Agenda, regular meeting, second session — Bakersfield City Council, August 5, 2026 (part 4 of 9)

RESOLUTION OF THE BAKERSFIELD CITY COUNCIL DENYING THE
APPEAL AND APPROVING VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO.
7500 (PHASED) LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF OLD
RIVER ROAD AND MC CUTCHEN ROAD.

WHEREAS, McIntosh & Associates (Applicant), representing Franmar Company and Loyola Properties I, LP(Property Owner), filed an application with the City of Bakersfield Planning Department requesting a Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 7500 (the “Project”), and a modification request to allow reverse corner lots, lot frontage and lot width reduction, and double frontage Lots, consisting of 208 lots, 1 sump lot, and 4 landscape lots on 39.92 acres to develop single family residential development located at the northeast corner of Old River Road and Mc Cutchen Road in southwest Bakersfield, as shown on attached Exhibit “B” (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, the application was deemed complete on July 2, 2025; and WHEREAS, the Secretary of the Planning Commission, did set, Thursday, August 21, 2025, at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California, as the time and place for a public hearing before the Planning Commission to consider the Project, and notice of the public hearing was given in the manner provided in Title 16 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, After the public hearing concluded, the Planning Commission unanimously approved the project, with no speakers in favor or opposition. Notably, one Commissioner was absent during the vote (Resolution 41-25); and WHEREAS, On August 28, 2025, Lozeau Drury LLP, the appellant, filed a written appeal with the City Clerk to the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the Project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, through the City Clerk, did set the time and place of the public hearing as Wednesday, August 5, 2026, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California, to consider the appeal, and notice of the public hearing was given in the manner provided in Title 16 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, during the August 5, 2026, public hearing, the City Council considered all facts, testimony, and evidence concerning the staff report, and the Planning Commission’s action; and

Page 2 of 4 ends

WHEREAS, staff has determined the Project will not significantly effect the environment and, pursuant to State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15162, the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is adequate and no further environmental documentation is necessary; and WHEREAS, the laws and regulations relating to CEQA and the City of Bakersfield's CEQA Implementation Procedures have been duly followed by city staff, the Planning Commission, and City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bakersfield Planning Department (1715 Chester Avenue, Bakersfield, California) is the custodian of all documents and other materials upon which the environmental determination is based; and
WHEREAS, the facts presented in the staff report, environmental review, and evidence received both in writing and by verbal testimony at the above-referenced public hearing support the findings contained in this resolution; and WHEREAS, the Council has considered and hereby make the following finding:

1. All required public notices have been given. Hearing notices regarding the Project were mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the Project area and published in the Bakersfield Californian, a local newspaper of general circulation, 10 days prior to the hearing.

2. A Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project is the appropriate environmental document to accompany its approval. In accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines, staff prepared an initial study and indicated that because mitigation measures relating to biological resources, cultural resources and air quality analysis have been incorporated into the Project, the Project will have less than significant impact on the physical environment.

3. The proposed map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans as specified in Section 65451.

4. The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans.

5. The site is physically suitable for the type of development.

6. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development.

7. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.

8. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems.

Page 3 of 4 ends

9. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision.

10. Urban services are available for the proposed development. The Project is within an area to be served by all necessary utilities and waste disposal systems.

Improvements proposed as part of the Project will deliver utilities to the individual lots or parcels to be created.

11. Mineral right owners' signatures may be waived on the final map pursuant to Bakersfield Municipal Code Section 16.20.060.A.1. The applicant has provided evidence with the Project application that it is appropriate to waive mineral right owners’ signatures because in accordance with BMC Section 16.20.060 A.1., the party’s right of surface entry has been waived by recorded document prior to recordation of any final map.

12. The conditions of approval are necessary for orderly development and to provide for public health, welfare, and safety.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Bakersfield City Council as follows:

1. The above recitals and findings incorporated herein, are true and correct.

2. The decision of the Planning Commission is upheld, subject to conditions of approval shown in attached Exhibit “A”.

3. The appeal is denied.

4. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 7500 is hereby approved, subject to the conditions of approval shown in attached Exhibit “A” and shown in attached Exhibit “C”.
o0o

Page 4 of 4 ends

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on August 5, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBER: ARIAS, GONZALES, WEIR, SMITH, KOMAN, BASHIRTASH, KAUR NOES: COUNCILMEMBER: _______________________________________________________________ ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBER: _______________________________________________________________ ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER: _______________________________________________________________ _______________________________________

JULIE DRIMAKIS, MMC
CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk of
the Council of the City of Bakersfield

APPROVED
_______________________________

KAREN GOH
MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED as to form:

VIRGINIA GENNARO
City Attorney
By: ____________________________

VIRIDIANA GALLARDO-KING
Deputy City Attorney
Exhibits:

A Conditions of Approval
B Location Map with Zoning
C Tentative Map
By VM\S:\05_Land Division\PP-TCTM-25-0001_VTTM 7500_NEC Old River Rd & Mccutchen Rd\01_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\VTTM 7500_Exh Con.Docx
EXHIBIT “A”
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 7500

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
NOTE to Subdivider/Applicant: It is important that you review and comply with the requirements and deadlines listed in the “FOR YOUR INFORMATION” packet that is provided separately. This packet contains existing ordinance requirements, policies, and departmental operating procedures as they may apply to this subdivision.

PUBLIC WORKS

1. There was no letter submitted requesting deviations from Public Works standards.

2. Approval of this tentative map does not indicate approval of grading, drainage lines and appurtenant facilities shown, or any variations from ordinance, standard, and policy requirements which have neither been requested nor specifically approved.

3. Prior to grading plan review submit the following for review and approval:

3.1. A drainage study for the entire subdivision, or a revision to the approved study. The study shall be approved, any required retention shall be provided, and necessary easements shall be dedicated to the City.

3.2. A sewer study to include providing service to the entire subdivision and showing what surrounding areas may be served by the main line extensions. Pay sewer capacity mitigation fee equal to $350 per dwelling unit due to sewer capacity issues in the Buena Vista Sewer Line.

3.3. If the tract is discharging storm water to a canal, a channel, or the Kern River: In order to meet the requirements of the City of Bakersfield’s NPDES permit, and to prevent the introduction of sediments from construction or from storm events to the waters of the US, all storm water systems that ultimately convey drainage to the river or a canal shall have a mechanical device in the storm drain system to remove or minimize the introduction of oil, grease, trash, and sediments. This device shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and shall provide the greatest benefit to the storm drain system with the least maintenance cost.

4. The following conditions must be reflected in the design of the improvement plans:

4.1. Final plan check fees shall be submitted with the first plan check submission.

4.2. Per Resolution 108-2023 the area within the Tract shall implement and comply with the “complete streets” policy. Complete streets will require pedestrian and bicycle access to the Tract from existing sidewalks and bike lanes. If there is a gap less than ¼ mile then construction of asphalt sidewalks and bike lanes to the tract will be required.

Exhibit “A”
VTTM 7500

Page 2 of 16 ends

By VM \ S:\05_Land Division\PP-TCTM-25-0001_VTTM 7500_NEC Old River Rd & Mccutchen Rd\01_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\VTTM 7500_Exh Con.Docx

4.3. Install traffic signal interconnect conduit and pull rope for the frontage in all arterials and collectors. Install conduit and pull ropes in future traffic signal locations.

4.4. In addition to other paving requirements, on and off-site road improvements may be required from any collector or arterial street to provide left turn and right turn channelization into each street (or access point) within the subdivision (or development), where warranted and as directed by the City Engineer. Said channelization shall be developed to provide necessary transitions and deceleration lanes to meet the current CalTrans standards for the design speed of the roadway in question.

4.5. Off-site pavement and striping construction will be required to transition from the proposed/ultimate on-site improvements to the existing conditions at the time construction commences. Transitions must be designed in accordance with City Standards and/or the Caltrans Highway Design Manual. If existing conditions change during the period of time between street improvement plan approval and construction commencement, the street improvement plans must be revised and approved by the City Engineer.

4.6. Right turn deceleration lanes are required on arterials at all streets and access points if the 85th percentile speed is less than 45 mph and the peak hour turning volume is over 200, or if the 85th percentile speed is 45 mph or greater and the peak hour turning volume is over 25.

5. The subdivider shall either construct the equivalent full width landscaped median island in McCutchen Dr for the site’s frontage or pay $100 per Linear Feet (their proportionate share of the cost for the future construction of the median). Median islands shall be designed by the first tract or development to be approved on a side.

6. The subdivide is responsible for implementing the following:

6.1. The phasing map as submitted may be unbalanced with respect to the required improvements along the tract frontages. Therefore, in order to promote orderly development, each phase shall be responsible for an equal dollar amount of frontage improvement. Prior to recordation of each final map for any phase that does not construct its share of the improvements, the difference between the cost of the frontage improvements constructed and the phase share shall be placed into an escrow account. The money deposited in this account would be for the use of the developer of any future phase responsible for more than its share of improvements. The final per-lot share will be based upon an approved engineer’s estimate. In lieu of the use of an escrow account, the developer may choose to construct with each phase its proportionate share of the frontage improvements, with approval of the City Engineer.

6.2. The following conditions are based upon the premise that filing of Final Maps will occur in the order shown on the map with Phase 1 first, then Phase 2, then Phase 3, Exhibit “A”
VTTM 7500

Page 3 of 16 ends

By VM \ S:\05_Land Division\PP-TCTM-25-0001_VTTM 7500_NEC Old River Rd & Mccutchen Rd\01_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\VTTM 7500_Exh Con.Docx
etc. If recordation does not occur in that normal progression, then, prior to recordation of each final map, the City Engineer shall determine the extent of improvements to be done with that particular phase.

6.2.1. The following shall occur with Phase 1:

6.2.1.1. Construct McCutchen Rd to full ½ width city arterial standards, from Rio Verde Dr to the westerly property line of Phase 2 lot 1.

6.2.1.2. Construct an asphalt walkway 5’ wide, along McCutchen Rd, from the westerly property line of Phase 2 lot 1 to Old River Rd.

6.2.1.3. Prior to the recordation of the Phase 1 final map, submit a proportionate fair share estimate for review and pay a deposit to the City of Bakersfield for the Phase 1 proportionate share of improvements along McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd.

6.2.1.4. Abandon irrigation line, which was constructed by Tract 7136 to provide water to this parcel. Said line shall be abandoned in place by filling the irrigation line with a controlled low strength material (CLSM) or approved material.

6.2.2. The following shall occur with Phase 2:

6.2.2.1. Construct McCutchen Rd to full ½ width city arterial standards, from the westerly property line of Phase 2 lot 1to Old River Rd.

6.2.3. The following shall occur with Phase 3:

6.2.3.1. Construct Old River Rd to full ½ width city arterial standards, from McCutchen Rd to the phase 3/4 boundary (between lots 41 & 35 of phase 3 & 4 respectively), including median landscaping.

6.2.4. The following shall occur with Phase 4:

6.2.4.1. Construct Old River Rd to full ½ width city arterial standards, from the phase 3/4 boundary (between lots 41 & 35 of phase 3 & 4 respectively) to the northern tract boundary, including median landscaping.

If the number of phases or the boundaries of the phases are changed, the developer must submit to the City Engineer an exhibit showing the number and configuration of the proposed phases. The City Engineer will review the exhibit and determine the order and extent of improvements to be constructed with each new phase. The improvement plans may require revision to conform to the new conditions.

Exhibit “A”
VTTM 7500

Page 4 of 16 ends

By VM \ S:\05_Land Division\PP-TCTM-25-0001_VTTM 7500_NEC Old River Rd & Mccutchen Rd\01_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\VTTM 7500_Exh Con.Docx

6.3. The subdivider is responsible for verifying that existing streets within the boundary of the tract are constructed to city standards and he will reconstruct streets within the boundary if not to standard.

6.4. Where streets do not have curb and gutter, construct a minimum section of 36 feet wide consisting of 2-12’ lanes, 2-4’ paved shoulders and 2 additional feet per side of either AC or other dust proof surface.

6.5. The use of interim, non-standard drainage retention areas shall be in accordance with the drainage policy adopted by letter dated January 24, 1997.

6.6. To preserve the permeability of the sump and to prevent the introduction of sediments from construction or from storm events, Best Management Practices for complying with the requirements of the Clean Water Act are required.

6.7. All lots with sumps and water well facilities will have wall and landscaping to the appropriate street standards, at the building setback with landscaping as approved by the Public Works and Parks Directors.

6.8. Drainage basins shall be reviewed and approved by both the Public Works Department and the Water Resources Department.

6.9. Install blue markers in the street at the fire hydrants per the Fire Department requirements.

7. The following must be reflected in the final map design:

7.1. A waiver of direct access shall be required for all lots abutting any arterials and collectors.

8. Prior to recordation of the first final map within this project site, subdivider shall make written notification to the City Engineer of any public improvements required to be financed or constructed outside the boundaries of the tentative map (i.e., “offsite improvements) as defined in BMC 116.16.080(E), and the cost of such offsite improvements. The notice shall include an engineer’s estimate or other documentation as required by the City Engineer that outlines by line item the specific offsite improvements for purposes of verifying extension of time eligibility pursuant to Government Code Section 66452.6(a). The written notification and documentation are subject to approval by the City Engineer or his/her designee.

9. Prior to recording the first final map:

9.1. The City Council must have taken final action for the inclusion of this tract within the Consolidated Maintenance District.

9.2. The developer is required to construct an improvement which is on the facilities list for the Metropolitan Bakersfield Transportation Impact Fee Olive Dr. The developer shall receive credit against his traffic impact fees for constructing this project. The Exhibit “A”
VTTM 7500

Page 5 of 16 ends

By VM \ S:\05_Land Division\PP-TCTM-25-0001_VTTM 7500_NEC Old River Rd & Mccutchen Rd\01_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\VTTM 7500_Exh Con.Docx
developer must submit an appraisal, to be approved by the City Engineer, verifying the cost of the right-of-way to be acquired. This credit is not available until the improvement has been constructed by the developer and accepted for maintenance by the City. Any building permit issued prior to this acceptance shall pay the full impact fee.

9.3. If it becomes necessary to obtain any off-site right of way and if the subdivider is unable to obtain the required right of way, then he shall pay to the City the up-front costs for eminent domain proceedings and enter into an agreement and post security for the purchase and improvement of said right of way.

10. Prior to recording each final map:

10.1. All facilities within the boundaries of this subdivision identified by the approved drainage study shall be constructed in accordance with the plans approved by the City Engineer, and all easements required shall be provided.

10.2. The subdivider shall submit an enforceable, recordable document approved by the City Attorney to be recorded concurrently with the Final Map which will prohibit occupancy of any lot until all improvements have been completed by the subdivider and accepted by the City.

10.3. The subdivider shall submit an enforceable, recordable document approved by the City Attorney to be recorded concurrently with the Final Map containing information with respect to the addition of this subdivision to the consolidated maintenance district. Said covenant shall also contain information pertaining to the maximum anticipated annual cost per single family dwelling for the maintenance of landscaping associated with this tract. Said covenant shall be provided to each new property owner through escrow proceedings. If the parcel is already within a consolidated maintenance district, the owner shall update the maintenance district documents, including Proposition 218 Ballot and Covenant, which shall be signed and notarized.

11. Prior to Notice of Completion:

11.1. The storm drain system, including the sump, shall be inspected and any debris removed.

11.2. Street Name Signs (SNS):

11.2.1. Metro Size SNS shall be installed at the intersection of local streets with Arterial and collector streets.

11.2.2. Standard SNS shall be installed at all other locations.

12. This development is subject to conditions from GPA/ZC 07-1874.

Exhibit “A”
VTTM 7500

Page 6 of 16 ends

By VM \ S:\05_Land Division\PP-TCTM-25-0001_VTTM 7500_NEC Old River Rd & Mccutchen Rd\01_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\VTTM 7500_Exh Con.Docx

WATER RESOURCES

13. Prior to recordation of the final subdivision map the Subdivider shall:

13.1 Execute and record a Domestic Water Service Agreement with the Water Department.

13.2 Pay all applicable fees to the Water Department.

13.3 Submit a Will Serve Letter from the Water Department to the Development Services Department.

13.4 Submit water system plans to the Water Department for review and approval.

Water system plans shall be prepared in accordance with the Water Department Standards and Specifications and per the Water Department’s engineering recommendations.

13.5 Deed to City in fee, a water facility site for a water well and/or a storage tank and/or other required water distribution infrastructure. Site size and location shall be in accordance with the Water Department Standards and Specifications and at the discretion of the Water Resources Manager.

Note to Subdivider: You should contact the Water Resources Dept. at least 4 months before the date you anticipate to record a final map.

13.6 The Developer shall submit an enforceable, recordable document approved by the City Attorney to be recorded concurrently with the Final Map containing information for the addition of this development to a Sump Maintenance District. Said covenant shall be provided to each new property owner through escrow proceedings.

13.7 If the Developer desires a public sump, a new Maintenance District for future maintenance of storm drain sump facilities shall be created. Undeveloped parcels within an existing Maintenance District will be required to update Maintenance District documents. Updated documents, including Proposition 218 Ballot and Covenant, shall be signed and notarized for any public sump (Note – If already within a maintenance district, the maintenance district form may need to be updated).

13.8 Drainage from this private tract shall be kept on site. Any proposed sump within the private development shall be privately maintained.

FIRE SAFETY DIVISION

14. Pipeline Easements.

Exhibit “A”
VTTM 7500

Page 7 of 16 ends

By VM \ S:\05_Land Division\PP-TCTM-25-0001_VTTM 7500_NEC Old River Rd & Mccutchen Rd\01_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\VTTM 7500_Exh Con.Docx

14.1 Concurrently with recordation of any phase that includes the pipeline easements or portions thereof, subdivider shall show the easements on the final map with a notation that structures including accessory buildings, habitable portion of a structure, garage, deck/patio, swimming pools or unoccupied permanent structure, are prohibited within the setback and record a corresponding covenant.

14.2 Prior to or concurrently with recordation of any phase that includes the pipeline easements or portions thereof, subdivider shall show on the final map that no habitable portion of a structure, garage, deck/patio, swimming pools or unoccupied permanent structure may be built within 50 feet of a gas main, or transmission line, or refined liquid product line with 36 inches of cover and record a corresponding covenant.

14.3 No structure may be within 40 feet of a hazardous liquids pipeline bearing refined product, within 48 inches or more of cover. If a pipeline meets these criteria, the 40- foot setback line shall be shown in the final map and a corresponding covenant shall be recorded prior to or concurrently with recordation of any phase that is affected.

14.4 No habitable portion of a structure may be built within thirty (30) feet of a crude oil pipeline operating at twenty percent (20%) or greater of its design strength.

14.5 Prior to or concurrently with recordation of any phase within 250 feet of the pipeline easements, subdivider shall record a covenant disclosing the location of the pipelines on all lots of this subdivision within 250 feet of the pipelines.

American Petroleum Institute Standards and Guidelines for property development

15. Fire Apparatus Access Roads and Hydrants

15.1 When fire protection, including fire apparatus access roads and water supplies for protection, is required to be installed, such shall be installed and made serviceable prior to any building permit issuance and throughout the time of construction.

Page 8 of 16 ends

By VM \ S:\05_Land Division\PP-TCTM-25-0001_VTTM 7500_NEC Old River Rd & Mccutchen Rd\01_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\VTTM 7500_Exh Con.Docx
151-500 20
120-foot Hammerhead, 60-foot "Y" or 96-foot
diameter cul-de-sac
501-750 26
120-foot Hammerhead, 60-foot "Y" or 96-foot
diameter cul-de-sac
Over 750 Special Approval Required

15.3 Fire Apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus weighing at least 75,000 pounds and shall be surfaced with the first lift of asphalt to provide all-weather driving capabilities.

RECREATION AND PARKS

16. Prior to recordation of each final map, the subdivider shall pay an in-lieu fee based on a park land dedication requirement of 2.5 acres per 1000 population in accordance with Chapter 15.80 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code. If the number of dwelling units increases or decreases upon recordation of a final map(s), the park land requirement will change accordingly. Refer to BMC Chapter 15.80 and the Planning Information Sheet regarding calculation and payment of in-lieu fee. In accordance with Government Code Section 66020(d), you are hereby notified that the 90-day period in which you may protest the imposition of this fee has begun.

BMC Chapter 15.80 requires the Planning Commission to determine if a subdivider is to dedicate park land, pay an in-lieu fee, reserve park land or a combination of these in order to satisfy the City’s park land ordinance. Staff is recommending this condition in accordance with BMC Chapter 15.80.

17. Subdivider shall be responsible for improving medians with landscape on Old River Road.

CITY ATTORNEY

18. In consideration by the City of Bakersfield for land use entitlements, including but not limited to related environmental approvals related to or arising from this project, the applicant, and/or property owner and/or subdivider ("Applicant" herein) agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City of Bakersfield, its officers, agents, employees, departments, commissioners and boards ("City" herein) against any and all liability, claims, actions, causes of action or demands whatsoever against them, or any of them, before administrative or judicial tribunals of any kind whatsoever, in any way arising from, the terms and provisions of this application, including without limitation any CEQA approval or any related development approvals or conditions whether imposed by the City, or not, except for CITY’s sole active negligence or willful misconduct.

This indemnification condition does not prevent the Applicant from challenging any decision by the City related to this project, and the obligations of this condition apply regardless of whether any other permits or entitlements are issued.

Exhibit “A”
VTTM 7500

Page 9 of 16 ends

By VM \ S:\05_Land Division\PP-TCTM-25-0001_VTTM 7500_NEC Old River Rd & Mccutchen Rd\01_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\VTTM 7500_Exh Con.Docx
The City will promptly notify Applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding, falling under this condition within thirty (30) days of actually receiving such claim. The City, in its sole discretion, shall be allowed to choose the attorney or outside law firm to defend the City at the sole cost and expense of the Applicant and the City is not obligated to use any law firm or attorney chosen by another entity or party.

PLANNING

19. This subdivision shall comply with all provisions of the Bakersfield Municipal Code, and applicable resolutions, policies and standards in effect at the time the application for the subdivision map was deemed complete per Government Code Section 66474.2.

20. The subdivision shall be recorded in no more than 5 phases. Phases shall be identified numerically and not alphabetically.

Orderly development.

21. The final map shall include a statement similar to the following and as approved by the Planning Director.

The subdivision is subject to the adopted Old River Ranch Parks & Trails Plan.

For orderly development.

22. Prior to recordation of each final map, the subdivider shall submit a “will serve” or “water availability” letter or other documentation acceptable to the Planning Director from the water purveyor stating the purveyor will provide water service to the phase to be recorded.

Required for orderly development and provide for the public health, welfare and safety by ensuring water service to the subdivision at the time of final map recordation because the water purveyor has included an expiration date in the initial “will serve” letter.

23. Mineral Rights: Prior to the recordation of the first final map, the following shall apply:

The final map will have the signatures of each party owning a recorded interest in, or right to minerals, and the nature of the respective interest, not including lessees of such rights.(Secs. 16.20.060 A. and 16.20.050) Required to verify compliance with BMC Section 16.20.060 A. and orderly development.

24. In the event a previously undocumented well is uncovered or discovered on the project site, the subdivider is responsible to contact the Department of Conservation’s Division of Geologic Energy Management (CalGEM). The subdivider is responsible for any remedial Exhibit “A”
VTTM 7500

Page 10 of 16 ends

By VM \ S:\05_Land Division\PP-TCTM-25-0001_VTTM 7500_NEC Old River Rd & Mccutchen Rd\01_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\VTTM 7500_Exh Con.Docx
operations on the well required by CalGEM. Subdivider shall also be subject to provisions of BMC Section 15.66.080 (B.)
Police power based on public health, welfare and safety.

25. Prior to recordation of a final map, provide a covenant disclosing the existence and location of Independence High School and its athletic fields, with notice of the potential for bright lights and noise from athletic game events and other school activities, and will be recorded to affect all real property within the subdivision.

26. The following Subdivision Ordinance Deviation requests are approved:
(BMC Section 16.28.170.B.3)

26.1 Reverse corner lots for:

Phase 1 Lot 27
Phase 4 Lot 40
(BMC Section 16.28.170.P)

26.2 Lot Frontage & Lot Width for:

Phase 1 through 4; All lots.
(BMC 16.28.170.B and 16.28.170.D)

26.3 Double Frontage Lots for the following with 6-foot high masonry wall and landscaping along McCutchen and Old River Roads:

Phase 2, Lots 1, 5 through 13
Phase 3, Lots 25 through 41
Phase 4, Lots 23 through 35
(BMC 16.28.170.H)

27. Subdivider shall be required to comply with clear sight lines per BMC Section 17.08.175 on all corner lots. Prior to recordation of each final map, subdivider shall submit for substantial conformance, a diagram demonstrating the corner lot(s) comply with said section and have an adequate building envelop that meets required setbacks. (Note: if unable to comply, the lot(s) shall be adjusted to comply with clear sight line or comply with other applicable ordinances to be approved by the Planning Director or Planning Commission prior to recordation of a final map.)
Required for public safety.
(See next page for Mitigation Measures)
Exhibit “A”
VTTM 7500

Page 11 of 16 ends

By VM \ S:\05_Land Division\PP-TCTM-25-0001_VTTM 7500_NEC Old River Rd & Mccutchen Rd\01_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\VTTM 7500_Exh Con.Docx
Mitigation/Conditions of Approval
General Plan Amendment/Zone Change No. 07-1874
Cultural Impact Mitigation Measures

28. Prior to ground-disturbance activities associated with this project, personnel associated with the grading effort shall be informed of the importance of the potential cultural and archaeological resources (i.e. archaeological sites, artifacts, features, burials, etc.) that may be encountered during site preparation activities, how to identify those resources in the field, and of the regulatory protections afforded to those resources. The personnel shall be informed of procedures relating to the discovery of archaeological remains during grading activities and cautioned to avoid archaeological finds with equipment and not collect artifacts. The applicant/developer of the project site shall submit documentation to the Planning Department that they have met this requirement prior to commencement of ground-disturbance activities. This documentation should include information on the date(s) of training activities, the individual(s) that conducted the training, a description of the training, and a list of names of those who were trained. Should cultural remains be uncovered, the on-site supervisor shall immediately notify a qualified archaeologist. Mitigation for potentially significant cultural resource impacts.

29. If human remains are discovered during grading or construction activities, work would cease pursuant to Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code.

If human remains are identified on the site at any time, work shall stop at the location of the find and the Kern County Coroner shall be notified immediately (Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code and Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code which details the appropriate actions necessary for addressing the remains) and the local Native American community shall be notified immediately. Mitigation for potentially significant cultural resource impacts.

Agricultural Impact Mitigation Measure

30. In an attempt to reduce complaints and unwarranted investigations undertaken by the Kern County Department of Agriculture, the following disclosure is required to be provided as part of the transfer of properties:
"If your real property is adjacent to property used for agricultural operations, you may be subject to inconveniences or discomforts arising from such operations on any 24-hour basis. Said discomforts may include, but shall not be limited to equipment noise, odors from manure and other chemicals, and dust or smoke. It has been determined that in Kern County the use of real property for agricultural operations if such operations are consistent with accepted customs, standards, and laws."
Mitigation for potentially significant agricultural resource impacts.

Air Quality Impact Mitigation Measures
PM-10 Mitigation Measures:

Exhibit “A”
VTTM 7500

Page 12 of 16 ends

By VM \ S:\05_Land Division\PP-TCTM-25-0001_VTTM 7500_NEC Old River Rd & Mccutchen Rd\01_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\VTTM 7500_Exh Con.Docx

31. During construction on the project site, the applicant shall implement the following mitigation measures in order to reduce project emissions. PM-10 will be the most affected criteria pollutant by the proposed mitigation measures.

Construction equipment mitigation measures and design feature mitigation measures are also being included to reduce project related impacts:

Water all unpaved or haul road surfaces as needed. Mitigation for potentially significant air quality impacts.

Limit speed on all unpaved roads to 15 mph. Mitigation for potentially significant air quality impacts.

Water any exposed ground surfaces as needed. Mitigation for potentially significant air quality impacts.

Stabilize all disturbed areas including inactive storage piles on an as needed basis.

Mitigation for potentially significant air quality impacts.

Maintain at least a 6-inch freeboard space during transport of materials and/or cover and wet to limit dust emissions. Mitigation for potentially significant air quality impacts.

Remove mud or dirt accumulations on public roadways immediately when track out exceeds 50 or more feet as well as at the end of the workday. Mitigation for potentially significant air quality impacts.

Cease grading activities during periods of high winds where entrainment of dust will exceed the SJVAPCD 20% opacity requirements. Mitigation for potentially significant air quality impacts.

Construction Equipment Mitigation Measures:

Limit idling to no more than 20 minutes at a time. Mitigation for potentially significant air quality impacts.

All construction equipment shall be maintained to manufacturers' specifications.

Mitigation for potentially significant air quality impacts Where possible electric equipment shall be used in lieu of diesel or gas powered equipment. Mitigation for potentially significant air quality impacts.

Encourage employees at the construction sites to carpool to and from work as well as during established lunch hours. Mitigation for potentially significant air quality impacts.

In order to reduce project related emissions from mobile sources a number of 'design features' can be incorporated into the project. These 'design features' help to facilitate alternatives to traditional vehicle use, thereby reducing vehicle trips, miles traveled, idling and traffic congestion as well as reducing project related emissions. The following 'design features' will be incorporated into the proposed project to reduce emissions:

The applicant shall install street lighting along the project site. Mitigation for potentially significant air quality impacts.

Sidewalk coverage throughout the proposed project. Mitigation for potentially significant air quality impacts.

Exhibit “A”
VTTM 7500

Page 13 of 16 ends

By VM \ S:\05_Land Division\PP-TCTM-25-0001_VTTM 7500_NEC Old River Rd & Mccutchen Rd\01_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\VTTM 7500_Exh Con.Docx
Shade trees shall be installed to allow moderate coverage of walkways and/or bikeways. Mitigation for potentially significant air quality impacts.

Pedestrian safety signs shall be provided with signalization, where appropriate.

Mitigation for potentially significant air quality impacts.

Construction Equipment Mitigation Measures:

All disturbed areas, including storage piles, which are not being actively utilized for construction purposes, shall be effectively stabilized of dust emissions using water, chemical stabilizer/suppressant, covered with a tarp or other suitable cover or vegetative ground cover. Mitigation for potentially significant air quality impacts.

All on-site unpaved roads and off-site unpaved access roads shall be effectively stabilized of dust emissions using water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant. Mitigation for potentially significant air quality impacts.

All land clearing, grubbing, scraping, excavation, land leveling, grading, cut and fill, and demolition activities shall be effectively controlled of fugitive dust emissions utilizing application of water or by presoaking. Mitigation for potentially significant air quality impacts.

With the demolition of buildings or removal of trees, all surfaces shall be wetted during demolition/removal. Mitigation for potentially significant air quality impacts.

When materials are transported off-site, all material shall be covered, or effectively wetted to limit visible dust emissions, and at least six inches of freeboard space from the top of the container shall be maintained. Mitigation for potentially significant air quality impacts.

All operations shall limit or expeditiously remove the accumulation of mud or dirt from adjacent public streets at the end of each workday. (The use of dry rotary brushes is expressly prohibited except where preceded of accompanied by sufficient wetting to limit the visible dust emissions) (Use of blower devices is expressly forbidden). Mitigation for potentially significant air quality impacts.

Following the addition of materials to, or the removal of materials from, the surface of outdoor storage piles, said piles shall be effectively stabilized of fugitive dust emissions utilizing sufficient water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant. Mitigation for potentially significant air quality impacts.

Within urban areas, the owner/operator shall prevent carryout and track-out, or immediately remove carryout and track-out when it extends 50 feet or more from the nearest unpaved surface exit point of the site. Mitigation for potentially significant air quality impacts.

Any construction site with 150 or more vehicle trips per day shall prevent carryout and track-out. Mitigation for potentially significant air quality impacts.

Enhanced and Additional Control Measures for Construction Emissions of PM-10. (From Table 6-3): The following measures shall be implemented at construction site to mitigate significant PM-10 impacts:

Exhibit “A”
VTTM 7500

Page 14 of 16 ends

By VM \ S:\05_Land Division\PP-TCTM-25-0001_VTTM 7500_NEC Old River Rd & Mccutchen Rd\01_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\VTTM 7500_Exh Con.Docx
Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph. Mitigation for potentially significant air quality impacts.

Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways from sites with a slope greater than one percent. Mitigation for potentially significant air quality impacts
Track out will be prevented by one of the following:
• A Grizzly with rails, pipes or grates to dislodge debris off of existing vehicles, • A layer of washed gravel at one inch or larger in diameter, three inches deep,
• Extension of paved road at least 100 feet from publicly maintained road, or
• Installation of a wheel washer.

Mitigation for potentially significant air quality impacts.

Install wind breaks at windward side(s) of construction areas. Mitigation for potentially significant air quality impacts.

Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds exceed 20 mph (Regardless of wind speed, an owner/operator must comply with Regulation Vlll's 20 percent opacity limitation). Mitigation for potentially significant air quality impacts.

Limit area subject to excavation, grading, and other construction activity at any one time.

Mitigation for potentially significant air quality impacts.

City Attorney's Condition

32. In consideration by the City of Bakersfield for land use entitlements, including but not limited to related environmental approvals related to or arising from this project, the applicant, and/or property owner and/or subdivider ("Applicant" herein) agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City of Bakersfield, its officers, agents, employees, departments, commissioners or boards ("City" herein) against any and all liability, claims, actions, causes of action or demands whatsoever against them, or any of them, before administrative or judicial tribunals of any kind whatsoever, in any way arising from, the terms and provisions of this application, including without limitation any CEQA approval or any related development approvals or conditions whether imposed by the City, or not, except for City's sole active negligence or willful misconduct.

This indemnification condition does not prevent the Applicant from challenging any decision by the City related to this project and the obligations of this condition apply regardless of whether any other permits or entitlements are issued.

Exhibit “A”
VTTM 7500

Page 15 of 16 ends

By VM \ S:\05_Land Division\PP-TCTM-25-0001_VTTM 7500_NEC Old River Rd & Mccutchen Rd\01_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\VTTM 7500_Exh Con.Docx
The City will promptly notify Applicant of any such claim, action or preceding, falling under this condition within thirty (30) days of actually receiving such claim. The City, in its sole discretion, shall be allowed to choose the attorney or outside law firm to defend the City at the sole cost and expense of the Applicant and the City is not obligated to use any law firm or attorney chosen by another entity or party.

Public Works Department Conditions

33. Along with the submittal of any development plan, prior to approval of improvement plans, or with the application for a lot line adjustment or parcel merger, the following shall occur:
a. Provide fully executed dedication for Mc Cutchen and Old River Roads to arterial standards for the full frontage of the area within the entire GPA request.

Dedications shall include sufficient widths for expanded intersections and additional areas for landscaping as directed by the City Engineer. Dedication shall also include sufficient width for trails in accordance with the approved Parks and Trails Plan for this area. Submit a current title report with the dedication documents.
b. This GPA/ZC area is too small to support it's own storm drainage sump. The City will allow no more than one sump per 80 acres; therefore, this GPA/ZC area must be included within the drainage area of adjoining property. Submit a comprehensive drainage study of the entire drainage area, to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. Any required retention site and necessary easements shall be dedicated to the City.
c. Sewer service must be provided to the GPA/ZC area. Submit a comprehensive sewer study to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. The study shall be in conformance with the Plant 3 Master Study. The developer shall be responsible for the initial extension of the sewer line to serve the property. This sewer line must necessarily be sized to serve a much larger area that the project area. The City is willing to aid the developer in the formation of a Planned Sewer Area and/or an Assessment District to provide a mechanism for the reimbursement of oversizing costs to the developer.
d. In order to preserve the permeability of the sump and to prevent the introduction of sediments from construction or from storm events, all retention and detention basins (sumps) shall have a mechanical device in the storm drain system to remove or minimize the introduction of oil, grease, trash, and sediments to the sump. This device shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer, and shall provide the greatest benefit to the storm drain system with the least maintenance cost.
e. Developer is responsible for the construction of all infrastructure, both public and private, within the boundary of the GPA/ZC area. This includes the construction of any and all boundary streets to the centerline of the street, unless otherwise specified. The developer is also responsible for the construction of any off site infrastructure required to support this development, as identified in these conditions.

For orderly development.

Exhibit “A”
VTTM 7500

Page 16 of 16 ends

By VM \ S:\05_Land Division\PP-TCTM-25-0001_VTTM 7500_NEC Old River Rd & Mccutchen Rd\01_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\VTTM 7500_Exh Con.Docx

34. Prior to issuance of a of a building permit, the developer shall pay a major transportation facility fee in the amount of $2487 for residential dwelling unit. If prior to issuance of a building permit said fee is merged into the regional TIF program then payment of the regional TIF fee will be deemed to have satisfied the intent of this condition. This fee is a component of the City Council approved action plan to pursue funds needed to complete construction of major transportation facilities to serve growth and development within Metropolitan Bakersfield. For orderly development.

35. The entire area covered by this General Plan Amendment shall be included in the Consolidated Maintenance District. The applicant shall pay all fees for inclusion in the Consolidated Maintenance District with submittal of any development plan, tentative subdivision map, Site Plan Review, or application for a lot line adjustment for any portion of this GPA area. For orderly development.

36. Payment of the proportionate share of the cost of the median for the arterial frontage of the property within the GPA/ZC request is required prior to recordation of any map or approval of any improvement plan for the GPA/ZC area. For orderly development.

37. Traffic Mitigation: Pay the proportionate share of the following mitigation measures (not paid for by the Regional Transportation Impact Fee or included with normal development improvements) as indicated in Table 6 of the traffic study. An updated estimate, based upon current costs, and fee schedule shall be developed by the applicant and approved prior to recordation of a map or issuance of a building permit. Proportionate shares from the study as follows:
a. White Ln & Old River Rd., Add 1 EBL, 1 WBR, 1 WBL, 1.04% share b. Panama Ln & Old River Rd., Expand to 1 EBL, 3 EBT, 1 EBR, 1 WBL, 3 WBT, 1 WBR, 2 NBL, 2 NBT, 1 NBR, 1 SBL, 2 SBT, 1 SBR, 1.46% share (100% share of adding No. 2 NBL)
c. Panama Ln & Gosford Rd., Expand to standard expanded intersection plus Add 1 EBT, 1 WBR, 1 NBR, 0.64% share
Mitigation for potentially significant traffic impacts.

38. Regional Transportation Impact Fee: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall participate in the RTIF program by paying the adopted residential unit fee in place at time of development. Mitigation for potentially significant traffic impacts.

