Sunset Boulevard Roundabout Project - dot.ca. · PDF file30.01.2018 · Sunset...

Sunset Boulevard Roundabout Project

On State Route 184 and Sunset Boulevard in Kern County

06-KER-184-L0.9/L1.1

0616000124

Initial Study

with Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration

Prepared by the

State of California Department of Transportation

January 2018

General Information About This Document

What’s in this document:

The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has prepared this Initial Study, which examines the potential environmental impacts for the proposed project in Kern County, California. The document describes the project, the existing environment that could be affected by the project, potential impacts from the project, and proposed avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures.

What you should do:

Please read this Initial Study. Additional copies of this document as well as the technical studies are available for review at the Caltrans district office at 1352 W. Olive Avenue, Fresno, CA 93728, weekdays from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., the Beale Memorial Library, 701 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA, Monday through Thursday 11 a.m. to 7 p.m. and Friday through Saturday 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. and the Lamont Branch Library, 8304 Segrue Road, Lamont, CA, Wednesday and Thursday, 12 noon to 8 p.m. and Friday and Saturday, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. The document can also be accessed electronically at the following website: http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist6/environmental/envdocs/d6/.

We welcome your comments. If you have any concerns about the project, please send your written comments to Caltrans by the deadline. Submit comments via U.S. mail to Caltrans at the following address:

G. William “Trais” Norris III San Joaquin Environmental Management Branch California Department of Transportation 855 M Street, Suite 200 Fresno, CA 93721-2716

Submit comments via email to: [email protected].

Submit comments by the deadline: March 12, 2018.

After comments are received from the public and reviewing agencies, Caltrans may 1) give environmental approval to the proposed project, 2) do additional environmental studies, or 3) abandon the project. If the project is given environmental approval and funding is appropriated, Caltrans could design and build all or part of the project.

For individuals with sensory disabilities, this document is available in Braille, in large print, on audiocassette, or on computer disk. To obtain a copy in one of these alternate formats, please call or write to Caltrans, Attn: G. William “Trais” Norris III, Environmental Management Branch, 855 “M” Street, Suite 200, Fresno, CA; (559) 445-6447, District 6 Public Affairs Office at (559) 488-4067, or use California Relay Service 1 (800) 735-2929 (TTY), 1 (800) 735-2929 (Voice), or 711

Sunset Boulevard Roundabout 2


Draft

Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration Pursuant to: Division 13, Public Resources Code

Project Description The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) proposes to construct a roundabout at the intersection of Sunset Boulevard and State Route 184 in Kern County.

Determination This proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration is included to give notice to interested agencies and the public that it is Caltrans’ intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project. This does not mean that Caltrans’ decision on the project is final. This Mitigated Negative Declaration is subject to change based on comments received by interested agencies and the public.

Caltrans has prepared an Initial Study for this project and, pending public review, expects to determine from this study that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment for the following reasons.

Caltrans has prepared an Initial Study for this project and, following public review, has determined from this study that the project would not have a significant effect on the environment for the following reasons.

The proposed project would have no effect on: aesthetics, forest resources, public services, recreation, population/housing, mineral resources, land use, hydrology/water quality, geology/soils, air quality, cultural resources, tribal cultural resources, transportation/traffic, utilities and service systems, or hazardous materials. In addition, the proposed project would have no significant effect on: agricultural resources.

In addition, the proposed project would have no significantly adverse effect on biological resources because the following mitigation measures would reduce potential effects to insignificance:

American Badger: Conduct pre-construction surveys and employee education program. Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) fencing will be used if work exclusion zones will be required.

Burrowing Owl: Conduct pre-construction surveys and employee education program. Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) fencing will be used if work exclusion zones will be required.

San Joaquin kit fox: Conduct pre-construction surveys. Excavations deeper than 2 feet shall be covered with plywood or similar material at the end of each work day, or escape ramps put in place to prevent any entrapment. Each excavation shall be inspected thoroughly before being filled. Environmentally Sensitive Area fencing will be used if work exclusion zones will be required

Hoover’s eriastrum: Conduct pre-construction protocol surveys during blooming season. If a plant is found in the project area, topsoil from the area where the plant is found will be collected and stored until construction is complete. The topsoil will be restored to the temporarily disturbed.

