Expenditures tend to be highest

during the fall and winter in conjunction with

duck hunting. Hunting is also a key off-refuge

recreational use because of the number of

private hunting clubs in the area. The majority of

the remaining recreational use is focused on

local reservoirs and the Kings Canyon area,

where expenditures are generated through

fishing, boating, and camping opportunities.

Environmental Consequences

Criteria for Determining Significance.

Impacts to the socioeconomic environment

would be considered significant if they would

result in any one of the following:

• Induce substantial growth or concentration

of population

• Substantially impact local housing supplies

• Substantially impact local health and safety

by exceeding or degrading local public

service capabilities

• Substantially impact the regional

agricultural economy in the short or long

term

Socioeconomic impacts and mitigations are

summarized in Table IV-20.

Recreation. If additional water supplies result in

increased use by waterfowl, implementation of

any of the alternatives associated with the

refuges would result in a long-term beneficial

socioeconomic impact. Increased numbers of

waterfowl would translate to increased

opportunities for wildlife viewing and hunting,

with resultant increases in expenditures on

supplies, lodging, and food within the local

economy.

Table IV-20

Socioeconomic Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Impacts Mitigation

Level of Significance After

Mitigation

No mitigation is required.
CHAPTER IV, AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) IV-41 08/06/03

Construction. Alternatives that require

construction of major pipeline facilities, such as

PIX-2B, PIX-4B, and PIX-9, would require a

local or regional contractor to install the

necessary facilities. The construction effort

would likely result in local expenditures in terms

of lodging, food, and construction-related

materials and equipment purchases.

Alternative PIX-8 would also generate a minor

degree of beneficial impacts in terms of

increased local spending, but to a much lesser

degree because of the relatively minor

improvements required.

Mitigation

No mitigation is required.

Energy

Affected Environment

This EA/IS encompasses the counties of Fresno,

Kings, Tulare, and Kern with respect to energy.

The study area is essentially rural in nature, with

the major urban areas being Fresno, Bakersfield,

and Visalia. The primary industry is agriculture.

Kern and Pixley NWRs both have on-refuge

wells. The Kern NWR wells are currently not

used because of poor water quality and expense

involved in pumping. The Pixley NWR wells are

used to supplement the unreliable supplies from

Deer Creek.

Energy is required to convey water to the

refuges. Pixley has received CVP power since

1994. The conveyance of water throughout the

CVP and SWP system requires a great deal of

power associated with electrical pumping.

Large-scale pumping occurs at various locations

along the CVP, including the Delta. Hydropower

facilities generate power from reservoir releases

at the CVP Friant Dam. Water-year conditions

and CVP operating criteria may necessitate

changes to reservoir releases, and these changes

can affect reservoir operation and power

generation potential.

Environmental Consequences

Implementation of the proposed action would

provide additional CVP and SWP supplies to the

refuges compared to the No-Action Alternative.

This is a small increase in the total water

available to the refuges. The delivery of this

supplemental CVP/SWP water associated with

the Kern NWR alternatives and PIX-2B and

PIX-4B is not expected to affect CVP/SWP

yield or storage in an amount that would impact

power generation or use significantly. On-refuge

power use would increase on the Pixley NWR if

PIX-8 and PIX-4B were implemented; however,

off-refuge pumping would decrease by a greater

amount, due to the in-lieu exchange of surface

water. This would be a beneficial impact.

Criteria for Determining Significance.

Impacts to energy would be significant if they

would result in any one of the following:

• Activities that result in the use of large

amounts of energy

• Use of energy in a wasteful manner

Energy impacts and mitigation measures are

summarized in Table IV-21.

Table IV-21

Energy Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Impacts Mitigation

Level of Significance After

Mitigation

No mitigation is required.
CHAPTER IV, AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) IV-42 08/01/03

Mitigation

No mitigation is required.

Air Quality

Air quality data are discussed in terms of

defined air basins and focus on federal and state

criteria pollutants. The South San Joaquin

Valley basin area lies within the San Joaquin

Valley Air Basin, which includes San Joaquin,

Stanislaus, Merced, Madera, Fresno, Kings,

Tulare, and most of Kern Counties. Currently,

Kern and Tulare Counties are designated as

nonattainment areas for the federal and state

ambient air quality standards for ozone and

particulate matter less than 10 microns (PM10).

The potential for the proposed action to

significantly contribute to criteria pollutant

levels (i.e., particulates) by way of disturbance

to fallowed fields currently in non-attainment,

will be addressed.

Affected Environment

The geographic area for the focus of this

analysis is limited to the San Joaquin Valley Air

Basin. Assessment of air quality within the

region can be based on several factors.

Total suspended particulates are airborne

particles small enough to remain suspended in

air for long periods. PM10 includes dust, sand,

mineral particles, pollen, and smoke. The most

common artificial sources of PM10 in the air

basin are agricultural operations, demolition and

construction activities, road dust from vehicles,

and wood burning. Airborne dust and wind

erosion of exposed surfaces also represents

significant sources of PM10. Regulation of air

quality is achieved through both national and

state ambient air quality standards and emission

limits for individual sources of pollutants. The

national ambient PM10 standard is

150 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3

),

whereas the more stringent state standard is an

annual average of 20 μg/m3

 not to be exceeded,

and retention of the 24-hour standard of

50 μg/m3

 not to be exceeded.

PM10 concentrations in the air basin have

exceeded the state 24-hour ambient standards

each of the past 8 years and exceeded the

national standard six times in 1999 (California

Air Resource Board, 2002). The entire air basin

is designated as a non-attainment area for the

national and state PM10 standards.

The San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution

Control District is the regional agency

empowered to regulate air pollutant emissions in

the air basin. The Air District prepared a PM10

Air Quality Attainment Plan in 1991. The Plan

contains measures to reduce emissions,

including those generated by agricultural lands,

but does not contain measures that apply to

wetlands habitat areas (San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District, 1991).

Environmental Consequences

Criteria for Determining Significance.

Impacts to air quality would be considered

significant if they resulted in any one of the

following:

• Violation of any ambient air quality standard

• Substantial contribution to an existing or

projected air quality violation

• Exposure of sensitive receptors to

substantial pollutant concentrations

Air quality impacts and mitigations are

summarized in Table IV-22.

Dust emissions from construction activity of

alternatives KER-1A/1B, PIX-2B, PIX-4B,

PIX-8 and PIX-9, will result in increased levels

of PM10. Emission sources would include

vehicles and construction equipment traveling

over dirt surfaces, site clearing, grading, cut and

fill operations, and wind-blown dust. Impacts to

air quality would be limited to the short term

during the construction period for the

alternatives but could be significant.
CHAPTER IV, AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) V-43 08/06/03

Table IV-22

Air Quality Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Impacts Mitigation

Levels of

Significance After

Mitigation

AQ-a Alignments KER-1A/1B,

PIX-2B, PIX-4B, PIX-8, and

PIX-9 would temporarily impact

air quality.

AQ1 All active construction areas

will be watered daily as

necessary.

AQ2 Dust producing activities will be

suspended when high winds

create substantial constructioninduced visible dust plumes

moving beyond the site in spite

of dust control measures.

AQ3 All trucks hauling soil and other

loose material will be covered as

necessary.

AQ4 Soil stabilizers, such as paving,

watering, or the application of

gravel, will be applied to all

unpaved access roads and

staging areas at construction

sites.

AQ5 Roads will be swept, as

necessary, if visible soil material

is carried onto adjacent public

streets.

AQ6 Stockpiles will be covered or

applied with a soil stabilizer

when necessary.

AQ7 Traffic speeds will be limited to

15 miles per hour on unpaved

roads.

LS

Notes:

LS = Less than Significant

AQ = Air Quality

No additional changes to air quality for the

South San Joaquin Valley are anticipated from

implementation of the proposed action. Land use

management on- and off-refuge would not be

affected by implementation of the proposed

action. Therefore, no changes to traffic or soil

erosion are anticipated that could affect air

quality within the basin. Given the air basin is in

non-attainment for PM10, contributions to PM10

levels would be temporarily increased and

mitigation would be required for this short-term

impact.

Mitigation

The following mitigation measures are

incorporated as part of each alternative and will

reduce short-term construction-related impacts

identified above to a level of less than

significant:

• AQ1. All active construction areas will be

watered daily as necessary.

• AQ2. Dust producing activities will be

suspended when high winds create

substantial construction-induced visible dust
CHAPTER IV, AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) IV-44 08/01/03

plumes moving beyond the site in spite of

dust control measures. AQ3. All trucks

hauling soil and other loose material will be

covered as necessary.

• AQ4. Soil stabilizers, such as paving,

watering, or the application of gravel, will

be applied to all unpaved access roads and

staging areas at construction sites.

• AQ5. Roads will be swept, as necessary, if

visible soil material is carried onto adjacent

public streets.

• AQ6. Stockpiles will be covered or applied

with a soil stabilizer when necessary.

