Loading...
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!