HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 113-83COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 113-83
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAKERS-
FIELD DECLARING IT HAS REVIEWED, EVALUATED AND
CONSIDERED THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE FINAL
EIR FOR THE 2,800-ACRE GROUNDWATER RECHARGE
FACILITY ALONG THE KERN RIVER FOR THE CITY OF
BAKERSFIELD, MAKING FINDINGS, AND CERTIFYING THAT
SAID FINAL EIR HAS BEEN COMPLETED IN COMPLIANCE
WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT,
THE STATE EIR GUIDELINES AND CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 60-80.
WHEREAS, it is proposed that the City of Bakersfield develop
a water spreading and extraction program on portions of 2,760
acres located in and adjacent to the Kern River floodplain
between Renfro Road and Interstate Highway 5;
and
WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report on said proposal
was prepared by the City of Bakersfield under contract with a
consultant, circulated and distributed in accordance with the
requirement of law and applicable regulations, the distribution
list being included in the Comments and Responses to the Draft
Impact Report;
Environmental
and
WHEREAS,
public and private agencies and individuals submitted
written comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report, as
listed in the Comments and Responses;
and
WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held and conducted
by and before the City of Bakersfield Planning Commission in
accordance with the procedures required by City Resolution 60-80,
on April 21, 1983, at which hearing the public was entitled to
comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report;
and
-2-
WHEREAS, the City has responded in writing to all significant
points raised by the public and private agencies and individuals
in the review and public hearing process, and the Final Environ-
mental Impact Report, consisting of the Draft Environmental Impact
Report, comments and recommendations received on the Draft Environ-
mental Impact Report, including a list of persons or organizations
and public agencies commenting on the Draft and the responses of
the City as aforesaid has been completed by the Development Services
Department and placed on the Agenda of the Regular Meeting of the
Planning Commission on August 18, 1983 for evaluation and consider-
ation by said Commission;
and
WHEREAS, at said meeting on August 18, 1983, the Planning
Commission evaluated and considered the Final Environmental Impact
Report by its Resolution No. 53-83, adopted August 18, 1983,
recommended to the City Council that the Final EIR be certified
as completed in compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act, the State EIR Guidelines and City of Bakersfield
Resolution No. 60-80;
and
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Bakersfield, on the basis
of the 2,800-Acre Groundwater Recharge Facility EIR identifies a
number of significant or potentially significant effects associated
with the approval of the recommended 2,800-Acre Groundwater
Recharge Facility along the Kern River for the City of Bakersfield;
and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act requires
one or more of the following findings as to each significant
effect:
(1)
Changes or alternations have been required in,
or incorporated into, the project which miti-
gate or avoid the significant environmental
effects thereof as identified in the Final
EIR.
-3-
(2)
Such changes or alterations are within the re-
sponsibility and jurisdiction of another
public agency and not the agency making the
finding. Such changes have been adopted by
such other agency or can and should be adopted
by such other agency.
(3)
Specific economic, social, or other consider-
ations make infeasible the mitigation measures
or project alternatives identified in the
Final EIR;
and
WHEREAS, such findings are supported by substantial evidence
in the record summarized for each identified significant or
potentially significant effect, below, accompanied by a statement
of the facts supporting each finding:
NATIVE VEGETATION/ANIMAL HABITAT: The Mesquite-Saltbush
Savannah is a critically endangered California plant and
animal community. Proposed Basins 4, 5, 11 and 12
contain the best examples and have the greatest diver-
sity of plant species and together with additional
examples in proposed Basins 6 and 7 comprise 480 of
prime animal habitat. The project would use 380 acres
for spreading purposes thereby retaining only 100 acres
(or 21%) from flooding at higher elevations. Flooding
is estimated to occur approximately 25 percent of the
time which may adversely affect the maintenance and
continued viability of this plant association.
Findings and Application. Finding (1), above, applies
to the potential adverse effect of basin preparation,
flooding, and basin maintenance on the Mesquite-Salt-
bush Community in Basins 4,5,6,7,11 and 12 compris-
ing approximately 380 acres. Finding (3) also
applies to the same areas in the event that all adverse
environmental effects are not mitigated through the
actions identified in support of Finding (1), below.
Supporting Facts: The following actions are recommended
as mitigation measures in support of Finding (1):
Portions of Basins 4 and 5 comprising 115 acres
will be retained in its present condition. No
water spreading or other facilities will be
developed on this area which will preserve
approximately 45 acres of the Mesquite-Saltbush
Community. The City of Bakersfield will
cooperate with local, State and National
interests in the development of an Ecological
Preserve on the 115 acres which may be combined
with a non-spreading area of approximately 20
acres south of Basin 3 for an ultimately larger
preserve. The preserve may provide opportunities
for serious individual and group nature study.
-4-
Other areas within the 1,223 acres not intended
within the City-owned project area for water
recharge development contain examples of the
Mesquite-Saltbush Community which will be
preserved and through proper management and
restoration could be developed into a viable,
representative Mesquite-Saltbush habitat. In
particular, the area southwest of the Southern
Pacific Railroad and north of the Kern River
has potential for restoration.
The following management measures will apply
within the development of basin areas in order
to minimize disruption of natural vegetation:
(1)
Diking and topsoil grading would be done in
such a way that there is minimal damage to
woody vegetation such as mesquite, cotton-
wood, and saltbushes.
(2)
Scraping of riparian vegetation along the
banks of river channels and marsh areas
would be avoided where possible.
(3)
Annual flooding of basins would be managed
so that certain basins would be designated
to be filled as often as possible to
enhance the continuity of marsh habitat.
(4) Vehicular access to the project area would
be limited by fencing and patrols.
(5) Sheep grazing would be prohibited.
(6) Hunting and firewood cutting within the
project area would be prohibited.
(7)
Long term access for educational field
trips by organized community and educational
units would be provided.
In order to minimize significant displacement of
animal populations and habitat utilization during
basin reconditioning the following procedures
will apply:
(i)
Reconditioning of basins would occur indi-
vidually on an "as needed" basis and coordi-
nated to avoid disrupting breeding or nesting
activities.
(2)
Precautions will be taken to reduce the
destruction of vegetation in shallow shore-
line areas in consultation with wildlife
management, health officials and mosquito
abatement experts.
Silt deposits removed from project basins will not
be used or disposed of in a manner which would
adversely affect or cover additional habitat areas.
The following statement is in support of Finding
(3), above:
-5-
So
It is recognized that a larger ecological preserve
could be established either as a mitigation measure
or alternative action (i.e., less intensive project)
in order to preserve more or all of the 480 acres
of prime Mesquite-Saltbush Savannah. However, the
EIR indicates that Basins 4 and 5 have the greatest
groundwater recharge potential and their loss
would result in the project not achieving its
objective. Therefore, the importance of Basins 4
and 5 to the entire project make infeasible the
proposed mitigation measures and project alterna-
tives recommended by both conservation groups
(Nature Conservancy, Native Plant Society, Wild-
life Watch - Wildlife Research), individuals and
agencies (State Department of Fish and Game and
Kern County Planning Department) identified in the
EIR, Comments and Responses (August 9, 1983).
