FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
KINGS RIVER CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT COLE SLOUGH-LATON AREA CALIFORNIA
U.S. ARMY ENGINEER, DISTRICT SACRAMENTO,CALIFORNIA
FEBRUARY 1975 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY SACRAMENTO DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS 650 CAPITOL MALL SACRAMENTO. CALIFORNIA 95814
28 February 1^75
STATEMENT OF FINDINGS
Kings River Channel Improvement Proj ect Cole Slough - Latcn Area California
1, As District Engineer of the Sacramento District, Corps of Engineers, I have reviewed and evaluated, in light of the overall public interest, the information presented in the environmental statement, other documents concerning the King3 River Channel Improvement Project, and the views of other agencies, organizations and individuals on the environmental and other impacts of the proposed work and alternatives. The consequences of constructing the proposed work as well as each of the alternatives, were studied and evaluated for engineering feasibility, environmental effects and social well-being. Specific attention was given to the fulfillment of the flood control, irrigation and related purposes for which the Kings River Project was authorized by Congress, while also considering the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act.
2* In making my evaluation, the following factors were considered per- "Cinent to the analysis:
a. Alternatives. - Of the various alternatives investigated, the levee construction and bank protection alternative provides for the desired flood protection needs more completely and satisfactorily than other methods of flood protection.
b. Authority and function. - The proposed work is part of the Kings River Project, which was authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1944, is functionally adequate for current needs and provides flexibility for future flood protection requirements of the area.
c. Flood protection. - The proposed work increases the amount of flood protection in the Cole Slough and Laton areas and permits design flow releases from Fine Flat Dam. In addition, 16 sites having severe levee erosion problems would be repaired.
d. Environmental impacts. - There will be environmental impacts associated with the project; however, impacts will be less widespread and less critical than the impacts of implementing alternative methods of achieving flood control or from no development. Such impacts will be minimized by incorporating environmental considerations into the construction • program and the project operations. The most significant impact is the removal of about 2.5 acres of riparian habitat to facilitate installation of bank protection features. This will be mitigated by allowing grasses and other low lying vegetation to reoccupy the sites.
3. I find that the environmental statement meets or exceeds the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act and that the public interest and general welfare will best be served by completion of the Kings River Channel Improvement Project. The proposed action is based on thorough evaluation of viable alternative courses of action for flood protection. The project is consonant with national policy, statutes, and administrative directives* Further, completion of the project is supported by the Kings River Conservation District, and is consistent with the District's plan for pro viding protection from design flood releases from Fine Flat Dam. The total public interest would best be served by implementation of the described plan, which will assist in promoting productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment.
F. G. ROCKWELL, JR. Colonel, CE District Engineer Sacramento District
I have reviewed the subject Statement of Findings and concur in the findings of the District Engineer. ■ -
DATE: 14 March 1975 RICHARD M. CONNELL Brigadier General, U. S. Army Division Engineer
I concure in the preceding Statement of Findings.
DATE: /J./W. MORRIS Major General, USA -'Director of Civil Works FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
KINGS RIVER CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT COLE SLOUGH-LATON AREA CALIFORNIA
U.S. Army Engineer District Sacramento, California
February 1975 t Final Environmental Statement Kings River Channel Improvement Project Cole Slougli-Laton Area California
Table of Contents
Paragraph Subject Page
Summary
SECTION I - PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1.01 General 1 1.02 Proposed Work 1
* SECTION II - ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING WITHOUT THE PROJECT
2.01 Topography 1 2.02 Geology 1 2.03 Climate 1 2.04 Hydrology 2 2.05 Vegetation 2 2.06 Fish and Wildife 2 2.07 Archeological and Historical 3 2.03 Population 3 2.09 Land Use 3 2.10 Economy 3 2.11 Water Quality 3 2.12 Air Quality 4 2.13 Future Setting without the Project 4
SECTION III - RELATIONSHIP OF THE PROPOSED ACTION TO LAND USE PLANS
3.01 4
SECTION IV - PROBABLE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ON THE ENVIRONMENT
4.01 Changes and Conversions 5 4.02 Beneficial and/or detrimental effects 5 4.03 Mitigation Measures 6 Paragraph Subject Page
SECTION V - PROBABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED
5.01 6
SECTION VI - ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
6.01 7 6.02 Alternatives to Levee Construction 7 6.03 Alternatives to Bank Protection 7 6.04 Alternatives to Road Surfacing 7 6.05 Recreation Alternative 7
SECTION VII - THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
7.01 8
SECTION VIII - IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES WHICH WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED ACTION SHOULD IT BE IMPLEMENTED
8.01 8
SECTION IX - COORDINATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES
9.01 Public Participation 9 9.02 Comments from governmental agencies 9 9.03 U.S. Department of Agriculture - Soil Conservation 10 Service 9.04 U.S. Department of the Interior 10 9.05 Kings County Planning Agency 14 9.06 Fresno County Planning Department 15 9.07 Kings River Conservation District 16 9.08 Comments from Citizen Groups 16 9.09 Fresno Audubon Society 16 9.10 The Committee to Save the Kings River 21 9.11 Sierra Club - Tehipite Chapter 26 9.12 Fresno County Sportsmen's Club 28 *9*13 The Resources Agency of California 29 List of Appendices
I - Environmental Inventory II - Letter from California Department of Parks and Recreation III - References Cited IV - Letters Received by the District Engineer on the Draft Environmental Statement
List of Charts
Chart 1 General Map Chart 2 Location of Proposed Work (eight sheets) Chart 3 Typical Sections - Lemoore Wein to 3th Avenue Summary
Kings River Channel Improvement Project, Cole Slough-Laton Area, California
( ) Draft (X) Final Environmental Statement
■ Responsible Office: U.S. Army Engineer District, Sacramento, California
1. Name of Action: (X) Administrative ( ) Legislative
2. Description of Action: About 14,000 lineal feet of new levee and patrol road will be constructed in the vicinity of the Community of Laton, California, on the north side of Cole Slough and part of the Ward Drainage Canal. About 5,000 lineal feet of bank protection work will be placed at 16 different sites. About 23 miles of existing levee patrol roads will be gravel surfaced.
3. a. Environmental Impacts: Approximately five hundred acres of agricul tural land in the vicinity of Laton will be protected from flooding. Sixteen areas of eroded bank will be repaired, maintaining the integrity of the levee system.
b. Adverse Environmental Effects: Less than two and a half acres of riparian habitat will be cleared. Levee coustruction and bank protection work may cause limited short-term turbidity.
4. Alternatives to the Proposed Action; Channel clearing; channel enlarge ment; flood plain zoning; levee setbacks; increase of storage in Pine Flat Reservoir; no action.
5. Comments Received;
Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX Department of the Interior Department of Agriculture: Soil Conservation Service Department of health, Education and Welfare Department of Transportation, Region 7 State of California Fresno County ICings County Kings River Conservation District The Committee to Save the Kings River Sierra Club - Tehipite Chapter Fresno Audubon Society Sportsmen's Council of Central California Fresno County Sportsmen's Club
Draft statement to CEQ 22 July ll>74 Final statement to CEQ 1 8 ^ _____ SECTION I PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1.01. General. - The Kings River originates high in the Sierra Nevada and flows in a southwesterly uirection until it reaches a point about 25 niles south of Fresno. There, it splits into north and south forks generally referred to as Kings River North and Kings River South. The Kings River project area is in the south-central portion of the San Joaquin Valley in Kings, Fresno and Tulare Counties (see Chart 1). The Kings River project was authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1944 (1).* The project was authorized for flood control, irrigation and related purposes. It consists of Pine Flat Dam and Lake and cliannel modifications downstream from the dan. The benefit-cost ratio for the project was 1.5 to 1. Pine Flat Dam was completed in 1954. Pine Flat Lake iias a capacity of one million acre- . feet and is approximately 20 miles long and up to two miles wide. Completed cliannel modifications consist primarily of levee construction, levee recon struction, and removal of aown timber from the floodway channel. Work was completed between i960 and 1972 for some 42 miles of channel over several reaches of Kings River North and South, and in the Centerville bottoms area. Detailed information on completed portions of the project is contained in a design memorandum of the Corps of Engineers (2).
1.02. Proposed Work. - This environmental statement describes impacts of proposed project works on main Rings River, Dutch John Cut and Cole Slough between Lemoore Weir and Eighth Avenue. The location of the proposed work is shown on Chart 2 and consists of the following:
a. Construction of 14,000 lineal feet of new levee and patrol road on the north side of Cole Slough;
b. Surfacing of about 23 miles of existing levee patrol roads and upgrading and surfacing of existing access ramps and turnarounds;
c. Intermittent bank protection at locations where erosion endangers existing levees.
The proposed levee to be constructed will be set back a minimum of 10 feet from the cliannel bank to provide a protective berm for the levee and to minimize the impact on the riparian vegetation (see Chart 3). The levee will be constructed primarily upon agricultural land and will not encroach on the Kings.River Designated Floodway. The height of the proposed levee varies between 3 feet and 6 feet averaging about 5 feet. Approximately 50,000 cubic yards of embankment is needed for levee construction and will be obtained from open lands adjacent to the levee construction site. Areas
*Wumber in parentheses throughout the text refer to the References Cited, Appendix III. of unimproved land with perennial native vegetation will not be used for borrow. Existing levee patrol roads and the new levee will be surfaced with four inches of crushed mineral aggregate. Bank protection, consisting of a 15 to 22-inch thick blanket of rock, is proposed for the 16 critical erosion sites. Typical sections of the proposed work are shown on Chart 3. The purpose of the reiaaining work, which will complete all units of the project, is to increase flood protection for the Laton and Cole Slough areas by providing the capacity to contain the objective releases from Pine Flat Lake and permit proper operation of the dan. Design flood control release from the dam permits outflows of up to IB,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) to the downstream channels. However, the design flow at Peoples Weir upstream of the project area is reduced to 11,000 c.f.s. because of upstream diversions to irrigation canals. The total Federal cost for the proposed work is estimated at $1,520,000 (1975 price level). Local interests will be required to provide all lands, easements and rights- of-way for the proposed work, including all necessary relocations, alterations and improvements necessary for maintaining the integrity of existing irriga tion and drainage systems. Local interests will also be required to maintain the project upon completion of the proposed work. The local project sponsor providing these assurances is the Kings River Conservation District, with headquarters located at Fresno, California. Non-Federal first cost is estimated at $120,000 (1975 price level).
SECTION II ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING WITHOUT THE PROJECT
2.01. Topography. - The project area is located on the level plain of the San Joaquin Valley. Elevations range from about 260 to 290 feet mean sea level. The Kings River has bifurcated several times before it reaches the project area and separates and rejoins several times within the project area (see Chart 1).
2.02. Geology. - The project area is underlain by the Great Valley Geologic Province. The Province is a northwest-trending structural trough filled with a tremendously thick sequence of sediments ranging in age from Jurassic to Recent (3). No active earthquake faults are in the area. No mineral resources of economic value occur in the project area.
2.03. Climate. - Climate in the study area is characterized by mild winters and hot summers with about 902 of the precipitation occurring during the period of October through April. Temperatures in the area have ranged from slightly Lelow freezing in winter to around 110#F at times during the summer. July average temperatures are J1.3°F at Fresno and 80.5°F at Ilanford. Annual precipitation averages are 11.14 inches at Fresno and 3.12 inches at Hanford. 2.04. Hydrology. - The Kings River, from its source to Pine Flat Lake, is a clear, cold, essentially free-flowing river, having as its source a number of high mountain streams. The only significant developments above Pine Flat Lake are power storage and diversions on the North Fork. After impoundment in Pine Flat Lake, the water is released for downstream irrigation in the Kings River and Tulare Lake basins. The high intensity agricultural use of the floodplain bordering the Kings River accounts for the major use of the water. In the project area the river has cut a channel some 10 feet below the surrounding land surface. Except during flood periods, the flow is fairly slow. Water is diverted out of the river for irrigation at three major locations before reaching Lemoore Weir. During the irrigation season, these diversions largely dewater the river in the project area except for pools behind several weirs, and except for snowmelt flood periods.
2.05. Vegetation. - Within the project limits, the river is lined on both sides with riparian habitat, primarily oak and willov; trees, with a thick understory of smaller willow's, various shrubs and thick, tall grass. This vegetation tends to visually buffer the river from man-made levees and , surrounding agricultural land and provides a greenbelt of native vegetation. Appendix I presents a more detailed flora inventory.
2.06. Fish and Wildlife. - The riparian trees and undergrowth provide an exceptionally valuable habitat for a variety of wildlife. Vegetation associated with natural watercourses such as described here provides the only permanent habitat available for upland game in this area since there has been extensive agricultural development. A large number of raptors roost and nest in the riparian vegetation and feed on the snail rodents found along the river and in adjacent crop land. Resident and migratory songbirds, waterfowl and wading birds are common. The undergrowth provides food and cover for a variety of animals, such as cottontail rabbits, mourning doves, California quail, pheasants, muskrat, and raccoon. The streamside growth also provides fish habitat. There is a limited sport fishery primarily for warmwater species such as black bass, crappie and bluegill. Project work completed in 1971 in the Centerville Bottoms included 30,000 lineal feet of channel modification which decreased fishery production as well as aesthetics in that portion of stream. Although the impact is not permanent, it will be some time before that segment of the stream restores itself to conditions like those existing in the unaltered reach immediately above it. Information on the work in the Centerville Bottoms is detailed in a special consultant report to the President's Council on Environmental Quality (4). A detailed listing of the fauna found within the project area is included in Appendix I. Endangered species designated by the Secretary of the Interior which may be found in the area include Southern bald eagle anu the blunt-nosed leopard lizard (5). The California Department of Fish and Game also lists these two species as endangered and lists the Fresno kangaroo rat as a rare species (6). 2.07. Archeological and Historical.— An archeological resources survey conducted in the project area during August 1973 indicated that no arche ological sites are endangered by the proposed levee construction and bank protection. This survey which included tentative borrow sites, was performed by archeologists from California State University, Fresno, under contract to the Corps. A description of the survey and its findings have been coordinated and filed with the National Park Service. The historic community of Kingston, California, is listed by the State of California as historical landmark number 270 (7). The State Historical Preservation Officer was contacted (Appendix II) and indicated that, other than Kingston, there are no other historical sites designated by the State or listed in the National Register of Historic Places on the stretch of the river in the vicinity of the project. The Kings River was named by early Spanish explorers in the San Joaquin Valley as the Rio de los Santos Reyes (8). Kings River first was settled around Centerville about 1830 by Cornish miners and Mexicans. Diversions for agricultural purposes along the Kings River began as early as 1867. About 1870, the Fresno Canal and Irrigation Company (predecessor of the Fresno Irrigation District) was established. Supplemental groundwater pumping became necessary in the early 1930's because, as the area developed, available runoff was insufficient in June and July to meet full irrigation requirements. Today there is a vast system of irrigation canals, laterals, farm ditches and pipe drainage throughout the area (4).
2.08. Population. - The population in the project area decreased between 1960 and 1970. The 197C population of the Laton census division was 2,338 (down 4.0Z from 1960). The 1970 population of the Hanford northeast census division was 3,412 (down 21.1Z from I960).
2.09. Land Use - Except for lands immediately bordering the rivers and sloughs which have riparian habitat, much of the project area is intensively farmed. Major crops are cotton, grapes, and fruit orchards. Public access to the project area is currently restricted by the private ownership of surrounding lands and the controlled access to the Kings River Conser vation District's service roads. However, because of the fishing resources, the sandy beaches and the desirable aesthetics, the lower Kings River does receive some informal recreational use at undeveloped recreational areas. The counties of Kings and Fresno are presently developing a Laton- Kingston Regional Park, which will consist of about 130 acres of natural streamside land on both sides of the river just south of the town of Laton. The park area will include the historic community of Kingston.
