State Route 58 Widening Project - Bakersfield Freeways

State Route 58 Widening Project (Rosedale Highway) 

BA 

Biological Assessment 

Rosedale Highway, Project Limits Extend from West of Allen Road to State Route 

99Kern County, CA 

District 06-Kern-58- PM 46.1 to 51.7 

EA 0600000076 

September 22, 2011

For individuals with sensory disabilities, this document is available in Braille, large print, on 

audiocassette, or computer disk. To obtain a copy in one of these alternate formats, please call or 

write to Caltrans, Attn: Kirsten Helton, Senior Environmental Planner, District 6, 855 M Street, 

Suite 200, Fresno, California 93731; (559) 445-6282. Voice, or use the California Relay Service 

TTY number: (559) 488-4067.

Summary of Findings, Conclusions and Determinations 


The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), in cooperation with the City 

of Bakersfield and the County of Kern, proposes to improve an approximate 5.6-mile 

segment of State Route (SR) 58, locally known as Rosedale Highway. The project area 

is located within unincorporated Kern County and the City of Bakersfield; the limits 

extend from west of Allen Road to State Route (SR) 99. 

The proposed project would construct two new lanes between Allen Road and SR 99; 

this would result in a six lane roadway throughout the project limits (post mile [PM] 

46.1 to PM 51.7). Improvements would also include a grade separated rail crossing that 

would be constructed between Mohawk Street and Landco Drive. The bridge over 

Calloway Canal would be widened; however, the bridge over the Friant-Kern Canal 

would not be widened. 

The purpose of the proposed project is to improve east-west traffic flow on the local 

and regional transportation systems and to improve traffic operations within the 

corridor to accommodate planned growth. 

The proposed project is part of the Thomas Roads Improvement Program (TRIP), 

which includes 10 projects: six road improvement projects in the planning and 

environmental review phases, three road projects currently under construction 

(Westside Parkway, SR-178 at Fairfax Interchange and 7 th Standard Road) and one 

route adoption (West Beltway). 

The Biological Study Area (BSA) for the proposed project includes a 5.6-mile-long 

section of Rosedale Highway plus a 500-foot buffer area north and south of the 

roadway’s centerline. 

A list of special-status plant and animal species that have the potential to occur within 

a ten-mile query radius of the BSA was established by conducting a literature review 

of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) online special-status species 

list, the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) California Natural Diversity 

Database (CNDDB) and the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) species list. 

Fourteen federally listed species have been evaluated for their potential to occur in the 

BSA. Of these species, the federally listed endangered San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes 

macrotis mutica) has potential to occur in the BSA. The remaining thirteen species are 

not expected to occur in the BSA due to the lack of suitable habitat, because they were 

not observed during surveys, or because they are not known to occur in the immediate 

project vicinity. 

State Route 58 Widening Project Biological Assessment S-1


Vegetation mapping was conducted on March 21, 2007 by walking the BSA. 

Vegetation in the BSA consists of non-native grassland, developed/ornamental, 

ruderal/disturbed and open water/waterway. 

A survey for wildlife species was conducted on March 21, 2007 to document wildlife 

habitat and evaluate the BSA’s potential to support special-status wildlife species that 

are known or expected to occur in the BSA. 

Surveys for the kit fox, its dens and sign were conducted in May, June and July of 

2008. One individual kit fox, four potential kit fox dens and four kit fox signs (scat) 

were observed in the BSA. 

The proposed project would result in direct and indirect effects to the federally listed 

endangered San Joaquin kit fox: 

• Direct effects include the permanent loss of 1.21 acres of habitat for the San 

Joaquin kit fox (0.18 acre non-native grassland, 1.00 acre ruderal/disturbed, and 

0.03 acre open water/waterway) in the BSA that are considered suitable foraging 

and denning habitat for the kit fox. Permanent effects to habitat include the removal 

of habitat to accommodate the new roadbed, intersection improvements, and 

proposed new right-of-way (ROW) limits. 

• Temporary effects to habitat include temporary disturbance such as equipment and 

materials staging. The proposed project would temporarily affect 6.61 acres of 

habitat areas (3.25 acres of non-native grassland, 3.30 acres of ruderal/disturbed 

areas, and 0.06 acre of open water/waterway). 

• Direct effects would also include the permanent or temporary loss of one potential 

kit fox den within the alignment. 

• Indirect effects of project implementation may include the potential for an 

unintentional increase in vehicular strikes of kit foxes crossing the road. Other 

indirect effects could include habitat fragmentation, change in movement corridors, 

geographic isolation, and/or altered space use, all of which could result in disrupted 

social ecology, reduced fertility, pregnancy rates, prenatal survival, mortality, and 

reduced carrying capacity in the vicinity of the BSA. 

There is no critical habitat for San Joaquin kit fox within the BSA; therefore no critical 

habitat would be affected by the proposed project. 

S-2 State Route 58 Widening Project Biological Assessment


The following Avoidance and Minimization, and Mitigation Measures shall be 

implemented prior to project construction to reduce impacts to biological resources: 

• Construction activities will adhere to the standard construction and operational 

requirements as described in the USFWS Standardized Recommendations for 

Protection of the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground 

Disturbance (USFWS 2011). 

• Pre-construction surveys for kit fox will be conducted prior to construction within 

the project footprint and temporary construction zone and a 200-foot buffer around 

these areas in accordance with USFWS guidelines (2011). 

• An employee education program shall be established and implemented prior to 

construction. The program shall include, at a minimum, kit fox identification, a 

description of suitable habitat for kit fox, and measures to implement in the event 

that kit fox is found during construction. The program shall be presented to all 

members of the construction crew prior to the start of project construction 

activities. All construction personnel are required to sign a form stating they took 

the class and understood the materials presented in the class. 

• Biological monitors shall regularly inspect the construction site to ensure the 

minimization measures are implemented throughout construction. 

• Road design modifications that would facilitate safe passage of kit fox and reduce 

vehicular-mortalities are proposed and will be evaluated for feasibility during final 

project design. 

• Compensatory mitigation for effects to non-native grassland, ruderal/disturbed, 

and open water/waterway will consist of the purchase of credits through the 

Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (MBHCP). 

• Implementation of the Sump Habitat Program (currently under development), 

which includes installation of artificial dens in selected sumps, controlling 

vegetation in and around dens, increasing accessibility to sumps through 

fence/gate gaps, maintenance procedures to reduce the potential for effects to kit 

foxes, and post-construction monitoring of kit fox use of the sumps. The Wildlife 

Heritage Foundation, a non-profit land trust, will hold the endowments necessary 

to fully fund the Sump Habitat Program and will oversee the conservation 

easements. 

The project ‘may affect, likely to adversely affect’ the San Joaquin kit fox due to the 

direct and indirect impacts on this species resulting from project implementation. 

However, with the measures described above from the San Joaquin Kit Fox Effects 

Analysis, Mitigation Strategy, and Implementation Plan (Implementation Plan) 

State Route 58 Widening Project Biological Assessment S-3


(Bakersfield and Caltrans 2010), effects would be avoided and minimized to the extent 

practicable. 

S-4 State Route 58 Widening Project Biological Assessment

Table of Contents 

Table of Contents 

Chapter 1. Introduction ................................................................................................ 1 

1.1. Project History ........................................................................................... 1 

1.1.1. Purpose and Need ...................................................................................... 1 

1.1.1.1. Project Purpose .......................................................................................... 1 

1.1.1.2. Project Need .............................................................................................. 1 

1.2. Project Description .................................................................................... 1 

1.2.1. Project Phasing .......................................................................................... 7 

1.2.2. Avoidance and Minimization Measures .................................................... 7 

1.3. Summary of Consultation to Date ............................................................. 8 

1.4. Document Preparation History ................................................................ 10 

Chapter 2. Study Methods .......................................................................................... 11 

2.1. Listed and Proposed Species Potentially in the Biological Study Area .. 11 

2.2. Studies Required ...................................................................................... 13 

2.2.1. Literature Review .................................................................................... 13 

2.2.2. Vegetation Mapping ................................................................................ 13 

2.2.3. General Wildlife Surveys ........................................................................ 14 

2.2.4. Focused Surveys ...................................................................................... 14 

2.2.4.1. San Joaquin Kit Fox ................................................................................ 14 

2.3. Personnel and Survey Dates .................................................................... 15 

2.4. Agency Coordination and Professional Contacts .................................... 16 

2.5. Limitations That May Influence Results ................................................. 19 

Chapter 3. Results: Environmental Setting ................................................................ 21 

3.1. Description of Existing Biological and Physical Conditions ................... 21 

3.1.1. Study Area ............................................................................................... 21 

3.1.2. Physical Conditions ................................................................................. 21 

3.1.3. Biological Conditions in the BSA ........................................................... 25 

3.1.3.1. Vegetation Types ..................................................................................... 25 

3.1.3.2. Common Animal Species ........................................................................ 26 

Chapter 4. Results: Biological Resources, Discussion of Impacts and Mitigation .... 29 

4.1. Federally Listed or Proposed Animal Species Occurrences .................... 29 

4.1.1. Discussion of San Joaquin Kit Fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica) ................ 29 

4.1.1.1. Survey Results ......................................................................................... 31 

4.1.1.2. Critical Habitat ........................................................................................ 32 

4.1.1.3. Avoidance and Minimization Efforts ...................................................... 32 

4.1.1.4. Project Impacts ........................................................................................ 33 

4.1.1.5. Modifications to the Project to Mitigate Effects ...................................... 37 

4.1.1.6. Cumulative Effects (FESA)..................................................................... 42 

Chapter 5. Conclusions and Determination ............................................................... 45 

5.1. Conclusions ............................................................................................. 45 

5.2. Determination .......................................................................................... 45 

Chapter 6. References ................................................................................................ 47 

Appendix A Wildlife Species Observed in the BSA .................................................... 51 

State Route 58 Widening Project Biological Assessment 

i

List of Figures 

List of Figures 

1 Regional Vicinity ................................................................................................ 5 

2A–C Project Effects ..................................................................................................... 6 

3A–C Biological Study Area ....................................................................................... 23 

4 Local Vicinity ................................................................................................... 24 

ii 

State Route 58 Widening Project Biological Assessment

List of Tables 

List of Tables 

1 Listed, Proposed Species, and Critical Habiat Potentially Occuring or 

Known to Occur in the Project Area ................................................................. 11 

2 Vegetation Types and Other Areas Within the BSA ........................................ 25 

3 Habitat for San Joaquin Kit Fox That Would be Affected by Each 

Phase of Alternative A ...................................................................................... 35 

4 Ratios Required to Mitigate for Effects on San Joaquin Kit Fox Habitat ......... 41 

State Route 58 Widening Project Biological Assessment 

iii

List of Abbreviated Terms 


A 

BA 

BO 

BMP 

BSA 

Caltrans 

CDFG 

CESA 

CNDDB 

CNPS 

ESA 

ESRP 

FE 

FED 

FESA 

FHWA 

FP 

FT 

GPS 

Implementation Plan 

MBGP 

MBHCP 

NFWF 

P 

PM 

ROW 

RWQCB 

SAFETAE-LU 

SE 

SJVR 

SR 

Absent 

Biological Assessment 

Biological Opinion 

Best Management Practices 

Biological Study Area 

California Department of Transportation 

California Department of Fish and Game 

California Endangered Species Act 

California Natural Diversity Database 

California Native Plant Society 

Endangered Species Act 

Endangered Species Recovery Program 

Federally listed endangered 

Final Environmental Document 

Federal Endangered Species Act 

Federal Highway Administration 

Fully Protected 

Federally listed threatened 

Geographic Positioning System 

San Joaquin Kit Fox Effects Analysis, Mitigation Strategy, 

and Implementation Plan 

Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan 

Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan 

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation 

Present 

post mile 

right-of-way 

Regional Water Quality Control Board 

Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient, Transportation 

Equity Act: A Legacy for Users 

State-listed endangered 

San Joaquin Valley Railroad 

State Route 

iv 



SSC 

ST 

TRIP 

USACE 

USC 

USFWS 

USGS 

California Species of Special Concern 

State-listed threatened 

Thomas Roads Improvement Program 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

U.S. Code 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Rosedale Highway Widening Biological Assessment 

v


This page intentionally left blank 

vi 


Chapter 1. 