RARE AND ENDANGERED PLANT SPECIES: Three rare and/or
endangered plant species may inhabit the project area and
one U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) candidate
plant species (Lasthenia leptalea, goldfields) has been
identified in the project area (February-April, 1982).
Cirsium Crassicaula (Slough Thistle), Erigonum gossy-
pinum (Cottony Buckwheat) and Atriplex Vallicola (Lost
~11s Saltbush) habitat has been reported throughout
the area. Early season (1982 and 1983) field surveys
may not have been sufficient to verify the non-existence
of the three species.
Findings and Application: Finding (1), above, applies
to the potential adverse effect of destroying rare and/
or endangered plant species.
Supporting Facts: When conditions permit and are
considered to be optimum by qualified biological
expertise, an additional field survey will be made to
search for and document locations within proposed basin
areas for the above four rare and/or endangered plant
species. If such are found, mitigation measures will
be taken to preserve them.
RARE AND ENDANGERED ANIMALS: Four Rare and Endangered
animal species have been sighted in or are identified
with the dry Mesquite-Saltbush plant community which
will be significantly affected by the project. The
San Joaquin Antelope Squirrel and the Giant Kangaroo
Rat are listed as Rare and Endangered, respectively, by
the State of California. The San Joaquin Kit Fox and
San Joaquin Blunt-Nosed Leopard Lizard are listed as
endangered animals by both Federal and State sources.
The loss of prime dry mesquite habitat could displace
12 to 16 Kit Fox and up to 250 Leopard Lizards based
on density surveys for similar habitat in the Bakers-
field area. While some wildlife is expected to move to
and adapt to other portions of the City-owned property
not scheduled for spreading operations (i.e., 1,223
acres including the 115-acre ecological preserve
incorporating a remnant dry Mesquite-Saltbush
Community), there may be a loss of some habitat and
animals surviving on that area.
-6-
and
Do
Findings and Application: Finding (1), above, applies
to the potential loss of 380 acres of permanent habitat
by the development of Basins 4,5,6,7,11, and 12 and
intermittent flooding (up to 25% of the time) of
Mesquite-Saltbush Savannah vegetation. Finding (3)
also applies to the same areas in the event that adverse
environmental effects are not mitigated through the
actions supporting Finding (1), below.
Supporting Facts: The same actions (1 through 5) repre-
senting mitigation for the loss of Native Vegetation/
Animal Habitat (Mesquite-Saltbush Savannah), above,
apply in support of Finding (1) in recognition that
all references to habitat loss also apply to loss of
Rare and Endangered Animals. The same statement pro-
vided above in support of Finding (3) for the loss of
Native Vegetation/Animal Habitat applies to the loss or
potential loss of Rare and Endangered Animals.
HUMAN HEALTH: Five species of mosquitoes Occur
frequently within the designated spreading area includ-
ing Culex tarsalis -the encephalitis mosquito- and Aedes
melanimon, Anopheles freeboni - the western malaria
mosquito. The potential for disease spreading is impor-
tant because of existing and future homes in the area.
Residential subdivisions consisting of single family
homes have been recently constructed and additional
tracts approved approximately 1-1/2 miles to the east
near the Kern River in the City of Bakersfield. A
gradual 4:1 slope is conducive for vegetative growth
which would impede water movement within the water's
edge thereby creating optimum conditions for mosquito
production and providing shelter for immature mosquitoes
from predators. The practice of alternate flooding and
drying also enhances vegetative growth on shallow slopes.
Findings and Application: Finding (1), above, applies
the potential for mosquito propagation and the spread
of disease to human populations.
to
Supporting Facts: The City will perform periodic vegeta-
tion control and basin dewatering. Mosquito control
measures should be performed by the Kern Mosquito Abate-
ment District. The top width of levees will be adequate
for passage of maintenance vehicles.
ARCHAELOGICAL RESOURCES: The creation of 1,200 acres of
basins will require significant grading and scraping
which could uncover archaelogical resources.
Findings and Application: Finding (1), above, applies
to all areas for which grading or scraping is necessary.
Supporting Facts: If archaelogical sites are discovered
during construction, work is to immediately cease and
an evaluation made by a cultural resources expert in
accord with Section 21083.2 of the Public Resources Code.
Construction may continue on other parts of the project
while an archaelogical investigation takes place.
-7-
WHEREAS, the City of Bakersfield Planning Commission on the
basis of the Findings and Statement of Facts finds that signifi-
cant environmental effects which may not be substantially miti-
gated to a level of insignificance include the potential loss
of remnant native vegetation (Mesquite-Saltbush Savannah) as
animal habitat and the concomitant potential loss of Rare and
Endangered Animals;
and
WHEREAS, the project objectives are to increase the rate of
groundwater recharge, augment groundwater storage and use avail-
able storage capacity for future extraction and use to reverse
the continuing overdraft of the groundwater basin, place water
in storage for use during drought periods, reduce energy expended
for extraction and through infiltration preserve water quality,
develop a management program to enhance remaining wildlife
resources and provide opportunity for public ecological study of
a unique resource for future citizens and visitors;
and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission found that the benefits
of the project outweigh the unavoidable remaining adverse environ-
mental effects sufficiently to declare the adverse environmental
effects of "acceptable" and to issue a Statement of Overriding
Considerations and the City Council concurs in such finding;
and
WHEREAS,
basis of the
the City of Bakersfield Planning Commission, on the
Findings and Statement of Facts, found and determined
that other significant environmental effects raised in the EIR
have been eliminated or substantially lessened and that any remain-
ing, unavoidable significant effects have been found acceptable on
the basis of specific economic, social or other considerations
including those described for a Statement of Overriding Considera-
tion, making additional mitigation or alternatives to the project
infeasible and that no significant adverse environmental effects
will result from the proposals, and the City Council concurs in
such finding;
and
-8-
NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD HEREBY
DETERMINES, FINDS AND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
1. The above findings and recitals are true and correct.
2. That the Final EIR dated August, 1983, including City
response as an appended document, has been reviewed, evaluated
and considered by the City Council.
3. That the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with
the California Environmental Quality Act, the State EIR Guidelines
and the City of Bakersfield Resolution 60-80.
4. That the said Final EIR is an accurate and objective
discussion of the proposed project and adequately discusses and
describes the environmental considerations and mitigation measures.
5. That the various alternatives to the project, including
"no project" have been considered in the Final EIR.
6. That in consideration of the above statements and find-
ings, that the Final EIR be and hereby is certified as complete,
with appended material including information contained in this
Resolution, and in compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act, the State EIR Guidelines and City of Bakersfield
Resolution 60-80.
.......... ooo ..........
