HomeMy WebLinkAbout04.23.2014 WB Agenda Packet Regular MtgCity of Bakersfield
Water Board
Regular Meeting of
April 23, 2014
Kern River at Coffee Road
Water Resources
File Packet
WATER BOARD
Harold Hanson, Chair
Russell Johnson
Bob Smith
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
WATER BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
Wednesday, April 23, 2014 - 2 :00 p.m.
Water Resources Building Conference Room
1000 Buena Vista Road, Bakersfield, CA 93311
AGENDA
I . CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. MINUTES
A. Minutes of the Special Meeting of January 15, 2014 and March 13, 2014 for
approval - For Board Review and Action
4, PUBLIC STATEMENTS
5. KERN RIVER LEVEE DISTRICT
b. REPORTS
A. Kern River & Isabella Reservoir Operations Report - For Board Information
B. Isabella Dam Safety Modification Project Situation Report - For Board
Information
7, HEARINGS
A. Hearing to consider adoption of City's 2010 Urban Water Management
Plan - For Board Review and Action
8. DEFERRED BUSINESS
L0
B A
K
E
R
S
F
OM---ftftft
I E
L
D
WATER BOARD
Harold Hanson, Chair
Russell Johnson
Bob Smith
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
WATER BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
Wednesday, April 23, 2014 - 2 :00 p.m.
Water Resources Building Conference Room
1000 Buena Vista Road, Bakersfield, CA 93311
AGENDA
I . CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. MINUTES
A. Minutes of the Special Meeting of January 15, 2014 and March 13, 2014 for
approval - For Board Review and Action
4, PUBLIC STATEMENTS
5. KERN RIVER LEVEE DISTRICT
b. REPORTS
A. Kern River & Isabella Reservoir Operations Report - For Board Information
B. Isabella Dam Safety Modification Project Situation Report - For Board
Information
7, HEARINGS
A. Hearing to consider adoption of City's 2010 Urban Water Management
Plan - For Board Review and Action
8. DEFERRED BUSINESS
Water Board Agenda
April 23, 2014
Page 2
9. NEW BUSINESS
A. A Resolution of the Council of the City of Bakersfield Setting Domestic Water
Availability Fees - For Board Review and Action
B. Resolution of the Water Board Committee of the Council of the City of
Bakersfield Adopting the Lower Kern River Mitigation Project Habitat
Management Plan - For Board Review and Action
10. MISCELLANEOUS
11. WATER BOARD STATEMENTS
12. CLOSED SESSION
13. CLOSED SESSION ACTION
14. ADJOURNMENT
al
ART CHIANELLO, P.E.
Water Resources Manager
POSTED; April 18, 2014
Regular Water Board Meeting
3. MINUTES
April 23, 2014
A. Minutes of the Special Meeting of January 15, 2014 and March 13, 2014 for
approval - For Board Review and Action
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING
OF THE
WATER BOARD - CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
Wednesday, January 15, 2014 - 2:00 p.m.
Water Resources Building Conference Room
1000 Buena Vista Road, Bakersfield, CA 93311
1, CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Hanson called the meeting to order at 2;00 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Present; Chairman Hanson, Vice -Chair Johnson, Member Smith
Absent; None
3. MINUTES
A. Minutes of the Special Meeting of October 15, 2013 for approval.
Motion by Johnson to approve the minutes of the special meeting of
October 15, 2013. APPROVED ALL AYES
4. PUBLIC STATEMENTS
A. Eric Averett, Manager, Rosedale -Rio Bravo Water Storage District, spoke
regarding the Kern Groundwater Management Committee (GWMC) and
gave a brief background and purpose of the Committee, He stated the
Committee consists of approximately 19 water districts within Kern County.
This group is a collaboration of water districts to share information regarding
groundwater and developing the framework that will allow the districts to
maintain local control. Mr. Averett encouraged the City to continue to
participate and support the GWMC. He submitted written information.
Art Chianello, Water Resources Manager, stated a request for groundwater
information was received, staff will review and reply.
5. KERN RIVER LEVEE DISTRICT
None
i
B A
K
ER
S
F
I E
L
D
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING
OF THE
WATER BOARD - CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
Wednesday, January 15, 2014 - 2:00 p.m.
Water Resources Building Conference Room
1000 Buena Vista Road, Bakersfield, CA 93311
1, CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Hanson called the meeting to order at 2;00 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Present; Chairman Hanson, Vice -Chair Johnson, Member Smith
Absent; None
3. MINUTES
A. Minutes of the Special Meeting of October 15, 2013 for approval.
Motion by Johnson to approve the minutes of the special meeting of
October 15, 2013. APPROVED ALL AYES
4. PUBLIC STATEMENTS
A. Eric Averett, Manager, Rosedale -Rio Bravo Water Storage District, spoke
regarding the Kern Groundwater Management Committee (GWMC) and
gave a brief background and purpose of the Committee, He stated the
Committee consists of approximately 19 water districts within Kern County.
This group is a collaboration of water districts to share information regarding
groundwater and developing the framework that will allow the districts to
maintain local control. Mr. Averett encouraged the City to continue to
participate and support the GWMC. He submitted written information.
Art Chianello, Water Resources Manager, stated a request for groundwater
information was received, staff will review and reply.
5. KERN RIVER LEVEE DISTRICT
None
Bakersfield, California, January 15, 2014 - Page 2
b. REPORTS
A. Kern Groundwater Management Committee.
Art Chianello, Water Resources Manager, stated the Kern Groundwater
Management Committee 2014 meetings calendar is being provided for
reference. He encouraged the Board to attend the meetings or he can
provide summaries after each meeting. No Action Taken.
Virginia Gennaro, City Attorney, stated if two or more board members would
like to attend the KGMC meetings to make her aware as to avoid a potential
Brown Act situation, She also stated the City is not a funding partner.
Chairman Hanson stated he is strongly opposed to entering into a Joint
Powers Agreement.
Russell Johnson directed the City Attorney to prepare a memorandum
regarding additional alternatives, other than a Joint Powers Agreement, to
participate with the Kern Groundwater Management Committee.
B. Kern River & Isabella Reservoir Operations Report
John Ryan, Hydrographic Supervisor, reviewed the graphs and stated the
current Isabella storage is at 50,000 acre feet, this reflects a very dry period at
this time. The regulated flow dropped to 30 feet a day for a length of 20 days,
a result of a requested diversion. This is due to dry conditions and opportunities
to store in Isabella. The snowpack accumulation chart currently reveals less
than three inches of water content and snow, normal for this time is five inches
of snow, He also stated the cloud seeder has flown twice In December. The
forecast for the next seven days is still dry conditions. No action taken.
C. Summary of Groundwater Levels
Art Chianello, Water Resources Manager, gave a brief general overview of
the Domestic Water System Production Well historic average depth to
pumping water levels from 1977 -2013 in the City's domestic service water
area. Currently the wells are at 228 feet below the surface. Staff will continue
to monitor the wells. No action taken,
Vice -Chair Johnson requested staff provide an update to the Board regarding
the domestic water management plan and a list of problematic wells at the
next water board meeting.
D. Water Conservation Mailers
Art Chianello, Water Resources Manager, stated water conservation mailers
will be included in consumer bills to encourage wise water use. The cost is
approximately $1,500 for the City's service area, Cal Water will also be
inserting conservation mailers in their service area billing. Consumer tips are
also available on the City's web site link "Save Our Water." No action taken.
New Business Item 8,A, was moved forward on the agenda.
Bakersfield, California, January 15, 2014 - Page 3
8. NEW BUSINESS
A. Consideration of Resolution Requesting Governor to Declare a State of
Emergency Due to Water Shortage.
Art Chianello, Water Resources Manager, stated a resolution will be brought
before the City Council on January 22, 1014.
Virginia Gennaro, City Attorney, stated a draft resolution has been prepared
to send a message to the Governor of California urging him to declare a state
of emergency regarding the drought situation. The resolution is ready to go
before the full City Council, depending on the Board's direction.
Motion by Johnson to move forward with the resolution to be placed on the
January 22, 2014 City Council Agenda. APPROVED ALL AYES
Dennis Fox spoke regarding declaring a state -wide drought, salt water
intrusion, snowpack and water banking.
Kimberly Brown, Water Resources Manager, Paramount Farming, stated the
water shortage will have an impact on the agricultural and oil industries in
Kern County. She thanked the Board and spoke in support of a state -wide
water conservation resolution in addition to a city -wide resolution to inform
citizens of the water issue and possibly mandatory water conservation.
6. REPORTS continued
Isabella Dam Remediation and Status of Proposed Funding Agreement
Art Chianello, Water Resources Manager, gave a brief oral report and stated
staff met with the Army Corps of Engineers and other water agencies that
have interest in storage at Lake Isabella. An update was provided by the
Corps of Engineers. The estimate construction cost for repairs is approximately
500 million dollars. The remediation and repairs will be completed in 2022.
The plan includes raising the Auxiliary Dam and Main Dam about 16 feet to
have a larger margin of safety. The maximum storage of 560,000 acre feetwill
still be in effect after the repairs. The Bureau of Reclamation is drafting an
amendment to the original storage agreement and will be completed by the
end of January. A draft will be distributed to the water agencies for review.
Staff will provide the draft to the Water Board for comments at that time. No
action taken.
7. DEFERRED BUSINESS - None
8. NEW BUSINESS
B. 2014 Water Board Meeting Calendar
Motion by Smith to approve the 2014 Water Board Meeting Calendar.
APPROVED ALL AYES, Johnson absent
Bakersfield, California, January 15, 2014 - Page 4
9, MISCELLANEOUS
10. WATER BOARD STATEMENTS
Bob Smith requested staff provide a summary of the Emergency Plan Report at the
next Water Board meeting.
11. CLOSED SESSION
A. Conference with Legal Counsel - Potential Litigation
Closed session pursuant to Government Code Section 54956,9(d)(2),(e)(1)
(One matter)
Recess to Closed Session at 3;05 p.m,
Closed Session was adjourned at 3;19 p.m.
12, CLOSED SESSION ACTION
Chairman Hanson announced there is no reportable action from Closed Session
item 1 ].A.
13. ADJOURNMERNT
Chairman Hanson adjourned the meeting at 3;20 p.m,
Harold Hanson, Chairman
City of Bakersfield Water Board
Bobbie Zaragoza, CIVIC
Secretary, City of Bakersfield Water Board
/00.