______________________________ _______________ G. William “Trais” Norris III Date Senior Environmental Planner California Department of Transportation


Project Description and Background

Project Title

Sunset Boulevard Roundabout.

Project Location

The proposed project is located in Kern County, near Lamont and southeast of the City of Bakersfield. The proposed project will construct a roundabout at the intersection of State Route 184 and Sunset Boulevard. State Route 184 is a north-south corridor that runs from State Route 178, to the north of the project to Interstate Route 5, south of the project. State Route 184 is straight and flat, undivided two-lane conventional highway. Sunset Boulevard is a two-lane county road that runs east to west from General Beale Road to Fairfax Road. The intersection of State Route 184 and Sunset Boulevard is currently a four-way stop.

Project Vicinity Map


Construction of the roundabout will occur at the intersection of State Route 184 and Sunset Boulevard. State Route 223 is south of the proposed project. Fairfax Road is to the west and Vineland Road is to the east of the proposed project. Sunset Elementary School is located southwest of the proposed roundabout project.

Project Location Map

Description of Project

The proposed project will replace the existing four-way stop with a single-lane roundabout. The roundabout will have a 75-foot radius with a 12-foot truck apron. The circulatory paths surrounding the center of the roundabout will have a reinforced concrete contrasted surface treatment for the truck apron and the center island, along with minor raised slopes to accommodate oversized, overweight and variance load large truck vehicles. The roadways would have concrete splitter islands separating direction of travel within the roundabout approaches and departures. The roundabout will include sidewalks, ramps and crosswalks for pedestrian traffic. Installation of lighting, flashing beacons, drainage ditches and utility relocation area anticipated. Trenching will be required for lighting, flashing beacons and drainage ditches. Right of way acquisition is required for this project. Two options for installation have been identified for this project, one would construct the single-lane roundabout whose center matches the center of the existing State Route 184 and Sunset Boulevard intersection and the other option would have the center of the roundabout offset 43 feet to the north of the existing State Route 184 and Sunset Boulevard.


Surrounding Lands Uses and Setting

Land use within the immediate area is mostly agricultural. There is an education institution (Sunset Elementary School) in the southeast section of the project site. Commercial and residential areas exist within a 2-mile radius of the project site. The project area is mostly flat, except for the raised levees around the irrigation basin.

Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required

Agency Permit/Approval Status

Tule River Indian Tribe CEQA Formal Notification

of Proposed Project Initiated on 12/23/16, ongoing

Santa Rosa Rancheria CEQA Formal Notification


Tejon Indian Tribe CEQA Formal Notification


Kern Valley Indian Council CEQA Formal Notification


Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon Reservation

CEQA Formal Notification of Proposed Project

Initiated on 12/23/16, ongoing

Kitanemuk and Yowlumne Tejon Indians

CEQA Formal Notification of Proposed Project

Initiated on 12/23/16, ongoing

United States Fish and Wildlife Service

Letter of Concurrence Final Environmental Document

Regional Water Quality Control Board

Waste Discharge Permit Prior to Construction


CEQA Environmental Checklist

AESTHETICS

CEQA Significance Determinations for Aesthetics

a) No impacts: No scenic vistas are located in the project area. b) No impacts: No scenic resources in the project area. c) No impacts: Proposed project will not degrade visual character or quality of

the surroundings. d) No impacts: No new source of light or glare will be created.

Would the project:

Significant and

Unavoidable Impact

Less Than Significant

with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?

b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?

c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?

d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?


AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES

CEQA Significance Determinations for Agricultural and Timberland Resources

a) Less than significant impact: 1.2 acres of Prime Farmland will be acquired for this proposed project. No Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) will be converted for this proposed project (see Farmland Impact Rating Form in Appendix A).

b) No impacts: Proposed project will not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract (see Farmland Impact Rating Form in Appendix A).

c) No impacts: No forest land exists within the proposed project area.

In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and the forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.