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was
passed and adopted Dy the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a
regular meeting thereof held on the 24th day of August, 1983, by
the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: BARTON, ~9"l~'t~PL't'~f-~, MEANS, PAYNE, RAITY, ROCKOFF
~or~ c.~.~?~,L~_~r~, "~1'~.,~.~.. J--' o
ABSTA~N]tJG: COUNCILMEN: ~ ~
>;
CI~ CLERJ( and,, Ex officio Clerk of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
APPRO/~ this 24th day of August, 1983
MAYOR yhe Cit.~ of Bakersfield
APPROVED as to form:
CITY ATTOt%NEY of t'~e City of Bakersfield
DP/ld
8/19/83
RESOLUTION NO. 53-83
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD MAKING FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION BY THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT FOR A PROPOSED 2,800-ACRE
GROUNDWATER RECHARGE FACILITY ALONG THE
KERN RIVER FOR THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD.
WHEREAS, it is proposed that the City of Bakersfield develop
a water spreading and extraction program on portions of 2,760
acres located in and adjacent to the Kern River floodplain
between Renfro Road and Interstate Highway 5;
and
WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report on said proposal
was prepared by the City of Bakersfield under contract with a
consultant, circulated and distributed in accordance with the
requirement of law and applicable regulations, the distribution
list being included in the Comments and Responses to the Draft
Environmental Impact Report;
and
WHEREAS, public and private agencies and individuals submitted
written comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report, as
listed in the Comments and Responses;
and
WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held and conducted
by and before the City of Bakersfield Planning Commission in
accordance with the procedures required by City Resolution 60-80,
on April 21, 1983, at which hearing the public was entitled to
comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report;
and
-2-
WHEREAS, the City has responded in writing to all significant
points raised by the public and private agencies and individuals
in the review and public hearing process, and the Final Environ-
mental Impact Report, consisting of the Draft Environmental Impact
Report, comments and recommendations received on the Draft Environ-
mental Impact Report, including a list of persons or organizations
and public agencies commenting on the Draft and the responses of
the City as aforesaid has been completed by the Development Services
Department and placed on the Agenda of the Regular Meeting of the
Planning Commission on August 18, 1983 for evaluation and consider-
ation by said Commission;
and
WHEREAS, the City of Bakersfield Planning Commission, on the
basis of the 2,800-Acre Groundwater Recharge Facility EIR
identifies a number of significant or potentially significant
effects associated with the approval of the recommended 2,800-
Acre Groundwater Recharge Facility along the Kern River for the
City of Bakersfield;
and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act requires
one or more of the following findings as to each significant
effect:
(1)
(2)
(3)
Changes or alternations have been required in,
or incorporated into, the project which miti-
gate or avoid the significant environmental
effects thereof as identified in the Final
EIR.
Such changes or alterations are within the re-
sponsibility and jurisdiction of another
public agency and not the agency making the
finding. Such changes have been adopted by
such other agency or can and should be adopted
by such other agency.
Specific economic, social, or other consider-
ations make infeasible the mitigation measures
or project alternatives identified in the
Final EIR;
and
-3-
WHEREAS, such findings are supported by substantial evidence
in the record summarized for each identified significant or
potentially significant effect, below, accompanied by a statement
of the facts supporting each finding:
NATIVE VEGETATION/ANIMAL HABITAT: The Mesquite-Saltbush
Savannah is a critically endangered California plant and
animal community. Proposed Basins 4, 5, 11 and 12
contain the best examples and have the greatest diver-
sity of plant species and together with additional
examples in proposed Basins 6 and 7 comprise 480 of
prime animal habitat. The project would use 380 acres
for spreading purposes thereby retaining only 100 acres
(or 21%) from flooding at higher elevations. Flooding
is estimated to occur approximately 25 percent of the
time which may adversely affect the maintenance and
continued viability of this plant association.
Findings and Application. Finding (1), above, applies
to the potential adverse effect of basin preparation,
flooding and basin maintenance on the Mesquite-Salt-
bush Community in Basins 4,5,6,7,11 and 12 compris-
ing approximately 380 acres. Finding (3) also
applies to the same areas in the event that all adverse
environmental effects are not mitigated through the
actions identified in support of Finding (1), below.
Supporting Facts: The following actions are recommended
as mitigation measures in support of Finding (1) :
Portions of Basins 4 and 5 comprising 115 acres
will be retained in its present condition. No
water spreading or other facilities will be
developed on this area which will preserve
approximately 45 acres of the Mesquite-Saltbush
Community. The City of Bakersfield will
cooperate with local, State and National
interests in the development of an Ecological
Preserve on the 115 acres which may be combined
with a non-spreading area of approximately 20
acres south of Basin 3 for an ultimately larger
preserve. The preserve may provide opportunities
for serious individual and group nature study.
Other areas within the 1,223 acres not intended
within the City-owned project area for water
recharge development contain examples of the
Mesquite-Saltbush Community which will be
preserved and through proper management and
restoration could be developed into a viable,
representative Mesquite-Saltbush habitat. In
particular, the area southwest of the Southern
Pacific Railroad and north of the Kern River
has potential for restoration.
o
The following management measures will apply
within the development of basin areas in order
to minimize disruption of natural vegetation:
-4-
(1)
Diking and topsoil grading would be done in
such a way that there is minimal damage to
woody vegetation such as mesquite, cotton-
wood, and saltbushes.
(2)
Scraping of riparian vegetation along the
banks of river channels and marsh areas
would be avoided where possible.
(3)
Annual flooding of basins would be managed
so that certain basins would be designated
to be filled as often as possible to
enhance the continuity of marsh habitat.
(4) Vehicular access to the project area would
be limited by fencing and patrols.
5) Sheep grazing would be prohibited.
6) Hunting and firewood cutting within the
project area would be prohibited.
7)
Long term access for educational field
trips by organized community and educational
units would be provided.
In order to minimize significant displacement of
animal populations and habitat utilization during
basin reconditioning the following procedures
will apply:
(1)
Reconditioning of basins would occur indi-
vidually on an "as needed" basis and coordi-
nated to avoid disrupting breeding or nesting
activities.
(2)
Precautions will be taken to reduce the
destruction of vegetation in shallow shore-
line areas in consultation with wildlife
management, health officials and mosquito
abatement experts.
Silt deposits removed from project basins will not
be used or disposed of in a manner which would
adversely affect or cover additional habitat areas.
The following statement is in support of Finding
(3), above:
It is recognized that a larger ecological preserve
could be established either as a mitigation measure
or alternative action (i.e., less intensive project)
in order to preserve more or all of the 480 acres
of prime Mesquite-Saltbush Savannah. However, the
EIR indicates that Basins 4 and 5 have the greatest
groundwater recharge potential and their loss
would result in the project not achieving its
objective. Therefore, the importance of Basins 4
and 5 to the entire project make infeasible the
proposed mitigation measures and project alterna-
tives recommended by both conservation groups
(Nature Conservancy, Native Plant Society, Wild-
life Watch - Wildlife Research), individuals and
agencies (State Department of Fish and Game and
Kern County Planning Department) identified in the
EIR, Comments and Responses (August 9, 1983).