Introduction 

The purpose of this Biological Assessment (BA) is to provide technical information 

and to review the proposed project in sufficient detail to determine to what extent the 

proposed project may affect threatened, endangered, or proposed species. This BA is 

prepared in accordance with (1) legal requirements found in Section 7(a)(2) of the 

federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) (16 United States Code [USC] 1536[c]) and 

(2) Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Caltrans regulations, policies, and 

guidance. The document presents technical information upon which later decisions 

regarding project effects are developed. 

1.1. Project History 

1.1.1. Purpose and Need 

1.1.1.1. Project Purpose 

The purpose of the proposed project is: 

• To reduce existing and future traffic congestion on State Route 58 between Allen 

Road and State Route 99 to improve local and regional east-west traffic flow. 

1.1.1.2. Project Need 

The proposed project is needed to serve existing and projected travel demand along 

the SR-58 corridor. The project extends through the urban core area of metropolitan 

Bakersfield, where SR-58 is used to access jobs and commercial uses within the City. 

The City of Bakersfield General Plan and the Kern County General Plan both assume 

SR-58 as a six lane highway through the project study area. This portion of SR-58 has 

traffic congestion, especially during the busiest times of the day. The project has also 

been identified in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient, Transportation Equity 

Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) legislation as part of the National Corridor 

Infrastructure Improvement Program (Section 1302 of the SAFETEA-LU). 

1.2. Project Description 

Caltrans, in cooperation with the City of Bakersfield and the County of Kern, proposes 

to improve an approximate 5.6-mile segment of SR-58, locally known as Rosedale 

State Route 58 Widening Project Biological Assessment 1

Chapter 1 Introduction 

Highway. The project area is located within unincorporated Kern County and the City 

of Bakersfield (Figure 1); the limits extend from west of Allen Road to SR 99(Figures 

2A–2C). One Build Alternative and the No Build Alternative have been evaluated. 

The City of Bakersfield is the lead agency pursuant to the California Environmental 

Quality Act and Caltrans is the lead agency for the National Environmental Policy 

Act. 

The proposed project is part of the TRIP, which includes 10 projects: six road 

improvement projects in the planning and environmental review phases, three road 

projects currently under construction (Westside Parkway, SR-178 at Fairfax 

Interchange and 7 th Standard Road) and one route adoption (West Beltway). 

Build Alternative 

The Build Alternative would construct two new lanes between Allen Road and SR 99. 

East of Gibson Street, the project would modify land striping and the median to 

transition to the existing lane configuration. This would result in a six lane roadway 

throughout the project limits (post miles 46.1 to 51.7). Cross streets may also be 

restriped at their intersections with SR- 58 to improve the traffic operations. 

Ultimate improvements would include a grade separated rail crossing that would be 

constructed between Mohawk Street and Landco Drive. As part of the first phase of 

improvements, the road would be widened to six lanes, the railroad gates would be 

installed, and 11-foot turnouts would be provided to allow trucks and busses to move 

outside traffic lanes. As part of the final phase of the project, a grade separated rail 

crossing (where the road would go over the railroad tracks) would be provided. 

The roadway would be designed to local (City and County) standards for the portion 

of the project between Allen Road and Mohawk Street. This is the portion of the 

project where Caltrans will relinquish the ROW to the local agencies. The standard 

cross-section for this portion of the roadway would be 110 feet. Between Mohawk 

Street and SR 99, the roadway would be designed to State standards. Property would 

need to be acquired for this alternative. 

Along with the roadway widening, there would also be the following changes along 

the roadway: 

• Traffic signals and signage would need to be relocated because the roadway would 

be wider. 

2 State Route 58 Widening Project Biological Assessment


• Minor changes, such as restriping approach lanes to provide an additional turn lane 

on the side-street approaches to SR- 58, would be constructed at the cross streets 

because SR- 58 would be wider. 

• Utilities and drainage facilities would be relocated because of the wider roadway, 

including above-ground utilities such as power poles, and storm drain inlets. 

• Existing landscaping1 and irrigation would be replaced in the median along the 

proposed project alignment if it is damaged by construction. 

The depth of construction for the SR-58 widening is expected to be five feet or less in 

all locations except where new bridge columns are required (at the west crossing of 

the Calloway Canal and at the proposed overcrossing). In these locations, the 

maximum depth of ground disturbance is expected to be about 45 feet from pile 

driving (no major excavation). 

San Joaquin Valley Railroad Grade Separation 

The project proposes a grade separation over the San Joaquin Valley Railroad (rail line 

between Mohawk Street and Landco Drive). The proposed grade separation would be 

built on the current alignment for SR- 58. A temporary route on the north side of the 

roadway would be provided during construction to maintain roadway function. In this 

location, additional ROW would be required. Borrow material would be required for 

the grade separation and would be environmentally cleared by the contractor. 

No Build Alternative 

The No Build Alternative would not provide any improvements to SR-58. Without the 

proposed widening, the No Build Alternative does not address congestion and traffic 

delays that could be expected as traffic volumes increase. Improvements that are 

planned for other roadways as part of separate projects would still be built. 

Figures 2A–2C show the footprint for the proposed project. All borrow, disposal, 

staging, access, and utility relocations would be within the footprint identified in these 

figures, or within nearby developed areas. Figures 2A–2C also show potential kit fox 

dens and other observations near the project area. Dust-, erosion-, and 

sediment-control measures will be developed at a later project design phase, but will 

follow standard Best Management Practices (BMPs). Specific construction equipment 

will also be determined at a later project design phase, but will follow standard 

construction techniques. 

1 

Due to concerns regarding San Joaquin kit fox crossing the road, any landscaping planted will be 

low-level (i.e., less than six inches) that does not require mowing. 



There are no interdependent or interrelated projects. 


46 

Lost Hills 

33 

Delano 

McFarland 

43 

Wasco 

99 

Buttonwillow 

Rosedale 

58 

155 

Project Location 

Kern River 

Kernville 

Lake 

Isabella 

Onyx 

Ridgecrest 

395 

Califor nia Aqueduct 

Tupman 

5 

BAKERSFIELD 

Arvin 


Keene 

14 

California City 

Taft 

Maricopa 

99 

Lebec 

Tehachapi 

Los An gel es A queduct 

Rosamond 

Mojave 

Edwards AFB 

Boron 

Kern 

N 

D:\Projects\HNTB\J006\Graphics\2010\ex_RV_BA_v002.ai 

(092211 JFG) R:\Projects\HNTB\J006\Graphics\2010\IS-EA\Fig1_RV.pdf 

Regional Vicinity 

State Route 58 (Rosedale Highway) Widening Project 

PM 46.1 to PM 51.7 

D6-KER-58 

EA 060F360 

Figure 1

Map Extent 

A 

B 

C 

ALLEN RD 

OLD FARM RD 

JEWETTA AV 

VERDUGO LN 


ROSEDALE HWY 

W JEWETTA AV 


Project Impacts 

Grade Separation 

Species Location 

Kit Fox Observation 

Active Kit Fox Den 

D:\Projects\HNTB\J006\MXD\Ex_Impacts.mxd 

Temporary Impacts 

Potential Kit Fox Den 

Vegetation Types and other Areas Kit Fox Sign 

Non-native Grassland 

Developed/Ornamental 

Ruderal/Disturbed 

Open Water/Waterway 

(Rev 09-22-11 JFG) R:\Projects\HNTB\J006\Graphics\2010\BA\Fig2_Project_Effects.pdf 

800 400 0 800 

Feet 

Aerials flown 2006 

Project Effects 


PM 46.1 to PM 51.7 


EA 06-0F360 

Figure 2A

Map Extent 

A 

B 

C 

VERDUGO LN 

CALLOWAY DR 

MAIN PLAZA DR 

COFFEE RD 

Friant-Kern Canal 

Calloway Canal 

HENRY LN 

PATTON WY 

WEAR ST 

FRUITVALE AV 


Emery Ditch 

Emery Ditch 


ROSEDALE HWY 

WEDDING LN 

















800 400 0 800 

Feet 




PM 46.1 to PM 51.7 


EA 06-0F360 

Figure 2B

Map Extent 

A 

B 

C 

FRUITVALE AV 

Emery Ditch 

WEAR ST 


Emery Ditch 

MOHAWK ST 

LANDCO DR 

CASE ST 

GIBSON ST 

99 



ROSEDALE HWY 

PARKER LN 

Kern River 
















800 400 0 800 

Feet 




PM 46.1 to PM 51.7 


EA 06-0F360 

Figure 2C


1.2.1. Project Phasing 

Construction is expected to be done in three phases. The first phase would be from 

Calloway Drive to SR 99. The second phase would be from Allen Road to Calloway 

Drive. Construction on the first two segments is expected to start in early 2014 and be 

completed in mid-2015. The grade separation at the San Joaquin Valley Railroad 

would be constructed as a final phase, with construction projected to start in 2025 and 

end in 2027. Construction for all phases is expected to be completed within this 

project’s 20-year horizon. 

The roadway would be open through all phases of construction. No detours are 

expected to be necessary. During construction of the grade-separation, a temporary 

route on the north side of the roadway would be provided during construction to allow 

traffic to continue to use SR-58. The temporary route would be located next to the 

roadway and would use property that would be bought as part of the project. 

Relocation/reconstruction of utilities and drainage facilities within the proposed ROW 

would include power poles, underground utilities, and storm drains. Utility relocations 

are expected to be accomplished without interrupting service. Drainage improvements 

would include installation of operational BMPs. 

1.2.2. Avoidance and Minimization Measures 

Standard Avoidance and Minimization Measures for the San Joaquin kit fox (such as 

pre-construction surveys, worker environmental awareness training, and construction 

monitoring) will be implemented. In addition to the standard Avoidance and 

Minimization Measures, the project proposes to incorporate structural design elements 

that are intended to facilitate safe kit fox crossing and to reduce the potential for 

unintentional vehicular strike. The structural design elements would include limited 

median height, low-level landscaping, avoidance of current movement corridors (i.e., 

canals and railways), and warning signs. The proposed project would also avoid the 

use of fencing. These design elements will be addressed in more detail in 

Section 4.1.1.5. The specifics of these structural elements will be finalized during the 

project’s final design phase by the City of Bakersfield and Caltrans and submitted for 

review and approval by the USFWS. 



1.3. Summary of Consultation to Date 

During preparation of the Implementation Plan (Bakersfield and Caltrans 2010), 

Stephanie Coppeto, Leo Edson, and the City of Bakersfield consulted with the 

USFWS and the CDFG; Caltrans; Dr. Brian Cypher with the California State 

University, Stanislaus Endangered Species Recovery Program (ESRP); and other 

environmental consultants with knowledge of the status and distribution of the San 

Joaquin kit fox in Bakersfield. 

Stephanie Coppeto, Leo Edson, and the City of Bakersfield coordinated with the 

USFWS, CDFG, and Caltrans on the approach for San Joaquin kit fox field surveys, 

potential project-specific and program-level effects of the TRIP, and mitigation 

options for project-specific and program-level effects. 

Stephanie Coppeto and Leo Edson worked closely with Dr. Brian Cypher, kit fox 

specialist with ESRP, to gather supplemental information about kit fox distribution, 

abundance, and ecology in metropolitan Bakersfield, including: known kit fox 

locations, reported observations, habitat associations of kit fox in Bakersfield, suitable 

kit fox habitat areas, and potential movement corridors. Dr. Cypher provided guidance 

throughout the development of field surveys, synthesis and interpretation of kit fox 

data for project-specific surveys, appropriate project-specific and program-level 

mitigation measures, and preparation of kit fox technical reports. 

Stephanie Coppeto and Leo Edson also sought input from various environmental 

consultants in Bakersfield with knowledge of the local San Joaquin kit fox population. 