MapPackages
0 500 1,000
Feet
_
KHSD Career
and Technical
Education Center
KHSD
Aquatic
Complex
Independence
High School
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1 R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1/P.U.D.

R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1/P.U.D.

R-1
R-2
R-5
R-1
CARSON
CREEK
LN

WINDING STREAM AVERED IRON
ST

DRAWBRIDGE
DR

BERKSHIRE RD

CARSON RIVER RD

DROVERS RUN RD

SNOWY RIVER DR
S
HOOTIN
G
S
TAR CT

WHITNEY
CREEK
CT

ALMOND CREEK DR
ROSE

CREEK WAY
BRANSO
N

CREEK CT
ARR
O
WHEAD
TR
AIL
C
T

SLEEPY HOLLOW LN
RIO
VER
DE DR
CACH
E CREE
K LN
T
U
CKE
R
CREEK
R
D

THUNDER

MOUNTAIN
LN

BUCKING BRON
C
OCT
WILD

MUSTANG
DR
W
HISKEY
CREEK
D
R

OLD RIVER RD

CITRUS CREEK DR

MC CUTCHEN RD
Vesting Tentative Tract Map
7500

CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
Zoning
R-1 One Family Dwelling
6,000 sq.ft. min lot
size
R-1-4.5 One Family
Dwelling
4,500 sq.ft. min lot
size
E Estate
10,000 sq.ft. min lot
size
R-S Residential
Suburban
24,000 sq.ft./dwelling
unit
R-S-( ) Residential
Suburban
1, 2.5, 5 or 10 min lot
size
R-2 Limited Multiple
Family Dwelling
4,500 sq.ft. min lot
size (single family)
6,000 sq.ft. min lot
size (multifamily)
2,500 sq.ft. lot area/
dwelling unit
R-3 Multiple Family
Dwelling
6,000 sq.ft. min lot
size
1,250 sq.ft. lot area/
dwelling unit
R-4 High Density
Multiple Family Dwelling
6,000 sq.ft. min lot
size
600 sq.ft. lot area/
dwelling unit
R-H Residential Holding
20 acre min lot size
A Agriculture
6,000 sq.ft. min lot
size
A-20A Agriculture
20 acre min lot size
PUD Planned Unit
Development
TT Travel Trailer Park
MH Mobilehome
C-O Professional and
Administrative Office
C-1 Neighborhood
Commercial
C-2 Regional
Commercial
C-C Commercial Center
C-B Central Business
PCD Planned
Commercial
Development
M-1 Light Manufacturing
M-2 General
Manufacturing
M-3 Heavy Industrial
VTTM7500

MAP PACKAGE
Exhibit B
M7
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT No. 7500
BEING A MERGER AND RE-SUBDIVISION OF LOTS 25 & 32 OF SALES MAP OF LANDS OF KERN COUNTY LAND COMPANY, FILED JUNE 16, 1897 IN THE OFFICE OF THE KERN COUNTY RECORDER, ALSO BEING A PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 30 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, MOUNT DIABLO BASE AND MERIDIAN, IN THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, COUNTY OF KERN, STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

CONTAINING 208 BUILDABLE RESIDENTIAL LOTS, 1 SUMP LOT AND 4 LANDSCAPE LOTS, 39.92 GROSS ACRES JANUARY 2025 80
SCALE: 1" -
40 D
80'
80 I
BASIS OF BEARING OWNER/SUBDIVIDER:

THE BEARING OF N 00'24'05" E AS SHOWN FOR THE
NORTH-SOUTH MID-SECTION LINE OF SECTION 32, 30/27
PER RECORD OF SURVEY AS FILED IN BOOK 24 OF
RECORD OF SURVEY AT PAGE 71, IN THE OFFICE OF THE

KERN COUNTY RECORDER WAS USED AS THE BASIS OF
BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON.

FRANMAR COMPANY, (66.67%) AND
LOYOLA PROPERTIES I, LP (33.33%)
P.O. BOX 11358
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93389
CONTACT: MATTHEW WADE
PHONE: (661) 885-9406
BENCHMARK ENGINEER:

NGS BENCHMARK DESIGNATION - OLD RIVER
STATION IS 0.2 MILES SOUTH OF THE CENTERLINE
INTERSECTION OF TAFT HIGHWAY 119 AND OLD RIVER
ROAD ON THE LEFT.

MclNTOSH & ASSOCIATES
10800 STOCKDALE HWY. STE.

BAKERSFIELD, CA 93311
CONTACT: BLAINE NEPTUNE
ELEVATION = 338.676' (NAVO 88 DATUM)
GENERAL NOTES:

ALL ROAD IMPROVEMENTS AND DRAINAGE IN THIS

SUBDIVISION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS ESTABLISHED BY THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD.

IT IS ANTICIPATED THAT THE GRADING OF THIS TRACT WILL BE WITHIN THE AMOUNTS OUTLINED WITHIN SECTION 16.16.030(0) OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE.

A 10' PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT (P.U.E.) IS PROPOSED AND IS

LOCATED ON ALL FRONT AND SIDE YARDS ADJACENT TO ALL
INTERNAL STREETS.

ALL CUL-DE-SAC & KNUCKLE RETURN RADII ARE 25'.

ALL CUL-DE-SACS ARE 50' RADIUS.

ALL KNUCKLES ARE 92' RADIUS.

PHONE: (661) 834-4814

PHASING

THE NUMBERING OF THE PHASES ARE FOR

IDENTIFICATION PURPOSES AND DO NOT

NECESSARILY IMPLY THE ORDER OF
DEVELOPMENT.

THIS TRACT WILL BE DEVELOPED IN UP TO 4
PHASES.

NOTE TO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
RE: AL TERNA TE STREET NAMES

THE FOLLOWING STREET NAMES ARE PROVIDED AS
AL TERNA TES. PLEASE CONSIDER THESE NAMES IN

THE ORDER LISTED TO REPLACE NAMES ON THE
MAP THAT MAY NOT BE ACCEPTABLE.

1. YELLA

2. UNDINE

NOTE TO PUBLIC WORKS
103
30 T. 30 S., R. 27 E.

PROJECT
SITE
McCUTCHEN ROAD
29 '3
0 VICINITY MAP
LEGEND:

WFE
S.F.F.N.

S.M.LK.C.L.C.

NO SCALE

WAIVER OF DIRECT ACCESS

WALL FOOTING EASEMENT

SEARCH FOR FOUND NOTHING

SALES MAP OF LANDS OF

KERN COUNTY LAND COMPANY
---------- PROJECT BOUNDARY
•••••••••••••••••••••••• PHASE LINE 1. SEWER CONNECTION FOR THIS TRACT SHALL BE THE 15" SEWER ALONG RIO VERDE DRIVE VIA
XANTHE WAY OR THE 48" SEWER ALONG
McCUTCHEN ROAD VIA HAVRE WAY. --------·E· ---EXISTING O.H. ELECTRICAL LINE(S) FLOOD ZONE X:

MINIMAL FLOOD HAZARD, FEMA MAP 06029C2300E
EFFECTIVE DATE 9/26/2008.

ST A TISTICS:

APN: 540-010-19
ACREAGE: 39.92 GR. AC. / 34. 78 NET AC.

NUMBER OF LOTS: 208 BUILDABLE
NET DENSITY: 5.98 D.U./NET AC.

PROPOSED USE: RESIDENTIAL
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: LR
ZONING: R-1
WATER SOURCE: CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
SEWAGE DISPOSAL: CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
GAS CO. - PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY

CABLE - SPECTRUM

PHONE - AT&T
--·--·-ll---EXISTING OIL LINE(S) - APPROXIM,
--- ---- -·oH---EXISTING OVERHEAD ELEC. LINE
------------------------ EXISTING IRRIGATION LINE
--------G---EXISTING GAS LINE
____________ EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT
-------o---- PROPOSED STORM DRAIN
- - - FUTURE LOTS
g

ELECTRICAL - PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY
SCHOOL DISTRICTS: LAKESIDE UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT
@
-0-
E--

PROPOSED CATCH BASIN

EXISTING CONTOUR

EXISTING MONUMENT

EXISTING POWER POLE

EXISTING DOWN GUY

DIRECTION OF DRAINAGE

AND APPROXIMATE GRADE
& KERN HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
SCHOOLS:

ELEMENTARY - DONALD E. SUBURU SCHOOL

MIDDLE SCHOOL - LAKESIDE SCHOOL
HIGH SCHOOL - INDEPENDENCE HIGH SCHOOL 0.25% MIN.
6' MIN P/L
55' -60' R/W BLOCK WALL
l,_____-~t----<1 '---
1 48'-54'
([_ OLD RIVER RD/ ' • 17'
TRACT BOUNDARY!-- -l ' j s n•

PHASE TABLE
NO. OF L.S. SUMP

PHASE LOTS LOT LOT
45 2 39 2
3 41 1
4 83 1
TOTAL: 208 4
y 1 ,. i Ex1sr. o.5'-~
1 s1w
i __ -,-1-,•-1 i
1A.C. CURB ~ EXIST: I, i 2%cn
_.r1'Jf~~1_-~717-n-"--=2~%~--cc--Jl---l::=;===::r1~
"URB I I 2% Ml~j EXIST. MEDIAN c . CURB DETACHED....J - EXIST. GUTTER SIDEWALK PER 4: 1 MAX.

PAVEMENT C.0.B. STANDARD
CD
ST-6

OLD RIVER ROAD (ARTERIAL)

SECTION A
SCALE: 1 "=1 O'
P/L 6' MIN
BLOCK WALL R/W 55' - 70' 1
I I f-----+----1,
\.,,---" 17' 64'-48' I
• r<l. McCUTCHEN RD.
s.o· I TRACT BOUNDARY
S/W
I -,15
~ ':'o.5' -'·•'···-:

Ill "-
~ L~ 2L LDETACH~RB & cz:::;--- 4: l MAX. SIDEWALK PER GUTTER PA YEMEN I C.0.B. STANDARD
ST-6
f1D McCUTCHEN ROAD (ARTERIAL)

W SECTION B
SCALE: 1"=10'
: 30' ·1 30' ! !-11· --,o-· ------20-· ----'r-~---~~----11 r-:--1~4~23-.-+1----,5-.6-7'----,j~ I
60'
30' 30'
I
I
;i--~10~· -...,-i ~11; ±
4 1" i
2% ... ~jg 1
1 ,, 2% I"" 21
[ --==='=?"",{-J•::,J.. --··-.=::---·--·j . ---=,=--e:"':} ' 2% MIN ~, \I '.....-EXIST. IMPROVEMENT 2% .J EXIST PAVEMENT.,., 4:1 MAX -

DETACHED

SIDEWALK PER
C.O.B. STANDARD
ST-6 ED
R/W
I
I
I
I
I 10'

SECTION C
RIO VERDE DR.

SCALE: 1 "=1 O'
30'
20'
I s·
iM
I ..11L I
(LOCAL)
60'
30'
20'
2%
1%MIN L t=
14% MAX DETACHED 1-(D-"E'-+---=S=Ec=CC-'T_,_IO~N~E~------, c.61gE~~~J'}~D 1 (60' WIDE LOCAL STREET)
ST-6 (FRONT TO SIDE)
SCALE: 1"=10'
I
' 10'
!%MIN L =
l 4% MAX DET ACHEO

SIDEWALK PER
C.O.B. STANDARD
ST-6
20' 20'
..11L
w
z
i
"-
10'
- J 1% MIN
ffi SECTION D DETACHED _J 14% MAX , SIDEWALK PER 1 (60 WIDE LOCAL STREET) C.O.B. STANDARD (FRONT TO FRONT) ST-6
SCALE: 1 "=1 O'
R/W
·, ~ o/ ~
10'
Ll
I
I
I
!
I
I
l 2% MIN
4:1 MAX

DETACHED

MAP SET
MapPackages
0 500 1,000
Feet
_
AERIAL
KHSD Career
and Technical
Education Center
KHSD
Aquatic
Complex
Independence
High School
CARSON
CREEK
LN

WINDING STREAM AVERED IRON
ST

DRAWBRIDGE
DR

PRESCOTT

CREEK WAY

BERKSHIRE RD

CARSON RIVER RD

DROVERS RUN RD

SNOWY RIVER DR
S
H
O
O
TIN
G
S
T
A
R
C
T

WHITNEY
CREEK
CT

ALMOND CREEK DR
ROSE

CREEK WAY
B
R
A
N
S
O
N
C
R
E
E
K
C
T
A
R
R
O
W
H
E
A
D
T
R
AIL
C
T

SLEEPY HOLLOW LN
RIO
V
E
R
D
E
D
R
C
A
C
H
E
C
R
E
E
K
L
N
T
U
C
K
E
R
C
R
E
E
K
R
D

THUNDER

MOUNTAIN
LN
B
U
C
KIN
G
B
R
O
N
C
OCT
WIL
D
M
U
S
T
A
N
G
D
R
W
HIS
K
E
Y
C
R
E
E
K
D
R

OLD RIVER RD

CITRUS CREEK DR

MC CUTCHEN RD
Vesting Tentative Tract Map
7500

CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
VTTM7500

MAP PACKAGE
MapPackages
0 500 1,000
Feet
_
R-2
R-5
R-1/P.U.D.

R-1/P.U.D.

R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1 R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
KHSD Career
and Technical
Education Center
KHSD
Aquatic
Complex
Independence
High School
CARSON
CREEK
LN

WINDING STREAM AVERED IRON
ST

DRAWBRIDGE
DR

PRESCOTT

CREEK WAY

BERKSHIRE RD

CARSON RIVER RD

DROVERS RUN RD

SNOWY RIVER DR
S
H
O
O
TIN
G
S
T
A
R
C
T

WHITNEY
CREEK
CT

ALMOND CREEK DR
ROSE

CREEK WAY
B
R
A
N
S
O
N
C
R
E
E
K
C
T
A
R
R
O
W
H
E
A
D
T
R
AIL
C
T

SLEEPY HOLLOW LN
RIO
V
E
R
D
E
D
R
C
A
C
H
E
C
R
E
E
K
L
N
T
U
C
K
E
R
C
R
E
E
K
R
D

THUNDER

MOUNTAIN
LN
B
U
C
KIN
G
B
R
O
N
C
OCT
WIL
D
M
U
S
T
A
N
G
D
R
W
HIS
K
E
Y
C
R
E
E
K
D
R

OLD RIVER RD

CITRUS CREEK DR

MC CUTCHEN RD
Vesting Tentative Tract Map
7500

CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
Zoning
Residential Zone
Designations
R-1 One
Family
Dwelling
R-1/P.U.D.

Combining
R-2 Limited
Multiple
Family
Dwelling
Zone - 1
unit/2,500
sq. ft. VTTM7500

MAP PACKAGE
MapPackages
0 500 1,000
Feet
_
LR
LR LR
LR
LR
LR
LR
LR
LR
LR LR
LR
LR
LR
LR
LR
LR
LR
LR
LR LR
PS

LR R-IA
HR
LMR LR
KHSD Career
and Technical
Education Center
KHSD
Aquatic
Complex
Independence
High School
CARSON
CREEK
LN

WINDING STREAM AVERED IRON
ST

DRAWBRIDGE
DR

PRESCOTT

CREEK WAY

BERKSHIRE RD

CARSON RIVER RD

DROVERS RUN RD

SNOWY RIVER DR
S
HOOTIN
G
S
TAR CT

WHITNEY
CREEK
CT

ALMOND CREEK DR
ROSE

CREEK WAY
BRANSO
N

CREEK CT
ARR
O
WHEAD
TR
AIL
C
T

SLEEPY HOLLOW LN
RIO
VER
DE DR
CACH
E CREE
K LN
T
U
CKE
R
CREEK
R
D

THUNDER

MOUNTAIN
LN

BUCKING BRON
C
OCT
WILD

MUSTANG
DR
W
HISKEY
CREEK
D
R

OLD RIVER RD

CITRUS CREEK DR

MC CUTCHEN RD
Vesting Tentative Tract Map
7500

CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
Land Use

RESIDENTIAL
LMR - Low
Medium
Density
Residential:
> 4 units
but ≤ 10
dwelling
units/net
acre
HR - High
Density
Residential:
> 17.42
units but ≤

72.6 dwelling
units/net
acre
LR - Low
Density
Residential:
≤ 7.26
dwelling
units/net
acre
PUBLIC

FACILITIES
PS - Public/
Private
Schools

RESOURCE
R-IA -
Resource -
Intensive
Agriculture:
20 acre
minimum
parcel size
VTTM7500

MAP PACKAGE
M7
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT No. 7500
BEING A MERGER AND RE-SUBDIVISION OF LOTS 25 & 32 OF SALES MAP OF LANDS OF KERN COUNTY LAND COMPANY, FILED JUNE 16, 1897 IN THE OFFICE OF THE KERN COUNTY RECORDER, ALSO BEING A PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 30 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, MOUNT DIABLO BASE AND MERIDIAN, IN THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, COUNTY OF KERN, STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

CONTAINING 208 BUILDABLE RESIDENTIAL LOTS, 1 SUMP LOT AND 4 LANDSCAPE LOTS, 39.92 GROSS ACRES JANUARY 2025 80
SCALE: 1" -
40 D
80'
80 I
BASIS OF BEARING OWNER/SUBDIVIDER:

THE BEARING OF N 00'24'05" E AS SHOWN FOR THE
NORTH-SOUTH MID-SECTION LINE OF SECTION 32, 30/27
PER RECORD OF SURVEY AS FILED IN BOOK 24 OF
RECORD OF SURVEY AT PAGE 71, IN THE OFFICE OF THE

KERN COUNTY RECORDER WAS USED AS THE BASIS OF
BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON.

FRANMAR COMPANY, (66.67%) AND
LOYOLA PROPERTIES I, LP (33.33%)
P.O. BOX 11358
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93389
CONTACT: MATTHEW WADE
PHONE: (661) 885-9406
BENCHMARK ENGINEER:

NGS BENCHMARK DESIGNATION - OLD RIVER
STATION IS 0.2 MILES SOUTH OF THE CENTERLINE
INTERSECTION OF TAFT HIGHWAY 119 AND OLD RIVER
ROAD ON THE LEFT.

MclNTOSH & ASSOCIATES
10800 STOCKDALE HWY. STE.

BAKERSFIELD, CA 93311
CONTACT: BLAINE NEPTUNE
ELEVATION = 338.676' (NAVO 88 DATUM)
GENERAL NOTES:

ALL ROAD IMPROVEMENTS AND DRAINAGE IN THIS

SUBDIVISION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS ESTABLISHED BY THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD.

IT IS ANTICIPATED THAT THE GRADING OF THIS TRACT WILL BE WITHIN THE AMOUNTS OUTLINED WITHIN SECTION 16.16.030(0) OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE.

A 10' PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT (P.U.E.) IS PROPOSED AND IS

LOCATED ON ALL FRONT AND SIDE YARDS ADJACENT TO ALL
INTERNAL STREETS.

ALL CUL-DE-SAC & KNUCKLE RETURN RADII ARE 25'.

ALL CUL-DE-SACS ARE 50' RADIUS.

ALL KNUCKLES ARE 92' RADIUS.

PHONE: (661) 834-4814

PHASING

THE NUMBERING OF THE PHASES ARE FOR

IDENTIFICATION PURPOSES AND DO NOT

NECESSARILY IMPLY THE ORDER OF
DEVELOPMENT.

THIS TRACT WILL BE DEVELOPED IN UP TO 4
PHASES.

NOTE TO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
RE: AL TERNA TE STREET NAMES

THE FOLLOWING STREET NAMES ARE PROVIDED AS
AL TERNA TES. PLEASE CONSIDER THESE NAMES IN

THE ORDER LISTED TO REPLACE NAMES ON THE
MAP THAT MAY NOT BE ACCEPTABLE.

1. YELLA

2. UNDINE

NOTE TO PUBLIC WORKS
103
30 T. 30 S., R. 27 E.

PROJECT
SITE
McCUTCHEN ROAD
29 '3
0 VICINITY MAP
LEGEND:

WFE
S.F.F.N.

S.M.LK.C.L.C.

NO SCALE

WAIVER OF DIRECT ACCESS

WALL FOOTING EASEMENT

SEARCH FOR FOUND NOTHING

SALES MAP OF LANDS OF

MINIMAL FLOOD HAZARD, FEMA MAP 06029C2300E
EFFECTIVE DATE 9/26/2008.

ST A TISTICS:

APN: 540-010-19
ACREAGE: 39.92 GR. AC. / 34. 78 NET AC.

NUMBER OF LOTS: 208 BUILDABLE
NET DENSITY: 5.98 D.U./NET AC.

PROPOSED USE: RESIDENTIAL
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: LR
ZONING: R-1
WATER SOURCE: CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
SEWAGE DISPOSAL: CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
GAS CO. - PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY

CABLE - SPECTRUM

ELECTRICAL - PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY
SCHOOL DISTRICTS: LAKESIDE UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT
@
-0-
E--

PROPOSED CATCH BASIN

EXISTING CONTOUR

EXISTING MONUMENT

EXISTING POWER POLE

EXISTING DOWN GUY

DIRECTION OF DRAINAGE

AND APPROXIMATE GRADE
& KERN HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
SCHOOLS:

ELEMENTARY - DONALD E. SUBURU SCHOOL

PHASE TABLE
NO. OF L.S. SUMP

PAVEMENT C.0.B. STANDARD
CD
ST-6

OLD RIVER ROAD (ARTERIAL)

SECTION A
SCALE: 1 "=1 O'
P/L 6' MIN
BLOCK WALL R/W 55' - 70' 1
I I f-----+----1,
\.,,---" 17' 64'-48' I
• r<l. McCUTCHEN RD.
s.o· I TRACT BOUNDARY
S/W
I -,15
~ ':'o.5' -'·•'···-:

Ill "-
~ L~ 2L LDETACH~RB & cz:::;--- 4: l MAX. SIDEWALK PER GUTTER PA YEMEN I C.0.B. STANDARD
ST-6
f1D McCUTCHEN ROAD (ARTERIAL)

DETACHED

SIDEWALK PER
C.O.B. STANDARD
ST-6 ED
R/W
I
I
I
I
I 10'

SECTION C
RIO VERDE DR.

DETACHED

SIDEWALK PER
C.O.B. STANDARD
ST-6
I 30' •1 30' 1
,_I----~~-----+-· -----t~----: : 10' ~o• 20' 10' I
Z% MIN / DETACHED ~DEWALi( Z% MIN
41 ;(__. 4:1 MAX : MAX PER C.O.B. SID. ST-6 DETACHED
E9 SECTION F SIDEWALK
1 (60' WIDE LOCAL STREET) ~1~N%2ili
(SIDE TO SIDE) ST-6
SCALE: 1"=10
,.
m
Ul
z
0 c7i
5 w
"'
~ ,...
ffi
Ill
C,
ill'
Ill
z
ffi
~ U)
JE: VM/C:\Users\Vmartinez\Appdata\Local\Microsoft\Olk\Attachments\Ooa-2d11e898-793a-4a99- 8da5-
650942bb85f8\0342843ca6e5617021e52f7a4f89a64a4f12e30564aa9e023426dd5561d490d4\Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7500 (Phased) Staff Rpt.Docx

CITY OF BAKERSFIELD

PLANNING COMMISSION

STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: August 21, 2025 AGENDA CATEGORY: 5.c.

TO: Chair Strickland and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Jennie Eng, Assistant Planning Director J. Eng
DATE: August 15, 2025
FILE: Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7500 (Phased)
STAFF PLANNER: Veronica Martinez, Associate Planner
REQUEST: A proposed vesting tentative tract map for 208 single-family residential lots, 1 sump lot, and 4 landscape lots on 39.92 acres, zoned R-1 (Single-Unit Dwelling), including a request for alternate lot and street design, and to waive mineral rights signatures pursuant to BMC 16.20.060 A.1 (Ward 5).

APPLICANT: OWNER:

McIntosh & Associates Franmar Company and Loyola Properties I, LP 10800 Stockdale Hwy, Suite 103 P.O. Box 11358
Bakersfield, CA 93311 Bakersfield, CA 93389
LOCATION: Northeast corner of Old River Road and Mc Cutchen Road in southwest Bakersfield.

APN: 540-010-19
PROJECT SIZE: 39.92 acres CEQA: Section 15162 (Previous MND) EXISTING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: LR (Low Density Residential) EXISTING ZONE CLASSIFICATION: R-1 (Single-Unit Dwelling) STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt Resolution and suggested findings APPROVING Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7500 (Phased) with conditions.

SITE CHARACTERISTICS: The project site is vacant land. Surrounding properties are primarily developed as: north – single-family residential; east - single-family residential; south – vacant land designated multifamily dwelling zones; and west – Independence High School.

VTTM 7500 (Phased)
BACKGROUND AND TIMELINE:
• March 12. 2008 – City Council approved a General Plan Amendment/Zone Change to change the zoning of 39.92 acres from A (Agriculture) zone to the R-1 (One-Family Dwelling) zone and the land use designation from R-IA (Resource-Intensive Agriculture) to LR (Low Density Residential). A mitigated negative declaration was also adopted (GPA/ZC No. 07-1874; Ordinance No. 4499; Resolution Nos. 214-07 & 215-07).
• February 26, 2010 - The project site was annexed into the City as part of the McCutchen No. 8 Annexation (Annexation No. 549).
• July 2, 2025 – The application for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7500 (Phased) was deemed complete.

PROJECT ANALYSIS:

The proposed vesting tentative tract subdivision consists of 208 single-family residential lots, 1 sump lot, and 4 landscape lots on 39.92 acres. The residential lots range in size from 5,000 square feet (s.f.) to 11,638 s.f., and the typical lotsize is approximately 50 feet wide by 100 feet deep (5,000 square feet).

The net density is 5.98 units per net acre, which is consistent with the LR designation of the project site of less than or equal to 7.26 dwelling units per net acre.

Consistency/Deviation from Design Standards. The applicant has requested four (4) deviations from City standards as listed below in Table A. Except as may otherwise be described in this staff report, the proposed project, subject to the conditions of approval, complies with the ordinances and policies of the City of Bakersfield.

VTTM 7500 (Phased)
VTTM 7500 (Phased)
Table A. Deviation Requests

REQUEST
(BMC - Bakersfield Municipal Code
and Subdivision Design Manual)
BMC/ Subdivision Design Manual Section
APPLICANT’S

REASON/JUSTIFICATION

STAFF COMMENT/

RECOMMENDATION
1) Request to allow reverse corner
lots within Phase 1 (Lot 27); Phase
4 (Lot 40);
BMC Section ref 16.28.170.P. Reverse Corner Lots. Reversed corner lots shall not be allowed in residential zones, except where required to comply with such other ordinances, codes, and design principles of subdivision. In no instances shall an interior lot be bordered by more than one reversed corner lot in residential zones.

The proposed design is
restricted by the existing
project boundary and
road alignments. The
proposed reversed
corner and key lots will
allow for the highest use
and best design of
the tract. There are not
any interior lots bordered
by more than one
reversed corner lot.

City staff has
reviewed and does
not object.

APPROVE
2) Request to allow Reduction of
Lot Frontage & Lot Width for:

Phase 1 through 4, All Lots
Request to allow the reduction
from minimum lot frontages and
widths from 55 feet (interior lot)
and 60 feet (corner lot) to a
minimum of 50 feet (interior lot)
and 55 feet (corner lot)

BMC Section ref 16.28.170.B. Lot Frontage. All residential lots shall have a minimum street frontage of fifty-five feet except as follows:

1. The minimum street frontage for an interior one-family dwelling lot that is less than six thousand square feet in area shall be forty-five feet.

2. The minimum lot frontage for a corner lot shall be sixty feet except for a one-family dwelling lot that is less than six thousand square feet in area where it is fifty feet. For purposes of measuring frontage on a corner lot with a radius return, the distance shall be measured from the point of intersection of the Request reduction from
minimum lot widths from
55 feet (interior lot) and
60 feet (corner lot) to a
minimum 50 feet
(interior lot) and 55 feet
(corner lot). Reduced lot
width allows for more
lots to accommodate
higher density and the
best design of the site, in
compliance with BMC
Table 17.10-2.

City staff has
reviewed and does
not object.

APPROVE
VTTM 7500 (Phased)
extensions of the street side property line and the front property line.
3) Request to allow Reduction of
Lot Frontage & Lot Width for:

BMC Section ref 16.28.170.D. Lot Width. The lot width is the length of a line between side property lines that is the perpendicular bisect of the lot depth. The minimum width for residential lots shall be fifty-five feet on interior lots and sixty feet on corner lots
Request reduction from
minimum lot widths from
55 feet (interior lot) and
60 feet (corner lot) to a
minimum 50 feet
(interior lot) and 55 feet
(corner lot). Reduced lot
width allows for more
lots to accommodate
higher density and the
best design of the site, in
compliance with BMC
Table 17.10-2.

City staff has
reviewed and does
not object.

APPROVE
4) Request to allow double
frontage lots for: Phase 2, Lots 1, 5
through 13; Phase 3, Lots 25
through 41; and Phase 4, Lots 23
through 35
BMC Section ref 16.28.170.H. Double Frontage Lots. Double frontage lots having a depth less than two hundred feet will not be approved except where, as determined by the advisory agency, conditions permit no other reasonable form of platting, or where the proposed double frontage lots abut a street which functions as a major street and the advisory agency deems it to be reasonable due to such controlling factors as traffic, safety, appearance and setback. Each such lot shall have a six-foot-high masonry wall (the height shall be measured from whichever side of the wall the adjacent finished grade is higher) with landscaping (on the exterior side) installed by the subdivider adjacent to the rear property line or, where the wall and landscaping are to be maintained by a homeowners association or maintenance district installed within the street rightof-way and additional landscape easement or adjacent common lot.

Alternate wall and landscape concepts may be approved in Lots with rear yard
adjacent to Old River
Road will be limited
by a block wall. Lot
frontage will be limited
to the interior
street Graziana Drive.

Lots with rear yard
adjacent to
McCutchen Road will be
limited by a block wall.

Lot frontage will be
limited to the interior
street Ithaca Lane.

City staff has
reviewed and does
not object.

APPROVE
VTTM 7500 (Phased)
areas where, in the opinion of the advisory agency, topographic or other physical conditions make strict adherence to this criteria undesirable. Conceptual wall and landscaping plans shall be reviewed and approved by the advisory agency prior to filing of any final tract or final parcel map.

VTTM 7500 (Phased)
Circulation. Access to this subdivision would be from Mc Cutchen Road (arterial) on the south boundary and Rio Verde Drive (local) on the subdivision's east boundary.

Park Land In-Lieu Fees/Dedication. The City of Bakersfield Recreation and Parks Department provides park and recreational services to the project site. The nearest existing park is Bridle Creek Park, located approximately 0.36 miles north of the project site.

Mineral Rights. The applicant is requesting the Planning Commission approve waiver of mineral rights signatures on the final map pursuant to BMC 16.20.060 A.1 as the party’s right of surface entry has been waived by recorded document priorto recordation of any finalmap. Staff hasreceived evidence ofsurface waiver; therefore, the final map shall have a statement indicating the mineral owner’s name and nature of his or her interest. Nonetheless, should ownership change, staff is recommending a condition of approval requiring that prior to recordation of the first final map, the subdivider shall provide evidence verifying surface waiver from mineral interests otherwise the subdivider must return for a public hearing for a revised tentative map before the Planning Commission in accordance with BMC Section 16.20.060.

Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve waiver of these signatures on the final map, subject to the condition.

The applicant submitted a letter from the California Department of Conservation’s Division of Geologic Energy Management (CalGEM) that stated that the project site is beyond their administrative boundaries of any oil or gas fields. There are no known wells on the property and no known active operators of record.

If a well is uncovered, the subdivider must consult with CalGEM regarding proper abandonment of the well, in accordance with the municipal code (Condition 20).

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND DETERMINATION:

A Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) was adopted for GPA/ZC 07-1874 on December 20, 2007, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). No new significant impacts, nor substantial increase in severity of impacts will result with proposed VTTM 7500 from those previously identified in the MND for GPA/ZC No. 07-1874. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Section 15162, no further environmental documentation is necessary because no substantial changes to the original project are proposed, there are no substantial changes in circumstances under which the project will be undertaken, and no new environmental impacts have been identified. Mitigation measures from the related project have been incorporated and are attached to the resolution.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION:

Public notice for the proposed project and environmental determination was advertised in The Bakersfield Californian and posted on the bulletin board in the City of Bakersfield Development Services Building, 1715 Chester Avenue, Bakersfield, California. All property ownerswithin300 feet ofthe project site were notified by United States Postal Service mail regarding this public hearing in accordance with city ordinance and state law. Signs are required as part of the public notification process and must be posted between 20 to 60 days before the public hearing date. Photographs of the posted signage and the Declaration of Posting Public Hearing Notice signed by the applicant are on file at the Planning Division.

Comments Received. As of this writing, no further written public comments have been received.

VTTM 7500 (Phased)
CONCLUSIONS:

Consistency with General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The applicant has requested approval of VTTM 7500 (Phased) to subdivide 39.90 acres into 208 single-family residential lots, 1 sump lot, and 4 landscape lotsranging in size from 5,000 s.f. to 11,638 s.f., on property designated LR in a R-1 zone. The purpose of this request is to facilitate future residential development. The proposal is consistent with land use goals and policies as contained in the General Plan, which encourages continuity of existing development and allows incremental expansion of infrastructure. Additionally, the proposed project is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance, and any future development on-site will also be required to comply with all applicable regulations and design standards as identified in the Zoning Ordinance.

Recommendation. Staff finds that the applicable provisions of CEQA have been complied with, and the proposal is compatible with the existing land use designation and land uses in the surrounding area.

Staff finds the proposed subdivision is reasonable and the request to waive mineral rights is consistent with BMC Section 16.20.060 A.1. Based on information in the record, Staff recommends your Commission adopt the Resolution and findings APPROVING Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7500 (Phased) as outlined in this staff report subject to the recommended conditions.

ATTACHMENTS:

Map Set
• Aerial
• Zone Classification
• General Plan Designation
• Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7500 (Phased)
Planning Commission Draft Resolution
RESOLUTION NO. 41-25

RESOLUTION OF THE BAKERSFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION
TO APPROVE VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 7500 (PHASED)

LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF OLD RIVER ROAD
AND MC CUTCHEN ROAD.

WHEREAS, McIntosh & Associates (Applicant), representing Franmar Company and Loyola Properties I, LP(Property Owner), filed an application with the City of Bakersfield Planning Department requesting a Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7500 (the "Project"), and a modification request to allow reverse corner lots, lot frontage and lot width reduction, and double frontage Lots, consisting of 208 lots, 1 sump lot, and 4 landscape lots on 39.92 acres to develop single family residential development, as shown on attached Exhibit "C", located northeast corner of Old River Road and Mc Cutchen Road as shown on attached Exhibit "B"; and WHEREAS, the application was deemed complete on July 2, 2025; and WHEREAS, an initial study was conducted and it was determined that the Project would not have a significant effect on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and approved by the City Council on March 12, 2008, in conjunction with General Plan Amendment/Zone Change No. 07-1874, in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and
WHEREAS, the Secretary of the Planning Commission, did set, Thursday, August 21, 2025, at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California, as the time and place for a public hearing before the Planning Commission to consider the Project, and notice of the public hearing was given in the manner provided in Title 16 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the laws and regulations relating to CEQA and the City of Bakersfield's CEQA Implementation Procedures have been duly followed by city staff and the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bakersfield Planning Department (1715 Chester Avenue, Bakersfield, California) is the custodian of all documents and other materials upon which the environmental determination is based; and
WHEREAS, the facts presented in the staff report, environmental review, and special studies (if any), and evidence received both in writing and by verbal testimony at the above referenced public hearing support the following findings:

Page 1 of 3 ends

2. Staff determined that the proposed activity is a project, an MND was prepared for the original project (General Plan Amendment/Zone Change No. 07-187 4) of the subject property, and was adopted on March 12, 2008, by the City Council for the original project, and duly noticed for public review.

3. Said Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project is the appropriate environmental document to accompany approval of the Project. In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no further environmental documentation is necessary because no substantial changes to the original project are proposed, there are no substantial changes in circumstances under which the project will be undertaken, and no new environmental impacts have been identified. The Project will not significantly impact the physical environment because mitigation measures relating to General Plan Amendment/Zone Change No. 07-187 4 have been incorporated into the Project.

4. Urban services are available for the proposed development. The Project is within an area to be served by all necessary utilities and waste disposal systems. Improvements proposed as part of the Project will deliver utilities to the individual lots or parcels to be created.

5. The application, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan. (Subdivision Map Act Section 66473.5) The proposed density and intensity of development are consistent with the LR (Low Density Residential) land use classification on the property. Proposed road improvements are consistent with the Circulation Element. The overall design of the project, as conditioned, is consistent with the goals and policies of all elements of the General Plan.

6. Mineral right owners' signatures may be waived on the final map pursuant to Bakersfield Municipal Code Section 16.20.060 A.1. The applicant has provided evidence with the Project application that it is appropriate to waive mineral right owners' signatures because in accordance with BMC Section 16.20.060 A. l ., the party's right of surface entry has been by recorded document prior to recordation of any final map.

7. In accordance with BMC 16.28.170 H, Mc Cutchen Road and Old River Road function as a major streets as shown on the Project, therefore the abutting double frontage lots are reasonable due to controlling factors as traffic, safety, appearance, and setback, and are approved with construction of a 6-foot high masonry wall separating the residential lot and the major street.

8. The request for modification(s) is consistent with sound engineering practices or subdivision design features.

9. The conditions of approval are necessary for orderly development and to provide for the public health, welfare, and safety.

Page 2 of 3 ends

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Bakersfield as follows:
1 . The recitals above are true and correct and incorporated herein by this reference.

2. This map pertains to the Mitigated Negative Declaration previously approved in conjunction with Project General Plan Amendment/Zone Change No. 07-1874.

3. Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7500 (Phased) is hereby approved with conditions of approval and mitigation measures shown on Exhibit "A".

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting held on the 21st day of August, 2025, on a motion by Commissioner Neal, seconded by Commissioner Brandt Oliver the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

Bittle, Brandt Oliver, Kaur, Martin, Neal, Strickland
None
ABSENT: Cater
Exhibits {attached):

Exhibit A: Conditions of Approval
Exhibit B: Location Map
APPROVED~/
~ICKLAND, C~
City of Bakersfield Planning Commission
Exhibit C: Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7500 (Phased)
By VM S:\0S_Land Division\PP-TCTM-25-000I_VTTM 7500_NEC Old River Rd & Mccutchen Rd\0I_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\Temp/ates\_fC-Res.docx

Page 3 of 3 ends

EXHIBIT "A"
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 7500

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
NOTE to Subdivider/ Applicant: It is important that you review and comply with the requirements and deadlines listed in the "FOR YOUR INFORMATION" packet that is provided separately. This packet contains existing ordinance requirements, policies, and departmental operating procedures as they may apply to this subdivision.