-5-
RARE AND ENDANGERED PLANT SPECIES: Three rare and/or
endangered plant species may inhabit the project area and
one U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) candidate
plant species (Lasthenia leptalea, goldfields) has been
identified in the project area (February-April, 1982).
Cirsium Crassicaula (Slough Thistle), Erigonum gossy-
inum (Cottony Buckwheat) and Atriplex Vallicola (Lost
Hll~ habitat has been reported throughout
Saltbush)
the area. Early season (1982 and 1983) field surveys
may not have been sufficient to verify the non-existence
of the three species.
Findings and Application: Finding (1), above, applies
to the potential adverse effect of destroying rare and/
or endangered plant species.
Supporting Facts: When conditions permit and are
considered to be optimum by qualified biological
expertise, an additional field survey will be made to
search for and document locations within proposed basin
areas for the above four rare and/or endangered plant
species. If such are found, mitigation measures will
be taken to preserve them.
RARE AND ENDANGERED ANIMALS: Four Rare and Endangered
animal species have been sighted in or are identified
with the dry Mesquite-Saltbush plant community which
will be significantly affected by the project. The
San Joaquin Antelope Squirrel and the Giant Kangaroo
Rat are listed as Rare and Endangered, respectively, by
the State of California. The San Joaquin Kit Fox and
San Joaquin Blunt-Nosed Leopard Lizard are listed as
endangered animals by both Federal and State sources.
The loss of prime dry mesquite habitat could displace
12 to 16 Kit Fox and up to 250 Leopard Lizards based
on density surveys for similar habitat in the Bakers-
field area. While some wildlife is expected to move to
and adapt to other portions of the City-owned property
not scheduled for spreading operations (i.e., 1,223
acres including the 115-acre ecological preserve
incorporating a remnant dry Mesquite-Saltbush
Community), there may be a loss of some habitat and
animals surviving on that area.
Findings and Application: Finding (1), above, applies
to the potential loss of 380 acres of permanent habitat
by the development of Basins 4,5,6,7,11, and 12 and
intermittent flooding (up to 25% of the time) of
Mesquite-Saltbush Savannah vegetation. Finding (3)
also applies to the same areas in the event that adverse
environmental effects are not mitigated through the
actions supporting Finding (1), below.
Supporting Facts: The same actions (1 through 5) repre-
senting mitigation for the loss of Native Vegetation/
Animal Habitat (Mesquite-Saltbush Savannah), above,
apply in support of Finding (1) in recognition that
all references to habitat loss also apply to loss of
Rare and Endangered Animals. The same statement pro-
vided above in support of Finding (3) for the loss of
Native Vegetation/Animal Habitat applies to the loss or
potential loss of Rare and Endangered Animals.
-6-
Do
HUMAN HEALTH: Five species of mosquitoes occur
frequently within the designated spreading area includ-
ing Culex tarsalis -the encephalitis mosquito- and Aedes
melanimon, Anopheles freeboni - the western malaria
mosquito. The potential for disease spreading is impor-
tant because of existing and future homes in the area.
Residential subdivisions consisting of single family
homes have been recently constructed and additional
tracts approved approximately 1-1/2 miles to the east
near the Kern River in the City of Bakersfield. A
gradual 4:1 slope is conducive for vegetative growth
which would impede water movement within the water's
edge thereby creating optimum conditions for mosquito
production and providing shelter for immature mosquitoes
from predators. The practice of alternate flooding and
drying also enhances vegetative growth on shallow slopes.
Findings and Application: Finding (1), above, applies
the potential for mosquito propagation and the spread
of disease to human populations.
to
Supporting Facts: The City will perform periodic vegeta-
tion control and basin dewatering. Mosquito control
measures should be performed by the Kern Mosquito Abate-
ment District. The top width of levees will be adequate
for passage of maintenance vehicles.
Eo
ARCHAELOGICAL RESOURCES: The creation of 1,200 acres of
basins will require significant grading and scraping
which could uncover archaelogical resources.
Findings and Application: Finding (1), above, applies
to all areas for which grading or scraping is necessary.
Supporting Facts: If archaelogical sites are discovered
during construction, work is to immediately cease and
an evaluation made by a cultural resources expert in
accord with Section 21083.2 of the Public Resources Code.
Construction may continue on other parts of the project
while an archaelogical investigation takes place.
and
WHEREAS, the City of Bakersfield Planning Commission on the
basis of the Findings and Statement of Facts finds that signifi-
cant environmental effects which may not be substantially miti-
gated to a level of insignificance include the potential loss
of remnant native vegetation (Mesquite-Saltbush Savannah) as
animal habitat and the concomitant potential loss of Rare and
Endangered Animals.
and
-7-
WHEREAS, the project objectives are to increase the rate of
groundwater recharge, augment groundwater storage and use avail-
able storage capacity for future extraction and use to reverse
the continuing overdraft of the groundwater basin, place water
in storage for use during drought periods, reduce energy expended
for extraction and through infiltration preserve water quality,
develop a management program to enhance remaining wildlife
resources and provide opportunity for public ecological study of
a unique resource for future citizens and visitors;
and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission finds the benefits
of the project outweigh the unavoidable remaining adverse environ-
mental effects sufficiently to declare the adverse environmental
effects of "acceptable" and to hereby issue a Statement of Over-
riding Considerations;
and
WHEREAS, the City of Bakersfield Planning Commission, on the
basis of the Findings and Statement of Facts, finds that other
significant environmental effects raised in the EIR have been
eliminated or substantially lessened and that any remaining,
unavoidable significant effects have been found acceptable on
the basis of specific economic, social or other considerations
including those described for a Statement of Overriding Considera-
tion, making additional mitigation or alternatives to the project
infeasible and that no significant adverse environmental effects
will result from the proposal;
and
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEREBY DETERMINES,
FINDS AND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
1. The above findings and recitals
2. That the Final EIR dated August,
response as an appended document, has been reviewed,
and considered by the Planning Commission.
are true and correct.
1983, including City
evaluated
-8-
3. That the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with
the California Environmental Quality Act, the State EIR Guidelines
and the City of Bakersfield Resolution 60-80.
4. That the said Final EIR is an accurate and objective
discussion of the proposed project and adequately discusses and
describes the environmental considerations and mitigation measures.
5. That the various alternatives to the project, including
"no project" have been considered in the Final EIR.
6. That in consideration of the above statements and find-
ings, the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that
the Final EIR be certified as complete, with appended material
including information contained in this Resolution, and in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the
State EIR Guidelines and City of Bakersfield Resolution 60-80.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and
adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Bakersfield at
the Regular Meeting thereof held on the 18th day of August, 1983,
by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Milazzo, Westra, Gallion,
Gronbeck, Rust, Redstone, Camp
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
DATED: August 18, 1983
PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF BAKERFIELD
DEW~~Y. iALES, Secretary
Planning Director
· 8/ ~¥,,83 Page 1!
Staff Repo~ t s .....
AGENDA ITbM #
7.)
CONSIDEPJd£ION OF FINAL EIR ON P,800-ACR£, GROUNDWATER Rn~HA~.GE
FACILITY ALONG THE ~.tJRN RIVER, CITY OF BAKERSFIELD.