• AQ7. Traffic speeds will be limited to

15 miles per hour on unpaved roads.
RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) V-1 08/01/03

Chapter V

Cumulative and Growth-Inducing Impacts

Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative impacts are effects that may be

individually minor at a project level, but

collectively can result in greater effects when

considered in relation to other related past,

present, and foreseeable future projects. This

discussion focuses on the cumulative impacts

associated with the development of conveyance

facilities necessary to deliver Level 4 water

supplies to the refuge areas. The CVPIA PEIS

has addressed the system-wide impacts

associated with implementation of the Refuge

Water Supply requirements of the CVPIA,

including the acquisition of Level 4 water

supplies. The expected impacts of acquiring

Level 4 supplies will also be subsequently

addressed in greater detail in a separate

environmental document.

In general, the impact areas are dominated by

agricultural uses and are anticipated to remain in

agricultural use in the long term. The

implementation of any of the action alternatives

would result in both beneficial and adverse

impacts. As described previously, all adverse

impacts can be mitigated to a less than

significant level. Adverse impacts were

identified within the following resource

categories:

• Biological Resources (primarily short-term

impacts to habitats, some of which could be

used by endangered species)

• Water Quality (primarily short-term impacts

from the construction of conveyance

facilities across or adjacent to existing

stream courses)

• Land Use (primarily short-term impacts

associated with installation of facilities

through prime agricultural lands)

The installation of conveyance facilities to each

of the refuge areas will result in short-term

impacts to habitats used by a number of species,

including species which are listed as threatened

or endangered by the USFWS and CDFG.

Generally, limited long-term impacts could also

occur where facilities resulted in a permanent

encumbrance such as a canal. As described in

Chapter 4, the USBR will route all facilities to

minimize all impacts to sensitive habitats and

will mitigate all impacts where avoidance is not

possible. Mitigation measures include

revegetation and monitoring at replacement

ratios determined reasonable for each type of

habitats. In addition to avoidance and mitigation,

where avoidance is not feasible, the overall

action will result in a number of wildlife and

vegetation benefits on NWR. Increased water

supplies will allow for the development of

additional habitat, which will ensure the

maintenance of habitats that cannot currently be

maintained during dry periods. Accordingly,

potential cumulative negative effects to

biological resources are considered minor and

the cumulative effects in general would be

beneficial.

Adverse contributions to regional water quality

are also considered insignificant because of the

generally short-term nature of the construction

period and the extremely small potential

contribution to water quality turbidity and

overall quality. Mitigation, including the

development of an erosion control and

restoration plan, will ensure that there are

essentially no adverse impacts to water quality

in a cumulative sense.

Impacts to land use are primarily limited to

short-term disturbances to agricultural land.

Alternatives, which include permanent facilities,

such as a canal, would result in permanent

impacts. Routing of conveyance facilities to

avoid agricultural impacts to the extent possible

will lessen impacts. Short-term disturbances will

lessen overall productivity for approximately

one year. These short-term impacts will not

result in any noticeable cumulative effects.
CHAPTER V, CUMULATIVE AND GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS

RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) V-2 08/01/03

Growth-Inducing Impacts

Growth-inducing impacts are defined in Section

15125(g) of the CEQA Guidelines as “the ways

in which the proposed project could foster

economic or population growth, or the

construction of additional housing, either

directly or indirectly, in the surrounding

environment.” The proposed alternatives will

result in some economic activity during

construction in terms of a temporary demand for

labor, building materials, and a limited degree of

lodging. These short-term economic benefits

will not result in significant growth-inducing

economic or population growth, or the need to

provide additional new housing.
RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) VI-1 08/01/03

Chapter VI

Environmental Commitment Checklist

Table VI-1

Environmental Commitment Checklist

Impact Mitigation

Level of

Significance

After

Mitigation

Land Use

LU-a Alternatives PIX-2B, PIX-4B, or PIX-9

could temporarily impact between 250

and 350 agricultural production acres

for one season.

LU-1 Schedule construction to minimize impacts to

crop production.

LU-2 Minimize workspace required to install facilities.

LU-3 Compensate landowners for any loss of crop

production or impacts to agricultural operations.

LS

LU-b Alternative PIX-2B could permanently

impact residential and other structures.

LU-4 Route conveyance facilities to avoid residences

and other structures.

LU-5 Compensate landowners for any loss of property.

LS

LU-c Alternatives KER-7, PIX-2B, PIX-4B,

and PIX-9 could impact existing

residential powerlines.

LU-6 Route conveyance facilities to avoid powerlines. LS

Biological Resources

BR-a Alternatives KER-1A/1B, KER-7,

PIX-2B, PIX-4B, and PIX-9 could

impact special-status plants.

BR-1 Conduct pre-construction surveys prior to final

design to identify locations of special-status

plants following the procedures outlined in

Guidelines for Assessing the Effects of Proposed

Developments on Rare and Endangered Plants

and Plant Communities. Surveys must be timed

to coincide with the flowering seasons of the

targeted species. Following pre-construction

surveys, develop measures to avoid impacts to

special-status plants.

LS

BR-2 Where avoidance of special-status plants is not

practicable, develop and implement measures for

mitigating impacts, including relocation or reestablishment of special-status plant populations.

Mitigation would involve creating suitable

habitat in non-suitable habitat by providing soil,

water, and vegetation to replicate conditions

needed to establish special-status species

populations.

BR-b Alternatives PIX-2B, PIX-4B, and

PIX-9 could impact 2.7 acres of riparian

habitat.

BR-3 Prior to final design, map and quantify riparian

habitat and other important natural plant

communities. Develop measures to avoid or

minimize impacts to these habitats.

LS

Notes:

LU = Land Use

BR = Biological Resources

LS = Less than Significant
CHAPTER VI, ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENT CHECKLIST

RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) VI-2 08/01/03

Environmental Commitment Checklist

Impact Mitigation

Level of

Significance

After

Mitigation

BR-b continued BR-4 Develop and implement mitigation measures for

unavoidable impacts to riparian habitat. Where

possible, disturbed riparian habitat should be

restored onsite following completion of

construction activities. Permanently eliminated

riparian habitat should be replaced at a 2:1 ratio

(i.e., 2 acres of habitat created for each acre

eliminated). Mitigation would involve creating

riparian habitat in non-riparian habitat by

providing soil, water, and vegetation.

BR-5 Develop and implement a revegetation plan for

temporarily disturbed construction sites. The

revegetation plan should incorporate seeding and

planting of species that will resist invasion by

noxious weeds.

BR-6 Develop and implement a monitoring plan to

assess the success of mitigation measures for

impacts to vegetation and special-status species.

Plantings on the revegetation and compensation

sites should be monitored during the growing

season (March through September) to determine

growth rates for 3 years from the date of

transplant or planting. A yearly report should be

submitted to USFWS, including dates of

watering, growth rates, cover rates, and mortality

figures. Monitoring could be curtailed after

3 years if success is demonstrated. (Success is

achieved when plant cover of the mitigation site

is at least 80 percent of the cover at the impact

site prior to project disturbance and vegetative

composition of the dominant [> 20 percent of the

cover] and characteristic species [typical,

regularly occurring in the habitat but not

dominant] exceeds 80 percent of that which was

present at the impact site.) Monitoring of specialstatus plant mitigation sites could be curtailed

after 3 years if overall survival rates of seeded,

planted, or transplanted plants exceed 80 percent

of projected survival rates.

BR-7 Pre-construction surveys should be conducted for

raptors prior to the peak March through August

nesting period. Construction during the critical

nesting period (March through August) will be

avoided; or, if nesting pairs and fledglings are

identified within 0.25 mile of construction, a

monitoring program will be initiated in

consultation with the CDFG.

LS

Notes:

BR = Biological Resources

LS = Less than Significant
CHAPTER VI, ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENT CHECKLIST

RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) VI-3 08/01/03

Environmental Commitment Checklist

Impact Mitigation

Level of

Significance

After

Mitigation

BR-b continued If Swainson’s hawks are present, site surveys will

be conducted to identify nesting activity. If nests

are located within 0.5 miles of the project site with

a direct line of sight to the activity, CDFG will be

consulted to establish proper mitigation. As stated

above for other raptors, seasonal restrictions

(March through August) on project activities may

be appropriate.

BR-c Alternatives KER-1A/1B, KER-7,

PIX-2B, and PIX-9 could impact

habitat used by San Joaquin kit fox.

BR-8 Before staging and construction, have a USFWSapproved biologist survey for dens and other kit

fox sign such as scat, prey remains, and tracks. The

biologist shall follow the USFWS’s Standard

Recommendations For Avoidance of the San

Joaquin Kit Fox (1997). If any evidence of kit fox

activity is found, contact the USFWS’s

Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office to initiate

consultation.

A USFWS-approved worker awareness program

shall be conducted for all projects located in areas

that provide, or may provide, habitat for this

species. Confine surface disturbance to areas that

do not exhibit the habitat types and sign listed

above with an adequate buffer (not less than

200 feet). The biologist must stake and flag to

exclude construction activities within 200 feet of

potential habitat.

