DOCSLIB.ORG

Kern Storm Water Resource Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Kern Storm Water Resource Plan Kern Storm Water Resource Plan Kern County, California DRAFT – October 2016 Prepared by: Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group 1800 30th Street, Suite 280, Bakersfield, California 93301 COPYRIGHT 2016 by PROVOST & PRITCHARD CONSULTING GROUP ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group expressly reserves its common law copyright and other applicable property rights to this document. This document is not to be reproduced, changed, or copied in any form or manner whatsoever, nor are they to be assigned to a third party without first obtaining the written permission and consent of Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group In the event of unauthorized reuse of the information contained herein by a third party, the third party shall hold the firm of Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group harmless, and shall bear the cost of Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group's legal fees associated with defending and enforcing these rights. Report Prepared by: Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group Jeff Eklund, PE Len Marino, PE Mike Day, PE Gretchen Heisdorf, PE Hilary Reinhard, PE Trilby Barton Cheryl Hunter Contact: Jeff Eklund, PE, Principal Engineer/Vice President Telephone: (661) 616-5900 G:\Buena Vista WSD-1048\104816001-Kern Storm Water Resource Plan\_DOCS\Reports\1012-2016 Kern SWRP Consolidated Draft.docx Kern Storm Water Resource Plan Table of Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 1 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Background .................................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Purpose and Need ....................................................................................................................... 1-1 2 Watershed Identification ...................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Watershed Boundaries ................................................................................................................ 2-2 2.2 Internal Boundaries/Neighboring Watersheds not included in the Plan ........................... 2-2 2.3 Water Quality Priorities .............................................................................................................. 2-3 2.4 Surface and Groundwater Resources ....................................................................................... 2-4 2.5 Local Water Suppliers ................................................................................................................. 2-4 2.6 Native Habitat, Water Bodies, and Open Space..................................................................... 2-6 2.7 Natural Watershed Process Interruptions ............................................................................... 2-8 3 Compliance with Water Quality Standards ....................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Compliance Requirements for Plan Implementation ............................................................ 3-1 3.1.1 CEQA Compliance ........................................................................................................ 3-2 3.1.2 California Health and Safety Code .............................................................................. 3-3 3.1.3 Water Rights ................................................................................................................... 3-4 3.1.4 Local Water Quality ....................................................................................................... 3-5 3.2 Proposed Modification(s) of an Existing Stream Bed or Channel ...................................... 3-6 3.3 Monitoring Plan Requirements ................................................................................................. 3-7 3.3.1 Data Collection ............................................................................................................... 3-7 3.3.2 Integration into Existing Monitoring Efforts ............................................................ 3-8 3.3.3 Multiple Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Projects ........................................... 3-9 4 Organization, Coordination and Collaboration................................................................................ 4-1 4.1 Introduction and Overview ....................................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Regional Water Management Groups Implementing Existing IRWM Plans .................... 4-1 4.2.1 Overview of Kern IRWMP .......................................................................................... 4-1 4.2.2 Overview of Poso Creek IRWMP ............................................................................... 4-1 4.3 Stakeholder Agencies that Participated in Plan Development ............................................. 4-2 4.3.1 Stakeholder Agencies ..................................................................................................... 4-2 Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • DRAFT – October 2016 i Kern Storm Water Resource Plan 4.4 Nonprofit Organizations ........................................................................................................... 4-3 4.5 Public Engagement/Communication Plan and Coordination ............................................. 4-4 4.5.1 Overview of Public Engagement/Communication Plan ......................................... 