Would the project:

Significant and

Unavoidable Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?

c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?

d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?


d) No impacts: No forest land exists within the proposed project area. e) Less than significant impacts: 1.2 acres of Prime Farmland will be acquired

for this proposed project. No Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) will be converted for this proposed project (see Farmland Impact Rating Form in Appendix A).


AIR QUALITY

Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.

Would the project:

Significant and

Unavoidable Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?

c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?

d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?

CEQA Significance Determinations for Air Quality

Use this section to discuss and clarify the significance determinations for each question under Air Quality. Remember that the determination of significance may vary with the setting of the impact; use relevant facts about the project setting and magnitude of the project’s impacts to support and explain the significance

a) No impact. Proposed project will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.

b) No impact. Proposed project will not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation.

c) No impact. Proposed project will not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors).

d) No impact. Proposed project will not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

e) No impact. Proposed project will not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.


BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

CEQA Significance Determinations for Biological Resources

a) Less than significant impact. Proposed project will have less than a significant impact on candidate, sensitive, or special status species.

b) No impact. Proposed project will not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service.

Would the project:

Significant and

Unavoidable Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?

c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?


c) Less than significant impact. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

d) No impact. Proposed project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.

e) No impact. Proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.

f) No impact. Proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.


CULTURAL RESOURCES

CEQA Significance Determinations for Cultural Resources

a) No impact: No historical resources have been identified in the proposed project area.

b) No impact: No archaeological resources have been identified in the proposed project area.

c) No impact: No unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature have been identified in the proposed project area.

d) No impact: There are no dedicated cemeteries or human remains located in the proposed project area.

Would the project:

Significant and

Unavoidable Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5?

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?

c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?


GEOLOGY AND SOILS

CEQA Significance Determinations for Geology and Soils

a) No impact: Proposed project will not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault, strong ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides.

b) No impact: Proposed project will not result in substantial soil erosion or topsoil loss.

c) No impact. Proposed project is located on flat land.

Would the project:

Significant and

Unavoidable Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42?

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?

iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?

c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?

d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?

e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?


d) No impact. Proposed project not located on expansive soil. e) No impact. Proposed project does not have soils that are incapable of

adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water.


GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

Would the project:

Significant and

Unavoidable Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?

Caltrans has used the best available information based to the extent possible on scientific and factual information, to describe, calculate, or estimate the amount of greenhouse gas emissions that may occur related to this project. The analysis included in the climate change section of this document provides the public and decision-makers as much information about the project as possible. It is Caltrans’ determination that in the absence of statewide-adopted thresholds or GHG emissions limits, it is too speculative to make a significance determination regarding an individual project’s direct and indirect impacts with respect to global climate change. Caltrans remains committed to implementing measures to reduce the potential effects of the project. These measures are outlined in the climate change section that follows the CEQA checklist and related discussions.

b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?


HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

CEQA Significance Determinations for Hazards and Hazardous Materials

a) No impact: Proposed project will not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.

Would the project:

Significant and

Unavoidable Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?

b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?

c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?


b) No impact: Proposed project will not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.

c) No impact: Proposed project will not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.

d) No impact: Proposed project is not be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.

d) No impact: Proposed project is not located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.

e) No impact: Proposed project is not located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. Proposed project will not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area.

f) No impact: Proposed project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip.

g) No impact: Proposed project will not interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.

h) No impact: Proposed project will not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands. Wildlands not located within the proposed project area.


HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

Would the project:

Significant and

Unavoidable Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?

b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?

c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?

d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?

e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?

f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?

g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?

h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?

i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?

j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow


CEQA Significance Determinations for Hydrology and Water Quality

a) No impact: Proposed project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.

b) No impact: Proposed project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge creating a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level.

c) No impact: Proposed project will not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area. No rivers are located in the proposed project area.

d) No impact: Proposed project will not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area. Proposed project work does not include alteration of river or stream.

e) No impact: Proposed project will not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.

f) No impact: Proposed project will not degrade water quality. g) No impact: Proposed project work does not include construction of houses. h) No impact: Proposed project work does not include construction or placement

of structures. i) No impact: Proposed project will not expose people or structures to a

significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam.

j) No impact: Proposed project will no cause inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.