Marcia Wolfe of MH Wolfe and Associates provided a general assessment of the kit fox 

distribution in central and north-eastern Bakersfield. Steven Pruett of Paul Pruett and 

Associates conducted field surveys with Stephanie Coppeto and provided information on 

suitability of project-specific habitat, kit fox den evaluation, and historical accounts of kit 

fox movement in project-specific study areas and throughout metropolitan Bakersfield. 

In 2007, the City and Caltrans authorized Stephanie Coppeto and Leo Edson to 

develop a conceptual strategy for San Joaquin kit fox to determine the potential effects 

of implementing the TRIP projects on kit fox and to evaluate mitigation options for 

such effects. USFWS and CDFG concur that a conceptual strategy was needed. 

USFWS requested cumulative and project-specific analyses of potential effects on kit 

fox to comply with Section 7 consultation for each TRIP project evaluated. 



In 2008, USFWS and CDFG concurred on methods proposed by Stephanie Coppeto 

and Leo Edson to develop the kit fox conceptual strategy: diurnal surveys for kit fox 

dens and signs, collaboration with Dr. Brian Cypher, and a project specific and 

cumulative approach to evaluating potential impacts on kit fox and efforts to avoid, 

minimize, and compensate for potential effects. USFWS, CDFG, Caltrans, Stephanie 

Coppeto and Leo Edson, and the City agreed to meet throughout the development of 

the conceptual strategy to ensure that it complies with the FESA and California 

Endangered Species Act (CESA). In July, 2008, CDFG, Caltrans, Stephanie Coppeto 

and Leo Edson, the City, Steven Pruett, and Dr. Brian Cypher toured various TRIP 

projects in Bakersfield. In August, 2008, Stephanie Coppeto and Leo Edson presented 

preliminary results of kit fox surveys. USFWS identified habitat connectivity and the 

maintenance of corridors connecting kit fox populations as a major issue facing kit fox 

in Bakersfield. Potential compensatory mitigation options were discussed, including 

culverts, refugia, and artificial kit fox dens. 

In 2009, USFWS and CDFG approved the San Joaquin Kit Fox Life History, Effects 

Analysis, and Conceptual Mitigation Strategy (City of Bakersfield and Caltrans 2009) 

that describes program-level impacts and conceptual program-level mitigation. 

USFWS and CDFG concurred that Caltrans should begin to develop a mitigation 

implementation plan of the conceptual approach. 

In 2010, USFWS and CDFG approved the Implementation Plan (City of Bakersfield 

and Caltrans 2010). CDFG recommended that Caltrans seek a 2080.1 Consistency 

Determination for projects requiring a state Incidental Take Permit. USFWS and 

CDFG approved the standard Avoidance and Minimization Measures that would be 

described for the San Joaquin kit fox in BAs. USFWS and CDFG agreed that the letter 

from the MBHCP Trust Group to the City (dated August 3, 2010) approving eligible 

TRIP projects to participate in the fee payment program was valid for projects that are 

ready to build prior to MBHCP expiration in 2014 but asked that the City clarify that 

fees can be paid at higher than 1:1 ratios as required by USFWS. USFWS and CDFG 

approved the concept of the Sump Habitat Program to compensate for program-level 

effects. 

In 2011, based on agency consultation and the release of the Draft Biological Opinion 

for the Morning Drive/State Route 178 Interchange Project, a 3:1 mitigation ratio is 

identified for all permanent impacts and a 1.1:1 ratio is identified for all temporary 

impacts. Caltrans is no longer seeking an Incidental Take Permit or a Consistency 

Determination under CESA as it is now assumed that take of San Joaquin kit fox, as 



defined under CESA, can be avoided. Caltrans and the City have identified the 

Wildlife Heritage Foundation (WHF), a non-profit land trust, to hold endowments 

necessary to fully fund the Sump Habitat Program and conservation easement 

oversight. The USFWS also released an updated Recommendations for Protection of 

the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance 

(USFWS 2011). 

1.4. Document Preparation History 

This document was prepared based on the Implementation Plan (Bakersfield and 

Caltrans 2010). Information on the BSA was obtained from the State Route 58 

Widening Project (Rosedale Highway) Final Natural Environment Study (NES) 

(Caltrans 2011). 


Chapter 2. 

Study Methods 

2.1. Listed and Proposed Species Potentially in the 


Fourteen federally listed species are included on the species list provided by the 

USFWS for the proposed project (Table 1). Of these species, the San Joaquin kit fox 

has potential to occur in the BSA. The remaining species are not expected to occur in 

the BSA due to the lack of suitable habitat, because they were not observed during 

surveys, or because they are not known to occur in the immediate project vicinity. 

Table 1 

Listed, Proposed Species, and Critical Habiat Potentially Occuring or 

Known to Occur in the Project Area 

Common 

Name 

California 

jewelflower 

Kern mallow 

San Joaquin 

woolly-threads 

Bakersfield 

cactus 

vernal pool 

fairy shrimp 

valley 

elderberry 

longhorn 

beetle 

delta smelt 

Scientific Name 

Caulanthus 

californicus 

Eremalche parryi 

ssp. kernensis [E. 

kernensis] 

Monolopia 

[Lembertia] 

congdonii 

Opuntiabasilaris 

var. treleasei 

Branchinecta 

lynchi 

Desmocerus 

californicus 

dimorphus 

Hypomesus 

transpacificus 

Status 

FE, SE 

FE 

FE 

FE, SE 

FT 

FT 

FT, 

ST 

General Habitat 

Description 

Saltbush scrub; 

pinyon and juniper 

woodland; valley and 

foothill grassland 

(sandy). 

Saltbush scrub; valley 

and foothill grassland. 

Saltbush scrub; valley 

and foothill grassland 

(sandy). 

Saltbush scrub; 

cismontane woodland; 

valley and foothill 

grassland (sandy or 

gravelly). 

Ephemeral freshwater 

habitats, such as 

vernal pools and 

swales. 

Associated with blue 

elderberry. 

Sacramento-San 

Joaquin Delta. 

Habitat 

Present/ 

Absent 

A 

A 

A 

A 

A 

A 

A 

Rationale 

Not observed during 

focused plant 

surveys. 


focused plant 

surveys. 


focused plant 

surveys. 


focused plant 

surveys. 

No suitable habitat; 

not expected to 

occur. 



occur. 

Outside known 

range; not expected 

to occur. 


Chapter 2 Study Methods 

Table 1 (Continued) 

Listed, Proposed Species, and Critical Habiat Potentially Occuring or 

Known to Occur in the Project Area 

Common 

Name 

California redlegged 

frog 

blunt-nosed 

leopard lizard 

giant garter 

snake 

giant kangaroo 

rat 

Tipton 

kangaroo rat 

Buena Vista 

Lake shrew 

San Joaquin 

kit fox 

Scientific Name 

Rana [aurora] 

draytonii 

Gambelia sila 

Thamnophis gigas 

Dipodomys ingens 

Dipodomys 

nitratoides 

nitratoides 

Sorex ornatus 

relictus 

STATUS DESIGNATIONS 

A Absent 

P Present 

Vulpes macrotis 

mutica 

Status 

FT, SSC 

FE, 

SE/FP 

FT, 

ST 

FE, 

SE 

FE, 

SE 

FE, SSC 

FE, 

ST 

General Habitat 

Description 

Variety of aquatic 

habitats in forests, 

woodlands, 

grasslands, and 

streamsides with 

deep, still, or slowmoving 

water. 

Semiarid grasslands, 

alkali flats, and 

washes. 

Perennial fresh water 

with emergent wetland 

vegetation and 

basking sites. 

Slopes in grasslands 

and shrub 

communities. 

Alkali sink scrub and 

valley saltbush scrub 

with widely scattered 

shrubs. 

Wetlands with dense 

vegetation and an 

abundant layer of 

detritus. 

Valley sink scrub, 

saltbush scrub, upper 

Sonoran scrub, 

annual grasslands, oil 

fields, urban areas. 

Habitat 

Present/ 

Absent 

A 

A 

A 

A 

A 

A 

P 

Rationale 



occur. 



occur. 

Outside current 

known range; not 

expected to occur. 



occur. 



occur. 



occur. 

Observed during 

2008 focused 

surveys. 

Federal Designations 

FE Listed by the federal government as an endangered species 

FT Listed by the federal government as a threatened species 

State Designations 

SE Listed as endangered by the State of California 

ST Listed as threatened by the State of California 

SSC Species of Special Concern 

FP Fully Protected 



2.2. Studies Required 

2.2.1. Literature Review 

The BSA includes the current SR-58 ROW and areas located 500 feet north and south 

of its centerline. 

Prior to conducting field surveys, a list of special-status plant and animal species that 

have potential to occur within a ten-mile query radius of the BSA was established by 

conducting a literature review. Literature reviewed included the CNPS’ Inventory of 

Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (CNPS 2008), the CDFG’s 

CNDDB (CDFG 2008), and the USFWS List of Proposed, Threatened, and 

Endangered Species (USFWS 2008) for the U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute 

quadrangles of Famoso, Lamont, North of Oildale, Oil Center, Oildale, Rosedale, Rio 

Bravo, Tupman, Stevens, Gosford, and Wasco. The database searches were updated 

(CNPS 2010, CDFG 2010) when the NES was updated in 2010. The USFWS list was 

updated in March 2011 (USFWS 2011). The Western Rosedale Specific Plan (Kern 

County 1994), the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan (MBGP) (Bakersfield and 

Kern County 2002), the MBHCP, support documents (Thomas Reid Associates 1994, 

1991, and 1990), and the USFWS’s Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San 

Joaquin Valley, California (USFWS 1998) were also reviewed. 

Other documentation that included information on biological resources in the BSA and 

in the general project vicinity were reviewed including: the 7 th Standard Road 

Widening Environmental Assessment/Initial Study with Proposed Mitigated Negative 

Declaration (Caltrans 2006), the Tier 2 Environmental Assessment/Final 

Environmental Impact Report for Westside Parkway (Bakersfield et al. 2006), the 

Kern County Waste Facilities Habitat Conservation Plan (Kern County Waste 

Management Department 1997), and the Kern Water Bank Authority Habitat 

Conservation Plan (Kern Water Bank Authority 1997). 

2.2.2. Vegetation Mapping 

Vegetation mapping was conducted on March 21, 2007 by walking the BSA, to 

describe the vegetation present in the BSA. All plant species observed were recorded 

in field notes. A list of species observed is included in Appendix A. 



2.2.3. General Wildlife Surveys 

A general survey for wildlife species was conducted on March 21, 2007, to document 

wildlife habitat and evaluate the BSA’s potential to support special-status wildlife 

species that are known or expected to occur in the BSA. During the surveys, active 

searches for reptiles and amphibians were accomplished by systematically surveying 

appropriate habitat and included lifting, overturning, and carefully replacing rocks and 

debris. Birds were identified by visual and auditory recognition. Surveys for mammals 

were conducted during the day and included searching for and identifying diagnostic 

sign including scat, footprints, scratch-outs, dust bowls, burrows, and trails. Wildlife 

species that were observed were recorded in field notes. A list of species observed is 

located in Appendix A. 

2.2.4. Focused Surveys 

2.2.4.1. San Joaquin Kit Fox 

Existing data on the status and distribution of San Joaquin kit fox in the Metropolitan 

Bakersfield area were used to supplement field survey data and to evaluate the 

distribution of kit foxes in the TRIP kit fox study area. Existing kit fox data were 

compiled from CNDDB records; a report prepared by Bjurlin et al. (2005) on kit fox 

and urban roads; and the MBHCP’s San Joaquin kit fox database, which is maintained 

by the City of Bakersfield Planning Department. Data were compiled as described in 

Bjurlin et. al. (2005) to examine vehicular mortality locations from maps and activity 

areas from radio telemetry locations of collared foxes. 

Surveys for San Joaquin kit fox dens and sign were conducted in the BSA following a 

methodology established for the TRIP and approved by the USFWS and the CDFG as 

described in the Implementation Plan (Caltrans and City of Bakersfield 2010). The 

surveys for kit fox were conducted by wildlife biologists Stephanie Coppeto and Steve 

Pruett. 