L
0
B A
K
E
R
S
F
I E
L
D
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING
OF THE
WATER BOARD - CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
Urban Water Purveyors' Water Forum
Thursday, March 13, 2014
2:00 - 4:00 p.m.
Council Chambers, City Hall South
1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA 93301
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Hanson called the meeting to order at 2;00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Assistant City Clerk Drimakis called roll,
Present; Chairman Hanson, Vice -Chair Johnson, Member Smith
Absent; None
2. WELCOME
Harold Hanson, Chairman, City of Bakersfield Water Board, welcomed everyone and
stated water conservation and water use in a drought year is a very important issue.
3. INTRODUCTIONS
Russell Johnson, Vice - Chair, City of Bakersfield Water Board, stated the purpose of
the water forum is to share ideas and best practices. Also, to discuss what urban
water users can do to save water and be part of the solution.
4. URBAN WATER DISTRICTS
A. Water Association of Kern County — Public Awareness Campaign Update
Beth Pandol, Executive Director, Water Association of Kern County, gave
background information and stated the WAKC is a nonprofit group in Kern
County and has been around since 1988, She gave an update of the WAKC
conservation efforts and programs. She also stated the Association wants to
help during this critical time.
Russell Johnson, Vice - Chair, City of Bakersfield Water Board, recognized elected
official dignitaries' representatives in attendance.
Bakersfield, California, March 13, 2014 - Page 2
4. URBAN WATER DISTRICTS continued
B. State of District's Water Supply and Current Conservation Methods
City of Bakersfield
Art Chianello, Water Resources Manager, City of Bakersfield, gave a
presentation overview regarding the City's unique water assets and
supplies, and the City's ongoing efforts to reduce water consumption
and raise awareness,
2. California Water Service Company
Rudy Valles, District Manager, California Water Service Company,
gave a presentation and update regarding drought conservation
efforts,
Susan Cordone, Conservation Coordinator, California Water Service
Company, gave an overview of the conservation programs currently in
use.
3. Oildale Mutual Water Company
Doug Nunneley, General Manager, Oildale Mutual Water Company,
gave a brief history and stated water conservation is always
encouraged through the use of bill inserts, newsletters, web site and
Facebook. Also, a unique conservation effort the Company
implemented decades ago includes a water patrol during the months
of May through August.
4. Greenfield County Water District
Mel Johnson stated conservation is a priority for their Board. Water
conservation efforts include communicating with the high -end users
and educating the public to use water wisely.
5. Vaughn Water Company
Van Grayer, General Manager, gave a brief history of the Company
and stated conservation efforts will be through education and
encouraging customers to conserve water through newsletters, radio
and television campaigns; adjusting landscaping sprinklers; and
continued water audits of customers' property. The Company will also
be optimizing the distribution flushing system program to keep water
quality at a good level. The Districts also plans to implement programs
with North of the River, the City of Bakersfield, and Kern County
Landscaping to conserve water on their median landscape areas.
Bakersfield, California, March 13, 2014 - Page 3
4. URBAN WATER DISTRICTS continued
B. 6. Improvement District No. 4 (Kern County Water Agency)
David Beard, Manager, gave a brief history and purpose of
Improvement District No, 4. Mr. Beard also highlighted water
conservation efforts and programs in effect.
7. East Niles Community Services District
Tim Ruiz, P.E., General Manager, East Niles community Services
District, gave a brief history of the District.
Questions and answers discussion followed. No action taken
5. PUBLIC STATEMENTS
A. Harry Starkey, West Kern Water District, encouraged the City to be an active
participant in the Kern Groundwater Management Committee.
B. George Lusich asked "what is the overdraft in the county on the groundwater
table."
C. Eric Averett, Rosedale Water District, spoke regarding the Kern Groundwater
Management Committee.
D. Amber Beeson, Horticulturalist, spoke regarding reducing water usage and
conservation.
Jerry Todd, Kern City Resident, spoke regarding new technology used to save
water and provided written materials to the water purveyors.
6. DISCUSSION
Open discussion followed. No action taken.
Russell Johnson, Vice - Chair, City of Bakersfield Water Board, referred to the City of
Bakersfield Water Board or Community Services Committee, the topic of
Landscaping in regards to medians and the implementation of drought resistant
plants in medians and potentially using artificial turf.
Steve Teglia, Assistant to City Manager, stated the topic of utilizing artificial turf and
drought resistant plants will be on the Community Services Committee agenda for
the meeting of April 4, 2014.
Russell Johnson, Vice - Chair, City of Bakersfield Water Board, referred to City staff the
ground water management plan and legislation issued by the Governor for review to
determine whether the legislation changes anything that the Board needs to be
aware of or monitor.
Bakersfield, California, March 13, 2014 - Page 4
6. DISCUSSION continued
Russell Johnson, Vice - Chair, City of Bakersfield Water Board, thanked everyone for
attending the forum.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Hanson adjourned the meeting at 3:40 p.m,
Harold Hanson, Chairman
City of Bakersfield Water Board
Bobbie Zaragoza, CIVIC
Secretary, City of Bakersfield Water Board
Regular Water Board Meeting
b. REPORTS
April 23, 2014
A. Kern River & Isabella Reservoir Operations Report - For Board Information
W
Q
N
m
�
�u^i
pc/
ui
m
Q
J
J
W
m
Q
CO)
03 W
O cr. J W
`L a
W 3
Q�
J C
N
0 co
LU r
O
N
O
J
LL
J
Q
Q
z
m
W
m
ui
Y
(SISOL14UGAOd uo U0046 -a SM) MOV u! 3Jtia0lS
O
O"
O
O
O
O
O
p
O
O ->
O
-
O
LL O LL
O
O
O
O
O
O
O :."
O i
O�
O ii
Cl
N O
O co
O
O v
O
O
O
O',n
Ov
OM
OLn
O
0 O
O ai
O v
O a
Lo v
O
O
O
O
O co
�
O
0
Lo o
O am
Lo a
O w
Lo �
O
Lo
O n
Lo
O a
O M
CO
N Lo N
Lo N
Q
N
M Aj
Cl)
N
N
T N
r N
Lo N O
O O O A
O A O O
O O O I-
T
O O O
O O O
co Lo rt
O �jI� NO03V O3d 133J oie o
a
a�
r
aT
Q
v
r
v
E
cc
T
O
U'^)
VJ
I
L
CU
Q
Rs
z�
d.
m
r'
Rs
Ln
a
o
to
T
i
�
I
Q
z
i
i
r
i
t
c
M
u
T
1
R
N
U-
d'
T
4
a
O O O A
O A O O
O O O I-
T
O O O
O O O
co Lo rt
O �jI� NO03V O3d 133J oie o
a
a�
r
aT
Q
v
r
O O O A
O O O
co N r
T
C)
U
O
v
T
C
Q
U)
Rs
d.
m
r'
�
a
ca
to
T
i
Q
Q
r
i
M
T
1
N
U-
d'
T
c
N
cf)
T
I
�
v
m
0
M
T
z
O O O A
O O O
co N r
T
C)
U
O
z
O
0
Z
Cl)
Z
Cl)
cc
LU
z
Li
m
x
w
cc
0
® C\j
U) 6
Z—
W
cf)
<
w
9 q q q q q q
0 LO 0 LO 0 LO 0
LO co co C\j C\j
(SOQ40ul) 4USIU03 J949h%
O q q O
LO 0 LO 0
CL
co
LU
�2
cr-
0
0 Lu
w
cn :3
C 0
LL 0
.— 2
m
0 Cc
E
0
cz
cz U—
co
CC
0
LL
Z3
(D
-0
E
E
0
Z
<
0,2
0
N C\j
------
------
-----
---
------------
--- ---
C)
N
C�
C-4
C-4
Ol
-----------------
--------------------
------
-
------- -------
--- ------
Ol
O <
V)
C\j
--2
04
00
OT cn
-- -
- - - - -
-- -
- - - - - -
C\j
- - - - - - - -
- - - - -
CY)
00
0)
CX) M
Ei
-------------------------------------
--
------- --------
--
- ------
C3)
O
-------------------------------
---
----
-------------
---- ---
9 q q q q q q
0 LO 0 LO 0 LO 0
LO co co C\j C\j
(SOQ40ul) 4USIU03 J949h%
O q q O
LO 0 LO 0
CL
co
LU
�2
cr-
0
0 Lu
w
cn :3
C 0
LL 0
.— 2
m
0 Cc
E
0
cz
cz U—
co
CC
0
LL
Z3
(D
-0
E
E
0
Z
Regular Water Board Meeting
REPORTS continued
April 23, 2014
Isabella Dam Safety Modification Project Situation Report - For Board
Information
I
N
Highlights (last 30 days)
Real Estate Meetings: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Sacramento District
hosted two public information meetings March 26 -27 in Lake Isabella to help
inform local property owners and interested members of the public about the
Isabella Lake Dam Safety Modification Project's real estate acquisition and
relocation assistance benefits process. Nearly 90 people attended. View the
public meeting video http: / /bit.ly /lfhcrQH, photos http: / /bit.ly /1gidxrl and fact
sheet http: / /1.usa.gov /1jRbltg from the event.
Materials Investigation and Testing Contract: The Corps has awarded a contract
to Santos Excavating, Inc. for processing stone into aggregates, sampling and
testing aggregates, and constructing filter test sections. This contract will be
used to develop the basis of design and specifications for aggregate production
and filter placement for the dam construction contract, which is estimated to
include more than 1.5 million cubic yards of filter, drain, and concrete aggregate
material.
•
Hydraulic Model Video /Photos: Take a tour of the Sacramento District's massive
new Isabella Lake Dam scale model at Utah State University's Water Research
Laboratory in Logan, Utah. District engineers tested the model against the most
extreme storms and water flows Feb. 12 -13. Video: http: / /bit.ly /l hDIAn6 and
photos: [atp:i /bit.ly /1rns3Yii -.
Looking Ahead (next 30 days)
• Mobilization of equipment by Santos Excavating at the base of the Auxiliary
Dam for the Materials Investigation and Testing Contract mentioned above.
• Site visits and meetings with property owners conducted by Corps personnel,
and the establishment of a site office at the Happy Haven Trailer Park for
relocation assistance to trailer park owners.
• Detailed planning and design collaboration between the Corps and Caltrans,
to determine the final configurations and layouts for the relocation of State
Highway 178 and modifications to that section of State Highway 155 adjacent
to the raised Main Dam.