LAND USE AND PLANNING

CEQA Significance Determinations for Land Use and Planning

a) No impact: Proposed project will not physically divide an established community.

b) No impact: Proposed project will not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

c) No impact: Proposed project will not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan.

Would the project:

Significant and

Unavoidable Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

a) Physically divide an established community?

b)Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?


MINERAL RESOURCES

CEQA Significance Determinations for Mineral Resources

a) No impact: Proposed project will not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state.

b) No Impact: Proposed project will not result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan.

Would the project:

Significant and

Unavoidable Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?

b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?


NOISE

CEQA Significance Determinations for Noise

a) No impact: Proposed project will not expose people to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.

b) No impact: Proposed project will not expose people to or generate excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels.

c) No impact. Proposed project will not generate substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project.

d) No impact: Proposed project will not generate a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project.

e) No impact: Proposed project is not located within an airport land use plan. f) No impact: Proposed project is not located within the vicinity of a private

airstrip.

Would the project result in:

Significant and

Unavoidable Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?

c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?


POPULATION AND HOUSING

CEQA Significance Determinations for Population and Housing

a) No impact: Proposed project will not induce substantial population growth. b) No impact: Housing displacement will not occur with the proposed project. c) No impact: No displacement will occur with the proposed project.

Would the project:

Significant and

Unavoidable Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?

b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?


PUBLIC SERVICES

CEQA Significance Determinations for Public Services

a) No impact: Proposed project would not interfere with new or physically altered governmental facilities, or require a need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection, police protection, schools, parks and other facilities.

a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

Significant and

Unavoidable Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

Fire protection?

Police protection?

Schools?

Parks?

Other public facilities?


RECREATION

CEQA Significance Determinations for Recreation

a) No impact: Proposed project will not increase the use of existing neighborhood/regional parks or other recreational facilities. Proposed project will not cause substantial physical deterioration of the facility.

b) No impact: No recreational facilities occur within the proposed project area. Proposed project will not require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.

Significant and

Unavoidable Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?

b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?


TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC

CEQA Significance Determinations for Transportation/Traffic

a) No impact: Proposed project will not conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy that measures transportation circulation system performance (mass transit, non-motorized travel) and circulation system components, (intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit).

b) No impact: Proposed project will not conflict with a traffic congestion management program, (level of service standards and travel demand measures) or other county agency standards for designated roads or highways.

c) No impact: Proposed project will not result in air traffic pattern changes.

Would the project:

Significant and

Unavoidable Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?

b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?

c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?

d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

e) Result in inadequate emergency access?

f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?


d) No impact: Proposed project will not increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses.

e) No impact: Emergency access will not be affected. f) No impact: Proposed project will not conflict with policies, plans or programs

regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities.


TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES

CEQA Significance Determinations for Tribal Cultural Resources

a and b) No impact: Proposed project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource.

Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:

Significant and

Unavoidable Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or

b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.


UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

CEQA Significance Determinations for Utilities and Service Systems

a) No impact: Proposed project will not exceed Regional Water Quality Control Board wastewater treatment requirements.

b) No impact: Proposed project will not require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities.

c) No impact: Proposed project will not require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.

d) No impact: Proposed project will not have an effect on available water supplies. No new available water supply entitlements and resources are needed.

e) No impact: Proposed project will have no effect on the wastewater treatment provider’s ability to make its existing commitments.

Would the project:

Significant and

Unavoidable Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?

b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?

e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?

f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?

g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?


f) No impact: If needed, proposed project will be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs.

g) No impact: Proposed project will comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste.


MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

CEQA Significance Determinations for Mandatory Findings of Significance

a) No impact: Proposed project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.

b) No impact: Proposed project does not have impacts that are individually limited, or cumulatively considerable.

c) No impact: Proposed project does not have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.

Significant and

Unavoidable Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?

b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?

c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?


Additional Explanations for Questions in the Impacts Checklist

A Natural Environmental Study was completed for this project on December 11, 2017.