4-4 4.5.2 Public Meetings during Plan Development................................................................ 4-4 4.6 Local, State, Federal Decisions, Code Changes or Legislations Needed for Plan Implementation ........................................................................................................................... 4-6 4.6.1 Local, State and Federal Decisions, Code Changes or Legislations ....................... 4-6 4.6.2 Federal, State or Local Agency Interaction for Permitting and Environmental Processes .................................................................. 4-7 4.7 Planning and Coordination among Existing Local Government Agencies for Plan Implementation ........................................................................................................................... 4-9 4.8 Relationship of Plan with Other Existing Planning Documents ......................................... 4-9 4.8.1 Projects within the Kern Region & Relationship with Existing IRWMP Documents ...................................................................................... 4-9 4.8.2 DAC Studies within Kern Region ............................................................................. 4-10 4.8.3 Other Existing Planning Documents, Ordinances and Programs ........................ 4-12 5 Identification and Prioritization of Projects ..................................................................................... 5-1 5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 5-1 5.2 Project Submittal Form – Purpose and Use ........................................................................... 5-1 5.3 Project List Unranked – Side-by-Side Comparison of Submitted Projects ........................ 5-2 5.4 Project Scoring Form – Description of Scoring Methodology ............................................ 5-8 5.4.1 Main and Additional Benefits Scoring ........................................................................ 5-8 5.4.2 Project Readiness Scoring ............................................................................................. 5-9 5.5 Prioritized List of Projects ....................................................................................................... 5-10 5.6 Process for Submitting New or Modifying Existing Project Proposals ............................ 5-13 5.6.1 New Project Proposals ................................................................................................ 5-13 5.6.2 Modifications or Revisions to Existing Project Proposals ..................................... 5-13 6 Implementation Strategy and Schedule ............................................................................................. 6-1 6.1 Resources for Plan Implementation ......................................................................................... 6-1 6.1.1 Project Funding .............................................................................................................. 6-1 6.2 Implementation ........................................................................................................................... 6-7 6.2.1 SWRP Project Monitoring ............................................................................................ 6-8 6.3 Adaptive Management ................................................................................................................ 6-8 Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • DRAFT – October 2016 ii Kern Storm Water Resource Plan 7 Education, Outreach and Public Participation ................................................................................. 7-1 7.1 Public Outreach and Participation Opportunities .................................................................. 7-1 7.1.1 Identifying Key Stakeholders
Load more

Recommended publications
  • California Golden Trout Chances for Survival: Poor 2 Oncorhynchus Mykiss Aguabonita
    California Golden Trout chances for survival: poor 2 Oncorhynchus mykiss aguabonita alifornia golden trout, the official state fish, is one of three species disTriBuTion: California golden trout are endemic to imple mented. major efforts have been made to create refugia 1 2 3 4 5 TROUT south Fork Kern river and to Golden trout Creek. they for golden trout in the upper reaches of the south Fork Kern of brilliantly colored trout native to the upper Kern river basin; the have been introduced into many other lakes and creeks in river by constructing barriers and then applying the poison others are the little Kern golden trout and Kern river rainbow trout. and outside of California, including the Cottonwood lakes rotenone to kill all unwanted fish above barriers. Despite California Golden Trout Were not far from the headwaters of Golden trout Creek and into these and other efforts, most populations of California golden Historically Present in South Fork Kern C Basin, Part Of The Upper Kern River California golden trout evolved in streams of the southern sierra Nevada the headwaters of south Fork Kern river, such as mulkey trout are hybridized and are under continual threat from Basin Shown Here Creek. the Cottonwood lakes have been a source of golden brown trout invasions. management actions are needed to mountains, at elevations above 7,500 feet. the Kern plateau is broad and flat, trout eggs for stocking other waters and are still used for address threats to California golden trout which include with wide meadows and meandering streams. the streams are small, shallow, stocking lakes in Fresno and tulare Counties.