Current Lake Status (10 April)
The current pool resides at 59,542 acre -ft, and elevation of 2535.16 feet
(IPD) or 2538.92 (NAVD 88) which is 16% of the restricted pool. As part
of our interim risk reduction measures, Isabella Lake has a restricted
elevation of 2585.5 feet (361,250 acre -ft). Current Lake Status can be
viewed at http: // 130. 165.21. 224 /fcqi- bin /houriV.py ?report =isb
M mU.S. Army Corps
of Engineers
Sacramento District
April 2014
UPCOMING
MILESTONES
Pre - Construction, Engineering
and Design
2013-2016
Tiered NEPA Documents,
Highway 178 Relocation FONSI
(Finding of No Significant Impact):
July 2014
Begin Highway 178 Relocation
Construction
Summer 2015
Dam & Spillway
Construction
2017 -2020
Project Schedule
"All Dates Subject to Change —click on link
above for current schedule and infographic
Project Web page:
http : / /www.spk.usace.army.miI/
Missions /CivilWorks/
IsabellaDam.aspx
Sacramento District Homepage:
www.spk.usace.army.mil
Phone:
916- 557 -5100
E -mail:
Isabella @usace.army.mil
Follow us on: 13 a if ••
Page 1 of 3
Publication: Bakersfield Californian; Date: Mar 16, 2014; Section: Local News; Page: B1
Scientists construct huge dam model
Model built at Utah State to help plan fixes to Isabella
BY STEVEN MAYER Californian staff writer smayer.nhakersfield cam
It's the only significant structure standing between Bakersfield and what the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers calls
the "probable maximum flood." The 61- year -old earthen dam at Isabella Lake, 40 miles northeast of the city, has
been the target of years of study, evaluation, planning and public comment since Army Corps officials concluded
the twin dams face a triple- threat: seepage, earthquakes and overtopping during a rare, cataclysmic flood.
Now a team of scientists charged with designing a "fix" for the dams has built a scale model one -third the size of
a football field to help them understand how the newly designed dam will handle a variety of water flows — from
moderate to monsterous.
Nathan Cox, a hydraulic engineer for the Army Corps' Sacramento District, said the 1:45 scale model, built at
Utah State University's Water Research Laboratory in Logan, Utah, helps engineers predict how planned
modifications to the dam will perform under real -world conditions.
"The model is important because it's one of our primary design tools to verify that the design does work how we
want it to work," he said.
One of the most common safety issues older dams present to those living downstream is that their spillways are
too narrow, said Blake Tullis, an associate professor at the Water Research Lab at Utah State.
That's why the proposed modification of Isabella — construction is expected to begin in 2017 — will include the
construction of a much wider emergency spillway to supplement the existing service spillway. In the case of a
1o,000 -year flood — scientists call it the "probable maximum flood" — approximately 16 feet of material being
added to the elevation of the dam, combined with the emergency spillway, would allow a controlled release of
water rather than dangerous over - topping that could result in the dam's collapse, engineers say. Such a collapse
has the potential to inundate much of Bakersfield, as well as surrounding roads, industry and farmland.
The crest of the emergency spillway will include an innovative weir formed into an accordion -like design called a
labyrinth weir. It's one of the most important components of the model, Tullis said.
"The weir controls how much water flows out of the reservoir," he said.
The zig -zag labyrinth construction maximizes the weir surface, and therefore its effect, in a confined space, Cox
added.
"We put an arc (shape) in the weir," he said, which increases even more the weir surface between one side of the
emergency spillway and the other.
"We fit a 3,000- foot -long structure inside an 800- foot -wide space," he said.
Many of these and other concepts used in the model came from research — a master's thesis and a doctoral
dissertation — generated by two grad students from Utah State University, Nathan Christensen and Brian
Crookston.
According to Mike Ruth -ford, the Army Corps' lead engineer for phase 2 of the dam's modification project, the
model in Utah will allow engineers to tweak the design as new data demands. The "additional level of complexity"
at Isabella, he said, means designers have had to think beyond the conventions of dam construction.
Computer modeling, combined with what scientists learn from the physical model, will contribute more to their
knowledge than either method alone.
Not only that, the model could result in a reduction in the overall cost of the project, which is estimated at
between $400 million and $600 million.
The primary goal of the model is not cost savings, Tullis said. It's to verify the design of the dam. It's about
science and safety. However, cost reductions often result from these projects.
Saving money on the final cost would be gravy, if that can be said of anything that costs a half - billion dollars.
http: //d igital.ol ivesoftware.com /olive /ode /BakersfieldCal ifom ian /PrintComponentV iew.h... 03/16/2014
Page 2 of 3
1 ■ IR 1� D seq. ■ �.
� -' - %:,�
t
JUHN PHL:I I YMAN / U.S. ARMY
A panoramic photo shows the new scale model of the U S. Army Corps of Engineers Isabella Dam Safety
Modification Project at Utah State University's Water Research Laboratory in Logan, Utah. The 1:45 scale
model is considered an essential part of the Corps' pre- construction engineering and design phase
JOHN PRETTYMAN / U.S. ARMY
Engineers from the Isabella project team inspect a portion of the 1:45 scale model dam. Construction of the
modifications to Isabella Dam is scheduled to begin in 2017.
http: / /digital.olivesoftware.com /olive /ode/ BakersfieldCalifomian /PrintComponentV iew.h... 03/16/2014
i
,C n�
JOHN PRETTYMAN /U.S. ARMY
Page 3 of 3
Nathan Cox, left, a hydraulic engineer with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Sacramento District, and Blake
Tullis, an associate professor at Utah State University's Water Research Laboratory, observe water flows at the
scale model of the Isabella Dam.
http: / /digital.olivesoftware.com /olive /ode/ BakersfieldCalifomian /PrintComponentView.h... 03/16/2014
Regular Water Board Meeting
7. HEARINGS
April 23, 2014
A. Hearing to consider adoption of City's 2010 Urban Water Management
Plan - For Board Review and Action
MEMORANDUM
APRIL 8, 2014
TO: WATER BOARD MEMBERS
HAROLD HANSON, CHAIRMAN
RUSSELL JOHNSON, VICE CHAIRMAN
BOB SMITH
FROM: ART CHIANELLO, WATER RESOURCES MANAGER 4�
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING - 2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Recommended Action by the Water Board:
Motion to approve the resolution adopting the 2010 Urban Water Management
Plan.
Background:
A public hearing is required to adopt the City's 2010 Urban Water Management
Plan (UWMP).
The 2010 UWMP was prepared in accordance with the California Urban Water
Management Planning Act (Act) which was established in 1983. The Act requires
every "Urban Water Supplier" to prepare and adopt an UWMP, to periodically
review its UWMP at least once every five years, and make any amendments or
changes which are indicated by the review. An "Urban Water Supplier" is defined
as a supplier, either publicly or privately owned, providing water for municipal
purposes either directly or indirectly to more than 3,000 customers or supplying
more than 3,000 acre -feet of water annually. The primary objective of the Act is to
direct Urban Water Suppliers to prepare a Plan that describes and evaluates
sources of supply, reasonable and practical efficient uses, reclamation, and
demand management activities.
B A
K
E
R
S
F I
E
L
D
MEMORANDUM
APRIL 8, 2014
TO: WATER BOARD MEMBERS
HAROLD HANSON, CHAIRMAN
RUSSELL JOHNSON, VICE CHAIRMAN
BOB SMITH
FROM: ART CHIANELLO, WATER RESOURCES MANAGER 4�
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING - 2010 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Recommended Action by the Water Board:
Motion to approve the resolution adopting the 2010 Urban Water Management
Plan.
Background:
A public hearing is required to adopt the City's 2010 Urban Water Management
Plan (UWMP).
The 2010 UWMP was prepared in accordance with the California Urban Water
Management Planning Act (Act) which was established in 1983. The Act requires
every "Urban Water Supplier" to prepare and adopt an UWMP, to periodically
review its UWMP at least once every five years, and make any amendments or
changes which are indicated by the review. An "Urban Water Supplier" is defined
as a supplier, either publicly or privately owned, providing water for municipal
purposes either directly or indirectly to more than 3,000 customers or supplying
more than 3,000 acre -feet of water annually. The primary objective of the Act is to
direct Urban Water Suppliers to prepare a Plan that describes and evaluates
sources of supply, reasonable and practical efficient uses, reclamation, and
demand management activities.
April 8, 2014 Page 2
2010 UWMP Update
There have been amendments added to the Act and some reorganization of the
California Water Code sections since the City of Bakersfield's most recent 2007
Urban Water Management Plan Update and Wholesale Water System 2008 Urban
Water Management Plan were prepared. The amendments, additions and
changes include:
• Senate Bill (SB) 1087 - Requires reporting of water use projections for lower
income households
• AB 1376 -Requires 60 days' notice, prior to a public hearing, to any City or
County within which the supplier provides water supplies, that the Urban
Water Supplier is reviewing its Plan and are considering changes.
• AB 1420 - Conditions state funding
• SBX7 -7 - Requires 20 percent reduction in per capita water use by 2020
(Water Code Section 10608, see Appendix B).
The California Water Code requires that each water supplier shall update its UWMP
at least once every five years on or before December 31, in years ending in five
and zero. This 2010 UWMP is being submitted in 2014, in part, because the City
updated its most recent UWMP approximately within the last five (5) years. This
UWMP will still be referred to as the "2010 Plan ". This 2010 UWMP combines both the
retail (Domestic Water System) and wholesale (Wholesale Water System) activities
of the City and is an update to both of the previously separately prepared and
adopted Plans. This 2010 UWMP follows California Department of Water Resources'
(DWR's) "Guidebook to Assist Urban Water Suppliers to Prepare a 2010 Urban Water
Management Plan" (Guidebook) dated March 2011 and consequently the format
and order of sections proposed in DWR's Guidebook is followed in the 2010 Plan.
The City has coordinated the preparation of this UWMP with the appropriate
agencies, including other local water purveyors and agencies that receive water
from the City. A notification letter was sent to these agencies at least 60 days prior
to this public hearing. The UWMP was also posted on the City's website and was
made available for review at the City's Water Resources Department office. A
public notification of the hearing was made by the City by publishing the notice of
public hearing through the newspaper during the weeks of April 7 and 14, 2014. To
date, the City has only received comments from Rosedale -Rio Bravo Water Storage
District.