To avoid inadvertent entrapment of animals in

holes during construction, all excavated, steepwalled holes or trenches more than 2 feet deep

should be covered at the close of each working day

by plywood or similar materials or provided with

one or more escape ramps constructed of earth fill

or wooden planks.

All construction pipes, culverts, or similar

structures, with a diameter of 4 inches or greater

that are stored at a construction site for one or

more overnight periods, should be thoroughly

inspected for kit foxes before the pipe is

subsequently buried, capped, or otherwise used or

moved in any way.

No work shall be conducted between sunset and

sunrise within 0.5 mile of potential habitat.

No domestic animals (pets) shall be allowed on the

project site.

LS

Notes:

BR = Biological Resources

LS = Less than Significant
CHAPTER VI, ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENT CHECKLIST

RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) VI-4 08/01/03

Environmental Commitment Checklist

Impact Mitigation

Level of

Significance

After

Mitigation

BR-c continued On unposted roads, vehicle speeds shall not

exceed 25 miles per hour.

Trash shall be disposed of in covered containers

and removed daily.

Restrict use of rodenticides and herbicides to

prevent secondary poisoning.

In the event that take cannot be avoided, contact

the USFWS for information before starting the

action.

BR-d Alternatives KER-1A/1B, KER-7,

PIX-2B, PIX-4B, and PIX-9 could

impact habitat used by Tipton kangaroo

rat.

BR-9 Before any ground-disturbing activities, have a

USFWS-approved biologist survey for the

presence of the plant associations considered

habitat for the Tipton kangaroo rat. The USFWSapproved biologist must survey for the presence

of Tipton kangaroo rat sign such as burrow

systems, haystacks, and areas of clipped

vegetation.

A USFWS-approved worker awareness program

shall be conducted for all projects located in

areas that provide, or may provide, habitat for

this species.

Confine surface disturbance to areas that do not

exhibit the signs listed above with an adequate

buffer (not less than 200 feet). The biologist must

stake and flag to exclude construction activities

within 200 feet of potential habitat.

No work shall be conducted between sunset and

sunrise within 0.5 mile of potential habitat.

No domestic animals (pets) shall be allowed on

the project site.

On unposted roads, vehicle speeds shall not

exceed 25 miles per hour.

Trash shall be disposed of in covered containers.

In the event that take cannot be avoided, contact

the USFWS for information before starting the

action.

LS

Notes:

BR = Biological Resources

LS = Less than Significant
CHAPTER VI, ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENT CHECKLIST

RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) VI-5 08/01/03

Environmental Commitment Checklist

Impact Mitigation

Level of

Significance

After

Mitigation

BR-e Alternative KER-1A/1B, KER-7,

PIX-2B, PIX-4B, and PIX-9 could

impact habitat used by blunt-nosed

leopard lizard.

BR-10 Before staging and construction, have a USFWSapproved biologist survey for the presence of the

habitat types used by this species and signs of

leopard lizards such as burrows. The protocol

developed by the CDFG shall be used to survey

for this species. During the blunt-nosed leopard

lizard’s hibernation time, surveys are unreliable

and cannot be used to determine absence of this

species. Notice will be given to the CDFG and

the USFWS 30 days before beginning

construction to determine whether capture is

desired.

For projects from 5 to 10 acres in size (or 5 to

10 linear miles), within suitable habitat, should

schedule surface disturbance activities during the

active season (approximately April 15 to

October 15).

A USFWS-approved biologist will survey any

trenches in the morning and late afternoon to

remove lizards that fall into the trench.

A USFWS-approved worker awareness program

shall be conducted for all projects located in areas

that provide, or may provide, habitat for this

species.

Confine surface disturbance to areas that do not

exhibit the habitat types and sign listed above

with an adequate buffer (not less than 200 feet).

The biologist must stake and flag to exclude

construction activities within 200 feet of potential

habitat.

No work shall be conducted between sunset and

sunrise within 0.5 mile of potential habitat.

No domestic animals (pets) shall be allowed on

the project site.

On unposted roads, vehicle speeds shall not

exceed 25 miles per hour.

Trash shall be disposed of in covered containers

and removed daily.

In the event that take cannot be avoided, contact

the USFWS for information before starting the

action.

LS

Notes:

BR = Biological Resources

LS = Less than Significant
CHAPTER VI, ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENT CHECKLIST

RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) VI-6 08/01/03

Environmental Commitment Checklist

Impact Mitigation

Level of

Significance

After

Mitigation

BR-f Alternative KER-7 contains potential

vernal pools and swales.

BR-11 If any vernal pools or vernal swales will be

impacted (i.e., if construction activities will occur

within 250 feet of the edge of a pool or swale),

pre-construction surveys should be conducted for

fairy shrimp and tadpole shrimp. During final

design, avoid by 250 feet all features containing

listed shrimp. Surveys should be conducted

according to methods outlined in Interim

Guidelines for Surveys for the Endangered

Conservancy Fairy Shrimp, Longhorn Fairy

Shrimp, Riverside Fairy Shrimp, Vernal Pool

Tadpole Shrimp, and the Threatened Vernal Pool

Fairy Shrimp.

Stay at least 250 feet from the margin of the

pool/swale edge. When conducting activities

beyond 250 feet from habitat, be careful to avoid

activities that will eventually result in effects to

the pool/swale through changes in hydrology,

sedimentation, or contamination of the habitat.

Adequate fencing will be placed and maintained

around any avoided (preserved) vernal pool

habitat to prevent impacts from vehicles.

If habitat is avoided (preserved) onsite, then a

USFWS-approved biologist (monitor) will inspect

any construction-related activities at the proposed

project site to ensure that no unnecessary take of

listed species or destruction of their habitat

occurs. The biologist will have the authority to

stop all activities that may result in take or

destruction until appropriate corrective measures

have been completed. The biologist also will be

required to report immediately any unauthorized

impacts to the USFWS and the CDFG.

All onsite construction personnel will receive

instruction regarding the presence of listed

species and importance of avoiding impacts to

these species and their habitat.

LS

Notes:

BR = Biological Resources

LS = Less than Significant
CHAPTER VI, ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENT CHECKLIST

RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) VI-7 08/01/03

Environmental Commitment Checklist

Impact Mitigation

Level of

Significance

After

Mitigation

BR-f continued The applicant will ensure that activities that are

inconsistent with the maintenance of the

suitability of remaining habitat and associated

onsite watershed are prohibited. This includes, but

is not limited to the following:

- Alteration of existing topography or any

other alteration or uses for any purposes

- Use of fire protection activities not required

to protect existing structures at the project

site

- Use of pesticides or other toxic chemicals,

including the exploration for or development

of mineral extraction

- Placement of any new structures on these

parcels

- Dumping, burning, and/or burying of

rubbish, garbage, or any other wastes or fill

materials

- Building of any new roads or trails

- Killing, removal, alteration, or replacement

of any existing native vegetation

- Placement of stormwater drains

In the event that take cannot be avoided, contact

the USFWS for information before starting the

action.

BR-12 A monitoring plan should be developed and

implemented to assess the success of mitigation

measures for impacts to special-status wildlife.

Success criteria should be clearly defined for all

measures implemented to mitigate for project

impacts to wildlife. Yearly reports should be

submitted to the USFWS and the CDFG. If

success criteria are being met after 3 years of

monitoring, no additional monitoring is

necessary.

Notes:

BR = Biological Resources
CHAPTER VI, ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENT CHECKLIST

RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) VI-8 08/01/03

Environmental Commitment Checklist

Impact Mitigation

Level of

Significance

After

Mitigation

BR-g Alternatives KER-1A/1B, KER-7,

PIX-2B, PIX-4B, and PIX-9 could

impact habitat used by Buena Vista

Lake shrew.

BR-13 Before any ground-disturbing activities, have a

USFWS-approved biologist survey for the

presence of the wetland plant associations

considered habitat for the Buena Vista Lake

shrew. Avoid areas in, or adjacent to, the Kern

Lake Preserve.

A USFWS-approved worker awareness program

shall be conducted for all projects located in

areas that provide, or may provide, habitat for

this species.

Confine surface disturbance to areas that do not

exhibit the signs listed above with an adequate

buffer (not less than 200 feet). The biologist must

stake and flag to exclude construction activities

within 200 feet of potential habitat.

No work shall be conducted between sunset and

sunrise within 0.5 mile of potential habitat.

No domestic animals shall be allowed on the

project site.

On unposted roads, vehicle speeds shall not

exceed 25 miles per hour.

Trash shall be disposed of in covered containers

and removed daily.

In the event that take cannot be avoided, contact

the USFWS for information before starting the

action.

LS

BR-h KER-7, PIX-2B, PIX-4B, and PIX-9

could impact between 2.4 to 8.2 acres of

jurisdictional wetland.

BR-14 Pre-construction delineations should be

conducted of wetlands and other waters of the

U.S. Request a verification of the delineated

boundaries from the USACE. Following

verification of the delineation boundaries,

measures to avoid impacts to jurisdictional

wetlands should be developed.

