State Route 58 Widening Project - Bakersfield Freeways

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Chapter 2 Study Methods 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 Protection of the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground 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. 18 State Route 58 Widening Project Biological Assessment
Chapter 2 Study Methods 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. State Route 58 Widening Project Biological Assessment 19
Page 1 and 2: State Route 58 Widening Project (Ro
Page 5 and 6: Summary of Findings, Conclusions an
Page 7 and 8: Summary of Findings, Conclusions an
Page 9 and 10: Table of Contents Table of Contents
Page 11 and 12: List of Tables List of Tables 1 Lis
Page 13 and 14: List of Abbreviated Terms SSC ST TR
Page 15 and 16: Chapter 1. Introduction The purpose
Page 17 and 18: Chapter 1 Introduction • Minor ch
Page 19 and 20: 46 Lost Hills 33 Delano McFarland 4
Page 21 and 22: Map Extent A B C VERDUGO LN CALLOWA
Page 23 and 24: Chapter 1 Introduction 1.2.1. Proje
Page 25 and 26: Chapter 1 Introduction In 2008, USF
Page 27 and 28: Chapter 2. Study Methods 2.1. Liste
Page 29 and 30: Chapter 2 Study Methods 2.2. Studie
Page 31 and 32: Chapter 2 Study Methods During surv
Page 33: Chapter 2 Study Methods describes p
Page 37 and 38: Chapter 3. Results: Environmental S
Page 39 and 40: ALLEN RD OLD FARM RD JEWETTA AV VER
Page 41 and 42: Emery Ditch Calloway Canal Emery Di
Page 43 and 44: Chapter 3 Results: Environmental Se
Page 45 and 46: Chapter 3 Results: Environmental Se
Page 47 and 48: Chapter 4. Results: Biological Reso
Page 49 and 50: Chapter 4 Results: Biological Resou
Page 63 and 64: Chapter 5. Conclusions and Determin
Page 65 and 66: Chapter 6. References Bakersfield,
Page 67 and 68: Chapter 6 References Kern Water Ban
Page 69: Appendix A Wildlife Species Observe
Page 72 and 73: Appendix A Wildlife Species Observe

State Route 58 Widening Project - Bakersfield Freeways

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?