April 8, 2014
2010 UWMP Update
Page 3
If adopted by the Water Board, within 30 days after adoption the 2010 Plan will be
submitted to the DWR, the California State Library, the County of Kern, and Cal
Water.
Some of the highlights of the updated 2010 Plan include:
• Service Area Population was updated based on 2010 Census Data. The
current 2008 Plan used outdated numbers developed during the housing
boom of the mid- 2OOO's. Population projections were also updated based
on the Census Data and current population percentage increases provided
by the City's Planning Department.
• The Water Conservation Act of 2009 (SBX7 -7) has required all urban retail
suppliers to reduce their per capita water use by 20 percent by 2020 based
on a calculated base line per capita water use. The 2010 Plan establishes
this baseline and also establishes target per capita water use for the years
2015 and 2020. It is encouraging to note that the per capita water use in the
City's Domestic Water Service Area is on track to meet the target amounts!
• More clearly analyses groundwater replenishment activities performed by
the City than the previous 2008 Plan.
• Highlights the use of tertiary treated wastewater from the City's Wastewater
Treatment Plant 3 to irrigate the City's State Farm Sports Village. Tertiary
treated water used for irrigation would have otherwise had to have been
provide by the City's Domestic Water System.
• Referenced the 87,000 acre feet on average of unappropriated Kern River
water that the City has filed an application for with the California State Water
Resources Control Board. A partial list of the uses of this water would be for
underground aquifer supply, aquifer water quality enhancement, and
underground water banking for drought and other emergencies.
• Discusses Demand Management Measures, which addresses what the City is
currently doing, and what is being plan for the future regarding water
conservation measures.
S: \2014 MEMOS \2014_04_08 Water Board_2010 UWMP Hearing.doc
Regular Water Board Meeting
9. NEW BUSINESS
April 23, 2014
A. A Resolution of the Council of the City of Bakersfield Setting Domestic Water
Availability Fees - For Board Review and Action
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIlL OF THE CITY OF
BAKERSFIELD SETTING DOMESTIC WATER
AVAILABILITY FEES.
WHEREAS, the City is slated with the responsibility of ensuring that all proposed
development in the City's Domestic Water Service area will have a viable high quality
water supply and pressures or such development cannot proceed; ani
WHEREAS, in order to ensure that current and future infrastructure and
WHEREAS, the cost of procuring and maintaining the water supply is an
expense which is funded from the various fees established for the use of such water
=9 It - : 01
WHEREAS, the Availability Fee charged to ensure water will be accessible for
new development (cost of funding new water well construction, purchase of land for
recharge facilities, etc.) is currently $5,824.00 per acre and has not been adjusted since
June 1, 2013; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 66016, the City noticed a
hearing for June 4, 2014 regarding the setting of the availability fee; and
WHEREAS, while, pursuant to the calculations set forth in Exhibit "A", attached
hereto and incorporated herein by reference, the new availability fee needs to be set at
$5,938.00 per acre effective July 1, 2014 to offset these increased costs, pursuant to
Bakersfield Municipal Code Section 14.04.120(B) in accordance with the Construction
Cost Index as defined in the Bakersfield Municipal Code Section 15.84,030(D).
M �
NOW, THEREFORE, BE �T RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Bakersfield
1 . The above recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by
reference;
2. The City Council hereby adopts a new water availability fee of $5,938.00
HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by
the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on
by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBER
NOES: COUNCILMEMBER
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBER_
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBER_
APPROVED
HARVEY L. HALL
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
VIRGINIA GENNARO
City Attorney
M
VIRGINIA GENNARO
City Attorney
Page 3 of 3
ROBERTA A. GAFFORD, CMC
CITY CLERK AND EX OFFICIO Clerk of
the Council of the City of Bakersfield
ENR
Construction Cost Index
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Divided by 12
Computation of change in CCI:
AVAILABILITY FEE
2012
2011
10,091.80
10,000.30
10,091.80
10,032.05
10,283.55
10,035.05
10,285.30
10,044.55
10,300.05
10,045.55
10,299.55
10,051.30
10,295.55
10,062.80
10,280.55
10,075.55
10,280.18
10,076.80
10,283.18
10,083.30
10,282.18
10,088.30
10,270.93
10,088.80
123,044.62 120,684.35
10,253.72 10,057.03
2012 10,253.72
2011 10,057.03
Change ($) 196.69
Change ( %) 1.96%
Current Availability Fee - June 1, 2013 $5,824
Change ( %) Construction Cost Index 1.96%
New Availability Fee - July 1, 2014 $5,938
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a protest hearing accepting testimony will be held
before the Council of the City of Bakersfield on Wednesday June 4, 2014 at 5:15
p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the Council
Chambers of City Hall South, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA 93301. The
purpose of the hearing is to receive and consider input regarding setting of the
Domestic Water Availability Fee pursuant to Section 14,04.1206 of the Bakersfield
Municipal Code.
The current Availability Fee charged to ensure water will be accessible for new
development (cost of funding water well construction, water main extensions,
etc.) is $5,824 per acre. The new Availability Fee needs to be set at $5,938 per
acre to offset increased cost in accordance with the construction cost index as
defined in the Bakersfield Municipal Code. The increase is proposed to be
effective July 1, 2014.
If you need additional information on the water services provided by the City or
on the proposed Water Availability Fee, please contact the Water Resources
Department at (661) 326 -3715.
WRITTEN PROTESTS may be filed with the City Clerk at any time prior to the
conclusion of the hearing at 1600 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA 93301, If you
challenge the action taken on this proposal in court, you may be limited to
addressing only those issues raised at the public hearing, or in written
correspondence delivered to the City Clerk of the City of Bakersfield prior to the
close of the hearing.
Dated: May 1, 2014
ROBERTA GAFFORD, CIVIC
City Clerk and Ex Officio
Clerk of the Council of the
City of Bakersfield
Please Conserve Water!
Regular Water Board Meeting
9. NEW BUSINESS continued
April 23, 2014
B. Resolution of the Water Board Committee of the Council of the City of
Bakersfield Adopting the Lower Kern River Mitigation Project Habitat
Management Plan - For Board Review and Action
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE WATER BOARD COMMITTEE OF THE
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD ADOPTING THE
LOWER KERN RIVER MITIGATION PROJECT HABITAT
MANAGEMENT PLAN.
WHEREAS, in 2003 the federal government ordered that the City shall
submit to the United States Environmental Protection Agency ( USEPA) for
approval a Mitigation Monitoring Plan (Monitoring Plan) that compensates for
the permanent loss of five acres Riparian Habitat within the Kern River Channel;
and
WHEREAS, in 2004 the City submitted the Monitoring Plan for the Lower
Kern River Mitigation Project to the USEPA for review and approval. The City's
primary objective for this Monitoring Plan was to establish the monitoring
methodology, by parameter, which was to be used to collect data to assess the
success of the project against incremental performance standards and final
success criteria. The Monitoring Plan also provided for clear and specific
objectives as well as a monitoring regime and adaptive management
component to ensure that objectives are realized; and
WHEREAS, in 2005 the USEPA approved the Monitoring Plan for the Lower
Kern River Mitigation Project; and
WHEREAS, the USEPA indicated that the Lower Kern River Mitigation Project
site in its restored natural condition, with an approved Habitat Management
Plan (Management Plan), would provide additional assurances that the habitat
would be maintained in perpetuity, An effective Habitat Management Plan can
provide better conservation benefits. The primary purpose of a Habitat
Management Plan is to ensure that the area is managed in such a way as to
protect (i.e. aid in the survival) the restored natural habitat; and
WHEREAS, the City has met all of its obligations and carried out all of its
duties and activities relative to the Monitoring Plan, including monitoring site
conditions and preparing annual reports. The City has met with the USEPA and
submitted the findings in annual monitoring reports, and
WHEREAS, the City intends to submit a Management Plan, attached
hereto as Exhibit A, to the USEPA with a City Resolution to Codify the City's Long-
term Commitment in maintaining the Lower Kern River Mitigation site as a
permanent conservation area; and
- Page 1 of 3 Pages -
WHEREAS, in 2014 the USEPA reviewed the proposed Management Plan
for the Lower Kern River Mitigation Project Plan and expects to terminate the
2003 administrative order if the Management Plan is adopted by the Water
Board, and
WHEREAS, the objective of the Management Plan is to establish
assurances that the mitigation site will maintain its restored natural habitat, by:
Implementing Protocols for Management of the Mitigation
Site, including; Maintenance Activities, Use of Equipment,
Water Allocation, Managing Invasive Plants and Personnel
Training;
2. Continuation of existing City Policies that are in place for
protection of the Mitigation Site; and
3. Establishing the mitigation site as a permanent conservation
area through this City Resolution.
WHEREAS, the Water Board will adopt and approve the Lower Kern River
Mitigation Project Habitat Management Plan and implement the Management
Plan to ensure that the mitigation site will remain in its natural. state.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Water Board Committee of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield, as follows:
The above recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by
reference,
2. The Water Board of the City of Bakersfield adopts the Habitat
Management Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit A.
---- - - - - -- 000---- - - - - --
- Page 2 of 3 Pages -
HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted
by the Water Board Committee of the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a
special meeting thereof held on
AYES:
WATER BOARD MEMBER
NOES:
WATER BOARD MEMBER
ABSTAIN:
WATER BOARD MEMBER
ABSENT:
WATER BOARD MEMBER
APPROVED
Chairperson of the Water Board
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
VIRGINIA GENNARO
City Attorney
By
VIRGINIA GENNARO
City Attorney
Attachment: Exhibit "A"
by the following vote:
BOBBIE ZARAGOZA, Secretary of the
City of Bakersfield Water Board
- Page 3 of 3 Pages -
City of Bakersfield - Water Resources Department
Lower Kern River Mitigation Project
Habitat Management Plan
Exhibit `A' to Resolution No.
In order to meet the obligations described in United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) Administrative Order, Docket No. CWA- 404- 309(a) -03 -001 (attached), and defined in the
2004 Mitigation Monitoring Plan (attached), the City of Bakersfield will preserve and protect
the Lower Kern River Mitigation Project (project) site, along the lower Kern River between
Calloway Weir and Golden State Highway Bridge (see Attachment 3), in its restored natural
condition, in perpetuity. To accomplish this goal, and provide EPA with assurances that the
mitigation site will remain in its natural state, the City of Bakersfield Water Resources
Department (City) will implement this Habitat Management Plan, with the components
described herein.