BR-15 After final design, impacts to wetlands and other

waters should be quantified. Submit to USACE a

permit application for discharge of fill material

into waters of the U.S., following Section 404 of

the Clean Water Act.

LS

Notes:

BR = Biological Resources

LS = Less than Significant
CHAPTER VI, ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENT CHECKLIST

RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) VI-9 08/01/03

Environmental Commitment Checklist

Impact Mitigation

Level of

Significance

After

Mitigation

BR-h continued BR-16 Install and maintain appropriate erosion and

sedimentation controls during and following

construction as specified in the required Erosion

Control Plan (see Hydrology and Water Quality

section).

BR-17 A streambed alteration agreement with the CDFG

should be obtained, following Section 1601 of the

Fish and Game Code, before initiating

construction within the 100-year floodplain of

any stream crossing.

BR-18 Develop and implement mitigation plans for

impacts to wetlands. Eliminated wetlands should

be replaced at a 2:1 ratio. Temporarily impacted

wetlands should be restored onsite. Stockpile

topsoil removed from wetlands and store in

upland landscape positions. Following

construction disturbance, restore the land surface

contours and backfill the top 6 to 12 inches with

stockpiled topsoil.

BR-19 Following project completion, monitor the site to

assess mitigation success. Success criteria should

be clearly defined for all measures implemented

to mitigate for project impacts to wetlands.

Yearly reports should be submitted to the

USFWS and the USACE. If success criteria are

being met after 3 years of monitoring, no

additional monitoring is necessary.

Cultural Resources

CR-a Alternative KER-7 could impact a

prehistoric site.

CR-1 Restrict KER-7 construction activities in the area

of CA-KER-2100 to the existing canal alignment

and restrict the movement of equipment to the

south levee in this area. As the south levee has by

far the better road surface, this should not impose

a burden on the construction crew.

LS

CR-b Alternatives PIX-2B, PIX-4B, and

PIX-9 could impact adjacent historical

residences.

CR-2 Avoid the three historical structures near the

PIX-2B, PIX-4B, and PIX-9 alignments. If

avoidance of impact to any of these structures is

not feasible, then additional historical research

should be conducted to determine significance,

and a suitable plan for mitigation of adverse effect

should be developed, if necessary.

LS

Notes:

BR = Biological Resources

LS = Less than Significant
CHAPTER VI, ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENT CHECKLIST

RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) VI-10 08/01/03

Environmental Commitment Checklist

Impact Mitigation

Level of

Significance

After

Mitigation

Hydrology and Water Quality

HWQ-a Alternatives KER-1A/1B, KER-7,

PIX-2B, PIX-4B, and PIX-9 would

temporarily impact surface water

quality.

HWQ-1 Schedule construction within the banks of all

streams during the dry season.

HWQ-2 Develop and implement an Erosion and Sediment

Control and Storm Water Pollution Prevention plan

that identifies methods to minimize sedimentation

during construction.

LS

Recreation

No mitigation is required.

Socioeconomics

No mitigation is required.

Energy

No mitigation is required.

Air Quality

AQ-a Alignments KER-1A/1B, PIX-2B,

PIX-4B, PIX-8, and PIX-9 would

temporarily impact air quality.

AQ-1 All active construction areas will be watered daily

as necessary.

AQ-2 Dust producing activities will be suspended when

high winds create substantial construction-induced

visible dust plumes moving beyond the site in spite

of dust control measures.

AQ-3 All trucks hauling soil and other loose material will

be covered as necessary.

AQ-4 Soil stabilizers, such as paving, watering, or the

application of gravel, will be applied to all unpaved

access roads and staging areas at construction sites.

AQ-5 Roads will be swept, as necessary, if visible soil

material is carried onto adjacent public streets.

AQ-6 Stockpiles will be covered or applied with a soil

stabilizer when necessary.

AQ-7 Traffic speeds will be limited to 15 miles per hour

on unpaved roads.

LS

Notes:

HWQ = Hydrology and Water Quality

LS = Less than Significant

AQ = Air Quality
RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) VII-1 08/01/03

Chapter VII

Consultation and Coordination

List of agencies and organizations consulted are

as follows:

• CDFG

• USFWS, Ecological Services

• USACE

• Natural Resources Conservation Service

• Central Valley RWQCB

This EA/IS has been prepared to comply with

the environmental review and consultation

requirements of the NEPA and the CEQA.

Compliance with specific environmental review

and consultation requirements to implement the

proposed action are identified in Table VII-1.

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act

The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act requires

the USBR to consult with the USFWS before

undertaking projects that control or modify

surface water (water projects). This consultation

is intended both to promote the conservation of

wildlife resources by preventing loss of or

damage to wildlife resources and to provide for

the development and improvement of wildlife

resources concerning water projects. Federal

agencies undertaking water projects are required

to include in project reports recommendations

made by the USFWS, to give full consideration

to these recommendations, and to include in

project plans justifiable means and measures for

wildlife purposes.

Table VII-1

Review, Permits, and Licenses Required for the Conveyance of Refuge Water Supply

Agency Act or Regulation Requirement Compliance Procedure

USACE Section 404 Wetlands Permit

under the Federal Clean Water Act

Executive Order 11990

Protection of Wetlands

Possible dredge and fill

permits for pipeline crossings;

Notice coordination.

Obtain permitting approval;

agencies review NEPA/CEQA

document as part of process.

USACE/State Water

Resources Control Board

Section 402 National Pollutant

Discharge Elimination

System/General Construction

Activity Stormwater Permit

Project requiring disturbance

to greater than one acre.

Obtain permitting approval;

agencies review NEPA/CEQA

document as part of process.

USACE/RWQCB Section 401 Water Quality

Certification

Work accomplished requiring

discharge to surface waters.

Obtain permitting approval;

agencies review NEPA/CEQA

document as part of process.

USFWS ESA Compliance with provisions

of the ESA.

ESA Section 7 consultation;

agency reviews Draft and Final

EA/IS.

CDFG Streambed Alteration Agreement

under Section 1601 of the Fish and

Game Code

Alteration to a stream

channel.

Obtain agreement approval;

agency reviews NEPA/CEQA

document as part of process.

CDFG CESA Compliance with provisions

of CESA.

Agency reviews proponent’s

submittals; prepares biological

opinion.

Advisory Council on

Historic Preservation

National Historic Preservation Act,

Sec 106; EO 11593, Sec 2 (b)(36

CFR 800)

Compliance with provisions

of the ESA and Executive

Order.

State Historic Preservation

Office review of environmental

document/ coordination.
CHAPTER VII, CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) VII-2 08/01/03

The USBR contacted the USFWS and the

CDFG about the need for a formal Section 2(b)

Report for the project. The USFWS and the

CDFG determined that formal consultation is

not required for the project. The USFWS and the

CDFG, as project participants, reviewers, and

commentors, ensure that the interests of the Fish

and Wildlife Coordination Act are fully

addressed as part of the project formulation and

on-going cooperative efforts. Technical

memorandums to the official project files have

served the purpose of information tracking. The

USBR, USFWS, and CDFG are closely

coordinating several ongoing activities

associated with the CVPIA.

Endangered Species Act

The ESA (federal and state) protects species that

have been listed or proposed for listing as

threatened or endangered. The USFWS and the

CDFG have been directly involved regarding

special-status species for this EA/IS. Past ESA

compliance activities have occurred since 1991

and include the following:

• Implementation of biological opinions for

specific activities of the CVP

• Consultation on future activities

• Consultation addressing the CVP contract

service areas

The USBR and the USFWS are continuing this

close coordination for ESA compliance, with

more recent activities associated with the

CVPIA PEIS. For this EA/IS, endangered

species protections include compliance with the

ESA, including the 1994 USFWS Biological

Opinion for the Delta Smelt and the 1993

Biological Opinion for the winter-run Chinook

salmon. The USBR has received concurrence

from the USFWS for the USBR’s finding that

the proposed action are not likely to adversely

affect threatened or endangered species.

Other protections require refuge managers to

comply with USFWS and NWR policies. These

policies require that refuge managers review

water and/or habitat management programs to

determine any possible impacts on endangered,

threatened, or candidate species, annually. This

review allows managers to determine if water

allocations would result in the adverse impacts

to special-status species.

Cultural Resources Coordination

During the preparation of this EA/IS, CVP

Environmental Team staff consulted with the

USBR regarding the potential impacts on

cultural resources resulting from implementation

of the proposed action.

Procedures for complying with Section 106 of

the National Historic Preservation Act are

specified in 36 CFR 800. The analysis presented

in this EA/IS serve as an overview and initial

study to determine the parameters of potential

impact to historical resources. Prior to

construction of the selected alternative, the

following steps will be needed to satisfy the

regulations:

• Identify an area of potential environmental

effect for the project.

• Field survey any areas in the area of

potential effect that were not examined in

the current project, and record and formally

evaluate all resources in the area of potential

effect.

• Produce a technical report on the findings of

the above, including recommendations for

mitigation, if necessary.