The BSA was surveyed during two discrete survey sessions to maximize the potential 

for biologists to detect kit fox during both denning (session 1 – May 20, June 1 and 

17, July 7, 2008) and dispersal (session 2 – July 29 and 30, 2008) seasons. Surveys 

were conducted on all accessible parcels within the BSA where the property owner 

had granted access. In general, field surveys did not include residential property. 



During surveys, biologists walked linear transects within the survey area; transects 

were separated by no more than 50 feet and included 100 percent visual coverage. At 

all times, biologists had maps that included locations of known kit fox dens, sightings, 

and activity areas as reported in the CNDDB, the MBHCP kit fox den database, and in 

Bjurlin et al. 

Kit fox data collected included potential dens, natal dens, sign, and kit fox 

observations. Kit fox dens were described as potential and natal according to 

descriptions provided in the USFWS Standardized Recommendations for Protection of 

the San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance (USFWS 1999). All 

dens were further described in field notes by number of entrances, proximity to nearest 

road, potential for den to be located within the proposed new alignment, substrate, and 

surrounding habitat type. Kit fox data were recorded using a Global Positioning 

System (GPS) unit. Kit fox data categories are described below. 

Potential Den: A potential den is any subterranean hole that has entrances of 

appropriate dimensions for which available evidence is insufficient to conclude that it is 

being used or has been used by a kit fox (USFWS 1999). Dens were not described as 

having kit fox potential if there were signs of active use by squirrel (fresh scat, tracks) 

and/or if the biologist saw a squirrel using the den during the time of surveys. A 

potential den was further described as active if excavation appeared recent or recently 

maintained and/or included kit fox sign within approximately ten feet of the den. 

Natal Den: A natal den is any den used by kit foxes to whelp and/or rear their pups. 

Natal dens may be larger with more numerous entrances than dens occupied only by 

adults. These dens typically have more kit fox tracks, scat, and prey remains in the 

vicinity of the den, and may have a broader apron of matted dirt and/or vegetation at 

one or more entrances (USFWS 1999). 

Sign: Sign includes kit fox scat, track and prey remains. 

Observations: Observations are visual sightings of live or dead kit foxes within the 

BSA. 

2.3. Personnel and Survey Dates 

Botanist Pam De Vries conducted a general plant survey, a habitat assessment for 

special-status plant species, and vegetation mapping on March 21, 2007. Ecologist 



Amber Oneal conducted a general wildlife survey and a habitat assessment for specialstatus 

wildlife species concurrently with vegetation mapping on March 21, 2007. 

Wildlife Biologists Stephanie Coppeto and Steve Pruett conducted kit fox den and 

sign surveys on May 20; June 1 and 17; and July 7, 29, and 30, 2008. 

2.4. Agency Coordination and Professional Contacts 

The following is a summary of consultation to date with USFWS and CDFG for the 

TRIP. 

November 20, 2007: The City and Caltrans agree to develop an 

Implementation Plan to determine the effects of the TRIP projects on the kit 

fox and to design avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures for these 

effects. The USFWS and the CDFG concur that an Implementation Plan is 

needed. The USFWS requests cumulative and project specific analyses of 

potential effects on kit fox to comply with Section 7 consultation for each 

TRIP project evaluated. 

June 3, 2008: The USFWS and the CDFG concur on methods proposed to 

develop the Implementation Plan: diurnal surveys for kit fox dens and signs; 

collaboration with Dr. Brian Cypher; and a project-specific and cumulative 

approach to evaluating potential effects on kit fox and efforts to avoid, 

minimize, and mitigate for potential effects. The USFWS and the CDFG agree 

to meet throughout the development of the Implementation Plan to ensure that 

it complies with the FESA and the CESAand to participate in a visit to the 

various TRIP project sites in Bakersfield. 

July 8, 2008: The CDFG, Caltrans, Stephanie Coppeto, the City, Steve Pruett, 

and Dr. Brian Cypher tour various TRIP projects in Bakersfield. 

August 26, 2008: Stephanie Coppeto and Leo Edson present preliminary 

results of kit fox surveys. The USFWS identifies habitat connectivity and the 

maintenance of corridors connecting kit fox populations as a major issue facing 

kit fox in Bakersfield. Potential compensatory mitigation options are discussed, 

including culverts, refugia, and artificial kit fox dens. 

September 10, 2009: USFWS and CDFG approve the Draft TRIP San Joaquin 

Kit Fox Life History, Effects Analysis, and Conceptual Mitigation Strategy that 



describes program-level impacts and conceptual program-level avoidance, 

minimization and mitigation measures. USFWS and CDFG concur that 

Caltrans will begin to develop a mitigation implementation plan of the 

conceptual approach. 

October 7, 2009: TRIP receives letter (81420-2008-TA-0368-29) from Peter 

Cross, Deputy Assistant Field Supervisor with USFWS, approving Draft TRIP 

San Joaquin Kit Fox Life History, Effects Analysis, and Conceptual Mitigation 

Strategy (Bakersfield and Caltrans 2009). 

March 11, 2010: USFWS and CDFG approve the Implementation Plan 

(Bakersfield and Caltrans 2010). CDFG recommends that Caltrans seek a 

2080.1 Consistency Determination for projects requiring a state Incidental 

Take Permit. USFWS and CDFG approve the Sump Habitat Program and 

request that the City, in coordination with Caltrans, establish long-term 

conservation assurances for the 19 sumps through conservation easements, 

endowment, and long-term management plan. 

May 5, 2010: Stephanie Coppeto and Leo Edson hold an informal 

teleconference with USFWS to discuss FESA compliance approach and 

schedule before the May 11, 2010 meeting in which Susan Jones and Jen 

Schofield will not attend. For compensatory mitigation, USFWS requests that 

the City submit a letter of commitment with each BA for the Sump Habitat 

Program. 

May 11, 2010: Caltrans will submit project BAs to USFWS and CDFG for 

concurrent review to expedite the CESA consultation process. The Sump 

Habitat Program would be discussed in the BAs but the requirements 

(easement application, management plan, and endowment) would not need to 

be met before construction of a road project. CDFG is willing to hold the 

conservation easement for the sumps, the City and Caltrans will identify an 

agency-approved endowment holder. The City and Caltrans consider 

identifying an alternative cumulative mitigation strategy in the event that the 

Sump Habitat Program is fiscally infeasible. 

July 14, 2010: Caltrans will submit the draft BA for SR-178/Morning Drive 

Interchange (another TRIP project) to CDFG for review and comment prior to 

submittal to USFWS to expedite the CESA process. USFWS and CDFG 

approve the standard Avoidance and Minimization Measures that would be 



described for the San Joaquin kit fox in the BA. CDFG recommends that 

Caltrans and the City consider an alternative compensatory mitigation strategy 

to the MBHCP because of concerns about MBHCP expiration in 2014. 

USFWS and CDFG agreed that mitigation for cumulative effects (Sump 

Habitat Program) could be described generally in the BA to maintain flexibility 

while the program evolves, but that a chapter describing the cumulative 

mitigation framework that would later be finalized and included as chapter 3 in 

the Implementation Plan, be submitted as a separate, supporting document with 

the BA. CDFG requested that standard CESA requirements be included in the 

terms and conditions section of the Biological Opinion (BO) so that the BO 

complies with CESA. 

August 18, 2010: USFWS and CDFG agreed that the letter from the MBHCP 

Trust Group to the City (dated August 3, 2010) approving eligible TRIP projects 

to participate in the fee payment program was valid for projects that are ready to 

build prior to MBHCP expiration in 2014 but asked that the City clarify that fees 

can be paid at higher than 1:1 ratios as required by USFWS. The City suggests 

that long-term conservation assurances for the Sump Habitat Program 

(mitigation for cumulative effects) include National Fish and Wildlife 

Foundation (NFWF) as endowment holder, CDFG as conservation easement 

holder, and City as program manager. This arrangement will require review and 

approval by CDFG and USFWS as the Sump Habitat Program continues to be 

finalized. CDFG recommends that the Sump Habitat Program prioritize high 

and medium conservation priority sumps that are owned in fee by the City. 

January 2011: The USFWS released an updated Recommendations for 


Disturbance. 

May 11, 2011: Based on agency consultation and the release of the Draft 

Biological Opinion for the Morning Drive/State Route 178 Interchange 

Project, a 3:1 mitigation ratio is identified for all permanent impacts and a 

1.1:1 ratio is identified for all temporary impacts. Caltrans is no longer seeking 

an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) or a Consistency Determination under CESA 

as it is now assumed that take of San Joaquin kit fox, as defined under CESA, 

can be avoided. Caltrans and the City have identified the Wildlife Heritage 

Foundation (WHF), a non-profit land trust, to hold endowments necessary to 

fully fund the Sump Habitat Program and conservation easement oversight. 



2.5. Limitations That May Influence Results 

Much of the open space adjacent to SR-58 is private property or property belonging to 

other agencies; therefore, permission was required to conduct surveys on those 

properties. Access was granted for most areas with potential to support San Joaquin kit 

fox. Private property for which access was not granted was surveyed from the 

boundary of the property. In general, field surveys did not include residential property. 

The access limitations are not expected to affect the conclusions presented herein. 

Surveys for the San Joaquin kit fox did not follow the USFWS protocol for the 

species; however, the methodology used was coordinated with and approved by the 

USFWS and the CDFG. Surveys were conducted during both denning and dispersal 

seasons to maximize the potential for kit fox detection. 





Chapter 3. 

Results: Environmental 

Setting 

3.1. Description of Existing Biological and Physical 

Conditions 

3.1.1. Study Area 

The BSA is located along SR-58 in the City of Bakersfield, in Kern County, 

California. The BSA includes the current highway pavement and shoulders, ROW, 

and a buffer zone extending 500 feet north and south of it (Figures 3A–3C). The BSA 

is located in the western portion of the MBHCP on the USGS’s 7.5-minute Rosedale 

and Oildale quadrangles (Figure 4). 

Several watercourses are located within, or in proximity to, the BSA. The Kern River 

is located southeast of the BSA boundary, the Friant-Kern Canal crosses the BSA just 

east of Coffee Road, the Calloway Canal crosses the BSA at multiple locations in the 

eastern portion of the BSA, and Emery Ditch occurs north of SR-58 just east of the 

Calloway Canal. 

Land uses in the BSA include commercial, industrial, and residential development as 

well as some undeveloped lots interspersed with the developed areas. 

3.1.2. Physical Conditions 

The BSA is located in the southern San Joaquin Valley, which is in the southernmost 

basin of the Great Central Valley of California. Topography in the BSA is generally 

flat with elevation ranges from approximately 365 to 400 feet above mean sea level. 

The SJVR crosses SR-58 west of SR-99 at Landco Drive and again east of Allen 

Road. 

The following soil types are located within the BSA: Cajon loamy sand, Cajon sandy 

loam and Wasco sandy loam. None of these soils are considered to be hydric 

(Reed 1988). 