Wildlife reconnaissance-level field surveys were conducted in December 2016 and May 2017. All wildlife observations within the biological study area, as well as visible signs of wildlife occupancy and use, such as tracks, scat, burrows, and nests, were documented. Common botanical species were identified during reconnaissance-level botanical survey on April 2017 and May 2017.

Wetland delineations were conducted in June 2017. Test plots were excavated in the irrigation basin and irrigation pools. Water was observed being pumped into the irrigation basin and large irrigation pool. The wet season for the irrigation and pools coincides with the irrigation season; therefore the wetland delineation was conducted during the irrigation season.

The biological study area includes the project impact area plus adjacent right-of-way areas and permissible areas within the project impact area, elementary school dirt parking lot, irrigation pools and irrigation basin. Inaccessible lands were observed through binoculars.

A Biological Assessment (BA) will be submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service with a “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” determination. A Letter of Concurrence (LOC) is anticipated to be issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

IV. Biological Resources (checklist questions a and c)

Threatened and Endangered Species

Affected Environment Animals

Animals that have the potential to occur within the project area are the American badger (Taxideo taxis), the burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) and the San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica).

American Badger

The American badger (Taxidea taxis) is considered a Species of Special Concern. This species has a heavy body with short legs. Coloring is yellowish-grey with a white stripe from the nose over the top of the head. The American badger has white cheeks and a black spot in front of each ear; its feet are all black. The badger has extremely long front claws and short yellowish tails.

The American badger prefers dry open stages of most shrub-land and forest or herbaceous habitats. The American badger will dig burrows for cover in friable soils


and frequently will use old burrows. It will eat rats, mice, chipmunks, ground squirrels, pocket gophers, reptiles, insects, earthworms, eggs, birds and carrion. The American badger is active all year-round and will mate in summer or early fall.

Historically, populations of the American badger have been observed within this area of Kern County but few sightings have been confirmed in recent years. There is a recent occurrence of this species about 8.0 miles southeast of the project site. Evidence of American badger was not observed in the project area however, protocol-level surveys were not completed for this project.

Burrowing Owl

The burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) can be found throughout much of California and is the only owl in North America that nests in underground burrows. The burrowing owl is listed as a California Species of Concern. This small owl measures approximately 8 inches long. The burrowing owl spends a great deal of time standing on the ground or on a small mound near the burrow entrance, or perched on low perches such as brush and fence posts.

Burrowing owl habitat consists of open, dry annual or perennial grasslands, deserts, or open scrublands with low vegetation, soils suitable for digging, and a suitable prey base of burrowing rodents, small reptiles, and insects. Burrowing owls do not build their own burrows and typically use burrows made by fossorial mammals, such as ground squirrels or badgers. They may also use human-made structures, such as culverts, cement, asphalt, wood debris piles, or openings beneath cement or asphalt pavement. Reproduction usually occurs in old burrows of ground squirrels or other small mammals. The burrowing owl nesting season begins as early as February 15 and continues through August 31, with peak activity between April 15 and July 15.

Populations of the burrowing owl have been historically observed within this area of Kern County, and a few sightings have been confirmed in recent years. The closest and most recent observation of the burrowing owl occurred in 2016. One adult was observed about 4.0 miles southwest from the project site. Evidence of burrowing owl was not observed in the project area however, protocol-level surveys were not completed for this project.

San Joaquin Kit Fox

The San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica) is a federally endangered and state threatened species. The kit fox is the smallest fox in North America, with a weight about 5 pounds and a height of 12 inches. These foxes have large ears that are set close together; they have a slim body, and a long, black-tipped, bushy tail that is carried low and straight. Their fur can vary in color and texture from buff to tan or yellowish-grey.

The historic range of the San Joaquin kit fox included most of the San Joaquin Valley from San Joaquin County southward to southern Kern County. San Joaquin kit foxes can be found in saltbush scrub communities of the valley floor and foothills.


Transient individuals may be observed in agricultural areas and disturbed areas if these areas provide a travel corridor between preferred habitat.