2.10. Economy. - Agriculture is the dominant industry in both Fresno and Kings County.
2.11. Water Quality. - The quality of surface and ground waters in the Kings River Basin is adequate for most beneficial uses. The chemical quality of the Kings River is characterized by nearly equivalent calcium, magnesium, and sodium cations with bicarbonate as the predominant anion* The surface water is highly suitable for Irrigation and meets U. S. Public Health suggested chemical standards for drinking water. The quality of ground water varies considerably with depth. The upper zone, which extends to a depth of 200 to 300 feet below the surface, yields a calcium - magnesium sulfate water with a total dissolved solids content of about 3,000 milligrams per liter. The lover zone yields sodium sulfate water with a total dissolved solids content of about 800 milligrams per liter. The lower zone furnishes about 80 percent of the ground water supply of the area (9).
2.12. Air Quality. - The project is in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. The Air Basin lies in the southern portion of the Central Valley and extends to the neighboring mountain slopes. Air quality is described as generally good and compares favorably with the national ambient air quality standards with the exception of particulate matter. The meteorology and climate of the San Joaquin Valley, however, are unusually favorable for the development of air pollution. Light winds and atmospheric stability provide frequent opportunities for pollutants to accumulate in the atmosphere. The major air pollution problems in the San Joaquin Valley air basin are the frequent occurrence of oxidant concentrations above the standard during the summer months and the high levels of suspended particulate matter. Analysis of suspended particulate samples, however, indicates about 50 percent of the material originates from the soil. (10)
2.13. Future Setting without the Project. - In the absence of the proposed project, the future environment would be similar to the existing environment. Riparian vegetation would continue to occupy the channel and wildlife diversity and population should remain unchanged. Large floodflows would continue to threaten low-lying areas. The ecouomy of the area could be expected to remain stable with or without the project.
SECTION III RELATIONSHIP OF THE PROPOSED ACTION TO LAND USE PLANS
3.01. The proposed plan of development is not in conflict with either Fresno County or Kings County Master Plan elements.' The Kings County Environmental Resources Management Element indicates a future trail system for public use along the various bifurcations of the Kings River, but the County is unable to implement this trail system in the foreseeable future. Implementation of this trail system could Increase costs for the Kings River Conservation Districts channel and levee operation and main tenance program. The Kings River riparian lands, from Stratford to Pine Flat Dam, appears in the Environmental Goals and Policy Report of the State of California (11) an area of Statewide critical concern because of its extraordinary wildlife values. Approximately 2.5 acres of this habitat would be removed to enable placement of rock at 16 bank pro tection sites. However, these sites are presently undergoing active erosion, and if left unprotected, would probably result in the destruc tion of the 2.5 acres of habitat regardless of the Corps project.
SECTION IV PROBABLE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT
4.01. Changes and Conversations. - The 14^000 lineal feet of levee construction will result in a conversion of about 10 acres of land, of which about 40 percent is agricultural, and the remainder is dirt access road. There will also be 5,000 lineal feet of intermittent bank pro tection. About 25.5 miles of maintenance road on the new and on the existing levees would be surfaced. Operation and maintenance of the completed levee construction and bank protection will be performed by the Kings River Conservation District under the guidelines provided by the Corps of Engineers in an operation and maintenance manual.
4.02. Beneficial and/or detrimental effects. - The construction of the levee will protect approximately five hundred acres of agricultural lands in the vicinity of Laton from flooding. The intermittent bank protection will prevent further erosion at critical locations, and will require removal of about 2-1/2 acres of riparian vegetation* These flood control works are the last segment of the overall authorized flood control project and will enable efficient operation of the entire project. The removal of trees and understory vegetation associated with the bank protection will eliminate a minor amount of habitat for a number of wildlife species, with a corresponding reduction in wildlife density but will have no impact on any rare or endangered species. Since the surrounding habitat is probably at saturation capacity, a minor reduction in wildlife numbers may occur at the bank protection sites but their numbers and composition should return to near present conditions within a few years as the protection sites naturally revegetate. The 25.5 miles of road surfacing on existing patrol roads and the new levee road will provide a dependable means of access for maintenance vehicles with no significant detriment to existing environmental conditions. During construction, the proposed levee and bank protection work will affect water quality in a minor way by causing a short-term increase in turbidity within a limited area of stream, but would not significantly alter the concentration of other constituents. The proposed work is not expected to significantly affect land use patterns in the area because of the extent of agricultural development which has already occurred and because such agricultural uses are expected to continue in accord with existing local plans. None of the work would sever existing farms or transportation routes. 4.03. Mitigation Measures. - Bank protection construction will include measures to mitigate or reduce the adverse effects on wildlife habitat and aesthetics, including minimum vegetative clearing, as required, within the work limits, retention of trees and other vegetative growth at the bank protection sites where the safety of the.levee is not affected, and restoration of borrow sites and scarred construction areas. Standard environmental protection specifications of the Corps of Engineers also provide effective control of contractor operations and these will be included in the contract plans and specifications for the work. Borrow sites will be carefully selected from nonriparian lands adjacent to the levee construction site. Topsoil will be stockpiled to be utilized in rehabilitation of the borrow sites. To minimize environmental losses, careful burning of cleared brush will be conducted so as to avoid killing live trees, and equipment will be restricted from operating in the streambed except when absolutely essential. At levee construction and bank protection sites, where areas are denuded of vegetation by equipment operation, the areas shall be restored to a natural condition suitable for regrowth of riparian vegetation and replanted as necessary. To insure continued retention of vegetation preserved during project con struction, the operation and maintenance manual issued by the Corps upon completion of the work will contain guidance on protection of environmental features. The Kings River Conservation District and the California Department of Fish and Game are negotiating a Memorandum of Understanding to insure that the remedial, protective and mitigation vegetation retention and restoration measures instituted for this project will not be ineffective. One of the most difficult problems associated with the retention of trees and vegetation is the increased cost of maintenance in bank protection areas, which is the responsibility of local interests. Studies by the State of California have shown that normal flood control maintenance is more costly where significant vegetation is present and must be protected during main tenance and inspection activities. Landowners and maintenance districts feel such costs should be shared, as the benefits are widespread for recrea tionists and others. A law was enacted by the State of California in September 1973 (12) providing for annual appropriations of $200,000 to reimburse local agencies for one-half of the additional cost of levee maintenance attributable to vegetation retention on flood control levees. Tbit, new law should assist in achieving successful aesthetic treatment and vegetation/ wildlife habitat retention for the project.
SECTION V PROBABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED
5.01. There are no long-term adverse impacts resulting from implementation of this project; There may be a need to periodically remove woody vegetation from the levee to maintain design flow capacity. Any such removal will be coordinated with the California Department of Fish and Game to minimize any adverse impact on wildlife habitat. SECTION VI ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
6*01. Several alternatives were considered prior to the selection of the proposed plan of Improvement. Alternatives and their environmental Impacts are discussed In the following paragraphs.
6.02. Alternatives to Levee Construction. - Channel enlargement (excavation) and channel clearing (removal of vegetation and debris that Impede flows) were considered but neither of these two alternatives were adopted since design flood releases from Pine Flat Dam would continue to reach sufficient levels to flood adjacent lands unless such excavation were very extensive and because of the resulting destruction of fish and wildlife habitat from such work. Reservoir storage could be increased so that releases from Pine Flat could be kept to present channel capacities. Selection of this alter native would require modification of Pine Flat Dam and/or its operation to increase storage for flood control. Operating criteria for Pine Flat Lake were reviewed following the 1969 flood runoff season and it was con cluded that there were no reasons for major changes in either physical features or operating plan for the Pine Flat Project. Omitting levee construction was considered, but if this alternative were selected, design releases of flood waters from Pine Flat Dam would be a flood threat to down stream agricultural areas in the vicinity of Laton; and lesser releases would impair the effective operation of the project. Flood plain zoning is not considered a practical solution in that it would not reduce the flood threat to existing agricultural lands and would result in reduced efficiency of the completed flood control works. Non-structural measures of this kind are not appropriate for the area involved since the proposed work is the last remaining segment of a large multiple-purpose structural project that is all completed in other respects, and this last segment is required to permit effective operation of the entire project for flood control.
6.03. Alternatives to Bank Protection. - Levee setbacks would require expensive reconstruction of existing levees and acquisition of additional land for rights-of-way. With this alternative, erosion of the berm would continue, and additional levee setbacks or bank protection night eventually be required in the future. Since berm areas contain significant wildlife habitat, selection of this alternative would have continuing adverse effects on wildlife habitat as erosion continued. Doing nothing was also considered, but this alternative would result in continued erosion of the levees and prevention of the effective operation of the previously completed flood control works if levee failures were to occur.
6.04. Alternatives to Road Surfacing. - The only alternative to patrol road surfacing would be doing nothing. If this alternative ware selected, patrolling the levee to inspect and make repairs and to conduct a flood fight under future emergency conditions would be difficult or impossible. No detrimental environmental effects could be avoided by selection of this alternative.
6.05. Recreation Alternative. - The possibility was investigated that recreation features such as trails could be included in this project. However, provision of 50 percent of first costs and all the operation and maintenance costs by a non-Federal public body is a Federal requirement if such recreation features were to be included. In response to inquiries made by the Corps of Engineers, Kings County and Fresno County indicated they did not wish to participate with the Corps in developing recreation opportunities along this portion of the Kings River at this time.
SECTION VII THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
7.01. The levee construction and bank protection work described herein will supplement flood protection works already constructed by the Corps of Engi neers. This is the last segment of the overall project to be constructed and will permit the effective operation of the entire project. The bank protection will involve removal of a comparatively small amount of stream- side vegetation, and this will contribute to changing the character of this stretch of the lower Kings River and further reduce riparian habitat in the San Joaquin Valley. Maintenance of the completed works will result in periodic removal of volunteer vegetation from the levees.
SECTION VIII IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES WHICH WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED ACTION SHOULD IT BE IMPLEMENTED
8.01. Levee construction and bank protection are required to permit the safe and effective functioning of the Pine Flat Lake and Kings River Flood Control Project. Construction of these works and the resulting Impacts described in paragraph 4.02 will be an irreversible commitment since operation and maintenance of the works installed must be performed to assure a continued safe and effective project, A total of 50,000 cubic yards of embankment material, 24,000 tons of quarry rock, 9,000 tons of stone backfill and 40,000 tons of crushed mineral aggregate will be Irreversibly committed in the imple mentation of this project. And as described in paragraph 4.02, about 2.5 acres of riparian vegetation will be committed to placement of bank protection, although some vegetation will regrow on top of the rocks. About 10 acres of land will be transformed from agricultural uses to flood control uses. SECTION IX COORDINATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES
9.01. Public participation. - Informal contacts were made throughout the planning and design of the work and preparation of the environmental statement with several agencies concerned with specific aspects of the project, including:
a. Kings County Planning Department b. Fresno County Planning Department c. Fresno County Parks and Recreation Department d. Natural Areas Coordinating Committee e. State Historic Preservation Officer f. California Department of Water Resources g. Kings River Conservation District
A great deal of coordination has been conducted with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game in connection with this project. Their views concerning project maintenance have led to the negotiation of a memorandum of understanding between KRCD and the Department of Fish and Game regarding vegetation removal. Suggestions received from these agencies for prevention of losses or reduction of losses to fish and wildlife habitat have been incorporated into the plans for the work to the maximum practical extent. A public meeting was held on 15 January 1975 in Laton, California to explain engineering and environmental aspects of the project and to receive' additional public comment.
9.02. Comments from governmental agencies. - Informal comments were requested from governmental agencies on an earlier version of this environmental statement (the working paper). Their comments were utilized in revising the working paper and in preparing the draft environmental statement. The draft statement was transmitted to various governmental agencies. Copies of replies received appear in Appendix IV. Answers to specific agency comments appear in Section 9.03 through Section 9.07. Some of the more lengthy comments have been condensed. Those governmental agencies receiving the draft statement were:
a. U.S. Department of the Interior b. U.S. Department of Commerce c. U.S. Department of Transportation d. U.S. Department of Agriculture e. U.S. Department of Health, Education & Welfare f. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development g. Environmental Protection Agency h. State of California i. Fresno County j. Kings County k. Kings County Conservation District 9.03. U.S. Department of Agriculture - Soli Conservation Service. -
(1) Comment. - The statement does not provide £or control of erosion and sediment production, or management of water during construction, other than restricting equipment from operating in the streambed.
Response. - Corps of Engineers plans and specifications include standard environmental protection specifications to be followed by the contractor during eonstruction. This is mentioned in paragraph 4.03.
(2) Comment. - About ten acres of "prime farmland" will be lost, how ever, this is on land which has been used to control river flow. Wildlife habitat will be lost in the areas requiring removal of vegetation for flood control, but riparian vegetation such as willows will come back rapidly following construction. Volunteer annuals will provide habitat for wildlife species different from those requiring trees or shrubs.
Response. - These points have been covered in the discussion on Probable Impact of the Proposed Action on the Environment. (Section IV)
(3) Comment. - The statement provides no provision for stockpiling, protection or proper disposition of topsoil. This item is significant and deserves consideration.
Response. - Provision for stockpiling topsoil for use in restoring borrow sites has been included in paragraph 4,03 "Mitigation Measures".
9.04. U. S. Department of the Interior. -
(1) Comment. - Information on geology, including surficial deposits, is largely limited to a statement that the region is underlain by Jurassic and younger sediments (p. 3). It would seem desirable to provide informa tion in the environmental statement on the height of the proposed levees, the type of material to be used for fill, the approximate extent of the 500 acres of land to be protected, the necessity for relocations that have been referred to (p. 2, center), and the degree of infringement upon the natural flood plains of Kings River, Cole Slough, and Dutch John Cut. The function of the branching levee near the center of Chart 2 and of the double levee south of Laton should also be explained in the statement.
Response. - Irrigation structures (pumps, pipes, etc.) and power poles that are located at the levee construction or bank protection sites will have to be relocated or altered so that construction work can be accomplished. Chart 2 has been revised and no longer reflects double or branching levees. The other points in this comment have been clarified in paragraph 1.02. (2) Comment. - We suggest the environmental statement mention the area's mineral resources and discuss project impact on their availability.
Response. - This has been added to paragraph 2.02.
(3) Comment. - We recommend that the draft discuss channel capacity. The statement treats use during the Irrigation season but does not mention flood flows. Pine Flat flood-controlled release permits up to 18,000 cfs; this could be more under certain conditions. We assume the proposed new channel will handle flows of this magnitude, but the report does not con sider this aspect.
Response. - Although Pine Flat flood control releases could be up to 18,000 cfs, irrigation canals in the area are able to divert floodflows. The design flood flow for the Cole Slough - baton area is 11,000 cfs which would be contained with the recommended improvements. This clarification has been added to paragraph 1.02.
(4) Comment. - The water-quality statements are minimal (p. 6, para graph 2.11). An outdated study 20 miles upstream may not be representa tive at this time and location. No water-quality monitoring program is proposed, although a small program might be desirable. It is not clear what water-quality .control will be enforced during construction.
Response. - The discussion on Water Quality (paragraph 2.11) has been revised. Corps of Engineers plans and specifications Include standard environmental protection specifications to be followed by the contractor during construction. This is mentioned in paragraph 4.03.
(5) Comment. - A regional park (p. 6) and a potential trail system (p. 7) are mentioned in relation to the project area. Increased costs to the Kings River Conservation Districts would result from implementa tion of a trail system. These features could be mentioned in the Probable Impact section if the project would offset them. If there are any miti gation measures related to these recreation features such measures should be discussed in the draft.