Chapter 3 Results: Environmental Setting 



ALLEN RD 

OLD FARM RD 

JEWETTA AV 

VERDUGO LN 


ROSEDALE HWY 

W JEWETTA AV 

Map Extent 

D:\Projects\HNTB\J006\MXD\Ex_Bio_Study_Area.mxd 


(Rev 12-20-10 JFG) R:\Projects\HNTB\J006\Graphics\2010\BA\Fig3_Bio_Study_Area.pdf 

A 

B 

C 

800 400 0 800 

Feet 




PM 46.1 to PM 51.7 


EA 06-0F360 

Figure 3A


CALLOWAY DR 

MAIN PLAZA DR 

COFFEE RD 

Friant-Kern Canal 

HENRY LN 

PATTON WY 

WEAR ST 

FRUITVALE AV 


ROSEDALE HWY 

WEDDING LN 


Map Extent 




A 

B 

C 

800 400 0 800 

Feet 




PM 46.1 to PM 51.7 


EA 06-0F360 

Figure 3B

Emery Ditch 


Emery Ditch 

MOHAWK ST 

LANDCO DR 

CASE ST 

GIBSON ST 

99 


ROSEDALE HWY 

PARKER LN 

Kern River 

Map Extent 




A 

B 

C 

800 400 0 800 

Feet 




PM 46.1 to PM 51.7 


EA 06-0F360 

Figure 3C

Rosedale 

Stevens 

Oildale 

Gosford 

D:\Projects\HNTB\J006\MXD\Ex_LV_BA.mxd 


Quad Boundary 

(Rev 092211 JFG) R:\Projects\HNTB\J006\Graphics\2010\BA\Fig4_LV_Quad.pdf 

2,000 1,000 0 2,000 

Feet 

USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles: 

Rosedale, Oildale, Stevens, Gosford 

Local Vicinity 


PM 46.1 to PM 51.7 


EA 06-0F360 

Figure 4


3.1.3. Biological Conditions in the BSA 

3.1.3.1. Vegetation Types 

The following vegetation types occur in the BSA: non-native grassland, ruderal or 

disturbed, open water or waterways, and developed or ornamental (Table 2, 

Figures 2A–2C). This section describes each of the vegetation types and other areas 

observed in the BSA. 

Table 2 

Vegetation Types and Other Areas Within the BSA 

Vegetation Types and Other Areas 

Existing in 

BSA (Acres) 

Non-native Grassland 64.83 

Ruderal/Disturbed 54.91 

Open Water/Waterway* 9.29 

Developed/Ornamental 603.59 

Total 732.62 

* Open water/waterway is the mapping unit to describe areas 

potentially within the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (USACE), the CDFG, and the Regional Water Quality 

Control Board (RWQCB), primarily the canals within the BSA. 

These areas are vegetated with non-native grassland vegetation. 


Non-native grassland is dominated by non-native annual grasses and both native and 

non-native herbs, including red brome (Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens), foxtail 

barley (Hordeum murinum), telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora), red-stemmed 

filaree (Erodium cicutarium), and rancher’s fiddleneck (Amsinckia menziesii). 

Non-native grassland areas occur primarily in undeveloped lots interspersed with 

developed areas along SR-58. These areas match Holland’s (1986) description of 

non-native grassland. 


Ruderal/disturbed areas consist of graded and regularly maintained areas such as dirt 

roads, active oil fields, and cleared roadsides. These areas are generally without 

vegetation or have a sparse cover of ornamental or weedy annual species. 

Open Water/Waterways 

Open water is present in the Friant-Kern Canal, a concrete-lined channel that bisects 

SR-58 just east of Coffee Road. No vegetation was observed within the open water or 



the sides of the Friant-Kern Canal. The Friant-Kern Canal is potentially under the 

jurisdiction of the USACE, the CDFG and the RWQCB. 

Calloway Canal and Emery Ditch are waterways within the BSA that contain 

non-native grassland species similar to those described above for non-native 

grassland. No open water was observed in these waterways at the time of the survey. 

However, these areas have features, such as a discernable bed, bank or channel and an 

ordinary high water mark, that indicate they are potentially under the jurisdiction of 

the USACE, the CDFG and the RWQCB. 


Developed/ornamental areas consist of residential and commercial developments, 

paved roadways, compacted road shoulders, railroad tracks, and ornamental plantings 

including maintained turf grass. Common plant species observed in these areas 

include oleander (Nerium oleander), American sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), 

olive (Olea europaea), and Mexican fan palm (Washingtonia robusta). 

3.1.3.2. Common Animal Species 

Amphibians 

No amphibian species were observed during surveys. Amphibian species expected to 

occur in the BSA in the vicinity of the watercourses include the western toad (Bufo 

boreas), California treefrog (Pseudacris [Hyla] cadaverina), and Pacific treefrog 

(Pseudacris [Hyla] regilla). 

Reptiles 

The only reptile species observed in the BSA during the field surveys was the 

side-blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana). Other reptile species expected to occur in the 

BSA include western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis), western whiptail 

(Aspidoscelis [Cnemidophorus] tigris), southern alligator lizard (Elgaria 

multicarinata), California whipsnake (Masticophis lateralis), and gopher snake 

(Pituophis catenifer). 

Birds 

Several resident bird species are expected to occur in the BSA, using the habitats 

throughout the year. Other species are present only during certain seasons. For 

example, the white-crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys) is expected to occur in 

the BSA during the winter season and migrate north in the spring to breed during the 

summer. 



Resident bird species observed in the BSA during surveys include killdeer 

(Charadrius vociferous), rock pigeon (Columba livia), mourning dove (Zenaida 

macroura), Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte anna), western scrub-jay (Aphelocoma 

californica), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), northern mockingbird (Mimus 

polyglottos), European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), house finch (Carpodacus 

mexicanus), and house sparrow (Passer domesticus). 

Migrant bird species observed in the BSA during surveys include Say’s phoebe 

(Sayornis saya), western kingbird (Tyrannus verticalis), northern rough-winged 

swallow (Stelgidopteryx serripennis), cliff swallow (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota), barn 

swallow (Hirundo rustica), yellow-rumped warbler (Dendroica coronata), and 

white-crowned sparrow. 

Raptor species observed in the BSA include red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), 

American kestrel (Falco sparverius), great horned owl (Bubo virginianus), and 

burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia). These species forage in the BSA and may nest 

in the BSA. 

Mammals 

Mammals observed in the BSA include desert cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii), 

black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus), California ground squirrel (Spermophilus 

beecheyi), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), coyote (Canis latrans), San Joaquin kit 

fox, and red fox (Vulpes vulpes). Rodents that may occur in the BSA include house 

mouse (Mus musculus) and Botta’s pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae). Medium- to 

large-sized mammals expected to occur in the BSA include Virginia opossum 

(Didelphis virginiana), common raccoon (Procyon lotor), and American badger 

(Taxidea taxus). 

Bats occur throughout most of Southern California and may use some areas of the 

BSA as foraging habitat, however, no bats or sign of bats were observed during 

surveys. Most of the bats that could potentially occur in the BSA are inactive during 

the winter and either hibernate or migrate, depending on the species. Cavities in trees 

and man-made structures (such as bridges and culverts) provide potential roosting 

opportunities for bat species. Common bat species that may occur in the BSA include 

big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus), California myotis (Myotis californicus), Brazilian 

free-tailed bat (Tadarida brasiliensis), and western pipistrelle (Pipistrellus hesperus). 



Wildlife Movement 

The majority of the BSA consists of developed areas with only a few areas of open 

space such as non-native grassland and ruderal/disturbed areas interspersed. 

Development consists of high-density commercial and residential land uses, and is 

therefore expected to support very limited wildlife movement. Wildlife may disperse 

along the canals, railroad tracks, and along the road edges. 


Chapter 4. 

Results: Biological 

Resources, Discussion of 

Impacts and Mitigation 

One federally listed species has potential to occur in the BSA: the San Joaquin kit 

fox. The following analysis covers background information on this species, the 

presence of this species in the BSA, Avoidance and Minimization Measures, project 

effects on the kit fox, compensatory mitigation, and cumulative effects of the TRIP 

projects. 

4.1. Federally Listed or Proposed Animal Species 

Occurrences 

4.1.1. Discussion of San Joaquin Kit Fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica) 

The San Joaquin kit fox is a federally listed endangered species and a State-listed 

threatened species. Kit foxes are primarily nocturnal, but can also be crepuscular or at 

times diurnal. Typically, they emerge at sunset to hunt prey such as kangaroo rats 

(Dipodomys sp.), black-tailed jackrabbits, desert cottontails, and California ground 

squirrels (Thomas Reid Associates 1994). San Joaquin kit foxes prefer open habitats 

such as grasslands and open scrubland (USFWS 1998). In the southernmost portion 

of their range, the kit fox is commonly associated with valley sink scrub, valley 

saltbush scrub, upper Sonoran subshrub scrub, and annual grassland (USFWS 1998). 

The species also inhabits grazed grasslands, petroleum fields, urban areas, and land 

adjacent to tilled or fallow fields (USFWS 1998). Kit foxes may also occasionally 

utilize agricultural lands, including croplands and orchards (Warrick et al. 2007), 

although areas that are routinely disturbed by agricultural practices have a limited 

capacity to support them. 

Kit foxes use dens throughout the year to rear pups, to avoid water loss and heat 

stress in summer, to minimize metabolic costs in winter, and to escape predation 

(USFWS 1998). While kit foxes prefer loose-textured soils for denning, they are 

found on virtually every soil type (Bakersfield and Caltrans 2010). 

The San Joaquin kit fox has historically occurred throughout most of the San Joaquin 

Valley from San Joaquin County in the north to Kern County in the south (USFWS 


Chapter 4 Results: Biological Resources, Discussion of Impacts and Mitigation 

1998). The largest extant populations of kit foxes are in western Kern County in the 

vicinity of the Elk Hills and Buena Vista Valley and in the Carrizo Plain Natural Area 

in San Luis Obispo County (USFWS 1998). 

In Bakersfield, San Joaquin kit foxes have adapted to urban conditions and use 

anthropogenic habitats in which natural ecological processes are nonexistent or 

substantially altered (Bakersfield and Caltrans 2010). Kit fox populations in 

Bakersfield supplement their diet with anthropogenic foods such as refuse, pet food, 

and handouts; however, natural prey is an important part of their diet, especially for 

the pups (Bakersfield and Caltrans 2010). They appear to be relatively undisturbed by 

noise from traffic and human activity, as well as nighttime light typical of urban 

environments (Bakersfield and Caltrans 2010). Dens are found in a variety of urban 

areas, but are most commonly found in relatively open areas with low anthropogenic 

disturbance (Bakersfield and Caltrans 2010). 

Despite their apparent adaptations to urban environments, kit foxes in Bakersfield are 

concentrated around low-density industrial areas (e.g., oil fields, airport grounds, 

manufacturing facilities, shipping yards), undeveloped lands (e.g., vacant lots, fallow 

fields); storm water drainage basins (i.e., sumps), manicured open spaces (e.g., golf 

courses, parks, school campuses); and some larger commercial areas (e.g., office and 

retail facilities) (Bakersfield and Caltrans 2010). Kit foxes rarely use dense residential 

areas of Bakersfield where disturbance is frequent, since walls may inhibit 

movement, domestic dogs pose a survival threat, and few denning opportunities exist. 

A major effect on the kit fox in Bakersfield is the increase in barriers to movement as 

a result of development, which affects habitat connectivity and the maintenance of 

corridors connecting kit fox populations (Bakersfield and Caltrans 2010). Kit foxes 

have been found to move along, and also den in, linear habitat features like canals, 

railroad corridors, power line ROW, and the shoulders of some roads (Bakersfield 

and Caltrans 2010). 

This species is known to occur within the City limits of Bakersfield and has been 

reported from multiple locations within one mile of the BSA (CDFG 2008, 2010). 

Existing information on kit fox distribution indicates that they have been found 

primarily in the central and eastern portions of SR-58 between Rudd Avenue and 

SR-99 (Bakersfield and Caltrans 2010). Records from the CNDDB show kit foxes in 

the western portion of the BSA, between Renfro Road and Jewetta Avenue and in the 

low-density industrial lands in the eastern portion of the BSA between Coffee Road 



and Landco Drive (CDFG 2008). Vehicle-related mortality of kit foxes has occurred 

on Coffee Road approximately 1,000 feet south of SR-58 (Bakersfield and Caltrans 

2010). Kit foxes have been found throughout the low-density industrial lands between 

Coffee Road and SR-99 and have been seen crossing SR-58 between these areas 

(Wolfe 2008). 

4.1.1.1. Survey Results 

Suitable foraging and denning habitat for this species is present in the BSA. This 

habitat includes non-native grassland, ruderal/disturbed areas, and open 

water/waterways 2 . 