San Joaquin kit foxes use dens for protection, temperature regulation, and shelter from weather. They may dig their own dens, use those constructed by other animals, or use artificial structures such as culverts and pipes. There are several historical and recent occurrences of this species within a 10-mile radius of the project. Species observances are concentrated around the city of Bakersfield and valley regions located at the base of the Tejon Hills.

Plants

A plant species that has the potential to occur within the project area is the Hoover’s eriastrum (Eriastrum hooveri).

Hoover’s eriastrum

Hoover’s eriastrum (Eriastrum hooveri) is an annual herb native to California. This species is typically 0.4 to 8 inches tall when flowering and has a tube-like flowers that are white to pale blue in color. Flowers are less than 0.2 inch long and are well hidden in tufts of woolly hair. The leaves are thread-like and have alternating growth. This herb occurs in chenopod scrub, pinyon and juniper woodland, or valley and foothill grassland environments. The growing season is 6 to 9 months, and the bloom period runs from March to July. The range of this species is concentrated in the southern portions of the San Joaquin Valley.

Environmental Consequences Animals

American Badger

Both permanent and temporary impacts are considered to be relatively minimal in nature due to the small area required to complete the work. Permanent impacts would include the installation of the roundabout and sidewalks; temporary impacts would include the installation of side ditches. Heavy equipment and construction personnel will need to access the impact area to complete the proposed project, which may result in temporary impacts to the species.

General construction activities could discourage the American badger from occupying the area and may alter foraging or denning behaviors. Existing background noise on this highway is minimal due to the low frequency of traffic through the area. Potential stressors are anticipated to occur during the demolition of the existing intersection, ground-disturbing work, construction of the new roundabout, and any other work where heavy equipment may be involved.


No burrows are anticipated to be excavated or buried during construction activities. Indirect impacts could result from noise disturbances associated with construction, which could alter foraging or denning behavior of the American badger.

Burrowing Owl


General construction activities could discourage burrowing owls from occupying the area and may alter perching, foraging, or nesting behaviors. Existing background noise on this highway is minimal due to the low frequency of traffic through the area. Potential stressors are anticipated to occur during the demolition of the existing intersection, ground-disturbing work, construction of the new roundabout, and any other work where heavy equipment may be involved.

No burrows are anticipated to be excavated or buried during construction activities. Indirect impacts could result from noise disturbances associated with construction, which could alter perching, foraging, or nesting behaviors of the burrowing owl.

San Joaquin Kit Fox


No dens are anticipated to be excavated or buried during construction activities. General construction activities with increased noise levels or human and vehicular activity could discourage or prevent kit foxes from foraging in the immediate area, using the area as a travel corridor, or returning to dens if dens are located in the area. Existing background noise on this highway is minimal due to the low frequency of traffic through the area. Potential stressors are anticipated to occur during the demolition of the existing intersection, ground-disturbing work, construction of the new roundabout, and any other work where heavy equipment may be involved.

Plants

Hoover’s eriastrum

No federally listed or state listed plants were observed in the, but protocol-level surveys were not conducted during the reconnaissance-level surveys. Occurrences referenced in the California Native Plant Society database are greater than 20 years


old, and the distribution of the species is concentrated in the southwest San Joaquin Valley and foothills. Both permanent and temporary impacts are considered to be relatively minimal due to the small area required to complete the work. Heavy equipment and construction personnel will need to access the area to complete road depression. On-pavement activities will not impact sensitive plant species. Off-pavement activities may impact the growth and reproduction of sensitive plant species if these species are present and will be impacted prior to or during the blooming period.

Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Animals

American Badger

The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the contractor would follow Best Management Practices (BMPs) during construction. Pre-activity surveys are proposed for special-status species, and environmental awareness training is proposed for all employees that enter the job site.

1. Project employees shall be directed to exercise caution when commuting within listed species habitats. A 20-mile-per-hour speed limit shall be observed in all project areas, except on county roads and state and federal highways. Project employees shall be provided with written guidance governing vehicle use, speed limits on unpaved roads, fire prevention, and other hazards.

2. Prior to any ground disturbance, the contractor, all employees of the contractor, subcontractors, and subcontractors’ employees shall attend an employee education program conducted by a qualified biologist. The program shall consist of a brief presentation on the American badger biology, legislative protection, and measures to avoid impacts to the species during project implementation.