This Habitat Management Plan is not a permit and it does not relieve the City of its obligations
under the Clean Water Act, or any other applicable federal, state and local laws, regulations, or
permits. Prior to conducting Maintenance Activities, or undertaking any other potentially
regulated activities at the site, the City will identify and obtain all necessary authorizations for
the activities.
1. Protocols for Management of the Mitigation Site: The City already manages the
mitigation site and adjacent Uplands of the Kern River Parkway (discussed in detail
below) in such a way as to promote the conservation of native plant and wildlife species,
and sensitive habitat. Current management activities the City engages in include
limiting public access to the site, removal of invasive, nonnative plant species,
protection of the site from development or encroachment, maintenance of the site as
permanent open space, which has been predominantly left in its natural vegetative
state, and prompting wetland, upland, and riparian vegetation. These management
activities are discussed in further detail below.
A. Maintenance Activities: The 2004 Mitigation Monitoring Plan allows for vegetation
removal of undesirable, exotic species (e.g., water hyacinth, Russian thistle, black
mustard, giant reed, tamarisk, and castor bean), implementation of erosion control
measures, and removal of trash and debris. The Habitat Management Plan
continues these maintenance activities within the mitigation site; however, the City
will limit other maintenance activities to the minimum required to maintain channel
flow capacity within the river and, except as authorized by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) for emergency situations (see 1B, below), will prohibit the use of
Management Plan Outline
Page 2 of 9
heavy equipment to accomplish vegetation, trash, and debris removal and erosion
control, thus further protecting the mitigation site. All maintenance activities
completed within the project site will be performed under appropriate permits that
will be in place and approved prior to activities occurring.
B. Use of Equipment during Flood Events: During normal periods of weather (i.e. non
flood events), moderate to low levels of maintenance will be implemented in all
areas of the mitigation site as described in 1A above. However, when uncontrolled
flood flows occur, which exceed the capacity of the river channel and adjacent
Calloway Weir, a washout sandplug section (located within the river channel next to
the weir) will overtop and wash out, allowing flood flows to be carried downstream
without overtopping river levees. Release of the sandplug and removal of brush and
debris that may impede flood flows downstream of the weir are necessary to
prevent flooding situations that could lead to potential property damage and public
safety issues. When required, due to flooding situations, use of heavy equipment
(i.e. backhoe, dozer, etc.) will be allowed in and adjacent to the mitigation site. Use
of heavy equipment will be strictly limited to flood fighting occurrences, and will be
managed by the City in compliance with the Corps' Emergency Procedures (33 CFR
325.2(e)(4)), or other requirements established by the Corps.
C. Water Allocation: The mitigation site is located within the channel of the Kern River
and the amount of available water is largely weather dependent. Quantities of
water within the mitigation site would correspond to annual weather patterns and
flows within the Kern River, with water being more plentiful during the wet season
(November 1 to April 15) and less available during the dry season and drought years.
D. Managing Invasive Plant Species during Dry Periods: during the dry season and
drought years, the potential exists for cover by invasive, nonnative plant species to
increase. As a management protocol, the City will maintain the mitigation site and
control the growth and spread of invasive, nonnative plant species within the
mitigation site (see 1A above). In accordance with the Uplands of the Kern River
Parkway Long -Term Landscape Management Plan (see 2E below), invasive,
nonnative plant species will be removed by hand on an on -going basis throughout
the year within the mitigation site.
E. Training of Personnel involved with Maintenance Activities: City maintenance
personnel have the potential to encounter plant and /or wildlife species designated
as threatened or endangered under the Federal or California Endangered Species
Acts, species classified as candidate, of special concern, or fully protected by the
Lower Kern River Mitigation Project - Draft Management Plan
Management Plan Outline
Page 3 of 9
California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and avian species protected under the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act, while conducting maintenance activities within the
mitigation site. Collectively these species are referred to as "Special- Status
Species. ". Since maintenance activities have the potential to impact special- status
species, as well as jurisdictional habitat (wetlands) within the mitigation site, city
maintenance personnel will be trained in the management of the mitigation site and
the rules, regulations, conditions, and guidance found in applicable sections of the
Federal and California Endangered Species Acts.
As a management protocol, the City will enlist the services of a qualified biologist to
conduct an annual species awareness training session for all personnel involved with
the maintenance activities described above. This training would include a discussion
on equipment use and identifying and managing invasive, nonnative plant species
and jurisdictional habitat within the mitigation site. During this training session, the
biologist would present information on the life history, physical characteristics,
habitat requirements, and protection status of special- status species known to occur
within the mitigation site. A discussion would be provided on identifying sign of
habitation by these species as well as the rules, regulations, conditions, and
guidance as described in the Federal and California Endangered Species Acts,
Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and California Fish and Game Code as they pertain to
these species and the legal consequences of non - compliance. In addition, the
training will also include information on the typical permits, regulatory structure,
general responsibilities, penalties, and the permitting process required in order to
conduct the maintenance activity. The City will maintain a record of attendance for
these training sessions along with all permit approvals.
Maintenance activities have the potential to require additional permits or approvals
from other agencies, such as: Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley
Floodplain Board, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Typically, activities within a floodplain should anticipate the lead time to acquire the
following permits; Section 404 Permit, Streambed Alteration Agreement (1600), and
Central Valley Floodplain Board Permit Approval. Individuals conducting
maintenance activities will be trained with respect to applicable permit(s)
requirements and the covered activities under existing permitting.
Lower Kern River Mitigation Project - Draft Management Plan
Management Plan Outline
Page 4 of 9
2. Existing City Policies for Protection of the Mitigation Site:
A. Public Access: The mitigation site is generally accessible to the public. A public bike
and walking trail runs along the south side of the river channel and an equestrian
trail runs along the north side of the channel; both are regularly accessed by the
community. Warning signs are posted at all potential points of entry to the
mitigation site. Citizens using the public trails are advised via signs to stay on the
paved trail in order to preserve the natural condition of the mitigation site.
Additional signage will be placed in and around the mitigation site, identifying the
area as being protected and indicating that the mitigation site is an ecological area.
Furthermore, the area is patrolled on a regular basis by City maintenance personnel
and the Bakersfield Police Department. Activities such as hunting, discharge of
firearms, operation of off -road vehicles, and firewood cutting are all prohibited on
the mitigation site by City ordinance and any violators of the ordinance are cited.
The ordinances that the City has in effect for the mitigation site provide some
protection from potential adverse affects by anthropogenic factors.
B. Open Space Designation: The City of Bakersfield's General Plan designation for the
mitigation site is (OS) Open Space, with a Zone designation of (FP -P) Flood Plain
Primary (City of Bakersfield 2004). The purpose of the OS zone is to provide for
permanent open spaces and recreational uses and to safeguard the health, safety,
and welfare of the people by limiting developments in areas where protection from
unstable soils, flooding, seismic activity, or other special circumstances is required.
Pursuant to that designation, the City has kept the mitigation site in its natural state
to the extent possible. Consequently, the General Plan and Zone designations also
ensure that the mitigation site is protected from future agricultural and urban
development.
C. Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan: The City and Kern County
(County) developed the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan
(MBHCP) to acquire permits that would allow for the incidental take of federally and
state listed species included in the MBHCP area (City of Bakersfield /County of Kern
1991, City of Bakersfield /County of Kern 1994). The goal of the MBHCP is to acquire,
preserve, and enhance native habitats that support special- status species while
allowing development to proceed as set forth in the Metropolitan Bakersfield
General Plan (2002). The MBHCP applies to the entire 2010 Bakersfield
Metropolitan General Plan area (2010 MBGP area); however, the permit and
accompanying conservation plan authorize the incidental take for the lands within
Lower Kern River Mitigation Project - Draft Management Plan
Management Plan Outline
Page 5 of 9
the 2010 MBGP area excluding lands within the Kern River primary floodplain. The
primary floodplain is excluded from any incidental take because of the need to
assure a dispersal corridor through the MBHCP area. Consequently, the mitigation
site, which occurs entirely within the Kern River primary floodplain, is excluded from
any incidental take under City or County permits, which ensures that the mitigation
site is protected from future agricultural and urban development.
D. Uplands of the Kern River Parkway: The City's "Uplands of the Kern River Parkway"
(UKRP) restoration area is located adjacent to and directly upstream of the
mitigation site. The City completed construction of the UKRP in June of 2011. The
project area comprises approximately 3,500 linear feet along the Kern River and
encompasses approximately 14.25 acres within the Kern River Parkway. The
purpose of the UKRP was to provide the public opportunities to observe native
plants and animals within their natural habitat. A variety of primarily native, riparian
plant species were planted throughout the project area. All of the UKRP
components have been designed to complement and blend in with the Kern River
and the existing elements of the Kern River Parkway. The UKRP and mitigation site
complement each other and provide for a contiguous, protected natural landscape.
A long -term landscape management plan (LMP) (Uplands of the Kern River Parkway
Long -Term Landscape Management Plan) was prepared for the UKRP in September
2011. The LMP was designed to establish a protocol for successfully managing the
UKRP utilizing a moderate to low level of maintenance for natural vegetation habitat
areas. The LMP includes protocols for irrigation, vegetation trimming, and weed and
pest control. The UKRP is an adjacent and complimentary habitat restoration
project.
3. Public Outreach: The City will work with local groups, including California State
University, Bakersfield; Bakersfield College; and /or the Kern River Parkway Foundation
(groups that were instrumental in planning the Uplands of the Kern River Parkway) to
observe and study the mitigation site.
4. Establishment of a City Resolution to Codify the City's Long -term Commitment: This
Habitat Management Plan will be submitted to the Water Board Committee of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield for adoption, with a proposed Resolution stating that
the Lower Kern River Mitigation site will be considered a permanent conservation area
with a prohibition on future agricultural and urban development. Additionally, the
Resolution will state that the current General Plan and Zone designations for the
Lower Kern River Mitigation Project - Draft Management Plan
Management Plan Outline
Page 6 of 9
mitigation site will remain as such in future General Plans - the mitigation site will show
up on City zoning and planning maps as a designated protected area.
The Water Board Committee is empowered and authorized by the Bakersfield Municipal
Code (City of Bakersfield Municipal Code §§ 2.18.10 et seq.) to take actions on behalf of
the City in connection with the operation and management of the City's Water
Department; a resolution adopted by the Water Board Committee therefore represents
and constitutes a final binding action on the part of the City of Bakersfield.