Response. - As discussed in paragraph 6.05, both Fresno County and Kings County, in replying to our inquiry as to their interest in cost sharing with the Corps in partially developing their trail system, Indicated that they would be unable to participate at this time. The trail would be developed when resources permit. No recreation related mitigation measures are necessary.
(6) Comment. - The new levee will protect 500 acres of agricultural land, (p. 8). The last sentence of 6.02 on page 11 Implies that if no levee were constructed, the entire Kings River project would be affected. In fact, It would only affect the 500 acres already under cultivation. Rewording would clarify this.
Response. - The Cole Slough levee Is necessary for the efficient operation of the overall Kings River Project. Without the levee, objective releases from Pine Flat Dam would have to be reduced to prevent damages. Such reduction In flood control releases would result In the project providing a lower degree of flood protection to the entire Kings River area. The proposed work In this reach Is considered remedial work necessary to rectify the project deficiency which became apparent as a result of the 1969 flooding along Cole Slough.
(7) Comment. - Levee construction would seem to be a separable addition to the other project aspects. If so, It could be treated more completely in the Alternatives section and as a separable part in the benefit-cost analysis for this work. The major benefit from the levee construction would seem to be any net increase to the flow of income from 500 acres of agricultural land.
Response. - The primary objective of the Kings River channel improvements is to allow Pine Flat Lake to be operated as designed for flood control and conservation purposes by improving the channel so it could safely contain objective releases from the dam to Tulare Lake and San Joaquin River. Because of this it is not considered a separable addition to other project aspects.
(8) Comment. - The draft does not seem to recognize recreation as a viable use of the river and adjacent lands. The impacts of alternative or even no action have not included any real discussion as to project effects on recreation. The Laton-Kingston Regional Park, located just south of Laton, is being developed on both sides of the river by Fresno and Kings Counties. If the park encompasses lands within the existing levees in the area of Kingston, the project impact on the regional park should be mentioned.
Response. - Recreation is a viable use of the river and adjacent lands. However, neither Fresno nor Kings County desires any type of recreation involvement in the foreseeable future within the project area except at the Laton-Kingston Regional Park. The project will have no real effect on present recreation use because such use is now largely by trespass on private lands and, since only maintenance easements will be acquired by the Kings River Conservation District, future use would also be by trespass.' Since the project works will not alter river flow patterns, and since the only project works to be placed at the Laton-Kingston Regional Park will be levee road surfacing, there will be no impact on the park or its recreational use except to reduce maintenance vehicle generated dust during the recreation season.
(9) Comment. - The statement indicates that implementation of a Kings County trail along the branches of the Kings River "could increase main tenance costs for the Kings River Conservation Districts channel." We suggest the positive values of the proposed trail be discussed. The trail would be constructed on public lands to the "fishing resources, sandy beaches and areas containing desirable aesthetics" mentioned in the statement. This trail would allow Increased public use of the lower Kings River, resulting in positive public benefit.
Response. - The Kings River Conservation District will be acquiring only maintenance easements for the levees, bank protection and patrol road surfacing. The lands will remain in private ownership and any public use would be largely by trespass. Both Fresno and Kings County have indicated they do not wish to participate in developing recreation trails as part of this project.
(10) Comment. - The proposal should recognize the need for recreation enhancement along lower Kings River. With ameliorating features, the proposed action would cause less destruction of natural amenities and could result in a more well-rounded project than any of the alternatives that are considered in the draft.
Response. - The recreation alternative is discussed in paragraph 6.05. It is not desired by local entities at this time.
(11) Comment. - The statement does not adequately describe the effect removal of riparian vegetation will have on wildlife. There is very little natural vegetation left in this agricultural area and considerable thought should be given to a plan which proposes to remove or seriously modify what is left.
Response. - Section 4.02 has been expanded to reflect the impact of vegetation removal on wildlife.
(12) Comment. - The draft discusses several fish and wildlife mitiga tion measures that would be included with the project. However, to insure adequate habitat protection another mitigation measure that should be considered and discussed in the statement is the acquisition of all lands where vegetation would be retained or planted.
Response. - Maintenance easements necessary to implement the proposed flood control works and for operation and maintenance will be obtained by the Kings River Conservation District. Federal land acquisition is not authorized. To our knowledge, no other public agency is interested in funding acquisition of additional Interest in lands for other purposes, such as for vegetation protection.
(13) Comment. - Borrow areas should be carefully selected to avoid damage to archeological resources. Since the archeological Investigation did not include borrow areas, they should be surveyed by a professional archeologist before excavation begins. If significant archeological resources are identified, they should be described and evaluated for their National Register potential and alternate borrow sites considered. Copies of archeological reports should be provided to the National Park Service in accordance with section 3 (a) of Public Law 93-291.
Response. - The archeological survey accomplished by Dr. Payson. Sheets of California State University, Fresno did examine the potential borrow areas. He surveyed all areas between existing levees and the river and a minimum of 50 yards away from the land side of the levees. In the unleveed reach (where the potential borrow areas are located) he surveyed to 1/4 mile back from the proposed levee line. A copy of Dr. Sheets report was provided the National Park Service's Arizona Archeological Center on 11 September 1973.
(14) Comment. - The statement should also indicate consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer or include a copy of his comments regarding the effect of the project upon properties either listed on or in the process of nomination to the National Register of Historic Places.
Response. - The California State Historic Preservation officer has been contacted and a copy of his reply is appended to this final LIS (Appendix II).'
9.05. Kings County Planning Agency. -
(1) Comment. - Section 2.05 states "This (riparian) vegetation tends to buffer the river from man-made levees..." It seems that the thick understory, shrubs, and grasses would prevent bank and levy erosion. Why then is this vegetation being removed for bank protection? Is the removal temporary?
Response. - By "buffer" we had visual buffer in mind. The para graph has been reworded for clarity. Vegetation is not an acceptable substitute for stone revetment in preventing erosion from high velocity stream flows (see paragraph 6.03). Selected trees and other vegetation will be retained wherever possible as long as the safety of the levee is not affected (see paragraph 4.03)
(2) Comment. — As noted in the Arthur D. Little, Inc., "Rejport on Channel Modifications," the maintenance of a single purpose conveyance channel Is at odds with maintenance of a stable and diverse riparian habitat, which is "in critically short supply In California." Hopefully, the mitigation measures outlined will prevent initial and ensuing damage, though the actions of local districts are not easily policed.
Response. - Concur.
(3) Comment. - Section 2.02 "Jurossic" should be "Jurassic."
Response. - Correction made.
(4) Comment. - Section 2.12 While air quality is generally good, mention might be made of the fact that the Valley has experienced the greatest number of days for which High Air Pollution Potential Advisories have been in effect than in any other area within the United States.
Response. - Paragraph 2.12 has been revised to better reflect the air pollution potential.
(3) Comment. - On the general map, the road leading into Laton from the south is actually "12 3/4 Avenue."
Response. - Correction made.
(6) Comment. - The map indicates levee surfacing and bank protection work in Laton-Kingston County Parks. This is a popular public recreation area.
Response. - The revised map (Chart 2) indicates that bank protec tion will not be placed in Laton-Kingston County Park. Levee road surfacing will still occur but should have minimal impact on the recreation area or its enjoyment.
9.06. Fresno County Planning Department.
(1) Comment. - The report does not adequately cover the subject, basically, I do not think there is enough information for me to make an intelligent decision as to the merit of the project.
Response. - Paragraph 1.02 has been rewritten and Charts 1, 2, and 3 revised to provide more information.
(2) Comment. - In the maintenance of the levee, I see no place where the California Department of Fish and Game will be consulted and have a part in the maintenance program of the new levee.
Response. - The California Department of Fish and Game and the Kings River Conservation District are negotiating a Memorandum of Understanding which will specify effective coordination in the maintenance program (see paragraph 4.03). (3) Comment* - If tills project is comparable to the channelization of the Kings River, near Centerville, I would be opposed to the project. All habitat, fish, and wildlife were destroyed when that work was done.
Response. - The proposed work was selected over the alternative of channelization. Only approximately 2.5 acres of habitat are anticipated to be removed by the proposed work.
9.07. Kings River Conservation District. -
(1) Comment. - The "Summary" page shows 24 miles of existing levee patrol roads will be gravel surfaced. This is shown to be 25 miles on page 2 and 26.5 miles on page 3.
Response. ** Correction made. There are 23 miles of existing patrol roads to be surfaced. Gravel surfacing will also be placed on the 2.5 mile of new levees, resulting in a total of 25.5 miles of gravel surfacing.
(2) Comment. - The "Summary" page shows 16 sites whereas Plate 2 shows 25 sites. It is our understanding that 16 is the correct number of sites.
Response. - The correct number of sites is 16. Chart 2 has been revised to reflect this.
9.08. Comments from Citizen Groups. - The draft statement was transmitted to various citizen groups. Copies of replies received appear in Appendix IV. Answers to specific agency comments appear in Section 9.09 through Section 9.12. Those citizen groups receiving the draft statement were:
a. Citizens Environmental Advisory Committee b. Sierra Club, Tehipite Chapter c. National Audubon Society d. Fresno Audubon Society e. California Wildlife Federation f. Fresno County Sportsmen's Club g. Sportsmen's Council of Central California h. The Committee to Save the Kings River
9.09. Fresno Audubon Society. -
(1) Comment. - We feel that the environmental report is often vague, general, and carefully laden with qualifications that make almost any thing possible in the destruction of the riparian habitat along the river. We feel that the destruction of the riparian habitat will be devastating and nearly complete as well as irreversible, that the con sequent destruction of habitat for wildlife will destroy most of the remaining wildlife in the area, and that the aesthetic qualities of the river will be destroyed. Response* - An estimated total of 2.5 acres of riparian habitat would be removed at the 16 bank protection sites. These areas would be permitted to revegetate following construction and would be maintained in a manner similar to the remainder of the Kings River Designated Floodway.
(2) Comment. - On the basis of past Corps of Engineers work in the Centerville area, and clearly on the basis of the current environmental report, it is apparent that the Corps of Engineers is once again planning to transform a beautiful stretch of river into a denuded banked ditch.
Response. - Levee construction was chosen instead of channeliza tion as the method of channel improvement along Cole Slough. The levee will be constructed a minimum of 10 feet away from the edge of the channel bank. Borrow material will be obtained from adjacent agricultural lands. No equipment will be operated in the channel except at the 16 rock protection sites where it is necessary to shape the side slopes for placement of rock.
(3) Comment. - To begin with an analysis of the report, we notice that the name of the action is "Administrative" and not Legislative. In 1.02 it is said that "This work will be supplemental to the authorized project...". Apparently, then, the work proposed in this report was not originally authorized by legislative action, and it cannot thus honestly and fairly be described as "the last remaining segment of a large multiple purpose structural project that is all completed in other respects...."6.02.
Response. - The Kings River Project was authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1944. That authorization provided for construction of Pine Flat Dam and Lake and supplemental channel improvement work down stream to regulate and contain flows in the branches of the Kings River. The distinction between administrative aud legislative is concerned with whether new legislation is required to accomplish the desired work. Since the project is already authorized, implementation of the proposed work' , needs only administrative action.
(4) Comment. - As the report acknowledges, riparian habitat is of major value to wildlife in the San Joaquin Valley, and it is especially so in the area proposed because the adjacent heavy agricultural use has severly limited it. There is no specific, exact evidence in the report about how the riparian habitat will be handled, nothing is said precisely about what will happen to the trees and shrubs. But it is clear in general, in spite of the protestations, that most, if not all trees and shrubs will eventually be removed from the project area and kept removed in the future by local maintenance. Response. - The design of the 14,000 lineal feet of new levee has been modified to eliminate any loss of riparian habitat. Paragraph 5.01 has been revised to reflect the elimination of this long-range impact. The O&M manual issued by the Corps upon completion of work will contain guidance on the protection of the trees and shrubs designated to be saved during construction. However, there will be a need to periodically remove vegetation of this type from the levee crowns and sideslopes to facilitate inspection and to assist in flood fighting.
(5) Comment. - The report suggests that such damage will be mitigated in part by coordination with the California Department of Fish and Game to minimize the adverse impacts on wildlife habitat. 5.01. But we have checked this assertion with the Department of Fish and Game and discovered that in the past project there was little or no coordination, and that in one instance the Department of Fish and Game went out to discover that the damage was all done and over with befcre it had been given a chance to intervene.
Response. - Channel improvement work along the Kings River in the past would be constructed today with additional consideration for environ mental protection. When the previous work was done the Department of Fish and Game was notified in accordance with Sections 1601 or 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code prior to operations in the stream channel. We believe the coordination carried out as a part of the environmental statement process and the memorandum of understanding being negotiated between the Department of Fish and Game and the Kings River Conservation District will satisfactorily resolve concerns over minimizing adverse Impacts to wildlife habitat. In addition, changes and modifications have been made in the project design as described in Sections I and VI and to reduce to a minimum such impacts.
(6) Comment. - It is not credible that in putting in 14,000 lineal feet of new levee, in doing 5,000 lineal feet of bank protection work, and in resurfacing 24 miles of levee patrol roads, only five acres of riparian habitat will be cleared. We suspect that the report in this regard is false and that the true figure would be many times over that amount.
Response. - The levee design has been modified so that riparian vegetation will not disturbed during levee construction. It will be necessary to remove the remaining vegetation from the 16 sites receiving bank protection. Much of the vegetation has already been removed from the bank protection sites through the erosion action of the Kings River. The amount of vegetation to be removed is comparatively minor when compared to that which would have been removed if the channelization alternative had been selected instead of the levee alternative. (7) Comment. - What specific mitigation measures we ask will be utilized and who will decide what is "minimum vegetative clearing"?
Response. - As explained previously* vegetative material is limited to that required to place rock bank protection at 16 erosion sites. Maintenance activities and the impact on vegetation will be coordinated between the Department of Fish and Game and the Kings River Conservation District, through their pending agreement, to reduce such impact to the minimum consistent with flood control requirements. The project maintenance manual, which will be issued to Kings River Conservation District by the Corps of Engineers to specify maintenance responsibilities following completion of project construction, will also specify the District's responsibility to preserve vegetation designated to be saved during construction.
(8) Comment. - In a project south of Laton, the Corps of Engineers did leave some trees, but the maintaining agency removed everything within a year. It seems clear that the language of the report holds out vague and general assurances of protection of habitat, but past experience and very apparent qualifications make these assurances ring false. It is clear that a major and irreversible effect on the riparian habitat is intended and that there is Co be a committment’for the future to destroy such habitat. We wonder why the Secretary of the Army should have such authority to regulate an irreversible committment to the destruction of riparian habitat in Fresno County.
Response. - Most of the trees retained by the Corps of Engineers' contractor in the previous project south of Laton were removed by the landowner. The Corps of Engineers and the Kings River Conservation District have little control over this action since the land will remain in private ownership as only maintenance easements are required for the flood control works. The vegetation removal necessary as a part of the operation and maintenance requirements for this project will be coordinated between the Department of Fish and Game and the Kings River Conservation District. The authority of the Secretary of the Army to require proper maintenance of completed flood control works is conferred by Congress in authorizing the overall flood control project. Congress authorized the project in 1944 and specified the responsible local agencies must maintain and operate the channel improvement works after completion "...in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of War."
(9) Comment. - Our major concerns are that the Corps intends to make too many parts of the river a bare channel as in other projects, that virtually all habitat and therefore wildlife will be destroyed, that in fact the river is to be destroyed as a river and simply turned into a ditch, and that this will not only destroy habitat for fish and wildlife, but also destroy the aesthetic and recreational aspects of the river. As the report candidly admits, "Recently completed project work In the Center ville Bottoms Included 30,000 lineal feet of channel modification which decreased fishery production as well as aesthetics In that portion of stream"2.06.
