bush street replacement planting project - california ... · bush street replacement planting...

Bush Street Replacement Planting Project

On State Route 41 at the Bush Street Undercrossing in the City of Lemoore, Kings County

06-Kings-41-PM R40.6/R41.1 EA 06-41601 Project ID 0612000198

Initial Study with Proposed Negative Declaration

Prepared by the State of California Department of Transportation

November 2016

General Information About This Document

Please read this Initial Study. Additional copies of this document are available for review at the Caltrans district office at 1352 West Olive Avenue, Fresno, California 93728 and at the Kings County Library, Lemoore Branch, 457 C Street, Lemoore, CA 93245.

The document can also be accessed electronically at the following website: http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist6/environmental/envdocs/d6/

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 write to or call Caltrans, Attn: Richard Putler, Senior Environmental Planner, Division of Environmental Analysis, California Department of Transportation, 855 M Street, Suite 200, Fresno, CA 93721; phone (559) 445-5286 (Voice), or use California Relay Service 1 (800) 735-2929 (TTY), 1 (800) 735-2929 (Voice), or 711.

http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist6/environmental/envdocs/d6/

Bush Street Replacement Planting Project 1


Draft

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

Project Description The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) proposes to provide replacement planting and install irrigation on State Route 41 at the Bush Street interchange in the City of Lemoore in Kings County (post miles R40.6 to R41.1).

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

The proposed project would have no effect on: aesthetics, agriculture and forest resources, air quality, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation and traffic, tribal cultural resources, or utilities and service systems.

In addition, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on biological resources, the threatened and endangered San Joaquin kit fox.

______________________________ _______________ Richard Putler Senior Environmental Planner Date California Department of Transportation


Project Description and Background

Project Title Bush Street Replacement Planting Project

Project Location This project is located on State Route 41 in Lemoore in Kings County from 0.3 mile south of the Bush Street Undercrossing to 0.2 mile north of the undercrossing (post miles R40.6 to R41.1). The Bush Street interchange is approximately one mile north of the State Route 198/State Route 41 interchange. The interchange is currently an entry point to the West Hills College Lemoore campus and a future gateway to commercial development in the area.

Project Vicinity Map


Project Location Map


Description of Project The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) proposes to provide replacement planting and install irrigation on State Route 41 at the Bush Street interchange in the City of Lemoore in Kings County (post miles R40.6/R41.1).

• The project would plant Valley oak trees and two species of drought-tolerant shrubs within the interchange. A 3-year plant establishment period would be required.

• An automatic irrigation system with controller would be installed for the new landscaping.

• The new irrigation system would be extended to the existing Valley oaks planted in the interchange. All excavation is expected to be within fill soil within the interchange. Water for irrigation would be supplied from a new connection to the existing city water main in Bush Street. A water meter with a booster pump would be installed and connected to the existing pole in existing conduit.

• Elements of the project design that will conserve resources include a highly efficient water use monitoring system (Smart Controller), underground irrigation, and the application of bark mulch in tree basins.

Construction is anticipated to begin in fall of 2017 and continue for 100 days. All work would be within the Caltrans right-of-way. No utilities will need to be relocated.

The purpose of the Bush Street Replacement Planting project is to replace the stand of mature trees that was removed by the Hanford-Armona Rehabilitation project in order to meet mitigation commitments for that project. In 2012, after discussion with the City of Lemoore Public Works Department, the Bush Street interchange was selected as the location for the replacement tree planting. The project is included in the District 6 Minor A Program with construction funding in the 2016/2017 fiscal year. Caltrans approved a Categorical Exemption for this project in February 2013. In July 2016, during the project design phase, evidence of recent habitation by San Joaquin kit fox was discovered by Caltrans biologists within the project footprint. As a result, this environmental document was written to address potential impacts to this threatened and endangered species, and is being circulated to the public. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting The parcels adjacent to the project limits on the east are plowed and fallow farm fields. Two convenience store/gas stations are located on two corners of Bush Street and 19½ Avenue; the built-up area of the city is east of this avenue. Adjacent to the Bush Street interchange to the west, between the southbound on-ramp and Belle Haven Drive (frontage road), is a vacant lot where miscellaneous farm equipment is parked. North of Bush Street, west of the southbound off-ramp and Belle Haven Drive, is a vacant lot. West of Belle Haven Drive are plowed and fallow fields. All of the areas described above are now zoned for Regional Commercial development.