Attachments:
1. EPA Docket No. CWA- 404- 309(a) -03 -001
2. Mitigation Monitoring Plan For the Lower Kern River Mitigation Project, September
2004
3. Mitigation Area As -Built
Lower Kern River Mitigation Project - Draft Management Plan
Management Plan Outline
Page 7 of 9
Attachment 1
EPA Docket No. CWA- 404- 309(a) -03 -001
Lower Kern River Mitigation Project - Draft Management Plan
.. Ja,1EO sr4,FS
A UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IX
%4` ""Ot`•o 75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105 -3901
SEP 0 8 2003
Certified Mail: 7001 0320 0002 4541 0434
Return Receipt Requested In Reply refer to Docket No.: CWA- 404- 309(a) -03 -001
Flom Core, Water Resources Director '
Water Resources Department
City of Bakersfield
1000 Buena Vista Road
Bakersfield, CA 93311
Re: Administrative Order under Section 309(a) of the Clean Water Act
Dear Mr. Core:
We are sending you the attached Administrative Order issued pursuant to Section 309(a) of the
Clean Water Act ( "CWA" or "the Act "), 33 U.S.C. § 1319(a). This Order concerns unauthorized
discharges of dredged and fill material by the City of Bakersfield (City) into the Kern River
during two time periods, November 2000 to January 2001, and January 2002 to May 2002.
Section 301(a) of the Act prohibits the discharge of pollutants, including fill material into waters
of the United States without authorization by a permit issued pursuant to either Section 402 or
404 of the Act.
The enclosed Order requires you to: (1) immediately cease additional discharges of dredged or
fill material into waters of the United States, except as authorized by a CWA permit issued by the
Department of the Army; (2) by December 1, 2003, submit to EPA for approval, the identity and
qualifications of an independent contractor(s), hired at the City's expense, to prepare a mitigation
plan for compensating for the City's unauthorized discharges into the Kern River; and (3) by
February 1, 2004, submit to EPA for review and approval, a Mitigation Plan for compensating
for the permanent loss of five acres of waters of the United States.
If you wish to discuss this matter further, please contact Erin Foresman of our Wetlands
Regulatory Office at (415) 972 -3396, or Brett Moffatt of our Office of Regional Counsel at (415)
972 -3946.
Sincerely, A,-40"4-"
, , 2 ova
Alexis S rauss e
Director, Water Division
cc:
Mr. Michael Jewell, Acting Regulatory Chief, Sacramento Corps District
Mr. Alan Tandy, City Manager, 1501 Truxton Avenue, Bakersfield, CA 93301
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
IN THE MATTER OF:
The City of Bakersfield
Water Resources Department
1000 Buena Vista Road
Bakersfield, CA 93311
Proceedings under Sections 308(a)
and 309(a)(3), (a)(4) and (a)(5)(A)
of the Clean Water Act, as amended,
33 U.S.C. §§ 1318(a) and
1319(a)(3), (a)(4) and (a)(5)(A)
REGION IX
Docket No. CWA- 404- 309(a) -03 -001
FINDINGS OF VIOLATION
AND
ORDER FOR COMPLIANCE
AUTHORITY
The following Findings and Order are made and issued pursuant to the authority vested in
the Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency ( "EPA ") under sections
308 and 309(a)(3) -(5) of the Clean Water Act (the "CWA" or "Act "), 33 U.S.C. §§ 1318, 1319
(a)(3) -(5). This authority has been delegated to the Regional Administrator of EPA, Region 9,
and re- delegated by the Regional Administrator to the Director of the Water Division
( "Director ").
FINDINGS OF VIOLATION
The Director finds:
1. Under section 301(a) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a), it is unlawful to discharge
any pollutant, including dredged or fill material, from a point source into any
"waters of the United States" (waters) without a permit issued under the CWA.
Under section 404 of the CWA, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ( "Corps ")
issues permits ( "section 404 permits ") for the discharge of dredged or fill material
to waters.
2. Point sources, as defined by the CWA, include bulldozers, plows, scrapers, land
levelers, and other equipment, which are used to move or place soils and other
Docket No. CWA- 404- 309(a) -03 -001
materials in a manner that deposits such materials into waters or turns over and
redeposits such materials within waters. 33 U.S.C. §§ 1362(14); Avoyelles
Sportman's League v. Marsh 715 F.2d 897, 922 -23 (5" Cir. 1983). Waters
include all waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be
susceptible to use in interstate commerce, including tidal waters, and all
tributaries of waters. 33 C.F.R. § 328.3(a); 40 C.F.R. § 230.3(s).
3. The City of Bakersfield ( "City ") is a municipality under CWA section 502(4), 33
U.S.C. § 1362(4). The City owns the properties within and adjacent to the Kern
River, immediately downstream of the Union Pacific Railroad Bridge and the
Caltrans Golden State Highway Bridge (Section 24, Township 29 South, Range
27 East), and immediately upstream of the Stockdale Highway Crossing (Section
1, Township 30 South, Range 26 East). See Figures 1 and 2.
4. Both the Golden State Highway Bridge site and the Stockdale Highway Crossing
site are within the Kern River channel. The Kern River is a navigable -in -fact
water, and a waters within the meaning of the CWA section 502(7), 33 U.S.C. §
1362(7), and 40 C.F.R. § 230.3(s)(5).
On October 24, 2000, the California Reclamation Board sent a letter to Floras
Core, Director of the Water Resources Department of the City, approving the
construction of two new rock weirs in the Kern River channel near the Golden
State Highway crossing and advising the City contact the Corps regarding the
necessity of a CWA section 404 permit. The Corps received a courtesy copy of
the above-mentioned letter and responded to Floras Core in a letter, dated
November 24, 2000, instructing the City to contact the Corps office because the
project may require an individual permit under section 404 of the CWA.
6. On November 24, 2000, the Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District, sent a
letter to Floras Core, of the City, recommending that the City contact the Corps
regarding the proposed construction of two rock weirs in the Kern River channel
near the Golden State Highway crossing because the project may require an
individual permit under section 404 of the CWA.
7. On November 28, 2000, the Corps called Mr. Core and explained that the
activities would likely require an individual permit from the Corps. Mr. Core
indicated that work had already started. The Corps advised Mr. Core to cease and
desist from this work and to move any material that had been placed in waters of
the United States to an upland site. Mr. Core informed the Corps that the City did
not intend to cease its work.
Page 2 of 6
Docket No. CWA- 404- 309(a) -03 -001
8. On November 28, 2000, the Corps sent a "Cease and Desist" letter to Mr. Core,
instructing the City to "immediately cease and desist from any additional
discharge of fill material into the Kern River, and submit an application for a
Department of the Army Permit." The City did not subsequently cease its work.
9. During the months of November 2000 through January 2001, the City approved,
directed, and otherwise participated in the construction of two rock weirs inside
the Kern River channel near the Golden State Highway crossing using heavy
equipment, including a tracked excavator, wheeled front -end loader, and a Cat D-
6 dozer. The work was completed sometime in January 2001. The completed
rock weirs are approximately 500' wide, 60' long, and 8' tall, and are composed of
native granitic rock, upstream -end concrete faces, and river sand.
10. On November 1, 2001, Flom Core, of the City, sent to the Corps an application
for an individual permit per CWA section 404 for removal of the existing
Bellevue Weir, and the construction of a new Bellevue Weir. On December 18,
2001, the Corps responded to the City, requesting additional information as the
permit application was incomplete. The City did not complete the application for
an individual permit or obtain an individual permit per CWA section 404 before
starting and completing constriction of the new Bellevue Weir.
11. During the months of January 2002 through May 2002, the City of Bakersfield
approved, directed, and otherwise participated in the construction of a new
Bellevue Weir in the Kern River near the Stockdale Highway Crossing using
heavy equipment, including a tracked excavator, wheeled front -end loader,
wheeled self - loading earth mover, water truck, crane, pile driver, Cat D -6 dozer
(or equivalent) and motor grader. The work was completed sometime in May
2002. The old Bellevue Weir was removed and the new weir was constructed in a
different location with a new fill design. The new Bellevue weir is approximately
305' long and is composed of concrete, sheet piling, slabs, and washout sand
section.
12. On November 18, 2002 and March 4, 2003, respectively, the Corps referred to
EPA for enforcement action the City's violations of CWA section 404 on the
Kern River near the Golden State Highway crossing, and the Stockdale Highway
crossing.
13. On April-28, 2003, EPA sent to the City an information request per CWA section
308. On May 27, 2003, the City responded and described the nature of the
dredged and fill materials placed in the Kern River channel, and the equipment
used to place the material. Also, the City verified that it had approved, directed,
Page 3 of 6
Docket No. CWA- 404- 309(a) -03 -001
and participated in these activities, including oversight and coordination of its
contractors during construction, and the City acknowledged that it was directly
involved in the preparation of permit applications.
14. The materials that the City discharged into the Kern River are dredged and fill
materials under section 404 of the Act, hence pollutants within the meaning of
sections 301(a) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(a), 1342. The heavy equipment
used by the City and its contractors to place these pollutants into the Kern River
are point sources as defined by CWA section 502(14), 33 U.S.C. §§ 1362(14).
15. EPA estimates that the City's discharges of dredged and fill materials, and
associated activities, resulted in the permanent loss of five acres of waters.
16. Neither the City, nor its contractors, nor any other person or entity associated with
the aforementioned activities obtained a section 404 permit from the Corps for the
discharge of dredged and fill material into waters.
17. Therefore, based on the above findings and pursuant to the authority of sections
308 and 309 of the Act, it is ORDERED:
ORDER
1. The City, including the City's contractors, agents or other representatives acting
on behalf of the City, shall not discharge dredged or fill material, or any other
pollutants, into the Kern River, or any other waters, except in compliance with a
permit issued by the Corps under section 404 of the Act, or a permit issued
pursuant to section 402 of the Act.
2. By December 1, 2003, the City shall submit to EPA for approval the identity and
qualifications of an independent contractor(s) to prepare a Mitigation Plan as
described in Paragraphs 3 and 4 below. The independent contractor(s) shall have
the requisite expertise in engineering, hydrology, and aquatic biology to be able to
prepare and implement the Mitigation Plan. Upon receipt of EPA approval of the
independent contractor(s), the City shall retain the contractor(s) at the City's
expense.