If no significant cultural resources are located in

the area of potential effect and if the USFWS

and the State Historic Preservation Officer

concurs in this finding, this will complete the

Section 106 process. If a significant property is

located in the area of potential effect and an

adverse impact is determined, consult with the

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, State

Historic Preservation Officer, and other

interested parties.

Indian Trust Assets

Indian Trust Assets are legal interests in

property or rights held in trust by the U.S. for

Indian Tribes or individuals. Trust status
CHAPTER VII, CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) VII-3 08/01/03

originates from rights imparted by treaties,

statutes, or executive orders. These rights are

reserved for or granted to tribes. A defining

characteristic of an asset is that such assets

cannot be sold, leased, or otherwise alienated

without federal approval.

Indian reservations, rancherias, and allotments

are common trust assets. Allotments can occur

both within and outside of reservation

boundaries and are parcels of land where title is

held in trust for specific individuals.

Additionally, trust assets include the right to

access certain traditional use areas and perform

certain traditional activities. No reservations

occur within the wetland habitat areas, and

therefore, would not be affected by

implementation of any of the conveyance

alternatives.

Coordination with Water

Purveyors

Meetings were held with each of the potential

water purveyors to field verify system capacities

and obtain direct input on proposed alternatives.

This input was incorporated into the alternative

selection process to ensure that all reasonable

alternatives were evaluated.

Public Involvement Activities

The USBR, in cooperation with the USFWS,

held informal public meetings in Tulare and

Santa Nella, California. The meetings were held

to inform the public about the preparation of the

EA/IS and to elicit public comments for

preparation of the EA/IS. Written and verbal

comments from these meetings were considered

in preparation of this EA/IS, as summarized at

the end of this chapter. The USBR also

conducted an intensive public review prior to the

public meetings to elicit comments for the EA/IS

analyses from a number of selected federal,

state, local agencies, and water districts. These

entities were selected based on their interest and

participation in the public involvement program

for the CVPIA PEIS and refuge water supply

specific concerns.

Summary of Public Comments

Public comments received during the scoping

meetings held in early June 1995 focused

primarily on water quantities, source, use, and

quality. Concerns over potential impacts to

groundwater were strongest in the San Joaquin

Valley due to the areas’ historical groundwater

concerns and increased use. In general, the

public requested a thorough and objective

review of all potential impacts to on- and offrefuge uses, in terms of environmental and

social issues. Comments ranged from a desire

that impacts to all endangered species in the

project vicinity be disclosed to concerns over

water quality impacts in the Delta. It was also

requested that state facilities be used wherever

possible to supplement the CVP. A summary of

the primary comments is listed in Chapter I

under Project Scoping. A complete record of

comments raised at the scoping meetings is

available from the USBR. Each of these issues is

discussed in this EA/IS.

Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898 requires that each

federal agency achieve environmental justice as

part of its mission, by identifying and addressing

disproportionately high and adverse human

health or environmental effects, including social

and economic effects of its programs, policies,

and activities on minority populations and lowincome populations of the U.S. The USBR has

determined that none of the conveyance

alternatives would disproportionally impact

minority or low-income populations. Impacts

identified in the Socioeconomic section of

Chapter IV are generally anticipated to be

beneficial, in addition to being shared across

income levels.

Farmlands Policy

Council on Environmental Quality

memorandums to heads of Agencies, dated

August 30, 1976 and August 11, 1980, and the

Farmlands Protection Policy Act of 1981 require

agencies for this environmental document to

include farmlands assessments designed to
CHAPTER VII, CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) VII-4 08/01/03

minimize adverse impacts on prime and unique

farmlands. As described in the Land Use section

of Chapter IV, the proposed project would have

no adverse impacts on farmlands. The USBR

will work directly with all affected landowners

to compensate for any short- or long-term

impacts.

Executive Order 11988, Floodplain

Management

Executive Order 11988 requires federal agencies

to prepare floodplain assessments for proposals

located within or affecting floodplains. If any

agency proposed to conduct an action within a

floodplain, it must consider alternatives to avoid

adverse effects and incompatible development.

If the only practicable alternative involves siting

in a floodplain, the agency must minimize

potential harm to or within the floodplain and

explain why the action is proposed within the

floodplain. No impacts are anticipated to

floodplain areas.

Executive Order 11990, Protection

of Wetlands

EA 11990 requires federal agencies to prepare

wetlands assessments for proposals located

within or affecting wetlands. Agencies must

avoid undertaking new construction located in

wetlands unless no practicable alternative is

available and the proposed action includes all

practicable measures to minimize harm to

wetlands. Impacts to wetland areas are

anticipated to be relatively minor and short term

in nature. Impacts, which may occur, will be

mitigated as identified under the Biological

Resources section of Chapter IV.

Clean Water Act

Any person or public agency proposing to locate

a structure, excavate, or discharge dredged or fill

materials into water of the U.S. must obtain a

404 Permit from the USACE. Under Section 404

of the Clean Water Act, the USACE’s

jurisdiction over navigable waters has been

expanded to include rivers, coastal waters,

adjacent wetlands, lakes, intermittent streams,

and low lying areas behind dikes along the coast.

Improvements requiring work within streams or

wetlands regulated by the USACE will require a

404 Permit.

Clean Air Act

The Clean Air Act requires the Environmental

Protection Agency to publish national primary

standards to protect public health and more

stringent national secondary standards to protect

public welfare (40 CFR 50). States and local

governments are to be responsible for the

prevention of air pollution. The proposed project

will not adversely affect existing air quality.
RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) VIII-1 08/01/03

Chapter VIII

References

Arguellas, M. and M. Moratto. 1983. Overview

of Cultural Resources, Kern and Pixley National

Wildlife Refuges, Vol. 1. Narrative.

Baumhoff, M. A. 1963. Ecological Determinants

of Aboriginal California Populations. University

of California, Berkeley, Publications in

American Archaeology and Ethnology

49(2):155-236.

California Air Resources Board. May 2002.

Online data: http://www.arb.ca.gov/

California Department of Fish and Game

(CDFG) Natural Diversity Data Base. 2003. List

of Elements and Status by Element CodeSpecies List by Quadrangle. January.

California Department of Fish and Game

(CDFG). 1995a. Endangered, Threatened, and

Rare Plants of California. State of California.

The Resources Agency. CDFG. Natural Heritage

Division. September. 13 pp.

California Department of Fish and Game

(CDFG). 1995b. Special Plants List. The

Resources Agency. Department of Fish and

Game. Natural Heritage Division. October.

74 pp.

California Department of Fish and Game

(CDFG). 1995c. Endangered and Threatened

Animals of California. State of California. The

Resources Agency. CDFG. Natural Heritage

Division. September. 14 pp.

California Department of Fish and Game

(CDFG). 1994. Special Animals. State of

California. The Resources Agency. CDFG,

Natural Heritage Division, Natural Diversity

Database. August. 28 pp.

California Department of Fish and Game

(CDFG). 1990. Guidelines for Procedures and

Timing of Activities Related to the

Modifications or Relocation of Giant Garter

Snake Habitat.

California Department of Water Resources.

2002 Department of Planning and Local

Assistance. Groundwater Level Data, Water

Data Library. Historical Data by Well.

http://wdl.water.ca.gov/gw/admin/main_menu_g

w.asp. Accessed October.

California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2003.

Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of

California Selected CNPS Plants by Scientific

Name. CNPS Database. January.

Cook, S.F. 1995. The Aboriginial Populations of

the San Joaquin Valley, California. University of

California, Berkeley, Press Anthropological

Records 16(2). Berkeley.

Department of Water Resources. 1974.

Vegetative Water Use in California. Department

of Water Resources Bulletin No. 113-3, 104 pp.

Federal Register. 1996. Endangered and

Threatened Species Plant and Animal Taxa;

Proposed Rule. Wednesday, February 28, 1996.

Vol. 61, No. 40. pp. 7596-7613.

Federal Register. 1994a. Endangered and

Threatened Wildlife and Plants. 50 CFR 17.11

and 17.12. August 20, 1994. 42 pp.

Federal Register. 1994b. Endangered and

Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Animal

Candidate Review for Listing as Endangered or

Threatened Species; Proposed Rule. 50 CFR

Part 17. Vol. 59, No. 219, November 15, 1994,

pp. 58982-59028.

Federal Register. 1993. Plant Taxa for Listing as

Endangered or Threatened Species; Notice of

Review. 50 CFR Part 17. Vol. 58, No. 188,

September 30, 1993, pp. 51144-51190.

Final Environmental Study on the Operation of

the National Wildlife Refuge System. 1986.

April.

Gifford, E.W. and W.E. Schenck. 1926.

Archaeology of the Southern San Joaquin

Valley, California. University of California
CHAPTER VIII, REFERENCES

RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) VIII-2 08/01/03

Publications in American Archaeology and

Ethnology, Vol. 23, No. 1. Berkeley.

Kern National Wildlife Refuge Master Plan.