The West Hills College Lemoore campus sits one mile west of the interchange on the south side of Bush Street, which ends at the western edge of the campus. Other zoning types in this still-rural area include residential, planned residential development, mixed use, and ponding basins.

Just north of the project limits is the San Joaquin Valley Railroad. Leprino Foods, a large cheese-manufacturing plant, is bounded on three sides by the railroad tracks, Belle Haven Drive, and Industry Way.

Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required

Agency Permit/Approval Status

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Anticipated Letter of Concurrence for potential impacts to the San Joaquin kit fox.

Informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will be completed prior to approval of the final environmental document.


CEQA Environmental Checklist This checklist identifies physical, biological, social and economic factors that might be affected by the proposed project. In many cases, background studies performed in connection with the projects indicated no impacts. A NO IMPACT answer in the last column reflects this determination. Where a clarifying discussion is needed, the discussion either follows the applicable section in the checklist or is placed within the body of the environmental document itself. The words “significant” and “significance” used throughout the following checklist are related to CEQA—not NEPA—impacts. The questions in this form are intended to encourage the thoughtful assessment of impacts and do not represent thresholds of significance. Potentially

Significant Impact

Less Than Significant with Mitigation

Less Than Significant Impact

No Impact

I. AESTHETICS: Would the project:

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

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

X

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

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

II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES: 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 Department 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, Forest Legacy Assessment Project, and the forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.

Would the project:

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?

X

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

Potentially Significant Impact



No Impact


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))?

X

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

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?

X

III. 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:

a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? X

b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? X

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)?

X

d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? X

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

IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project:

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 Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

X

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 Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

X




No Impact


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?

X

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?

X

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

X

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?

X

V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project:

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

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

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

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

VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project:

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?

X

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X

iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? X

iv) Landslides? X

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




No Impact


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?

X

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?

X

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?

X

VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: Would the project:

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

While Caltrans has included this good faith effort in order to provide the public and decision-makers as much information as possible about the project, it is Caltrans’ determination that in the absence of further regulatory or scientific information related to greenhouse gas emissions and CEQA significance, it is too speculative to make a significance determination regarding the project’s direct and indirect impact with respect to climate change. Caltrans does remain firmly committed to implementing measures to help reduce the potential effects of the project.

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

VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project:

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

X

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?

X

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

X

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?

X




No Impact


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?

X

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?

X

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

X

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?

X

IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project:

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

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)?

X

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?

X

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?

X

e) 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?

X

f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X 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?

X

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




No Impact


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?

X

j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X

X. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project:

a) Physically divide an established community? X

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?

X

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

XI. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project:

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?

X

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?

X

XII. NOISE: Would the project result in:

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?

X

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

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

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

X

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?

X




No Impact


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?

X

XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project:

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)?

X

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

X

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

XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES:

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:

X

Fire protection? X

Police protection? X

Schools? X

Parks? X

Other public facilities? X

XV. RECREATION:

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?

X




No Impact


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?

X

XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project:

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?

X

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?

X

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?

X

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

X

e) Result in inadequate emergency access? X

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?

X

XVII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES: 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:

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

X

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.

X




No Impact


XVIII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:

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

X

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?

X

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?

X

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

X

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?

X

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

X

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

X

XIX. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, 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?

X

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)?

X

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

X


Additional Explanations for Questions in the Impacts Checklist

IV. Biological Resources (checklist question a)

Animal Species

Affected Environment A Natural Environment Study-Minimal Impacts was completed for this project in November 2016.

The burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) is considered a Species of Special Concern by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. In addition, burrowing owls are also protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code Section 3503.

The burrowing owl is a small brown owl approximately 8 inches tall that uses underground burrows for nesting and escape cover. It is a year-round resident of open, dry grassland and desert habitats, in grass, forb, and open shrub stages of pinyon-juniper and ponderosa pine habitats, and may also inhabit agricultural areas. Burrows are essential to burrowing owl habitat as they provide protection, shelter, and nests for the owls. Burrowing owls do not build their own burrows; they typically use burrows made by other animals 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.

Burrowing owls may use a site for breeding, wintering, foraging, or simply for migration stopovers. These owls nest and winter in California. 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. Two to ten eggs are laid in the nest, with an average of four to five eggs. Young birds emerge from the burrow at about two weeks and fly at about four weeks. Burrowing owls hunt for food day and night, eating insects, small mammals, reptiles, birds, and carrion.