The habitat with the highest potential to be suitable for denning and movement by 

San Joaquin kit fox includes the non-native grasslands and ruderal/disturbed areas 

associated with low-density industrial development and vacant lots; landscaped 

vegetation and open space under portable units associated with elementary school and 

low-density commercial areas; the SJVR and the Friant-Kern and Calloway canals 

that cross under SR-58. 

During focused surveys conducted in the spring/summer of 2008 one kit fox was 

observed immediately south of the BSA at Rosedale Middle School on the south side 

of SR-58, east of Allen Road and west of Old Farm Road. 

During focused surveys of the BSA for sign of kit fox, four potential San Joaquin kit 

fox dens and four instances of scat were observed in the BSA. One potential kit fox 

den and one instance of fresh kit fox scat were observed on the north side of SR-58 

north of Rosedale Middle School. The second potential kit fox den was observed 

south of SR-58 and west of Jewetta Avenue. Potential dens three and four and three 

locations with kit fox scat were observed in the eastern portion of the alignment just 

west of Mohawk Street. 

Kit foxes appear to be concentrated in the low-density industrial lands at the eastern 

portion of the BSA and dispersed throughout the vacant lots and Rosedale Middle 

School in the western portion of the BSA. 

2 

Open water/waterway is the mapping unit to describe areas potentially within the jurisdiction of 

the USACE, the CDFG, and the RWQCB, primarily the canals within the BSA. These areas are 

vegetated with non-native grassland vegetation. 



4.1.1.2. Critical Habitat 

No Critical Habitat has been proposed or designated by the USFWS for the San 

Joaquin kit fox. 

4.1.1.3. Avoidance and Minimization Efforts 

Standard Avoidance and Minimization Measures 

This section describes standard Avoidance and Minimization Measures that will be 

implemented as part of the SR-58 Widening Project to reduce potential adverse 

effects of project construction on the San Joaquin kit fox. The measures have been 

developed from standard recommendations described in the USFWS Standardized 

Recommendations for Protection of the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or 

During Ground Disturbance (USFWS 2011). Caltrans, in coordination with the City 

of Bakersfield, will be responsible for implementation of these measures. 

• SJKF – 1 USFWS Standardized Construction and Operational Requirements 

Construction activities will adhere to the standard construction and operational 

requirements as described in the USFWS Standardized Recommendations for 


Disturbance (USFWS 2011). 

• SJKF – 2 Pre-activity Surveys 

Approximately 60 days before road construction, a USFWS- approved biologist will 

conduct a survey for kit fox dens within 200 feet of the construction footprint, 

including utility relocations. A letter report and map of known and potential kit fox 

dens will be submitted to USFWS. 

Pre-activity clearance surveys for kit fox will be repeated approximately two weeks 

(no sooner than 14 days and no longer than 30 days) before construction or after any 

delays in construction of over two weeks. Any new kit fox dens identified since 

completing the 60-day survey will be reported to USFWS in a letter report and map. 

If no new kit fox dens are identified, an internal record will be maintained that 

includes the survey date, designated biologist conducting the survey, and general 

survey findings. The records can be submitted to USFWS upon request. 

• SJKF – 3 Den Monitoring, Excavation, and Exclusion 

If dens or potential dens are detected within the project footprint during 60-day and/or 

two-week pre-activity clearance surveys, agency permission will be requested to 



monitor and excavate dens that would be affected by the project. The biologist will 

monitor potential dens for three consecutive nights and submit monitoring results in a 

letter report to USFWS. The biologist will oversee the excavation of dens following 

approval by USFWS. Dens found within 200 feet of project construction but not 

affected by construction activities will be monitored and buffered from construction 

by an exclusion zone. The biologist will place flagged stakes in a 50-foot radius 

buffer around any potential or atypical den and will place a fence (e.g., untreated 

wood particle board, silt fencing, orange construction fencing, or other fencing 

approved by the USFWS as long as it has openings for ingress/egress of kit fox and 

keeps humans and equipment out) 100 feet from a known den; USFWS will be 

contacted if a natal den is found. The biologist will submit results of den excavation 

and exclusion in a letter report to USFWS. 

• SJKF – 4 Employee Education Program 

The biologist will conduct an employee education program for all construction crews 

before ground disturbing activities. The purpose of this training is to inform 

construction crew members of permit terms and conditions and the potential for kit 

fox to occur at a site and be affected by construction activities. The training will be 

repeated to all new crew members and annually to all crew members working in kit 

fox habitat. Following the training, crew members will sign an attendance sheet 

stating that they attended the training and understand the protection measures and 

construction restrictions. Training materials and records of attendees will be 

submitted to USFWS. 

• SJKF – 5 Construction Monitoring 

The biologist will monitor road construction activities once daily. The biologist will 

verify that construction complies with permit terms and conditions and construction 

and operation requirements described in USFWS Standardized Recommendations for 

the Protection of the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground 

Disturbance (USFWS 2011). The biologist will maintain a log of daily monitoring 

notes that can be summarized and transmitted to USFWS at their request. 

4.1.1.4. Project Impacts 

The effects of the proposed project on San Joaquin kit fox are described as direct and 

indirect effects. As defined under ESA, direct effects are those caused by the 

proposed project and occur at the time of the project, and indirect effects are those 

that are caused by the proposed project and are later in time, but still are reasonably 



certain to occur. Project direct effects are further differentiated by permanent and 

temporary effects. Temporary effects are not expected to extend beyond the period of 

project construction, and occur where the area that is affected will be restored to preproject 

conditions following project construction. Permanent effects include those 

that occur at the time of construction and remain following project completion, and 

occur when the area is permanently converted from one cover/habitat type to another. 

Direct Effects 

The proposed project could result in the direct permanent loss of approximately 

1.21 acre (0.18 acre non-native grassland, 1.00 acre ruderal/disturbed, and 0.03 acre 

open water/waterway) of kit fox habitat, which represent both potential foraging and 

denning habitat for this species, and temporary effects to approximately 6.61 acres 

(3.25 acres of non-native grassland, 3.30 acres of ruderal/disturbed areas, and 

0.06 acre of open water/waterway) of kit fox habitat. Direct, permanent effects 

include the removal of non-native grassland, ruderal/disturbed, and open 

water/waterways to accommodate the new roadbed, intersection improvements, and 

proposed new ROW limits. Direct temporary effects include disturbance during 

construction of the project to provide access and staging areas of the proposed 

project. Kit fox could forage and den in this habitat and the permanent loss and 

temporary disturbance of habitat could cause kit fox to move elsewhere in search of 

foraging and denning opportunities (Table 3). 

Of the dens identified in the BSA during 2008 surveys, one den is located within the 

project footprint and could be directly permanently eliminated during project 

construction. This estimate of den loss is based on those dens identified within the 

project footprints during 2008 surveys and could change if kit fox create additional 

dens or abandon dens in the project footprint, or if the footprint limits are extended or 

reduced. Loss of dens could result in kit fox displacement. 

Disturbances associated with the construction of the proposed project may also 

temporarily affect the San Joaquin kit fox. Kit foxes could be struck by construction 

equipment or other vehicles or become entrapped in dens during ground disturbing 

activities. Noise and light pollution during construction are considered direct effects 

as they may prevent kit foxes from foraging, mating, or rearing their young. 



Vegetation Types 

Table 3 

Habitat a for San Joaquin Kit Fox That Would be Affected 

by the Proposed Project 

Total 

Existing in 

the BSA 

(acres) 

Permanent 

Effect 

At-grade 

Widening 

(acres) 

Permanent 

Effect 

Grade 

Separation at 

Landco Drive 

(acres) 

Temporary 

Effect Atgrade 


(acres) 

Temporary 

Effect 

Grade 

Separation at 

Landco Drive 

(acres) 

Total Project 

Effect 

(acres) 

Non-native Grassland 64.83 0.16 0.02 3.17 0.08 3.43 

Ruderal/Disturbed 54.91 0.53 0.47 2.78 0.52 4.30 

Open Water/Waterways a, b 9.29 0.03 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.09 

a 

b 

c 

Total c 129.03 0.72 0.49 6.01 0.60 7.82 

This effect includes the widened portion of the bridge over Calloway Canal. 

Open water/waterway is the mapping unit to describe areas potentially within the jurisdiction of the USACE, the CDFG, and the RWQCB, primarily the 

canals within the BSA. These areas are vegetated with non-native grassland vegetation. 

Developed/ornamental areas that are surrounded by open space also present potential habitat opportunities for the San Joaquin kit fox; however, this 

habitat type has not been included in the table because the overall Developed/Ornamental vegetation type as mapped is characterized as primarily 

developed. 



Indirect Effects 

Following project completion, there could be an unintentional increase in kit fox 

vehicle strike in the action area. Vehicular strike is the primary source of mortality 

among kit foxes in Bakersfield (Cypher 2000, Bjurlin et al. 2005) and has been found 

to occur most frequently where kit foxes are abundant, on major arterial roads with 

relatively high traffic volumes, and at intersections (Bjurlin et al. 2005). Currently, 

the San Joaquin kit fox is exposed to the traffic along SR-58. Crossing additional 

lanes may result in an increase in road kill mortality. 

The construction of the proposed project could result in the displacement of kit foxes 

and altered space use patterns, such as a change in habitat use or daily movement 

patterns, both of which could result in disrupted social ecology, reduced fertility, 

pregnancy rates, prenatal survival, mortality, and reduced carrying capacity in the 

vicinity of the BSA. 

Effects Determination 

Based on the analysis of the potential direct and indirect effects, it can be concluded 

that the proposed project ‘may affect, likely to adversely affect’ the San Joaquin kit 

fox. 

To reduce the potential for adverse effects on San Joaquin kit fox that could occur 

during ground disturbing activities, Caltrans is proposing to implement standard 

Avoidance and Minimization Measures that were described previously in 

Section 4.1.1.3. These measures include standard construction and operational 

requirements, pre-activity surveys, den monitoring, worker environmental awareness 

training, and construction monitoring that are in accordance with USFWS 

Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the Endangered San Joaquin Kit 

Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance (USFWS 2011) and are expected to 

avoid or substantially reduce the potential for adverse effects on kit fox such as den 

loss and disturbance during construction activities. 

Caltrans is also proposing to implement additional conservation measures beyond 

those described for the standard Avoidance and Minimization Measures that would 

further offset the potential adverse effects and also compensate for effects to habitat 

that would result from the proposed project. As described in the following section 

(4.1.1.5., see Onsite Mitigation through Project Design Modifications), Caltrans is 

proposing to incorporate elements into the road design that are intended to facilitate 

safe movement by kit foxes and substantially reduce adverse direct effects associated 



with habitat fragmentation and reduced landscape connectivity and indirect effects 

associated with potential for vehicle strike. Caltrans is also proposing to compensate 

for habitat permanently lost and temporarily disturbed during ground disturbing 

activities by paying fees per requirements in the MBHCP. Compensation according to 

the MBHCP requirements would serve to enhance comparable kit fox foraging and 

denning habitat within the local MBHCP Plan area and at ratios requested by the 

USFWS and greater than those required by the MBHCP. Compensatory mitigation 

for habitat loss and disturbance is described below in Section 4.1.1.5. (see Offsite 

Mitigation for Project-specific Habitat Loss). 

Together, the standard construction-related Avoidance and Minimization Measures 

and additional conservation measures are expected to substantially reduce the 

potential for take and compensate for residual impacts. However, although the 

Avoidance and Minimization Measures would reduce potential for direct mortality of 

kit foxes related to construction, the proposed project would result in a small loss of 

occupied suitable habitat. Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed project ‘may 

affect, likely to adversely affect’ the San Joaquin kit fox. 

4.1.1.5. Modifications to the Project to Mitigate Effects 

Standard Avoidance and Minimization Measures will be in place during construction 

to avoid and minimize potential adverse effects on kit fox during project construction. 

In addition to these measures, mitigation will be implemented to compensate for postconstruction 

project-specific and program-level effects on kit fox and habitat loss. 