1986. April.

Groundwater levels queried from wells:

23S24E28A001M, 23S24E07G001M,

23S24E16R001M, 22S24E34R001M,

23S24E12P001M, 23S25E19D001M,

23S25E20M002M, 23S24E35A002M, and

23S24E26F001M

Kroeber, A. L. 1925. Handbook of the Indians of

California. Bureau of American Ethnology

Bulletin 78. Washington, D.C.

Latta, F. F. 1949. Handbook of the Yokurs

Indians. Bear State Books, Oildale, California.

Lillard, J. B., R. F. Heizer, and F. Fenenga.

1939. An Introduction to the Archaeology of

Central California: Sacramento Junior College,

Department of Anthropology Bulletin 2.

Sacramento.

Mayer, K. E. and W.M. Laudenslayer, Editors.

1988. A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of

California. California Department of Forestry

and Fire Protection. 166 pp.

Moratto, Michael J. 1984. California

Archaeology: Academic Press, Inc., New York.

Pixley National Wildlife Refuge Master Plan.

1986. April.

Skinner, M. W. and B. M. Pavlik, Editors. 1994.

Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular

Plants of California. California Native Plant

Society (CNPS). CNPS Special Publication

No. 1 (Fifth Edition). 338 pp.

Tibor, David. California Native Plant Society

(CNPS). 2001. Inventory of Rare and

Endangered Plants of California 6th Edition.

Sacramento, California. 2001.

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) and

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2000.

Draft Environmental Assessment Refuge Water

Supply Long-term Water Supply Agreements

Tulare Lake Basin. Prepared by CH2M HILL.

U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Bureau of

Reclamation (USBR). 1995. Decision Document

Report of Recommended Alternatives Refuge

Water Supply and San Joaquin Basin Action

Plan Lands. April.

U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Bureau of

Reclamation (USBR) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (USFWS). 1995. Refuge Water Supply

Conveyance Alternatives Refinement

Memorandum. May.

U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Bureau of

Reclamation (USBR). 1994. Final

Environmental Assessment and Finding of No

Significant Impact, Interim Refuge Water

Supply, California.

U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Bureau of

Reclamation (USBR). 1989a. Report on Refuge

Water Supply Investigations, Central Valley

Hydrologic Basin, California. March.

U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Bureau of

Reclamation (USBR). 1989b. San Joaquin Basin

Action Plan/Kesterson Mitigation Action Plan

Report.

U.S Fish and Wildlife Service Federal

(USFWS). 2003. Endangered and Threatened

Species List. Online Data:

http://sacramento.fws.gov/. January.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1986.

Kern National Wildlife Refuge Master Plan.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1996.

Personal communication (memorandum) with

Tom Charmley. February.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1996.

Personal communication (memorandum) with

Tom Charmley. March.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).

1995a. Species List for the Sacramento and San

Joaquin Valley State and Federal Refuges. Letter

to CH2M HILL, Redding, California, from

Service Sacramento Field Office, dated

March 13, 1995.
CHAPTER VIII, REFERENCES

RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) VIII-3 08/01/03

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).

1995b. Federally Listed Threatened and

Endangered Species in California as of

September 30, 1995. 4 pp.

Vestal, E.H. 1938. Biotic Relations of the

Woodrat (Neotoma fusicpes) in the Berkeley

Hills. J. Mammal. 10:1-36.

Wallace, W. J. 1978. Southern Valley Yokuts:

California, pp. 448-461, edited by R. F. Heizer.

Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8,

William G. Sturtevant, general editor.

Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
RDD/030150001 (CLR2249.DOC) IX-1 08/01/03

Chapter IX

List of Preparers

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

Mona Jeffries-Soniea

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Joel Miller

Dale Garrison

California Department of Fish

and Game

Jerry Mensch

Paul Forsberg

John Beam

Environmental Team

CH2M HILL

Gary Nuss

Mark Oliver

Melissa Williams

Roger Mann

John Dickey

Richard Hunn

Kathy Freas

Heather Waldrop

Matt Franck

Dale Pooley

Laurel Karren

North State Resources

Tim Reilly

Steve Towers

Len Lindstrom

Peak and Associates

Bob Gerry

James Oglesby

Public Affairs Management

Bonnie Nixon
Appendix A

Alternatives Screening Process

South San Joaquin Valley Study Area
RDD/030160003 (NLH2215.DOC) 1

Technical Appendix

Alternatives Screening Process

South San Joaquin Valley Study Area

This technical appendix provides a detailed discussion of the screening process used in

selecting the recommended alternatives for the refuges in the South San Joaquin Valley area.

Also, a brief description of the overall project, screening criteria, and a summary of the

alternatives is provided.

Background

The initial development of alternatives was based, in part, on the previous studies completed by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) regarding refuge water supply. Four

primary investigations were considered in the initial development of alternatives:

• Report on Refuge Water Supply Investigations, Central Valley Hydrologic Basin,

California, 1989

• San Joaquin Basin Action Plan/Kesterson Mitigation Action Plan Report, 1989

• Refuge Water Supply Study, Plan Coordination Team Interim Report, 1992

• Refuge Water Supply, Proposed Plan of Study Report, 1993

In addition to the alternatives presented in these investigations, the study team developed

additional alternatives for consideration. These alternatives generally involved conjunctive

use of groundwater resources to the extent possible and alternative conveyance routing

options.

Public involvement meetings were held with interested parties for conveyance of refuge

water supplies. A key objective of these meetings was to preview the alternatives being

considered for the investigation, receive input and comments on these alternatives, and

solicit additional alternatives for consideration. In some instances, additional alternatives

were forthcoming from the public involvement meetings. These alternatives were included

in subsequent evaluations.

Following the development of the alternatives for each refuge using the process described

above, an initial screening process was employed. This initial screening process was used to

eliminate from further consideration any alternatives that had fatal flaws, resulting from

excessive costs, unreasonable engineering requirements, or unacceptable environmental

impacts. Following initial screening of the alternatives, remaining alternatives were

developed to the same level of detail and analyzed in the Environmental

Assessment/Impact Statement (EA/IS).
TECHNICAL APPENDIX ALTERNATIVES SCREENING PROCESS SOUTH SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY STUDY AREA

RDD/030160003 (NLH2215.DOC) 2

A number of agency workshops, discussions with water purveyors, and scoping meetings

were held in early June 1995. During these workshops and meetings, the alternatives presented in the EA/IS were determined to be feasible in terms of accomplishing the purpose

and need of the proposed action. The process used to determine feasibility and the results of

these investigations are presented in the April 1995 Decision Document. Additionally, USBR

and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) further refined the alternatives selected in

the Decision Document in a May 1995 document titled Refuge Water Supply Conveyance

Alternatives Refinement Memorandum (Memorandum). The EA/IS analyzes alternatives that

were determined feasible as presented in the Memorandum. It evaluates the potential

environmental impacts of implementing any of the proposed alternatives to each refuge, in

addition to discussing the anticipated social and institutional constraints.

Recommended Alternatives

Selection of recommended alternatives for the conveyance of refuge water supplies for each

refuge area was based on input from USBR, USFWS, and Department staff, including staff

from each of the refuge areas. To guide and document the selection process, it was

determined that a number of factors should be identified, which could be used for any of the

refuge areas and weighted according to the relative importance. The following six factors

were identified (the proportionate weighting factor is indicated in parenthesis) as best

capturing the primary issues:

• Water supply reliability (30)

– Relative ability of an alternative to provide increased water supply reliability,

including the benefits of multiple sources or conveyance facilities.

• Water quality (15)

– Overall water quality expected to be delivered by the alternative, including the

potential for degradation due to upstream sources.

• Environmental issues (20)

– Relative potential impacts to special status species, including both short-term

(construction related) and long-term impacts.

• Cost-effectiveness (20)

– Relative comparison of estimated life-cycle costs for each alternative, including

initial capital costs, operations and maintenance costs, wheeling costs, and additional

costs for water losses.

• Implementation (10)

– Relative ease of implementation, including potential impacts on existing agencies,

permitting issues, safety, and land use.
TECHNICAL APPENDIX ALTERNATIVES SCREENING PROCESS SOUTH SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY STUDY AREA

RDD/030160003 (NLH2215.DOC) 3

Engineering (5)

– Relative engineering aspects of alternatives, including increased system integrity

resulting from new facilities and changes in current operations and maintenance

functions by refuge management staff.

The weighting factors identified based on determining the relative importance of each

factor. It was determined that the reliability of supplies was the most important factor, and

therefore, was weighted highest. Environmental issues and cost-effectiveness were ranked

next most important and equal amongst themselves. Water quality was determined to be

the third most important factor, in part, because the quality of water, which would be

conveyed to each of the refuges, is generally good. Implementation and engineering

concerns were also felt to be of sufficient importance to warrant including them as separate

factors.