P__ro_j~ct Description
The City of Bakersfield proposes to intensify its water spread-
ing and extraction prcgram on portions of 2,760 acres located
on and adjacent to the floodplain of the Kern River between
Renfro Road and Highway I-5. The plan is to develop 14
separate spreading basins for pertelation of Kern River,
Federal and State Water Project waters in order to reverse
the overdraft to the groundwater table. The prcject will
provide go~ater stabi!ihy for irriga~e~J agrlcul~ural appropria-
tion particularly during drought conditions. The City will
control both spreading and extraction by separate agreement
with eligioie water interests.
On the basis cf an !:~itial Study (July, ]982), a Draft
the env'~ronmental ~t ...... s cf the project. 1 t was distzhbutcd
in February, 1983 t3 State aI,d lee, a] acenc~es, _~nc}.u~lng Wager
~ ~* ~ ~ ~ ~ S Cor~ s cf ~ir?j~ne~?l-s c.n{~ ~.n~e]"e~ted part!.'s
~s8_. tO p~ov!d~ furtiler public Lnput.
Forty co~nents were received by the conclusion of the review
period on ~av 2. Comments aRd =:.~.pon~ . , ~n~.:.hc~]tt~ additio:a!
information, were compl~ted in Au%uszt by the consultant foz
Planning (l}mmissien consideration prior to pro?osed City
Cok!~lcii act'oN of th,~ '~IP e_'p,~q~'~-d by 2. ngu. st 24. The Draft
The project by its nature has the potential to perform several
hydrological functions: Pi_rst, it can reverse the current
overdraftlng of g£oend%~oter zesources by more ~han doubling
the present 600 acres ef spreading area (Kern River floodplain
and several basin areas) the pr_imary purpose of the project
viewed as ~ beneficial inNact. For comparison purposes, a
mathematical model was used to evaluate several potential
spread and reeevery pro9rams with a "no action" program.
Along with increasing the greundwater table, the project can
influence 'Lateral g~oundwate~ movement, surface flows and
deposition and extraction. A review of certain Initial Study
concerns aDO various comments provided hy water agencies
com~a:r. ed to the consultant responses *indicated thane no signi-
ficant adw~rse engineering or hydrologic effect should occur
· with the construction and operation of the project.
Staff Reports, PL/C, 8/18/83 Page 12
AGENDA ITEM
7.)
(2,800-Acre Groundwater Recharge Facility along Kern River
(continued)
Aside from the engineering aspects, the project, by requiring
the conversion of native vegetation to recharge ponds, has
the potential to produce significant environmental effects.
Tables were prepared and are available identifying various
potential adverse effects outlined both in the Initial Study
and public comments with EIR Response and proposed mitigation
to reduce the adverse impact whenever possible.
Loss of unique vegetation. The Mesquite-Saltbush Savannah
is a critically endangered California plant community and
a survey by Dr~ Tom Griggs of the Nature Conservancy
indicates that the city property tc be the only remaining
large parcel that is representative, viable and defensible
due to its proximity to the Kern River water table. Other
commentors indicated the possible presence of three rare
and endangered piana species in the project site (Page II~-
23, 45).
Basins 4-7 inclusive and i1 and 12 contain 480 acres of
this prime habitat. The project would use 380 acres
for spreading purposes thereby retaining only 100 acres
or 21 percent of the higher elevations. The Nature
Conservancy and Kern Native Plant Society recommended
mitigation by lowering the propcsed levees to Basins 4
and 5 to add 140 to 200 acres for a maximum ~00-acre
ecological preserve. The EIR Response finds that such
action would "result in the project not achieving its
objective" (Pages ~II-98, 99) since those basins also
represent the best percolation characteristics.. The EIR
Response further suggests the following mitigation to
the loss of approximately 280 acres of prime mesquite
habitat ~n Basins ~ and ~.
Establish preserve status for other mesquite
con, unities in the 1,223 acres outside the spreading
basins. The vegeta%ion survey by Dr. Maynard Moe
did not cover these areas to determine the extent of
resources; however, Nature Conservancy identified
the area north of the Kern River west of the SP
Railroad which "could become a representative
example" %¢ith proper management and habitat restora-
tion. (Page II-59). The 1,223 acres will not be
included ~n spreading agreements (Pa~es III-i01).
Staff Reports, PL/C, 8/18/83 Page 13
AGENDA ITEM #
7.)
(2,800-Acre Groundwater Recharge Facility along Kern River)
(continued)
Basins 4 and 5 would be left dry periodically
(total flooding estimated at 25 percent of the
time) to attempt to preserve the Mesquite-Saltbush
insofar as practible. The Draft EIR (P. 98) out-
lines requirements for minimal disturbance to
vegetation within basins. It has not been deter-
whether mesquite vegetation as well as other rare
plants would survive under 25 percent flooding
conditions.
City will perform a botanical survey when conditions
permit to determine presence of Rare and Endangered
]preserve them.
condizions for the San Joaquin Kit Fox and Blunt-nosed
Leopazd I,i~rd. No bie]c:{rJ. ca] satvol was performed
under optimum summer conditions when auima!s are most
active in order to establish oo~ulations teca~ .... of
natural riooeing conui't~ons in i983. Reference ~o
another study evaluating other similar habitat indicated
the basin areas ma~ ....... ]2 to 16 Kit Fox and
approxi~.ately 250 3~>o~arC Lizards. No specific m~tiga-
tion ]_~.~s h~- "
~, ~ ~ ~e.n r3roncsec~; however, an ecological preserve,
f~S prC.?o~-':2d, Cf a},u~c'.'~m~eiv 120 acres ~nclud]ng
app~oximaeci'~ 45 ac~es el prime dryland mesquite) moy
absorb disp]ac ~d an{reals.
The above two environmental impacts, may not be sufficiently
mitigated to reduce the effects tc. a level of insignificance.
Therefore, the loss of unique vegetation and habitat and
possible loss <3f some animals determined to be rare and
endangered are impacts which may be evaluated against the
beneficial aspects of the project in consideration of
issuing a Statement of overriding Considerations - CEQA
Section 15093.
Staff Reports, PL/C, 8/18/83 Page 14
AGENDA ITEM #
7.)
(2,800-Acre Groundwater Recharge Facility along Kern River)
(continued)
Other Project Concerns. The Kern County Planning Department
(Page II~-27) felt tilat basin reconditioning may displace
animal populations and habitat patterns. The consultant
indicated (Page IIi-27) that recondit.~oning should be
coordinated to avoid the disruption of breeding or nesting
activities with the assistance of wildlife management consul-
tation. Vegetation ].ess i? shoreline areas will be minimized.
At the same time both the Kern County Health Department and
Kern Mosquito Abatement District are concerned over gradual
levee slopes which will enhance ve~3etation growth and provide
optimum conditions for mosquito breeding including the
encephalitis mosquito (Pages tlI-30, 31). The City expects
to have mosquito control performed by the Kern Mosquito
Abatement District {Page III-28). In the event that a pre-
historic or archaelogical site is discovered during construc-
tion, work will cease until the site is evaluated by cultural
resource experts.