Response. - Levee construction rather than channelization was selected as the method whereby this reach of the Kings River would carry the design flow releases from Pine Flat Dam. An important reason for selecting this alternative was to prevent damage to riparian ecosystems.
(10) Comment. - In doing all of this potential— and very real— damage, the intent is to protect 500 acres of farm land which Is In the natural flood plain. The cost will be high initially, much higher than the 1973 figures given, and it will be high annually as a local burden in mainten ance. Such costs hardly seem justified.by the acreage involved, and the fact that the danger of major flooding is already contained. The levees could be repaired selectively much less expensively both for the habitat and for the government. But it must be kept in mind that the major cost is in terms of an irreversible destruction of habitat and the nature and quality of the river. The report says that without the project, "The economy of the area could be expected to remain stable...."2.13.
Response. - The need for the work became evident during the 1969 flood when snowmelt runoff in the Kings River watershed above Pine Flat Dam was 272 percent of normal, and the safe carrying capacity of the downstream channels was exceeded during May and June 1969. Flood damages throughout the Kings River system below Pine Flat Dam exceeded $3,600,000. In June 1969 floodwaters topped the banks of Cole Slough between Ward Drainage Canal and Crosscut Waste Canal and flooded about 400 acres of orchards and crops and interrupted traffic on state Route 43. The flooded area was inundated to an average depth of 2 to 3 feet for more than two weeks resulting in agricultural damages estimated at $150,000 and losses to the traveling public in time'and added expense estimated at $14,000 per day. The project design flood upon which design of the remaining channel improvements is based is estimated to occur once in 25 years with lesser floods occurring with greater frequency. Consequently, flooding of this land could be expected with similar frequency if the . levee were not constructed.
(11) Comment. - In view, then, of all these considerations, we recommend that the proposal in its present form not be authorized or continued. We would much prefer that the river habitat be left untouched, but if some work must be done to repair the levees then we recommend that the planning and the work take place under tightly defined and controlled conditions, and that in order to insure maximum care and minimum damage, state and local agencies should be involved iri agreeing to any project and overseeing its accomplishment. Response. - In response to these concerns, representatives of the Corps of Engineers and the Kings River Conservation District met with the Fresno Audubon Society representatives to explain the various features of the project and to view the location of the work in the field. The Fresno Audubon Society representatives expressed their general concurrence in the need for the work but they remain concerned that the construction and maintenance work be carried out with minimum impact on the ecosystem.
9.10. The Committee to Save the Kings River. -
(1) Comment. - The draft statement is so vague and full of qualifications that it is clearly impossible for the critical reader to make any objective evaluation of the environmental impact of the project. Therefore, we recommend revision prior to release of the final Environmental Impact Statement.
Response. - Paragraph 1.02 and Charts 1, 2, and 3 were revised to more clearly indicate the nature of the proposed work. The revised material was supplied to everyone who received a copy of the July 1974 draft environmental statement.
(2) Comment. - Of prime concern is the past record of the Corps of Engineers with channel improvement projects on the Kings River — - notably in the Centerville bottoms area. The habitat losses and visual scars left by that project were abominable. We don't want that to happen again in the Cole Slough — Laton Area. The revised EIS should address in detail the problems encountered at the Centerville Bottoms which resulted in the habitat losses, and should set forth specific plans on how this will be avoided with the present project.
Response. - Levee construction lias been selected as an alternative to the channelization which occurred in the Centerville Bottoms area.
(3) Comment. - The draft Environmental Impact Statement is vague and offers few assurances that the Corps is genuinely committed to environ mental protection. The statement uses many words and phrases which either can't be defined or provide large loopholes for abuse. The revised EIS should use precise language in addressing areas of potential damage and mitigation.
Response. - The draft environmental statement has been revised in preparation of this final statement.
(4) Comment. — Steps should be taken to prevent a reoccurence of past "maintenance" practices. On previous projects, there has been little coordination between the Corps and the maintaining agency. Vegetation, designated for preservation by the Corps of Engineers, was subsequently removed by the maintaining agency. A legally binding agreement should be initiated which would prevent a reoccurrence of such practices.
Response. - See revised paragraph 4.03. However, all of the land will remain in private ownership with KKCi) having only maintenance easements. Consequently, the landower may decide to remove vegetation on his own property.
(3) Comment. - The draft Environmental Impact Statement is severely insufficient and must be revised if it is to meet NEPA guidelines. We look forward to the opportunity to provide further input on that subject.
Response. - This final environmental statement contains additional information and reflects revisions and comments of many public agencies and private individuals and groups.
(6) Comment. - It is our understanding that this project was author ized by the Flood Control Act of 1944 — or is an administrative decision based upon the Act.
Response. - Channel improvements were authorized as part of the overall Pine Flat Lake and Kings River project by the Flood Control Act of 1944 and new legislation was not required. Hence the designation is administrative action for identifying this project for the purpose of this environmental statement.
(7) Comment. - We are also concerned about the necessity for the project. According to our records, there have only been three years since the completion of Pine Flat Dam when major flooding occurred: 1957-58; 1966-67; and 1968-69. The latter two of these floods resulted during the heaviest and third heaviest runoff years on record. We are not familiar with the flooding history of the five hundred acres to be protected by the project, but question the flood control benefits which this project will provide when compared with the costs incurred. Was a benefit-cost study done on this project, and, if so, when was it done? Would you be so kind as to send us a copy of such a study? Has the Corps considered the alternative of buying the five hundred acres in question — for public use? If so, what was the conclusion of your analysis?
Response. - See response to Fresno Audubon comment (10) in para graph 9.09. An independent benefit-cost study was not made for the proposed work as it is considered remedial or project deficiency work under the Kings River Project as authorized in the Flood Control Act of 1944. Purchasing the land subject to flooding in lieu of levee construction is not considered to be a viable alternative because it would cost more than levee construction and tangible benefits would be less. Also, such an alternative would be beyond the scope of the Kings River Project as authorized, and might still result in impairment of the flood control operation of Pine Flat Dam. (8) Comment. - We are also curious as to why the U. S. Government should pay the costs of construction on this project. The landowners purchased the property in the project area at prices which reflected the present flood dangers. If they wish to increase their property values by taking measures to decrease the flooding danger, great. But why should we, as taxpayers, be forced to pay money to increase their property values? Will the landowners be reimbursing the Corps of Engineers for the personal benefits which they receive?
Response. - Although it might appear that the levee construction and bank protection work would benefit only a few landowners, the primary objective of these protection features is to reduce flood damages and land losses by improving the downstream channels so they can safely contain design releases from Pine Flat Dam to Tulare Lake and San Joaquin River. Corps of Engineers authority for this type of activity stems from the 1936 Flood Control Act in which Congress determined that flood control was in the Federal interest and delegated Federal responsibility for flood control to the Corps. In that act, Congress recognized that destructive floods upon the rivers of the United States upset orderly processes and caused loss of life and property, including the erosion of lands, and impairment and obstruction of navigation, highways, railroads, and other channels of commerce between the States. Such destruction was determined to be a menace to national welfare. The 1936 Act further stipulated that expenditure of Federal funds for construction of any project was contingent upon States, political subdivisions thereof, or other responsible local agencies providing without cost to the United States all lands, easements and rights-of-way; holding and saving the United States harmless from damages due to construction; and operating and maintaining the completed works.
(9) Comment. - The Committee feels that nothing has been described "succinctly". Where has the Corps presented the "interrelationships and cumulative environmental impacts of the proposed action and other related Federal projects?"
Response. - The draft statement has been revised to clarify and improve the presentation. There are no related Federal projects along the Kings River, hence there are no cumulative impacts.
(10) Comment. - The Environmental Goals and Policy Report of the state of California considers the project area to be a "resource of statewide critical concern". This is state policy. But where has the Corps discussed this policy?
Response. - Paragraph 3.01 has been revised to reflect the information contained in the state report.
(11) Comment. - Since a project feature includes turning the project over to the maintaining agency, the maintenance procedures used by the maintaining agency will have a direct bearing on secondary impacts. The Corps has not adequately discussed these maintenance procedures in the draft Environmental Impact Statement.
Response. - Paragraph 4.03 has been revised to reflect your concern.
(12) Comment. - The Corps analysis contains no details— only conclusions. There is no information as.to assumptions or even how the conclusions were arrived at.
Response. - The letter supplement to Design Memorandum No. 3t which was prepared concurrent to this environmental statement, contains details on the proposed plan of improvement. This environmental statement presents a summary of these details.
(13) Comment. - How does the cost for this project compare with the figures used in the authorization and what is the justification for this proposed work?
Response. - Hie authorization for the Kings River and Tulare Lake basin project, contained in the Flood Control Act of 1944, provided for such modifications of the plans ". . . as in the discretion of the Secretary of War and the Chief of Engineers may be advisable ..." The intent of the reports upon which the authorization was based was to provide sufficient capacity and regulatory facilities in the cliannels so that Pine Flat Lake could be operated properly for flood control. In those reports, the cost of the channel work was estimated at $200,000, at 1939 prices. This figure, when adjusted to 1975 price level to account for inflation, would equal about $650,000. The cost of project channel improvement work up to 1971 was about $1,800,000. This work included levees and channel work in addition to that used for the 1939 estimate. The proposed work covered in this EIS is estimated to cost $1,640,000 (including non-Federal costs) and also includes work not covered in the 1939 estimate.
Costs and benefits for the project are updated annually, primarily on the basis of price level, with actual, costs integrated into the benefit- cost ratio when separate contracts are completed. Figures used in the 1939 studies do not realistically represent costs and benefits in 1975 and periodic updating and reevaluating are considered necessary.
If no channel improvements were constructed in connection with this project, the flood control operation of the reservoir would be different from the operation of the reservoir with channel improvements. The difference in operating the reservoir without channel improvements when compared to operating the reservoir with the downstream channel improvements results in an incremental benefit-cost ratio of 1.7 for the entire channel improvement portion of the project.
In fiscal year 1975, Congress appropriated funds for construction of the work described In this EIS and the work is identified under the budget heading "Pine Flat Lake and Kings River, California."
(14) Comment. - Will the landowners receive substantial economic gain from this project, and what is the basis of justification for the project other than prevention of flooding of 500 acres?
Response. - The channel Improvement portion of the project was considered to be essentially complete in 1969. However, the floodflows of 1969 revealed a weak link, or deficiency, in the Cole Slough area and at some other locations. The Corps of Engineers studied this area plus other identified deficiencies and determined that additional work was needed. The levee on Cole Slough, the surfacing of patrol roads on the existing levees and the bank protection proposed in this last segment of work are necessary to operate Pine Flat Dam in the manner envisioned in the authorization. The landowners in the immediate area of Cole Slough are not by any means the only recipients of economic gain from this project. In fact, the area of benefit from the project extends through the entire Kings River flood plain. No substantial increase or enhancement of property values is expected to result from this last segment of work. In addition, no change in land use is expected since the County plan identifies the area as agricultural and it is expected to remain in agricultural use. The work on Cole Slough, together with sur facing of 25.5 miles of patrol road and providing bank protection at 16 erosion sites is not being justified solely on the basis of preventing the flooding of 500 acres. The bank protection prevents levee breaks and bank erosion affecting a considerable amount of additional area. The patrol roads are needed in order to properly maintain large segments of the levee and channel work. The proposed work is required in order to provide a complete downstream channel system to pass the design releases from Pine Flat Dam. The benefits for the channel improve ment portion of the project Include flood damages prevented in the entire alluvial flood plain from Highway 99 to Tulare Lake on the south and along Kings River North.
As part of the local cooperation requirements of the project, local interests are to furnish all lands, easements, rights-of-way, and reloca tions needed for the channel improvements. The Kings River Conservation District provided these assurances and as a District assesses the property owners within their district to pay for these rights-of-way and easements.. In this sense the local landowners do provide a part of the cost of the project. In the 1936 Flood Control Act, Congress recognized that control of floods was in the national interest and that the Federal Government should participate in flood control improvements if the benefits to whomsoever they may accrue are in excess of the estimated costs, and if the lives and social security of people are otherwise adversely affected.
9.11. Sierra Club - Tehiplte Chapter. -
(1) Comment. - The Tephipite Chapter of the Sierra Club wishes to go on record in opposition to the Kings River Channel Improvement Project in the Cole Slough ■— Laton area. Our primary reason is that of the Corps' history of "channel improvements," both in the Kings River service area and beyoud. The Corps has the history of making beautiful little streams into denuded, gravel-banked ditches. We saw what happened at the Centerville Bottoms and we vigorously oppose any attempt for a repeat performance.
Response. - Levee construction has been selected as an alternative to the channelization which occurred in the Centerville Bottoms area.
(2) Comment. - The draft Environmental Impact Statement filed by the Corps on this project is so vague and full of loopholes that it would permit another Centerville Bottoms fiasco -- or even worse.
Response. - The draft environmental statement has been revised in preparation of this final statement.
(3) Comment. - The report states that only five acres of riparian habitat will be selectively cleared. It does not seem possible to us that you can put in 14,000 lineal feet of new levee, do 5,000 lineal feet of bank protection work, and resurface twenty-four miles of levee patrol roads and only disturb five acres of riparian habitat. Perhaps the question that we should ask is, "How many acres of riparian habitat will be 'unselectively' cleared; or accidently cleared; or buried under or dug up or run over by construction equipment?"
1 Response. - See response to Fresno Audubon comment (6) in paragraph 9.09.
(4) Comment. - The language in the draft EIS, when describing areas of potential damage and methods of mitigation, is so qualified as to render itself totally useless. Phrases such as "minimum vegetative clearing," and "where the safety of the levee is not involved" provide justification for almost any act. Words such as "minor" (refers to elimination of habitat), and "comparatively small" (refers to removal of streamsidc vegetation), are undefined. How minor is "minor"? Does it mean only one tree or only one forest? how small is "comparatively small"? Does it mean removal of ten percent of the streamside vegetation or twenty percent? Or does It mean compared to the Centerville Bottoms, or perhaps compared to the Los Angeles River in Sherman Oaks?
Response. - The descriptive phrases on the amount of vegetation to be removed refer to the 2.5 acres of vegetation to be removed at the i 16 bank protection sites. This amount of vegetation removal is considered minor and comparatively small in relation to the total amount of habitat in the project area.
(5) Comment. - Quoting from the statement: "The non-Federal main taining agency will be required to preserve existing vegetation where practical (emphasis added), subsequent to completion of the project." How will the maintaining agency be required to do this? Uow will requirement be enforced? Who is to have the discretion or deciding whether or not an action is practical? The last time the maintaining agency was "required to preserve existing vegetation," they ripped out everything within a year. Are they to have the discretion this time around too?
Response. - As explained in response to other comments above, the maintaining agency is required to maintain and operate the completed project in accordance with the regulations of the Secretary of the Army. These regulations are published in Title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 203 - Flood Control Regulations. These regulations are supplemented by the Corps of Engineers with specific requirements for individual projects, which are published in the maintenance manual. The maintenance manual will specify responsibility to preserve existing vegetation, where practical. The memorandum of understanding being negotiated between the Kings River Conservation District, and the Depart ment of Fish and Game will assist in implementing this responsibility. If necessary, the flood control regulations are enforceable in the United States courts.
(6) Comment. - We understand the need to provide flood control along the Kings River. The goal is a commendable one. In this case, however, we feel that the costs -- economically and environmentally — are too great for flood control on only five hundred acres of infrequently flooded land. It would almost be less expensive to purchase the five hundred acres and turn it into a parkway.