Using these six factors and weighting approach, matrices were created to rank each of the

alternatives addressed in detail in the EA/IS. Each of the alternatives was compared to one

another and given an impact level score of between one and ten for each issues. For

example, as shown on Table 1 under water supply reliability, the KER-1A/1B alternative

was given a numerical score of 8, compared to KER-7, which was given a score of 6. The

weighted impact scores for these two alternatives under water supply reliability were 240

and 180 respectively, because of the weighting factor of 30 given to the water supply

reliability factor. The recommended alternative was the alternative that received the highest

overall score when summing the six selection factors, as shown in Table 1. The following is a

summary of the alternative selection process for Kern and Pixley National Wildlife Refuges

(NWR) in the South San Joaquin Valley.

Kern National Wildlife Refuge

Following are the two alternatives under consideration for the Kern NWR:

• KER-1A/1B – Utilize existing Buena Vista Water Storage District (BVWSD) facilities;

enlarge Main Drain and utilize existing West Side Canal when Main Drain capacity is

exceeded.

• KER-7 – Utilize existing Lost Hills Irrigation District (LHID) facilities and clean Burhan

Canal to reduce water losses.

Water Supply Reliability

Tom Charmley raised concerns over clean-out time for Goose Lake Canal, which in turn will

limit the timing of water deliveries for KER-1A/1B. However, this alternative is still viewed

as more reliable than KER-7 because of unknowns (e.g., ownership) associated with Burhan

Canal.

Water Quality

Water received from BVWSD in fall and winter typically is approximately 5 percent agricultural return water. Water quality in the summer is assumed to be good, but has not been

tested recently. Kern 1A/1B ranked slightly lower because of the perceived greater potential

for agricultural return flows.
RDD/030160003 (NLH2215.DOC) 

TABLE 1Draft Criteria Evaluation Table – Kern National Wildlife Refuge

KER-1A/1B KER-7

Factors

Weighting

Factor

Impact

Level

Weighted

Impact Comments

Impact

Level

Weighted

Impact 

Water Supply Reliability 30 8 240 Some concern over clean-out period for

Goose Lake Canal, but considered veryreliable

6 180 Less reliable d

ownership of B

Water Quality 15 7 105 Water quality considered good, but

more likely to be susceptible toagricultural return flows

8 120 Return flows c

potential issue

Environmental Issues 20 9 180 Least amount of construction and

resultant impact

7 140 Impacts assoc

vegetation with

Cost-Effectiveness 20 9 180 Total costs are close; lower capital cost

makes this alternative the leastexpensive

8 160 Higher capital 

Implementation 10 9 90 Considered to be relatively equal; edge

given to this alternative because ofexisting positive relationship withBVWSD

8 80 LHID willing to 

but some unceand new agree

Engineering Issues 5 8 40 Limited engineering concerns 7 35 Ranks slightly 

operation and 

100 835 715

Note:Impact Level – Range from 1 to 10, with 1 being most negative impact
TECHNICAL APPENDIX ALTERNATIVES SCREENING PROCESS SOUTH SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY STUDY AREA

RDD/030160003 (NLH2215.DOC) 5

Environmental Issues

KER 1A/1B includes very limited improvements. KER-7 ranked lower because of the need

to clean out Burhan Canal, which was a concern of the USFWS during their original field

review.

Cost-Effectiveness

The present value capital costs and annualized costs between alternatives were reviewed as

shown in Table 2.

TABLE 2

Present Value Capital and Annualized Costs

Alternative

Capital Cost

($ thousands)

Annual Cost

($ thousands)

Cumulative

Annual Cost

($ millions)

Total

($ millions)

KER-1A/1B 530 130 1.5 1.9

KER-7 900 150 1.5 2.4

Implementability

There is no real difference between KER-1A/1B and KER-7. Both would generate few

implementation concerns and would likely be able to work with BVWSD to develop an

acceptable schedule for canal maintenance. Both districts are willing to enter into an

agreement.

Engineering Issues

KER-7 ranks slightly lower because of the pump operation and maintenance concerns.

Summary

KER-1A/1B ranked highest; it was ranked higher in each category except water quality,

where it was perceived as only slightly lower than KER-7. Table 1 provides a summary of

the screening process used in selecting a recommended alternative.

Pixley National Wildlife Refuge

The four alternatives under consideration for the Pixley NWR are as follows:

• PIX-2B – New pipeline from Friant-Kern Canal (FKC) to refuge

• PIX-4B – Shared Delano-Earlimart Irrigation District (DEID) facilities plus new pipeline

to refuge

• PIX-8 – Conjunctive use program with new on-refuge ground water wells, in-lieu of

recharge with Pixley Irrigation District (PID)

• PIX-9 – New pipeline similar to 2B, upsized to include lands in PID
TECHNICAL APPENDIX ALTERNATIVES SCREENING PROCESS SOUTH SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY STUDY AREA

RDD/030160003 (NLH2215.DOC) 6

Water Supply Reliability

Reliability high for PIX-2B as it includes direct pipeline from the FKC, but also considered

reliable via PIX-4B. Although no alternatives include the California Aqueduct, it was agreed

that the FKC is less susceptible to drought cuts or reductions than aqueduct. PIX-9

determined to be slightly less reliable than PIX-2B due to sharing with PID. PIX-8 is least

reliable – and there are concerns over long-term viability. Current recharge is all in the

shallow aquifer, no recharge is currently occurring below the Corcoran clay layer. Discussed

the potential to store water in lower aquifer due to increased in-lieu recharge and it was not

considered a desirable approach.

Water Quality

Groundwater associated with PIX-8 would have lowest water quality. The status of existing

data on groundwater quality in the area was discussed, and Tom Charmley is to review

records. Current data suggests that water quality is adequate, but the assumption is that it

would degrade over time. There are potential significant differences between groundwater

and surface water. It is assumed that agricultural return flows accrue to the FKC, as

opposed to the TC Canal, which would make it lower quality than TCC. PIX-2B, PIX-4B, and

PIX-9 would have same water quality because all systems would be underground, and

therefore, they are isolated from potential return flow interface.

Environmental Issues

There is very little differentiation. PIX-2B would have less impact than PIX-4B, due to less

pipeline. PIX-8 would have the least impact because no construction would be required

other than on-refuge wells. PIX-9 provides potential additional beneficial impact of

reducing groundwater overdraft, because PID would draw from FKC.

Cost Effectiveness

The present value capital costs and annualized costs between alternatives were reviewed as

shown in Table 3:

TABLE 3

Present Value Capital And Annualized Costs

Alternative

Capital Cost

($ millions)

Annual Cost

($ thousands)

Cumulative

Annual Cost

($ millions)

Total

($ millions)

PIX-2B 11.1 13 .1 11.2

PIX-4B 10.0 15 .1 10.1

PIX-8 4.1 85 .9 5.0

PIX-9 17.6 18 .2 17.8

Implementation

PIX- 8 is determined to be lowest based on DEID opposition and perceived opposition from

other groups in the area.
TECHNICAL APPENDIX ALTERNATIVES SCREENING PROCESS SOUTH SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY STUDY AREA

RDD/030160003 (NLH2215.DOC) 7

Engineering Issues

PIX- 8 would require greatest amount of maintenance/costs because of wells and pumps.

PIX-9 would operate in conjunction with PID.

Summary

There is little differentiation in alternatives - PIX-4B selected. Costs of PIX-9 could be

reduced depending on PID cost share; if reduced to $10 million total cost, the impact level

would be reduced to 5, which would make PIX-2B and PIX-9 close. Table 4 provides a

summary of the screening process used in selecting a recommended alternative.
RDD/\NLH2215.DOC 

TABLE 4Draft Criteria Evaluation Table – Pixley National Wildlife Refuge

PIX-2B PIX-4B PIX-8 PIX-9

Factors

Weighting

Factor

Impact Level

Weighted

Impact Comments

Impact Level

Weighted

Impact Comments

Impact Level

Weighted

Impact Comments

Impact Level

Weighted

Impact Co

Water SupplyReliability

30 6 180 Direct pipeline from

the Friant-KernCanal

6 180 Considered as

reliable as PIX-2Bgiven wheelingagreement will benegotiated withDEID

3 90 Concern over

groundwatermanagementalready in overdraftsituation

6 180 Slightl

reliabl2B due with P

Water Quality 15 9 135 Assumed good

water quality assource is FriantKern Canal - slightchance foragricultural returnflows entering thecanal

9 135 Same as PIX-2B -

all DEID facilitiesunderground

5 75 Assumption that

groundwater qualitywould degrade overtime

9 135 Same 

EnvironmentalIssues

20 5 100 Would result in the

greatest amount ofshort-term impactsdue to length ofpipeline and nogroundwaterbenefits

6 120 Fewer impacts than

PIX-2B due to lesspipelineconstruction

7 140 Least amount of

construction

6 120 Simila

except benefiprovidsurfacresultidemanground

CostEffectiveness

20 5 100 Second most

expensivealternative

5 100 Slightly less

expensive than PIX2B

8 160 Least expensive

overall cost (highestoperation andmaintenance cost,but overshadowedby low capital cost)