3. By February 1, 2004, the City shall submit to EPA for approval a Mitigation Plan
that compensates for the permanent loss of five acres of waters caused by City's
unauthorized activities within the Kern River Channel. The Mitigation Plan
should provide for a 2:1 compensatory mitigation package of "in- kind "restoration
Page 4 of 6
Docket No. CWA- 404- 309(a) -03 -001
and preservation in perpetuity, totaling ten acres of waters (two acres of waters for
every acre of waters impacted by the City's activities). The Mitigation Plan shall
propose specific geographic location(s) of the mitigation site, preferably within
the Kern River but necessarily within the larger Kern River watershed, and the
aquatic habitat type(s) that will serve as mitigation for the waters impacted by the
City's unauthorized activities. Upon approval, this Mitigation Plan shall be
deemed incorporated by reference into this Order, and the City shall continue to,
or further retain, an EPA approved independent contractor to implement the
Mitigation Plan. The Mitigation Plan shall include the following:
a. A detailed description of the existing physical and biological conditions of
the chosen mitigation project site(s). The description must include
topographic, hydrogeomorphic, and biological resource - related maps
associated with the mitigation project site(s). The description must also
discuss in detail the historic and existing land -use activities and any
designations that pertain to the project site(s). The Mitigation Plan must
provide 2:1 replacement of the acreage and functions of the pre -
disturbance condition of the Kern River by restoration and preservation in
perpetuity.
b. A five year monitoring program, including specific measures of physical
and biological parameters and criteria to evaluate the success of the
Mitigation Plan.
A schedule for implementing and completing each step of the Mitigation
Plan.
4. All submittals made pursuant to this Order shall be mailed to the following
address:
Ms. Erin Foresman
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Wetlands Regulatory Office (WTR -8)
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Such submittals shall include the following certification signed by a duly
authorized representative:
" I certify under penalty of law that this document and all
attachments were prepared by direct supervision or in accordance
with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly
Page 5 of 6
Docket No. CWA- 404- 309(a) -03 -001
gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my
inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those
persons directly responsible for gathering the information, I certify
that the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and
belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are
significant penalties for submitting false information, including
the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations."
The information requested herein must be provided notwithstanding its possible
characterization as confidential business information or trade secrets. EPA has
promulgated regulations to protect the confidentiality of the business information
it receives. These regulations are set forth in Part 2, subpart B of Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations. A claim of business confidentiality may be asserted
in the manner specified by 40 C.F.R. Part 2, subpart B. If no such claim
accompanies the business information at the time EPA receives it, EPA may make
it available to the public without further notice.
2. All requirements to submit information to EPA set forth in this Order are not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the
Paperwork Reduction Act because this Order is not an "information collection
request" within the meaning of 44 U.S.C. §§ 3502(4) and (11), 3507, 3512, and
3518. Furthermore, this Order is exempt from OMB review under the Paperwork
Reduction Act because it is directed to fewer than ten persons and is part of an
exempt investigation. 44 U.S.C. §§ 3502(4) and (11), 3518(1); 5 C.F.R. §§
1320.5(a), 1324.5(x)(2).
3. This Order is not a permit under the Act, and does not relieve the City of any
obligations imposed by the Act or any other law, regulation or permit, and does
not foreclose further enforcement action.
This Order shall become effective upon signature.
Alexis Strauss
Director, Water Division
Page 6 of 6
t • U-Vr�
r
� _r {p'_S '•;�� ` It . �1
,
r;
-r
CAN
t
y
CII
ca
If
Ito
-' ~3
OW
I
'';i.,b;. ' �,.. £ + ,� s , .�•�,., `:,' --fir -� I
r1 I
I s _
� V
Management Plan Outline
Page 8 of 9
Attachment 2
Mitigation Monitoring Plan For the Lower Kern River Mitigation Project, September 2004
Lower Kern River Mitigation Project - Draft Management Plan
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
For the Lower
Kern River Mitigation Project
Prepared for
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, California 94105
Contact: Wilson Yee
415/972 -3484
In Coordination with:
The City of Bakersfield
1000 Buena Vista Road
Bakersfield, California 93311
Contact: Stuart Patteson, PE
661/326 -3049
Prepared by:
Jones & Stokes
2600 V Street
Sacramento, California 95818 -1914
Contact: Karen Leone
916/737 -3000
September 2004
Jones & Stokes. 2004. Mitigation Monitoring Plan for the Lower Kern River
Mitigation Project. September. City of Bakersfield, California. Draft. (J &S
00451.07.) Sacramento, CA. Prepared for the City of Bakersfield, Water
Resources Department.
Contents
Page
Tables....................................................................... ............................... ii
Figures...................................................................... ............................... ii
1.0 Introduction .......................................................... ..............................1
2.0 Background ......................................................... ..............................2
3.0 Monitoring Program ............................................. ..............................2
3.1 Maintenance Inspections ............................... ..............................3
3.2 Performance Monitoring ................................. ..............................4
3.2.1 Performance Standards and Success Criteria .....................4
3.2.2 Miscellaneous Data Collection .............. ..............................7
3.3 Reporting ....................................................... ..............................7
4.0 Completion of the Mitigation Monitoring Program ..............................7
5.0 Contingency Measure .......................................... ..............................7
Mitigation Monitoring Plan September 2004
For the Lower Kern River Mitigation Project i
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Tables and Figures
Page
Table 1a. Performance Standards, Success Criteria, and
Monitoring Methods for Enhanced Open Water Habitat ......................5
Table 1 b. Performance Standards, Success Criteria, and
Monitoring Methods for Enhanced Seasonal Wetland
Habitat................................................................. ............................... 5
Table 1c. Performance Standards, Success Criteria, and
Monitoring Method for Created Seasonal Wetland
Habitat.................................................................. ..............................6
Figure 1 Regional Location Kern River Mitigation Site ...
Figure 2 Site Location Map ............. ...............................
Figure 3 Mitigation Area Habitats (2003) Aerial Photo ...
Figure 4 Photo Stations Mitigation Area .........................
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
For the Lower Kern River Mitigation Project
Follows Page
.......................1
.......................2
.......................2
.......................3
September 2004
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
1.0 Introduction
This Mitigation Monitoring Plan for the Lower Kern River Mitigation Project,
Bakersfield, California, has been prepared by the City of Bakersfield (City) at the
request of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 9.
The EPA has requested that a Mitigation Monitoring Plan be prepared for the
Lower Kern River Mitigation Project (Figure 1) that describes the monitoring
methodology, by parameter, which will be used to collect data to assess the
success of the project against incremental performance standards and final
success criteria.
This Mitigation Monitoring Plan contains the following sections:
1. Introduction — describes the sections of the Mitigation Monitoring Plan;
2. Background — provides context for the need for the Lower Kern River
Mitigation Project;
3. Monitoring Program - describes the two components of the monitoring
program (i.e., maintenance inspections and performance monitoring of
enhanced open water and seasonal wetland habitat, and created seasonal
wetland habitat), performance standards and success criteria, monitoring
schedule, monitoring methodology, and reporting requirements;
4. Completion of the Mitigation Monitoring Program — describes the process
for notifying the EPA that final success criteria have been met and receiving
confirmation from the EPA that this is the case; and
5. Contingency Measure — describes a plan of action if the mitigation site does
not meet the final success criteria at the conclusion of the 5 -year performance
monitoring.
Mitigation Monitoring Plan September 2004
For the Lower Kern River Mitigation Project 1
t � F8u;)
c
t o
ca
_2)
./
- b'c
66 A8MLAH a1e3S
I -
I
i I �
I
._r
U)
N - peon elsln euen8 _ o
c
co
o
m
c \
m \\
j
i
c m
o=
c�
O, oc
0
LL J
c0 2Y)
c +_'
O
•� L
LL
V)
N
C
/el
li
/
Y
a�
cu
U
U
U)
N
I
._r
U)
N - peon elsln euen8 _ o
c
co
o
m
c \
m \\
j
i
c m
o=
c�
O, oc
0
LL J
c0 2Y)
c +_'
O
•� L
LL
V)
N
C
/el
li
/
Y
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
2.0 Background
The City of Bakersfield (City) is currently implementing environmental
mitigation to offset loss of jurisdictional waters of the United States (including
wetlands), as defined under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The City has
undertaken the mitigation in response to an Administrative Order (Docket No.:
CWA —404- 309[a] —03 -001) issued pursuant to Section 309(a) of the CWA by
the EPA, Region 9. The Administrative Order concerns discharges of dredged
and fill material to the Kern River at two locations:
■ Near the Golden State Highway crossing of the Kern River (November 2000
to January 2001); and
■ Near the Stockdale Highway crossing of the Kern River (January 2002 to
May 2002).
The EPA determined that five acres of jurisdictional habitat were permanently
lost as a result of the City's construction activities at these two locations. To
mitigate for the loss of jurisdictional habitat, the EPA required that the City
provide a 2:1 compensatory mitigation package of "in- kind" restoration and
preservation in perpetuity, for a total of ten acres of waters of the United States.
The site proposed for this mitigation includes the Kern River channel and flood
plain from the Calloway Weir to the Golden State Highway Bridge (Figure 2).
Because the naturally - occurring seasonal wetland acreage is approximately half -
an -acre less than needed to satisfy the EPA requirement of 10 acres of
jurisdictional area, the City is in the process of creating an additional 1.46 acres
of seasonal wetland, as shown in Figure 3, to address this deficit.
Upon EPA approval of the final design drawings, the City created the seasonal
wetland mitigation in 2005. A portion of the mitigation seasonal wetland
implemented on the north bank was lost from erosion due to emergency Kern
River flow releases mandated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers during the
spring and summer of 2006. The City and the EPA have met in the field to
discuss next steps related to replacing the lost mitigation and design efforts are
underway to expand the seasonal wetland mitigation in the southwestern and
southeastern corners of the mitigation site to meet mitigation acreage
requirements.
3.0 Monitoring Program
The monitoring program for the Lower Kern River Mitigation Project includes
two components: 1) maintenance inspections of the mitigation site and 2)
performance monitoring of enhanced open water habitat, enhanced seasonal
wetland habitat, and created seasonal wetland habitat. (In addition to the
enhanced or created mitigation habitats listed above, the City has also created
upland/willow riparian habitat. Although not required by the EPA's
Administrative Order, the City has created the upland/willow riparian habitat to
buffer and protect the enhanced and created mitigation and provide increased
overall function of the mitigation site. The created upland/willow riparian habitat
Mitigation Monitoring Plan September 2004
For the Lower Kern River Mitigation Project 2
24
7
IT - B AA E
24
Figure 2
Jones & Stokes Site Location Map
(Source: USGS Topographic Map, Oildale Quadrangle)
W9
ar
24
7
IT - B AA E
24
Figure 2
Jones & Stokes Site Location Map
(Source: USGS Topographic Map, Oildale Quadrangle)
.�'
b
C11
r
•
at e
Legend
M Open Water Habitat
Q Seasonal Marsh
Jones & Stokes
Y.