PUBLIC WORKS
l. There was no letter submitted requesting deviations from Public Works standards.

3. Prior to grading plan review submit the following for review and approval:

3.3. If the tract is discharging storm water to a canal, a channel, or the Kern River: In order to meet the requirements of the City of Bakersfield's NPDES permit, and to prevent the introduction of sediments from construction or from storm events to the waters of the US, all storm water systems that ultimately convey drainage to the river or a canal shall have a mechanical device in the storm drain system to remove or minimize the introduction of oil, grease, trash, and sediments. This device shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and shall provide the greatest benefit to the storm drain system with the least maintenance cost.

4. The following conditions must be reflected in the design of the improvement plans:

4.1. Final plan check fees shall be submitted with the first plan check submission.

4.2. Per Resolution l 08-2023 the area within the Tract shall implement and comply with the "complete streets" policy. Complete streets will require pedestrian and bicycle access to the Tract from existing sidewalks and bike lanes. If there is a gap less than ¼ mile then construction of asphalt sidewalks and bike lanes to the tract will be required.

By VM\S:\05_Land Division\PP-TCTM-2fHJ001_ VTTM 7500_NEC Old River Rd & Mccutchen Rd\01_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\VTTM 7500_Exh Con.DOCX
Exhibit "A"
VTTM 7500

Page 2 of 16 ends

4.3. Install traffic signal interconnect conduit and pull rope for the frontage in all arterials and collectors. Install conduit and pull ropes in future traffic signal locations.

5. The subdivider shall either construct the equivalent full width landscaped median island in Mccutchen Dr for the site's frontage or pay $100 per Linear Feet (their proportionate share of the cost for the future construction of the median). Median islands shall be designed by the first tract or development to be approved on a side.

6. The subdivide is responsible for implementing the following:

6.1. The phasing map as submitted may be unbalanced with respect to the required improvements along the tract frontages. Therefore, in order to promote orderly development, each phase shall be responsible for an equal dollar amount of frontage improvement. Prior to recordation of each final map for any phase that does not construct its share of the improvements, the difference between the cost of the frontage improvements constructed and the phase share shall be placed into an escrow account. The money deposited in this account would be for the use of the developer of any future phase responsible for more than its share of improvements. The final per-lot share will be based upon an approved engineer's estimate. In lieu of the use of an escrow account, the developer may choose to construct with each phase its proportionate share of the frontage improvements, with approval of the City Engineer.

6.2. The following conditions are based upon the premise that filing of Final Maps will occur in the order shown on the map with Phase l first, then Phase 2, then Phase 3, By VM \ S:\0S_Land Division\PP-TCTM-25-0001 _ vrTM 7500_NEC Old River Rd & Mccutchen Rd\01 _Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\ vrTM 7500_Exh Con.DOCX
Exhibit "A"
VTTM 7500

Page 3 of 16 ends

etc. If recordation does not occur in that normal progression, then, prior to recordation of each final map, the City Engineer shall determine the extent of improvements to be done with that particular phase.

6.2. 1 . The following shall occur with Phase 1 :

6.2.1 .1. Construct Mccutchen Rd to full ½ width city arterial standards, from Rio Verde Dr to the westerly property line of Phase 2 lot 1.

6.2.1.2. Construct an asphalt walkway 5' wide, along Mccutchen Rd, from the westerly property line of Phase 2 lot 1 to Old River Rd.

6.2.2. The following shall occur with Phase 2:

6.2.2.1. Construct Mccutchen Rd to full ½ width city arterial standards, from the westerly property line of Phase 2 lot 1 to Old River Rd.

6.2.3. The following shall occur with Phase 3:

6.2.3.1. Construct Old River Rd to full ½ width city arterial standards, from Mccutchen Rd to the phase 3/ 4 boundary (between lots 41 & 35 of phase 3 & 4 respectively), including median landscaping.

6.2.4. The following shall occur with Phase 4:

6.2.4.1. Construct Old River Rd to full½ width city arterial standards, from the phase 3/ 4 boundary (between lots 41 & 35 of phase 3 & 4 respectively) to the northern tract boundary, including median landscaping.

By VM \ S:\0S_Land Division\PP-TCTM-25-0001 YTTM 7500_NEC Old River Rd & Mccutchen Rd\0I_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\ VTTM 7500_Exh Con.DOCX
Exhibit "A"
VTTM 7500

Page 4 of 16 ends

6.4. Where streets do not have curb and gutter, construct a minimum section of 36 feet wide consisting of 2-12' lanes, 2-4' paved shoulders and 2 additional feet per side of either AC or other dust proof surface.

6.5. The use of interim, non-standard drainage retention areas shall be in accordance with the drainage policy adopted by letter dated January 24, 1997.

6.8. Drainage basins shall be reviewed and approved by both the Public Works Department and the Water Resources Department.

6.9. Install blue markers in the street at the fire hydrants per the Fire Department requirements.

7. The following must be reflected in the final map design:

7.1. A waiver of direct access shall be required for all lots abutting any arterials and collectors.

8. Prior to recordation of the first final map within this project site, subdivider shall make written notification to the City Engineer of any public improvements required to be financed or constructed outside the boundaries of the tentative map (i.e., "offsite improvements) as defined in BMC 116. l 6.080(E), and the cost of such offsite improvements. The notice shall include an engineer's estimate or other documentation as required by the City Engineer that outlines by line item the specific offsite improvements for purposes of verifying extension of time eligibility pursuant to Government Code Section 66452.6(a). The written notification and documentation are subject to approval by the City Engineer or his/her designee.

9. Prior to recording the first final map:

9.1. The City Council must have taken final action for the inclusion of this tract within the Consolidated Maintenance District.
9 .2. The developer is required to construct an improvement which is on the facilities list for the Metropolitan Bakersfield Transportation Impact Fee Olive Dr. The developer shall receive credit against his traffic impact fees for constructing this project. The By VM \ S:\OS_Land Division\PP-TCTM-25-0001 _VTTM 7500_NEC Old River Rd & Mccutchen Rd\01_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\ VTTM 7500_Exh Con.DOCX
Exhibit "A"
VTTM 7500

Page 5 of 16 ends

developer must submit an appraisal, to be approved by the City Engineer, verifying the cost of the right-of-way to be acquired. This credit is not available until the improvement has been constructed by the developer and accepted for maintenance by the City. Any building permit issued prior to this acceptance shall pay the full impact fee.

10. Prior to recording each final map:

11. Prior to Notice of Completion:
11 .1. The storm drain system, including the sump, shall be inspected and any debris removed.

11.2. Street Name Signs (SNS):

11.2.1. Metro Size SNS shall be installed at the intersection of local streets with Arterial and collector streets.

11.2.2. Standard SNS shall be installed at all other locations.

12. This development is subject to conditions from GPA/ZC 07-187 4.

By VM \ S:\0S_Land Division\PP-TCTM-25-0001 _ VTTM 7500_NEC Old River Rd & Mccutchen Rd\0 1 _Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\ VTTM 7500_Exh Con.Docx
Exhibit "A"
VTTM 7500

Page 6 of 16 ends

WATER RESOURCES

13. Prior to recordation of the final subdivision map the Subdivider shall:

13.1 Execute and record a Domestic Water Service Agreement with the Water Department.

13.2 Pay all applicable fees to the Water Department.

13.3 Submit a Will Serve Letter from the Water Department to the Development Services Department.

13.4 Submit water system plans to the Water Department for review and approval.

Water system plans shall be prepared in accordance with the Water Department Standards and Specifications and per the Water Department's engineering recommendations.

Note to Subdivider: You should contact the Water Resources Dept. at least 4 months before the date you anticipate to record a final map.

13.7 If the Developer desires a public sump, a new Maintenance District for future maintenance of storm drain sump facilities shall be created. Undeveloped parcels within an existing Maintenance District will be required to update Maintenance District documents. Updated documents, including Proposition 218 Ballot and Covenant, shall be signed and notarized for any public sump (Note - If already within a maintenance district, the maintenance district form may need to be updated).

13.8 Drainage from this private tract shall be kept on site. Any proposed sump within the private development shall be privately maintained.

FIRE SAFETY DIVISION

14. Pipeline Easements.

By VM \ S:\0S_Land Division\PP-TCTM-25-0001 _VTTM 7500_NEC Old River Rd & Mccutchen Rd\01_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\ VTTM 7500_Exh Con.DOCX
Exhibit "A"
VTTM 7500

Page 7 of 16 ends

14.4 No habitable portion of a structure may be built within thirty (30) feet of a crude oil pipeline operating at twenty percent (20%) or greater of its design strength.

American Petroleum Institute Standards and Guidelines for property development

15. Fire Apparatus Access Roads and Hydrants

15.2 Dead-End fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet shall be provided with width and turnaround provisions in accordance with Table D 103.4 (California Fire Code)
Table D103.4
R eau,rmen t s f or D ea d -E n d F" ,re A ppara t us A ccess R oa d s Length Width Turnaround Required
(Feet) (Feet)
0-150 20 None required
By VM \ S:\0S_Land Division\PP-TCTM-25-0001 _ VTTM 7500_NEC Old River Rd & Mccutchen Rd\01 _Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\ VTTM 7500_Exh Con.Docx
Exhibit "A"
VTTM 7500

Page 8 of 16 ends

151-500
501-750
Over 750
120-foot Hammerhead, 60-foot "Y" or 96-foot
20 diameter cul-de-sac
120-foot Hammerhead, 60-foot "Y" or 96-foot
26 diameter cul-de-sac
Special Approval Required

RECREATION AND PARKS

16. Prior to recordation of each final map, the subdivider shall pay an in-lieu fee based on a park land dedication requirement of 2.5 acres per l 000 population in accordance with Chapter 15.80 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code. If the number of dwelling units increases or decreases upon recordation of a final map(s), the park land requirement will change accordingly. Refer to BMC Chapter 15.80 and the Planning Information Sheet regarding calculation and payment of in-lieu fee. In accordance with Government Code Section 66020(d), you are hereby notified that the 90-day period in which you may protest the imposition of this fee has begun.

BMC Chapter 15.80 requires the Planning Commission to determine if a subdivider is to dedicate park land, pay an in-lieu fee, reserve park land or a combination of these in order to satisfy the City's park land ordinance. Staff is recommending this condition in accordance with BMC Chapter 15.80.

17. Subdivider shall be responsible for improving medians with landscape on Old River Road.

CITY ATTORNEY

By VM \ S:\0S_Land Division\PP-TCTM-25-0001 YTTM 7500_NEC Old River Rd & Mccutchen Rd\01_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\ VTTM 7500_Exh Con.Docx
Exhibit "A"
VTTM 7500

Page 9 of 16 ends

The City will promptly notify Applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding, falling under this condition within thirty (30) days of actually receiving such claim. The City, in its sole discretion, shall be allowed to choose the attorney or outside law firm to defend the City at the sole cost and expense of the Applicant and the City is not obligated to use any law firm or attorney chosen by another entity or party.

PLANNING

20. The subdivision shall be recorded in no more than 5 phases. Phases shall be identified numerically and not alphabetically.

Orderly development.

21. The final map shall include a statement similar to the following and as approved by the Planning Director.

The subdivision is subject to the adopted Old River Ranch Parks & Trails Plan.

For orderly development.

22. Prior to recordation of each final map, the subdivider shall submit a "will serve" or "water availability" letter or other documentation acceptable to the Planning Director from the water purveyor stating the purveyor will provide water service to the phase to be recorded.

23. Mineral Rights: Prior to the recordation of the first final map, the following shall apply:

24. In the event a previously undocumented well is uncovered or discovered on the project site, the subdivider is responsible to contact the Department of Conservation's Division of Geologic Energy Management (CalGEM). The subdivider is responsible for any remedial By VM \ S:\0S_Land Division\PP-TCTM-25-000/_VTTM lS00_NEC Old River Rd & Mccutchen Rd\0I_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\ VTTM 7S00_Exh Con.DOCX
Exhibit "A"
VTTM 7500

Page 10 of 16 ends

operations on the well required by CalGEM. Subdivider shall also be subject to provisions of BMC Section 15.66.080 (B.)
Police power based on public health, welfare and safety.

26. The following Subdivision Ordinance Deviation requests are approved:
(BMC Section 16.28.170.B.3)

26.1 Reverse corner lots for:

Phase 1 Lot 27
Phase 4 Lot 40
(BMC Section 16.28.170.P)

26.2 Lot Frontage & Lot Width for:

Phase 1 through 4; All lots.
(BMC 16.28.170.B and 16.28.170.D)

26.3 Double Frontage Lots for the following with 6-foot high masonry wall and landscaping along Mccutchen and Old River Roads:

Phase 2, Lots l, 5 through 13
Phase 3, Lots 25 through 41
Phase 4, Lots 23 through 35
(BMC 16.28.170.H)

Page 11 of 16 ends

Mitigation/Conditions of Approval
General Plan Amendment/Zone Change No. 07-1874
Cultural Impact Mitigation Measures

29. If human remains are discovered during grading or construction activities, work would cease pursuant to Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code.

Agricultural Impact Miflqatjon Measure

Air Qualjty Impact Mjtigatjon Measures
By VM \ S:\0SJ._and Division\PP-TCTM-25--0001 _VTTM 7500..NEC Old River Rd & Mccutchen Rd\0 IJ-learing & Noticing Documents\Draft\ VTTM 7S00_Exh Con.Docx
Exhibit "A"
VTTM 7500

Page 12 of 16 ends

PM-1 O Mitigation Measures:

31. During construction on the project site, the applicant shall implement the following mitigation measures in order to reduce project emissions. PM-1 0 will be the most affected criteria pollutant by the proposed mitigation measures.

Construction equipment mitigation measures and design feature mitigation measures are also being included to reduce project related impacts:

Water all unpaved or haul road surfaces as needed. Mitigation for potentially significant air quality impacts.

Limit speed on all unpaved roads to 15 mph. Mitigation for potentially significant air quality impacts.

Water any exposed ground surfaces as needed. Mitigation for potentially significant air quality impacts.

Stabilize all disturbed areas including inactive storage piles on an as needed basis.

Mitigation for potentially significant air quality impacts.

Maintain at least a 6-inch freeboard space during transport of materials and/or cover and wet to limit dust emissions. Mitigation for potentially significant air quality impacts.

Cease grading activities during periods of high winds where entrainment of dust will exceed the SJV APCD 20% opacity requirements. Mitigation for potentially significant air quality impacts.

Construction Equipment Mitigation Measures:

Limit idling to no more than 20 minutes at a time. Mitigation for potentially significant air quality impacts.

All construction equipment shall be maintained to manufacturers' specifications.

Encourage employees at the construction sites to carpool to and from work as well as during established lunch hours. Mitigation for potentially significant air quality impacts.

The applicant shall install street lighting along the project site. Mitigation for potentially significant air quality impacts.

Sidewalk coverage throughout the proposed project. Mitigation for potentially significant air quality impacts.

By VM \ S:\0S_Land Division\PP-TCTM-25-0001 _VTTM 7500_NEC Old River Rd & Mccutchen Rd\0 I_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Droft\ VTTM 7500_Exh Con.DOCX
Exhibit "A"
VTTM 7500

Page 13 of 16 ends

Shade trees shall be installed to allow moderate coverage of walkways and/or bikeways. Mitigation for potentially significant air quality impacts.

Pedestrian safety signs shall be provided with signalization, where appropriate.

Mitigation for potentially significant air quality impacts.

Construction Equipment Mitigation Measures:

With the demolition of buildings or removal of trees, all surfaces shall be wetted during demolition/removal. Mitigation for potentially significant air quality impacts.

Any construction site with 150 or more vehicle trips per day shall prevent carryout and track-out. Mitigation for potentially significant air quality impacts.

Enhanced and Additional Control Measures for Construction Emissions of PM-10. (From Table 6-31: The following measures shall be implemented at construction site to mitigate significant PM-1 0 impacts:

By VM \ S:\05_Land Division\PP-TCTM-25-0001 _VTTM 7500_NEC Old River Rd & Mccutchen Rd\01_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\ VTTM 7500_Exh Con.DOCX
Exhibit "A"
VTTM 7500

Page 14 of 16 ends

Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph. Mitigation for potentially significant air quality impacts.

Mitigation for potentially significant air quality impacts.

Install wind breaks at windward side(s) of construction areas. Mitigation for potentially significant air quality impacts.

Limit area subject to excavation, grading, and other construction activity at any one time.

Mitigation for potentially significant air quality impacts.

City Attorney's Condition

By VM \ S:\0S_Lond Division\PP-TCTM-25-000J_VITM 7500_NEC Old River Rd & Mccutchen Rd\01_Heoring & Noticing Documents\Droft\ VITM 7500_Exh Con.DOCX
Exhibit "A"
VTTM 7500

Page 15 of 16 ends

The City will promptly notify Applicant of any such claim, action or preceding, falling under this condition within thirty (30) days of actually receiving such claim. The City, in its sole discretion, shall be allowed to choose the attorney or outside law firm to defend the City at the sole cost and expense of the Applicant and the City is not obligated to use any law firm or attorney chosen by another entity or party.

Public Works Department Conditions

Dedications shall include sufficient widths for expanded intersections and additional areas for landscaping as directed by the City Engineer. Dedication shall also include sufficient width for trails in accordance with the approved Parks and Trails Plan for this area. Submit a current title report with the dedication documents.
b. This GPA/ZC area is too small to support it's own storm drainage sump. The City will allow no more than one sump per 80 acres; therefore, this GP A/ZC area must be included within the drainage area of adjoining property. Submit a comprehensive drainage study of the entire drainage area, to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. Any required retention site and necessary easements shall be dedicated to the City.
c. Sewer service must be provided to the GPA/ZC area. Submit a comprehensive sewer study to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. The study shall be in conformance with the Plant 3 Master Study. The developer shall be responsible for the initial extension of the sewer line to serve the property. This sewer line must necessarily be sized to serve a much larger area that the project area. The City is willing to aid the developer in the formation of a Planned Sewer Area and/or an Assessment District to provide a mechanism for the reimbursement of oversizing costs to the developer.
d. In order to preserve the permeability of the sump and to prevent the introduction of sediments from construction or from storm events, all retention and detention basins (sumps) shall have a mechanical device in the storm drain system to remove or minimize the introduction of oil, grease, trash, and sediments to the sump. This device shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer, and shall provide the greatest benefit to the storm drain system with the least maintenance cost.
e. Developer is responsible for the construction of all infrastructure, both public and private, within the boundary of the GPA/ZC area. This includes the construction of any and all boundary streets to the centerline of the street, unless otherwise specified. The developer is also responsible for the construction of any off site infrastructure required to support this development, as identified in these conditions.

For orderly development.

By VM \ S:\0S_Land Division\PP-TCTM-25-0001 _VTTM 7500_NEC Old River Rd & Mccutchen Rd\01_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\ VTTM 7500_Exh Con.Docx
Exhibit "A"
VTTM 7500

Page 16 of 16 ends

36. Payment of the proportionate share of the cost of the median for the arterial frontage of the property within the GP A/ZC request is required prior to recordation of any map or approval of any improvement plan for the GPA/ZC area. For orderly development.

37. Traffic Mitigation: Pay the proportionate share of the following mitigation measures (not paid for by the Regional Transportation Impact Fee or included with normal development improvements) as indicated in Table 6 of the traffic study. An updated estimate, based upon current costs, and fee schedule shall be developed by the applicant and approved prior to recordation of a map or issuance of a building permit. Proportionate shares from the study as follows:
a. White Ln & Old River Rd., Add l EBL, l WBR, l WBL, 1.04% share b. Panama Ln & Old River Rd., Expand to 1 EBL, 3 EBT, 1 EBR, 1 WBL, 3 WBT, 1 WBR, 2 NBL, 2 NBT, l NBR, l SBL, 2 SBT, 1 SBR, 1.46% share (100% share of adding No. 2 NBL)
c. Panama Ln & Gosford Rd., Expand to standard expanded intersection plus Add l EBT, l WBR, l NBR, 0.64% share
Mitigation for potentially significant traffic impacts.

By VM \ S:\0S_Land Division\PP-TCTM-25-0001 YTTM 7500_NEC Old River Rd & Mccutchen Rd\0 !_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Draft\ VTTM 7500_Exh Con.DOCX
Vesting Tentative Tract Map
7500
Exhibit B

CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
R-1/P.U.D.

VTTM7500
Independence
High School
R-1/P.U.D.
,-j
ct::

R-1
"' ~uu zUJ "' <( UJ
a: a: ,_ ____ IXl U - '-'."'---_, z SLEEPY HOLLOW LN _, I ROg_j~ R-1 ,~ " CREEK WAY ~ t------------------1~ ~ R-1 J3
R-1
" UJ ~u~u "' ~ ;:
~_J
<
~-R-1 !!?
!:IIC'.
~!~ :>a: Oa: :c ::.o a:~ ;:
0 a: ---
L----~ = D:OVERS R!:U~N:,_:.:,R:;_D ___ _ ...

UJ
ct!
u
R-1 "'lo UJ a:
" u " UJ :::, UJ
~ a: u
z;::::::::::::~::::::~~=======:-< SNOWY RIVER DR ~[ """'.~:"' "" f l :Jl,'--3 __ _, ALMOND CREEK D,R _____________ '-./ R-1
R-1
R-5
R-2

WINDING STREAM AVE
I!)~
Zu
;:::: a: 0 <(
0~
:c "' "'
z"'
~ UJ z a: UJ ..J uu <( a:

DRAWBRIDGE
DR
oz
UJ O ~ ~ ~ V\
R-1
R-1
Zoning R-1 One Family Dwelling
6,000 sq,ft, min lot
size
R-1-4.5 One Family
Dwelling
4,500 sq.ft. min lot
size
E Estate
10,000 sq.ft. min lot
size
R-S Residential
Suburban
24,000 sq.ftJdwelling
unit
R-S-( ) Residential
Suburban
1, 2.5, 5 or 10 min lot
size
R-2 Limited Multiple
Family Dwelling
4,500 sq.ft. min lot
size (single family)
6,000 sq.ft. min lot
size (multifamily)
2,500 sq.ft. lot areal
dwelling unit
R-3 Multiple Family
Dwelling
6,000 sq.ft. min lot
size
1,250 sq.ft. lot areal
dwelling unit
R-4 High Density
Multiple Family Dwelling
6,000 sq.ft. min lot
size
600 sq.ft, lot areal
dwelling unit
R-H Residentlal Holding
20 acre min lot size
A Agriculture
6,000 sq.ft. min lot
size
A-20A Agriculture
20 acre min lot size
PUD Planned Unit
Development
TT Travel Trailer Park
MH Mobilehome
C-0 Professional and
Administrative Office
C-1 Neighborhood
Commercial
C-2 Regional
Commercial
C-C Commercial Center
C-B Central Business
PCD Planned
Commercial
Development
M-1 Light Manufacturing
M-2 General
Manufacturing
M-3 Heavy Industrial
l:,

BAKERSFIELD
t
Feet
0 500 1,000

MAP PACKAGE
ExhibitC
-~
I
l;e
i~I§ bl
-~
i
"""'"Ji ;i ~1 J. -"·•-··~
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT No. 7500 BBNG A MERGER AND RE-SUBDIVISION OF LOTS 25 & 32 OF SALES MAP OF LANDS OF KERN COUNTY LAND COMPANY, FILED JUNE 16, 1897 IN lliE OFFICE OF lliE KERN COUNTY RECORDER, ALSO BEING A PORTION OF lliE SOUlli\\'EST QUARTER OF SECTION 29, TO\\NSHIP 30 SOUlli, RANGE 27 EAST, MOUNT DIABLO BASE AND MERIDIAN, IN lliE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, COUNTY OF KERN, STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

CONTAINING 208 BUILDABLE RESIDENTIAL LOTS, 1 SUMP LOT ANO 4 LANDSCAPE LOTS, 39.92 GROSS ACRES JANUARY 2025
I I I
TRACT No. 7243 14.BK.61~3-6
14 : ~~iR \?
: 15 ! 16
" 2! 21
, j !.l).orf~W'501ldtlil.Wro«/~ 50.0150.oo'50.00'50.!Xf!¼o:l'SO.W' 60 65 64 63 62 61 1'54
5W~ ~ -~ -~ r: 5.lm' ~ Slld so.cxr SC.!JO' mW !.l).r,:f WW SJJrf MW 50.W 50lXI' ~oo' ric.or/ -- 1!<.gg" -
t ~ NGS BE!ICHMARK DESIGNATION - O!.D R!-.£R
OWNER/SUBDIVIDER:
fRNIMAR COMPA?~Y, (66.6~ AtlO
LOYClA PROPERTIES I, lP (JJ.JJ%)
P.O. BOX 11358
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93389 CONTACT: MATTHEW WAOE
Ptt00(;(661)885--9406
MdllTOSH
~ & ASSOCIATES
STATION 1S 0.2 U:LES SOUTI:i OF lHE COHERUNt
INlERS£Cll0tl OF TAn tt:GHWAY 119 AN:l OLD Rllfffi
ROAD ON THE l£H.
10800 STOCl<OAlE HWY. STE. 103
8AK£RSflUO. CA 93311
CQNTACT: 8t.AJNE NEPTUNE
PHOt/E: (661) BJ4-<4-a14 ELEVATION .. J38.676' (N,WO ae DATUM) GENERAL NOTES· "1l.P.OAlllllPR0\!l.lf.NtSNlltruw.Gf:1!11HS ~9!AU.0Ci'l~'ICE'MTI1THE UE~CTMPIIASESAAff"ffi
~
! f!ro.JllOIENTSESlA£USIEl)fifn£0TYCfBAk£RSflEI.D. UlffiflCATKWfU'l?OSES,_'ltlDONOT 7m ITISAHTICl'ATEDlllATTHECRJ.DN::r.:i'rnlS 1lli.l:Tlll8E ll£CESSARI..Ylllf'l.YTI-ECRlER Cf' i'l:a=i-J · lllHll"lM:AVruitSOJllJ,tOWIIGISttllOMIUU>J.{O)CJ'" M:WMOPALCOOE. ~ litSTRA.."TNU.ll£0£\0.CffDtll.1PT04
,u REnMl RAOII AR£ 2!J' lfUS'S On-EnlSl'. lil)ml.

AU.CU..-OC-SACl:l(Nll()'1£RETIJRNRA!lilAAEn'.
lilOA.-OE-SACSAA£StflWllJS.

AU.mioo.ESAA£92'RIQll'S.

THE '!RACT $I.LL rcuow TI-ti "twi'l.ETE smu:t" f>CUCY PfJ!RfSCUJTIOMHCl.108-2023.

NOstRLICTIJ!fSCIJIIRDill'l'tlllSIIW!.ITL
MOIIJMENTLEGfND;
Ml F0.2"1ROOPIPETAGCEOLS7214,22"octf'
P£R TRACT t4o. 7243, PM. BK. 61, PGS. l-6
U2 fD. ClllC. i/00, IN UI. W/il.C. STAMPEO LS 7Z!4 PERlRACTNo. n.r,7,ltBlt62,PCS. 31-l5 IU H.1/4COO.SfC.l2,l0/11,rD.K.C.S.2"1P.

Wfa.C. I.IKD. FOOCOO.A!iO h'OV1975P£RR/S
BK..24,PG.7I

1.14 S.E. COR.. LOT 31, fD.K.C.S. t' IP. PU! K.C.S.
fl.ED MAPffo.. 7-1 BK. 6, PG. 26
M5 FD. NA.l. & lltl FOO Rf, PER K.C.SI.B. 1132, PG 12 IJ6 ftl.R.R. Sf'll(£FCRR.P,PERK.C.5.F,B, 1132,PG.12 U7 SW. COO. LOT 17. Fl>. COOC. WOOT. W/BPJ,SS CAP WKO.lS31!J7fflJ.l,l?HOCEPERTRACT~6ID ""5EL
MB ro:.t.'OCONC.Ma!UMENiltlUlSTAl.l?EDLS56ll
PER"tllACT7136PHJ.st:l,BK.66,POS.U.S-m.
"""'-
NOTE TO PlA'®NCOO'A-~llIDH RE: ,1.LIERMATl:'.Sm£CTW.llrS 1H£ FCUatm. Sr,;'EET NAIIES M>£. Pi«>'.llED AS A1.TOOA.l£S. PU.liS£ (Xffii0(R f,£SE NAIIES II rnEORt£RUSlEDTOREF'LACfNN.IESONTI£
WJ>THATUAYJrol&NXO'TA8l£.
'·""' 2.lJND'J,iC:
~
APN:540-010-19
ACRE.'.AGE: 39.92 CR. AC./ 34.78 NET AC, tM!BrROFtOTS:lOBBULO"-BLE

1.tTOEtlSllY, 5.930U./M;f AC.

PRoPOSEOUst:REStOE!ITIAt
WlERALPLA. .. OESIGllATION: LR
ZON',N~R-1
WATER SOORtt: CITYOf BAKERSflELD SEWAGE DISPOSAI.: OTY Of 8A.1(fR$f1£1.D GAS CO. - PAClflC GAS &; filCffilC COMPANY
C>.Bl.£-SPEClRl.lf.!
PHr.tlE- AT&T
30 T. 30 S., R. 27 E.

PROJECT
SITE
11131 ;
I
29 LEGEND:
;;'
~

5.fIJl
S.W.Lk.C.LC.
l'l>J\{R{il)ll[CTACCISS
WAU.fOOffiG(ASO!ull
SEARCHFORfOONDNOnmt:
5ALESMAP~LA.\'OSOf
KERff ro,;m LAW CWPA.'N
------Pilo.:tCTBOOl'iOA.~Y
-·· ----oe----- OlS!!i(; O\~A!I EllC. l.llit
--msr,;Gm:!CAJ1(],lt.N:
-------c---OlStll.t; CAS UNE
--··-·-----·-····--fUIURt LOTS
EASEMENT LEGEND;
<i>~r:~~~~~~~.i:-:,s
q)~~~r::-~~
Et.EClR/CAl - PAQFIC GAS & El£CIRIC CC,.IPA.,_Y
SCHOa.OiSlitClS:lA.'<ESOEUN:OHSCHOCI.DiSTIOCT
,.,..,--"¾s..._ _ _...........
.. EJOSllNGCQHIXJ!l rn$JlNCWCt,\WlT
EXlSTitlG POW! PCU:
c:xm:w::OO't,NC:UY
&K°™tt:GH SCHOO.O!STitCT ◊
50100.S;
02070076900.R.
<Y ~!~?J& Cf"ooc.~1:0\Wo.R.
0 ~r~~1~~k~f::-
EI.D.lrnTA.'l:Y- OOIIAl.D E. SIJBURU SCflOOL
MllDLESOiCU.-lA.'CES10£sa«XX.
1f,OOS(.HOO.-IND£PO.WlC(H,'GHSCHOOl ~l.
h"\. CL PAOFlC CAS "' nrcmc CXM"A.'iY PQ.[
'\'1/UN£u.sEtIDITPm8K.l451,PC.6o.R.

A 10' w.oe: CTY Cf" B.-IJ(ffi$fl[Ll) nOWACf.: &; INAllU,ct:
'&'f.l.S£UENTPERDOC.tio.OJ02170231680R.
<i>
~2: - ""'l <E> 15' ~ ClTY Cf" 8AKERSflElD PEDESTillA.'i W>ll01AY tASOIEHT <?) ~ ~·~fy ~~~~ ID!POOIJrr S£V,£R H.SOlalT
~~ P[R00C.tl(>.02iJ108H780R.
~<w ,.,,
(CUIR3\'ERRO/
~ 80!Jl,l)A/IY7-.:(1 ',.Ol$T.
. PJ.~~<l__;J;_ . J::;;.: rn,1.~w,,= .,Z g:3~~ ~:;.
l',l,\'fUUH t.OJJ.~f-"FIRl ED OlD RIVER ROAD (ARTERIAL) I SECTION A SCAtE·1• .. 10· P/1. 6'UN
• 91.(91..-,.J. Rfil 5i1•,n I
(THE EXACT lOCAIDI ISh'OT ASC!RTMOOLE fRal R£Cal!l) J2 ~ ~
, L. v••=-~ ~- ~;o _,o,,oAA,
6"'':,41f I
A--...C.OAIDIPCW,RYWAITRLN:COOSlRUCllOOEASOJEJITPER
~DOC.tKl,21702.31&6,0.R.
,;,
"'"" ' 2
3 .

TOTAL:
m>.u
LOIS
.,
" " 83
"'
LS. SUI.If'
tOJ lOT
- 2 -
' ' ' -
' '
;,:.. .,., -l-- ~~~~u:e);;~L
(B MoCU "~ ,,_, 1 TCHEN ROAD (ARTOML)
SECTION B SCALE: 1-=10'
il 2X vi 2X ~
""'-"- '..,,,.,.,,, 2¥>} ..,.; '"':::'.f -=• ?~"-'"'-:::i ZONSA-• "'f-: .. --·-, ~. sfils'i.\l'e, . •. __ :::;.~""'F-l,1 :'_._'3"" ,-.:~$. •<! u.teuseut (of-) ~°l.r11. . . e1~i~ ~~ ~:~g: <;'~ ~r:i:" " i .
~
,, __ _/
- ... 0
I ! ~ i ~!I!~
I
X ~ a:

Ui
1ihi ... 0 I- It~~, Q!~ ' ~ I _Jj I_ --
□

Page 1 of 20 ends

NEGATIVE DECLARATION
The City of Bakersfield Planning Department has completed an initial study (attached) of the possible environmental effects of the following-described project and has determined that a Negative Declaration is appropriate. It has been found that the proposed project, as described and proposed to be mitigated (if required), will not have a significant effect on the environment. This determination has been made according to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and the City of Bakersfield’s CEQA Implementation Procedures.

PROJECT (Title & No.): General Plan Amendment/Zone Change No. 07-1874, Annexation No. 549, (McCutchen #8 Annexation).

COMMENT PERIOD BEGINS: November 16, 2007
COMMENT PERIOD ENDS: December 7, 2007
MITIGATION MEASURES (included in the proposed project to avoid potentially significant effects, if required):

Cultural Impact Mitigation Measures

1. Prior to ground-disturbance activities associated with this project, personnel associated with the grading effort shall be informed of the importance of the potential cultural and archaeological resources (i.e. archaeological sites, artifacts, features, burials, etc.) that may be encountered during site preparation activities, how to identify those resources in the field, and of the regulatory protections afforded to those resources. The personnel shall be informed of procedures relating to the discovery of archaeological remains during grading activities and cautioned to avoid archaeological finds with equipment and not collect artifacts. The applicant/developer of the project site shall submit documentation to the Planning Department that they have met this requirement prior to commencement of ground-disturbance activities.

This documentation should include information on the date(s) of training activities, the individual(s) that conducted the training, a description of the training, and a list of names of those who were trained. Should cultural remains be uncovered, the on-site supervisor shall immediately notify a qualified archaeologist.

2. If human remains are discovered during grading or construction activities, work would cease pursuant to Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. If human remains are identified on the site at any time, work shall stop at the location of the find and the Kern County Coroner shall be notified immediately (Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code and Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code which details the appropriate actions necessary for addressing the remains) and the local Native American community shall be notified immediately.

Agricultural Impact Mitigation Measure

3. In an attempt to reduce complaints and unwarranted investigations undertaken by the Kern County Department of Agriculture, the following disclosure is suggested to be provided as part of the transfer of properties:
“If your real property is adjacent to property used for agricultural operations, you may be subject to inconveniences or discomforts arising from such operations on any 24-hour basis. Said discomforts may include, but shall not be limited to equipment noise, odors from manure and other chemicals, and dust or smoke. It has been determined that in Kern County the use of real property for agricultural operations if such operations are consistent with accepted customs, standards, and laws.”

Page 2 of 20 ends

Air Quality Impact Mitigation Measures
The applicant is proposing the following mitigation measures in order to reduce projected emissions. PM10 will be the most affected criteria pollutant by the proposed mitigation measures. Construction equipment mitigation measures and design feature mitigation measures area also begin included to reduce project related impacts.

PM-10 Mitigation Measures:

4. Water all unpaved or haul road surfaces as needed.

5. Limit speed on all unpaved roads to 15 mph.

6. Water any exposed ground surfaces as needed.

7. Stabilize all disturbed areas including inactive storage piles on an as needed basis.

8. Maintain at least a 6-inch freeboard space during transport of materials and/or cover and wet to limit dust emissions.

9. Remove mud or dirt accumulations on public roadways immediately when track out exceeds 50 or more feet as well as at the end of the workday.

10. Cease grading activities during periods of high winds where entrainment of dust will exceed the SJVAPCD 20% opacity requirements.

Construction Equipment Mitigation Measures:

11. Limit idling to no more than 20 minutes at a time.

12. All construction equipment shall be maintained to manufacturers’ specifications.

13. Where possible electric equipment shall be used in lieu of diesel or gas powered equipment.

14. Encourage employees at the construction sites to carpool to and from work as well as during established lunch hours.

In order to reduce project related emissions from mobile sources a number of ‘design features’ can be incorporated into the project. These ‘design features’ help to facilitate alternatives to traditional vehicle use, thereby reducing vehicle trips, miles traveled, idling and traffic congestion as well as reducing project related emissions. The following ‘design features’ will be incorporated into the proposed project to reduce emissions:

15. Street lighting.

16. Sidewalk coverage throughout the proposed project.

17. Shade trees with moderate coverage of walkways and/or bikeways.

18. Pedestrian safety signs will be provided with signalization where appropriate.

Regulation VIII Control Measures (From Table 6-2):

19. All disturbed areas, including storage piles, which are not being actively utilized for construction purposes, shall be effectively stabilized of dust emissions using water, chemical stabilizer/suppressant, covered with a tarp or other suitable cover or vegetative ground cover.

20. All on-site unpaved roads and off-site unpaved access roads shall be effectively stabilized of dust emissions using water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant.

21. All land clearing, grubbing, scraping, excavation, land leveling, grading, cut and fill, and demolition activities shall be effectively controlled of fugitive dust emissions utilizing application of water or by presoaking.

22. With the demolition of buildings up to six stories in height, all exterior surfaces of the building shall be wetted during demolition.

23. When materials are transported off-site, all material shall be covered, or effectively wetted to limit visible dust emissions, and at least six inches of freeboard space from the top of the container shall be maintained.