Recommended Action
Motion to recommend approval ant certification of the Final EIR,
including mitigation measures for identified project effects
and the issuance of a Statement of Overriding Considerations
to the City Council.
EXCERPT OF PLANflING COMMISSION MINUIES HELD AUGUST 18, 1983
ll.
ADOPTION OF PLANNINC
A letter was received from the Kern County Water Agency, stating they do
not agree with the Bookman-Edmonston report on March 4, 1983, that
spreading operations by the City in the spreading area have not and will
not adversely affec~ or cause damage to the Cross Valley Canal, however
they are satisfied with the assurance of the City of Bakersfield Director
of Water Resources that the City will cooperate with Ehe Agency in the
construction and operation of Basin No. 8 in order to alleviate and
eliminate the concerns they expressed in the initial response.
Commissioner Redstone made the motion to waive the reading of the staff
report. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Gallion and carried.
On motion by Commissioner Gallion, seconded by Commissioner Milazzo,
Commission recommended approval and certification of the Final EIR,
including mitigation measures for identified project effects and the
issuance of a Statement of Overriding Considerations to the City Council
by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
Commissioners Milazzo, Gallion, Gronb£ck, Redstone,
Rust, Westra, Camp
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
RESOURCE
TABLE l: POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECTS IDENTIFIED IN THE INITIAL STUDY, THE
RESPONSE AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES: 2,800-ACRE GROUNDWATER RECHARGE PROJECT
IDENTIFIED EFFECT
EIR RESPONSE
MITIGATION
1. EARTH
2. WATER
3. PLANT LIFE
Confining portions of the river to the primary
floodplain may affect amount of deposition
sediment in the main channel. (1.f.)
Withdrawals from the Kern River to flood
spreading ponds may reduce the amount of water
reaching downstream environs.
The amount of water available for plant life
will increase as a result of the spreading
ponds. Plants tolerant to wet environments
will replace some members of the existing
plant species.
Unique plant communities existing on the
the site may be damaged as a result of site
preparation and flooding.
"Deposition of sediments behind the
levees in Basin "A" should not cause
a significant problem with sedimenta-
tion of the Kern River." (DEIR P. 87)
"Diversion of Kern R~ver flows should
not adversely affect the amount of
water reaching downstream users."
(DEIR, P. 86)
"The planned use of the project area
as a recharge facility would repre-
sent an enhancement of the fresh-
water marsh components of the region"
(DEIR, P. 94)
"Valley Mesquite saltbush habitat
appears to be most impacted by the
proposed project." (DEIR, P. 92)
None
None
None
Diking and grading would
be done to minimize
damage to woody vegeta-
tion.
Scraping riparian vege-
tation to be avoided
where possible.
Maximum flooding of
specific basins to
enhance continuity of
marsh vegetation.
Limit vehicle access,
prohibit sheepgrazing,
hunting and firewood
cutting.
Provide long-term access
for educational field
trips (DEIR P. 98).
RESOURCE
TABLE l: POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECTS IDENTIFIED IN THE INITIAL STUDY, THE EtR
RESPONSE AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES: 2,800-ACRE GROUNDWATER RECHARGE PROJECT
IDENTIFIED EFFECT
EIR RESPONSE
Page 2
MITIGATION
4. ANIMAL LIFE
5. HUMAN HEALTH
Formation and flooding of spreading ponds will
result in a change in the diversity of species
and a reduction in the numbers of some species.
The project may reduce the numbers of some
species considered rare and endangered as a
result of habitat modification.
Wetlands provided by the project may draw new
species to the area (especially waterfowl).
Recharge basins and fencing may restrict
animal movement.
The proposed project will probably result in a
trade off of wildlife species. Some of the
existing wildlife habitat will be replaced by
wetland habitat.
Increased surface waters may increase the breeding
of mosquitos which hold the potential to create
and spread diseases.
Federal protected Cooper's Hawk and
Marsh Hawk would benefit; also Herons,
Sandpipers and Nesting Fowl. However,
diking of shrub areas would modify the
habitat of the San Joaquin Kit Fox,
Giant Kangaroo Rat and San Joaquin
Leopard Lizard. (DEIR, PP. 93-94)
"Water spreading basin area is capable
of supporting 12 to 16 Kit Fox and
about 250 Leopard Lizards which could
be impacted by the project." (comments
& responses, PP. III-9, 10)
Covered in previous response (DEIR,
P. 94) for waterfowl. Both Kit Fox
and Bluntnosed Leopard Lizard have
adapted to existing spreading opera-
tions by relocating to higher ground.
"Increased marsh acreage is an ecological
asset." This could attract rafts of
resting fowl from nearby private clubs;
closure of clubs not considered signifi-
cant.'' (DEIR, P. 94)
"The spreading operation may be conducive
to the breeding and propagation of
of mosquitos in the area" (DEIR, P. 91)
None, see further discus-
sion on Nature Conservancy
Comment
None directly, however, an
ecological preserve is
proposed of approximately
120 acres.
None
None
City inspection, periodic
watering and spraying, if
necessary (DEIR, P. 97)
Additional mitigation in
Table 2.
6. ARCHAELOGICAL 1,200 acres of grading could uncover Indian or "A site could accidentally be discovered Section 21083.2 Public
other pre-historic artifacts or remains, during construction." (DEIR, P. 95) Resources Code action.
TABLE 2: PUBLIC AND AGENCY COMMENTARY IDENTIFYING ADDITIONAL SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS, EIR RESPONSE AND
RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES: 2,800-ACRE GROUNDWATER RECHARGE PROJECT
RESOURCE/COMMENTOR
IDENTIFIED EFFECT
EIR RESPONSE
MITIGATION
PLANTS & ANIMALS
STATE DEPT. FISH & GAME
2. PLANT & ANIMALS/NATURE
CONSERVANCY, NATIVE PLANT
SOCIETY AND WILDLIFE WATCH -
WILDLIFE RESEARCH
Reductions of endangered animal species
(Kit Fox, Blunt-nosed Leopard Lizard)
and loss of native valley saltbush and
and Mesquite habitat.
Loss of 1,537 acres of remnant valley
wildlife habitat represents a major
loss to the area~s wildlife resources.
Potential loss of the best remaining
and most diverse Mesquite-Saltbush
vegetation. Recommend mitigation is
to lower Basins 4 and 5 levees by 2
feet thereby adding 140-200 acres for a
total of up to 400 acres to be kept
dry to protect habitat. Also
preserve area southwest of SPRR north
of Kern River and area south of Basin
3 (PP. III-96, 97). Allow no soil
disturbance through preserve,
including levee construction. Border
fence with signs must be placed along
south boundary and elsewhere where
damage or dumping might occur.
Establish management committee and
formally dedicate ecological
preserve.