Response. - See response to Fresno Audubon comment (10) in para graph 9.09 and response to The Committee to Save the Kings River comments (7) and (8) in paragraph 9.10. 9.12. Fresno County Sportsaen*s Club. -
(1) Comment. - Section 4.03 Mitigation Measures leaves much to be desired and to me gives no assurance that when work begins these things will be observed. You will do, 1 am certain, what it says in the Draft Environmental Statement that you will do. However, terms such as, "Including minimum vegetative clearing". . . ."selective clearing", are not defined and become in my opinion, subjective to the desire or con venience of the personnel doing the work. It appears, to me, that your statement, "standard environmental protection specifications of the Corps of Engineers also provide effective control of contractor opera tions. . . • ., and equipment will be restricted from operating in the 1," would permit the Corps or its contractor to rape the Cole Slough as was done by the Corps near Centerville.
Response. - Section 4.03 has been revised to clarify th?*se concerns. Specifications in the construction contract issued by the Corps of Engineers for the accomplishment of the proposed work detail the environmental protection and mitigation measures required of tne contractor. Corps of Engineers inspectors assure compliance with these specifications during construction. There will be no operation in the streambed at the levee construction site but it will be necessary to operate equipment at the bank protection sites to excavate for and to place the rock toe.
(2) Comment. - I believe that Mr. Taylor will preserve all vegetation that is possible and still operate and maintain the irrigation district efficiently. However, Mr. Taylor will probably move on to another engineering challenge one day. Then his successor may well interpret under section 4.03 the statement, "The non-Federal maintaining agency will be required to preserve existing vegetation where practical (emphasis added) subsequent to completion of the project...... as long as it remains in a healthy condition." This could very well lead to the completely denuding of the streambanks and levee-roads system. Tne use of herbicides is not precluded and could easily reduce the vegetation to a less than "a healthy condition."
Response. - The Kings River Conservation District and the California Department of Fish and Game have entered into negotiations on a Memorandum of Understanding between their agencies concerning maintenance of vegetation on lands within the Kings River Designated Floodway on which KRCD has main tenance easements. This memorandum should provide continuity on maintenance procedures regardless of changes in personnel. (3) Comment. - Therefore, it appears that without any specific safe guards written into the Draft Environmental Statement we must rely on the integrity of those in charge of the project at present and in the future.
Response. - The proposed Memorandum of Understanding should provide, the desired safeguards. It is not within the scope of the environmental statement to provide the safeguards.
*9.13. The Resources Agency of California.
(1) Comment. - Riparian habitat in the project area has been designated as a resource of statewide critical concern in the report prepared by the state Office of Planning and Research entitled "Environmental Goals and Policy". We believe the final environmental statement should include an inventory of the resource in the project area. Information should be included on acreage and linear miles of stream supporting significant riparian growth. Because of the importance of the riparian habitat, we are particularly interested in avoiding in this Instance the adverse aspects of past channel clearance work in other portions of the Kings River Project, particularly in the Centerville Bottoms area and the area below Lemoore Weir. Significant losses of riparian habitat have resulted from channel clearance activities related directly or indirectly to the project, largely through uncontrolled cutting of riparian habitat.
Response. - Paragraph 3.01 has been revised to reflect this concern. The 2.5 acres of riparian habitat, which presently are undergoing active erosion by the Kings River would, if left unprotected, result in complete destruction of remnants of riparian habitat and the active erosion sites could spread to adjacent riparian habitat presently not affected by erosion. Since the extent of involvement of the proposed project with riparian habitat in relation to the total habitat along the Kings River is small, we believe that preparation of a detailed inventory is not warranted. We believe the description of environmental setting discussed in paragraphs 2.05, 2.06, 2.13, 3.01, Appendix I and of impact in paragraphs 4.02, 4.03, 5.01, 7.01, 8.01 and in several places in Section IX of the EIS fully discloses the relationship between the riparian habitat and the channel improvement work.
Regarding past channel clearing implications, there will be no equipment operated in the streambed at the levee construction site. Excavation for placement of the rock toe will be necessary at the bank protection sites. Channel clearing is not required as part of the construction of this portion of the project to achieve the desired flood control objectives. (2) Comment. - The environmental statement should indicate the nature and extent of the Corps' responsibility to enforce maintenance provisions set forth in the maintenance manual, particularly with respect to the maintenance of wildlife habitat.
Response. - Maintenance provisions and means of enforcement are described in paragraph 4.03 and paragraph 9.11(5).
(3) Comment. - Advice of the Department of Fish and Game in regard to wildlife aspects will be solicited by the Department of Water Resources in its maintenance inspection activities on the completed projects.
Response. — So noted.
(4) Comment. - The draft statement expresses awareness of the site of Kingston as a State Historical Landmark. It should be recognized that adequate protective measures must be designed to ensure the historical integrity of the site. Involvement by the Corps of Engineers in the construction of new levees requires compliance with Executive Order 11593 in evaluating the site for possible inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places.
Response. - After reviewing the reconnaissance archeological survey done by Dr. Payson Sheets of California State University, Fresno, the letter dated 27 March 1973 from the State Historical Preservation Officer (Appendix II) and drawings showing that the proposed work will ' not affect Kingston, we determined that all known historical and archeo logical sites are outside the area of potential environmental impact from this project. Since there will be no substantial alteration or demolition as stated in Executive Order 11593, there is no need for evaluation concerning the National Register of Historic Places.
(5) Comment. - The levees and levee roads proposed in this project are good prospective recreation trail routes. Since public funds are being invested, it would appear that provisions for public access for riding, hiking and nonmotorized cycling should be included if feasible. We suggest your consideration of this potential use.
Response. - Potential recreation use has been considered and rejected as described in paragraphs 6.05 and 9.04(9). APPENDIX I
ENVIRONMENTAL INVENTORY
Following Is a list of flora and fauna found In the project area.l/
TREES
Common Name Scientific Name
Digger pine Pinus sabinlana Blue oak Quercus douglassll Valley oak Quercus lobata Interior live oak Quercus wisllzenii Oregon ash Fraxinus latifolla Fremont cottonwood Populus fremontii White alder Alnus rhomblfolla California laurel Umbellularla callfornica Western sycamore Platanus racemosa California buckeye Aesculus callfornica
WILD FLOWERS
Blue Flowers
Wild iris Iris spp. Blue larkspur Delphinastrum decorum Bird's eye gilla Gilla tricolor Chia Salivia columbariae Baby blue eyes Nemophlla menzlesll Harvest brodiaea Brodiaea coronaria Grass nut brodiaea Brodiaea laxa Blue dicks brodiaea Brodiaea pulchella
Yellow Flowers
Golden brodiaea Brodiaea lutea Golden ear drops Dicentra chrysantha Western wall flower Erysimum asperum
1/ Information compiled by Project Manager, Pine Flat Dam, with assistance from: Bill Blain -(Fresno County Parks & Recreation Department) Elmer Martin -(Fresno County Parks & Recreation Department) Dean Schlobohim-(Calif* State Division of Forestry) Richard Ford -(Calif. State Division of Forestry) State Department of Fish and Game Fresno County Library California poppy Eschscholtzia californica Tarweed Hemizonia spp. California goldenrod Solidago californica Fiddleneck Phacellia tanacetifolia Single stemmed butterweed Senecio vulgaris Rabbit brush Chrysothamnus spp. Common madia Madia elegans Blazing star Mentzelia laevicaulis Tidy tips Layia platyglossa Live forever Cotyledon spp.
White Flowers
Jimson weed Datura stramonium Miner's lettuce Montia perfoliata Popcorn flower Plagiobothrys spp. Indian milkweed Asclepias spp. Mariposa lily Calochortus splendens Yarrow Achillea spp.
Red Flowers
Indian paintbrush Castilleja spp. Indian warrior Pedicularis densiflora Columbine Aquilegia spp. „
Pink Flowers
Farewell-to-spring Clarkia gracilis Thistle Cirsium spp. Bleeding heart Dlcentra formosa
Purple Flowers
Chinese houses Co11insia bicolor Owl's clover Orthocarpus purpurascens Purple nightshade Solanum xantli
Shrubs
Ho rehound Marrublum spp. Bush beard-tongue Pentstemon lemmonii Western redbud Cercis occidentalis Buckbrush or wedgeleaf Ceanothus cuneatus ceanothus Common Name Scientific Name
Whiteleaf manzanita Arctostaphylos visclda Spice bush Calycanthus occidentalis Button willow Cephalanthus occidentalis Bush lupine Lupinus alblfrons Southern monkeyflower Mimulus spp. Barberry Berberis spp. Yerba santa or wild peach Eriodictyon californicum Chaparral honeysuckle Lonicera interrupts Flannel bush or fremontia Fremontia callfornica Bush poppy Dendromecon rigida Birch-leaf mountain mahogany Cercocarpus minutiflorus Chaparral whitethorn Condalia incanus Flowering ash Fraxinus dipetala Western chokecherry Prunus virglnlana Squaw bush Rhus trilobata Poison oak Rhus diverslloba California coffeeberry Rhamnus callfornica Blue elderberry Sambucus glauca Tree tabacco Nicotlana glauca Bush senecio Senecio spp.
MAMMALS
Desert cottontail Sylvllagus auduboni Badger Taxidea taxus Beaver Castor canadensis Black-tailed jackrabbit Lepus californicus California mule deer Odocoileus hemionus California striped skunk Mephitis mephitis California spotted skunk Spilogale putorius Coyote Canis latrans Gray fox Urocyon clnereoargenteus Muskrat Ondatra zibethicua Raccoon Procyon lotor Ringtail Bassariscus astutus Opossum Dldelphis marsupialls Western gray squirrel Sclurus griseus California ground squirrel Otospermophilus beecheyl Valley pocket gopher Thomomys bottae Deer mouse ' Peromyscus maniculatus Western harvest mouse Reithrodontomys megalotis REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS
Common Name Scientific Name
REPTILES
Northern Pacific Crotalus viridus rattlesnake Spotted night snake Hypsiglena torquata California king snake Lampropeltis getulus Western long-nosed snake Rhinocheilus lecontei Coachwhip Mastlcophis flagellum California whip-tailed Cnemidophorus tigrls lizard Side-bloched lizard Uta stansburlana Western fence lizard Sceloporus occidentalis
AMPHIBIANS
Pacific tree frog Hyla regilla California toad Bufo boreas Bullfrog Rana catesbeiana
FISH
Squawfish Ptychocheilus grandis Hardhead Mylopharodon conocephalus Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomleu Green sunfish Lepomls cyanellus Blueglll Lepomis macrochirus Black crappie Pomoxis nlgromaculatus White crappie Pomoxis annularis White catfish Ictalurus catus Brown bullhead Ictalurus nebulosus Channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus Golden shiner Notemlgonus crysoleucas Threadfin shad Dorosoma petenense Hitch Lavinia exilicauda BIRDS
Common Name Scientific Name
California thrasher Toxostoma redlvivum Western kingbird Tyrannus vertlcalls Phainopepla Phainopepla nitens Loggerhead shrike Lanlus ludovlclanus Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensls Sparrow hawk Falco sparverlus Brown-headed cowbird Molothrus ater Brewer's blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus Red-winged blackbird Agelalus phoenlceus Western meadowlark Sturnella neglecta Horned lark Eremophlla alpestris Yellow-billed magpie Pica nuttalli Common crow Corves brachvrnynchos Mockingbird Mlmus polyglottos Western bluebird Sialla mexicana Scrub jay Aphelocoma coerulescens White-breasted nuthatch Sltta carolinensls White-crowned sparrow Zonotrlchia leucophrys Lark sparrow Chondestes grammacus Rufous-sided towhee Pipilo erythrophthalmus Brown towhee Pipilo fuscus Robin Turdus mlgratorius Killdeer Charadrlus voclferus Bullock's oriole Icterus bullockli Audubon's warbler Dendrolca auduboni Ruby-crowned kinglet Regulus calendula Water pipit Anthus spinoletta Plain titmouse Parus inornatus Bewick's wren Thryomanes bewickii Wrentit Chamaea fasciata Red-shafted flicker Colaptes cafer Acorn woodpecker Melanerpes formiclvorus Black-chinned hummingbird Archilochus alexandri Anna's hummingbird Calypte anna . Cliff swallow Petrochelldon pyrrhonota Barn swallow. Hlrundo rustica Barn owl Tyto alba Screech owl Otus asio Mourning dove Zenaidura macroura Band-tailed pigeon Columba fasciata California quail Lophortyx californicus Spotted sandpiper Actltls macularia White-tailed kite Elanus leucurus Turkey vulture Cathartes aura APPENDIX II
SU TE OF CALIFORNIA—RESOURCES AGENCY______RONALD REAGAN, Governor dOvRTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION P.O. BOX 2390 SACRAMENTO 95811 *
March 27, 1973
Mr* George C. Weddell Department of the Army Corps of Engineers 650 Capitol Mall Sacramento, California 95814
Dear Mr* Weddell:
The State Liaison Officer has asked me to answer your letter concerning the historical resources along the Kings River.
We have found that the project could possibly have an affect on California Historical Landmark #270, "Kingston", located 1*7 miles southwest of Laton and #245, "Location of the Famous Mussel Slough Tragedy", 4 miles north of Grangevllle* Recorded archeological sites are located at various points along the work area* Most of the known sites are located northwest of Lemoore where the Clark Fork of the Kings River and the South Fork of the Kings River divide* However, we have found that there are no State Points of Historical Interest or sites on the National Register of Historic Places which would be affected by the project*
We would suggest that consideration be given to identifying and safeguarding any potential historical and archeological resources which may not be presently recorded on any landmark register*
For information regarding historical resources currently not registered by the State, please contact Mrs. Vlki N* Aravjo, Regional Vice President, Conference of Historical Societies, 2801 Coventry Drive, Bakersfield, Cali fornia 93304.
Since recorded archeological sites are located in the general vicinity, we would also suggest that the sponsor initiate a preliminary archeological field investigation prior to any actual site disturbance* For Information regarding archeological survey work and sites, please contact Payson Sheets, Department of Anthropology, California State University at Fresno.
If we can be of any further help, please call or write us*
Sincerely,
John H ( Michael, Supervisor History Preservation Section a p p e w d i k h i
REFEIlEiiCES CITED
1. Public Law j 34, Seventy-eighth Congress, second session, 58 Stat. 337.
2. Design liemorandun IJo. 3, Kings diver Chanuel Improvement, King.; diver and Tulare Lake, California, dated 20 April 1053.
3. "Geology of Lortnern California," bulletin 130, California Division of /lines and Geology, I960.
•+. Final Draft deport, Vol. II Part 2, Channel .{edifications - An environ mental, Economic and Financial Assessment, Arthur U. Little, Inc., 31 ilarcu 1972.
5. "United States List of Endangered Fauna," U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, day 1974. o. "At tne Crossroads," California Department of l-'isu and Game, January 1j 7<».
7. California historical Landmarics, State of California, Department of Parks and Recreation, 1971.
3. uistory of Fresno County, Wallace W. Elliott 4 Co. Publishers, San Francisco, 1831.
9. "Water Resources Appraisal for hydroelectric Licensing, wings diver Basin, California," Federal Power Commission, 1974.
10. "Air Quality in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin," California Air Resources Board, 1973.
11. "Environmental Goals and Policies - Summary Report," California Office of Planning and wcscarcn. 1 June 1973.