No burrowing owls were observed during the reconnaissance-level wildlife survey. There were a few large burrows found within the Biological Study Area that likely once belonged to California ground squirrels, San Joaquin kit fox, and other mammals that dig. The nearest sighting documented by the California Natural Diversity Database occurred in 2000 about 5 miles southwest of the project area. More ideal habitat for nesting exists farther away, but the presence of the burrowing owl in the surrounding areas suggests that the owls could potentially nest within the Biological Study Area.

Environmental Consequences No burrows are anticipated to be excavated or buried during construction activities. If the planned construction schedule is postponed so that work would take place during the nesting season (February 15 to September 1), indirect impacts to the burrowing


owl could result from noise disturbances associated with construction, which could alter perching, foraging, or nesting behaviors, if they are present in the area.

Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures The following avoidance and minimization measures are recommended to avoid potential impacts to burrowing owls:

1. Prior to construction, a qualified biologist will conduct a training session for all construction personnel, which will include a description of the burrowing owl and the measures that would be implemented to avoid potential effects to the species during the proposed project.

2. Preconstruction surveys will be conducted by a qualified biologist no less than 14 days prior to initiating ground disturbance activities. Additional surveys may be required if there are extended time lapses between project activities.

3. If burrowing owls are observed using burrows within the project area or within 160-250 feet from active construction an exclusion zone would be established and a qualified biologist would monitor the burrowing owls.

4. If burrowing owls are discovered within the project area, a qualified biologist would implement exclusion zones (e.g., with flagging, fencing, etc.) around occupied burrowing owl burrows. If feasible, no disturbance would occur within 160 feet of occupied burrows during the non-breeding/wintering season of September 1 through January 31 or within 250 feet of occupied burrows during the breeding season of February 1 through August 31.

Threatened and Endangered Species

Affected Environment A Natural Environment Study-Minimal Impacts was completed for this project in November 2016.

Caltrans’ Federal Endangered Species Act determinations are listed in Appendix A. Federal, State of California and California Native Plant Society species lists are provided in Appendix B.

The San Joaquin kit fox, a federally endangered and state threatened species, is assumed to occur within the project limits.

The San Joaquin kit fox is a small fox of California’s central arid lands. This kit fox weighs 5 pounds on average and stands about 12 inches tall. It has a slim body, large close-set ears, and a long bushy tail that tapers at the tip. The fur coat varies in color and texture from buff to tan or yellowish-grey. This subspecies historically preferred alkali scrub/shrub and arid grassland habitat, and its range extended throughout the level terrain of the San Joaquin Valley floor from southern Kern County north to Tracy in San Joaquin County and up into more gradual slopes of the surrounding


foothills and adjoining valleys of the interior Coast Range. Within this range, the San Joaquin kit fox has been associated with areas having open, level, sandy ground that is relatively stone-free to depths of about 3 to 4.5 feet. This species typically inhabits areas of low vegetation, usually consisting of grasslands or chenopod scrub communities. Habitat loss and degradation due to agricultural conversion are major factors in the decline of the San Joaquin kit fox. Habitat fragmentation has occurred from large blocks of habitat loss. Fragmentation of habitat caused by roads and canals has been identified as a likely contributor to the species’ decline. Another factor in the decline of the species is the use of rodenticides and pesticides.

The San Joaquin kit fox is primarily nocturnal and will feed on small nocturnal rodents such as kangaroo rats (Dipodomys species), mice (Peromyscus species), pocket mice (Perognathus species.), leporids (rabbits and hares), and diurnal rodents such as the California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi) and San Joaquin antelope squirrel (Ammospermophilus nelsoni). Populations of kit fox appear to be most robust where kangaroo rats persist, and insects often make up a large portion of their diet. Their food habits vary seasonally and geographically, indicating adaptability. Kit foxes have been observed preying on ground-nesting birds, lizards, and snakes when their preferred prey is unavailable.

Dens are essential for San Joaquin kit foxes to regulate temperature, escape predators, rear pups, and escape adverse weather. Kit foxes may construct their own dens or modify and inhabit dens originally constructed by badgers, ground squirrels, or coyotes. Natal dens are occupied for longer durations by family groups and show obvious kit fox signs. Kit foxes can breed at one year of age. Pairs usually stay together all year. Breeding usually occurs between December and March. Two to six pups are born between February and late March. Pups may disperse as early as August of their first year, but some remain and help raise the next litter.