3. Prior to any ground disturbance, pre-activity surveys shall be conducted for the American badger by a qualified biologist. Pre-construction surveys shall be conducted within 30 days prior to the beginning of ground disturbance. The surveys shall identify any potential American badger burrows or other evidence of occupancy. Implementation of avoidance and minimization measures will be triggered by positive badger presence on the site where project activities will occur. The development of avoidance and minimization approaches will be informed from monitoring by a qualified biologist. The project biologist will determine the appropriate level of effort for monitoring and whether or not work exclusion zones will need to be implemented. Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) fencing will be used if work exclusion zones will be required.


Burrowing Owl

Caltrans and the contractor would follow Best Management Practices (BMPs) during construction. Pre-activity surveys are proposed for special-status species, and environmental awareness training is proposed for all employees that enter the job site.


2. Prior to any ground disturbance, the contractor, all employees of the contractor, subcontractors, and subcontractors’ employees shall attend an employee education program conducted by a qualified biologist. The program shall consist of a brief presentation on the burrowing owl biology, legislative protection, and measures to avoid impacts to the species during project implementation.

3. Prior to any ground disturbance, pre-activity surveys shall be conducted for burrowing owls by a qualified biologist. Pre-construction surveys shall be conducted within 30 days prior to the beginning of ground disturbance. The surveys shall identify any potential burrowing owl burrows or other evidence of burrowing owl occupancy. Implementation of avoidance and minimization measures will be triggered by positive owl burrow presence on the site where project activities will occur. The development of avoidance and minimization approaches will be informed by monitoring the burrowing owls by a qualified biologist. The biologist will determine the appropriate level of effort for monitoring and whether or not work exclusion zones will need to be implemented. Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) fencing will be used if work exclusion zones will be required.

San Joaquin Kit Fox

Design modifications for the project have not been proposed. If a San Joaquin kit fox den is discovered within or near the project right-of-way, proposed design modifications will be coordinated with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service pursuant to Section 7 of the Federal Endangered Species Act.

The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the contractor will follow Best Management Practices during construction. Avoidance and minization measures will be implemented based on the guidance from the 2011 United States Fish and Wildlife Service Standardized recommendations for protection of the San Joaquin kit


fox prior to or during ground disturbance. These avoidance and minimization measures are discussed below.

Caltrans and the contractor will implement the following standard minimization and avoidance measures per the standardized recommendations for protection of the San Joaquin kit fox prior to or during ground disturbance. Pre-activity surveys are proposed for special-status species, and environmental awareness training is proposed for all employees that enter the job site.


2. Prior to any ground disturbance, the contractor, all employees of the contractor, subcontractors, and subcontractors’ employees shall attend an employee education program conducted by a United States Fish and Wildlife Service-approved biologist. The program shall consist of a brief presentation on the San Joaquin kit fox biology, legislative protection, and measures to avoid impacts to the species during project implementation.

3. A litter control program shall be implemented on this project, and trash shall be removed daily from the project site. No pets or firearms (except for law enforcement officers and security personnel) shall be allowed onsite.

4. Excavations deeper than 2 feet shall be covered with plywood or similar material at the end of each work day, or escape ramps put in place to prevent any entrapment. Each excavation shall be inspected thoroughly before being filled.

5. Prior to any ground disturbance, pre-activity surveys shall be conducted for the San Joaquin kit fox by a United States Fish and Wildlife Service-approved biologist. Pre-construction surveys shall be conducted within 30 days prior to the beginning of ground disturbance or construction activities, and the results shall be submitted to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. The surveys shall identify any potential kit fox dens or other evidence of kit fox occupancy.

Plants

Hoovers eriastrum

Caltrans and the contractor will follow Best Management Practices (BMPs) during construction. The following avoidance and minimization measures would be implemented to minimize impacts to any CNPS listed plants:


1. Botanical surveys will be conducted by a qualified biologist during the blooming season before construction is scheduled to begin. In the case that a CNPS listed plant is found in the project area, 4 inches of topsoil from the area where the plant is found will be collected and stored until construction is complete. At that time, the topsoil will be restored to the temporarily disturbed area in order to preserve the seed bank of the species.