    [Show full text]
  • Restoration of the California Golden Trout in the South Fork Kern River, Kern Plateau, Tulare County, California, 1966-2004, with Reference to Golden Trout Creek
    State of California The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME RESTORATION OF THE CALIFORNIA GOLDEN TROUT IN THE SOUTH FORK KERN RIVER, KERN PLATEAU, TULARE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, 1966-2004, WITH REFERENCE TO GOLDEN TROUT CREEK By E. P. (Phil) Pister, Inland Deserts Region, Retired CALIFORNIA GOLDEN TROUT Central Region Administrative Report No. 2008-1 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................... 1 BACKGROUND.............................................................................................................. 2 The Beginning..................................................................................................... 2 EARLY WARNINGS ....................................................................................................... 5 THE PLAN ...................................................................................................................... 6 WATERSHED RESTORATION ...................................................................................... 8 THE FIRST FISH BARRIER AND EARLY BROWN TROUT CONTROL....................... 8 1976 – THE MAJOR PROJECT BEGINS..................................................................... 10 TEMPLETON AND SCHAEFFER BARRIERS............................................................. 12 1977 -1979 – HOLDING THE LINE .............................................................................. 16 1980 -1983 – MAJOR CHEMICAL TREATMENTS AND BEGINNING
    [Show full text]
  • ''''''''State of California-The Resources Agency
    ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY GRAY DAVIS, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME WILDLIFE CONSERVATION BOARD 1807 13TH STREET, SUITE 103 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814 (916) 445-8448 FAX (916) 323-0280 The Resources Agency Department of Fish and Game WILDLIFE CONSERVATION BOARD Minutes February 23, 2001 ITEM NO. PAGE 1. Roll Call ...............................................................................................................................1 2. Funding Status–Informational ....................................................................................................2 3. Special Project Planning Account–Informational ................................................................4 4. PROPOSED CONSENT CALENDAR (Items 5 - 18) ........................................................5 *5. Approval of Minutes – November 2, 2000 Meeting ............................................................5 *6. Recovery of Funds ...............................................................................................................5 *7. Wetland Habitat Restoration, Eel River Wildlife Area, Humboldt County *8. Wetland Habitat Restoration, Upper Butte Basin Wildlife Area, Little Dry Creek Unit, Butte County *9. Lake Redding Fishing Access Amendment, Shasta County *10. Wetland Habitat Restoration, East Grasslands (Castle Land and Cattle) Phase 3, Merced County *11. Fields Landing Public Access Amendment, Humboldt County *12. Belden’s Landing Public Access, Phase III, Solano County *13. Wildwood Native Park Public
    [Show full text]
  • The Distribution of Forest Trees in California." 1976
    Map 52 86 Map 53 87 Map 54 (top) Map 55 (bottom) 88 Map 56 89 Map 57 (top) Map 58 (bottom) 90 Map 59 91 Map 60 (top) Map 61 (bottom) 92 Map 62 93 Map 63 94 Map 64 (top) Map 65 (bottom) 95 Map 66 96 Map 67 (top) Map 68 (bottom) 97 Map 69 98 Map 70 99 Map 71 (top) Map 72 (bottom) 100 Map 73 101 Map 74 102 Map 75 (top) Map 76 (bottom) 103 Map 77 (top) Map 78 (bottom) 104 Map 79 (top) Map 80 (bottom) 105 Map 81 106 Map 82 (top) Map 83 (bottom) 107 Map 84 108 GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION OF PLACE NAMES Name Latitude (N) Longitude (W) Name Latitude (N) Longitude (W) Adin Pass 41°21' 120°55' Caliente 35°17.5' 118°37.5' Aetna Springs 38°39' 122°29' Caliente Mt. 35°02' 119°45.5' Alder Creek 35°52' 121°24' Callahan 41°18.5' 122°48' Amador City 38°25' 120°49.5' Canyon Creek 40°56' 123°01' Anastasia Canyon 36°20.5' 121°34' Canyon Creek Lakes 40°58.5' 123°01.5' Anchor Bay 38°48' 123°34.5' Carmel Valley 36°30' 121°45' Anderson Valley 39°00' 123°22' Cascade Canyon 34°12.5' 117°39' Antelope Valley 34°45' 118° 15' Castle Crags 41°11' 122°21' Applegate 39°00' 120°59.5' Castle Lake 41°13.5' 122°23' Arroyo Seco 36°16' 121°23' Castle Peak 39°22' 120°21' Asbill Creek 39°55.5' 123°21.5' Cedar Basin 40°11' 122°59' Ash Creek 40°28' 122°00' Cedar Mt.