24. All operations shall limit or expeditiously remove the accumulation of mud or dirt from adjacent public streets at the end of each workday. (The use of dry rotary brushes is expressly prohibited except where preceded of accompanied by sufficient wetting to limit the visible dust emissions) (Use of blower devices is expressly forbidden)

Page 3 of 20 ends

25. Following the addition of materials to, or the removal of materials from, the surface of outdoor storage piles, said piles shall be effectively stabilized of fugitive dust emissions utilizing sufficient water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant.

26. Within urban areas, an owner/operator shall prevent carryout and track-out, or immediately remove carryout and track-out when it extends 50 feet or more from the nearest unpaved surface exit point of the site.

27. Any construction site with 150 or more vehicle trips per day shall prevent carryout and track-out.

Enhanced and Additional Control Measures for Construction Emissions of PM-10. (From Table 6-3):

Enhanced Control Measures. – Measures to be implemented at construction site to mitigate significant PM-10 impacts:

28. Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph;

29. Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways from sites with a slope greater than one percent.

Additional Control Measures. – Measures that are encouraged at large construction sites located near sensitive receptors, or for projects requiring additional emissions reductions:

30. Track out will be prevented by one of the following:
o A Grizzly with rails, pipes or grates to dislodge debris off of existing vehicles, o A layer of washed gravel at one inch or larger in diameter, three inches deep, o Extension of paved road at least 100 feet from publicly maintained road, or o Installation of a wheel washer.

31. Install wind breaks at windward side(s) of construction areas.

32. Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds exceed 20 mph (Regardless of wind speed, an owner/operator must comply with Regulation VIII’s 20 percent opacity limitation).

33. Limit area subject to excavation, grading, and other construction activity at any one time.

Page 4 of 20 ends

INITIAL STUDY

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

1. Project (Title & No.): General Plan Amendment/Zone Change No. 07-1874, Annexation No. 549, (McCutchen #8)

2. Lead Agency (name and address): City of Bakersfield Planning Department, 1715 Chester Avenue, Bakersfield, California 93301

3. Contact Person (name, title, phone): Martin Ortiz, Associate Planner, (661) 326 - 3777

4. Project Location: The project site is located at the northeast corner of McCutchen Road and Old River Road. Assessor’s Parcel Number 497-032-19.

5. Applicant (name and address): McIntosh & Associates, 2001 Wheelan Court, Bakersfield, CA 93309

6. Existing General Plan Designations: R-IA (Resource-Intensive Agriculture)

7. Existing Zoning: A (Agriculture)

8. Description of Project (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation.):

The project proposes a General Plan Amendment from R-IA to LR (Low Density Residential) on 38.09 acres and a Zone Change from A to R-1 (One Family Dwelling) Zone on the same 38.09 acres. The proposal would allow the development of single family residential dwelling units on the site. The proposal also includes the annexation of the site to the City of Bakersfield.

9. Environmental setting (Briefly describe the existing onsite conditions and surrounding land uses.):

The 38.09-acre project site is located in the southwestern portion of the Metropolitan Bakersfield area, northeast of McCutchen Road and Old River Road. The site is currently designated with an agricultural land use and zoning. The site is currently fallow agricultural land. The area west of the site is being developed with the new Independence High School. The areas north and south of the site are fallow land and agriculture, respectively. The area east of the site is in grape vines.

SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING

DIRECTION GENERAL PLAN

DESIGNATION

ZONING DISTRICT EXISTING LAND USE
NORTH LR R-1 Fallow Agriculture Land
SOUTH R-IA A Agriculture
EAST LR R-1 Grape Vineyards
WEST LR R-1 & R-1/PUD New High School (Independence) under construction

10. Other public agencies whose approval is anticipated to be required (e.g., permits, financing approval or participation agreement): Building Permits
Kern County LAFCO

Page 5 of 20 ends

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:

As indicated by the checklist on the following pages, the project would result in potentially significant impacts with respect to the environmental factors checked below (Impacts reduced to a less than significant level through the incorporation of mitigation are not considered potentially significant.):
□ Aesthetics □ Agricultural Resources □ Air Quality
□ Biological Resources □ Cultural Resources □ Geology / Soils □ Hazards & Hazardous Materials □ Hydrology / Water Quality □ Land Use / Planning □ Mineral Resources □ Noise □ Population / Housing
□ Public Services □ Recreation □ Transportation / Traffic □ Utilities / Service Systems □ Mandatory Findings of Significance ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

On the basis of this initial evaluation:
□ I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment, and a negative declaration will be prepared.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A mitigated negative declaration will be prepared. □ I find that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment, and an environmental impact report is required.
□ I find that the proposed project may have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect has been (1) adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on the attached sheets. An environmental impact report is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. □ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects have been (1) analyzed adequately in an earlier environmental impact report or negative declaration pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier environmental impact report or negative declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

November 10, 2007
Signature Date
Martin Ortiz, Associate Planner
Printed name

Page 6 of 20 ends

EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question.

A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, “Earlier Analyses,” may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant.

Page 7 of 20 ends

Environmental Issue
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I. AESTHETICS: Would the project;
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcrops, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES:

In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project;
a) Convert prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance (farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use? III. AIR QUALITY:

Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project;
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project;
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with an established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project;
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?

Page 8 of 20 ends

Environmental Issue
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project;
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines & Geology Special Publication No. 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in the city’s most recently adopted Uniform Building Code, creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project; a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous material into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wild land fires, including where wild lands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wild lands?
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project;
Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? a) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? b) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?

Page 9 of 20 ends

Environmental Issue
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
d) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
e) Otherwise, substantially degrade water quality?
f) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area, structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? i) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mud flow?
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project;
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?
X. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project;
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site that is delineated in a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
XI. NOISE: Would the project result in;
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project;
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes & businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES:
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services; i. Fire protection?
ii. Police protection?
iii. Schools?

Page 10 of 20 ends

Environmental Issue
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
iv. Parks?
v. Other public facilities?
XIV. RECREATION: Would the project:;
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project;
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project;
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

Page 11 of 20 ends

EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
General Plan Amendment/Zone Change No. 07-1874
Annexation No. 549, McCutchen #8
I. AESTHETICS
a. The project site is located within an area having slopes from 0 - 5%. The area is not regarded or designated within the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan as visually important or “scenic”.

There is no scenic vista that will be impacted by construction of this project. No impact. b. The project does not include the removal of trees, the destruction of rock outcroppings or degradation of any historic building. The project is not adjacent to a state highway which is designated as “scenic”. The project site is currently undeveloped. No impact. c. There are visual impacts with any new development but this project is typical of the area and no impacts are regarded as potentially significant. Less than significant impact. d. This project involves urban development typical of the area. Light from this development will not substantially affect views in this area either at night or daytime as the light generated is typical of urban development. The general area is developed and this project will infill vacant property.

Typical development standards as required by the zoning ordinance address the issue of light and glare. Less than significant impact.

II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES
a. A Farmland Conversion Study was prepared for the proposal. The project site is to change

38.09 acres from agriculture to residential land use and zoning designation. The site is currently fallow agricultural land. The project does not convert 100 acres or more of the farmlands designated prime, unique or of statewide significance to nonagricultural uses. See Department of Conservation Kern County Interim-Farmland 2004, sheet 2 of 3. Large parcel size is, in general, an important indicator of potential agricultural suitability and productivity. As of December 31, 2005, there were approximately 1.65 million acres under Williamson Act and Farmland Security Zone contracts in Kern County (Kathe Malouf, Kern County Planning Department, personal communication October 12, 2006). The loss of less than 100 acres is not considered a significant change to this resource as it represents only 0.006% of the total amount of land under Williamson Act and Farmland Security Zone contracts in Kern County. State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15206 does not regard the cancellation of less than 100 acres of land from the Williamson Act to be of statewide, regional or areawide significance. Thus, when evaluated independently and cumulatively, this project poses no impact. b. The subject site (38.09 acres) is zoned for agricultural uses and the site is currently fallow land.

The project site is not under a Williamson Act Contract. The subject site does not meet the 100 acre criteria as shown in item number II.a. above. No impact. c. There are no special attributes of this project site, related to location or nature that will cause or could result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use. The project is in an area designated for urban development by the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan. The project itself is typical of the development found in Metropolitan Bakersfield which should not, by its specific nature, result in the conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses. Less than significant impact.

III. AIR QUALITY
a. An Air Quality Impact Analysis (McIntosh & Associates, October 2007) was prepared for the project proposal. The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) encourages local jurisdictions to design all developments in ways that reduce air pollution from vehicles, which is the largest single category of air pollution in the San Joaquin Valley. The Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts promulgated by the SJVAPCD (page 16 and Section 6) lists various land uses and design strategies that reduce air quality impacts of new development. Local ordinance and general plan requirements, related to landscaping, sidewalks, street improvements, level of traffic service, energy efficient heating and cooling building code requirements, and location of commercial development in proximity to residential development is consistent with these listed strategies. According to the SJVAPCD rules, this project would be subject to the full range of local ordinance and regional regulations, which

Page 12 of 20 ends

ensure compliance with these air quality strategies. The Air Quality Impact Analysis prepared for the project proposal has determined that the project will not interfere with adopted Air Quality standards, with the recommended mitigation measures. Therefore, there are no significant impacts noted as implementation of existing ordinances and rules will reduce impacts to less than significant.
b. The project does not violate the air quality standards set forth on page 26, table 4-1 of the Ozone Precursor Emissions thresholds for Project Operations ROG 10 tons/year, NOx 10 tons/year (Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts). The project is also not within the distance triggers noted in table 4-2, Project screening trigger levels for potential odor sources (Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts). Dust suppression measures listed as Regulation VIII is required for all construction in the San Joaquin Valley including the City of Bakersfield and are regarded by SJVAPCD as sufficient mitigation to reduce PM10 impacts to less than significant. Also, additional mitigation measures were recommended by the Air Quality Impact Analysis prepared for the project and are recommended as part of the project. c. The project will not increase any criteria pollutant beyond the level of significance as defined by the SJVAPCD. Under GAMAQI guidelines, any proposed project that would have individually significant air quality impacts would also be considered to have significant cumulative air quality impacts. The project’s cumulative impacts would be less than significant since there are no individual significant adverse air quality related effects. The impact is regarded as less than significant.
d. According to the Air Quality Impact Analysis prepared for the project, the project will not cause one or more streets at one or more intersections within the general project area to be reduced to a Level of Service (LOS) E or F; nor will it substantially worsen an existing LOS F on one or more streets or intersections within the general project area. A CO or Hot Spots analysis was not warranted for this project and therefore, was not performed. The record does not find that this project creates any pollutant “hot spot” that would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollution receptors. The only potential “hot spots” are located at intersections which are “severely” congested. Therefore by definition no significant pollutant “hot spot” impacts are identified for this project. Less than significant impact. e. The land use proposed for this project does not have the potential to create objectionable odors.

This proposal is not on the list of those land uses generally regarded as the type to have site odor problems (please refer to the list on page 27, table 4-2, of the Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts). Less than significant impact.

IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
a. The project is subject to the terms of the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (MBHCP) and associated Section 10 (a) (1) (b) and Section 2081 permits issued to the City of Bakersfield by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game, respectively, and Incidental Take Permit PRT-786634 and associated Implementation/Management Agreement by and among the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game, City of Bakersfield and County of Kern (said documents hereby incorporated by reference). Terms of these permits require applicants for all development projects within the plan area to pay habitat mitigation fees, excavate known kit fox dens, and notify agencies prior to grading in areas of known dens. With implementation of the MBHCP, impacts are considered to be less than significant.

For areas having Bakersfield Blunt-Nosed Leopard Lizards, prior to land disturbance, the applicant is required to determine the presence of Blunt-Nosed Leopard Lizards and mitigate accordingly.
b. This project is not located within or adjacent to the Kern River riparian habitat area, but is within the MBHCP area. The MBHCP, in agreement with the California Department of Fish and Game and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, includes ordinance requirements for all development projects in the HCP area. Compliance with the plan mitigates biological impacts to a less than significant level.
c. There are no wetlands adjacent to or near the project site. The proposal would not have a significant impact on any wetlands.

Page 13 of 20 ends

d. The project is not within the Kern River flood plain (noted as a wildlife corridor in the MBHCP), or along a canal which has been identified by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service as a corridor for native resident wildlife species. The record does support a finding that the project area is a nursery site for native wildlife species. No Impact. e. The MBHCP has been adopted as policy and is implemented by ordinance. The plan addresses biological impacts within the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Area. The development entitled by this proposal will be required to comply with this plan and, therefore, will not be in conflict with either local biological policy or ordinance. Less than significant impact. f. There are no other adopted plans which are applicable to this area which relate to biological resources; see answer to IV.e. above.

V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
a. There are no structures on the site. A Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for the site was prepared by Hudlow Cultural Resource Associates. The Survey indicates that there are no structures on site that eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (Public Resources Code SS5024.1, Title 14 CCR Section 4850 et. Seq.) and therefore, is not an issue for the project site. There are no resources on or near the project site that are listed in a local register of historical resources as defined in Section 5020.1 (k) of the Public Resources Code.

There are no significant historical resources meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1 (g) of the Public Resources Code. No Impact.
b. The Southern San Joaquin Valley Archaeological Information Center at California State University, Bakersfield has reviewed the existing literature for archaeological resources and reported that the project will not have a significant impact on archaeological resources. Again, a Phase I Cultural Resource Survey was prepared for the project that did not identify archaeological resources on site. Mitigation measures, found on page 1 of this document, are recommended for the project to reduce impacts to less than significance. c. The project site is not located in northeast Bakersfield, the only known unique paleontological resource area within the Metropolitan Bakersfield area.

Topography of the site is relatively flat and there is no evidence that construction of the project will destroy any unique geologic structure. No significant impacts are noted. d. The proposal is not anticipated to disturb any human remains. However, if human remains are discovered during grading or construction activities, further work would be prohibited pursuant to Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. If Native American remains are identified, Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code and Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code detail the appropriate actions necessary for addressing Native American remains. Mitigation measures are recommended for the project to reduce impacts to less than significance.

VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
a.i. Bakersfield and the San Joaquin Valley are within a seismically active area. According to the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, major active fault systems border the southern portion of the San Joaquin Valley. Among these major active fault systems include the San Andreas, Breckenridge-Kern County, Garlock, Pond Poso, and White Wolf faults. There are numerous additional smaller faults suspected to occur within the Bakersfield area which may or may not be active. The active faults have a maximum credible Richter magnitude that ranges from 6.0 (Breckenridge - Kern Canyon) to 8.3 (San Andreas). Potential seismic hazards in the planning area involve strong ground shaking, fault rupture, liquefaction and landslides.

Future structures proposed on the project site are required by state law and City ordinance to be constructed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code (seismic zone 4, which has the most stringent seismic construction requirements in the United States), and to adhere to all modern earthquake construction standards, including those relating to soil characteristics. This will ensure that all seismically related hazards remain less than significant. In addition, because of the relatively flat topography of the project site, landslides are not considered to be a potentially significant geologic hazard.
a.ii. See answer to VI.a.i.

Page 14 of 20 ends

a.iii. Liquefaction potential is a combination of unconsolidated soil type and high ground water combined with high potential seismic activity. This project site does not demonstrate the three attributes necessary to have a potentially significant impact. See also the answer to VI.a.i. a.iv. See answer to VI.a.i.
b. The soil types prevalent on the proposed site are listed in the unpublished Soil Survey of Kern County, California, Southwestern Part (United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service). The project site includes soil type of Kimberlina fine sandy loam (30 acres) and of Cajon sandy loam overblown (8 acres). Due to the characteristics of the on-site soil types and the relatively flat terrain, implementation of the project will not result in significant erosion, displacement of soils or soil expansion problems or limit the use of septic systems. The project will be subject to City ordinances and standards relative to soils and geology. Standard compliance requirements include detailed site specific soil analysis prior to issuance of building permits and adherence to applicable building codes in accordance with the Uniform Building Code. No significant impact.
c. See answers to VI.a.i. and VI.a.ii. In addition, the Seismic Hazard Atlas map of Kern County prepared by the United States Department of the Interior Geological Survey does not indicate that the project area is subject to subsidence, liquefaction or other unique geological hazard. No significant impact.
d. See answer to VI.b.
e. See answer to VI.b.

VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
a. The record does not indicate that this project (or this type of land use in general) involves the transport or use of hazardous materials in any quantity which has been identified by responsible agencies as having the potential to be a significant environmental impact. b. See answer to VII.a.
c. The record does not support a finding that this project or this category of projects has been identified by responsible agencies as having the potential to emit hazardous emissions at a level which is potentially significant.
d. The project is not located on any site catalogued on the most recent hazardous materials list compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. No significant impact is identified. e. The project site is not located within an area subject to the land use restrictions within the adopted 1996 Kern County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (1996) (ALUCP) which covers all of Kern County. No significant impact.
f. See answer to VII.e.
g. The proposed project, typical of other developments in the Bakersfield area, is not inconsistent with the adopted City of Bakersfield Hazardous Materials Area Plan (Jan.1997). This plan identifies responsibilities and provides coordination of emergency response at the local level in response to a hazardous materials incident. The project would not interfere with any local or regional emergency response or evacuation plans because the project would not result in a substantial alteration to the adjacent and area circulation system. No significant impact is noted. h. This project is not located adjacent to a wild land area nor is it within the area covered by the Hillside Development Zone (HD), which has standards required by the City of Bakersfield Fire Department to address the issue of wild land fires and urban development. No significant impacts are identified.

VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
a. The proposed project will be implemented in accordance with all applicable water quality standards and waste discharge requirements, which will ensure that the quality and quantity of surface water flowing from the site would not be substantially affected. No significant impact is identified.
b. The proposed development will not result in a need for significant additional systems or substantially alter the existing water utilities in the area. Expansion of all water utilities would be required to serve this development, but the impact is not considered significant. All water

Page 15 of 20 ends

companies within the project area have been contacted regarding the proposal. The appropriate water utility company may require the project applicant to provide water system improvements to service the site, but this impact is not regarded as significant. c. There are no streams or rivers on the project site, existing drainage patterns will not be altered to a significant degree. All development within the City of Bakersfield is required by ordinance to comply with an approved drainage plan (for every project) which avoids on-site and off-site flooding, erosion and siltation problems. No significant impact is identified. d. See answer to VIII.c.
e. See answer to VIII.c.
f. See answer to VIII.a.
g. The project does not propose housing within a 100-year flood plain as identified by the Flood Insurance Rate Map or any other flood hazard map. No significant impact is noted. h. The project does not propose any structures within a 100-year flood hazard area. No impact is noted.
i. The project is within the Lake Isabella dam failure inundation area, but not the 100-year flood plain for the Kern River as depicted on figure VIII-2 of the Bakersfield Metropolitan General Plan (Safety Element). However, chances of loss, injury and/or death are so remote (the worst case scenario is one event in more than 10,000 years - source: Bakersfield Heart Hospital FEIR) that the risk is regarded as insignificant (reference also the Kern County Flood Evacuation Plan for Kern County and Greater Bakersfield Area below Lake Isabella Dam). j. The project site is not located near any significantly sized body of water and is, therefore, not susceptible to a seiche or tsunami. The site is not located at the foot of any significant topographical feature with the potential to be subject to a mud flow. No significant impact is noted.

IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING
a. The project is a continuation of the existing urban development pattern that does not physically divide the Metropolitan Bakersfield Plan Area. No significant impact is noted. See Table 1 below that shows the existing land uses and zoning of adjacent properties.

TABLE 1

LAND USE/ZONING OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES

LOCATION LAND USE

DESIGNATION ZONE DISTRICT EXISTING LAND USE
NORTH LR R-1 Fallow Agriculture
SOUTH R-IA A Agriculture
EAST LR R-I Grape Vineyards
WEST LR & R-IA R-1 & R-1/PUD New High School (Independence) under construction
Land Use Designations Zoning Districts
R-IA - Resource – Intensive Agriculture A - Agriculture Zone LR - Low Density Residential R-1 - One Family Dwelling Zone R-I/PUD - One Family Dwelling/Planned Unit Development
b. The project is required to be consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan and the City of Bakersfield Zoning Ordinance. No significant impacts are noted. c. See answer to IV.a., IV.e., IV.f.

X. MINERAL RESOURCES
a. The project is not located within a state designated oil field or within an area of other important mineral resources. There has not been any known oil exploration and production occurring on the project site. No Impact noted.
b. See answer to X.a.

Page 16 of 20 ends

XI. NOISE
a. Development of the project site will not expose persons or generate noise in excess of those standards found in the Noise Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan. The impact is not regarded as significant.
b. There is no evidence in the record of any noise impacts associated with ground bourne vibration or noise. No significant impacts are noted.
c. Ambient noise levels will increase through any urban type of development of the site. Building code requirements required for energy conservation will result in a 20-decibel reduction in noise for habitable interior space. In addition, typical development standards including building setbacks, walls, and landscaping will contribute to decreasing the ambient noise levels from the adjoining area. The project is not anticipated to expose people to severe noise levels and existing ordinance requirements will reduce noise impacts to less than significant. d. Noise associated with construction of the project is the only temporary (or periodic) increase of ambient noise levels. This temporary change in ambient noise levels has not been found to be significant.
e. See answer to VII.e.
f. This project is not located within the vicinity (5,000 feet) of any private airstrip and therefore would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. Less than significant impact.

XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING
a. The project will induce population growth in this area, but this impact is regarded as less than significant as the project is the logical extension of existing urban development or is an infill project, see Table 2.

TABLE 2

POPULATION PROJECTIONS

PROPOSED

LAND USE DWELLING UNITS PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD POPULATION Single Family 172 du 3.01 517
Multifamily 0 du 2.77 0
TOTALS 172 du N/A 517
Source: 2000 Federal Census
b. The project will induce population growth in this area, but this impact is regarded as less than significant as the project is the logical extension of existing urban development. Less than significant impact.
c. The project site is currently undeveloped with no structures. No significant impacts are noted. d. The project would not result in the displacement of homes. No significant impacts are noted.

XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a. Fire protection services for the Metropolitan Bakersfield area are provided through a joint fire protection agreement between the City and County. The projected increase of approximately 517 new residents and 172 new structures into the City through the proposal may necessitate the addition of fire equipment and personnel to maintain current levels of service. However, this potential increase in fire protection services can be paid for by property taxes generated by this development and is not deemed significant.
b. Police protection will be provided by the Bakersfield Police Department upon project build out.

Current City Police services standards require 1.32 officers for every 1,000 people in the City.

The projected increase of 517 new residents into the City may necessitate the addition of law

Page 17 of 20 ends

enforcement officers to maintain current levels of service. However, this potential increase in services can be paid for by property taxes generated by this development and is not deemed significant.
c. The proposed development could produce 172 dwellings units and generate approximately 145 school age children as indicated in Table 3. This increase may necessitate the construction of additional school facilities. However, existing school impact fees and increased property tax revenues will reduce impacts on schools to less than significant.

TABLE 3

SCHOOL CHILDREN GENERATION

TYPE AND NUMBER OF

DWELLING UNITS

ELEMENTARY
K - 8

HIGH SCHOOL
9 - 12 TOTAL PUPILS
Single Family
172 units 172 x 0.62 = 106 172 x 0.23 = 39 145
Duplex
(b) units N/A x 0.39 N/A x 0.14 N/A
Multifamily
(c) units N/A x 0.31 N/A x 0.17 N/A
Mobile Home
(d) units N/A x 0.34 N/A x 0.12 N/A
TOTALS 106 39 145
Source: 2000 Federal Census; Student Generation Rates - 2003 Kern County Office of Education d. The project proposes a population increase of 517 persons and may result in an impact upon the quality and quantity of existing recreational opportunities and may create a need for new parks or recreational facilities. The parkland requirements for the proposed project are calculated based on the General Plan and City Ordinance park standards of 2.5 acres for every 1,000 people. Total park acreage estimated for the project is 1.29 acres. In addition, every residential unit must pay a park land development fee at the time of the issuance of building permits.

Compliance with the park acreage dedication ordinance and the park development fee ordinance ensures that parks are dedicated and built in accordance with City standards. The impact is not considered significant.
e. Other public facility improvements from the proposed development and eventual buildup of this area will result in an increase in maintenance responsibility for the City of Bakersfield. These increases in services are not deemed significant.

XIV. RECREATION
a. See answer to Parks, (XIII.d.).
b. See answer to Parks, (XIII.d.).

XV. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
a. A Traffic Impact Study has been prepared for the project (McIntosh & Associates, November 2006). The trip generation analysis prepared for the project indicates that the project would generate approximately 129 AM peak hour trips and 174 PM peak hour trips, with an Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of 1,679.

Page 18 of 20 ends

TABLE 5

PROJECT TRAFFIC
PM Peak Hour/AM Peak Hour/Daily Traffic
Land Use Acres Density
D.U.’s/AC
D.U.’s ITE
Code
Rate
Peak
Hour
Trips
Split
In
Split
Out
Single Family Residential
PM

38.09 4.50 172 210 Note 1 174 111 63
AM

38.09 4.50 172 210 Note 2 129 32 97
ADT

38.09 4.50 172 210 Note 3 1679 840 840
Source: Traffic Study, prepared by McIntosh & Associates, November 2006.

Note 1: Used average of Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.90 Ln(x) + 0.53 and Average Rate: (T) =

1.01 x (D.U.’s) to determine trip generation.

Note 2: Used average of Fitted Curve Equation: T = 0.700(x) + 9.43 and Average Rate: (T) = 0.751 x (D.U.’s) to determine trip generation.

Note 3: Used average of Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.920 Ln(x) + 2.71 and Average Rate: (T) =

9.57 x (D.U.’s) to determine trip generation.

The traffic impact study found that the project has the potential to significantly impact at several intersections and roadway segments. However, the study also found that if certain mitigation measures are proposed for the project, the impacts would be reduced to a level that is less than significant. The subject intersections and roadway segments as well as proposed mitigation measures are described in the traffic study prepared for the project. b. See answer to XV.a.
c. There are no air traffic issues associated with the proposal. No impact. d. All road improvements are subject to compliance with accepted traffic engineering standards which are intended to reduce traffic hazards. There are no incompatible uses which have been identified with this project. No significant impact noted. e. The proposal would not impact any emergency management agency’s ability to access the area regarding emergency situations. No significant impact noted. f. The zoning ordinance requires that parking appropriate to each type of land use be provided.

No significant parking impacts specific to this project have been identified. g. The project is anticipated to be consistent with any policies or programs supporting alternative transportation and shall by ordinance be required to pay transportation impact fees which in part are used to support mass transit (acquisition of buses for GET). No significant impact.

XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
a. This project will be connected to sanitary city sewer when annexed to the City of Bakersfield and will meet the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. No potential significant impacts have been identified.
b. The proposed development would not result in the need for significant additional systems or substantially alter the existing water or wastewater facilities. Expansion of all utilities would be required to serve this development, but the impact is not considered significant. c. Almost all new development requires the construction of new storm water facilities, the construction of which is typically an extension of the existing system. This incremental improvement is not considered to be a significant impact. d. The proposed development would not result in a need for significant additional systems or substantially alter the existing water utilities in the area. The site is within the California Water Service District. Expansion of water utilities would be required to serve this development, but the impact is not considered significant.

Page 19 of 20 ends

e. The City of Bakersfield will be the waste water treatment provider upon completion of the annexation and has indicated there is sufficient capacity in the existing plant to serve this project.

No significant impact is noted.
f. The Bena Landfill serves the Metropolitan Bakersfield area. The landfill will not need significant new or substantially altered facilities to accommodate this project. No significant impact is noted.
g. The project will not breach published national, state or local standards relating to waste reduction, litter control or solid waste disposal. See answer to XVI.f. No significant impact is noted.

XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a. The project is subject to the terms of the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan and associated Section 10 (a)(1)(b) and Section 2801permits issued to the City of Bakersfield by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the California State Department of Fish and Game, respectively. Terms of the permit require applicants for all development projects within the plan area to pay habitat mitigation fees, excavate known kit fox dens, and notify agencies prior to grading. Compliance with the plan mitigates biological impacts to a level that is less than significant. Therefore, the proposal would not have a significant effect on the environment. b. As described in the response above, the proposal has no significant impacts that would be defined as individually limited but cumulatively considerable. The project is only proposing a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to allow for the development of residential uses. c. As described in the responses above, the proposal would not adversely impact human beings, either directly or indirectly.

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\03_Complete\2007\07-1874\ND\ND-1874.doc Page 20 of 20

BIBLIOGRAPHY/REFERENCE LIST

1. The Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, City of Bakersfield, adopted by Resolution No. 222-02 on December 11, 2002, became effective of February 26, 2003.

2. The City of Bakersfield Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), State Clearinghouse (SCH) # 1989070302, by Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates (RBF Consulting) for the City of Bakersfield and County of Kern, June 26, 2002.

3. The City of Bakersfield Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), State Clearinghouse (SCH) # 1989070302, by Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates (RBF Consulting) for the City of Bakersfield and County of Kern, December 11, 2002.

4. FEIR Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (MBHCP), Thomas Reid Associates for the City of Bakersfield and the County of Kern, March 1991

5. MBHCP, Advisory Notice to Developers, 10 (a)(1)(b) and 2081 permits, 1994.

6. Implementation/Management Agreement by and among the United States Fish and Game Service, California Department of Fish and Game, City of Bakersfield and County of Kern.

7. Title 17, Zoning Ordinance, Bakersfield Municipal Code.

8. Title 16, Subdivision Map Act, Bakersfield Municipal Code.

9. Water Balance Report, City of Bakersfield, 2000.

10. Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts, San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, January 10, 2002, as updated.

11. Student Generation Rates. February 6, 2003. Kern County Office of Education. Prepared by: David Taussig & Associates.

12. City of Bakersfield CEQA Implementation Procedures.

13. City of Bakersfield Hazardous Materials Area Plan.

14. Kern County/Metro Bakersfield Congestion Management Plan.

15. Kern County, California - Soil Survey.

16. Kern County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, 1996.

17. Kern County Flood Evacuation Plan for Kern County and Greater Bakersfield Area below Lake Isabella.

18. Bakersfield Heart Hospital FEIR.

19. Department of Conservation - Kern County Interim Farmland (1986).

20. U.S. Department of Interior, Geologic Survey - Seismic Hazard Atlas.

21. Federal Emergency Management Agency - Flood Insurance Rate Maps.

22. Air Quality Impact Analysis, For Township 30 South, Range 27 East, M.D.M. Portion of the Southwest ¼ of Section 29, City of Bakersfield, County of Kern, State of California, Prepared by McIntosh & Associates, October 2007.

23. A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey, for Steve Antongiovanni, City of Bakersfield, California, Prepared by Hudlow Cultural Resource Associates, April 2006.

24. Traffic Impact Study, for Antongionvanni Property, Prepared by McIntosh & Associates, November 2006.

25. Farmland Conversion Study for Property Located North of McCutchen Road, between Old River Road and Progress Road, prepared by McIntosh & Associates, August 2006.

R-1 R-1
30 29
31 32
COUNTY
CITY
COUNTY
CITY
CITY
COUNTY

BERKSHIRE RD
PG&E Gas Transmission Pipeline
P
LR LR
R-IA
LR
LR
LR
LR
LR
LR
LR
R-IA
LR
LR
R-IA
LR
LI
MC
LR
HMR
LI
R-IA
GC
LR
LR
R-IA
LR

R R-IA -IA
HMR
R-IA
LMR
LR
SI
LR
LR
LR
LR
LR
GC
LR
LR
LR
LR
LR
GC
LR
LR
LR
LR
LR
LR
GC
R-IA
R-IA
R-IA
OC
R-IA
LR

MC CUTCHEN RD
G

OSFORD RD
BUENA

VISTA RD

OLD RIVER RD
PRO

GRESS RD

GREEN RD M

OUNTAIN VISTA DR

OLD RIVER RD
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 07-1874
0 800 1,600
Feet
T30S, R27E 100703

R-IA TO LR
R-1 R-1
30 29
31 32
COUNTY
CITY
COUNTY
CITY
CITY
COUNTY
BERKSHIRE RD PG&E Gas Transmission Pipeline
R1
A A
R-1
A
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
A
R-1
A
R-1 R-1/P.U.D.

A
R-2
R-1 R-1
R-1
R-1/P.U.D.

R-1 R-1
R-1
R-2/P.U.D.

M-1 C-2/P.C.D.

R-1/P.U.D.

C-2/P.C.D.

M-3
R-1
R-1
R-1/P.U.D.

R-1
R-1
C-2
R-1
R-1
R-1/P.U.D.

R-1
R-1
C-2/P.C.D.

C-1
R-1

MC CUTCHEN RD
G

OSFORD RD
BUENA

VISTA RD

OLD RIVER RD
PRO

GRESS RD

GREEN RD M

OUNTAIN VISTA DR

OLD RIVER RD
ZONE CHANGE 07-1874
0 800 1,600
Feet
T30S, R27E 100703
A TO R-1
August 22, 2025
Via Email
Julie Drimakis, CMC, CPMC, City Clerk
City of Bakersfield
1600 Truxtun Avenue, 1st Floor
Bakersfield, CA 93301
[email protected]
Jennie Eng, Planning Director
Development Services Department
City of Bakersfield
1715 Chester Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
[email protected]
Re: Appeal of August 21, 2025, Planning Commission Decision Approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 7500 Based on MND for GPA/ZC 07-1874 Dear Ms. Drimakis and Ms. Eng:

This letter is submitted on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) regarding the Planning Commission’s approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 7500, which proposes the subdivision of 39.92 acres into 208 single-family residential lots (“Project”). Through this letter, SAFER appeals the City of Bakersfield Planning Commission’s (“City”) August 21, 2025 decision to adopt a resolution approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 7500 based on a 2007 mitigated negative declaration for GPA/ZC 07- 1874 (the “2007 MND”).

The City’s decision to rely on the 2007 MND violates the California Environmental Quality Act. The Project may have significant impacts that were not considered in the 2007 MND, requiring preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. Alternatively, there is new information, changed circumstances, and new mitigation measures requiring preparation of a new MND.

Sincerely,
Rebecca Davis
Lozeau Drury LLP

October 21, 2025
Via Email
Manpreet Kaur, Vice Mayor
Eric Areas, Councilmember
Andrae Gonzales, Councilmember
Ken Weir, Councilmember
Bob Smith, Councilmember
Larry Koman, Councilmember
Zack Bashirtash, Councilmember
Bakersfield City Council
1501 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
[email protected]
Julie Drimakis, CMC, CPMC
Bakersfield City Clerk
First Floor
1600 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
[email protected]
Re: Comments on Appeal of August 21, 2025 Planning Commission Decision Approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 7500 Based on MND for GPA/ZC 07-1874; October 22, 2025 City Council Agenda Item 9.a Dear Vice Mayor Kaur and Honorable City Council Members:

This letter is submitted on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) regarding the Planning Commission’s approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 7500, which proposes the subdivision of 39.92 acres into 208 single-family residential lots (“Project”). SAFER appealed the City of Bakersfield (“City”) Planning Commission’s August 21, 2025 decision to adopt a resolution approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 7500 based on a 2007 mitigated negative declaration for GPA/ZC 07-1874 (the “2007 MND”). The appeal is scheduled to be heard at the October 22, 2025 City Council meeting as Agenda Item 9.a.

SAFER’s review of the MND was assisted by expert wildlife ecologist Dr. Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D., and air quality experts Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg. and Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. of environmental consulting firm, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (“SWAPE”), whose written comments and CVs are attached as Exhibits A and B, respectively.

As discussed below, the City’s decision to rely on the 2007 MND violates the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). The Project may have significant impacts that were not considered in the 2007 MND, requiring preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”).

Alternatively, there is new information, changed circumstances, and new mitigation measures requiring preparation of a new MND.

October 21, 2025
Appeal Re: Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7500

Page 2 of 9 ends

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The new Project proposes a vesting tentative tract map for 208 single-family residential lots on 39.92 acres in the City of Bakersfield. The Project is located at the Northeast corner of Old River Road and Mc Cutchen Road in southwest Bakersfield. The Project relies on a previous MND that was adopted on December 20, 2007, for a General Plan Amendment from R-IA to LR (Low Density Residential) and zone change from A to R-1 (One Family Dwelling) on 38.09 acres and a Zone Change (“2007 project”).

In addition to the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change, the 2007 project included the following elements:
● The 2007 Project allowed for the development of single family residential dwelling units on the site. It also included the annexation of the site to the City of Bakersfield.
● At the time of 2007 Project’s proposal, the area west of the site was being developed with the new Independence High School.
● The 2007 MND’s air quality analysis considered only 172 units, rather than the currently proposed 208 units.
● The 2007 MND also anticipated that the 2007 Project would be completed in phases occurring over approximately 3 years. It was anticipated that a typical build-out rate of 60 dwelling units per year will occur based upon previous projects of this nature.

The City is relying on the 2007 MND for the Project, claiming that no new significant impacts, nor substantial increase in severity of impacts will result with proposed VTTM 7500 from those previously identified in the MND for the 2007 project. Therefore, the City determined pursuant to CEQA Section 15162, no further environmental documentation is necessary because no substantial changes to the original project are proposed, there are no substantial changes in circumstances under which the project will be undertaken, and no new environmental impacts have been identified.

LEGAL STANDARD
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15162, a supplemental EIR or MND is required when:

1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;

2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or October 21, 2025
Appeal Re: Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7500

Page 3 of 9 ends

3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:

A. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
B. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
C. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
D. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
(14 CCR § 15162(a).)
The California Supreme Court explained when CEQA’s subsequent review provisions are applicable:
[U]nder CEQA, when there is a change in plans, circumstances, or available information after a project has received initial approval, the agency's environmental review obligations “turn[ ] on the value of the new information to the still pending decisionmaking process.” (Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council (1989) 490 U.S. 360, 374, 109 S.Ct. 1851, 104 L.Ed.2d 377 (Marsh).) If the original environmental document retains some informational value despite the proposed changes, then the agency proceeds to decide under CEQA’s subsequent review provisions whether project changes will require major revisions to the original environmental document because of the involvement of new, previously unconsidered significant environmental effects. (Friends of Coll. of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo Cnty. Cmty. Coll. Dist. (2016) 1 Cal. 5th 937, 951–52 (“San Mateo Gardens”).

The Court further explained the standard for preparation of a subsequent MND or EIR when the initially approved document is a negative declaration:
[W]hen a project is initially approved by negative declaration, a ‘major revision’ to the initial negative declaration will necessarily be required if the proposed modification may produce a significant environmental effect that had not previously been studied. (CEQA Guidelines § 15162.) Indeed, if the project modification introduces previously unstudied and potentially significant environmental effects that cannot be avoided or mitigated through further revisions to the project plans, the appropriate environmental document would no longer be a negative declaration at all, but an EIR.