Other Biological Species

Nesting Birds

Affected Environment

Protocol-level surveys for nesting birds were not conducted for this project, and no special-status bird species were seen during the reconnaissance-level surveys. An osprey was observed on a telephone pole within the project area during the winter months, and wading birds were observed in the irrigation basin during the same period of time. Wetland vegetation was not dense enough to provide adequate nesting habitat for red-winged blackbirds or tricolored blackbirds, and these species were not observed during the avian nesting season. No nesting habitat is available for swallow species to use within with project site, and there are no large trees that would provide adequate nesting habitat for larger migratory raptor species.

Environmental Consequences

The project may overlap the avian nesting season (February 1 to September 30). Indirect impacts could result from noise disturbances associated with construction, which could alter perching, foraging, or nesting behaviors of migratory birds. Standard minimization and avoidance measures for nesting migratory birds would be implemented. Potential impacts to these species would be temporary, and those impacts could be avoided and minimized.

Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures

A pre-construction nesting bird survey will be conducted by a qualified biologist if construction activities will overlap the avian nesting season (February 1 to September 30). Surveys will be conducted no more than thirty (30) days prior to construction. If active nests are found, California Department of Transportation will monitor the active nest(s) and will determine the appropriate level of monitoring effort and whether a no-work buffer will be required based on the habits and needs of the species. If a no-work buffer is required, Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) fencing or caution tape will be used to designate the extent of the no-work buffer area.


Wetlands and Other Waters of the U.S.

Affected Environment

Obligate and facultative wetland plants were observed along the edge of the irrigation basin and irrigations ponds. Obvious signs of hydrology were present during the survey, and hydrologic soils were identified. According the United States Army Corps of Engineers wetland delineation guidance, the results of the survey indicated that the basin and ponds have areas that are identifiable wetlands. Further monitoring and consultation with the United States Army Corps of Engineers may be required to determine if these wetlands would persist without irrigation.

Environmental Consequences

Any impacts to potential habitat have been quantified based on ground disturbance. Both permanent and temporary impacts are considered to be relatively minimal in nature due to the small area required to complete the work. Permanent impacts would include the installation of the roundabout and sidewalks; temporary impacts would include the installation of side ditches. Heavy equipment and construction personnel will need to access the area to complete the installation of the roundabout, which may also result in temporary impacts to wetland habitat.

Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures

To the maximum extent feasible, irrigated wetland habitat will be avoided and environmentally sensitive area (ESA) fencing, or other barrier indicator, would be installed prior to the start of construction activities to avoid potential impacts.

If these waters are federally jurisdictional, Caltrans will adhere to the terms, conditions, and provisions provided within the Clean Water Act Section 404 permit and will purchase mitigation credits from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) if compensatory mitigation is required. The Section 404 permit is designed to minimize and avoid impacts to wetlands and is regulated by the United States Army Corps of Engineers. Caltrans will also adhere to the terms, conditions, and provisions within the Clean Water Act Section 401 permit provided by the Regional Water Quality Control Board or will adhere to the Porter-Cologne Water State Water Quality Act if these waters are determined not to be federally jurisdictional. Avoidance and minimization measures stated in either permit would be added to the contractor bid information.

Compensatory mitigation for impacts to emergent wetland habitat is not anticipated. These wetlands are expected to be a by-product of irrigation activities and would likely not persist under natural conditions. The need for compensatory mitigation will be determined during consultation with the regulating agency.


Appendix A Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Form


Appendix B Project Mapping

Roundabout at Intersection of State Route 184 and Sunset Boulevard


Roundabout offset of the Intersection of State Route 184 and Sunset Boulevard


Appendix C Title VI Statement


Appendix D United States Fish and Wildlife Species List

Sunset Boulevard Roundabout Project - dot.ca. · PDF file30.01.2018 · Sunset...

Documents

Transcript of Sunset Boulevard Roundabout Project - dot.ca. · PDF file30.01.2018 · Sunset...