Populations of the endangered San Joaquin kit fox have historically occupied this area of the San Joaquin Valley, and a few sightings have been confirmed in recent years. The closest observance of a San Joaquin kit fox occurred in 2002, approximately 3 miles northeast of the project area. Several historical sightings have been documented within a 10-mile radius of the interchange. Populations of San Joaquin kit fox appear to be isolated in southwestern Kings County. Recent surveys of specific parcels of public lands suggest that the kit fox is either absent, occurs only intermittently, or occurs at extremely low densities in the northern and central portions of its range and in the smaller, more isolated natural lands in the southern portion of its range. Conversion of natural areas to agriculture continues to be the primary cause of habitat loss for the San Joaquin kit fox, but oil development and new road construction are also leading causes of habitat loss in the San Joaquin Valley.

Evidence of the San Joaquin kit fox was observed within the project limits and included scat, prey remains, and den entrances of the right size and shape to indicate kit fox. The amount of prey items onsite indicated long-term use by a predator species or short-term use by multiple individuals. Den use could not be confirmed. By the time camera trapping surveys were completed, the dens had already been vacated by


the predator species. Due to recent and historic observations of the kit fox in the area, presence of the San Joaquin kit fox is assumed and avoidance and minimization measures will be incorporated into the project to avoid impacts to the San Joaquin kit fox.

On August 10, 2016, Caltrans informed the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service liaison of potential San Joaquin kit fox dens within the interchange. The liaison requested that camera trapping be conducted for any potential dens and that the results be forwarded for review.

On August 17, 2016, Caltrans informed the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that no activity was observed during camera trapping efforts and that the dens appeared to be inactive. These dens were still considered to be “known” San Joaquin kit fox dens based on other available evidence such as scat, prey remains, and den shape. The Caltrans liaison recommended that these dens be avoided completely and not excavated or collapsed. Under such circumstances, a may affect but is not likely to adversely affect determination could be made for the San Joaquin kit fox. Additional spotlighting surveys may be required if deemed necessary by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or a Caltrans biologist. Preconstruction surveys would be required prior to the start of project activities. Den monitoring may be required during all or parts of construction activity.

Environmental Consequences Caltrans has determined that the project may affect but is not likely to adversely affect the San Joaquin kit fox. A Biological Assessment for the San Joaquin kit fox was prepared by Caltrans and submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in November 2016.

Potential impacts to the San Joaquin kit fox would be temporary, and those impacts would be avoided and minimized by implementation of the following measures.

Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures No compensatory mitigation is proposed.

To ensure protection of existing kit fox dens, an exclusion zone will be created by Environmental Sensitive Area (ESA) fencing between the area of construction and the dens at a minimum distance of 100 feet from the closest den.

Caltrans and the contractor will implement the following standard minimization and avoidance measures:

1. Project employees will be directed to exercise caution when commuting within listed species habitats. A 20-mile-per-hour speed limit will be observed in all project areas, except on county roads and state and federal highways. Project employees will 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 will attend an employee education program conducted by a Caltrans and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-approved biologist. The program will consist of a brief presentation on San Joaquin kit fox biology, legislative protection, and measures to avoid impacts to the species during project implementation.

3. A litter control program will be initiated at each project site. No pets or firearms (except for law enforcement officers and security personnel) will be allowed onsite.

4. Excavations deeper than 2 feet will 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 will be inspected thoroughly before being filled.

5. All construction pipes, culverts, or similar structures with a diameter of 4 inches or greater stored on the construction site overnight will be thoroughly inspected for San Joaquin kit foxes prior to being buried, capped, or otherwise used or moved. If a San Joaquin kit fox is discovered inside a pipe, the pipe should not be moved until the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has been consulted. If the San Joaquin kit fox is in direct harm’s way, the pipe may be moved to a safe location one time under the direct supervision of an approved biologist.

6. The resident engineer or their designee will be responsible for implementing these conservation measures, and the Caltrans biologist will represent the point of contact for the project.