October 21, 2025
Appeal Re: Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7500

Page 4 of 9 ends

(San Mateo Gardens, 1 Cal.5th 937, 958.)
Said another way, if, because of new information or changed circumstances a new or more substantial impact was not previously studied, then a further EIR is required if the change “may produce a significant environmental effect.” (Id.) This is determined under the “fair argument” standard, meaning that an EIR is required if there is any substantial evidence that changes in circumstances or new information not previously available demonstrates that the project may have a significant environmental impact.
“‘If changes to a project or its circumstances occur or new information becomes available after adoption of a negative declaration,’ and if no subsequent EIR is required, the agency ‘shall determine whether to prepare a subsequent negative declaration, an addendum, or no further documentation.’(Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College Dist. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937, 946, quoting CEQA Guidelines, § 15162(b).) “While minor changes may be addressed through an addendum, where potentially significant impacts are introduced, a new or subsequent EIR is required.” (San Mateo Gardens, 1 Cal.5th at 958.)

DISCUSSION
I. The Expiration of the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan and the Identification of New Special-Status Species are Significant Changes in Circumstances, Precluding Reliance on the 2007 MND for the Project.

A. Expiration of the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan is a Changed Circumstance Requiring Major Revisions to the MND Because the Project May Significantly Impact Species Covered by the Former HCP.

There is substantial evidence of changed circumstances since the certification of the 2007 MND indicating that the Project may have significant unmitigated biological resources impacts.

The 2007 MND concluded that the Project’s biological resources impacts would be less than significant with implementation of the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (“MBHCP”). (MND, p. 12.) However, the MBHCP and its accompanying state and federal incidental take permits expired on January 1, 2023, and currently no replacement conservation plan or permitting mechanism exist. (See City of Bakersfield Memorandum, “Pending Expiration of the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan” (Nov. 15, 2022); City of Bakersfield Memorandum, “Report on the status of efforts toward adoption of a new Habitat Conservation Plan, Implications of Expiration of the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan, and Request for City Council direction” (Feb. 8, 2023); City of Bakersfield Webpage, “Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan,” (accessed Oct. 18, 2023) (attached as Exhibit C).) As a result, the City can no longer rely on the MBHCP’s mitigation framework to offset impacts to special-status species covered under the plan, such as the San Joaquin kit fox, Blunt-nosed leopard lizard, Tipton kangaroo rat, Giant kangaroo, and San Joaquin (Nelson’s) antelope squirrel. (MBHCP, pp. ii-iii.) Even though the Project site remains within the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan Area—previously covered by the MBHCP—the October 21, 2025
Appeal Re: Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7500

Page 5 of 9 ends

expiration of the MBHCP represents a substantial change in circumstance under CEQA, precluding reliance on the 2007 MND. (14 CCR §§ 15162(a)(2); 15162(b); San Mateo Gardens, 1 Cal.5th at 958.)
He concludes that because “there exists no MBHCP into which a mitigation fee can be paid,” the sole measure to reduce biological resources impacts to less-than-significant in the 2007 MND “would no longer apply to the proposed project.” (Ex. A, p. 2.) Without mitigation to replace the MBHCP, Dr. Smallwood concludes that the Project will likely result in significant impacts to wildlife previously covered by the MBHCP, including habitat loss, interference with wildlife movement, predation by house cats, road mortality, and contributions to cumulative impacts. (Id., pp. 7, 9.)
An example of special-status species previously covered by the MBHCP that would be impacted by the Project is the federally and state protected San Joaquin kit fox. Many studies show that the federally and state protected San Joaquin kit fox continues to be impacted by the increase in urban development in Bakersfield. (See Exhibit D [studies on the impacts to San Joaquin kit fox in Bakersfield].) The ability of the kit fox to disperse and otherwise move is critical to its survival as a species. In its most recent status report for the kit fox, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (“CDFW”) reported the kit fox as a “Declining” species. (See Exhibit D, CDFW, Species Accounts Mammals (2005), pp. 27-29.) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“USFWS”) has assigned the kit fox a recovery priority of 3C, based on a 1-18 ranking system where 1 is the highest-ranked recovery priority and 18 is the lowest. (See Exhibit D, USFWS, 5-Year Review: San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica) (Sept. 11, 2020), pp. 3-4.) The “C” indicates conflict with construction or other development projects or other forms of economic activity. (Id.) The expiration of the MBHCP means there is no longer any protection for the San Joaquin kit fox, which may be significantly impacted by the Project’s construction.

The USFWS recent assessments of the kit fox in Bakersfield provides substantial evidence of a fair argument that the Project could result in significant unmitigated impacts to San Joaquin kit fox. (See Exhibit D, USFWS, Species Status Assessment Report for the San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica) (Aug. 2020).) The USFWS’s 2020 Special Status Assessment Report for the San Joaquin kit fox identifies the Bakersfield population as the most genetically diverse and therefore critical to the species’ survival. (Id., pp. 13, 15, 28, 44.) However, this population has undergone a severe decline, primarily due to vehicle strikes, habitat fragmentation, and interference with the species’ movement. (Id., pp. 32-37, 42-44, 47-53.) The USFWS Assessment Report emphasizes that new roads, increased traffic, and residential developments—such as those proposed by this Project—pose serious threats to the species by increasing mortality and reducing habitat connectivity. (Id., pp. 54-56.) The loss of an additional 40 acres of kit fox habitat is a significant impact and further harms the species.

The USFWS recommends mitigation measures in its 2011 Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance, such as treating potential dens as known dens, covering trenches, or setting construction speed limits. (See Exhibit D, USFWS, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During October 21, 2025
Appeal Re: Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7500

Page 6 of 9 ends

Ground Disturbance (Jan. 2011), pp. 1-9.) The City has not adopted any of these recommendation measures in 2007 MND or in the Staff Report for the Project.

Moreover, without a valid Section(10) take permit under the federal Endangered Species Act and a state 2081 take permit under the California Endangered Species Act, approval of the Project could result in unauthorized take of state and federally listed species in violation of state and federal law, such as the San Joaquin kit fox.

The MBHCP’s expiration is a substantial change in circumstances that will result in significant biological resources impacts. As a result, the City may not rely on the 2007 MND for the Project, and must prepare a subsequent MND or EIR. (14 CCR §§ 15162(a)(2); 15162(b); San Mateo Gardens, 1 Cal.5th at 958.)
B. The Presence of Special Status Species and the Decline in Abundance of Dozens of Species Resulting in Newly Listed Status is a Changed Circumstance Requiring Major Revisions to the MND Because the Project May Significantly Impact Special Status Species.

In addition, there is substantial evidence of changed circumstances regarding the presence of special-status species that will be impacted by the Project. Expert ecologist Dr. Smallwood found that “many additional changes in circumstance have taken place since the adoption of the 2007 MND,” including the identification of “108 special-status species of wildlife . . . near enough to the site to warrant analysis,” 41 of which “have been assigned special status since the adoption of the 2007 MND.” (Ex. A, pp. 2-6.) Each newly listed special-status species represents a significant change in circumstances requiring an updated analysis of biological resources impacts for the Project. (14 CCR § 15162(a)(2), (b).) Dr. Smallwood concludes these species may be impacted through habitat loss, interference with wildlife movement, predation by house cats, and road mortality. These new significant unmitigated impacts on special-status species were not analyzed in the 2007 MND. (Id., pp. 2-6.)
Because of the changed circumstances since the certification of 2007 MND and substantial evidence of a fair argument that the Project may have new significant impacts on special-status species, the City cannot rely on the 2007 MND and must prepare a subsequent MND or EIR for the Project. (14 CCR §§ 15162(a)(2); 15162(b); San Mateo Gardens, 1 Cal.5th at 958.)
II. The City’s Conclusions Regarding Biological Resources Impacts Are Not Supported by Substantial Evidence.

The City never prepared an expert analysis of the 2007 Project’s impacts on biological resources, and it did not prepare one for the now-proposed Project. Accordingly, the City has no substantial evidence to support its conclusions regarding the Project’s impacts on biological resources.

October 21, 2025
Appeal Re: Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7500

Page 7 of 9 ends

Dr. Smallwood explains that “[t]he City has not appropriately investigated the site for its use by wildlife, and it therefore lacks a defensible basis for determining whether special-status species are present or absent, and how potential project impacts to wildlife should be mitigated.” (Ex. A, p. 6.) As Dr. Smallwood notes, the City has not conducted recent biological surveys of the Project site, meaning its less-than-significant conclusions for biological resources impacts are unsupported by substantial evidence. (Id., pp. 6-7.)
Dr. Smallwood has surveyed hundreds of proposed project sites for wildlife, and many of these sites had already been disked. (Ex. A, pp. 6-7.) While the City might regard the Project site as unlikely to support special-status species of wildlife because it is disked, based on his experience, Dr. Smallwood notes that even heavily disturbed or disked sites continue to provide habitat and foraging opportunities for numerous special-status species, including the San Joaquin kit fox, burrowing owl, monarch butterfly, and loggerhead shrike. (Id., pp. 3-9) Dr. Smallwood therefore concludes that “[t]here is at least a fair argument . . . for the need to prepare an EIR to appropriately characterize the wildlife community, to analyze potential project impacts, and to formulate appropriate mitigation.” (Id., p. 9.)
Given the number of new special-status species, the lack of updated biological surveys, and the expiration of the MBHCP, the City’s conclusions about the Project’s impacts to biological resources are not supported by substantial evidence. As such, a subsequent MND or EIR, or at the very minimum, an addendum is needed to adequately address the impacts to wildlife of the proposed Project, and to mitigate those impacts accordingly.

III. Based on the Substantial Amount of Urbanization that has Taken Place in Bakersfield since Certification of the 2007 MND, the Project Could Have Significant Cumulative Biological Resources Impacts.

Since 2007, Bakersfield has experienced extensive urbanization and conversion of open space and agricultural lands, resulting in significant cumulative habitat loss. The 2007 MND could only consider development projects pending at that time and did not account for the dozens of new projects subsequently approved. The City has not presented any evidence that these cumulative impacts—combined with the proposed Project—will not have significant cumulative impacts on biological resources. Because the Project could result in significant cumulative biological resources impacts as a result of changed circumstances since the 2007 MND was prepared, the City cannot rely on the 2007 MND under CEQA Guidelines section 15162, and instead, must prepare a subsequent MND or EIR to adequately analyze the Project’s potentially significant cumulative biological resources impacts.

IV. There are Changes in Circumstances Since the Certification of the 2007 MND that Indicate the Project Could Have Significant Unmitigated Air Quality Impacts, Precluding Reliance on the 2007 MND for the Project.

Substantial changes to the Project and the surrounding environmental conditions since 2007 demonstrate that a subsequent MND or EIR is required to analyze air quality impacts of the Project. SWAPE explains that the Staff Report incorrectly concludes there are “no substantial October 21, 2025
Appeal Re: Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7500

Page 8 of 9 ends

changes in circumstances” and “no new environmental impacts.” (Ex. B, p. 2.) However, the current Project proposes 208 single-family residential lots, a substantial increase from the 172 dwelling units analyzed in the 2007 MND. This increase in development constitutes a change in circumstances that could result in new or more severe air quality impacts not previously analyzed in the 2007 MND. (Id.) Moreover, the dozens of new developments in Bakersfield near the Project is a changed circumstance. The 2007 MND does not provide substantial evidence of cumulative air quality or GHG impacts because the 2007 MND could only consider development projects pending at that time and did not account for any of the dozens of new projects subsequently approved. Because the Project has increased in size and is a change in circumstance that could result in significant air quality impacts, CEQA requires preparation of an addendum, at minimum, or a subsequent MND or EIR to adequately analyze and mitigate these potentially significant impacts. (14 CCR §§ 15162(a)(2); 15162(b); San Mateo Gardens, 1 Cal.5th at 958.) V. The City’s Conclusions Regarding Individual and Cumulative Air Quality Impacts Are Not Supported by Substantial Evidence.

SWAPE further found that the Staff Report fails to provide any quantification or analysis of the Project’s air pollutant emissions. (Ex. B, p. 3.) The City did not estimate or compare construction and operational emissions against the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) significance thresholds. (Id.) SWAPE explains that without such analysis, the conclusion that the Project will not exceed applicable thresholds is unsupported by substantial evidence. (Id.) SWAPE concludes that, absent a complete air quality analysis, it cannot be determined that the Project will not have significant air quality impacts, and therefore the City must prepare a full CEQA analysis—such as a subsequent MND or EIR—to adequately analyze and mitigate the Project’s potential air quality impacts. (Id.) At minimum, the City must prepare an addendum and analyze these impacts. (14 CCR § 15162(b); San Mateo Gardens, 1 Cal.5th at 958.)
In addition, the Project could result in significant cumulative air quality impacts. The San Juaquin Valley Air Basin, and specifically the City of Bakersfield, experience complex and significant air quality issues caused by an extremely high concentration of various industrial activities, farming, wood burning, and on-road vehicle traffic, including diesel emissions from heavy-duty truck traffic.

As a result, the Air District exceeds federal and state public health standards for particles with a diameter of 10 micrometers or smaller (“PM 10”), particles with a diameter of 2.5 micrometers or smaller (“PM2.5”), and ozone (MND, p. 23) resulting in its residents suffering from some of the worst air pollution in the nation. For example, exposure to PM 2.5—which comes primarily from combustion activities (71 Fed. Reg. 61,144, 61,146 (Oct. 17, 2006))—can cause aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, lung disease, asthma attacks, heart attacks, and premature death. (See 70 Fed. Reg. 65,984, 65,988 and 65,991 (Nov. 1, 2005).) Individuals with heart and lung disease, the elderly, and children are most sensitive to PM2.5 exposure. (Id. at 65988.)
October 21, 2025
Appeal Re: Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7500

Page 9 of 9 ends

According to the American Lung Association, the City of Bakersfield is currently ranked as having the highest year-round particle pollution and short-term particle pollution out of over 200 metropolitan areas evaluated in the US for 2025.1In addition, CalEnviroScreen, the California Environmental Protection Agency’s health screening tool, identifies the Project site’s census tract as having some of the State’s worst concentrations of ozone and PM 2.5. Residents in the Project area are exposed to PM2.5 concentrations higher than 99 percent of census tracts in California and more ozone than 95 percent of census tracts.2(Exhibit E– CalEnviroScreen Maps.)
Given the region’s continued noncompliance with federal and state ambient air quality standards, there is a fair argument that Project emissions could exacerbate existing violations and contribute to cumulative air quality impacts. The City should prepare a subsequent MND or EIR to adequately analyze these potentially cumulative air quality impacts, supported by updated emissions modeling and cumulative air quality impact analysis.

CONCLUSION
As discussed above, the changes in circumstances since the certification of the 2007 MND precludes the City from relying on the MND. Additionally, the 2007 MND fails to provide substantial evidence to support several of the City’s conclusions related to the Project’s impacts to biological resources and air quality. Furthermore, SAFER’s experts have established a fair argument that the Project may have new significant impacts on biological resources and air quality. SAFER respectfully requests that the City not rely on the 2007 MND but instead prepare and circulate a subsequent MND or EIR, or at minimum, an addendum prior to further consideration of the Project.

Sincerely,
Victoria Yundt
Lozeau | Drury LLP

1 American Lung Association, 2025. State of the Air 2025. https://www.lung.org/research/sota/cityrankings/mostpolluted-cities. 2https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/ed5953d89038431dbf4f22ab9abfe40d/page/Indicators?views=PM2.5#dat a_s=id%3AdataSource_25-17c3d89e7e2-layer-1~dataSource_38-17c3c371181-layer1%3A1522%2Cid%3Awidget_306_output_0%3A0 [PM 2.5]; https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/ed5953d89038431dbf4f22ab9abfe40d/page/Indicators?views=Ozone#data _s=id%3AdataSource_25-17c3d89e7e2-layer-1~dataSource_38-17c3c371181-layer-1~dataSource_37- 17c3c3b4658-layer-1%3A1522%2Cid%3Awidget_306_output_0%3A0 [ozone].

EXHIBIT A
1 Shawn Smallwood, PhD
3108 Finch Street
Davis, CA 95616
Rebecca L. Davis
Lozeau Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, CA 94612 21 October 2025
RE: Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7500
Dear Ms. Davis,
I write to comment on the environmental review that has been performed for potential impacts on biological resources that would be potentially caused by a zoning change that would lead to the development of 208 single-family residential lots on 39.92 acres on APN 540-010-19 at the northeast corner of Old River Road and Mc Cutchen Road, Bakersfield. The environmental review to which I am responding appears in a City Of Bakersfield Planning Commission Staff Report for a 21 August 2025 meeting, and which relies on an Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) that was adopted for a zone change from agriculture to R-1 on March 12. 2008. The Staff Report concludes, “No new significant impacts, nor substantial increase in severity of impacts will result with proposed VTTM 7500 from those previously identified in the MND for GPA/ZC No. 07- 1874. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Section 15162, no further environmental documentation is necessary because no substantial changes to the original project are proposed, there are no substantial changes in circumstances under which the project will be undertaken, and no new environmental impacts have been identified.” I am concerned, however, that the Staff Report’s conclusion is inaccurate and misleading, and that if the project goes forward based on the environmental review completed to date, the wildlife community and particular special-status species would suffer significant, unmitigated impacts.

My qualifications for preparing expert comments are the following. I hold a Ph.D. degree in Ecology from University of California at Davis, where I also worked as a postgraduate researcher in the Department of Agronomy and Range Sciences. My research has been on animal density and distribution, habitat selection, wildlife interactions with the anthrosphere, and conservation of rare and endangered species. I authored many papers on these and other topics. I served as Chair of the Conservation Affairs Committee for The Wildlife Society – Western Section. I am a member of The Wildlife Society and Raptor Research Foundation, and I’ve lectured part-time at California State University, Sacramento. I was Associate Editor of wildlife biology’s premier scientific journal, The Journal of Wildlife Management, as well as of Biological Conservation, and I was on the Editorial Board of Environmental Management. I have performed wildlife surveys in California for thirty-seven years. My CV is attached. 2 THE 2007 MND IS OUTDATED
The conclusion I quoted from the Staff Report cannot be true. According to the 2007 MND (p. 12), “The project is subject to the terms of the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (MBHCP) … With implementation of the MBHCP, impacts [on biological resources including San Joaquin kit fox] are considered to be less than significant.” This mitigation measure is the only mitigation measure directed to potential project impacts on wildlife, particularly to those wildlife species that were once covered by the incidental take permit (ITP) issued for the MBHCP. These species included San Joaquin kit fox, Tipton kangaroo rat and San Joaquin antelope squirrel.

However, although the project site is located within an area that was within the boundary of the MBHCP, this mitigation measure is no longer possible because the City of Bakersfield decided to allow the MBHCP to expire, which it did on 1 January 2023.

There exists no MBHCP into which a mitigation fee can be paid, and therefore the Staff Report inaccurately claims that the sole mitigation measure of the 2007 MND would still apply to the proposed project.

Neither can the conclusion I quoted from the Staff Report be true regarding its claim of no substantial changes in circumstances since the 2007 MND was adopted. As noted, an important change in circumstance was the expiration of the MBHCP. But many additional changes in circumstance have taken place since the adoption of the 2007 MND. In my assessment based on a database review, 108 special-status species of wildlife are known to occur near enough to the site to warrant analysis of occurrence potential, and 41 of these species have been assigned special status since the adoption of the 2007 MND (Table 1). Each species assigned special status since the 2007 MND represents a significant change in circumstance.

Of the 108 special-status species in Table 1, 12 have been recorded in occurrence databases within 1.5 miles of the project site, and 11 of these 12 could be found on site because the site could provide habitat. Four of these 12 species have been assigned special-status since the 2007 MND.

Of the 108 special-status species in Table 1, 33 have been recorded in occurrence databases between 1.5 and 4 miles of the project site, and 22 of these 33 could be found on site because the site could provide habitat. Fourteen of these 33 special-status species have been assigned special status since the 2007 MND.

Of the 108 special-status species in Table 1, 57 have been recorded in occurrence databases between 4 and 30 miles of the project site, and 27 of these 57 could be found on site because the site could provide habitat. Twenty-two of these 57 special-status species have been assigned special status since the 2007 MND.

Regarding San Joaquin kit fox, another change since 2007 was the release U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s 2011 survey guidelines for the species. I saw no evidence that surveys have been performed on the project site in accordance with these guidelines. 3 Table 1. Occurrence likelihoods of special-status bird species at or near the proposed project site, according to eBird/iNaturalist records (https://eBird.org, https://www.inaturalist.org) and onsite survey findings, where ‘Very close’ indicates within 1.5 miles of the site, “nearby” indicates within 1.5 and 4 miles, and “in region” indicates within 4 and 30 miles, and ‘in range’ means the species’ geographic range overlaps the site. Species highlighted in light red have been assigned special status since the adoption of the 2007 MND.

Common name Species name Status1
Occurrence
potential
Database
records
Habitat
capacity
Vernal pool fairy
shrimp
Branchinecta lynchi FT In region
Valley elderberry
longhorn beetle
Desmocerus californicus
dimorphus
FT In range
Monarch Danaus plexippus FC In region Yes
Crotch’s bumble bee Bombus crotchii CCE In region
Western spadefoot Spea hammondii FC, SSC In region
Northwestern pond
turtle
Actinemys marmorata FC, SSC In region Yes
Blunt-nosed leopard
lizard
Gambelia sila FE, CE, CFP In region
Coast horned lizard Phrynosoma blainvillii SSC In region Bakersfield legless
lizard
Anniella grinnelli SSC In region
California glossy
snake
Arizona elegans occidentalis SSC In region
San Joaquin
coachwhip
Masticophis flagellum
ruddocki
SSC In region
Cackling goose
(Aleutian)
Branta hutchinsii
leucopareia
WL In region Yes
Western grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis BCC Nearby
Clark’s grebe Aechmophorus clarkii BCC In region
Black swift Cypseloides niger SSC3, BCC In region Yes
Vaux’s swift Chaetura vauxi SSC2 Nearby Yes
Costa’s hummingbird Calypte costae BCC Nearby Yes
Calliope
hummingbird
Selasphorus calliope BCC In region Yes
Rufous hummingbird Selasphorus rufus BCC Nearby Yes
Snowy plover Charadrius nivosus BCC In region Yes
Mountain plover Charadrius montanus SSC2, BCC In region Yes Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus BCC Very close Yes
Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus WL Nearby Yes
Marbled godwit Limosa fedoa BCC Nearby Yes
Pectoral sandpiper Calidris melanotos BCC In region Yes Short-billed
dowitcher
Limnodromus griseus BCC In region
4 Common name Species name Status1
Occurrence
potential
Database
records
Habitat
capacity
Lesser yellowlegs Tringa flavipes BCC In region Yes
American avocet Recurvirostra americana BCC Very close Yes Willet Tringa semipalmata BCC Nearby Yes
Franklin’s gull Leucophaeus pipixcan BCC In region Yes
Western gull Larus occidentalis BCC In region Yes
California gull Larus californicus BCC, WL Nearby Yes
Black tern Chlidonias niger SSC2, BCC In region
Common loon Gavia immer SSC In region
Double-crested
cormorant
Phalacrocorax auritus WL Nearby
American white
pelican
Pelacanus erythrorhynchos SSC1 Nearby
Least bittern Ixobrychus exilis SSC2 In region
White-faced ibis Plegadis chihi WL Very close Yes
California condor Gymnogyps californianus FE, CE, CFP In region Turkey vulture Cathartes aura BOP Nearby Yes
Osprey Pandion haliaetus WL, BOP Nearby Yes
White-tailed kite Elanus luecurus CFP, BOP Very close Yes Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos BGEPA, CFP,

BOP, WL
In region Yes
Northern harrier Circus cyaneus BCC, SSC3,
BOP
Very close Yes
Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus WL, BOP Nearby Yes Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii WL, BOP Nearby Yes
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus CE, BGEPA,
BOP
In region Yes
Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus BOP Nearby Yes
Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni CT, BOP Very close Yes
Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis BOP Very close Yes
Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis WL, BOP Nearby Yes
Rough-legged hawk Buteo lagopus BOP In region Yes
American barn owl Tyto furcata BOP Nearby Yes
Western screech-owl Megascops kennicotti BOP Nearby Yes Great horned owl Bubo virginianus BOP Nearby Yes
Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia BCC, CCE,
SSC2, BOP
Very close Yes
Long-eared owl Asio otus BCC, SSC3,
BOP
In region
Short-eared owl Asia flammeus BCC, SSC3,
BOP
In region Yes
Lewis’s woodpecker Melanerpes lewis BCC Nearby
Nuttall’s woodpecker Picoides nuttallii BCC Nearby
5 Common name Species name Status1
Occurrence
potential
Database
records
Habitat
capacity
American kestrel Falco sparverius BOP Very close Yes
Merlin Falco columbarius WL, BOP Nearby Yes
Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus BOP Very close Yes
Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus WL, BOP Nearby Yes
Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi BCC, SSC2 In region Willow flycatcher Empidonax trailii CE Nearby
Southwestern willow
flycatcher
Empidonax traillii extimus FE, CE In range
Vermilion flycatcher Pyrocephalus rubinus SSC2 Very close Least Bell’s vireo Vireo bellii pusillus FE, CE Nearby
Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus SSC2 Very close Yes Oak titmouse Baeolophus inornatus BCC Nearby
Bank swallow Riparia riparia CT Nearby Yes
Purple martin Progne subis SSC2 In region Yes
Wrentit Chamaea fasciata BCC In region
California thrasher Toxostoma redivivum BCC In region
Cassin’s finch Haemorhous cassinii BCC In region Yes
Lawrence’s goldfinch Spinus lawrencei BCC Nearby Yes
Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum SSC2 In region Black-chinned
sparrow
Spizella atrogularis BCC In region
Gray-headed junco Junco hyemalis caniceps WL In region
Bell’s sparrow Amphispiza b. belli WL In region
Oregon vesper
sparrow
Pooecetes gramineus affinis SSC2 In range
Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens SSC3 In region
Yellow-headed
blackbird
X. xanthocephalus SSC3 In region
Bullock’s oriole Icterus bullockii BCC Nearby
Tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor CT, BCC, SSC1 In region Lucy’s warbler Leiothlypis luciae SSC3 In region
Virginia’s warbler Leiothlypis virginiae WL, BCC In region Yellow warbler Setophaga petechia SSC2 Nearby
Summer tanager Piranga rubra SSC1 Nearby
Little brown bat Myotis lucifugus WBWG: M In range Yes
Yuma myotis Myotis yumanensis WBWG: LM In region Yes
Long-eared myotis Myotis evotis WBWG: M In region Yes
California myotis Myotis californicus WBWG:L In region Yes Small-footed myotis Myotis ciliolabrum WBWG: M In range Yes Canyon bat Parastrellus hesperus WBWG: M In region Yes
Big brown bat Episticus fuscus WBWG: L In region Yes
6 Common name Species name Status1
Occurrence
potential
Database
records
Habitat
capacity
Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus WBWG: M In region Yes
Western red bat Lasiurus blossevillii SSC, WBWG:

H
In range Yes
Townsend’s big-eared
bat
Corynorhinus townsendii SSC, WBWG:

H
In region Yes
Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus SSC, WBWG:

H
In region Yes
Mexican free-tailed
bat
Tadarida brasiliensis WBWG: L Nearby Yes
Western mastiff bat Eumops perotis SSC, WBWG:

H
In region Yes
Nelson’s antelope
squirrel
Ammospermophilus nelsoni CT In region
Tipton kangaroo rat Dipodomys n. nitratoides FE, CE In region Tulare grasshopper
mouse
Onychomys torridus
tularensis
SSC In region
American badger Taxidea taxus SSC In region Yes
San Joaquin kit fox Vulpes macrotis mutica FE, CT Nearby Yes 1 Listed on CDFW’s Special Animals List (https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID =109406) as FT or FE = federal threatened or endangered; FC = federal candidate for listing; BGEPA = Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act; CT or CE = California threatened or endangered; CCT or CCE = Candidate California threatened or endangered; CFP = California Fully Protected (California Fish and Game Code 3511); SSC = California Species of Special Concern, and SSC1, SSC2 and SSC3 = California Bird Species of Special Concern priorities 1, 2 and 3, respectively); WL = CDFW’s Taxa to Watch List; WBWG = Western Bat Working Group with priority rankings, of low (L), moderate (M), and high (H); BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Bird of Conservation Concern (https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/birds-of-conservation-concern2021.pdf); and BOP = protected by Birds of Prey (California Fish and Game Code 3503.5, see https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Birds/Raptors).

More of the species listed in Table 1 could occur on the project site if the site was allowed to return to a natural vegetation cover, but many special-status species could use it as habitat in its present condition, especially in winter if pools were to form over portions of the site. Regardless, the City of Bakersfield has not had any biologists survey the site for wildlife, or at least there is no reporting of any survey having been completed. The City has not appropriately investigated the site for its use by wildlife, and it therefore lacks a defensible basis for determining whether special-status species are present or absent, and how potential project impacts to wildlife should be mitigated.

The City might regard the project site as unlikely to support special-status species of wildlife. If this is the case, then I must point out that experience does not support this assumption. I have surveyed hundreds of proposed project sites for wildlife, and 7 numerous of these sites have been disked. However, I have yet to survey a disked site that is devoid of wildlife. Raptors often forage on disked fields, as do snakes and mammalian carnivores. Waterfowl and shorebirds often forage on disked fields, including over winter when and where rainfall pools. In Bakersfield, I recently saw and videorecorded a San Joaquin kit fox on a field that had been disked three times over the past couple of years. In March 2025, I also watched San Joaquin kit fox(es) in security videos making extensive use of this same field that had been disked three times over about two years. I also detected Mexican free-tailed bats making use of this disked field, and nearby I recorded a burrowing owl on the edge of a large field that had been disked repeatedly over recent years. Associated with these disked fields, which are nearly adjacent to each other, I have recorded numerous special-status species including Monarch, merlin, peregrine falcon and loggerhead shrike. The disking of a site can degrade its habitat value to wildlife, but it does not eliminate the occurrence likelihoods of numerous special-status species. In fact, some special-status species are known to exploit opportunities provided by disking.

San Joaquin kit foxes are known to have denned only 1.6 miles from the project site, and there are numerous known den sites within 2.3 miles of the project site (Figure 1). Many of these kit foxes might travel to the project site for foraging, and others might reside closer to the project site but have yet to be detected and documented. According to Figure 1, nearly all the project site is situated within a San Joaquin kit fox movement corridor, which also means the project site is San Joaquin kit fox habitat. Habitat loss and habitat fragmentation have been identified as primary reasons for the decline of the San Joaquin kit fox in and around Bakersfield (Cypher et al. 2005, 2013; Los Padres Forest Watch and Center for Biological Diversity 2010; Nogeire-McRae et al. 2019).

Exacerbating this decline has been an epidemic of sarcoptic mange (Cypher et al. 2017), road mortality (Bjurlin and Cypher 2003, Cypher et al. 2005), and non-target mortality and injury caused by use of rodenticides (Cypher et al. 2014, Nogeire-McRae et al. 2019).

Continued habitat connectivity is of central concern to the conservation and recovery of the Endangered San Joaquin kit fox (Cypher et al. 2005, 2013; Los Padres Forest Watch and Center for Biological Diversity 2010, USFWS 2010; Nogeire-McRae et al. 2019; USFWS 2020a,b). The 2010 5-year review (USFWS 2010: 12–14) includes mapped movement corridors that connect San Joaquin kit fox Recovery Units 10 and 11, inclusive of the project site, to San Joaquin kit fox Core Areas located north and south of Bakersfield.

Not only would the project destroy existing habitat and a significant portion of a mapped corridor, but the San Joaquin kit foxes that inhabit the area would be vulnerable to collision mortality from project-generated traffic. Automobile traffic has caused the mortality of up to 27% of the local San Joaquin kit fox populations in Bakersfield (Bjurlin and Cypher 2003). More traffic from the project would likely exacerbate this problem, and yet the City requires no mitigation for it.

The San Joaquin kit fox population of the project area is considered crucial for the recovery of this endangered species (Cypher et al. 2022). According to Cypher et al. 8 (2021), “The urban SJKF population in Bakersfield is substantial and therefore could contribute significantly to conservation and recovery efforts for SJKF.” Considering the status of the San Joaquin kit fox, the importance of the local kit foxes to the recovery of the species, and the close proximity of known occurrence records, the City needs to assume San Joaquin kit foxes are present, and it needs to initiate consultation with the USFWS to determine whether and how to obtain an ITP.

Figure 1. Excerpt from the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan Kit Fox Known & Potential Dens Map 2020-02-06, with the project site added as a red polygon and the San Joaquin kit movement corridor represented by red crosshatch.

And known den sites represented by red point features. This entire area was within the boundary of the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan before it was allowed to expire.

San Joaquin kit fox
movement corridor
9 In summary, the Staff Report is inaccurate and misleading because it falsely claims that mitigation for potential impacts on wildlife is available in an HCP that no longer exists, and because it falsely claims that no substantial changes in circumstances have occurred since the 2007 MND was adopted. In my opinion, if the project goes forward as proposed, substantial and highly significant impacts on wildlife are likely. In addition to habitat loss, the project would cause potential impacts in the forms of interference with wildlife movement in the region, house cat depredation on wildlife, bird-window collision mortality, and wildlife-automobile collision mortality, as well as contributions to cumulative impacts. All these potential impacts are in need of analysis, but the analysis cannot proceed appropriately until the site has been surveyed by professional ecologists and the wildlife community accurately characterized as part of the existing environmental setting.

There is at least a fair argument that can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to appropriately characterize the wildlife community, to analyze potential project impacts, and to formulate appropriate mitigation. Relying on the MBHCP to mitigate impacts on wildlife is surely not the appropriate mitigation strategy.

Thank you for your consideration,
______________________
Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D.

LITERATURE CITED
Bjurlin, C. D., and B. L. Cypher. 2003. Effects of roads on San Joaquin kit foxes: a review and synthesis of existing data. . In Proceedings of the international conference on ecology and transportation, eds. C.L. Irwin, P. Garrett, K.P.

McDermott, pp. 397-406. Center for Transportation and the Environment, North Carolina State University, Raleigh.

Bjurlin, C. D., and B. L. Cypher. 2005. Urban roads and the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox. Report FHWA/CA/IR-2006/01 to California Department of Transportation, Sacramento.

Cypher, B.L., S.E. Phillips, and P.A. Kelly. 2013. Quantity and distribution of suitable habitat for endangered San Joaquin Kit Foxes: Conservation implications. Canid Biology & Conservation 16:25–31.

Cypher, B. L., McMillin, C. Stella, T. L. Westall, C. Van Horn Job, R. C. Hosea, B. J.

Finlayson, and E. C. Kelly. 2014. Rodenticide Exposure Among Endangered Kit Foxes Relative to Habitat Use in an Urban Landscape. Cities and the Environment (CATE) 7: Iss. 1, Article 8. Available at: https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cate/vol7/ iss1/8
10 Cypher, B. L., J. L. Rudd, T. L. Westall, L. W. Woods, N. Stephenson, J. E. Foley, D.

Richardson, and D. L. Clifford. 2017. Sarcoptic mange in endangered kit foxes (vulpes macrotis mutica): case histories, diagnoses, and implications for conservation. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 53: 46-53.

Cypher, B. L., N. A. Deatherage, T. L. Westall, E. C. Kelly, and S.E. Phillips. 2021.

Potential habitat and carrying capacity of Endangered San Joaquin Kit Foxes in an urban environment: implications for conservation and recovery. Research Square. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-833974/v1
Cypher, B.L.; N. A. Deatherage, T. L. Westall, E. C. Kelly. 2022. Intraguild Competition between Endangered Kit foxes and a novel predator in a novel environment. Animals 2022, 12, 2727. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12202727
Frost, N. 2005. San Joaquin kit fox home range, habitat use, and movements in urban Bakersfield. Doctoral dissertation, Humboldt State University, Arcata, California.

Hall, F. A, Jr. 1983. Status of the San Joaquin kit fox, Vulpes macrotis mutica, at the Bethany Wind Turbine Generating (WTG) Project Site, Alameda, California. Report to California Department of Fish and Game and California Department of Water Resources.

Los Padres Forest Watch and Center for Biological Diversity. 2010. Before the Secretary of Interior Petition to Designate Critical Habitat for the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox (Vulpes Macrotis Mutica) under the Endangered Species Act. Santa Barbara.

Nogeire-McRae, T., J. J. Lawler, N. H. Schumaker, B. L. Cypher, and S. E. Phillips. 2019.

Land use change and rodenticide exposure trump climate change as the biggest stressors to San Joaquin kit fox. PLoS ONE 14(6): e0214297. https://doi.org/

10.1371/journal.pone.0214297
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife). 2010. San Joaquin Kit Fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. Sacramento, California.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife). 2020a. 5-Year Review San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica).

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife). 2020b. Species Status Assessment Report for the San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica). UI.S. Department of the Interior. 1 Kenneth Shawn Smallwood
Curriculum Vitae
3108 Finch Street Born May 3, 1963 in
Davis, CA 95616 Sacramento, California.

Phone (530) 756-4598 Married, father of two.

Cell (530) 601-6857
[email protected]
Ecologist
Expertise
• Finding solutions to controversial problems related to wildlife interactions with human industry, infrastructure, and activities;
• Wildlife monitoring and field study using GPS, thermal imaging, behavior surveys; • Using systems analysis and experimental design principles to identify meaningful ecological patterns that inform management decisions.

Education
Ph.D. Ecology, University of California, Davis. September 1990.

M.S. Ecology, University of California, Davis. June 1987.

B.S. Anthropology, University of California, Davis. June 1985.

Corcoran High School, Corcoran, California. June 1981.

Experience
 762 professional reports, including:
 90 peer reviewed publications
 24 in non-reviewed proceedings
 646 reports, declarations, posters and book reviews
 8 in mass media outlets
 92 public presentations of research results
Editing for scientific journals: Guest Editor, Wildlife Society Bulletin, 2012-2013, of invited papers representing international views on the impacts of wind energy on wildlife and how to mitigate the impacts. Associate Editor, Journal of Wildlife Management, March 2004 to 30 June 2007.

Editorial Board Member, Environmental Management, 10/1999 to 8/2004. Associate Editor, Biological Conservation, 9/1994 to 9/1995.

Member, Alameda County Scientific Review Committee (SRC), August 2006 to April 2011. The five-member committee investigated causes of bird and bat collisions in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, and recommended mitigation and monitoring measures. The SRC reviewed the science underlying the Alameda County Avian Protection Program, and advised Smallwood CV 2
the County on how to reduce wildlife fatalities.