Onsite mitigation for project effects includes implementing project design 

modifications that are intended to reduce adverse effects on kit fox movement and 

potential for vehicle strike. Offsite mitigation for project effects involves 

compensating for the permanent and temporary loss of known kit fox habitat by 

participating in the MBHCP fee payment program. Offsite mitigation for programlevel 

effects resulting from construction of the six TRIP road improvement projects 

involves implementing the Sump Habitat Program, a long-term habitat conservation 

program for the urban kit fox population. Caltrans, in coordination with the City of 

Bakersfield, will be responsible for implementation of these measures. 

Onsite Mitigation through Project Design Modifications 

The following project design modifications are expected, when implemented 

together, to reduce the potential for adverse effects on kit fox. Stephanie Coppeto and 

Leo Edson met on two occasions in 2009 with project engineers, City of Bakersfield, 

and Caltrans to identify project design modifications that could be incorporated into 



the design plans for SR-58 Widening. Final project design modifications intended to 

reduce potential adverse effects on kit fox will be approved by USFWS during the 

final design phase. 

The primary objective of the project design modifications is to maintain opportunities 

for kit foxes to cross over the road surface while reducing the potential for an increase 

in vehicle strike. Limited research indicates that kit foxes infrequently use culverts to 

cross under a roadway, even when a culvert is present nearby; foxes tend to continue 

to cross over the roadway surface opportunistically (Cypher 2009). Therefore, project 

design modifications do not emphasize the creation of new culverts, especially when 

the project is not anticipated to disrupt a known movement corridor (e.g., canal and/or 

railway corridor). However, some use of culverts has been documented by ESRP, and 

use has increased with increasing culvert size (Cypher 2000). Because there are 

culverts in the project BSA and no data to suggest whether or not kit fox use these 

features, project design modifications recommend retaining existing culverts in the 

BSA to the extent feasible in the event that these passageways are used, or may be 

used in the future, by kit fox in the project area. 

• SJKF – 6 Fencing 

Fencing is not proposed for any portion of SR 58 Widening project ROW. If fencing 

is required during a later planning stage, permeable fencing will be installed. One or a 

combination of the following three design options may be adopted to provide kit fox 

with movement opportunities: elevating the bottom of the fence 5 inches above 

ground to allow unobstructed movement by kit foxes under the fence; installing 

ground-level 8-x-8-inch-wide gaps no more than 100 feet apart for the length of the 

fence, which would allow kit fox movement at regular intervals along the ROW; and 

installing fencing with a minimum mesh size of 3½ x 7 inches, preferably 

5 x 12 inches, which would allow unlimited movement by kit fox through the fence. 

Permeable fence design is expected to reduce the potential to disrupt north-south kit 

fox movement and habitat fragmentation in the project area, when implemented in 

conjunction with all project design modifications, by allowing unlimited kit fox 

movement. 

• SJKF – 7 Curbed Medians and Median Barriers 

Curbed medians are proposed as part of project design. The height of curbed medians 

will be no greater than 10 inches. Ten-inch curbed medians will remain un-vegetated 



to prevent obstructing the visual field of kit foxes near the roadway. Curbed medians 

less than 10 inches in height and requiring landscaping will be planted with low level 

vegetation (i.e., less than 6 inches) and will not require mowing (see measure 

SJKF – 9). 

No median barriers are currently proposed; however, if taller median barriers are 

required in a later planning stage and for public safety, Caltrans-designed modified 

median barrier type 60/S will be used. Caltrans type 60/S design has been approved 

by USFWS (BO# 81420-2009-F-0752; USFWS 2009) and includes 9-inch radius 

openings (9 inch high x 18 inch wide half circle openings) spaced every 150 feet to 

allow passage by kit fox. 

Low-height curbed medians or gapped median barriers are expected to reduce the 

potential to disrupt north-south kit fox movement in the project area and reduce the 

potential for vehicle strike, when implemented in conjunction with all project design 

modifications, by allowing unlimited kit fox movement and providing kit fox with an 

unobstructed line of sight. 

• SJKF – 8 Maintain Open Movement Corridors 

Existing kit fox movement corridors along all canals and railroad would be preserved 

through the use of existing bridges. The toe-of-road fill and bridge support walls 

should be maintained and new walls designed, no less than 20 feet from the centerline 

of canal access roads and the centerline of railroads. 

• SJKF – 9 Landscaping 

Project landscaping will be designed to allow unobstructed visibility to kit fox and to 

provide opportunities for movement across the roadway. Curbed median and roadside 

landscaping will be planted in one of three alternative strategies: selecting plants that 

do not exceed 6 inches tall at maturity, maintaining vegetation height so that it does 

not exceed 6 inches and does not require mowing, and/or creating gaps no less than 

4 feet wide every 12 feet in areas landscaped with trees and shrubs. 

Low-height or gapped landscaping is expected to reduce the potential for vehicle 

strike, when implemented in conjunction with all project design modifications, by 

providing kit fox with an unobstructed line of sight. 



• SJKF – 10 Warning Signs 

Warning signs alerting east- and west-bound drivers to potential kit fox presence are 

proposed on Rosedale Highway at several locations. Intersections under consideration 

include Rosedale Highway and Calloway Drive, Coffee Road, and Landco Drive. The 

need for and number of appropriate signage at intersections will continue to be 

evaluated as the project design advances. Signage proposed would follow FHWA 

(2003) guidelines or other guidelines recommended by Caltrans. 

Installation of a sign warning drivers of the potential for crossing kit foxes is expected 

to reduce the potential for vehicle strike. 

Offsite Mitigation for Project-Specific Habitat Loss 

Permanent and temporary loss of San Joaquin kit fox habitat resulting from 

construction of the proposed project will be mitigated by participating in the MBHCP 

fee payment program. Suitable kit fox habitat that will be affected by SR-58 

Widening construction and mitigated through the MBHCP is comprised of non-native 

grassland, ruderal/disturbed, and open water/waterway. In accordance with prior 

direction from Peter Cross, Susan Jones, and Ellen McBride (USFWS) to Caltrans for 

habitat mitigation for Mohawk Street Extension (USFWS 2008), a TRIP project 

currently under construction in Bakersfield and mitigated through the MBHCP. Fees 

will be paid to the MBHCP Trust Group at a ratio of 3:1 for permanent impacts and 

1.1:1 for temporary impacts to all suitable San Joaquin kit fox habitat types. These 

ratios are based on recent agency consultation and the release of the Draft Biological 

Opinion for the Morning Drive/State Route 178 Interchange Project. 

• SJKF – 11 MBHCP Fee Payment 

The permanent loss of 1.21 acre of non-native grassland, ruderal/disturbed, and open 

water/waterway and the temporary disturbance of 6.61 acres of non-native grassland, 

ruderal/disturbed, and open water/waterway will be mitigated by participating in the 

MBHCP at agency-approved ratios. Sufficient funding would be paid to allow the 

MBHCP Trust Group to purchase of 10.90 acres of habitat (Table 4). 



At-grade 


Grade 

Separation 

at Landco 

Drive 

Table 4 

San Joaquin Kit Fox Habitat Compensatory Mitigation Ratios, 

Anticipated Acreage of Effect, and Mitigation Acreage 

Habitat Type 

Affected 

Non-native 

grassland; 

Ruderal/Disturbed; 

Open wash/ 

waterway a 

Non-native 

grassland; 

Ruderal/Disturbed; 

Open wash/ 

waterway a 

Proposed 

Compensatory 

Mitigation Ratios 

Permanent: 

acquisition of 

habitat of similar or 

greater value at 3:1 

ratio. Temporary: 



greater value at 

1.1:1 ratio. 

Permanent: 



greater value at 3:1 

ratio. Temporary: 



greater value at 

1.1:1 ratio. 

Permanent 

Project 

Effects 

(acres) 

Temporary 

Project 

Effects 

(acres) 

Mitigation 

Required 

(acres) 

0.72 6.01 8.77 

0.49 0.60 2.13 

Total 1.21 6.61 10.90 

Source: USFWS 2008 (See Table 7 of Appendix A); Vegetation types have been changed to correspond to those 

mapped for the proposed project. 

a 

Open water/waterway is the mapping unit to describe areas potentially within the jurisdiction of the USACE, the 

CDFG, and the RWQCB, primarily the canals within the BSA. These areas are vegetated with non-native 

grassland vegetation. 

• SJKF – 12 Delineating Impact Acreages 

Prior to construction, the limits of permanent and temporary effects would be verified 

and mapped by habitat type within those limits. The map would be submitted for 

approval by USFWS before submittal to the City of Bakersfield Planning Department 

for fee payment. 

Mitigation for Program-Level Effects 

Caltrans, in coordination with the City of Bakersfield, is proposing to mitigate for 

program-level effects of construction of the six TRIP road improvement projects by 

implementing the Sump Habitat Program, which is intended to provide long-term 

habitat conservation for the urban kit fox population. The conservation goals of the 

program would be achieved by installing artificial dens in selected sumps, enhancing 

kit fox habitat by controlling vegetation in and around dens, increasing kit fox 

accessibility to sumps through fence/gate gaps, and reducing the potential for effects 



to kit foxes associated with regular maintenance activities. The program is currently 

being developed with USFWS and CDFG. The conceptual framework for the 

program is described in Draft Thomas Roads Improvement Program Mitigation for 

Cumulative Effects to San Joaquin Kit Fox, a working version of the third chapter of 

the Implementation Plan (City of Bakersfield and Caltrans 2010). The program will 

continue to be refined through an ongoing collaborative, consultation process among 

Caltrans, City, USFWS, and CDFG. Caltrans and the City have taken necessary 

actions to begin developing the program by participating in four meetings with 

USFWS and CDFG on March 11, 2010, May 11, 2010, July 14, 2010, and August 18, 

2010 and the City has begun evaluating ownership of sumps with potential to be 

conserved as part of the program, calculated a preliminary estimate of anticipated 

program costs, and collected information from the resource agencies that would be 

required in a long-term management plan. Caltrans and the City have identified the 

Wildlife Heritage Foundation, a non-profit land trust, to hold endowments necessary 

to fully fund the Sump Habitat Program and conservation easement oversight. 

• SJKF – 13 Implement the Sump Habitat Program 

The final approved version of the Sump Habitat Program will be implemented within 

one year of the approval of the Final Environmental Document (FED) for the last of 

the six TRIP projects. 

4.1.1.6. Cumulative Effects (FESA) 

The action area for the cumulative effects analysis is the TRIP program area analyzed 

in the Implementation Plan (City and Caltrans 2010), which includes the BSAs for the 

six proposed TRIP projects. 

The proposed project is one of the ten TRIP projects. The cumulative effects of all ten 

TRIP projects include loss of kit fox habitat and kit fox dens, habitat fragmentation, 

and degradation, change in habitat use patterns, geographic isolation, change of 

movement patterns, and an increase in mortality associated with an unintentional 

increase in vehicle strike. Roadway expansion could bisect safe movement corridors, 

reducing the probability that kit foxes could safely move from one area of suitable 

habitat to another in search of denning and foraging habitat. Patches of undeveloped 

kit fox habitat, which are already highly fragmented in Bakersfield, could be 

sufficiently degraded by construction of new and expanded roadways that they would 

no longer function as suitable habitat. Habitat fragmentation and degradation could 

force kit foxes to use different areas for movement, denning and foraging, which 



could result in greater exposure to potential predators and risk of collisions with 

vehicles and contribute to disrupted social ecology, reduced fertility, pregnancy rates, 

prenatal survival, mortality, and reduced carrying capacity in the BSA. 

Implementing the TRIP projects in combination with other future development could 

substantially impair north-south movement by kit foxes because most of the TRIP 

project alignments cross the study area in an east-west direction isolating kit fox 

populations on small parcels of land, some of which may be too small to support 

current population numbers, resulting in geographic isolation of populations in the 

north from populations in the south. 

Implementation of all ten of the TRIP projects could permanently or temporarily 

affect up to 24 potential and 8 presumed active kit fox dens, including 1 natal den. 

The direct removal of 7.82 acres of occupied suitable habitat and loss of one kit fox 

den would contribute to the cumulative loss of habitat/dens within the action area. 