No Kit Fox or Leopard Lizards observed
in 1982 and 1983 surveys (note:
surveys conducted during off-season).
Loss of habitat considered in project
planning. (Comments and Responses
PP. II-8,9).
1974 report by Lawrence indicated 5 or
more endangered plant species depend
on Kern River water Project should,
therefore, assist in preserving plants.
Conversion to basin use would not be
total loss; some wildlife is expected
to adapt. However, loss of some
habitat and animals are project
impacts. (P. III-14)
Basins 4 and 5 have also the greatest
recharge potential and their loss
"would result in the project not
achieving its objective" (PP III-98,
99)
Restrict use of areas
not intended for
recharge (P. III-9),
i.e., establish ecolo-
gical preserve.
None
(NOTE: I.d. effect
requires issuance of
overriding considera-
tions statement.
Other areas could be
selected in the remain-
ing 1,223 acres out-
side of spreading
basins. City is
willing to work with
preserve proponents.
Basins 4 and 5 will be
left dry periodically.
TABLE 2: PUBLIC AND AGENCY COMMENTARY IDENTIFYING ADDITIONAL SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS, EIR RESPONSE AND Page 2
RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES: 2,800-ACRE GROUNDWATER RECHARGE PROJECT
RESOURCE/COMMENTOR
IDENTIFIED EFFECT
EIR RESPONSE
MITIGATION
3. PLANT LIFE/KERN COUNTY
PLANNING DEPT. AND KERN
NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY
4. EARTH/STATE DEPT. FISH
& GAME
5. EARTH/KERN COUNTY PLANNING
DEPT.
6. EARTH/KERN COUNTY WATER
AGENCY
GEOLOGY/KERN COUNTY
WATER AGENCY
HUMAN HEALTH/KERN
COUNTY HEALTH DEPT.
HUMAN HEALTH/KERN MOSQUITO
ABATEMENT DISTRICT
Three rare and/or endangered plant species
could inhabit the project site (P. III-23,
95).
Mechanical removal of silt deposits from
project ponds - no indication of deposi-
tion location (PP III-11, 12)
Basin reconditioning may displace animal
populations and habitat patterns
(P. III-24)
Risk of damage to the Cross Valley Canal
due to seepage from water control and
spreading. (PP. III-81, 82)
Liquefaction potential due to higher
groundwater levels along Cross Valley
Canal.
DEIR does not adequately discuss
mosquito impacts and control (PP. III-28)
Five mosquito species inhabit the area
including the encephalitis mosquito.
A gradual (4:1) slope will enhance
vegetation growth and provide optimum
conditions for mosquitoes. (PP. III-30,
31 )
City will cooperate to determine if such
plants are resident (P. III-23)
Botanical survey neces-
sary when conditions
permit and are optimum.
If found, mitigation
will be taken to
preserve them.
Silt could be used for levee repair
or out of the project area.
Silt will not be used
to adversely affect
habitat.
Reconditioning will be coordinated to avoid disrupting breeding
or nesting activities as much as possible. Precautions will be
taken to reduce vegetation loss in shoreline areas. City will
consult with wildlife management experts. (P. III-27)
No damage to canal lining if water in
canal is held at or near top of lining.
Ponded water will be separated from
canal by levee (PP. III-83, 84)
None
Increased recharge "should not create a
problem" "as long as a barrier
exists between the ponded spreading
water . . and canal."
None
~irntYM~s°~lu~toPr~ea~emteOn~a~le' strict. ,m, osquito control performed by the
Proper mosquito abatement and periodic vegetation control should
be adequate.
EP, N COUNIY WATER AGENCY
4114 Arrow Street, PO Box 58
Bakersheld, Califorr,ia 93302 0058
August 18, 1983
Mr. Dewey Sceales, Planning Director
City of Bakersfield Planning Department
1501Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Re: City of Bakersfield 2,800-Acre Groundwater Recharge Project
Dear Mr. Sceales:
The Kern County Water Agency wishes to reiterate its comments
with regard to the DEIR prepared by Stetson Engineers, Inc. concerning the
City's 2,800-acre Groundwater Recharge Project. These comments iterate
that the Agency does not agree with the Bookman-Edmonston report of March
4, 1983 that spreading operations by the City in the spreading area have
not and will not adversely affect or cause damage to the Cross Valley
Canal.
However, we are satisfied with the assurance of the City of
Bakersfield Director of Water Eesources as set forth in his letter dated
Au9ust 18, 1983 titat., not withstanding the conclusions contained in th~
DEIR based upon 'the Bookman-Edmonston report, the City will ceoferate with
the Agency in the construction and operation of B~sin No. 8 in order to
alleviate and eliminate the concerns we expresseO in our initial response.
in view of the assurance we have received and with the
understanding that the Agency's position remains unchanged, we raise no
objection to the OE]R at this ti~e. Attached is a copy of the Agency's
memo reviewing Stetson E~'~gi~'eer's response to ti:e Agency's initial
comments. We believe that this letter and memo should be included in the
final DEIR.
Very truly yours,
Stuart T. Pyle
Engineer-~aqager
Robert K. Bellue
District-Engineer
Attachments - City of Bakersfield letter dtd 8/18/83
- Kern County Water Agency Memorandum
xc - Mr. Paul Dow, Director of Water Resources
- Stetson Engineers, Inc.
,' Ct:FY OF.
August 18, 1983
Stuart T. Pyiu, Engineer-Manager
Kern County Water Agency
4114 Arrow Street
P.O. Box 58
Bakersfield, CA 93302-0058
Dear Mr. Pyle:
This letter is to reiterate and reconfirm the City's conclusion as based
on the B'~okman-Edmondston Report of Hatch 4, 1983, prepared for your Agency,
that the spreading operations of the City and it's 2800 acre spreading area
have not and will not adversely affect or cause damage to the Cross Valley
Cana~ .
None the less, the City, in response to the concerns expressed by your Agency,
is willing to give you our assurances that we will, in the construction and
operation of basin eight, coordinate and cooperate with your Agency, to
continue to a~tempt to identify horrible ad','~,rse affects of the project on the
can.H], aml, i c~ny 'd'~uid I, :t'.r:: i~T,.i 1' tt.~ Futures, tc~ eper~te ~hu basin
such a way that it will mitigate any such adverse affects.
Although we do not expect that such efforts will uncover any such relationship
between our project and the canal, v,'e want you to know that we will be happy
to wr~rk with you to accomplish our joint obiPctive of maximizing recharge to
the Kern County GroimdwaL~r Basin without significant adverse affects on ex-
isting public works.
Very truly yours,
PAUL DOW
D[ rector of Water Resources
sr
cc:
Richard Oberholzer, City Attorney
7hemas Stetson
Stanley H,itch, Esq.
M E M 0 ~( A N D U M
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
File
Robert K. Bellue
August ~8, 1983
Stetsu~ Engineers, Inc. response to Kern County Water 2gency
co~ents on the City of Bakersfield BEIR "2,800 acre groundwater recharge
facility ..." dated August 12, 1983.