Consulting Ecologist, 2004-2007, California Energy Commission (CEC). Provided consulting services as needed to the CEC on renewable energy impacts, monitoring and research, and produced several reports. Also collaborated with Lawrence-Livermore National Lab on research to understand and reduce wind turbine impacts on wildlife.

Consulting Ecologist, 1999-2013, U.S. Navy. Performed endangered species surveys, hazardous waste site monitoring, and habitat restoration for the endangered San Joaquin kangaroo rat, California tiger salamander, California red-legged frog, California clapper rail, western burrowing owl, salt marsh harvest mouse, and other species at Naval Air Station Lemoore; Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord; Naval Security Group Activity, Skaggs Island; National Radio Transmitter Facility, Dixon; and, Naval Outlying Landing Field Imperial Beach.

Part-time Lecturer, 1998-2005, California State University, Sacramento. Instructed Mammalogy, Behavioral Ecology, and Ornithology Lab, Contemporary Environmental Issues, Natural Resources Conservation.

Senior Ecologist, 1999-2005, BioResource Consultants. Designed and implemented research and monitoring studies related to avian fatalities at wind turbines, avian electrocutions on electric distribution poles across California, and avian fatalities at transmission lines.

Chairman, Conservation Affairs Committee, The Wildlife Society--Western Section, 1999-2001.

Prepared position statements and led efforts directed toward conservation issues, including travel to Washington, D.C. to lobby Congress for more wildlife conservation funding.

Systems Ecologist, 1995-2000, Institute for Sustainable Development. Headed ISD’s program on integrated resources management. Developed indicators of ecological integrity for large areas, using remotely sensed data, local community involvement and GIS.

Associate, 1997-1998, Department of Agronomy and Range Science, University of California, Davis. Worked with Shu Geng and Mingua Zhang on several studies related to wildlife interactions with agriculture and patterns of fertilizer and pesticide residues in groundwater across a large landscape.

Lead Scientist, 1996-1999, National Endangered Species Network. Informed academic scientists and environmental activists about emerging issues regarding the Endangered Species Act and other environmental laws. Testified at public hearings on endangered species issues.

Ecologist, 1997-1998, Western Foundation of Vertebrate Zoology. Conducted field research to determine the impact of past mercury mining on the status of California red-legged frogs in Santa Clara County, California.

Senior Systems Ecologist, 1994-1995, EIP Associates, Sacramento, California. Provided consulting services in environmental planning, and quantitative assessment of land units for their conservation and restoration opportunities basedon ecological resource requirements of 29 special-status species. Developed ecological indicators for prioritizing areas within Yolo County Smallwood CV 3
to receive mitigation funds for habitat easements and restoration.

Post-Graduate Researcher, 1990-1994, Department of Agronomy and Range Science, U.C. Davis.

Under Dr. Shu Geng’s mentorship, studied landscape and management effects on temporal and spatial patterns of abundance among pocket gophers and species of Falconiformes and Carnivora in the Sacramento Valley. Managed and analyzed a data base of energy use in California agriculture. Assisted with landscape (GIS) study of groundwater contamination across Tulare County, California.

Work experience in graduate school: Co-taught Conservation Biology with Dr. Christine Schonewald, 1991 & 1993, UC Davis Graduate Group in Ecology; Reader for Dr. Richard Coss’s course on Psychobiology in 1990, UC Davis Department of Psychology; Research Assistant to Dr. Walter E. Howard, 1988-1990, UC Davis Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, testing durable baits for pocket gopher management in forest clearcuts; Research Assistant to Dr. Terrell P. Salmon, 1987-1988, UC Wildlife Extension, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, developing empirical models of mammal and bird invasions in North America, and a rating system for priority research and control of exotic species based on economic, environmental and human health hazards in California. Student Assistant to Dr. E.

Lee Fitzhugh, 1985-1987, UC Cooperative Extension, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, developing and implementing statewide mountain lion track count for long-term monitoring.

Fulbright Research Fellow, Indonesia, 1988. Tested use of new sampling methods for numerical monitoring of Sumatran tiger and six other species of endemic felids, and evaluated methods used by other researchers.

Projects
Repowering wind energy projects through careful siting of new wind turbines using map-based collision hazard models to minimize impacts to volant wildlife. Funded by wind companies (principally NextEra Renewable Energy, Inc.), California Energy Commission and East Bay Regional Park District, I have collaborated with a GIS analyst and managed a crew of five field biologists performing golden eagle behavior surveys and nocturnal surveys on bats and owls. The goal is to quantify flight patterns for development of predictive models to more carefully site new wind turbines in repowering projects. Focused behavior surveys began May 2012 and continue.

Collision hazard models have been prepared for seven wind projects, three of which were built.

Planning for additional repowering projects is underway.

Test avian safety of new mixer-ejector wind turbine (MEWT). Designed and implemented a beforeafter, control-impact experimental design to test the avian safety of a new, shrouded wind turbine developed by Ogin Inc. (formerly known as FloDesign Wind Turbine Corporation). Supported by a $718,000 grant from the California Energy Commission’s Public Interest Energy Research program and a 20% match share contribution from Ogin, I managed a crew of seven field biologists who performed periodic fatality searches and behavior surveys, carcass detection trials, nocturnal behavior surveys using a thermal camera, and spatial analyses with the collaboration of a GIS analyst. Field work began 1 April 2012 and ended 30 March 2015 without Ogin installing its MEWTs, but we still achieved multiple important scientific advances.

Smallwood CV 4
Reduce avian mortality due to wind turbines at Altamont Pass. Studied wildlife impacts caused by 5,400 wind turbines at the world’s most notorious wind resource area. Studied how impacts are perceived by monitoring and how they are affected by terrain, wind patterns, food resources, range management practices, wind turbine operations, seasonal patterns, population cycles, infrastructure management such as electric distribution, animal behavior and social interactions.

Reduce avian mortality on electric distribution poles. Directed research toward reducing bird electrocutions on electric distribution poles, 2000-2007. Oversaw 5 founds of fatality searches at 10,000 poles from Orange County to Glenn County, California, and produced two large reports.

Cook et al. v. Rockwell International et al., No. 90-K-181 (D. Colorado). Provided expert testimony on the role of burrowing animals in affecting the fate of buried and surface-deposited radioactive and hazardous chemical wastes at the Rocky Flats Plant, Colorado. Provided expert reports based on four site visits and an extensive document review of burrowing animals. Conducted transect surveys for evidence of burrowing animals and other wildlife on and around waste facilities.

Discovered substantial intrusion of waste structures by burrowing animals. I testified in federal court in November 2005, and my clients were subsequently awarded a $553,000,000 judgment by a jury. After appeals the award was increased to two billion dollars.

Hanford Nuclear Reservation Litigation. Provided expert testimony on the role of burrowing animals in affecting the fate of buried radioactive wastes at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, Washington. Provided three expert reports based on three site visits and extensive document review.

Predicted and verified a certain population density of pocket gophers on buried waste structures, as well as incidence of radionuclide contamination in body tissue. Conducted transect surveys for evidence of burrowing animals and other wildlife on and around waste facilities. Discovered substantial intrusion of waste structures by burrowing animals.

Expert testimony and declarations on proposed residential and commercial developments, gas-fired power plants, wind, solar and geothermal projects, water transfers and water transfer delivery systems, endangered species recovery plans, Habitat Conservation Plans and Natural Communities Conservation Programs. Testified before multiple government agencies, Tribunals, Boards of Supervisors and City Councils, and participated with press conferences and depositions. Prepared expert witness reports and court declarations, which are summarized under Reports (below).

Protocol-level surveys for special-status species. Used California Department of Fish and Wildlife and US Fish and Wildlife Service protocols to search for California red-legged frog, California tiger salamander, arroyo southwestern toad, blunt-nosed leopard lizard, western pond turtle, giant kangaroo rat, San Joaquin kangaroo rat, San Joaquin kit fox, western burrowing owl, Swainson’s hawk, Valley elderberry longhorn beetle and other special-status species.

Conservation of San Joaquin kangaroo rat. Performed research to identify factors responsible for the decline of this endangered species at Lemoore Naval Air Station, 2000-2013, and implemented habitat enhancements designed to reverse the trend and expand the population.

Impact of West Nile Virus on yellow-billed magpies. Funded by Sacramento-Yolo Mosquito and Vector Control District, 2005-2008, compared survey results pre- and post-West Nile Virus epidemic for multiple bird species in the Sacramento Valley, particularly on yellow-billed magpie and American crow due to susceptibility to WNV.

Smallwood CV 5
Workshops on HCPs. Assisted Dr. Michael Morrison with organizing and conducting a 2-day workshop on Habitat Conservation Plans, sponsored by Southern California Edison, and another 1- day workshop sponsored by PG&E. These Workshops were attended by academics, attorneys, and consultants with HCP experience. We guest-edited a Proceedings published in Environmental Management.

Mapping of biological resources along Highways 101, 46 and 41. Used GPS and GIS to delineate vegetation complexes and locations of special-status species along 26 miles of highway in San Luis Obispo County, 14 miles of highway and roadway in Monterey County, and in a large area north of Fresno, including within reclaimed gravel mining pits.

GPS mapping and monitoring at restoration sites and at Caltrans mitigation sites. Monitored the success of elderberry shrubs at one location, the success of willows at another location, and the response of wildlife to the succession of vegetation at both sites. Also used GPS to monitor the response of fossorial animals to yellow star-thistle eradication and natural grassland restoration efforts at Bear Valley in Colusa County and at the decommissioned Mather Air Force Base in Sacramento County.

Mercury effects on Red-legged Frog. Assisted Dr. Michael Morrison and US Fish and Wildlife Service in assessing the possible impacts of historical mercury mining on the federally listed California red-legged frog in Santa Clara County. Also measured habitat variables in streams.

Opposition to proposed No Surprises rule. Wrote a white paper and summary letter explaining scientific grounds for opposing the incidental take permit (ITP) rules providing ITP applicants and holders with general assurances they will be free of compliance with the Endangered Species Act once they adhere to the terms of a “properly functioning HCP.” Submitted 188 signatures of scientists and environmental professionals concerned about No Surprises rule US Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, all US Senators.

Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan alternative. Designed narrow channel marsh to increase the likelihood of survival and recovery in the wild of giant garter snake, Swainson’s hawk and Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle. The design included replication and interspersion of treatments for experimental testing of critical habitat elements. I provided a report to Northern Territories, Inc.

Assessments of agricultural production system and environmental technology transfer to China.

Twice visited China and interviewed scientists, industrialists, agriculturalists, and the Directors of the Chinese Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Agriculture to assess the need and possible pathways for environmental clean-up technologies and trade opportunities between the US and China.

Yolo County Habitat Conservation Plan. Conducted landscape ecology study of Yolo County to spatially prioritize allocation of mitigation efforts to improve ecosystem functionality within the County from the perspective of 29 special-status species of wildlife and plants. Used a hierarchically structured indicators approach to apply principles of landscape and ecosystem ecology, conservation biology, and local values in rating land units. Derived GIS maps to help guide the conservation area design, and then developed implementation strategies.

Smallwood CV 6
Mountain lion track count. Developed and conducted a carnivore monitoring program throughout California since 1985. Species counted include mountain lion, bobcat, black bear, coyote, red and gray fox, raccoon, striped skunk, badger, and black-tailed deer. Vegetation and land use are also monitored. Track survey transect was established on dusty, dirt roads within randomly selected quadrats.

Sumatran tiger and other felids. Upon award of Fulbright Research Fellowship, I designed and initiated track counts for seven species of wild cats in Sumatra, including Sumatran tiger, fishing cat, and golden cat. Spent four months on Sumatra and Java in 1988, and learned Bahasa Indonesia, the official Indonesian language.

Wildlife in agriculture. Beginning as post-graduate research, I studied pocket gophers and other wildlife in 40 alfalfa fields throughout the Sacramento Valley, and I surveyed for wildlife along a 200 mile road transect since 1989 with a hiatus of 1996-2004. The data are analyzed using GIS and methods from landscape ecology, and the results published and presented orally to farming groups in California and elsewhere. I also conducted the first study of wildlife in cover crops used on vineyards and orchards.

Agricultural energy use and Tulare County groundwater study. Developed and analyzed a data base of energy use in California agriculture, and collaborated on a landscape (GIS) study of groundwater contamination across Tulare County, California.

Pocket gopher damage in forest clear-cuts. Developed gopher sampling methods and tested various poison baits and baiting regimes in the largest-ever field study of pocket gopher management in forest plantations, involving 68 research plots in 55 clear-cuts among 6 National Forests in northern California.

Risk assessment of exotic species in North America. Developed empirical models of mammal and bird species invasions in North America, as well as a rating system for assigning priority research and control to exotic species in California, based on economic, environmental, and human health hazards.

Peer Reviewed Publications
Smallwood, K. S. 2022. Utility-scale solar impacts to volant wildlife. Journal of Wildlife Management: e22216. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.22216
Smallwood, K. S., and N. L. Smallwood. 2021. Breeding Density and Collision Mortality of Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Diversity 13, 540. https://doi.org/10.3390/d13110540.

Smallwood, K. S. 2020. USA wind energy-caused bat fatalities increase with shorter fatality search intervals. Diversity 12(98); https://doi.org/10.3390/d12030098 Smallwood, K. S., D. A. Bell, and S. Standish. 2020. Dogs detect larger wind energy impacts on bats and birds. Journal of Wildlife Management 84:852-864. DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.21863.

Smallwood, K. S., and D. A. Bell. 2020. Relating bat passage rates to wind turbine fatalities.

Smallwood CV 7
Diversity 12(84); doi:10.3390/d12020084.

Smallwood, K. S., and D. A. Bell. 2020. Effects of wind turbine curtailment on bird and bat fatalities. Journal of Wildlife Management 84:684-696. DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.21844 Kitano, M., M. Ino, K. S. Smallwood, and S. Shiraki. 2020. Seasonal difference in carcass persistence rates at wind farms with snow, Hokkaido, Japan. Ornithological Science 19: 63 –

71. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2018. Nest-site selection in a high-density colony of burrowing owls. Journal of Raptor Research 52:454-470.

Smallwood, K. S., D. A. Bell, E. L. Walther, E. Leyvas, S. Standish, J. Mount, B. Karas. 2018.

Estimating wind turbine fatalities using integrated detection trials. Journal of Wildlife Management 82:1169-1184.

Smallwood, K. S. 2017. Long search intervals under-estimate bird and bat fatalities caused by wind turbines. Wildlife Society Bulletin 41:224-230.

Smallwood, K. S. 2017. The challenges of addressing wildlife impacts when repowering wind energy projects. Pages 175-187 in Köppel, J., Editor, Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts:

Proceedings from the CWW2015 Conference. Springer. Cham, Switzerland.

May, R., Gill, A. B., Köppel, J. Langston, R. H.W., Reichenbach, M., Scheidat, M., Smallwood, S., Voigt, C. C., Hüppop, O., and Portman, M. 2017. Future research directions to reconcile wind turbine–wildlife interactions. Pages 255-276 in Köppel, J., Editor, Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts: Proceedings from the CWW2015 Conference. Springer. Cham, Switzerland.

Smallwood, K. S. 2017. Monitoring birds. M. Perrow, Ed., Wildlife and Wind Farms - Conflicts and Solutions, Volume 2. Pelagic Publishing, Exeter, United Kingdom. www.bit.ly/2v3cR9Q Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, and D. A. Bell. 2017. Turbine siting for raptors: an example from Repowering of the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. M. Perrow, Ed., Wildlife and Wind Farms - Conflicts and Solutions, Volume 2. Pelagic Publishing, Exeter, United Kingdom. www.bit.ly/2v3cR9Q
Johnson, D. H., S. R. Loss, K. S. Smallwood, W. P. Erickson. 2016. Avian fatalities at wind energy facilities in North America: A comparison of recent approaches. Human–Wildlife Interactions 10(1):7-18.

Sadar, M. J., D. S.-M. Guzman, A. Mete, J. Foley, N. Stephenson, K. H. Rogers, C. Grosset, K. S.

Smallwood, J. Shipman, A. Wells, S. D. White, D. A. Bell, and M. G. Hawkins. 2015. Mange Caused by a novel Micnemidocoptes mite in a Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos). Journal of Avian Medicine and Surgery 29(3):231-237.

Smallwood, K. S. 2015. Habitat fragmentation and corridors. Pages 84-101 in M. L. Morrison and H. A. Mathewson, Eds., Wildlife habitat conservation: concepts, challenges, and solutions.

John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

EXHIBIT B
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
[email protected]
Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD
(310) 795-2335
[email protected]
September 15, 2025
Rebecca Davis
Lozeau | Drury LLP
1939 Harrison St., Suite 150
Oakland, CA 94612
Subject: Comments on the Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7500 Project Dear Ms. Davis,
We have reviewed the August 2025 Planning Commission Staff Report (“Staff Report”) and November 2007 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) for the Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7500 Project (“Project”) located in the City of Bakersfield (“City”). The Project proposes to construct 208 single-family residential lots on the 39.92-acre site.

Our review concludes that the Staff Report fails to adequately evaluate the Project’s air quality impacts.

A full CEQA analysis should be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential air quality impacts that the project may have on the environment.

Air Quality
Reliance on CEQA Guidelines § 15162
The Staff Report claims that no further review is required for the Project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15162. Specifically, the Staff Report states:
“A Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) was adopted for GPA/ZC 07-1874 on December 20, 2007, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). No new significant impacts, nor substantial increase in severity of impacts will result with proposed VTTM 7500 from those previously identified in the MND for GPA/ZC No. 07-1874. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Section 15162, no further environmental documentation is necessary because no substantial changes to the original project are proposed, there are no substantial changes in circumstances under which the project will be undertaken, and no new environmental impacts 2 have been identified. Mitigation measures from the related project have been incorporated and are attached to the resolution” (pp. 6).

According to CEQA Guidelines § 15162:
“(a) When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following: [...] (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.”
As demonstrated above, a subsequent EIR should be prepared if the Project has new or more severe impacts, or there are mitigation measures that are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR that would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment. Here, the Staff Report states that “no substantial changes in circumstances under which the project will be undertaken, and no new environmental impacts have been identified” (p. 6). However, this claim is insufficient and subsequent environmental review may be required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15162 for two reasons.

First, the Staff Report proposes a larger residential development than what was originally proposed in the 2007 IS/MND. Specifically, the Staff Report indicates the proposed Project will consist of 208 singlefamily residential lots (p. 2). The IS/MND, on the other hand, proposed and examined the environmental impacts associated with 172 dwelling units (p. 7). As previously stated, a subsequent EIR should be prepared if the Project has substantial changes that result in new significant impacts. Due to the increase in the proposed residential land use, further environmental review should be conducted in a full CEQA analysis to evaluate the Project’s impacts on the surrounding environment. 3 Second, the Staff Report fails to discuss or analyze the Project’s potential air quality impacts or quantify the Project’s criteria air pollutant emissions whatsoever. This is incorrect, as the Staff Report should have estimated and compared the Project’s construction-related and operational emissions to the applicable SJVAPCD significance thresholds (see table below)1 .

Without making an effort to estimate the Project’s potential construction-related and operational criteria air pollutant emissions, the Staff Report lacks evidence to support the conclusion that the Project’s emissions would not exceed the applicable SJVAPCD significance thresholds. Until further analysis is provided, we cannot verify the Project would not result in new, significant air quality impacts.

The Project should not be approved until a full CEQA analysis is prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential air quality impacts that Project construction and operation may have on the surrounding environment.

Disclaimer
SWAPE has received limited documentation regarding this project. Additional information may become available in the future; thus, we retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional information becomes available. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants practicing in this or similar localities at the time of service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and protocols, site conditions, analytical testing results, and findings presented. This report reflects efforts which were limited to information that was reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain informational gaps, inconsistencies, or otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information obtained or provided by third parties.
1 “Air Quality Thresholds of Significance- Citeria Pollutants.” SJVAPD, March 2015, available at:
https://www.valleyair.org/media/2lpbkso0/2-cms-format-air-quality-thresholds-of-significance-toxic-aircontaminants.pdf. 4 Sincerely,
Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

Attachment A: Matt Hagemann CV
Attachment B: Paul Rosenfeld CV
1 2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
(949) 887-9013
[email protected]
MatthewF. Hagemann,P.G., C.Hg.
• Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization, Investigation and Remediation Strategies • Industrial Stormwater Compliance
• CEQAReview
• Expert Testimony
Professional Certifications:

California Professional Geologist, P.G.

California Certified Hydrogeologist, C.Hg.

Education:

M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984.

B.A. Degree, Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982.

Professional Experience:
30 years of experience in environmental policy, contaminant assessment and remediation, stormwater compliance, and CEQA review. Spent nine years with the U.S. EPA in the Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) and Superfund programs and served as EPA’s Senior Science Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where I identified emerging threats to groundwater. While with EPA, I served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of the assessment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closure. Led numerous enforcement actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and directed efforts to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring. For the past 15 years, as a founding partner with SWAPE, I developed extensive client relationships and has managed complex projects that include consultations as an expert witness and a regulatory specialist, and managing projects ranging from industrial stormwater compliance to CEQA review of impacts from hazardous waste, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions.

Positions held include:

Government:

Attachment A
Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989– 1998); 2 Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986 – 1998).

Educational:

Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 – 2104, 2017; Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 – 1998); Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990 – 1995).

Private Sector:

Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 – present); Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 ‐‐ 2003); Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001 – 2004);
Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984 – 1986).

Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst:

With SWAPE, responsibilities have included:
• Lead analyst and testifying expert, for both plaintiffs and defendants, in the review of over 300 environmental impact reports and negative declarations since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to hazardous waste, water resources, water quality, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and geologic hazards.
• Recommending additional mitigation measures to lead agencies at the local and county level to include additional characterization of health risks and implementation of protective measures to reduce exposure to hazards from toxins.
• Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation, for both government agencies and corporate clients, at more than 150 industrial facilities. • Serving as expert witness for both plaintiffs and defendants in cases including contamination of groundwater, CERCLAcompliance in assessment and remediation, and industrial stormwater contamination.
• Technical assistance and litigation support for vaporintrusion concerns, for both government agencies and corporate clients.
• Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applicationsfor large solar power plants before the California Energy Commission. • Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S. • Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in Southern California drinking water wells.
• Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the review of releases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas stations throughout California.

With Komex H2O Science Inc., duties included the following:

Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 – 2000); • Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony by the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel.
• Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of MTBE use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of perchlorate use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking 3 Hydrogeology:

As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, led investigations to characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army Airfield, and Sacramento Army Depot. Specific activities included:
• Leading efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of monitoring networks, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and groundwater.
• Initiating a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory analysis at military bases.
• Identifying emerging issues, wrote technical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation development through work on four national U.S. EPA workgroups, including the Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum and the Federal Facilities Forum.

At the request of the State of Hawaii, developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. Used analytical models and a GIS to show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and County of Maui.

As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, worked with provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included the following:
• Received an EPA Bronze Medal for contribution to the development of national guidance for the protection of drinking water.
• Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Prepared geologic reports, conducted hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very concerned about the impact of designation.
• Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments, including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water transfer.

Served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties included:
water treatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies. • Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by MTBE in California and New York.
• Lead author for a multi-volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in LosAngeles that met strict Sate of California regulatory requirements. • Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation withclients and regulators.
• Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliancewith Subtitle C requirements.
• Reviewed and wrote ʺpart Bʺ permits for the disposal of hazardous waste. • Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S.EPA legal counsel.
4 With the National Park Service, directed service‐wide investigations of contaminant sources to prevent degradation of water quality, including the following:
• Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NRDA, and the Clean Water Act to control military, mining, and landfill contaminants. • Conducted watershed‐scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and Olympic National Park.
• Identified high‐levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico and advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA. • Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a national workgroup.
• Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while serving on a national workgroup.
• Co‐authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal watercraft and snowmobiles, these papers serving as the basis for the development of nation‐ wide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks.
• Contributed to the Federal Multi‐Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water Action Plan.

Policy:

Served as senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9. Activities included the following:
• Advising the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the potential forthe gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinkingwater supplies.
• Shaping EPA’s national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributingto guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in Water:

Critical Information and Research Needs.
• Improving the technical training of EPAʹs scientific and engineering staff. • Earning an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region’s 300 scientists and engineers in negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific principles into the policy‐making process.
• Establishing national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents.

Geology:

With the U.S. Forest Service, led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities included:
• Mapping geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical models to determine slope stability.
• Coordinating research with community stakeholders who were concerned with natural resource protection.
• Characterizing the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for thecity of Medford, Oregon.
• Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor’s investigations of waste sites. 5 Duties included the following:
• Supervising year‐long effort for soil and groundwater sampling. • Conducting aquifertests.
• Investigating active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal.

Teaching:

From 1990 to 1998, taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university levels:
• At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater contamination.
• Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students. • Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin. • Part time geology instructor at Golden West College in Huntington Beach, California from 2010 to 2014 and in 2017.

Summary of Testimony Experience Over Past Four Years
In Re New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection et al. vs. E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company, in the United States District Court, District of New Jersey, Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-14766-RMB-JBC. Deposition in 2025.

Representing Plaintiffs in matters regarding contamination of groundwater, wastewater, soil, and air with per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

In Re Edmond Asher, et al., vs. RTX Corporation (f/k/a Raytheon Technologies Corporation, et al.) in the County of Huntington Superior Court, Indiana, Cause number 35D01-2006-CT-000338. Deposition in 2024. Representing Plaintiffs in matters regarding contamination of groundwater and soil vapor with trichlorethylene.

In Re Wright vs Consolidated Rail Corporation In the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Case No: 21L3966.

Deposition in 2023, Representing Plaintiff in matters involving groundwater and drinking water contamination of perchloroethylene, trichlorethylene, 1,2-dichloroethane, and carbon tetrachloride.

In Re Behr Dayton Thermal Products LLC In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Western Division at Dayton, Case No: 08-cv-326. Deposition in 2022. Representing Plaintiff in matters regarding contamination of groundwater and indoor air with perchloroethylene and trichloethelene.

Orange County Water District vs. Sabic Innovative Plastics US, LLC, et al. In the Court of Appeal, Fourth District, As a consultant with Dames and Moore, led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large RCRA hazardous waste site in eastern Oregon. 6 Los Angeles Waterkeeper vs. AAA Plating and Inspection, Inc. In the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No: No. CV 18-5916 PA (GJSx). Deposition in 2019. Expert witness representing Plaintiff in matters involving contaminated stormwater runoff at an industrial facility in Compton, California.

Californians for Alternatives to Toxics vs. Schneider Dock and Intermodal Facility. In the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No: 3:17-cv-05287-JST. Deposition in 2019. Expert witness representing Plaintiff in matters involving contaminated stormwater runoff at an industrial facility in Eureka, California.

Bells et al. vs. The 3M Company et al. In the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, Case No: 1:16-CV02531-RBJ. Deposition in 2018. Expert witness representing Plaintiff on matters regarding the general hydrogeological conditions present in an area impacted by per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances.

Ungar vs. Foundation for Affordable Housing. In the Superior Court, State of California, Los Angeles County, Case No.

BC628890 Deposition in 2017. Expert witness representing defendant on matters involving alleged drinking water contamination.

Invited Testimony, Reports, Papers and Presentations:

Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public Environmental Law Conference, Eugene, Oregon.

Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S.EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California.

Hagemann, M.F., 2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation, Policy Making andPublic Participation. Brownfields 2005, Denver, Coloradao.

Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee).

Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins atschools in Southern California, Los Angeles.

Brown, A., Farrow, J., Gray, A. and Hagemann, M., 2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells.

Division 1, California, Case No: D070553. Deposition in 2020. Representing Plaintiff in matters involving compliance with The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). 7 Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Phoenix, AZ (served on conference organizing committee).

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Waterin the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, Irvine, CA.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to atribal EPA meeting, Pechanga, CA.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to ameeting of tribal representatives, Parker, AZ.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water Supplies.

Invited presentation to the Inter‐Tribal Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant.Invited presentation to the U.S. EPA Region 9.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting ofthe National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to ameeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to Address Impacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater(and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA andState Underground Storage Tank Program managers.

Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water.

Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground StorageTanks.

Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference, National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Waterin 8 Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.

VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal WatercraftUsage.

Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.

Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George WrightSociety Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina.

Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada.

Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval AirStation, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City.

Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic Contaminants on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui,October 1996.

Hagemann, M. F., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu, Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Airand Waste Management Association Publication VIP‐61.

Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Ch ar ac te r i z a t i o n and Cl ean up a t Closing Military Basesin California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.

Hagemann, M.F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of Groundwater.

Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL‐ contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.

Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of Prevention... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35.

Other Experience:

Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examinations,2009‐2011.

Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential Water Concerns Related to Snowmobile Usage.

SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, California 90405
Attn: Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

Mobil: (310) 795-2335
Office: (310) 452-5555
Fax: (310) 452-5550
Email: [email protected]
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 1 of 17 March 2025
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Chemical Fate and Transport & Air Dispersion Modeling Principal Environmental Chemist Risk Assessment & Remediation Specialist Education
Ph.D. Soil Chemistry, University of Washington, 1999. Dissertation on volatile organic compound filtration.

M.S. Environmental Science, U.C. Berkeley, 1995. Thesis on organic waste economics.

B.A. Environmental Studies, U.C. Santa Barbara, 1991. Focus on wastewater treatment.

Professional Experience
Dr. Rosenfeld has over 25 years of experience conducting environmental investigations and risk assessments for evaluating impacts to human health, property, and ecological receptors. His expertise focuses on the fate and transport of environmental contaminants, human health risk, exposure assessment, and ecological restoration. Dr.

Rosenfeld has evaluated and modeled emissions from oil spills, landfills, boilers and incinerators, process stacks, storage tanks, confined animal feeding operations, industrial, military and agricultural sources, unconventional oil drilling operations, and locomotive and construction engines. His project experience ranges from monitoring and modeling of pollution sources to evaluating impacts of pollution on workers at industrial facilities and residents in surrounding communities. Dr. Rosenfeld has also successfully modeled exposure to contaminants distributed by water systems and via vapor intrusion.

Dr. Rosenfeld has investigated and designed remediation programs and risk assessments for contaminated sites containing lead, heavy metals, mold, bacteria, particulate matter, petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents, pesticides, radioactive waste, dioxins and furans, semi- and volatile organic compounds, PCBs, PAHs, creosote, perchlorate, asbestos, per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFOA/PFOS), unusual polymers, fuel oxygenates (MTBE), among other pollutants. Dr. Rosenfeld also has experience evaluating greenhouse gas emissions from various projects and is an expert on the assessment of odors from industrial and agricultural sites, as well as the evaluation of odor nuisance impacts and technologies for abatement of odorous emissions. As a principal scientist at SWAPE, Dr. Rosenfeld directs air dispersion modeling and exposure assessments. He has served as an expert witness and testified about pollution sources causing nuisance and/or personal injury at sites and has testified as an expert witness on numerous cases involving exposure to soil, water and air contaminants from industrial, railroad, agricultural, and military sources.

Attachment B

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 2 of 17 March 2025
Professional History:

Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE); 2003 to present; Principal and Founding Partner UCLA School of Public Health; 2007 to 2011; Lecturer (Assistant Researcher) UCLA School of Public Health; 2003 to 2006; Adjunct Professor UCLA Environmental Science and Engineering Program; 2002-2004; Doctoral Intern Coordinator UCLA Institute of the Environment, 2001-2002; Research Associate Komex H2O Science, 2001 to 2003; Senior Remediation Scientist National Groundwater Association, 2002-2004; Lecturer
San Diego State University, 1999-2001; Adjunct Professor Anteon Corp., San Diego, 2000-2001; Remediation Project Manager Ogden (now Amec), San Diego, 2000-2000; Remediation Project Manager Bechtel, San Diego, California, 1999 – 2000; Risk Assessor King County, Seattle, 1996 – 1999; Scientist
James River Corp., Washington, 1995-96; Scientist
Big Creek Lumber, Davenport, California, 1995; Scientist Plumas Corp., California and USFS, Tahoe 1993-1995; Scientist Peace Corps and World Wildlife Fund, St. Kitts, West Indies, 1991-1993; Scientist Publications:

Rosenfeld, P.E., Spaeth, K.R., McCarthy, S.J. et al. Camp Lejeune Marine Cancer Risk Assessment for Exposure to Contaminated Drinking Water From 1955 to 1987. Water Air Soil Pollut 235, 124 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-023-06863-y.

Rosenfeld P.E., Spaeth K.R., Remy L.L., Byers V., Muerth S.A., Hallman R,C., Summers-Evans J., Barker S. (2023) Perfluoroalkyl substances exposure in firefighters: Sources and implications, Environmental Research, Volume 220, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2022.115164.

Rosenfeld P.E. and Spaeth K.R., (2023) Authors’ Response to Letter to the Editor from Bullock and Ramacciotti, Water Air Soil Pollution Volume 234, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-023-06165-3 Rosenfeld P. E., Spaeth K., Hallman R., Bressler R., Smith, G., (2022) Cancer Risk and Diesel Exhaust Exposure Among Railroad Workers. Water Air Soil Pollution. 233, 171.

Remy, L.L., Clay T., Byers, V., Rosenfeld P. E. (2019) Hospital, Health, and Community Burden After Oil Refinery Fires, Richmond, California 2007 and 2012. Environmental Health. 18:48 Simons, R.A., Seo, Y. Rosenfeld, P., (2015) Modeling the Effect of Refinery Emission On Residential Property Value. Journal of Real Estate Research. 27(3):321-342
Chen, J. A, Zapata A. R., Sutherland A. J., Molmen, D.R., Chow, B. S., Wu, L. E., Rosenfeld, P. E., Hesse, R. C., (2012) Sulfur Dioxide and Volatile Organic Compound Exposure To A Community In Texas City Texas Evaluated Using Aermod and Empirical Data. American Journal of Environmental Science, 8(6), 622-632.

Rosenfeld, P.E. & Feng, L. (2011). The Risks of Hazardous Waste. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2011). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Agrochemical Industry, Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Gonzalez, J., Feng, L., Sutherland, A., Waller, C., Sok, H., Hesse, R., Rosenfeld, P. (2010). PCBs and Dioxins/Furans in Attic Dust Collected Near Former PCB Production and Secondary Copper Facilities in Sauget, IL.

Procedia Environmental Sciences. 113–125.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 3 of 17 March 2025
Feng, L., Wu, C., Tam, L., Sutherland, A.J., Clark, J.J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Dioxin and Furan Blood Lipid and Attic Dust Concentrations in Populations Living Near Four Wood Treatment Facilities in the United States. Journal of Environmental Health. 73(6), 34-46.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Wood and Paper Industries. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E., (2009). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Petroleum Industry. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Air Pollution, 123 (17), 319-327.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., Rosenfeld, P.E. Davletshin, A.R. (2008). Responsible Care. Gulf Publishing. Texas.

Tam L. K., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Blood Lipid Concentrations Of Tetrachloro-p-Dibenzodioxin (TCDD) Toxicity Equivalency Quotients (TEQ) In Two Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 002252-002255.

Tam L. K., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). Methods For Collect Samples For Assessing Dioxins And Other Environmental Contaminants In Attic Dust: A Review. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 000527- 000530.

Hensley, A.R. A. Scott, J. J. J. Clark, Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Attic Dust and Human Blood Samples Collected near a Former Wood Treatment Facility. Environmental Research. 105, 194-197.

Rosenfeld, P.E., J. J. J. Clark, A. R. Hensley, M. Suffet. (2007). The Use of an Odor Wheel Classification for Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria for Compost Facilities. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 345-357.

Rosenfeld, P. E., M. Suffet. (2007). The Anatomy of Odour Wheels for Odours of Drinking Water, Wastewater, Compost And The Urban Environment. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 335-344.

Sullivan, P. J. Clark, J.J.J., Agardy, F. J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Toxic Legacy, Synthetic Toxins in the Food, Water, and Air in American Cities. Boston Massachusetts: Elsevier Publishing Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash. Water Science and Technology. 49(9),171-178.

Rosenfeld P. E., J.J. Clark, I.H. (Mel) Suffet (2004). The Value of An Odor-Quality-Wheel Classification Scheme for The Urban Environment. Water Environment Federation’s Technical Exhibition and Conference (WEFTEC) 2004. New Orleans, October 2-6, 2004.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet, I.H. (2004). Understanding Odorants Associated with Compost, Biomass Facilities, and the Land Application of Biosolids. Water Science and Technology. 49(9), 193-199.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash, Water Science and Technology, 49(9), 171-178.

Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M. A., Sellew, P. (2004). Measurement of Biosolids Odor and Odorant Emissions from Windrows, Static Pile and Biofilter. Water Environment Research. 76(4), 310-315.

Rosenfeld, P.E., Grey, M and Suffet, M. (2002). Compost Demonstration Project, Sacramento California Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Integrated Waste Management Board Public Affairs Office, Publications Clearinghouse (MS–6), Sacramento, CA Publication #442-02-008.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 4 of 17 March 2025
Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Characterization of odor emissions from three different biosolids. Water Soil and Air Pollution. 127(1-4), 173-191.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2000). Wood ash control of odor emissions from biosolids application. Journal of Environmental Quality. 29, 1662-1668.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry and D. Bennett. (2001). Wastewater dewatering polymer affects on biosolids odor emissions and microbial activity. Water Environment Research. 73(4), 363-367.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Activated Carbon and Wood Ash Sorption of Wastewater, Compost, and Biosolids Odorants. Water Environment Research, 73, 388-393.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2001). High carbon wood ash effect on biosolids microbial activity and odor.

Water Environment Research. 131(1-4), 247-262.

Chollack, T. and P. Rosenfeld. (1998). Compost Amendment Handbook for Landscaping. Prepared for and distributed by the City of Redmond, Washington State.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1992). The Mount Liamuiga Crater Trail. Heritage Magazine of St. Kitts, 3(2).

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1993). High School Biogas Project to Prevent Deforestation on St. Kitts. Biomass Users Network, 7(1).

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions from Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Doctoral Thesis. University of Washington College of Forest Resources.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1994). Potential Utilization of Small Diameter Trees on Sierra County Public Land. Master’s thesis reprinted by the Sierra County Economic Council. Sierra County, California.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1991). How to Build a Small Rural Anaerobic Digester & Uses Of Biogas In The First And Third World. Bachelor’s Thesis. University of California.

Presentations:

Rosenfeld, P.E., "The science for Perfluorinated Chemicals (PFAS): What makes remediation so hard?" Law Seminars International, (May 9-10, 2018) 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 101 Seattle, WA.

Rosenfeld, P.E., Sutherland, A; Hesse, R.; Zapata, A. (October 3-6, 2013). Air dispersion modeling of volatile organic emissions from multiple natural gas wells in Decatur, TX. 44th Western Regional Meeting, American Chemical Society. Lecture conducted from Santa Clara, CA.