    [Show full text]
  • Yellow-Billed Cuckoo Surveys in the South Fork Kern River Valley in 2009
    YELLOW-BILLED CUCKOO SURVEYS IN THE SOUTH FORK KERN RIVER VALLEY IN 2009 Final Report Prepared for: U.S Fish and Wildlife Service Sacramento Office Prepared by: Carlene Henneman Southern Sierra Research Station P.O. Box 1316 Weldon, CA 93283 Submitted: 18 February 2010 Executive Summary __________________________________________________________________________________________ In 2009, we conducted comprehensive surveys for Yellow-billed Cuckoos in riparian habitat along the South Fork of the Kern River in the Kern River Valley, CA. We had a total of 69 detections, across four survey periods during the Yellow-billed Cuckoo breeding season (mid- June to mid-August). The majority of our detections (58 of the 69) were on the South Fork Wildlife Area, which is located at the west end of the South Fork Kern River where it enters Lake Isabella. We had 11 detections at the Kern River Preserve and no detections at the Canebrake Ecological Reserve. The South Fork Kern River Valley continues to be an important area for breeding Yellow-billed Cuckoos. Because local cuckoo populations fluctuate drastically from one year to the next, continued surveys are vital to understanding its use by Yellow-billed cuckoo populations. The SFKRV presents a unique opportunity to better understand the habitat characteristics that promote cuckoo occupancy within a relatively small geographic area. Lake Isabella water levels appear to influence local Yellow-billed Cuckoo distribution and numbers, but the exact mechanism (food, availability of nest sites, etc.) by which this occurs remains unclear. Yellow-billed Cuckoo Surveys in the South Fork Kern River Valley in 2009 i Table of Contents ________________________________________________________ Executive Summary i Yellow-billed Cuckoo Surveys Introduction 1 Methods 3 Results 8 Discussion 12 Conclusions and Recommendations 14 Yellow-billed Cuckoo Surveys in the South Fork Kern River Valley in 2009 ii List of Tables ________________________________________________________ Table 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Floods of December 1966 in the Kern-Kaweah Area, Kern and Tulare Counties, California
    Floods of December 1966 in the Kern-Kaweah Area, Kern and Tulare Counties, California GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1870-C Floods of December 1966 in the Kern-Kaweah Area, Kern and Tulare Counties, California By WILLARD W. DEAN fPith a section on GEOMORPHIC EFFECTS IN THE KERN RIVER BASIN By KEVIN M. SCOTT FLOODS OF 1966 IN THE UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1870-C UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1971 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ROGERS C. B. MORTON, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY W. A. Radlinski, Acting Director Library of Congress catalog-card No. 73-610922 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price 45 cents (paper cover) CONTENTS Page Abstract_____________________________________________________ Cl Introduction.____________ _ ________________________________________ 1 Acknowledgments. ________________________________________________ 3 Precipitation__ ____________________________________________________ 5 General description of the floods___________________________________ 9 Kern River basin______________________________________________ 12 Tule River basin______________________________________________ 16 Kaweah River basin____________________________--_-____-_---_- 18 Miscellaneous basins___________________________________________ 22 Storage regulation _________________________________________________ 22 Flood damage.__________________________________________________ 23 Comparison to previous floods___________-_____________--___------_
    [Show full text]
  • Non-Native Plants
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Stewardship and Science A Natural Resource Condition Assessment for Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks Appendix 23 - Non-native Plants Natural Resource Report NPS/SEKI/ NRR—2013/665.23 ON THE COVER Giant Forest, Sequoia National Park Photography by: Brent Paull A Natural Resource Condition Assessment for Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks Appendix 23 - Non-native Plants Natural Resource Report NPS/SEKI/ NRR—2013/665.23 Mandy Tu Department of Plant Sciences University of California at Davis One Shields Avenue Davis, CA 95616 Athena Demetry Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks 47050 Generals Highway Three Rivers, CA 93271-9700 David Saah Spatial Informatics Group, LLC 3248 Northampton Ct. June 2013 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Fort Collins, Colorado The National Park Service, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science office in Fort Collins, Colorado, publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics. These reports are of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public. The Natural Resource Report Series is used to disseminate high-priority, current natural resource management information with managerial application. The series targets a general, diverse audience, and may contain NPS policy considerations or address sensitive issues of management applicability. All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and designed and published in a professional manner.