12. California Water Code, Section o4iJ et. seq., effective January 1974. APPENDIX IV
Letters Received by the District Engineer On the Draft Environmental Statement
Page
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service IV 1 U.S. Department of Transportation IV 3 U.S. Department of the Interior IV 4 U.S. Department of health, Education andWelfare IV 7 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - IV 8 Kings County Planning Agency IV 1U Fresno County Planning Department IV 11 Kings River Conservation District IV 13 Sportsmen's Council of Central California IV 14 Fresno Audubon Society IV 13 The Committee to Save the Kings River IV 19 Sierra Club, Tehipite Chapter IV 23 Fresno County Sportsmen's Club IV 30 *The Resources Agency of California 1/ IV 32 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE P. 0. Box 1019, Davis, CA 95616
September 5» 197^
F. G. Rockwell, Jr. Colonel, CE District Engineer Department of the Army Sacramento District Corps of Engineers 650 Capitol Mall. Sacramento, California 958lU
Dear Sir:
We acknowledge receipt of the draft environmental statement on the Kings River channel improvement project, Cole Slough - Laton Area, California.
The statement does not provide for control of erosion and sediment pro duction, or management of water during construction, other than re stricting equipment from operating in the streambed.
About ten acres of "prime farmland" will be lost, however, this is on land which has been used to control river flow. Wildlife habitat will be lost in the areas requiring removal of vegetation for flood control, but riparian vegetation such as willows will come back rapidly following construction. Volunteer annuals will provide habitat for wildlife species different from those requiring trees or shrubs.
The statement provides no provision for stockpiling, protection or proper disposition of topsoil. This item is significant and deserves consideration.
To the best of our knowledge, the proposed action has no effect on Soil Conservation Service projects.
We appreciate the invitation to review and comment on the proposed project.
Sincerely,
/G. H. Stone State Conservationist
cc: Fred Collison, SCS, Fresno UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE___ P. 0. Box 1019, Davis, CA 956l6
December 10, 197^
Colonel F. G. Rockwell, Jr. District Engineer Corps of Engineers 650 Capitol Mall Sacramento, California 9581*+
Dear Colonel Rockwell:
We acknowledge receipt of the revised paragraph 1.02 and charts 1, 2, and 3 of the draft environmental statement on the Kings River Project - Cole Slough-Laton Area, California.
This revised material causes no change in the comments submitted earlier. These comments are in my letter of September 5, 197U.
We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on the revised material.
Sincerely,
G. H. STONE State Conservationist U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION—REGION NINE
450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36096, San Francisco, Calif. 94102
September 12, 1974
IN REPLY REFER TO 9ED
Colonel F. G. Rockwell, Jr. District Engineer Dept, of the Army, Sacramento District Corps of Engineers 650 Capitol Mall Sacramento, California 95814 Dear Colonel Rockwell:
We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact State ment for the Kings River Channel Improvement Project, Cole Slough-Laton Area, California, and have no comments to offer.
We appreciate this opportunity to review the subject Draft Statement.
Sincerely yours,
For ' F. E. Hawley Regional Administrator UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY PACIFIC SOUTHWEST REGION BOX 36098 . 450 GOLDEN GATE AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 94102 (415) 5 5 6 -8 2 0 0 September 16, 1974
District Engineer Department of the Army Corps of Engineers Sacramento District 650 Capitol Mall Sacramento, California 95814
Dear Sir: The Department of the Interior has reviewed the draft environmental statement for Kings River Channel Improvements, Cole Slough— Eaton Area, Kings and Fresno Counties, California.
Information on geology, including surficial deposits, is largely limited to a statement that the region is underlain by Jurassic and younger sediments (p. 3). It would seem desirable to provide information in the environmental statement on the height of the proposed levees, the type of material to be used for fill, the approximate extent of the 500 acres of land to be protected, the necessity for relocations that have been referred to (p. 2, center), and the degree of infringement upon the natural flood plains of Kings River, Cole Slough, and Dutch John Cut. The function of the branching levee near the center of Chart 2 and of the double levee south of Laton should also be explained in the statement. We suggest the environmental statement mention the area's mineral resources and discuss project impact on their availability. We recommend that the draft discuss channel capacity. The statement treats use during the irrigation season but does not mention flood flows. Pine Flat flood-controlled release permits up to 18,000 cfs; this could be more under certain conditions. We assume the proposed new channel will handle flows of this magnitude, but the report does not consider this aspect. The water-quality statements are minimal (p. 6, paragraph 2.11). An outdated study 20 miles upstream may not be representative at this time and location. No water-quality monitoring program is proposed, although a small program might be desirable. It is not clear what water-quality control will be enforced during construction. A regional park (p. 6) and a potential trail system (p. 7) are mentioned in relation to the project area. Increased costs to the Kings River Conservation Districts would result from imple mentation of a trail system. These features could be mentioned in the Probable Impact section if the project would offset them. If there are any mitigation measures related to these recreation features such measures should be discussed in the draft. The new levee will protect 500 acres of agricultural land, (p. 8). The last sentence of 6.02 on page 11 implies that if no levee were constructed, the entire Kings River project would be affected. Jn fact, it would only affect the 500 acres already under culti vation. Rewording would clarify this. Levee construction would seem to be a separable addition to the other project aspects. If so, it could be treated more completely in the Alternatives section and as a separable part in the benefit-cost analysis for this work. The major benefit from the levee construction would seem to be any net increase to the flow of income from 500 acres of agricultural land.
The draft does not seem to recognize recreation as a viable use of the river and adjacent lands. The impacts of alternative or even no action have not included any real discussion as to project effects on recreation. The Laton-Kingston Regional Park, located just south of Laton, is being developed on both sides of the river by Fresno and Kings Counties. If the park encompasses lands within the existing levees in the area of Kingston, the project impact on the regional park should be mentioned. The statement indicates that implementation of a Kings County trail along the branches of the Kings River "could increase maintenance costs for the Kings River Conservation Districts channel." We suggest the positive values of the proposed trail be discussed. The trail would be constructed on public lands to the "fishing resources, sandy beaches and areas containing desirable aesthetics" mentioned in the statement. This trail would allow increased public use of the lower Kings River, result ing in positive public benefit. The proposal should recognize the need for recreation enhancement along lower Kings River. With ameliorating features, the proposed action would cause less destruction of natural amenities and could result in a more well-rounded project than any of the alternatives that are considered in the draft.
The statement does not adequately describe the effect removal of riparian vegetation will have on wildlife. There is very little natural vegetation left in this agricultural area and considerable thought should be given to a plan which proposes to remove or seriously modify what is left. The draft discusses several fish and wildlife mitigation measures that would be included with the project. However, to insure adequate habitat protection another mitigation measure that should be considered and discussed in the statement is the acquisition of all lands where vegetation would be retained or planted.
Borrow areas should be carefully selected to avoid damage to archeological resources. Since the archeological investigation did not include borrow areas, they should be surveyed by a pro fessional archeologist before excavation begins. If significant archeological resources are identified, they should be described and evaluated for their National Register potential and alternate borrow sites considered. Copies of archeological reports should be provided to the National Park Service in accordance with section 3(a) of Public Law 93-291.
The statement should also indicate consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer or include a copy of his comments regarding the effect of the project upon properties either listed on or in the process of nomination to the National Register of Historic Places.
We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on the draft statement.
Cordially,
Webster Otis Special Assistant to the Secretary cc: OEPR, Washington, D. C. RD, PWS, Portland RD, BOR, San Francisco RD, NPS, San Francisco Dir., GS, Reston Dir., BOM, Washington, D. C. RD, BR, Sacramento Area Dir., BIA, Sacramento St. Dir., BLM, Sacramento DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE REGIONAL OFFICE
50 FULTON STREET
SAN FR AN CISCO . C A L IF O R N IA 04102 O F F IC E O F THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR Office of Environmental Affairs
September 23, 1974
F. G. Rockwell, Jr, Colonel, CE District Engineer Department of the Army Sacramento District, Corps of Engineers 650 Capitol Mall Sacramento, California 95814
Dear Mr, Rockwell:
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Kings River Project, Cole Slough-Laton Area, California, has been reviewed in accordance with the interim procedures of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare as rr; juired by Section 102 (2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act, PL 91-190.
The material provided appears to describe adequately the impacts of the proposed action as well as the alternatives that were presented. The major concerns of this department are related to possible impacts upon the health of the population, services to that population and changes in the characteristics of the population which would require a different level or extent of services. Our review does not identify problems related to these specific concerns.
We regret the delay in responding, however the unexpected volume of state ments coupled with limited manpower precluded an earlier reply.
The opportunity to review this statement was appreciated.
Sincerely,
' James D. Knochenhauer Regional Environmental Officer
cc: Ms. P. Hayes Mr. W. Muir UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY R EG IO N IX 100 CALIFORNIA STREET , SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 94111
OCT 2 1974 Colonel F. G. Rockwell, Jr. District Engineer Sacramento District Corps of Engineers 650 Capitol Mall Sacramento CA 95814
Dear Colonel Rockwell:
The Environmental Protection Agency has received and reviewed the draft environmental impact statement for the following proposed action: Kings River Project, Cole Slough, Laton, California.
EPA's comments on the draft statement have been classified as Category LO-1. Definitions of the categories are provided on the enclosure.' The classi fication and the date of EPA's comments will be published in the Federal Register in accordance with our responsibility to inform the public of our views on pro posed Federal actions under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act. Our procedure is to categorize our comments on both the environmental consequences of the proposed action and the adequacy of the impact statement at the draft stage.
EPA appreciates the opportunity to comment on this draft statement and requests two copies of the final statement when available.
Sincerely,
/Paiu De Falco, Jr. / Regional Administrator
cc: Council on Environmental Quality, Wash. D.C. 20460 CHAPTER 3 PREPARATION, APPROVAL, AND DISTRIBUTION 0? COMMENTS ON REVIEW 0? FEDERAL .ACTIONS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS IMPACTING THE ENVIRONMENT
Environmental Impact of the Action LO— Lack of Objections
EPA has no objections to the proposed action as described in the draft impact statement; or suggests only minor changes in the proposed action.
2R---Environmental Reservations
EPA has reservations concerning the environmental effects of certain aspects of the proposed action. EPA believes that further study of suggested alternatives or modifications is required and has asked the originating Federal agency to reassess these aspects.
EU— Environmentally Unsatisfactory
EPA believes that the proposed action is unsatisfactory because of its potentially harmful effect on the environment. Furthermore, the Agency believes that the potential safe guards which night be utilized nay not adequately protect the environment from hazards arising from, this action. The Agency recommends that alternatives to the action be analyzed further (including the possibility of no action at all).
Adequacy of the Impact Statement
Category 1--Adeauate
The draft impact statement adequately secs forth the environmental impact of the proposed project or action as well as alternatives reasonably available to the project or action. • Category 2— Insufficient Information
EPA believes that the draft impact statement do^s not contain sufficient information to assess fully the environmental impact of the proposed project or.action. However, from the information submitted, the Agency is abie to make a preliminary determination of the impact or. the environment. EPA has requested that the originator provide the informa tion that was .not included in the draft statement. Category 3— Inadequate
EPA believes that the draft impact statement does not adequately assess the environmental impact of the proposed project or action, or that the statement inadequately analyzes reasonably available alternatives. The Agency has requested more information and analysis concerning the potential environmental hazards and nas asked that substan tial revision be made to the impact statement.
If a draft impact statement is assigned a Category 3, r.o rating will be made of the project or action, since a basis does not generally exist on which to make such a determination. Kings C ounty Planning A gency
11BIS ItTH AVENUE - P. □. BOX C - HANFORD, CALIFORNIA • P H O N E 582-3211 EXT. 4 0 7
PLANNING COMMISSION BUILDING INSPECTION
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS ZONING ADMINISTRATION August 15, 1974 George C. Waddell Corps of Engineers 650 Capitol Mall Sacramento, California
Dear Mr. Weddell: Listed below are staff comments on the "Draft Environmental Statement: Kings River Project, Cole Slough-La ton Area." Seme of the points do not raise critical environ mental issues, but were included to point out minor errors or emissions you may wish to correct. 1. Section 2.05 states "This (riparian) vegetation tends to buffer the river from man-made levees..." It seems that the thick understory, shrubs, and grasses would prevent bank and levy erosion. Why then is this vegetation being removed for bank protection? Is the removal temporary?
2. As noted in the Arthur D. Little, Inc., "Report on Channel Modifications," the maintenance of a single purpose conveyance channel is at odds with main tenance of a stable and diverse riparian habitat, which is "in critically short supply in California." Hopefully, the mitigation measures outlined will prevent initial and ensuing damage, though the actions of local districts are not easily policed.
3. Section 2.02 "Jurossic" should be "Jurassic."
4. Section 2.12 While air quality is generally good, mention mioht be made of the fact that the Valley has experienced the greatest nurrber of days for which High Air Pollution Potential Advisories have been in effect than in any other area within the United States.
5. On the general map, the road leading into Laton from the south is actually "12 3/4 Avenue."
6. The map indicates levee surfacing and bank protection work in Laton-Ki ngston County Parks. This is a popular public recreation area.
I hope these contents will contribute to a couplets and accurate EIS and well con sidered decisions.
Very truly yours,
KINGS COUNTY PLANNING AGENCY Charles Gardner, Director
—— - - 4. ^ / Glen Matteson, Planner PLANNING DEPARTMENT
*499 E. KINGS CANYON ROAD FRESNO. CALIFORNIA 93702 PHONE 488-3849
October 30, 1974
Col. F. G. Rockwell, Jr. Department of the Army Corps of Engineers 650 Capitol Mall Sacramento, CA 95814 Doar Colonel Rockwell:
Subject: EIS Kings River Project, Cole Slough-Laton Area Enclosed you will find the County of Fresno's only comments on the EIS prepared for the Kings River Project, Cole Slough-Laton Area.
We are sorry for exceeding the deadline specified in the cover letter attached to the EIS. If you have any questions concerning these comments, it is suggested that you contact Mr. Paul Morrisson, Director of Parks and Recreation for Fresno County.
Very truly yours,
DONALD LIVINGSTON Director of Planning
ftrcnaraK. Allen Senior Planner DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
KEARNEY PARK 6725 W. KEARNEY BLVD. FRESNO. CALIFORNIA 93706 TELEPHONE: 233-735B
October 28, 1974
MEMORANDUM
Td: Richard Allen, Senior Planner Planning Department
Subject: EIS - Kings River Project, Cole Slough
You asked if I had any comments on the above EIS. I am of the opinion that the report does not adequately" cover the subject. Basically, I do not think there is enough information for me to make an intelligent decision as to the merit of the project. ’
In the maintenance of the levee, I see no place where the California Department of Fish and Game will be consulted and have a part in the maintenance program of the new levee.
Finally, if this project is comparable to the channelization of the • Kings river, near Centerville, I would be opposed to the project. All habitat, fish and wildlife were destroyed when that vrork was done.
Sincerely,
PAUL MORRISSON, DIRECTOR Kings River Conservation District 4886 E. Jensen Avenue • Fresno, California 93725 Telephone: (209) 237-5567
September 3, 1974
Colonel F. G. Rockwell, Jr. District Engineer Department of The Army Sacramento District, Corps of Engineers 650 Capitol Mall Sacramento, California 95814
Re: Your SPKED-W
Dear Colonel Rockwell:
Reference is made to your letter, dated July 16, 1974, requesting comments from this District regarding the draft environmental statement on the Kings River channel improvement project. Cole Slough-Laton Area, California.
After reviewing the report, we have only the following minor comments:
1. Gravel Roads: The "Summary" page shows 24 miles of existing levee patrol roads will be gravel surfaced. This is shown to be 25 miles on page 2 and 26.5 miles on page 8.
2. Bank Protection Sites: The "Summary" page shows 16 sites whereas Plate 2 shows 25 sites. It is our understanding that 16 is the correct number of sites.