Sok, H.L.; Waller, C.C.; Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sutherland, A.J.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Atrazine: A Persistent Pesticide in Urban Drinking Water.

Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.

Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sok, H.L.; Sutherland, A.J.; Waller, C.C.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; La, M.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Bringing Environmental Justice to East St. Louis, Illinois. Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.

Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Perfluoroctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluoroactane Sulfonate (PFOS) Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting, Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 5 of 17 March 2025
Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Cost to Filter Atrazine Contamination from Drinking Water in the United States” Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting. Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ.

Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (20-22 July (2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. Brebbia, C.A. and Popov, V., eds., Air Pollution XVII: Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Modeling, Monitoring and Management of Air Pollution. Lecture conducted from Tallinn, Estonia.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Moss Point Community Exposure To Contaminants From A Releasing Facility. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted at University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). The Repeated Trespass of Tritium-Contaminated Water Into A Surrounding Community Form Repeated Waste Spills From A Nuclear Power Plant. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Somerville Community Exposure To Contaminants From Wood Treatment Facility Emissions. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Production, Chemical Properties, Toxicology, & Treatment Case Studies of 1,2,3- Trichloropropane (TCP). The Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS) Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.

Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Blood and Attic Sampling for Dioxin/Furan, PAH, and Metal Exposure in Florala, Alabama. The AEHS Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.

Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (August 21 – 25, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. The 26th International Symposium on Halogenated Persistent Organic Pollutants – DIOXIN2006. Lecture conducted from Radisson SAS Scandinavia Hotel in Oslo Norway.

Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (November 4-8, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. APHA 134 Annual Meeting & Exposition. Lecture conducted from Boston Massachusetts.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (October 24-25, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.

Mealey’s C8/PFOA. Science, Risk & Litigation Conference. Lecture conducted from The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia, PA.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel, Irvine California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Fate, Transport, Toxicity, And Persistence of 1,2,3-TCP. PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel in Irvine, California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 26-27, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PDBEs. Mealey’s Groundwater Conference. Lecture conducted from Ritz Carlton Hotel, Marina Del Ray, California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (June 7-8, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.

International Society of Environmental Forensics: Focus on Emerging Contaminants. Lecture conducted from Sheraton Oceanfront Hotel, Virginia Beach, Virginia.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 6 of 17 March 2025
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Fate Transport, Persistence and Toxicology of PFOA and Related Perfluorochemicals. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference.

Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. and Rob Hesse R.G. (May 5-6, 2004). Tert-butyl Alcohol Liability and Toxicology, A National Problem and Unquantified Liability. National Groundwater Association. Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Congress Plaza Hotel, Chicago Illinois.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (March 2004). Perchlorate Toxicology. Meeting of the American Groundwater Trust.

Lecture conducted from Phoenix Arizona.

Hagemann, M.F., Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and Rob Hesse (2004). Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River.

Meeting of tribal representatives. Lecture conducted from Parker, AZ.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (April 7, 2004). A National Damage Assessment Model for PCE and Dry Cleaners.

Drycleaner Symposium. California Ground Water Association. Lecture conducted from Radison Hotel, Sacramento, California.

Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M., (June 2003) Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Seventh International In Situ And On Site Bioremediation Symposium Battelle Conference Orlando, FL.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. (February 20-21, 2003) Understanding Historical Use, Chemical Properties, Toxicity and Regulatory Guidance of 1,4 Dioxane. National Groundwater Association. Southwest Focus Conference. Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants. Lecture conducted from Hyatt Regency Phoenix Arizona.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (February 6-7, 2003). Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. California CUPA Forum. Lecture conducted from Marriott Hotel, Anaheim California.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (October 23, 2002) Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. EPA Underground Storage Tank Roundtable. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Understanding Odor from Compost, Wastewater and Industrial Processes. Sixth Annual Symposium on Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Using High Carbon Wood Ash to Control Compost Odor.

Sixth Annual Symposium on Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (September 22-24, 2002). Biocycle Composting for Coastal Sage Restoration.

Northwest Biosolids Management Association. Lecture conducted from Vancouver Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (November 11-14, 2002). Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Soil Science Society Annual Conference. Lecture conducted from Indianapolis, Maryland.

Rosenfeld. P.E. (September 16, 2000). Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Water Environment Federation. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.

Rosenfeld. P.E. (October 16, 2000). Wood ash and biofilter control of compost odor. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Ocean Shores, California.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 7 of 17 March 2025
Rosenfeld, P.E. (2000). Bioremediation Using Organic Soil Amendments. California Resource Recovery Association. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation with High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (1999). An evaluation of ash incorporation with biosolids for odor reduction. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Salt Lake City Utah.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Comparison of Microbial Activity and Odor Emissions from Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Brown and Caldwell. Lecture conducted from Seattle Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions from Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Lake Chelan, Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E, C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation with High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. B. Harrison, and R. Dills. (1997). Comparison of Odor Emissions from Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.

Teaching Experience:

UCLA Department of Environmental Health (Summer 2003 through 20010) Taught Environmental Health Science 100 to students, including undergrad, medical doctors, public health professionals and nurses. The course focused on the health effects of environmental contaminants.

National Ground Water Association, Successful Remediation Technologies. Custom Course in Sante Fe, New Mexico. May 21, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of fuel contaminants associated with underground storage tanks.

National Ground Water Association; Successful Remediation Technologies Course in Chicago Illinois. April 1, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of contaminants associated with Superfund and RCRA sites.

California Integrated Waste Management Board, April and May 2001. Alternative Landfill Caps Seminar in San Diego, Ventura, and San Francisco. Focused on both prescriptive and innovative landfill cover design.

UCLA Department of Environmental Engineering, February 5, 2002. Seminar on Successful Remediation Technologies focusing on Groundwater Remediation.

University Of Washington, Soil Science Program, Teaching Assistant for several courses including Soil Chemistry, Organic Soil Amendments, and Soil Stability.

U.C. Berkeley, Environmental Science Program Teaching Assistant for Environmental Science 10.

Academic Grants Awarded:

California Integrated Waste Management Board. $41,000 grant awarded to UCLA Institute of the Environment.

Goal: To investigate the effect of high carbon wood ash on volatile organic emissions from compost. 2001.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 8 of 17 March 2025
Synagro Technologies, Corona California: $10,000 grant awarded to San Diego State University.

Goal: investigate the effect of biosolids for restoration and remediation of degraded coastal sage soils. 2000.

King County, Department of Research and Technology, Washington State. $100,000 grant awarded to University of Washington: Goal: To investigate odor emissions from biosolids application and the effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions. 1998.

Northwest Biosolids Management Association, Washington State. $20,000 grant awarded to investigate the effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions from biosolids. 1997.

James River Corporation, Oregon: $10,000 grant was awarded to investigate the success of genetically engineered Poplar trees with resistance to round-up. 1996.

United State Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest: $15,000 grant was awarded to investigating fire ecology of the Tahoe National Forest. 1995.

Kellogg Foundation, Washington D.C. $500 grant was awarded to construct a large anaerobic digester on St. Kitts in West Indies. 1993
Deposition and/or Trial Testimony:

In the District Court of Harris County Texas
Mt Davis Interest, Inc v Sesco Cement Corp
Cause No 2023-26512
Trial 6-6-2-25
In the United States Southern District of New York
Gallo vs Avon Products Inc., et al
Civil Action No.: 1:23-cv-2023
Deposition 4-24-2025
In Vanderburgh Superior Court 5, County of Vanderburgh, Indiana Markello v CSX
Civil Action No 82D05-2011-CT-004962
Deposition 3-26-25
Iin the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Jarosiewicz v Northeast Regional Railroad
Case No 2023 L 002290
Deposition 2-27-25
In the District Court 191st Judicial District Dallas County Acklin v Poly America International
Cause No DC-22-08610
Deposition 1-8-2025
United States District Court, Norther District of California Asustin Vs Monsanto
Case No 2:23-cv-272
Deposition 12-20-25
In Jefferson Circuit Court Division One, Louisville, Kentucky Stafford vs, CSX
Case No. 18-CI-001790

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 9 of 17 March 2025
Deposition: 8-27-24
In the Twenty-Second Judicial Circuit of St. Louis. State of Missouri Patricia Godfrey vs, Amtrak
Case No. 2122-CC-00525
Deposition: 7-17-24
In the Circuit Court of Jefferson County Alabama
Linda Early Vs. CSX
Case number CV-2021-00241
Deposition 6-24-24
In the Court of Common Please Lucas County, Ohio
Brenda Conkright vs. CSX
Case No. G-4801-CI-0202102664-000
Deposition: 6-4-24
In the Commonwealth of Kentucky, Greenup Circuit Court
Patsy Sue Napier vs. CSX
Case No. 19-CI-0012
Deposition: 5-8-2-24
In United States District Court of Hawaii
Patrick Feindt, Jr. et al. vs. The United States of America Case No. 1:22-cv-LEK-KJM
Trial 3-29-24 and 4-5-24
In the District Court of Hood County State of Texas
Artie Gray vs. Exxon Mobil
Case No. C-2018047
Rosenfeld Deposition:4-22-2024
In the Elkhart Superior Court State of Indiana
Estate of Clark Stacy vs. Penn Central Corporation
Cause No 2D01-2001-CT-00007
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-25-2024 and 3-7-2024
In the Circuit Court of Trempealeau County, State of Wisconsin Michael J. Sylla et al. vs. High-Crush Whitehall LLC
Case No. 2019-CV-63, 2019-CV-64, 2019-CV-65, 2019-CV-66 Rosenfeld Deposition: 3-5-2024
In the Circuit Court of Trempealeau County, State of Wisconsin Leland Drangstveit vs. High-Crush Blair LLC
Case No. 19-CV-66
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-5-2024
In the Circuit Court of Jefferson County Alabama
Donald Lee Ashworth vs. CSX Transportation Inc.

Case No CV-2021-901261
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-23-2024
In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin Gary L Siepe vs. Soo Line Railroad
Case No. 2:21-cv-00919
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-19-2024

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 10 of 17 March 2025
In the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana Ricky Bush v. Clean Harbors Colfax LLC
Case No. 1:22-cv-02026-DDD-JPM
Rosenfeld Deposition 12-18-2023 and 1-15-2024
In United States District Court of Hawaii
Patrick Feindt, Jr. et al. vs. The United States of America Case No. 1:22-cv-LEK-KJM
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-29-2023
In the Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit St. Clair County, Illinois Timothy Gray vs. Rural King et al.

Case No 2022-LA-355
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-26-2023
In United States District Court Eastern District of Wisconsin Gary L. Siepe vs. Soo Line Railroad Company
Case No. 2:21-cv-00919
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-15-2023
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Donald Fox vs. BNSF
Case No. 2021 L12
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-12-2023
In the Court of Common Please Cuyahoga County, Ohio
Thomas Schleich vs. Penn Central Corporation
Lead Case No. CV-20-939184
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-27-2023
In the Circuit Court of Jackson County Missouri at Kansas City Timothy Dalsing vs. BNSF
Case No. No. 2216-cv06539
Rosenfeld Deposition 7-28-2023
In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas Houston Division International Terminals Company LLC Deer Park Fire Litigation Lead Case No. 4:19-cv-01460
Rosenfeld Deposition 7-25-2023
In the Circuit Court of Livingston County Missouri
Shirley Ralls vs. Canadian Pacific Railway and Soo Lind Railroad Case No. 28LV-CV0020
Rosenfeld Daubert Hearing 7-18-2023 Trial Testimony 7-19-2023 In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Brenda Wright vs. Penn Central and Conrail
Case No. No. 2032L003966
Rosenfeld Deposition 6-13-2023
In the Circuit Court Common Please Philadelphia of Jefferson County Alabama Frank Belle vs. Birmingham Southern Railroad Company et al.

Case No. 01-cv-2021-900901.00
Rosenfeld Deposition 4-6-2023

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 11 of 17 March 2025
In the Circuit Court of Jefferson County Alabama
Linda De Gregorio vs. Penn Central
Case No. 002278
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-27-20203
In the United States District Court Eastern District of New York Rosalie Romano et al. vs. Northrup Grumman Corporation
Case No. 16-cv-5760
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-16-2023
In the Superior Court of Washington, Spokane County
Judy Cundy vs. BNSF
Case No. 21-2-03718-32
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-9-2023
In The Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, PA Civil Trial Division Feaster v Conrail
Case No. 001075
Rosenfeld Deposition 2-1-2023
In United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois Sherman vs. BNSF
Case No. 3:17-cv-01192
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-18-2023
In United States District Court District of Colorado
Gonzales vs. BNSF
Case No. 1:21-cv-01690
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-17-2023
In United States District Court District of Colorado
Abeyta vs. BNSF
Case No. 1:21-cv-01689-KMT
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-3-2023
In United States District Court For The Easter District of Louisiana Nathaniel Smith vs. Illinois Central Railroad
Case No. 2:21-cv-01235
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-30-2022
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino Billy Wildrick, Plaintiff vs. BNSF Railway Company
Case No. CIVDS1711810
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-17-2022
In the State Court of Bibb County, State of Georgia
Richard Hutcherson, Plaintiff vs Norfolk Southern Railway Company Case No. 10-SCCV-092007
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-6-2022
In the Civil District Court of the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana Millard Clark, Plaintiff vs. Dixie Carriers, Inc. et al.

Case No. 2020-03891
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-15-2022
In The Circuit Court of Livingston County, State of Missouri, Circuit Civil Division

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 12 of 17 March 2025
Shirley Ralls, Plaintiff vs. Canadian Pacific Railway and Soo Line Railroad Case No. 18-LV-CC0020
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-7-2022
In The Circuit Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, Florida Civil Division Jonny C. Daniels, Plaintiff vs. CSX Transportation Inc.

Case No. 20-CA-5502
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-1-2022
In The Circuit Court of St. Louis County, State of Missouri Kieth Luke et. al. Plaintiff vs. Monsanto Company et. al.

Case No. 19SL-CC03191
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-25-2022
In The Circuit Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, Florida Civil Division Jeffery S. Lamotte, Plaintiff vs. CSX Transportation Inc.

Case No. NO. 20-CA-0049
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-22-2022
In State of Minnesota District Court, County of St. Louis Sixth Judicial District Greg Bean, Plaintiff vs. Soo Line Railroad Company
Case No. 69-DU-CV-21-760
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-17-2022
In United States District Court Western District of Washington at Tacoma, Washington John D. Fitzgerald Plaintiff vs. BNSF
Case No. 3:21-cv-05288-RJB
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-11-2022
In Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Macon Illinois Rocky Bennyhoff Plaintiff vs. Norfolk Southern
Case No. 20-L-56
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-3-2022, Trial 1-10-2023
In Court of Common Pleas, Hamilton County Ohio
Joe Briggins Plaintiff vs. CSX
Case No. A2004464
Rosenfeld Deposition 6-17-2022
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Kern George LaFazia vs. BNSF Railway Company.

Case No. BCV-19-103087
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-17-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Bobby Earles vs. Penn Central et. al.

Case No. 2020-L-000550
Rosenfeld Deposition 4-16-2022
In United States District Court Easter District of Florida Albert Hartman Plaintiff vs. Illinois Central
Case No. 2:20-cv-1633
Rosenfeld Deposition 4-4-2022

In the Circuit Court of the 4th Judicial Circuit, in and For Duval County, Florida Barbara Steele vs. CSX Transportation

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 13 of 17 March 2025
Case No.16-219-Ca-008796
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-15-2022
In United States District Court Easter District of New York Romano et al. vs. Northrup Grumman Corporation
Case No. 16-cv-5760
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-10-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Linda Benjamin vs. Illinois Central
Case No. No. 2019 L 007599
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-26-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Donald Smith vs. Illinois Central
Case No. No. 2019 L 003426
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-24-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Jan Holeman vs. BNSF
Case No. 2019 L 000675
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-18-2022
In the State Court of Bibb County State of Georgia
Dwayne B. Garrett vs. Norfolk Southern
Case No. 20-SCCV-091232
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-10-2021
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Joseph Ruepke vs. BNSF
Case No. 2019 L 007730
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-5-2021
In the United States District Court For the District of Nebraska Steven Gillett vs. BNSF
Case No. 4:20-cv-03120
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-28-2021
In the Montana Thirteenth District Court of Yellowstone County James Eadus vs. Soo Line Railroad and BNSF
Case No. DV 19-1056
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-21-2021

In the Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al. vs Cerro Flow Products, Inc.

Case No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-14-2021
Trial October 8-4-2021
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Joseph Rafferty vs. Consolidated Rail Corporation and National Railroad Passenger Corporation d/b/a

AMTRAK,
Case No. 18-L-6845
Rosenfeld Deposition 6-28-2021
In the United States District Court For the Northern District of Illinois

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 14 of 17 March 2025
Theresa Romcoe vs. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation d/b/a METRA Rail Case No. 17-cv-8517
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-25-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of Arizona In and For the Cunty of Maricopa Mary Tryon et al. vs. The City of Pheonix v. Cox Cactus Farm, L.L.C., Utah Shelter Systems, Inc.

Case No. CV20127-094749
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-7-2021
In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Beaumont Division Robinson, Jeremy et al vs. CNA Insurance Company et al.

Case No. 1:17-cv-000508
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-25-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino Gary Garner, Personal Representative for the Estate of Melvin Garner vs. BNSF Railway Company.

Case No. 1720288
Rosenfeld Deposition 2-23-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Spring Street Courthouse Benny M Rodriguez vs. Union Pacific Railroad, A Corporation, et al.

Case No. 18STCV01162
Rosenfeld Deposition 12-23-2020
In the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri
Karen Cornwell, Plaintiff, vs. Marathon Petroleum, LP, Defendant.

Case No. 1716-CV10006
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-30-2019
In the United States District Court For The District of New Jersey Duarte et al, Plaintiffs, vs. United States Metals Refining Company et. al. Defendant.

Case No. 2:17-cv-01624-ES-SCM
Rosenfeld Deposition 6-7-2019
In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division M/T Carla Maersk vs. Conti 168., Schiffahrts-GMBH & Co. Bulker KG MS “Conti Perdido” Defendant.

Case No. 3:15-CV-00106 consolidated with 3:15-CV-00237
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-9-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica Carole-Taddeo-Bates et al., vs. Ifran Khan et al., Defendants Case No. BC615636
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-26-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments et al. vs El Adobe Apts. Inc. et al., Defendants Case No. BC646857
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-6-2018; Trial 3-7-19

In United States District Court For The District of Colorado Bells et al. Plaintiffs vs. The 3M Company et al., Defendants Case No. 1:16-cv-02531-RBJ
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-15-2018 and 4-3-2018
In The District Court Of Regan County, Texas, 112th Judicial District Phillip Bales et al., Plaintiff vs. Dow Agrosciences, LLC, et al., Defendants

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 15 of 17 March 2025
Cause No. 1923
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-17-2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Contra Costa Simons et al., Plaintifs vs. Chevron Corporation, et al., Defendants Cause No. C12-01481
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-20-2017
In The Circuit Court of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-23-2017
In United States District Court For The Southern District of Mississippi Guy Manuel vs. The BP Exploration et al., Defendants
Case No. 1:19-cv-00315-RHW
Rosenfeld Deposition 4-22-2020
In The Superior Court of the State of California, For The County of Los Angeles Warrn Gilbert and Penny Gilber, Plaintiff vs. BMW of North America LLC Case No. LC102019 (c/w BC582154)
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-16-2017, Trail 8-28-2018
In the Northern District Court of Mississippi, Greenville Division Brenda J. Cooper, et al., Plaintifs, vs. Meritor Inc., et al., Defendants Case No. 4:16-cv-52-DMB-JVM
Rosenfeld Deposition July 2017
In The Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Snohomish Michael Davis and Julie Davis et al., Plaintiff vs. Cedar Grove Composting Inc., Defendants Case No. 13-2-03987-5
Rosenfeld Deposition, February 2017
Trial March 2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda Charles Spain., Plaintiff vs. Thermo Fisher Scientific, et al., Defendants Case No. RG14711115
Rosenfeld Deposition September 2015
In The Iowa District Court In And For Poweshiek County
Russell D. Winburn, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Doug Hoksbergen, et al., Defendants Case No. LALA002187
Rosenfeld Deposition August 2015
In The Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia
Robert Andrews, et al. vs. Antero, et al.

Civil Action No. 14-C-30000
Rosenfeld Deposition June 2015
In The Iowa District Court for Muscatine County
Laurie Freeman et. al. Plaintiffs vs. Grain Processing Corporation, Defendant Case No. 4980
Rosenfeld Deposition May 2015
In the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, in and For Broward County, Florida Walter Hinton, et. al. Plaintiff, vs. City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a Municipality, Defendant.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 16 of 17 March 2025
Case No. CACE07030358 (26)
Rosenfeld Deposition December 2014
In the United States District Court Western District of Oklahoma Tommy McCarty, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Oklahoma City Landfill, LLC d/b/a Southeast Oklahoma City Landfill, et al. Defendants.

Case No. 5:12-cv-01152-C
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2014
In the County Court of Dallas County Texas
Lisa Parr et al, Plaintiff, vs. Aruba et al, Defendant.

Case Number cc-11-01650-E
Rosenfeld Deposition: March and September 2013
Rosenfeld Trial: April 2014
In the County of Kern, Unlimited Jurisdiction
Rose Propagation Services vs. Heppe Enterprises
Case No. S-1500-CV-278190, LHB
Rosenfeld Deposition: May 2014
In the Circuit Court of Baltimore County Maryland
Philip E. Cvach, II et al., Plaintiffs vs. Two Farms, Inc. d/b/a Royal Farms, Defendants Case Number: 03-C-12-012487 OT
Rosenfeld Deposition: September 2013
In the Court of Galveston County, Texas 56th Judicial District MDL Litigation Regarding Texas City Refinery Ultracracker Emission Event Litigation Cause No. 10-UC-0001
Rosenfeld Deposition: March 2013
Rosenfeld Trial: September 2013
In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division Kyle Cannon, Eugene Donovan, Genaro Ramirez, Carol Sassler, and Harvey Walton, each Individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. BP Products North America, Inc., Defendant.

Case 3:10-cv-00622
Rosenfeld Deposition: February 2012
Rosenfeld Trial: April 2013
In the United States District court of Southern District of California United States of America, Plaintiff vs. 2,560 Acres of Land, more or less, located in Imperial County, State of California; and Donald L. Crawford, et. al.

Civil No. 3:11-cv-02258-IEG-RBB
Rosenfeld Deposition: December 2012, January 2013
In the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County Ohio
John Michael Abicht, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Defendants Case No. 2008 CT 10 0741 (Cons. w/ 2009 CV 10 0987)
Rosenfeld Deposition October 2012
In the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County Ohio
John Michael Abicht, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Defendants Case Number: 2008 CT 10 0741 (Cons. w/ 2009 CV 10 0987) Rosenfeld Deposition: October 2012
In the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division James K. Benefield, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. International Paper Company, Defendant.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 17 of 17 March 2025
Civil Action No. 2:09-cv-232-WHA-TFM
Rosenfeld Deposition July 2010, June 2011

EXHIBIT C
From: Christopher Boyle <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2022 5:39 PM
To:

Subject: Pending Expiration of the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan All,
The Development Services Department of the City of Bakersfield wishes to inform you of the following:

The Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (MBHCP) and associated Incidental Take Permit (ITP) will expire on January 1, 2023. Although work is ongoing, it appears unavoidable but to lose coverage afforded by the plan and its Habitat Mitigation Fee (HMF) format. The City may, if desired to do so, continue efforts to adopt a new habitat mitigation plan for the future, but a gap in coverage is a virtual certainty.

Expiration of Coverage
Within the City of Bakersfield, in order to afford coverage under the MBHCP, urban development permits must be approved/permitted by Friday, December 30, 2022. Approved/permitted means that a grading plan has been approved and the HMF paid.

Again, a grading permit MUST be issued and the HMF paid by December 30, 2022 to have incidental take coverage under the MBHCP.

Once issued, the developer has until June 1, 2023 to final ALL authorized grading work. No extension of time may be granted as the City will not be an authorized permittee after January 1, 2023.

Any incomplete grading as of June 1, 2023 will not have coverage under the MBHCP.

Application of Habitat Mitigation Fee
The Habitat Mitigation Fee is assessed at grading permit issuance. Just as the grading permit will expire if not completed by June 1, 2023, the HMF also expires if physical grading is not completed and finalled by June 1, 2023. No refund of the HMF is available once it is paid.

If fee is not paid, the grading permit cannot be issued and no grading will occur. If the fee is not paid but grading is initiated before the MBHCP expiration date, a stop work order shall be issued by City Building Director and a hearing will be set to enforce a penalty for failure to comply with the MBHCP.

Grading plans must have an approved companion project. Examples include approved Site Plan Review, Subdivision Map, and/or Building Permit.

No HMF will be required after December 31, 2022, as the City will no longer have incidental take coverage via the MBHCP.

Special Circumstances
Vesting Subdivisions: In that the MBHCP will expire on January 1, 2023, if a grading permit is not issued and the HMF is not paid by December 30, 2022, there is no coverage for vested maps. If a grading permit is issued and HMF paid before December 30, 2022, grading must be completed and finalled on or before June 1, 2023. No extension of time will be available beyond June 1, 2023 and no reimbursement of HMF will be available. Compliance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) will become the responsibility of the individual property owner/developer.

Prior to 2011: Apparently, before the Grading Permit process began in 2011, land developers paid for the HMF at any time after entitlement approval and the land was counted as changed to Urban Land in the land use change statistics of the MBHCP permit. Therefore, there are subdivision projects that have paid HMF fees, but have not been developed. To this date, staff has credited the HMF payments to run with the land. In order for property owners/developers to benefit from these prepaid HMFs, all grading work must be completed and finalled by June 1, 2023. No reimbursement of funds will be available. Compliance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) will become the responsibility of the individual property owner/developer.

Noncoverage in 2023
For development occurring with the City of Bakersfield, for more than the last year, the following condition of approval has been included in all entitlements where ground disturbance might occur:

The following conditions are required as part of a grading permit:
a. Habitat Conservation fees shall be required for this project and will be calculated based on the fee in effect at the time we issue an urban development permit (includes grading plan approvals) as defined in the Implementation/Management Agreement (Section 2.21) for the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan. Upon payment of the fee, the applicant will receive acknowledgment of compliance with Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (Implementation/Management Agreement Section 3.1.4). This fee is currently $2,145 per gross acres, payable to the City of Bakersfield (submit to the Planning Division). This fee must be paid before any grading or other site disturbance occurs.

Forms and instructions are available at the Planning Division or on the city’s web site at www.bakersfieldcity.us (go to Development Services Department).

The current Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (MBHCP) expires in year 2023. Projects may be issued an urban development permit, grading plan approval, or building permit and pay fees prior to the 2023 expiration date under the current MBHCP. As determined by the City of Bakersfield, only projects ready to be issued an urban development permit, grading plan approval or building permit before the 2023 expiration date will be eligible to pay fees under the current MBHCP. Early payment or pre-payment of MBHCP fees shall not be allowed. The ability of the City to issue urban development permits is governed by the terms of the MBHCP. Urban development permits issued after the 2023 expiration date may be subject to a new or revised Habitat Conservation Plan, if approved, or be required to comply directly with requests of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

As of January 1, 2023, the City will no longer act as a permittee to the MBHCP. As noted in the aforementioned condition of approval, urban development permits issued after the 2023 expiration date will be required to comply directly with requests of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW).

The Development Services Department may provide recommendations and guidance on how to comply with federal and State law pertaining to special-status species. Ultimately though, in all cases, responsibility for compliance will remain with the property owner/developer.

Guidance may include:
• Requiring biological surveys as part of application submittal to assess the presence of specialstatus specie(s). • Requiring biological surveys within 30 days of ground disturbance for the developer’s record. • Suggested steps if biological studies identify that special-status species are on a site. • Links to CDFW and USFWS guidance.
• Provision of contact information for CDFW and USFWS, if the need for an individual ITP is warranted.

Thank you for the courtesy of your time. If you have any questions, as always, feel free to contact me via the information below. Thank you in advance.

Cordially,
Christopher Boyle | Development Services Director
Development Services Department
City of Bakersfield
1715 Chester Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
email: [email protected]
web: www.bakersfieldcity.us

REPORT
DATE: February 8, 2023
TO: Honorable Mayor Goh and Members of the City Council FROM: Christopher Boyle, Development Services Director
SUBJECT: Report on the status of efforts toward adoption of a new Habitat Conservation Plan, Implications of Expiration of the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan, and Request for City Council direction.

Introduction
For nearly 30 years, the City of Bakersfield (City) and County of Kern (County) have successfully implemented the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (MBHCP). The MBHCP was a regional habitat conservation plan and state permit that allowed impacts to federal and state listed species resulting from urbanization and related development activities. Although extensive energy has been expended over the last ten years in efforts toward preparation of a new habitat conservation plan, the MBHCP and associated Incidental Take Permit (ITP) expired on January 1, 2023 without a subsequent plan in effect. Since expiration, the City and County, as well as private developers under their jurisdiction, have been without permit coverage for impacts to federal and state listed species associated with those development activities for the first time since the MBHCP was approved in 1994.

The City, working with consultant ICF, has expended significant time and effort with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) in the preparation of a new habitat conservation plan (HCP) to replace the MBHCP. The most current draft of the HCP is attached. CDFW is in preparation of an accompanying ITP and environmental documentation has been prepared in support of the two documents. In order to move forward with an adoption process, staff is seeking direction from the City Council on how to proceed.

To help the City Council decide a preferred direction, this memo summarizes the proposed HCP/ITP, and discusses the pros and cons, benefits, and detriments associated with adoption of a new HCP/ITP.

Current Condition
As part of the final extension to the MBHCP, all urban development permits wherein a grading permit was approved on or before January 1, 2023 have coverage under the MBHCP. Approved means that a grading plan has been approved and the habitat mitigation fee ($2,145 per acre) has been paid at grading permit issuance. Grading permits approved prior to January 1, 2023 will have until June 1, 2023 to finish and final grading work. Grading permits issued on or after January 1, 2023 do not have endangered species incidental take coverage, and compliance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is the sole responsibility of the applicant.

The timeline also applied to all City projects wherein grading/ground disturbance is included. The City, as a permittee in the ITP process, was exempted for all projects of ten acres or less as part of the MBHCP. With the loss of permittee status on January 1, 2023, the City also does not possess endangered species incidental take coverage. The various departments of the City are now required to assess compliance with the ESA and the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) prior to project commencement.

Summary of the New HCP
The new draft HCP (attached) includes the following:
• Grading Hold process is retained. Incidental take of protected species is authorized via the release of the “hold” on grading permits.
• Habitat Mitigation Fee rises from $2,145 to $14,070 per gross acre. • 5-day grading permit application review time is unchanged. • Avoidance and Minimization Measures remain similar to the MBHCP. • An Urban Kit Fox Artificial Den Program would be established, with a Kit Fox Biologist added to City staff.
• Public Education Campaign with website and Public Education Specialist position would be added to City staff.
• A Disease Treatment & Monitoring Program would be established. • Funding for one (1) employee with CDFW would be included. The employee would be exclusively assigned to Bakersfield’s HCP/ITP, enhancing CDFW response times and availability.
• The City and the County are permittees within the HCP. • The term of the new HCP/ITP is thirty years.

Essentially, the process would remain unchanged, with the exception of cost. The cost rises due to inflation and the introduction of new programs noted above that would enhance species survival. In today’s dollars, $2,145 in 1994 equates to $4,300.

Benefits of Having a New HCP/ITP
There are many potential benefits of a new HCP/ITP, all of which could be realized from the completion and implementation of the HCP/ITP. Without a regional HCP, like the expired MBHCP or the proposed replacement, all project proponents that have the potential to take a federal or state listed species must obtain the relevant permit from the USFWS and CDFW separately and for each project. This applies to both public and private projects. This is typically referred to as the project-by-project permitting approach because each project proponent must seek their own permits for each project.

Below is a list of benefits a regional HCP/ITP provides to public infrastructure projects and private development projects, when compared to project-by-project permitting.

1. Reduced Project Mitigation Costs. Regional HCP/ITPs are able to deliver mitigation that is often far less expensive than what project proponents can negotiate project-by-project. This is for three important reasons:
a. HCPs/ITPs that are regional in scope bring substantial economies of scale. Regional HCP/ITPs have the resources to acquire large blocks of land, which substantially reduces the per acre cost of land as compared to buying many smaller parcels of equivalent total size. b. Because of the substantial environmental benefits that Regional HCPs/ITPs provide, Wildlife Agencies are willing to negotiate lower mitigation “ratios” than in a project mitigation situation because those lower ratios are offset by benefits that only Regional HCPs/ITPs can provide. In the case of the BHCP/ITP, both Wildlife Agencies have stated this as a direct benefit of the plan. c. Regional HCPs/ITPs bundle mitigation requirements for multiple species at once. This allows HCPs/ITPs to overlap mitigation more effectively and cost-efficiently than projects can do on their own. In project-by-project mitigation, the Wildlife Agencies may account for mitigation species-by-species. For example, if a project has impacts to two listed species and a mitigation site only supports one of the two listed species, the project proponent must find another mitigation site that supports the second listed species. Regional HCPs/ITPs provide mitigation and conservation on a landscape scale, thereby accounting for species’ needs more efficiently.

2. Reduce Project Survey Costs. All projects with the potential to impact listed species and their habitats must conduct surveys and mapping to determine whether listed species’ habitat may be present on the site. If species’ habitat is present, additional surveys may be needed to determine whether species are present and their extent and use of the site. These project surveys for listed species can be expensive and are often changed if there is lapse or delay in the approval and construction of a project. Often, surveys must occur at specific times of year, which, if not planned carefully in advance, can delay projects. A Regional HCP/ITP can remove the need for many of these species surveys, saving substantial project costs.

3. Ensure Faster Project Approvals. One of the largest costs of project permitting under the ESA and CESA is the time involved in negotiating permits and mitigation with the Wildlife Agencies. With the Regional HCP/ITP in place, project proponents do not have to work directly with USFWS or CDFW, and they do not have to hire consultants, attorneys, or permit managers to do so on their behalf. Project proponents receive their ESA and CESA clearance from City and County at the local planning level.

Instead of taking one or more years, this process will typically take a few months. This time savings translates into substantial cost savings.

4. Provide the Strongest Possible Regulatory Assurances from USFWS. By completing an HCP, the City and County will receive a permit from USFWS that confers strong regulatory assurances. These assurances, called “No Surprises”, say that USFWS will not come back within the 30-year permit term and request more money, land, or water if circumstances change beyond those already anticipated in the HCP. These assurances provide a guarantee to City and County agencies and all covered private and public projects that the obligations and costs in the HCP will not change.

5. Provide a Revenue Source for Landowners. Once an HCP/ITP is approved, the City and County will need to acquire from willing sellers thousands of acres of high-quality habitat for the covered species. This large need for conservation creates a unique opportunity for landowners to realize economic benefit from their land.

6. Realize the Return on the Investment Already Made. The City and County have already invested substantial time and money to develop the BHCP/ITP. City and County staff and their consultants have been working on this project for 10 years. Discontinuing the BHCP/ITP effort will effectively waste the extensive efforts, work, and funding that the City and County have put into the development of the BHCP/ITP over the last decade. In addition, all of the work that was funded by the federal HCP planning assistance grants to the City (over $1.2 million) would be lost. While the City would be under no obligation to refund the previous grant awards, the City would be much less likely to obtain federal planning grant funding in the future if they desired to prepare a new HCP at a later date.

The attachment to this report, “Executive Summary, Economic Effects of Regional Habitat Conservation Plans,” provides additional insights into the benefits of HCPs.

Implication of Not Having an HCP/ITP
Without an HCP/ITP, the City and the development community would rely on Project-by-Project Permitting for compliance with the ESA and CESA. Under this option, the City and County would no longer pursue completion of an HCP/ITP to address endangered species compliance. Without a regional HCP/ITP, project proponents would pursue their own endangered species permits from USFWS, CDFW, or both agencies using a project-by-project process that may be far more challenging and costly than the current process under the MBHCP or under a new HCP/ITP.

Without the Regional HCP/ITP, project proponents must seek their own state and federal permits from CDFW and USFWS, individually, when there is potential for “take” of a listed species. The project proponent must obtain a Federal ITP through Section 10 of the ESA with an individual project HCP and is expected to pay for all consultant and legal costs related to preparing their HCP, negotiating with USFWS staff, and preparing the associated National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance document (Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement) on USFWS’s behalf. These individual project HCPs often take a year or more to prepare, negotiate, and complete. As a result, the individual project HCP process is often costly and very time consuming. Project construction cannot begin until after the ITP is issued, sometimes causing substantial project delays and additional costs related to those delays.

The CESA permit process (ITP) can be equally time consuming and expensive as the federal process, depending on the complexity of the project and the number of species for which take authorization is requested. The CDFW application fee for most projects will likely be $27,668.50 in 2022 dollars. The fee will increase in 2023. The fee does not include the cost of mitigation or other minimization measures.

Mitigation, referred to as Habitat Management Lands in a Project ITP, typically costs six figures or more, and it is not unusual to cost a few hundred thousand dollars even for relatively small projects.

Additionally, the current ESA and CESA compliance process is not static. Over the course of the expected 30-year permit term of the BHCP/ITP, ESA and CESA compliance without the HCP/ITP may become more difficult, more-costly, and more time consuming. This has been the pattern of ESA and CESA compliance over the 30-year history of these laws.

Because of the decade of work toward development of a new HCP/ITP, this has left a level of uncertainty with the City, County, Wildlife Agencies, and stakeholders as to where and how endangered species compliance should occur. The primary controversy in the finalization of a new HCP/ITP has been the cost per acre increase to $14,070.

Whereas the benefits of a new Bakersfield HCP/ITP are significant, the cost may be too much.

The MBHCP into the Future
The City of Bakersfield and County of Kern, collectively the permittees of the MBHCP, enjoyed incidental take authorization for nearly thirty years. The MBHCP provided a streamlined process for continued development while simultaneously providing tremendous benefits toward preservation of the endangered species it was created to protect. The table below provides a final summary of the efforts of the MBHCP to purchase lands for endangered specie habit over the lifespan of the plan.

Total
Developed
25,201.99
acres
Total
Acquired
24,184.13
acres
Current
Ratio

0.96 to 1
Deficit of
Lands
1,017.86
acres
Lands Currently in
Acquisition Process
~154
Lands Needed that
are Not Identified
~863 acres
unidentified
The Implementation Trust Group (ITG) of the MBHCP currently remains committed to purchasing mitigation lands necessary to satisfy the 1 to 1 ratio required by the MBHCP. Over the course of the MBHCP, the ITG has transferred nearly 25,202 acres of land as part of specie preservation efforts. The ITG must still purchase approximately 1,018 acres of land to bring the land purchase efforts to conclusion. An approximate 16 million dollars will remain as an endowment to continue the conservation efforts of the MBHCP into the future.