2 40 Most e

but woif cost-PID

Implementation 10 4 40 Similar to PIX-9,

however lesscostly; newfacilities wouldrequire new rightof-way

6 60 Improvement of

existing DEIDfacilities

2 20 Strongly opposed by

DEID and likely byother entities in thearea due tooverchargecondition

6 60 Suppo

but mothan P
RDD/030160003 (NLH2215.DOC) 

TABLE 4Draft Criteria Evaluation Table – Pixley National Wildlife Refuge

PIX-2B PIX-4B PIX-8 PIX-9

Factors

Weighting

Factor

Impact Level

Weighted

Impact Comments

Impact Level

Weighted

Impact Comments

Impact Level

Weighted

Impact Comments

Impact Level

Weighted

Impact Co

EngineeringIssues

5 5 25 Completely

independentsystem

4 20 Would involve DEID

facilities

3 15 Greatest

requirement forlong-termoperations andmaintenanceconcerns due topumps and wells

5 25 Would 

jointly 

Total Score 100 580 615 500 560
Appendix B

CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
RDD/CEQA REVISED.DOC (SSJ)

The attached CEQA Environmental Checklist Form is the standard Initial Study checklist

required in accordance with CEQA. This checklist is included for reference, and anticipated

impacts from the proposed project and alternatives are identified. Explanations for all

answers except "No Impact," which are required, are described in the Affected Environment

and Environmental Consequences Section of this EA/IS and are not repeated here to

eliminate redundancy
RDD/CEQA REVISED.DOC (SSJ) 1

Environmental Checklist Form

1. Project Title: Conveyance of Refuge Water Supply South San Joaquin Valley Study Area

2. Lead Agency Name and Address: California Department of Fish and Game

Mr. Paul Forsberg

1812 9th St.

Sacramento, CA 95814

(916) 323-7215

3. Contact Person and Phone Number: (see above)

4. Project Location: South San Joaquin Valley

5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:

California Department of Fish and Game

1416 Ninth Street

Sacramento, CA 95814

6. General Plan Designation:Various designations 7. Zoning: Primarily agriculture

8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of

the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach

additional sheets if necessary). The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, and the California Department of Fish and Game propose to construct and/or improve

existing facilities to convey water supplies to the Pixley and Kern National Wildlife Refuges within the

South San Joaquin Valley area of the Central Valley. These facilities would convey firm, average annual

historical water deliveries in addition to an incremental amount of water supplies required for optimal

wildlife management from CVP or State Water Project facilities to the boundary of each refuge as

specified in Section 3406 (d)(5) of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act. See Project Description

under Chapter I: Introduction and Statement of Purpose and Need.

9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project’s surroundings)

The primary land use in the South San Joaquin Valley is agriculture. The majority of these lands are 

irrigated for the production of field crops. Typical crops include cotton and other field crops. Vineyards 

are present within the easternmost portion of the study area. See Chapter II: Background.

10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation

agreement.) See Chapter VI: Consultation and Coordination.
RDD/CEQA REVISED.DOC (SSJ) 2

Environmental Factors Potentially Affected:

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one

impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” or as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

 Land Use and Planning Transportation/Circulation Public Services

 Population and Housing Biological Resources Utilities and Service Systems

 Geophysical Energy and Mineral Resources Aesthetics

 Water Hazards Cultural Resources

 Air Quality Noise Recreation

 Mandatory Findings of

Significance

Determination:

(To be completed by the Lead Agency.)

On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,

and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,

there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on

an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be

prepared.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at

lease one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable

legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis

as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a “potentially significant impact” or

“potentially significant unless mitigated.” An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is

required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
RDD/CEQA REVISED.DOC (SSJ) 3

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT

be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately

in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that

earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.

Signature Date

Printed Name For
RDD/CEQA REVISED.DOC (SSJ) 4

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts:

1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately

supported by the information sources a lead agency cities in the parentheses following each question. A

“No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact

simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture

zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well

as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a projectspecific screening analysis).

2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,

cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational

impacts.

3) “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is

significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is

made, an EIR is required.

4) “Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the

incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a

“Less than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly

explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section

XVII, “Earlier Analyses,” may be cross-referenced).

5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an

effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D).

Earlier analyses are discussed in Section XVII at the end of the checklist.

6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for

potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside

document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is

substantiated. See the sample question below. A source list should be attached, and other sources used

or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.

7) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different ones.

Sample Question:

Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Negative

Declaration:

Potentially

Significant

Unless

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving:

Landslides or mudslides? (1,6)

(Attached source list explains that 1 is the general plan, and 6 is a USGS topo map. This answer would probably not need further explanation).
RDD/CEQA REVISED.DOC (SSJ) 5

Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Negative

Declaration:

Potentially

Significant

Unless

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

 I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:

a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (source

#(s): )

b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies

adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ( )

c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ( )

d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to

soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)?

( )

e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established

community (including a low-income or minority community?

( )

 II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:

a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population

projections? ( )

b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or

indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or

extension of major infrastructure)? ( )

c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing?

( )

 III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or

expose people to potential impacts involving:

a) Fault rupture? ( )

b) Seismic ground shaking? ( )

c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( )

d) Seiche, Tsunami, or volcanic hazard? ( )

e) Landslides or mudflows? ( )

f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions

from excavation, grading, or fill? ( )

g) Subsidence of the land? ( )

h) Expansive soils? ( )
RDD/CEQA REVISED.DOC (SSJ) 6

Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Negative

Declaration:

Potentially

Significant

Unless

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

i) Unique geologic or physical features?

 IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:

a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and

amount of surface runoff? ( )

b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such

as flooding? ( )

c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface

water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or

turbidity)? ( )

d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body?

( )

e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water

movements? ( )

f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct

additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an

aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of

groundwater recharge capability? ( )

g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( )

h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( )

i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise

available for public water supplies? ( )

 V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:

a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or

projected air quality violation? ( )

b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( )

c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any

change in climate? ( )

d) Create objectionable odors? ( )

 VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the

proposal result in:

a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( )
RDD/CEQA REVISED.DOC (SSJ) 7

Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Negative

Declaration:

Potentially

Significant

Unless

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or

dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm

equipment)? ( )

c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ( )

d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( )

e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( )

f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative

transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ( )

g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? ( )

 VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result

in impacts to:

a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats

(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and

birds? ( )

b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? ( )

c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest,

coastal habitat, etc.)? ( )

d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? ( )

e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( )

 VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the

proposal:

a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ( )

b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient

manner? ( )

c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource

that would be of future value to the region and the residents

of the State? ( )

 IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:

a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous

substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,

chemicals or radiation)? ( )
RDD/CEQA REVISED.DOC (SSJ) 8

Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Negative

Declaration:

Potentially

Significant

Unless

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or

emergency evacuation plan? ( )

c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards?

( )

d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health

hazards?( )

e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or

trees?( )

 X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:

a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( )

b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( )

 XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect

upon, or result in a need for new or altered government

services in any of the following areas

a) Fire protection? ( )

b) Police protection? ( )

c) Schools? ( )

d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( )

e) Other governmental services? ( )

 XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEM. Would the

proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or

substantial alterations to the following utilities:

a) Power or natural gas? ( )

b) Communications systems? ( )

c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities?

( )

d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( )

e) Storm water drainage? ( )

f) Solid waste disposal? ( )
RDD/CEQA REVISED.DOC (SSJ) 9

Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Negative

Declaration:

Potentially

Significant

Unless

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

g) Local or regional water supplies? ( )

XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:

a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( )

b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ( )

c) Create light or glare? ( )

XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:

a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( )

b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( )

c) Affect historical resources? ( )

d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would

affect unique ethnic cultural values?

e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential

impact area? ( )

XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal:

a) Increase the demand for neighbor hood or regional parks or

other recreational facilities? ( )

b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( )

XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.

a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of

the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or

wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop

below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or

animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of

a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important

examples of the major periods of California history or

prehistory?

b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to

the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals?
RDD/CEQA REVISED.DOC (SSJ) 10

Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Negative

Declaration:

Potentially

Significant

Unless

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,

but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable”

means that the incremental effects of a project are

considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of

past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the

effects of probable future projects)

d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause

substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or

indirectly?

XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.

Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have

been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(C)(3)(D). In this case a discussion

should identify the following on attached sheets:

a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.

b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately

analyzed in an earlier document pursuant tot he applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by

mitigation measured based on the earlier analysis.

c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Negative Declarations: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,”

describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they

address sit-specific conditions for the project.

Authority: Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21087.

Reference: Public Resources Code Sections 21080(c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21082.1, 21083, 21083.3, 21093, 21094, 21151;

Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal. App. 3d 296 (1988); Leonoff v. Monterey Board of Supervisors, 222 Cal. App. 3d 1337 (1990)
Appendix C

Cultural Resources Assessment












 
!
!
"

#$
#

%#
 
#

	





	

 




		




























			






	

	


	
	














	










	



 	



	




	




	






	
	
 
	!	!"


#	$	#%#
 
#