Sincerely yours,
KINGS RIVER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
ueijr L. Taylqr General Manager-Chief Engineer Sportsmen 6 Councif of Central! Caiifort^yi
REPRESENTING THI COUNTIES OF: Ffttrno - Kern - K inss - Madera - Mariposa - M erced - Mon terey - San Be n it o - T ulare - Stanislaus San Luis O rispo - Sa n ta Ba r ia r a - Sa n ta Cruz 815 West Gettysburg Ave., Fresno, California 93705 T10N July 24, 1974
Colonel F.G. Rockwell, Jr., District Engineer Army Corps of Engineers 650 Capitol Mall hfifSfSfS. 95811.
Dear Colonel Rockwell: Thank you very much for sending me a copy of the Draft Environ mental Statement for the Cole Slough project on the lower Kings River.
I have attempted to digest it all. I wish that my time would permit me to make an on-the-ground tour of the project prior to the September 16 deadline which you have set for either criticism or objections.
I have talked at length with Mr. Jeff Taylor of the Kings River Conservation District about the project and also with Mr. Dan Smith of the Department of Fish and Game, here in Fresno.
As a result of my study of the project and conversations with Taylor and Smith it appears to me that the District and the Corps have endeavored to keep the losses of stream and riparian habitat of both fish and wildlife to a minimum. We know that the project was authorized nearly 30 years ago and that work does need to be done in the area. I am therefore relying on the integrity of you and Mr. Taylor to see that such habitat losses are held to a minimum. I am in hopes that the Army Corps of Engineers will make every effort to forstall reoccurrences of habitat destruction as occurred near Centerville a few years ago, when the landowners went into the area after the Corps had completed their work and had left the project. In t5is case you will remember the Corps was unjustly blamed for habi^tat losses created by these river-bottom landowners.
I am writing a letter of support to Assemblyman Ernest N. Mobley for his AB-3551, copies are enclose^!.
Respectfully yoaps,
Lewis E. Carpenter, Secretary. cc: Mr. Jeff L. Taylor, General Manager, Kings River Conservation District Ernest N. Mobley, Assemblyman, 33rd District California Wildlife Federation National Wildlife Federation Keith Gaffaney, Leg islative Advocate, CWF Dan Smith, Department of Fish and Game, Fresno. Fresno Audubon Society
FRESNO, CALIFORNIA September 12, 197**
F. G. Rockwell, Jr. Colonel, CE District Engineer Department of the Arj«y 650 Capitol Mall Sacramento, California 9581*4
Attention; GPKED-W
Dear Sir:
We of the Fresno Audubon Society are writing to express our concerns re garding the Kings River Channel Improvement Project, Cole Slough-Laton Area, California. The proposed project area is close to us, we have observed the nature and quality of similar projects on other sections of the same river, and we have gone over by foot or car the major part of the stream where it is proposed that the work be done. We have also read the July, 197*4, version of the environmental report carefully. Unfortunately, we did not know about the project earlier and so could not have contributed at an earlier stage.
In brief, we feel that the environmental report is often vague, general, and carefully laden with qualifications that make almost anything possible in the destruction of the riparian habitat along the river. We feel that the des truction of the riparian habitat will be devastating and nearly complete as well as irreversible, that the consequent destruction of habitat for wildlife will destroy most of the remaining wildlife in the area, and that the aesthetic qualities of the river will be destroyed.
In making these statements we are not speaking theoretically but rather on the basis of our actual knowledge of what the Corps of Engineers did to the river in the Centerville area, a stretch of river that was once one of the prime fishing and recreation areas on the river close to Fresno, the major metropolitan area in the County. During the work there, bulldozers ran in and out and across the river pushing the gravel up into bare gravel banks and dikes. The marks of their work was everywhere visible and can still be seen. Such action destroyed the bed of the river for fish life, and virtually destroyed the habitat along the river. In fact, what was once a beautiful stretch of river became a denuded, gravel banked ditch. It was, and is, a crime that should not have been allowed and that will take many decades to recover from, if that is ever to be possible. On the basis of this vidence, and clearly on the basis of the current environmental report, it is apparent . hat the Corps of Engineers is once again planning to do the same sort of thing to Othe river and its complicated related environments. To begin with an analysis of the report, we notice that the name of the action is "Administrative" and not Legislative. In 1.02 it is said that "This work will be supplemental to the authorized project...". Apparently, then, the work proposed in this report was not originally authorized by legislative action, and it cannot thus honestly and fairly be described as "the last remaining segment of a large multiple purpose structural project that is all completed in other respects...."6.02. Rather, this is further work the Corps of Engineers is embarking on, and we thus wish to raise at the very beginning the fundamental question about the right and the authority of the Corps of Engineers to make such fundamental proposals and even decisions about the land and environment of our area. It would seem to us on the face of it that the whole matter is so complex that the decisions should rightly belong in the hands of other agencies that have a broader vision of the consequences of disturbing the ecoicgicai '.•adcr.cos that now prevail. We feel this point strongly and we intend to take up the matter of authority and right with Congressman Sisk as soon as we can get this report to him. We request formally that no further action on this project be taken until there is time to get formal Judgments from Congressman Sisk.
As the report acknowledges, riparian habitat is of major value to wildlife in the San Joaquin Valley, and it is especially so in the area proposed because the adjacent heavy agricultural use has severly limited it. As the report says, 2.06 "Vegetation associated with natural water courses such as described here provides the only,permanent habitat available for upland game in this area since there has been extensive agricultural developments." In the other three areas of the river where the Corps of Engineers has carried out such "improvements", the riparian habitat has almost been completely destroyed. The fact of such destruction, which is a clear evidence of how the Corps operates, makes the general statements in the report about the protection of trees and environment patently false. In fact, there is no specific, exact evidence in the report about how the riparian habitat will be handled, nothing is said precisely about’what will happen to the trees and shrubs. Eut it is clear in general, in spite of the protestations, that most, if not all trees and shrubs will eventually be removed from the project area and kept removed in the future by local maintenance. As the report admits, 5.01 "Long-term adverse impacts will result from the loss of habitat along the ll*,000 lineal feet of new levee and from the periodic removal of volunteer vegetation required for the effective flood control operation of the project."
The report suggests that such damage will be mitigated in part by coordination with the California Department of Fish and Game to minimize the adverse impacts on wildlife habitat. 5.01. But we have checked this assertion with the Department of Fish and Game and discovered that in the past project there was little or no co ordination, and that in one instance the Department of Fish and Game went out to discover that the damage was all done and over with before it had been given a chance to intervene. One of the difficulties, apparently, is that the Corps of Engineers operates almost as a separate entity that gives little or no genuine attention to the concerns and rights of individuals and organizations in a project area. The fact that this has been so underscores the rhetorical dishonesty of the present report. Another instance of the same sort of questionable statement is to be found in the assertion that only five acres of riparian habitat will be "selectively cleared." It is not credible that in putting in 1^,000 lineal feet of new levee, in doing 5,000 lineal feet of bank protection work, and in resurfacing 2k miles of levee patrol roads, only 5 acres of riparian habitat will be cleared. We suspect that the report in this regard is false and that the true figure would be many times over that amount. When the report speaks about removing a "minor amount of habitat for a number of wildlife species," we find, then, no exact and believable definition of the amount, and we suspect that we disagree fundamentally in the definition of what is a "miner" elimination of habitat. i'he some sort of suspicion and fear can be engendered by the statement that the levee construction and bank protection will involve removal of a comparatively small amount of streamside vegetation.7.01. "Comparative" to what we might ask? The language is too general and vague and leaves loopholes for serious abuse.
But the language is even more deliberate in preparing loopholes that will lead to abuse. In speaking of mitigation measures, U.03, the report says that "Bank protection construction will include measures to mitigate or reduce the adverse effects on wildlife habitat and aesthetics, including minimum vegetative clearing required within the work limits, selective clearing to retain trees and other vege tative growth where the safety of the levee is not affected.... " What specific measures we ask? Who will decide what is "minimum vegetative clearing"? And, of course, the qualification "where the safety of the levee is not affected" is the major loophole here, for under that qualification almost complete removal can and will be Justified as it has been in the past. The same kind of qualifying language is evident in a later statement: "The non-Federal maintaining agency will be re quired to preserve existing vegetation where practical subsequent to completion of the project.
In a project south of Laton, the Corps of Engineers did leave some trees, but the maintaining agency removed everything within a year. There is no definition here to specify the codes under which the maintainance will take place. The'language "Where practical" is a dangerous loophole which invites abuse, because as the report in another place admits, it is more expensive and troublesome to maintain trees and shrubbery in these areas. Thus it will hardly be "practical" for maintaining authori ties to spend more money when they will already be saddled with a heavy and increasing bill for maintenance as it is. Thus it seems clear that the language of the report holds out vague and general assurances of protection of habitat, but past experiences and very apparent qualifications make these assurances ring false. It is clear that a major and irreversible effect on the riparian habitat is intended and that there is to be a committment for the future to destroy such habitat: "Construction of these works and the resulting impacts described above will be an irreversible committment since future operation and maintenance of the works must be performed by local interests to comply with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Army and the Corps of Engineers."8.01. We wonder why the Secretary of the Army should have such authority to regulate an irreversible committment to the destruction of 1 riparian habitat in Fresno County. Our major concerns are that the Corps intends to make too many parts of the river a hare channel as in other projects, that virtually all habitat and therefore wildlife will be destroyed, that in fact the river is to be destroyed as a river and simply turned into a ditch, and that this will not only destroy habitat for fish and wildlife, but also destroy the aesthetic and recreational aspects of the river. As the report candidly admits, "Recently completed project work in the . Centerville Bottoms included 30,000 lineal feet of channel modification which de creased fishery production as well as aesthetics in that portion of stream."2.C6.
In doing all of this potential— and very real— damage, the intent is to pro tect 500 acres of farm land which is in the natural flood plain. The cost will be high initially, much higher than the 1973 figures given, and it vil: be high annually as a local burden in maintenance. Such costs hardly seem Justified by the acreage involved, and the fact that the danger of major flooding is already contained. The levees could be repaired selectively much less expensively both for the habitat and for the government. But it must be kept in mind that the major cost is in terns of an irreversible destruction of habitat and the nature and quality of the river. The report says that without the project, "The economy of the area could be expected to remain stable...."2.13.
In view, then, of all these considerations, we recommend that the proposal in its present form not be authorized or continued. We would much prefer that the river habitat be left untouched, but if some work must be done to repair the levees, then we recommend that the planning and the work take place under tightly defined and controlled conditions, and that in order to insure maximum care and minimum damage, state and local agencies should be involved in agreeing to any project and overseeing its accomplishment.
Sincerely,
Dr. Eugene'fE. Zumwalt . President^ Fresno Audubon Society
ElroyR^bynson Conservation Committee Fresno Audubon Society the committee to save the kings river P. O. Box 4163 Fresno, California 93744
October 29, 1974
Colonel F. G. Rockwell, Jr., C.E. District Engineer U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 650 Capitol Mall Sacramento, California 95814-
Dear Sir: The Committee to Save the Kings River wishes to express concern and dismay over the inadequacy of the draft Environmental Impact Statement filed by the Corps of Engineers on the Kings River Channel Improvement Project, Cole Slough — Laton Area, California. The draft statement is so vague and full of qualifications that it is clearly impossible for the critical reader to make any objective evaluation of the environmental impact of the project. Therefore, we recommend revision prior to release of the final Environmental Impact Statement.
Of prime concern is the past record of the Corps of Engineers with channel improvement projects on the Kings River — notably in the Centerville Bottoms area. The habitat losses and visual scars left by that project were abominable. We don't want that to happen again in the Cole Slough — Laton Area. The revised EIS should address in detail the problems encountered at the Centerville Bottoms which resulted in the habitat losses, and should set forth specific plans on how this will be avoided with the present project. The draft Environmental Impact Statement is vague and offers few assurances that the Corps is genuinely committed to environmental protection. The statement uses many words and phrases which either can't be defined or provide large loopholes for abuse. The revised EIS should use precise language in addressing areas of potential damage and mitigation. Finally, steps should be taken to prevent a reoccurrence of past "maintenance” practices. On previous projects, there has been little coordination between the Corps and the maintaining agency. Vegetation, designated for preservation by the Corps of Engineers, was subsequently removed by the maintaining agency. A legally binding agreement should be initiated which would prevent a reoccurrence of such practices.
In summary, the draft Environmental Impact Statement is severely insufficient and must be revised if it is to meet NEPA guidelines. We look forward to the opportunity to provide further input on that subject.
It is our understanding that this project was authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1944 — or is an administrative decision based upon that Act. Would you please clarify the legal authorization for this project by return mail?
We are also concerned about the necessity for the project. According to our records, there have only been three years since the conpletion of Pine Flat Dam when major flooding occurred: 1957-58; 1966-67; and 1968-69. The latter two of these floods resulted during the heaviest and third heaviest runoff years on record. We are not familiar with the flooding history of the five hundred acres to be protected by the project, but question the flood control benefits which this project will provide when compared with the costs incurred. Was a benefit-cost study done on this project, and, if so, when was it done? Would you be so kind as to send us a copy of such a study? Has the Corps considered the alternative of buying the five hundred acres in question — for public use? If so, what was the conclusion of your analysis?
We are also curious as to why the U.S. Government should pay the costs of construction on this project. The landowners purchased the property in the project area at prices which reflected the present flood dangers. If they wish to increase their property values by taking measures to decrease the flooding danger, great. But why should we, as taxpayers, be forced to pay money to increase their property values? Will the landowners be reimbursing the Corps of Engineers for the personal benefits which they receive?
As previously -noted, the Committee to Save the Kings River is quite concerned about the inadequacy of the draft EIS filed by the Corps on this project. We feel that it does not serve as a useful tool for evaluation of the environmental impact of the project. However, we are not, at this time, adopting a position* of opposition to the project. Our decision on whether to support or oppose the project will depend upon the content of the final EIS, as well as the answers which we receive to the above questions. If the final EIS does not incorporate the suggestions which we suggest, we will be left with no other alternative than to adopt a position of opposition.
Sincerely,
William H. Tanner
Ronald J . Bohigian Co-Chairmen, Committee to Save the Kings River the committee to save the kings river
P. O. Box 4163 Fresno, California 93744
January 11, 1975
Colonel F.G. Rockwell, Jr., C.E. District Engineer U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 650 Capitol Mall Sacramento, California 95814
Dear Sir: The Committee to Save the Kings River would like to thank you and the Corps of Engineers for your letter of December 16,1974, providing us with additional information on the Kings River Channel Improvement Project— Cole Slough-Laton Area. Based upon information contained in that letter, the Committee wishes to submit additional comments, and appreciates the opportunity to do so at this time. The Committee reaffirms its previous position: "The draft statement is so vague and full of qualifications that it is clearly impossible for the critical reader to make any objective evaluation of the environmental impact of the project. Therefore, we recommend revision prior to release of the final Environmental Impact Statement." The draft Environmental Impact Statement is severely insufficient and must be revised if it is to meet NEPA guidelines. Perhaps, a review of the "Guidelines on the Preparation of Environmental Impacts Statements under NEPA" is in order. (Title 40, Chapter 5, Part 1500; Federal Register, Vol. 38, No. 147; Wednesday, August 1, 1973.) According to part 1500.8 (Content of Environmental Statements), the following points are to be covered:(quoting) 1. "A description of the proposed action.... The statement should also succinctly describe the environment of the area affected as it exists prior to the proposed action.... The inter relationships and cumulative environmental impacts of the proposed action and other related Federal projects shall be presented in the statement." The Committee feels that nothing has been described"succinctly". Where has the Corps presented the "interrelationships and cumulative environmental impacts of the proposed action and other related Federal projects?" They have not done so. 2 "The relationship of the proposed action to land use plans, policies and controls for the affected area. This requires a discussion of how the proposed action may conform or conflict with the objectives and specific terms of approved or proposed Federal, State and local land use plans, policies, and controls, if any for the affected area.... Where a conflict or inconsistency exists, the statement should describe the extent to which the agency has reconciled its proposed action with the plan, policy or control, and the reasons why the agency has decided to proceed notwithstanding the absence of full reconciliation." The Environmental Goals and Policy Report of the state of California considers the project area to be a "resource of state wide critical concern". This is state policy. But where has the Corps discussed this policy and where has the Corps addressed itself to "conflict", to "inconsistency", and to "reconciliation"? Again they have not done so.