While existing kit foxes would be expected to move to adjacent areas for foraging and 

denning, they would be moving into areas already occupied by kit fox individuals, 

thereby increasing the competition for foraging and denning habitat. Reproducing 

individuals would compete for dens and food resources and may not be able to 

produce as many offspring in areas of competition. Long-term, this could be expected 

to decrease the carrying capacity and overall abundance of kit foxes within the action 

area. Additionally, the proposed project could increase unintentional vehicle strikes, 

and loss of individuals could result in the loss of genetic diversity in the population. 

The maintenance of canal and railway corridors would maintain the movement 

corridors currently being used in the BSA, and would allow the exchange of 

individuals, and therefore, genetic exchange with other individuals in the action area. 

Therefore, the proposed project’s contribution to habitat fragmentation is expected to 

be limited. The purchase of 10.90 acres of occupied suitable habitat for contribution 

to the MBHCP Reserve, in combination with participation in the Sump Mitigation 

Program, would compensate for the proposed project’s contribution to the cumulative 

loss of habitat resulting from the TRIP program. 





Chapter 5. 

Conclusions and 

Determination 

5.1. Conclusions 

The construction of the proposed project will result in the permanent loss of 

1.21 acres and the temporary loss of 6.61 acres of potential San Joaquin kit fox 

habitat. One potential kit fox den may be directly affected by project development. 

Direct mortality resulting from contact with construction equipment or other vehicles 

or entrapment within dens, pipes, or trenches may occur. Noise and light pollution 

may directly affect the kit fox. 

Indirect effects include the potential for unintentional increased vehicle strikes, 

habitat fragmentation, disruption in movement patterns, displacement of kit foxes and 

altered space use patterns that could result in disrupted social ecology, reduced 

fertility, pregnancy rates, prenatal survival, mortality, and reduced carrying capacity 

in the vicinity of the BSA. 

5.2. Determination 

Together the standard construction-related Avoidance and Minimization Measures 

and additional conservation measures are expected to substantially reduce the 

potential for take and compensate for residual effects. However, although Avoidance 

and Minimization Measures would reduce the potential for direct mortality of kit fox 

related to construction, the proposed project would result in a small loss of occupied 

suitable habitat. Therefore, the proposed project ‘may affect, likely to adversely affect’ 

the San Joaquin kit fox. 


Chapter 5 Conclusions and Determination 



Chapter 6. 

References 

Bakersfield, City of. 2008. MBHCP Kit Fox Den Database (GIS Database). 

Bakersfield, CA: the City. 

Bakersfield, City of and California Department of Transportation (Bakersfield and 

Caltrans) 2010. Thomas Roads Improvement Program: San Joaquin Kit Fox 

Life History, Effects Analysis, Mitigation Strategy, and Implementation Plan. 

(Implementation Plan) Bakersfield and Fresno, CA: the City and Caltrans, 

respectively. 

———. 2009. Thomas Roads Improvement Program: San Joaquin Kit Fox Life 

History, Effects Analysis, and Conceptual Mitigation Strategy. Bakersfield and 

Fresno, CA: the City and Caltrans, respectively. 

———. 2007 (November). Westside Parkway San Joaquin Kit Fox Study Final 

Report. Bakersfield, CA: the City. 

Bakersfield, City of, California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and County 

of Kern (Bakersfield et al.). 2006. Tier II Environmental Assessment/Final 

Environmental Impact Report: Westside Parkway. Bakersfield, CA: the City, 

Caltrans, and the County of Kern. 

Bakersfield, City of and County of Kern. 2002 (December). Metropolitan Bakersfield 

General Plan. Bakersfield, CA: the City. 

Bjurlin, C.D., B.L. Cypher, C.M. Wingert, and C.L. Van Horn Job. 2005 (July 10). 

Urban Roads and the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox (Prepared for 

California Department of Transportation). Fresno, CA: California State 

University Stanislaus Endangered Species Recovery Program. 

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2010. California Natural Diversity 

Database. Records of Occurrence for U.S. Geologic Survey Gosford, Stevens, 

Tupman, Oildale, Rosedale, Rio Bravo, North of Oildale, Famoso, Wasco, 

Lamont, and Oil Center 7.5-minute quandrangles. Sacramento, CA: CDFG, 

Natural Heritage Division. 


Chapter 6 References 

———. 2008. California Natural Diversity Database. Records of Occurrence for U.S. 

Geologic Survey Famoso, Lamont, North of Oildale, Oil Center, Oildale, 

Rosedale, Rio Bravo, Tupman, Stevens, Gosford, and Wasco. 7.5-minute 

topographical quandrangles. Sacramento, CA: CDFG, Natural Heritage 

Division. 

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2010. Rosedale Highway 

Widening Project Final Natural Environment Study (prepared by BonTerra 

Consulting). Fresno, CA: the Department, District 6. 

———. 2006 (February). 7 th Standard Road Widening Project Environmental 

Assessment/Initial Study with Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. 

Fresno, CA: California Department of Transportation, District 6. 

———. 1998 (December). Final Natural Environment Study Tier I EIS for Route 

Adoption On Route 58, I 5 to SR 99. Fresno, CA: the Department, District 6. 

California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2010. Electronic Inventory of Rare and 

Endangered Vascular Plants of California. Records of Occurrence for U.S. 

Geologic Survey Gosford, Stevens, Tupman, Oildale, Rosedale, Rio Bravo, 

North of Oildale, Famoso, Wasco, Lamont, and Oil Center 7.5-minute 

quadrangles. Sacramento, CA: CNPS. http://www.cnps.org/inventory. 

———. 2008. Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of 

California. Records of Occurrence for U.S. Geologic Survey Rio Bravo, 

Rosedale, Oildale, Tupman, Stevens, and Gosford 7.5-minute topographical 

quadrangles. Sacramento, CA: CNPS. http://www.cnps.org/inventory. 

Cypher, B.L. 2009. Personal communication regarding kit fox concentration areas, 

movement corridors, and potential mitigation for the conceptual strategy 

between Brian Cypher and Stephanie Coppeto (AECOM). 

Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities 

of California. Sacramento, CA: CDFG, Non-game Heritage Program. 

Kern, County of. 1994. Western Rosedale Specific Plan. Bakersfield, CA: Kern 

County. 

Kern County Waste Management Department. 1997 (October). Kern County Waste 

Facilities Habitat Conservation Plan. Bakersfield, CA: Kern County Waste 

Management Department. 



Kern Water Bank Authority. 1997. Kern Water Bank Authority Habitat Conservation 

Plan. Bakersfield, CA: Kern Water Bank Authority. 

Reed, P.B., Jr. 1988. National List of Plant Species That Occur In Wetlands: National 

Summary (Biological Report 88 [24]). Washington, D.C.: USFWS. 

Sawyer, J.O. and T. Keeler-Wolf. 1995. A Manual of California Vegetation. 

Sacramento, CA: CNPS. 

Thomas Reid Associates. 1994 (August 29). Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat 

Conservation Plan and Final Environmental Impact Report (Chapter 4: 

Biological Resources). Palo Alto, CA: Thomas Reid Associates. 

———. 1991 (July). Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan 

Endangered Species Inventory in Support of the Conservation Plan. Palo Alto, 

CA: Thomas Reid Associates. 

———. 1990 (September). MBHCP Field Documentation for the Endangered Species 

Inventory in Support of the Habitat Conservation Plan. Palo Alto, CA: 

Thomas Reid Associates. 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2008 (March 12). Species List for 

Rosedale Highway Widening Project. Sacramento, CA: U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

———. 2011 (January). Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the 

Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance. 

Sacramento, CA: USFWS. 

———. 1999 (June). Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the San 

Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance. Sacramento, CA: 

USFWS. 

———. 1998. Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley, 

California. Portland, OR: USFWS, Region 1. 

Warrick, G.D., H.O. Clark, Jr., P.A. Kelly, D.F. Williams, and B.L. Cypher. 2007. Use 

of Agricultural Lands by San Joaquin Kit Foxes. Western North American 

Naturalist 67(2): 270-277. 



Wolfe, M. 2008. Personal communication regarding general kit fox occurrence on 

East Rosedale Highway in the area of the Big West property between Marcia 

Wolfe (MH Wolfe and Associates) and Stephanie Coppeto (AECOM). 


Appendix A Wildlife Species Observed in 

the BSA

Appendix A Wildlife Species Observed in the BSA 

WILDLIFE SPECIES OBSERVED 

IN THE BIOLOGICAL STUDY AREA 

Species 

Reptiles 

PHRYNOSOMATIDAE - ZEBRA-TAILED, FRINGE-TOED, 

SPINY, TREE, SIDE-BLOTCHED, AND HORNED LIZARDS 

Uta stansburiana 

side-blotched lizard 

Buteo jamaicensis 

red-tailed hawk 

Falco sparverius 

American kestrel 

Charadrius vociferus 

killdeer 

Pavo cristatus 

common peafowl * 

Gallus gallus 

domestic chicken * 

Columba livia 

rock pigeon * 

Zenaida macroura 

mourning dove 

Patagioenas fasciata 

band-tailed pigeon 

Bubo virginianus 

great horned owl 

Athene cunicularia 

burrowing owl 

Birds 

ACCIPITRIDAE - HAWKS 

FALCONIDAE - FALCONS 

CHARADRIIDAE - PLOVERS 

PHASIANIDAE - UPLAND FOWL 

COLUMBIDAE - PIGEONS & DOVES 

Calypte anna 

Anna's hummingbird 

STRIGIDAE - TRUE OWLS 

TROCHILIDAE - HUMMINGBIRDS 

TYRANNIDAE - TYRANT FLYCATCHERS 

Sayornis nigricans 

black phoebe 

Sayornis saya 

Say's phoebe 

Tyrannus verticalis 

western kingbird 

Lanius ludovicianus 

loggerhead shrike 

* introduced species 

LANIIDAE - SHRIKES 

State Route 58 Widening Project Biological Assessment A-1




(Continued) 

Species 

CORVIDAE - JAYS & CROWS 

Aphelocoma californica 

western scrub-jay 

Corvus brachyrhynchos 

American crow 

Eremophila alpestris 

horned lark 

ALAUDIDAE - LARKS 

HIRUNDINIDAE - SWALLOWS 

Stelgidopteryx serripennis 

northern rough-winged swallow 

Petrochelidon pyrrhonota 

cliff swallow 

Hirundo rustica 

barn swallow 

Turdus migratorius 

American robin 

TURDIDAE - THRUSHES & ROBINS 

Mimus polyglottos 

northern mockingbird 

Sturnus vulgaris 

European starling * 

Bombycilla cedrorum 

cedar waxwing 

Dendroica petechia 

yellow warbler 

Agelaius phoeniceus 

red-winged blackbird 

Sturnella neglecta 

western meadowlark 

Euphagus cyanocephalus 

Brewer’s blackbird 

Carpodacus mexicanus 

house finch 

MIMIDAE - THRASHERS 

STURNIDAE - STARLINGS 

BOMBYCILLIDAE - WAXWINGS 

PARULIDAE - WARBLERS 

ICTERIDAE - BLACKBIRDS 

FRINGILLIDAE - FINCHES 

PASSERIDAE - OLD WORLD SPARROWS 

Passer domesticus 

house sparrow * 


A-2 State Route 58 Widening Project Biological Assessment




(Continued) 

Species 

Mammals 

LEPORIDAE - HARES & RABBITS 

Sylvilagus audubonii 

desert cottontail 

Lepus californicus 

black-tailed jackrabbit 

Spermophilus beecheyi 

California ground squirrel 

Vulpes macrotis mutica 

San Joaquin kit fox 

Canis lupus familiaris 

domestic dog 

Mephitis mephitis 

striped skunk 

Felis catus 

domestic cat 


SCIURIDAE - SQUIRRELS 

CANIDAE - WOLVES & FOXES 

FELIDAE - CATS 

State Route 58 Widening Project Biological Assessment A-3

State Route 58 Widening Project - Bakersfield Freeways

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?