7. Prior to any ground disturbance, preconstruction surveys will be conducted for San Joaquin kit fox by a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-approved biologist. Preconstruction surveys will be conducted no less than 14 days and no more than 30 days prior to the beginning of ground disturbance or construction activities. The surveys will identify any potential kit fox dens. Spotlighting surveys within a 2-mile radius of the project site may also be conducted prior to construction activities. The status of all potential dens will be determined and mapped. Potential dens will be monitored with tracking medium and camera stations for three days to determine current use. No dens will be excavated or buried during the course of construction activities: such excavations would require a Take Authorization issued in a Biological Opinion by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. If kit fox activity is observed at a den, Caltrans will contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for further coordination.

8. Written results of the preconstruction survey will be submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service within five days after survey completion and prior to the start of ground disturbance. If a natal or pupping den is discovered


within the project area or within 200 feet of the project boundary, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will be notified immediately. If the preconstruction survey reveals an active natal den or new information, Caltrans will notify the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service immediately for further consultation.

If San Joaquin kit foxes are detected in the project limits and it is determined by a Caltrans biologist that there is a potential for take, then the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Wildlife must be consulted to comply with Section 7 of the Federal Endangered Species Act and the California Endangered Species Act. All project activities that may result in a take will cease until consultation is complete and, if necessary, a take authorization is obtained. Take, under the California Endangered Species Act, is defined as “to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill.” The authorized take is incidental to an otherwise lawful activity.


Appendix A Federal Endangered Species Act Determinations


Federal Endangered Species Act Determinations

Species Status(1) Associated Habitat FESA Determination

Vernal Pool Tadpole Shrimp FE

Occur in a wide variety of seasonal habitats, including vernal pools, clay flats, alkaline pools, ephemeral stock tanks, roadside ditches, and road ruts. Pools are typically deeper than 12 centimeters, with lingering pools that do not suffer daily temperature fluctuations.

No effect

Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp FT Vernal pools, usually less than 0.05 acres in size; swales or basalt flow depression pools in unplowed grasslands. No effect

Delta Smelt FT Adults are typically found in shoals, sloughs, wetland edges, and suitable spawning substrate at depths less than 13 feet. Eggs and juveniles are present upstream.

No effect

California Red-legged Frog FT

Requires a variety of habitat elements with aquatic breeding areas embedded within a matrix of riparian and upland dispersal habitats. Breeding sites include pools, streams, creeks, ponds, marshes, springs, sag ponds, dune ponds, and lagoons.

No effect

Blunt-Nosed Leopard Lizard FE/ SE

Commonly occurs in alkali playa and valley saltbrush scrub habitat but may also occur in sparsely vegetated areas of low relief on the valley floor and the surrounding foothills. Will use small rodent burrows for shelter from predators and temperature extremes.

No effect

Giant Garter Snake FT/ ST Found primarily in marshes, sloughs, drainage canals, irrigation ditches, and occasionally in slow creeks. Prefers locations with vegetation close the water for basking.

No effect

Western Snowy Plover FE/ SSC

Nesting habitat found on coastal beaches, sand spits, sparsely vegetated dunes, beaches at creek and river mouths, and salt pan at lagoons and estuaries. Less common nesting habitat include bluff-backed beaches, dredged material disposal sites, salt pond levees, dry salt ponds, and river bars.

No effect

Tipton Kangaroo Rat FE/ SE Found in valley saltbrush scrub and valley sink scrub habitat. They occupy alluvial fan and floodplain soils ranging from fine sands to clay sized particles with high salinity. This species can also occur in terrace grassland habitat.

No effect

Fresno Kangaroo Rat FE/ SE Found in alkali desert scrub habitat and herbaceous habitats with scattered shrubs. No effect

San Joaquin Kit Fox FE/ SE Occurs in annual grasslands or grassy open stages with scattered shrubby vegetation. Needs loose-textured sandy soils for burrowing and a suitable prey base.

May effect, not likely to adversely affect

(1) FE = Federal Endangered; FT = Federal Threatened; SE = State Endangered; ST = State Threatened


Appendix B Federal, State and California Native Plant Society Species Lists


U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Species List, page 1


California Department of Fish and Wildlife Species Lists, page 1


California Native Plant Society Species List


Technical Studies Bound Separately

Natural Environment Study (Minimal Impacts) (November 2016)

Air, Noise, and Water Quality Compliance Studies (September 2016)

Hazardous Waste Initial Site Assessment (September 2016)

Paleontological Identification Report (September 2016)

Note: A Cultural Resources Screening Memo was prepared in November 2016, but is not circulated to the public.

bush street replacement planting project - california ... · bush street replacement planting...

Documents