3. (ii) "Secondary or indirect, as well as primary or direct, consequences for the environment should be included in the analysis." Since a project feature includes turning the project over to the maintaining agency, the maintainence procedures used by the maintaining agency will have a direct bearing on secondary impacts. The Corps has not adaquately discussed these maintainence procedures in the draft Environmental Impact Statement. The Corps of Engineers letter to the Committee to Save the Kings River, dated December 16, 1974, states:
We recognize that at times in the past certain environmental features specifically protected during construction of levee and channel projects has been subsequently removed by the local agency operating and maintaining the project. We intend to utilize lessons learned in past work to improve future work. To insure the continued preservation of vegetation that has been designated to be saved during construction, the operation and maintainence manual, issued by the Corps to the operating agency upon the completion of work, will contain explicit guidance on the protection of environmental features."
But how will the Corps "utilize lessons learned in past work"? How can the Environmwntal Impact Statement be evaluated completely without knowledge of how the project will be maintained? And even if the Corps does "utilized lessons learned", how do you intend to enforce the "explicit guidance"?
The draft Environmental Impact Statement should speak to the question of why past Corps operation and maintainence manuals were ignored. The Environmental Impact Statement should outline in detail how these problems will be avoided on the present project. Finally, a legally binding agreement should be initiated between the Corps, the Department of Fish and Game, and the maintaining agency to assure enforcement of the Corps "explicit guidance on the protection of environmental features". This agreement should be made a part of the appendix. Open- ended promises are completely inappropriate— and the results are in evidence already on previous Corps Kings River projects.
4. "Alternatives to the proposed action.... A rigorous explor ation and objective evaluation of the environmental impacts of all reasonable alternative actions, particularly those that might enhance environmental quality or avoid some or all of the adverse environmental effects, is essential. Sufficient analysis of such alternatives and their environmental benefits, costs and risks should accompany the proposed action through the agency review process in order not to foreclose prematurely options which might enhance environmental quality or have less detrimental effects. Examples of such alternatives include:....( eg. nonstructural alternatives to flood control programs.... In each case, the analysis should be sufficiently detailed to reveal the agencies comparative evaluation of the environmental benefits, costs, and risks of the proposed action and each reasonable alternative.... " The Corps analysis contains no details— only conclusions. There is no information as to assumptions or even how the conclusions were arrived at. Where is the"detail sufficient” to "reveal the agencies comparative evaluation"? Again, there is none. Gentlemen, the list is endless. The draft EIS is an EIS in name only. Its a sham and a whitewash and the Corps ought to be ashamed to even have their name on it. Although somewhat separate from the Environmental Impact Statement, there are two other areas which the Committee feels require more detailed answers from the Corps.The first of these is regarding authorization. At various times this project has been referred to as having been authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1944. At other times however, the project has been referred to as being "remedial work" or "project deficiency work". In this regard the Corps should address the following questions:
1. Was this exact project included in the original project authorization as a specific segment of the entire project (ie. such as Pine Flat Dam was specifically mentioned), or is it work which was recently deemed to be necessary? If so, is the authorizationincluded in some general heading in the original authorization such as "contingencies" or "miscellaneous" or"operations and maintainence"? 2. How does the cost for this project compare with the figures used, in the benefit/cost studies for the'original authorization?
3. How does the cost of all downstream work undertaken by the Corps compare with the figures used in the benefit/cost studies for the original authorization?
4. What is the justification for using a 1940 benefit/cost study in 1975? Do the figures used in the 1940 study realistically represent costs and benefits in 1975?
5. If the benefits and costs would be valid in 1940, but not in 1975, then how does the Corps know that the project is economically justifiable? Is the project economically justifiable using 1975 costs and benefits? 6. When did Congress authorize the actual cash expenditure for this work, and under what budget heading and sub headings was this authorization made? The Committee is also concerned about the propriety of the taxpayers being asked to pay for a project which is resulting in economic gain for the landowners whose land is presently subject to flooding. As mentioned in our previous comments, the landowners purchased their property at prices which reflected the present flood danger. If they wish to increase their property values by taking measures to decrease the flooding danger, then so be it. Eut why should we as taxpayers be forced to pay for a project which increases their property values? In this regard, the Corps should address themselves to the following questions:
1. Will the landowners in the project area receive substantial economic gain from this project through increased property values? If so, how many landowners will receive this subsidy, and how much should the increased property values amount to?
2. Is their any provision for recovery of all or part, of the cost of the project through assessment of those receiving this economic gain, or is it national policy to reward those with enough foresight and political power to be able to pull off such boondoggles?
3. Reading the Corps response to our previous question in this gives one the impression that the Corps is justifying the work on the basis that flooding in the project area (500 acres), is deemed to be a menace to the national welfare. Would the Corps please outline in detail why they feel that the occassional flooding of the 500 acres of farmland is a "menace to national welfare"? Does the Corps have any other basis of justification for this project? Gentlemen, in spite of our rather critical comments, the Committee to Save the Kings River believes that this project has much potential— if our suggestions are incorporated into a new Environmental Impact Statement. However, in its present state, the draft Environmental Impact Statement is so vague and open-ended, that baring revision, we will be forced to actively and vigorously oppose this project.
Sincerely,
William H. Tanner
Ronald J. Bohigian 7 Co-Chairmen, Committee to Save the Kings River SIERRA CLUB
Tehipite Chapter
P.O. Box 5396
Fresno, CA 93755
October 29, 1974
Colonel F. G. Rockwell, Jr., C.E. District Engineer U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 650 Capitol Mall Sacramento, California 95814
Dear Sir:
The Tehipite Chapter of the Sierra Club wishes to go on record in opposition to the Kings River Channel Improvement Project in the Cole Slough — Laton area.
Our primary reason is that of the Corps’ history of "channel improvements," both in the Kings River service area and beyond. The Corps has the history of making beautiful little streams into denuded, gravel-banked ditches. We saw what happened at the Centerville Bottoms and we vigorously oppose any attempt for a repeat performance.
The draft Environmental Impact Statement filed by the Corps on this project is so vague and full of loopholes that it would permit another Centerville Bottoms fiasco — or even worse.
The report states that only five acres of riparian habitat will be selectively cleared. It does not seem possible to us that you can put in 14,000 lineal feet of new levee, do 5,000 lineal feet of bank protection work, and resurface twenty-four miles of levee patrol roads and only disturb five acres of riparian habitat. Perhaps the question that we should ask is, "How many acreas of riparian habitat will be 'unselectively’ cleared; or accidently cleared; or buried under or dug up or run over by construction equipment?"
The language in the draft EIS, when describing areas of potential damage and methods of mitigation, is so qualified as to render itself totally useless. Phrases such as "minimum vegetative clearing," and "where the safety of the levee is not involved" provide justification for almost any act. Words such as "minor" (refers to elimination of habitat), and "comparatively small" (refers to removal of streamside vegetation), are undefined. How minor is "minor"? Does it mean only one tree or only one forest? How small is "comparatively small"? Does it mean removal of ten percent of the streamside vegetation or twenty percent? Or does it mean compared to the Centerville Bottoms, or perhaps corrpared to the Los Angeles River in Sherman Oaks?
Quoting from the statement: "The non-Federal maintaining agency will be required to preserve existing vegetation where practical (emphasis added), subsequent to completion of the project.” How will the maintaining agency be required to do this? How will be requirement be enforced? Who is to have the discretion of deciding whether or not an action is practical? The last time the maintaining agency was "required to preserve existing vegetation," they ripped out everything within a year. Are they to have the discretion this time around too?
We understand the need to provide flood control along the Kings River. The goal is a commendable one. In this case, however, we feel that the costs — economically and environmentally — are too great for flood control on only five hundred acres of infrequently flooded land. It would almost be less expensive to purchase the five hundred acres and turn it into a parkway.
Sincerely,
Harold Thomas Chairman, Conservation Committee Tehipite Chapter Sierra Club HEADQUARTERS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AFFILIATIONS: p. o. BO X G a 1 2 2 6 S National Wildlife Federation Sportsman's Council of California FRESNO. CALIFORNIA National Rifle Association California Wildlife Federation “ 3 7 7 9 Ducks Unlimited, Inc. Fresno County & City Chamber of Commerce Duck Hunters' Association
815 West Gettysburg Ave., Fresno, California 93705 December 19, 197*1
Colonel F. G. Rockwell, Jr., District Engineer Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers 650 Capitol Mall ' Sacramento, California 9581A
Dear Colonel Rockwell: I have visited the Cole Slough area with Gene Zumwalt and Elroy Robinson of the Fresno Audubon Society; Mr. Jeff Taylor, Engineer for the Kings River Conservation District; and Mr. Joe Holmberg and Mr. Nolan of your Sacramento office.
I can see no objection to the surfacing of levee roads with crushed rock. It will make access during inclement weather.safer and surer?
We were taken to some of the areas where streambank erosian is taking place. I believe that these areas do need repair.
It is probably necessary that additional levee-roads be built in the vicinity of Laton.
During our on the project discussions with Mr. Taylor, Mr. Holmberg and Mr. Nolan I judge them to be reasonable men. They understand our concern for the wildlife habitat. They give full assurance that the Army Corps of Engineers will not desecrate the Cole Slough area as was done in the Centerville Bottoms.
However, Sec. A.03 Mitigation Measures leaves much to be desired and to me gives no assurance that when work begins these things will be observed. You will do, I am certain, what it says in the Draft Environmental Staement that you will do. However, terms such as, "including minimum vegetative clearing"...."selective clearing", are not defined and become in my opinion, subjective to the desire or convenience of the personnel doing the work. It appears, to me, that your statement, "standard environ mental protection specifications of the Corps of Engineers also provide effective control of contractor operations..... and equipment will be restricted from operating in the streambed except, when absolutely essential," would permit the Corps or its
contractor to rape the Cole Slough as was done by the Corps near Centerville.
I believe that Mr. Taylor will preserve all vegetation that is possible and still operate and maintain the irrigation district efficiently. However, Mr. Taylor will probably move on to another engineering challenge one day. Then his successor may I well interpret under section 4.03 the statemen," The non-Federal maintaining agency will be required to preserve existing vegetation where practical(emphsis added) sub sequent to completion of the project...... as long as it remains in a healthy condition." This could very well lead to the completely denuding of the stream- banks and levee-roads system. The use of herbicides is not precluded and could easily reduce the vegetation to a less than"a healthy condition."
Therefore, it appears that without any specific safeguards written into the Draft Environmental Statement we must rely on the integrity of those in charge of the project at present and in the future.
Respectfully yours,_
Lewis E. Carpenter, Public Lands (Committee Fresno County Sportsmen's Club.
cc: Department of Fish and Game— Fresno and Sacraamento Fresno Audubon Society Tehipite Chapter, Sierra Club, California Wildlife Federation. CtAIRE T. DEDRICK EDMUND G. BROWN JR. axacStsx^aofBiiass^x^ iPH«onnao»»c OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY * SECRETARY GOVERNOR OF RESOURCES BUILDING CALIFORNIA 1416 NINTH STREET ' ‘ - j '! s. - . - • • . r- Si »*„. * *» 95S14
THE RESOURCES AGENCY OF CALIFORNIA SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA
Colonel P. G. Rockwell, Jr. District Engineer Sacramento District U. S. Corps of Engineers 650 Capitol Mall Sacramento, California 95814
Dear Colonel Rockwell: The State of California has reviewed the "Draft Environmental Statement, Kings River Project, Cole Slough-Laton Area, California" dated July 1974, as revised November 25} 1974-> submitted to the Office of Planning and Research (State Clearinghouse). The review was coordinated with the Depart ments of Commerce, Conservation, Pish and Game, Pood and Agriculture, Health, Navigation and Ocean Development, Parks and Recreation, Transportation, and Water Resources, and the Air Resources, Reclamation, and State Water Resources Control Boards. The review fulfills the requirements under Part II of the U. S. Office of Management and Budget Circular A-95 and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Poliowing are the State's comments.
We understand that proposed work in the Cole Slough-Laton area of the Kings River Project consists of levee construction, improvement of levee patrol roads, and provision of bank pro tection at a number of locations. The work does not include channel clearance. Upon completion of the work, however, it will be necessary to maintain the channel as well as the con structed project features. The Kings River Conservation District is the local sponsor of the project and will be responsible for project maintenance in accordance with the Corps' project maintenance manual.
Riparian habitat in the project area has been designated as a resource of statewide critical concern in the report pre pared by the state Office of Planning and Research entitled "Environmental Goals and Policy". We believe the final environmental statement should include an inventory of the resource in the project area. Information should be included on acreage and linear miles of stream supporting significant riparian growth. Because of the importance of the riparian habitat, we are particularly interested in avoiding in this instance the adverse aspects of past channel clearance work in other portions of the Kings River Project, particularly in the Centerville Bottoms area and the area below Lemoore Weir. Significant losses of riparian habitat have resulted from channel clearance activities related directly or in directly to the project, largely through uncontrolled cutting of riparian habitat. It is recognized that channel capacity must be maintained to pass flood flows, the integrity of levees must be maintained, wildlife habitat must be preserved, and at the same time it is necessary to strike a reasonable balance among these needs. Because of the importance of maintaining riparian habitat, the Department of Pish and Game and the Kings River Conservation District are actively negotiating a letter of understanding regarding coordination and cooperation by the agencies in establishing Kings River levee and channel maintenance pro cedures. The objective of the understanding is to satisfy the above-stated needs. In this regard the environmental state ment should indicate the nature and extent of the Corps' responsibility to enforce maintenance provisions set forth in the maintenance manual, particularly with respect to the maintenance of wildlife habitat.
Upon completion of the project, the Department of Water Resources will be inspecting the maintenance work of Kings River Conservation District on the levees and channel within the Kings River Project. In accordance with federal regu lations, wild growth on project levees must be controlled to permit the detection of cracks, holes, burrows, slips and other damage which might endanger the levees. The channel of the project is designed to pass flood flows at the design rate. With respect to the design capacity, trees and brush would be objectionable only if they restrict or reduce the capacity of the floodway. Advice of the Department of Pish and Game will be solicited in regard to wildlife aspects of the inspection.
The draft statement expresses awareness of the site of Kingston as a State Historical Landmark. It should be recog nized that adequate protective measures must be designed to ensure the historical integrity of the site. Involvement by the Corps of Engineers in the construction of new levees requires compliance with Executive Order 11593 in evaluating the site for possible inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. _The procedure by which the agency official, in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer, shall, identify properties eligible for inclusion in the National Register is described in the February 19, 1974 issue of the National Register.
The levees and levee roads proposed in this project are good prospective recreation trail routes. Since public funds are being invested, it would appear that provisions for public access for riding, hiking and nonmotorized cycling should be included if feasible. We suggest your consideration of this potential use.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the environmental statement.
Sincerely, CLA.IRE T. DEDRICK Secretary for Resources
cc: Director of Management Systems State Clearinghouse Office of Planning and Research 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, California 95814 (SCH No. 74072928)