    [Show full text]
  • South Fork Kern River Summary Report 2009
    South Fork Kern River 2009 Summary Report Including Monache, Soda, and Upper Fat Cow Meadow creeks August 18-26, 2009 State of California Natural Resources Agency Department of Fish and Game Heritage and Wild Trout Program Prepared by Jeff Weaver and Stephanie Mehalick Introduction: The South Fork Kern River constitutes a significant portion of the native range of California golden trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss aguabonita), the official California State Freshwater Fish. The California golden trout is a California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) Species of Special Concern and is under review for listing in the Federal Endangered Species Act. The South Fork Kern River originates in Golden Trout Wilderness (Inyo National Forest; Tulare County, CA) and flows for approximately 160 miles in a southerly direction before emptying into Lake Isabella (Kern County) and the Kern River (Figure 1). The majority of the watershed, from its headwaters downstream to the southern boundary of the South Sierra Wilderness (north of Kennedy Meadows, Tulare County), is designated by the California Fish and Game Commission as a Wild Trout Water (Figure 2). This encompasses a watershed area of approximately 220 square miles with 50 miles of stream habitat on the main-stem, 217 miles of tributary habitat, and 332 miles of ephemeral and/or intermittent channels. Wild Trout Waters are those that support self-sustaining trout populations, are aesthetically pleasing and environmentally productive, provide adequate catch rates in terms of numbers or size of trout, and are open to public angling. Wild Trout Waters may not be stocked with catchable-sized hatchery trout (Bloom and Weaver 2008).
    [Show full text]
  • Kings Canyon and Sequoia National Parks
    S o k u To Bishop ee t Piute Pass Cr h F 11423ft p o o 3482m r h k s S i o B u B i th G s h L o A p Pavilion Dome Mount C F 11846ft IE Goethe C or r R e k S 3611m I 13264ft a D VID e n 4024m k E J Lake oa q Sabrina u McClure Meadow k r i n 9600ft o F 2926m e l d R d Mount Henry i i Mount v 12196ft e Darwin M 3717m r The Hermit 13830ft South L 12360ft 4215m E 3767m Lake Big Pine C G 3985ft DINKEY O O 1215m O P D Hell for Sure Pass E w o N D Mount V s 11297ft A O e t T R McGee n L LAKES 3443m D U s E 12969ft T 3953m I O C C o A N r N Mount Powell WILDERNESS r D B a Y A JOHN l 13361ft I O S V I R N N 4072m Bi Bishop Pass g P k i ine Cree v I D e 11972ft r E 3649m C Mount Goddard L r E MUIR e 13568ft Muir Pass e C DUSY North Palisade k 4136m 11955ft O BASIN 3644m N 14242ft Black Giant T E 4341m 13330ft COURTRIGHT JOHN MUIR P Le Conte A WILDERNESS 4063m RESERVOIR L I Canyon S B Charybdis A 395 8720ft i D rc 13091ft E Middle Palisade h 2658m Mount Reinstein 14040ft 3990m C r WILDERNESS CR Cre e 12604ft A ek v ES 4279m i Blackcap 3842m N T R Mountain Y O an INYO d s E 11559ft P N N a g c r i 3523m C ui T f n M rail i i H c John K A e isad Creek C N Pal r W T e E s H G D t o D I T d E T E d V r WISHON G a a IL O r O S i d l RESERVOIR R C Mather Pass Split Mountain G R W Finger Pe ak A Amphitheater 14058ft E 12100ft G 12404ft S Lake 4285m 3688m E 3781m D N U IV P S I C P D E r E e R e k B C A SIERRA NATIONAL FOREST E art Taboose r S id G g k e I N Pass r k Tunemah Peak V D o e I 11894ft 11400ft F e A R r C 3625m ree 3475m C k L W n L k O Striped
    [Show full text]
  • Facts and Q&A About the 90-Day Finding On
    California Golden Trout Protection Not Warranted Questions and Answers Prepared by the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, August 2011 Photo Credit: Kevin Aceituno, USFWS Q: What is a California golden trout? A: California golden trout is a subspecies of rainbow trout. Formerly known as Volcano Creek golden trout, they are well known for their bright coloration, red to red-orange belly and cheeks, bright gold lower sides, a central lateral band that is red-orange, and a deep olive-green back. California golden trout can reach lengths of 7 to 8 inches. California golden trout have been known to live as long as nine years, and they commonly reach six to seven years old. This is extremely old for stream-dwelling trout, and is likely due to the short growing season, high densities of fish, and a low abundance of food in these streams. These conditions create competition for scarce resources, promoting slow growth rates that lead to old ages of trout. Q: Where do they live? A: California golden trout inhabit the South Fork Kern River and Golden Trout Creek on the Kern Plateau in Tulare County, California. Both were once part of the same stream system, but became separated by volcanic activity in the region thousands of years ago. In Golden Trout Creek, the subspecies historically occurred from the headwaters, with the exception of headwater lakes, and the probable exception of upper reaches of some tributary streams, to a series of waterfalls where the creek joined with the Kern River. In the South Fork Kern River they historically occurred from the headwaters to the Domeland Wilderness.