Commentary on DEIR's often fall into the category of opinion and
or conjecture. The Agency's con~ents on particular portions of this DE!R
are based on factual engineering data and observations obtained during the
period January I3, I983 to date. In 1983 the 2,800 acre recharge facility
was operated first to percolate river water and later' as an over flow area
for flood control during periods of Kern River/California Aqueduct Intertie
operations. During this 2eriod of observation the Agency experienced
to the e'f~est that proximity and depth of ponded water has a measurable
adverse effect on the canal. We are able to measure and document adverse
impacts of Basit': No. B of the prop<~sed project beiore it is constructed.
We have expended over' S173,000 in construction of protective works since
January 13, ]983. We are concerned ~t the apparent disregard for our
problem. City staff members were shown the problem on several occassiens
commencing en January 13, 1983. Yet the D[IR dated February 10, 1983
brushed aside the problem as does the Stetson response to our written
comments. Ue received the Stetson rpsponse on August ]5, 1983 and had no
prior communication that ~t would be negative.
The Agency fu!i.y supports the City's efforts to improve the 2,500
acre recharge facility and intends to cooperate ~ith the City in a recharge
and recovery program. However, certain statemeF?~,s proposed by Stetson
Engineers, Inc. for inclusion in the final EIR wo[~ld render the final
inadequate. In such case the Agency may be compelled to attack the overall
program in order to protect Cress V~lley Canal par(icipants from adverse
impacts.
Specifically we refer to item 14, paragraphs A and O, attached to
Stetson Engineers letter to Kern County Water Agency dated August 12, 1983.
The Stetson response cites a report by Bookman-Edmonston Engineering, Inc.
dated March 4, 1983. The Agency solicited this report at the request of
the !2 participating Districts and Counties for whom the Agency operates
the Cross Valley Canal in a trustee capacity. Uowever, the Book~an-
Ed~nonston report draws invalid conclusions and because ef this the Agency
repudiates that report.
In th~ir ,~,,rag,'a?~ A, , ~ n [n~]ine~,s quote tJ~? B~;o~nl,:~~-
~' of
Edmonston report: "It is our opinion that, regardl,ss the water
spreading activity to the south, there is no present or continuing danger
of further heaving or movement of the canal lining in this area as lo~lg as
the water level in the canal is h(~Id at or near the top of the lining and
the ponded spreading water is not allowed to encroach upon the right of
way ...". Stetson Engineers co~ents that the ponded water will be
sepat'ated from the canal by the outer levee alld therefore the project
should not have any effect on the Cross Valley Canal or Pumping Plant No.
4.
It is true that an outer levee now exists and that it does keep
ponded water from reaching the Cross Valley Canal right of way. The levge
was constructed by the Agency o~ City of Bakersfield prol~erty with the
permission of City of Bakersfield. ~!ewever, we haw: no assurance that the
levee will re~aain; but faore to the point we have proof i,~ the Form o,=
engineering data that the levee is ineffecti¥~. ~n eliminating high
9roundwater levels at the C~-oss Valle>, Canal.
In early May, 1983, the Agency engineers thoroughly inspected the
Cross Valley Canal adjacent to the recharge area. The inspection showed
some settlement but no major damage and it was concluded that the canal is
operable within certain restraints. Attached is a brief memorandum report
to the Board of Directors of the Kern County Water Agency dated May 26,
1983 summarizing the inspection. Based on findings expressed in the May
26, 1983 memorandum and the engineering data acquired this year the Agency
repudiates those portions of the BooV, man-Edmonston report cited in the
Stetson Engineers response.
Paragraph 0 of the Stetson response deals with the phenomenon of
liquef~,cLien. I.iqt~,~icctinn is ~ cc:~',:',~ti~-,n '.,,'l'~)"e i!!e ability of ~atL~!at:~d
soils to suppcrt loading such as a structure is lost precii]itously in an
earthquake which coincides with saturation of the subgrade of such
structures. i~ we sustain a Inajcr ei~rthqu;~ke in ti~e area ef th~ City's
project, liquefaction may occur as a direct result of the high groundwater
levels around Pumping f)lant 1~o. 4 and api)roxinlately 2,000 feet of Cross
Valley Canal westerly of Pumping Plant No. 4. Yet Stetson Engineers cite
the Bookman-Edmonston report as stating that tile wa~er spreading activities
are not the cause for damage and that the canal lining problems in recent
months were dL~e to the Cross Valley C,~nal operat~nn and maintenance. For
reasons cited relative to Stetson's comlnents at paragraph A the Agency
repudiates the Bookman-Edmonston report and cites the existance of high
groundwater levels at the cana'i prism and I>u~2ing ~lant No. 4. Our data
indicates that these water levels are indeed quite responsive to proximity
and depth of water in proposed Basin ~o. $ of the project. Our data proves
that the operation of the proposed facility can affect groundwater levels
at the canal and pu~ping plant and therefore can greatly contribute to the
possibility of damage by liquefaction in the event of an earthquake.
SUMMARY
The Agency understands that the regretable conclusions presented
in the Bookman-Edmonston report may have influenced Stetson Engineers in
preparing their response. The Agency is working with the staff of the City
Water Department and their consultants on an agreement which will provide
for operation of Basin No. 8 oT the proposed project in a manner that is
mutually acceptable to the City and the Agency taking into consideratien
operational requirements for the Cross Valley Canal and the ability of the
City to control the amount of water introduced into Basin No. 8 when their
pro~cct is c¢~,:oleted. /:~ a~e ~'~i,' !,! ~hat thi, ~"~r::,,l~:nS, ~f reached,
will allow effective achievement of the City's goal~ without causing damage
or a potential for damage to the Cross Valley Canal.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
M E l,i 0 ~ A N D U
Board of Directors, Kern County Water f,gency
Robert K. Bellue
May 26, 1983
Staff Investigation of Cross Valley Canal
Summary and Conclusions
Seepage ~a~nage
Th'e canal west of pump plant 4 and adjacent to the City spreading area was
inspected in early ~lay, 1983 to evaluate the extent of seepage damage and
to see if the canal is operational. We found settlement of the concrete
liner on the south side. About 2,000 ~'eet of lining showed settlement of
the top curb of up to 5 inches. About [,00 Feet of t!:e same reach she~.'ed
additional settlement of the upper panels int~ the subgrad~. Ti~e present
status of settlement does not impair c:~nal function. There are no unstahle
liner panels nor is there indication of ongoing dama~]e. -l'he caual is
operable but precautionary steps are necessary to r~aintain ;~.resent
cm,ditions. Precatltions include maintaining a higher than normal operating
level and, at the higher flows, pumping the drainage system to reduce
seepage inflow.
Canal participants should be cautioned that the status qua'may be
fragile. As flc.~.;s increa;;~] it beco:;~,.~s lllor~ dil:ficu!,. to inaintail~ a ~ull
canal. The possibility of inadvertant rapid drawdown is increased.
Uncertainties will exist as long as adjacent spreading induces seepage
flews into the canal.
Details of the investigation are being prepared in fi!~a!