Figure 3
Mitigation Area Habitats
(2003) Aerial Photo
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
is not subject to agency approved performance standards and success criteria;
therefore, monitoring of the created upland/willow riparian habitat is not part of
this formal monitoring program.)
The components of the monitoring program will be implemented for five years
once mitigation construction has been completed at the mitigation site. The
entire mitigation site will be monitored for both components using a full - census
approach rather than a representative monitoring transect approach because of the
site's easy accessibility, small size, and limited complexity. Evaluating the entire
site will provide a more robust assessment of the mitigation's progress toward
meeting the performance standards and final success criteria.
3.1 Maintenance Inspections
The mitigation site will be inspected for necessary repairs or remedial measures a
minimum of twice a year during the 5 -year performance- monitoring period. A
qualified restoration specialist or biologist and City staff representative will
conduct the inspections. Maintenance - related site visits will be conducted in the
spring and fall. As a result of maintenance inspections, the following non -
inclusive list of maintenance activities may be undertaken by the City as
necessary to ensure compliance with the Project's performance standards and
success criteria:
■ Site reconfiguring. Unseasonably high Kern River flows in the spring and
summer of 2006 eroded many of the mitigation plantings on the north bank.
The City is reevaluating the stability of this location for mitigation, and in
consultation with the EPA and the City's environmental consultant, is
revising the final design drawings to expand mitigation plantings in the
southwestern and southeastern corners of the mitigation site.
• Replanting of plant materials, including pole cuttings and/or plugs.
• Reseeding.
■ Vegetation removal of undesirable, exotic species (e.g., water hyacinth,
Russian thistle, black mustard, giant reed, tamarisk, and castor bean). Exotic
plant species removal techniques may include hand removal, spray
application of an herbicide approved for use in aquatic areas (e.g., Rodeo),
and/or mechanical removal. No burning, mowing, or grazing is proposed as
part of exotic plant species removal.
■ Implementation of erosion control measures.
■ Trash and debris removal.
■ Vector /mosquito abatement personnel will be allowed access to the
mitigation site to monitor and control mosquito populations as necessary.
Mitigation Monitoring Plan September 2004
For the Lower Kern River Mitigation Project 3
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
3.2 Performance Monitoring
Performance monitoring will be conducted annually. A qualified restoration
specialist or biologist will conduct the performance monitoring. Performance
monitoring of the enhanced and created seasonal wetland habitat will be
conducted in the spring (i.e., May /June), at the time of year that plant species are
most easily identifiable. Performance monitoring of the enhanced open water
habitat will be conducted in late winter /early spring (e.g., February or March) to
document the presence of wetland hydrology where applicable.
Aerial photography of the mitigation site should be flown annually during the
monitoring program to provide an accurate mapping base for field data
collection. The aerial photography should be flown during the preceding year in
early fall and at a height that allows hardcopy reproduction of 1 -inch equals 50
feet or other appropriate mapping scale. The aerial photography will be used in
the analysis of vegetative cover, wildlife use, and mitigation acreage.
3.2.1 Performance Standards and Success Criteria
As defined in this Mitigation Monitoring Plan, a performance standard is a
measure of a habitat characteristic that is used to assess the progress of a habitat
toward meeting a success criterion. Performance standards are applied to the
first 4 years of the performance monitoring. As defined in this Mitigation
Monitoring Plan, a success criterion is a measure against which a habitat
characteristic is assessed to determine whether the goals of the mitigation have
been met. (The goals of the mitigation have been presented in the previously
prepared Mitigation and Monitoring Plan for the Project.) Success criteria are
applied at the end of the performance- monitoring period, in year 5.
Mitigation performance standards and success criteria are presented below in
Tables 1 a through 1 c.
Mitigation Monitoring Plan September 2004
For the Lower Kern River Mitigation Project 4
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Table 1a. Performance Standards, Success Criteria, and Monitoring Methods for Enhanced Open Water
Habitat
Parameter Performance Standard Success Criteria Monitoring Method
Percent water hyacinth
vegetation cover —
maximum absolute
vegetation cover.
Wildlife use - mammal
and bird species observed
in the vicinity of the
mitigation site during
monitoring.
Years 1 -4: 10%
Years 1 -4: No
performance standard
specified; however, trends
toward increasing wildlife
use will be regarded as an
indicator of overall
improvement of habitat
quality.
Year 5: 5% Visual estimation.
Year 5: No success
criteria specified;
however, trends toward
increasing wildlife use
will be regarded as an
indicator of overall
improvement of habitat
quality.
Visual observation.
Table 1b. Performance Standards, Success Criteria, and Monitoring Methods for Enhanced Seasonal
Wetland Habitat
Parameter Performance Standard Success Criteria Monitoring Method
Percent exotic /weedy
vegetation cover —
maximum absolute
vegetation cover.
Wildlife use - mammal
and bird species observed
in the area during
monitoring.
Years 1 -4: 10%
Years 1 -4: No
performance standard
specified; however,
trends toward increasing
wildlife use will be
regarded as an indicator
of overall improvement
of habitat quality.
Year 5:5% Visual estimation.
Year 5: No success
criteria specified;
however, trends toward
increasing wildlife use
will be regarded as an
indicator of overall
improvement of habitat
quality.
Visual observation.
Mitigation Monitoring Plan September 2004
For the Lower Kern River Mitigation Project 5
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Table 1c. Performance Standards, Success Criteria, and Monitoring Method for Created Seasonal
Wetland Habitat
Parameter Performance Standard Success Criteria Monitoring Method
Percent vegetation cover - Year 1: 30% Year 5: 80% Visual estimation.
minimum absolute percent Year 2: 55%
vegetation cover. Year 3: 70 %
Year 4: 80 %
Percent cover by
Year 1: 50% Year 5: 75% Visual estimation.
hydrophytes - minimum
Year 2: 55%
relative percent vegetation
Year 3: 60%
cover consisting of
Year 4: 70%
hydrophytes, as indicated by
parameter.
facultative, facultative wet,
soil probe to determine
or obligate wetland species.
Invasive species - maximum Years 1 -4: 5% Year 5: 5% Visual estimation.
relative percent vegetation
cover comprised of
undesirable, exotic species
(e.g., water hyacinth,
Russian thistle, black
mustard, giant reed,
tamarisk, and castor bean).
Hydrology - either soil
Years 1 -4: Progressing
Year 5: 100%
Visual observation of
saturation within the root
toward hydrological
inundation and/or use of
zone (up to 12 inches from
parameter.
soil probe to determine
the soil surface) or
depth of saturation.
inundated, for a minimum
of 21 consecutive days
during the growing season.
Wildlife use - wildlife
Years 1 -4: No
Year 5: No success
Visual observation.
species observed in marshes
performance standard
criteria specified;
during monitoring.
specified; however, trends
however, trends toward
toward increasing wildlife
increasing wildlife use
use will be regarded as an
will be regarded as an
indicator of overall
indicator of overall
improvement of habitat
improvement of habitat
quality.
quality.
Acreage - minimum extent
Years 1 -4: acreage
Year 5: 1.46 acres.
Determine based on
of area that meets the
progressing toward the
visual estimation of
vegetation and hydrology
success criteria.
vegetation and
performance
hydrology.
standards /success criteria
above.
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
September 2004
For the Lower Kern River Mitigation
Project
6
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
3.2.2 Miscellaneous Data Collection
In addition to the monitoring methods described in Tables 1 a through 1 c,
permanent photographic documentation stations will be established to provide a
ground -level graphic representation of the mitigation site (Figure 4). These
photographic stations will be located using GPS coordinates and marked so that
the photographs are taken in the same orientation each year during the 5 -year
performance monitoring program, allowing for year -to -year comparisons.
3.3 Reporting
An annual monitoring report will be prepared by the City for each year of the 5-
year monitoring period and will be submitted to the EPA within three months
after completion of monitoring activities. Annual monitoring reports will contain
an analysis of attainment of annual performance standards and progress toward
meeting final success criteria. The annual monitoring report will provide names,
titles, and affiliation of persons conducting the monitoring and preparing the
report, photographs taken at permanent photographic documentation stations,
data collection sheets, and relevant maps. The annual monitoring report will also
include observed problems with the mitigation site, the monitor's concerns and
recommended corrective actions, and a description of how previous corrective
actions were addressed and if they have been resolved.
4.0 Completion of the Mitigation Monitoring
Program
The City will notify the EPA in conjunction with submittal of the annual
monitoring report, when success criteria for the mitigation site have been met. A
map of the areas meeting the success criteria will be furnished with the annual
monitoring report. Based on a site visit, the EPA will confirm that the mitigation
site has met the success criteria and will provide the City with written
confirmation that its mitigation obligations have been met, assuming some
ongoing maintenance work (e.g., trash and debris removal).
5.0 Contingency Measure
At the end of the 5 -year performance monitoring, if success criteria have not
been met over the required 10 acres, the City's environmental consultant will
submit to the EPA an analysis of the cause or failure. If determined necessary by
the EPA, the City will propose remedial action for any deficit. If it can be
determined from performance monitoring data that a sufficient acreage will not
be enhanced or created by the end of the performance monitoring period,
additional acreage may need to be created.
Mitigation Monitoring Plan September 2004
For the Lower Kern River Mitigation Project 7
Figure 4
(tines &, Stakes Photo Stations
Mitigation Area
I
Management Plan Outline
Page 9 of 9
Attachment 3
Mitigation Area As -Built
Lower Kern River Mitigation Project - Draft Management Plan
a U)
w —i LLI
(n D
m 0
Y ( w n
<
0 LL W
R
tIC—)
5 04
LU
< co
< Lu 2
LU >
w
< z 0
Z �
OZ
!Q 0
(D
Z
0
C)
Im
1•
16
.* J.
M.
LL
cn
w
Ir
L)
ui
L:l
LU
U)
Z
O
O
Z
LU
LU
Y L'
W LU
0
Z
W n-
LLJ o