    [Show full text]
  • Sierra Nevada Ecoregional Plan
    SIERRA NEVADA ECOREGIONAL PLAN December 1999 Photo Courtesy Charles Webber Sierra Nevada Ecoregional Plan 2 Sierra Nevada Ecoregional Plan Sierra Nevada Ecoregional Plan: Craig Mayer Pam Weiant Larry Serpa Christine Tam Robin Cox Jim Gaither 201 Mission Street, 4th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 (415) 777-0487 3 Sierra Nevada Ecoregional Plan 4 Sierra Nevada Ecoregional Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Ecoregional Plan A. Executive Summary ……………………………………………….. 7 B. Purpose ……………………………………………………… 9 C. Description of Ecoregion ……………………………………… 9 D. Conservation Issues ……………………………………………… 11 E. Data Sources and Management ……………………………… 11 F. Conservation Targets ……………………………………… 12 G. Conservation Goals ……………………………………………… 12 H. Portfolio Assembly ……………………………………………… 14 I. Portfolio Results ……………………………………………… 15 J. Evaluation of Conservation Lands ………………………………… 25 K. Functional Aggregations …………….……………………………… 25 L. Selecting Action Areas ……………………………………………… 26 2. Analysis and Results by Ecological Group A. Aquatic Systems ……………………………………………… 35 B. Riparian ……………………………………………………… 49 C. Foothill Woodlands ……………………………………………… 61 D. Chaparral ……………………………………………………… 67 E. Montane and Subalpine Coniferous Forests ……………………… 75 F. Interior Wetlands Meadow, and Aspen ……………………… 81 G. Alpine ……………………………………………………… 95 H. Desert Scrub and Woodland ……………………………………… 101 I. Isolated Rare Plants ……………………………………………… 107 J. Common and Widespread Communities ……………………… 111 3. References and Contacts ……………………………………………. 115 4. Appendices ……………………………………………………… 127 Appendix I. Conservation
    [Show full text]
  • Panorama Vista Preserve Saltbush Scrub and Riparian Habitat Restoration
    Environmental Assessment Panorama Vista Preserve Saltbush Scrub and Riparian Habitat Restoration U.S. Department of the Interior May 2013 Bureau of Reclamation Mid-Pacific Region Introduction Background The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) proposes to provide $235,000 from the Central Valley Project Improvement Act Habitat Restoration Program (HRP) to River Partners to restore alkali shrub lands and riparian woodlands on 20 acres of degraded Kern River floodplains at the Panorama Vista Preserve (Preserve) in Kern County, California. The project area is owned in fee title by the Kern River Corridor Endowment and Holding Company, Inc. (KRCE), a California 501(c)(3) non-profit public benefit corporation focused on the preservation of open space and natural habitats for the benefit of people and wildlife. The Preserve is located on both sides of the Kern River in north Bakersfield, California in Kern County, Sections 7-9 and 16-18 of Township 29S, Range 28E, Mount Diablo Base Line and Meridian (Figures 1 and 2). The proposed action is part of the second of three phases of habitat restoration in the Preserve. The first phase of habitat restoration work included a site assessment and preparation of a Conceptual Restoration Plan for the 936-acre Preserve. Additionally, a planting plan and permitting documents were prepared in support of a 30-acre riparian habitat restoration project. Volunteers and the KRCE have been fundraising and working to restore over 50 acres of habitat since 2005. The third phase of habitat restoration for the Preserve would eventually include 68 acres of alkali scrub restoration, over 200 acres of riparian forest restoration, detailed wildlife monitoring to document project success, and transplanting Bakersfield cactus to suitable areas within the Preserve to expand the species range and longevity at the site.
    [Show full text]