The Question of Permittees
The MBHCP was formed with two permittees, the City of Bakersfield and the County of Kern. Within the MBHCP’s 405 square mile permit area, they, as permittees, enjoyed incidental take authorization for the lifespan of the plan. Although not formally, officially stated, it is anticipated that the County of Kern is not supportive of participating in completion of a new HCP wherein costs have been calculated to increase nearly sevenfold. Therefore, if the City Council moves forward with providing staff direction to finalize a new HCP/ITP, it could be affirming its intent to adopt a new 30-year HCP/ITP with itself as the sole permittee of the HCP/ITP. It is important to note the HCP costs would change as a result. The project consultant has calculated the cost of a single-permittee plan to increase the per acre fee to $15,681.

Conclusions/Summary
The decision before the City Council is not a simple one. This report is tasked with summarizing the options in as simple a way as possible, noting the extent of this report and its attachments. In a past presentation, City Council was informed the question is one of certainty versus uncertainty. A decision to complete the new HCP and finalize the document provides certainty whereas a decision to not complete the process for adoption of a new HCP introduces a new era of uncertainty to the City and its development community.

Uncertainty is expressed in three forms:

1.) Time: It typically takes multiple years to prepare an individual project HCP under Section 10, negotiate with USFWS, prepare USFWS’s NEPA document (if required), and receive the project permit. A faster ESA Section 7 consultation may be available to some applicants, but not many given the limited extent of federal jurisdictional wetlands in the City. The permit process with CDFW under CESA can be equally slow depending on the number of species covered by the state permit.

2.) Cost: Preparing an individual project HCP and obtaining a CESA permit is often expensive because of the consultants, attorneys, and project managers involved, and their time required for negotiations with the Wildlife Agencies. If negotiations cause project delays, this increases costs.

3.) Certainty/Risk: Each project negotiation is as unique as the circumstances of the project, and often differing requirements are imposed by different USFWS or CDFW staff. This makes it difficult for project proponents to predict and plan for mitigation costs.

Certainty is expressed in a similar way:

1.) Time: Incidental take authorization is approved as part of the HCPs grading hold process where the applicant pays the habitat mitigation fee in advance of the release of the grading permit.

2.) Cost: A per acre fee of $14,070 ($15,681 as a single permittee) is paid. It facilitates the implementation of a comprehensive specie preservation and habitat conservation plan, providing compliance with the ESA and CESA.

3.) Certainty/Risk: As incidental take authorization is assured, commensurate with paying the fee and complying with the HCP’s avoidance and minimization measures, certainty is a relative assurance in the development process.

Thus, a decision of the City Council is necessary. City staff, in coordination with consultant ICF, have worked very hard with the wildlife agencies in the preparation of a new habitat conservation plan to replace the previous plan. Taking into consideration the information presented in this report and any public comments, staff requests direction from the City Council on whether to continue processing a new Habitat Conservation Plan.

Recommendation
Provide direction to staff.

Attachments
Executive Summary, Economic Effects of Regional Habitat Conservation Plans Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan. Screencheck Public Draft. 10/18/23, 2:29 PM Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan | Bakersfield, CA - Official Website https://www.bakersfieldcity.us/259/Metropolitan-Bakersfield-Habitat-Conserv 1/3 Search
Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan
The Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (MBHCP) is one of the longest-running plans of its kind in California. The purpose of the Plan is to acquire, preserve, and enhance native habitats for species while allowing urban development. Development in the City of Bakersfield that causes permanent ground disturbance is required to pay a fee, which is used to purchase habitat in natural areas of Kern County. Through permits and agreements with State and federal wildlife agencies, the MBHCP is designed to offset impacts resulting from the loss of habitat because of development activities.

Expiration
CLICK HERE FOR MEMO RE: PENDING EXPIRATION OF THE
MBHCP
The current MBHCP expires on June 1, 2023. To ensure take of covered species does not occur after the expiration date, fees must be paid no later than January 1, 2023 and all covered activities must be completed by the MBHCP expiration date of June 1, 2023. Early payment or pre-payment of MBHCP fees shall not be allowed.

Compliance & Plan Review Process
To comply with the MBHCP, any ground-disturbance activities (generally grading activities) require a developer to:

Pay a Habitat Mitigation Fee (if the disturbance is not exempt). Even if disturbance activities are exempt from the fee, the survey still must be performed to ensure that the disturbance will not impact species.

Perform a Biological Clearance Survey by a Qualified Biologist no more than 30 days prior to disturbance Grading Permit
A grading permit or other approval that requires ground disturbance will not be issued until compliance with the MBHCP occurs. Once compliance occurs to the satisfaction of City Planning, then an MBHCP hold is lifted and the grading permit or other approval can be issued.

Steps to Compliance
Compliance with the MBHCP is summarized in the following steps:
10/18/23, 2:29 PM Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan | Bakersfield, CA - Official Website https://www.bakersfieldcity.us/259/Metropolitan-Bakersfield-Habitat-Conserv 2/3

1. If a grading permit or other approval that requires ground disturbance is required, then the developer must comply with the MBHCP.

2. Provide a grading plan or other ground-disturbance plan (Plan) to the City for review. Once a Plan is acceptable by Building and Public Works, the developer provides the most current version of the Plan to the Qualified Biologist (see Exhibit A of the linked Compliance Form). At a minimum, the developer will include the permanent disturbance area (e.g., graded and then developed with buildings, hardscapes, landscape, etc.) and the acreage of the permanent disturbance area on the Plan.

3. Qualified Biologist uses most current Plan to develop a Survey Area that includes:

1. 50-foot buffer of both the permanent and temporary disturbance area.

2. All areas to be permanently disturbed

3. Any temporary disturbance areas (e.g., staging areas, utility undergrounding footprints, etc.)

4. The Qualified Biologist maps the Survey Area onto the grading plan or other ground-disturbance plan, and includes it in the Biological Clearance Survey Report.

4. Qualified Biologist performs Biological Clearance Survey of the Survey Area within 30 days of disturbance activities.

1. If the survey finds Covered Species (see Exhibit B of the linked Compliance Form) within the Survey Area, then a Notice of Grading Start (see Exhibit C of the linked Compliance Form) is required at least five business days prior to disturbance and after minimization measures (see Exhibit D of the linked Compliance Form) are implemented.

2. If the survey does not find Covered Species, then a Notice of Grading Start and five-day notice is not required.

5. Qualified Biologist emails Biological Clearance Survey Report to the proper agencies (see page 1 of the linked Compliance Form). The Biological Clearance Survey Report to include:

1. Survey Area Map

2. Signed Biological Clearance Statement. See page 2 of the linked Compliance Form

6. Determine if ground-disturbance activity is exempt from Habitat Mitigation Fee (the current cost is $2,145 per gross acre):

1. If yes, then do not pay Habitat Mitigation Fee.

2. If no, then pay the Habitat Mitigation Fee.

7. Come to City Planning counter on the first floor at 1715 Chester Avenue with:

1. Completed MBHCP Ground-Disturbance Compliance Form

2. Habitat Mitigation Fee payment (if not exempt) or completed Habitat Mitigation Fee Exemption (if exempt) (see Exhibit E of the linked Compliance Form)

3. Hardcopy of Biological Clearance Survey Report

4. Hardcopy of the email to the MBHCP Survey and wildlife agencies.

8. MBHCP hold released and grading permit or other ground-disturbance approval granted.

9. Disturbance activities can commence if a biological survey occurred within 30 days prior to disturbance.

10. Implement Species Protection Measures (see Exhibit F of the linked Compliance Form) during construction.

11. If disturbance:

1. Ceases for over 30 days

2. Has occurred for more than one year and the month is January, then go back to Steps 4, 5, and 10 Grading Plan Number
Please include the grading plan number (or project or map number) and the assigned project address on all documents and communications.

MBHCP Violation
It is a violation of the MBHCP if a developer begins grading or ground-disturbance activities without following the above "Steps to Compliance." A common violation is not resurveying the Survey Area after disturbance activities have ceased for more than 30 days. The City has the authority to immediately stop any activity that does not 10/18/23, 2:29 PM Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan | Bakersfield, CA - Official Website https://www.bakersfieldcity.us/259/Metropolitan-Bakersfield-Habitat-Conserv 3/3 comply with the MBHCP, impose penalties, and require additional measures to avoid the unauthorized take of Covered Species
Documents
Compliance and Plan Review Process Presentation (PDF)
Compliance Form (PDF)

EXHIBIT D

Riparian brush
rabbit
Sylvilagus bachmani
riparius
State: Endangered 1994
Federal: Endangered 2000

General Habitat:

Riparian brush rabbits are only found in native
riparian areas with large clumps of dense shrubs,
low growing vines, and some tall shrubs and scrubby
trees in the San Joaquin Valley. Grasses are the
most important food, and riparian brush rabbits
rarely venture more than one to two yards from
dense cover. Its range is quite narrow. It is found
in the 261-acre Caswell Memorial State Park in
southern San Joaquin County, and near a railroad
right of way in the Paradise Cut area south of
Stockton.

Description:

The riparian brush rabbit is one of eight subspecies
of the brush rabbit, an animal generally widespread
in California. The riparian brush rabbit can be
distinguished from other brush rabbit subspecies
by its isolated location and its skull characteristics.

This subspecies is slightly larger, has larger eyes
and ears, is more grayish and yellowish in coloration,
and has a very conspicuous tail. The animals are
most active in the early morning and evening hours.

The breeding season is typically from January to
May, with peak activity between mid-January and
mid-April. Gestation is about 27 days, and females
may breed again shortly after giving birth. About
three to four litters per female may be produced
during the breeding season, with three to four
young per litter.

Status:

Flooding, wildfires, predation, and disease remain the greatest threats to the riparian brush rabbit. The last documented estimate of population size was 200 to 300 individuals in 1993. During the mid-1970s, the population had dipped to an extreme low of 15 to 20 individuals due to severe flooding. The floods of 1996 may also have caused extensive mortality. Initial attempts to live-capture rabbits during a study that began in 1997 were of limited success, indicating an extremely low estimated population. In 1997, USFWS proposed endangered status for the species
In 1998, USFWS finalized the Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley, California. The Recovery Plan addresses the research, management, and recovery needs for the riparian brush rabbit, including restoring habitat and establishing additional populations within the historic range. In 2000, the riparian brush rabbit was listed as a federal endangered species. A brush rabbit working group has met periodically since 1997 to help guide conservation efforts for the subspecies. In 1998 live capture success was very low but improved slightly in 1999; a new population was discovered in the Paradise Cut area of San Joaquin County on Union Pacific Rail Road right of way lands. An agreement developed between the DFG and the rail road company allowed the rabbits within the right of way to be live captured and removed to a captive breeding facility, consisting of three large fenced and secured enclosed pens built in 2001-2002 on Department of Water Resources land in San Joaquin County.

Captive breeding facilities were stocked with wild caught rabbits in equal sex ratios. Genetic studies are ongoing to ensure the suitability of rabbits from different wild populations for captive breeding and translocation purposes. An additional wild population of rabbits was discovered on private land near the city of Stockton in 2003. Releases of radio-tagged rabbits began in 2002. To date, well over 100 rabbits have been produced in the three captive breeding pens and over 70 have been released to the wild to establish a new wild population on the San Joaquin River National Wildlife Refuge. Successful breeding within the new population has already been documented, and further releases are scheduled for 2003. Due to the ever accelerating nature of captive breeding a species such as a rabbit, the foregoing numbers must be considered a bare minimum of the total potential of the project. Mortality of the released rabbits is deemed moderate due to natural predation.

The goal of the recovery strategy is to continue to breed and release captive reared rabbits and establish at least three new wild populations in suitable habitat on secure public lands. Each such newly established population may ultimately consist of several hundred to thousands of individual riparian brush rabbits. With suitable areas provided, the populations are expected to reach the carrying capacity of the available habitats, which could lead to the ultimate recovery of the species. Augmentation of the Caswell Memorial State Park population with captive reared rabbits to near the carrying capacity of the available habitat is also proposed. The search continues for additional wild populations to protect and secure, as well as to serve as a source of breeders for the captive breeding facility.

The status in 2003 of the riparian brush rabbit: Stable to Increasing.

San Joaquin
antelope squirrel
Ammospermophilus
nelsoni
State: Threatened 1980
Federal:

General Habitat:

Habitats of antelope squirrels consist of grasslands
with moderate shrub cover which includes such
species as salt bush, ephedra, bladder pod,
goldenbush, snakeweed, and others. Populations now
exist primarily in marginal habitats of the low
foothills and mountains of the western edge of the
valley. Currently, populations of significant size exist only in western Kern County at Elk Hills and on
portions of the Carrizo and Elkhorn plains.

Description:

The San Joaquin antelope squirrel is one of five
species of antelope squirrels. The species is
omnivorous with a diet consisting primarily of grass
and forb seeds and insects. Antelope squirrels use
burrows that they or other animals have dug. The
general active period during spring and summer
months coincides with air temperatures of 68o°
to
86o°
F.

Status:

Historically, San Joaquin antelope squirrels ranged from western Merced County to the southern end of western San Joaquin Valley. They occupied the valley floor in Kern County and along the eastern edge northward to Tipton, Tulare County. Conversion of native habitat to intensive forms of agricultural development is the greatest threat to the population. Recovery options for this species are addressed in the USFWS 1998 Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley, California.

Researchers have gathered data on the interrelationships between antelope squirrels and the State and federally listed giant kangaroo rat. Translocation of giant kangaroo rats from one locality to another has been successful on the Carrizo Plain National Monument during 1989-92 and may have application to recovery efforts for antelope squirrels since the habitat requirements of the two species are quite similar. A study on the Lokern Area Preserve in Kern County, initiated in 1997, is addressing the issue of grazing as a management tool for several species including the antelope squirrel. San Joaquin antelope squirrels have steadily increased in number since 1998, due in large part to the below-average rainfall experienced since 1999. Numbers of antelope squirrels are now high across the Lokern Study Area. In 1999 and 2000, more squirrels were caught on the grazed plots compared to the ungrazed plots, but the lack of grass in both controls and treatments in recent years has masked any benefit we found from grazing. Rainfall levels that are higher than the average are needed in coming years in order to return the ungrazed sites to dense grass cover. Once the control plots are grassy, it should be possible to quantify the effect of cattle grazing on populations of San Joaquin antelope squirrels.

The DFG is involved in several conservation efforts for the San Joaquin antelope squirrel, including the Metropolitan Bakersfield HCP, the California Department of Corrections Electric Fence HCP, the Coles Levee area 2081 Agreement, and the Arco Western Energy HCP.

The status in 2003 of the San Joaquin antelope squirrel is Stable to Declining.

Mohave ground
squirrel
Spermophilus
mohavensis
State: Threatened 1971
Federal: None

General Habitat:

The Mohave ground squirrel occurs only in California
It is resident in the various desert scrub
communities and Joshua Tree Woodland of the
western Mojave Desert in southwestern Inyo,
eastern Kern, northwestern San Bernardino, and
extreme northeastern Los Angeles counties. The
Mohave ground squirrel inhabits flat to moderate
terrain and is not generally found in steep contours
although juveniles apparently traverse steep terrain
during dispersal. The species has been found most
frequently in sandy, alluvial soils, but is also found in gravelly and occasionally rocky soils. Habitat
features center on availability of food resources
and soils with appropriate composition for burrow
construction.

Description:

The squirrel is cinnamon-gray in color with white
underparts. Juveniles are cinnamon-colored and
molt to grayer pelage as they mature. The species
lives in underground burrows, in which it spends at
least seven consecutive months (usually from July
or August through February) at a low metabolic
rate, living on body fat alone, to avoid the seasons
of the year in which food is least available.

Status:

The Mohave ground squirrel is threatened by loss and degradation of its habitat due to agriculture, urban, suburban, and rural development, energy development, military activities, livestock grazing, and OHV use.

Agriculture affects the species through conversion of habitat, exposure to pesticides, herbicides, and rodenticides. Agricultural development has resulted in the loss of occupied and potential habitat in the area between Antelope Valley, Lucerne Valley, and the Mojave River Basin. Although the species likely occupied the Antelope Valley historically, widespread conversion of native habitats has apparently resulted in the extirpation of the species from west of Palmdale and Lancaster.

Urbanization has resulted in the loss of native habitats, particularly surrounding the cities of Palmdale/Lancaster and Victorville/Adelanto/Hesperia/Apple Valley. Urban development has accelerated in recent years in these and other areas, such as Mojave, California City, and Ridgecrest. Impacts associated with urban and rural development include the direct mortality of individuals due to increased vehicle use and increased numbers of domestic and feral cats and dogs. Energy development, including geothermal and solar energy development, has resulted in habitat loss for Mohave ground squirrels, and several such projects are now under consideration. For example, the BLM has identified sites for potential renewable energy resources, such as wind, solar, and photovoltaics, in the Mojave Desert.

The Mohave ground squirrel is not absent from all urban areas. In 2002, a Mohave ground squirrel was observed south of Highway 138, near Pinyon Hills, and a second observation occurred near an aerospace industrial complex located adjacent to Palmdale. In the first case, the site and adjacent areas are comprised of extensive tracts of undeveloped lands and those with relatively light rural development. At the second site, there are about five to six contiguous square miles of relatively undeveloped land, but the entire area is surrounded by urban and agricultural development. The ground squirrel has also been observed in residential backyards in Inyokern and may be seen foraging on the golf course at China Lake. One squirrel was recently trapped at the proposed Hyundai facility south of California City, where the consultant had identified habitat as being marginal. In these latter cases, the sightings are adjacent to extensive areas of undeveloped lands. Given these observations, the only certain areas of extirpation within the range of the species are those that have been physically developed.

Such areas include, but are not limited to, paved roads and parking lots; residential, commercial, and industrial sites occupied by buildings, graded areas, and other areas where vegetation has been mechanically removed; solar facilities at Kramer Junction and Harper Lake; and large mined areas such as at U.S. Borax, Rand Mining Company facilities, and in portions of the Shadow Mountains east of Edwards AFB.

Four major, active military installations occur within the West Mojave and comprise a total of 4,165 square miles:
the Naval Air Weapons Station at China Lake, the Fort Irwin National Training Center, Edwards Air Force Base, and Marine Corp Air Ground Combat Center near Twentynine Palms. A 250-square mile expansion of Fort Irwin has been proposed. Military maneuvers result in mortality to ground squirrels, damage to vegetation, soil compaction, a change soil texture, and creation of fugitive dust. The results are largely denuded habitat; altered vegetation composition, abundance, and distribution; and a change to finer grained soils. In studies of the desert tortoise, military activities had the greatest adverse impact in valley bottoms, areas that also provide habitat for the Mohave ground squirrel. Changes in soil texture, from a coarser to finer texture, has been documented in agricultural areas and areas of military maneuvers. Finer textured soils do not provide a suitable substrate for ground squirrel burrow construction.

Grazing by livestock may affect Mohave ground squirrels through changes in soil and vegetative structure, accelerated erosion, and collapsing of burrows. Sheep are generally grazed in the desert between late February and the middle of June, which coincides with Mohave ground squirrel emergence from hibernation in February and its entire activity period, particularly during very dry years when the squirrel may enter hibernation in June.

These times are critical for both adult and juvenile squirrels to attain sufficient fat reserves to enter into and successfully emerge from hibernation. The severity of grazing impacts may range from marginal in lightly-used areas to extreme at cattle troughs and sheep bedding areas. Research conducted at the Coso study area demonstrated that forage consumed by Mohave ground squirrels is also consumed by both sheep and cattle.

Competition for winterfat, hopsage, and saltbush, all important ground squirrel food plants, could be exacerbated during times of drought because alternative sources of food are not available. Although the Mohave ground squirrel is adapted to drought and arid conditions, prolonged drought reduces productivity of forage plants and reproduction in the ground squirrel. Shrub cover required by the Mohave ground squirrel for thermoregulation and protection from predators can be reduced by grazing pressure.

Persistent grazing pressure has resulted in the replacement of native perennial grasses by non-native annual grasses throughout much of the western Mojave Desert. Human development in the desert has also resulted in the proliferation of non-native grasses, such as red brome, cheatgrass, and Mediterranean grass. Grazing, OHV use, and other types of ground disturbance facilitate the spread of these grasses, which are adapted to disturbance and outcompete the native species that constitute food plants of the Mohave ground squirrel. The increase in grass cover between desert shrubs has been linked to increased fire frequency and fire intensity in the desert. Fires cause direct mortality when ground squirrels are burned or inhale lethal amounts of smoke, which can occur both in and out of burrows. Fire changes the composition of vegetation by facilitating the establishment of non-native grasses and removing forage plants. Fires also fragment habitat by creating patches of unsuitable habitat.

Habitat fragmentation results in the isolation of populations and potential loss of genetic variation. Small isolated populations may experience a reduced ability to adapt to environmental change, and a decrease in reproductive success, growth, and survivorship. Such populations face a greater probability of extirpation. During extended droughts, for example, lower quality habitat may not be capable of supporting the species, and result in local extirpation. Recolonization of these areas may occur when conditions favoring reproduction resume.

In 2003, the BLM released the draft environmental documents for the West Mojave Plan (Plan). If adopted by the BLM, the Plan amends the California Desert Conservation Plan of 1980. It presents a strategy to conserve and protect the Mohave ground squirrel, desert tortoise, and nearly 100 other sensitive plant and animal species, while providing a streamlined program for complying with the requirements of the California and federal Endangered Species Acts. Seven alternative conservation strategies, representing different approaches to achieving biological goals and objectives for the covered species, are provided. These strategies are intended to mitigate for the future incidental take of the proposed “covered species” from urban development and land management activities. Goals of the Plan include protecting Mohave ground squirrel habitat throughout its range and ensuring long-term viability of the species. The entire known range of the Mohave ground squirrel occurs within the West Mojave; all but a small part of that, which is located northeast of Searles Dry Lake, occurs within the planning area, west and north of the Mojave River.

The preferred alternative for the West Mojave Plan proposes ecosystem-scale conservation with the establishment of four very large Desert Wildlife Management Areas (DWMA) and additional lands for the Mohave Ground Squirrel Conservation Area. The desert tortoise and Mohave ground squirrel are “umbrella species”, a term used to describe protection of many other species under the “umbrella” of conservation for important wide-ranging species. A conservation area would be established for the long-term survival and protection of the Mohave ground squirrel. This Conservation Area would include portions of the Fremont-Kramer and Superior-Cronese Tortoise DWMAs, and additional, essential habitats located west and north of the two tortoise DWMAs.

The West Mojave Plan would adopt provisions of the Los Angeles County Significant Ecological Area ordinance.

Los Angeles County has identified a Significant Ecological Area (SEA) for northeastern Los Angeles County that should prove beneficial to protection of the Mohave ground squirrel. Within SEAs, the County performs a heightened environmental review for new projects, and has proposed zoning the area for a minimum lot size of 10 acres. The West Mojave Plan would focus on ground squirrel habitat on eastern side of the Sierra Nevada. This narrow band of habitat provides an important linkage corridor from north to south along Highways 178, 14, and 395. Projects in this area would also receive special review to ensure that habitat is not fragmented. Impact avoidance measure applicable to the desert tortoise would also be applied to the Mohave ground squirrel. These measures include restrictions on commercial activities, construction activities, and hunting and shooting.

The ultimate preserve design for the Mohave ground squirrel will need to conserve a substantial portion of its known range to allow for natural fluctuations in local and regional populations in response to climatic factors, rainfall. The size and location of preserve areas should be based on biological, demographic, and genetic considerations and core preserve areas must be large enough to support sufficient numbers of individuals to account for natural fluctuations in abundance. Further, it is critical that core reserves are situated in high quality habitats in which the species can persist during drought conditions. These "drought refugia" provide sources from which populations may expand under better conditions.

In contributing to the conservation strategy for the squirrel, the DFG expressed concern that no strategy would be successful without the participation of the military bases in the western Mojave Desert. Because the Mohave ground squirrel is not federally listed, the military departments are not required to develop policies to conserve the species. The DFG and USFWS concurred that those wildlands on military bases not needed for current missions should be managed for the greatest biodiversity of wildlife species and that those local areas on bases be managed for listed species such as the desert tortoise and Mohave ground squirrel. Special protective measures would need to be implemented if the Fort Irwin National Training Center expands into the Superior Valley region, as has been proposed. In December 2000, legislation authorizing expansion of Fort Irwin into critical habitat for the desert tortoise in the Superior Valley region was passed and signed into law by President Clinton. The proposed expansion is currently undergoing extensive environmental review; the release date of the documents is not known at this time (late 2004).

Determining the status of the Mohave ground squirrel is difficult due to behavioral and demographic aspects of the species. The species is inactive throughout much of the year, and abundance as well as the period of surface activity varies from year to year. Live-trapping studies must be scheduled carefully and even then cannot necessarily establish the absence of the species from a site. These points were underscored in a recent study conducted by the USGS. USGS scientists reviewed existing Mohave ground squirrel trapping records to facilitate future habitat modeling and population trend predictions. The scientists found that the trapping records could not be used to develop models because of differences in sampling methodology and types of data reported. The researchers found, however, that trapping success declined significantly between 1980 and 2000 across most of the range of the species, raising concerns that Mohave ground squirrel numbers are decreasing across its geographic range. The exception was in the Coso geothermal region where numbers of animals increased between 1984 and 1998. Population numbers did not correlate with winter rainfall. Due to the lack of quantitative data, additional research is needed to accurately determine the status and trend of the Mohave ground squirrel.

Morro Bay
kangaroo rat
Dipodomys heermannii
morroensis
State: Endangered 1971
Fully Protected
Federal: Endangered 1970

General Habitat:

The Morro Bay kangaroo rat primarily inhabits
low, sparse coastal dune scrub vegetation
associated with stabilized sand dunes in the
Morro Bay area. Its habitat is highly localized in
the vicinity of Los Osos in San Luis Obispo
County. Plant species in its habitat include bush
lupine, dune lupine, mock heather, coyote bush,
California sagebrush, croton, buckwheat, phlox,
and deerweed. Plant roots provide support for
burrows.

Description:

This kangaroo rat, like all species of kangaroo
rats, has long hind legs, small front legs and feet,
brown upper parts, and a white belly. It is smaller
and darker than any other subspecies of
Heermann’s kangaroo rat. The average adult
weight is approximately 2.3 ounces, and the
average length is about 11 inches. The lack of a
complete hip stripe also distinguishes this animal
from other kangaroo rats.

Status:

The Morro Bay kangaroo rat is threatened by loss and degradation of its habitat due to development, invasion of non-native plant species, disruption of natural disturbance patterns, and OHV use. The kangaroo rat is also threatened by predation by cats. The historic known distribution of this species was approximately 200 acres. If it still exists, it is believed to occur only on one small, privately-owned parcel of native vegetation. The most recent observations of the kangaroo rat date from the mid-1980s. A revised Draft Recovery Plan for the Morro Bay kangaroo rat was released in 2000 by the USFWS. The recovery plan was revised to allow captive breeding of the species if individuals are found.

The Morro Bay kangaroo rat is geographically isolated from other subspecies of the Heermann’s kangaroo rat. A mitochondrial DNA study of museum specimens conducted at San Francisco State University suggests recent origin of the Morro Bay kangaroo rat and that the historic population underwent at least one genetic bottleneck.

Researchers also found that historical populations of the Morro Bay kangaroo rat exhibited low genetic diversity even prior to a population bottleneck that endangered the subspecies. A genetic bottleneck refers to a drastic reduction in the size of the original population, usually due to a catastrophic event, which reduces the gene pool of the species.

In 2002, San Luis Obispo County received a grant from the USFWS under the Service’s Habitat Conservation Planning Assistance and Land Acquisition Section 6 grant program. This grant will help initiate the development of an HCP which will cover 43,500 acres in the Estero area, the central coastal part of the county. Development of an HCP in this area will provide for a conservation strategy for covered species to address recovery needs and to allow for more flexible planning and implementation. This HCP will benefit several listed species including the Morro shoulderband snail and the Morro Bay kangaroo rat. Additional federal funding has been granted to conduct a two year field survey for the Morro Bay kangaroo rat and to estimate the genetic relatedness between the Morro Bay and Lompoc kangaroo rats. The Lompoc kangaroo rat has been used as a surrogate for the Morro Bay kangaroo rat to develop captive breeding protocols.

The DFG considered the Morro Bay kangaroo rat to be Possibly Extirpated.

Giant kangaroo rat Dipodomys ingens
State: Endangered 1980
Federal: Endangered 1987

General Habitat:

Giant kangaroo rats require annual grassland and
shrub land habitats with sparse vegetative cover and
soils that are well drained, fine sandy loams with
slope generally less than 10 percent. Areas of low
annual precipitation and infrequent flooding are
preferred by this species for establishment of
permanent colonies. The historical range extended
from Merced County south to Kern County and west
to eastern San Luis Obispo and northern Santa
Barbara counties.

Description:

Giant kangaroo rats are small mammals with elongated
hind limbs for hopping and external cheek pouches
for carrying food to their burrows. The giant
kangaroo rat is the largest of all kangaroo rats and
weighs from 4.6 to 6.4 ounces. The total length is 12
to 13 inches, including a tail that is six to eight
inches. Giant kangaroo rats subsist almost entirely on
the seeds of annual plants such as brome grasses and
filaree. The animals harvest, stack, and dry caches
of grasses and forbs near the entrance of their
burrows. Giant kangaroo rats inhabit a territory,
known as a precinct that averages 20 feet in
diameter where a shallow burrow system, about 12
inches deep, is constructed. Each kangaroo rat
maintains and defends an individual territory in a
colony that may consist of from two to thousands of
precincts.

Status:

The historical range of the giant kangaroo rat extended from Merced County south to Kern County and west to eastern San Luis Obispo and northern Santa Barbara counties. Populations were most numerous in areas with sparse vegetative cover and low annual precipitation. Today very little undisturbed suitable habitat remains. The loss of original habitat to agricultural conversion may be as much as 98 percent. Five relatively small areas totaling 12-square miles remain that support population densities typical of those existing prior to 1950.

In 1997, several population assessment studies confirmed that the giant kangaroo rat population had dramatically declined along with that of many other kangaroo rats in the southern San Joaquin Valley. At other locales such as the Elkhorn Plain in eastern San Luis Obispo County the declines were not as severe. In 1998 and 1999 giant kangaroo rat numbers began to increase at the Elkhorn Plain study area. Genetics studies, initiated in 1993, continue on this and other kangaroo rat species, and are yielding valuable information that can be applied to recovery strategies for all endangered kangaroo rats.

In 1997, an additional research effort began at the Lokern Area in western Kern County to further investigate the role of livestock grazing on species and habitats on the floor of the San Joaquin Valley. However, few giant kangaroo rats have been caught on plots in the Lokern Study Area since the beginning of the study. Researchers did, however, capture the most individuals in any year of the study in 2002 when they caught three in each of two treatment plots (out of four). In addition, a colony of about 20 individuals was seen near one of these treatment plots. Although numbers have remained fairly low throughout the study, giant kangaroo rats have only been caught in plots grazed by cattle, never in any of the four ungrazed plots. In a separate study initiated by BLM in 1993 at a location about 3 km north of the Lokern Study Site, researchers have captured giant kangaroo rats twice a year since 1993. Population numbers were as high as 110 individuals caught in a six-night census when the study began, decreased to 0 for both sessions in 1998 (dense grass year), and has steadily increased back up to about 45-70 individuals caught in 2002/2003. Trends in population size seem correlated with the amount of grass cover: the less grass, the greater the number of giant kangaroo rats caught.

The conversion of native habitat to agricultural uses remains the greatest threat to the species. Ongoing studies, initiated in 1987 at the Elkhorn Plain, an area that is now included in the Carrizo Plain National Monument, which was established in 2000, indicate a healthy population that is reproducing well during years with adequate rainfall.

Researchers from the Endangered Species Recovery Program conduct giant kangaroo rat population censuses twice a year at the Elkhorn Plain study area.

The recovery options for the giant kangaroo rat are addressed, along with those for 33 other species of plants and animals, in the USFWS 1998 Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley, California. The DFG is involved in several conservation efforts for the giant kangaroo rat. Some of the efforts include the Metropolitan Bakersfield HCP, the California Department of Corrections Electric Fence HCP, the Coles Levee area 2081 Agreement, and the Arco Western Energy HCP. Despite these conservation efforts, habitat loss remains the primary obstacle to recovery with only populations on established preserve lands secure for the foreseeable future.

The status in 2003 of the giant kangaroo rat: Stable to Declining.

Stephen’s
kangaroo rat
Dipodomys stephensi
State: Threatened 1971
Federal: Endangered 1988
General Habitat:

The Stephen’s kangaroo rat inhabits annual
grassland with sparse perennial vegetation in the
San Jacinto Valley and adjacent areas of
western Riverside and northwestern San Diego
County. Occupied habitats consist of sparse,
slightly disturbed coastal sage scrub, dominated
by California sagebrush or California buckwheat,
or annual grassland. The populations with the
highest densities have been found in areas
where the herbaceous layer still contains
California native annuals, and where perennial
plant cover is less than 30 percent. Stephens’
kangaroo rat occurs on level or low rolling
terrain with slopes of less that 30 percent
where gravel is a common component of the soil.

It is not found on extremely hard or sandy soils.

In general, the highest abundances of Stephens’
kangaroo rats occur on gentle slopes less than 15
percent.

Description:

Stephens’ kangaroo rat physically resembles all other kangaroo rat species in having long hind legs, small front legs and feet, brown upper parts, a white belly, and a long, tufted tail. There are five toes on the hind foot and the tail is 1.45 times the length of the head and body. Stephens’ kangaroo rat is distinguished from the sympatric agile kangaroo rat (Dipodomys ogilis) by a lateral white tail band that is one half or less (rather than one half or more) times the width of the dorsal tail stripe, dusky (rather than dark) soles on the hind feet, a comparatively grizzled appearance to the dorsal tail stripe due to many white hairs, a darker tail tuft due to few white hairs, a smaller ear, and a relatively broad head. The average adult Stephens’ kangaroo rat is 11 to 12 inches in length and weighs 23 ounces.

Status:

Stephens’ kangaroo rat is threatened by destruction, fragmentation, and degradation of its habitat through human and human-induced activities. Adverse impacts to kangaroo rat habitat result from clearing of land for urban and suburban development and for agriculture, water projects, military activities, wildland or prescribed fires, OHVs, livestock use, and invasion of non-native plant species. The Stephens’ kangaroo rat is restricted to Riverside County and adjacent northern-central San Diego County.

The USFWS released its draft recovery plan for the kangaroo rat in mid-1997. The document proposes that USFWS consider the kangaroo rat for reclassification to threatened status when four reserves totaling at least 15,000 acres of habitat occupied by the kangaroo rat in western Riverside County and one habitat reserve in San Diego County are “permanently protected, funded, and managed.” The USFWS would consider delisting the kangaroo rat when at least five habitat reserves in western Riverside County, totaling at least 16,500 acres of occupied habitat and two additional reserves in San Diego County are “permanently protected, funded, and managed.”
Stephens’ kangaroo rat populations at several reserves in Riverside County are being monitored through burrow counts and live-trapping. The kangaroo rat is the sole species addressed in the 1996 Habitat Conservation Plan for the Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat in Western Riverside County (SKR HCP), prepared by the Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency. The HCP provides Take Authorization for the species within its boundaries. The West Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) provides Take Authorization for the kangaroo rat outside the boundaries of the Stephen’s Kangaroo Rat HCP, but within the MSHCP boundaries. The core reserves established by the NCCP will be managed as part of the MSHCP Conservation Area consistent with the NCCP. Under the MSHCP, species conservation objectives include maintaining occupied habitat within the NCCP boundary; maintaining occupied habitat within the MSHCP Plan Area but outside of the HCP boundary; and maintaining a specified population density.

Approximately 22,400 acres of occupied sites and suitable habitat will be conserved in the MSHCP Conservation Area, 3,200 acres more than acreage conserved under the SKR HCP. The Conservation Area will conserve adequate representations of the older and younger populations with three of the core reserves containing the older populations and at least four of the core reserves containing the younger populations. In general, the largest and key populations of the Stephens’ kangaroo rats are centered within the larger core reserves in western Riverside County: 1) the San Jacinto Wildlife Area/Lake Perris-Badlands-Potrero Valley complex; 2) the Lake Mathews/Estelle Mountain-Steele Peak-Kabian Park-Sedco Hills complex; and 3) the Lake Skinner/Domenigoni Valley-Sage-Wilson Valley-Vail Lake-Aguanga-Anza Valley complex. Other important locations in the MSHCP Plan Area not in the existing Stephens’ kangaroo rat reserve include the Potrero Valley, Anza and Cahuilla valleys, and the Sage/Aguanga area.

Preserve configuration and connectivity within and between populations are essential to the long-term conservation of the species. Research has shown that the Stephen’s kangaroo rat is more sedentary than other species of kangaroo rat and that genetic exchange between populations of the species is restricted in fragmented habitat. Maintaining connectors between core areas is, therefore, critical to maintaining genetic exchange in the species. Because the kangaroo rat is relatively sedentary, these connectors should include functional habitat that can be permanently colonized. The preserve design envisioned under the MSHCP would include the three large core reserves in western Riverside County. Culverts under Highway 79 and Highway 60 in the first area allow kangaroo rat movement to habitat bisected by these highways. Culverts could be installed under Highway 74, a potential barrier to movement in the Lake Matthews habitat complex.

The Stephens’ kangaroo rat populations in the southeastern portion of the Plan Area probably have the best existing habitat connections, within contiguous habitat linking Lake Skinner-Domenigoni Valley, Sage, Wilson Valley, Lewis Valley, Vail Lake, Aguanga, Tule Valley and Anza Valley. Potential obstacles to movement between these areas are Sage Road, Highway 79 (between Temecula and Aguanga), and Highway 371. However, the rural character of this region will be preserved and it is expected that existing habitat connection function also will be preserved. Two core reserves that are, and probably will remain, functionally isolated from other reserves are the Motte-Rimrock Reserve and Sycamore Canyon-March Air Reserve Base. Existing land uses and high economic values in these areas preclude connecting these reserves to other large reserve areas.

In northern San Diego County, Stephens’ kangaroo rat occurs at Camp Pendleton, Fallbrook Naval Weapons Annex, Lake Henshaw, Santa Maria Valley (Ramona), and Guejito Ranch. Occurrences in grasslands adjacent to Guajome Lake and Pilgrim Creek and Ramona that the species could be more widespread in grasslands of San Diego County than was previously thought, but suitable habitat is mostly north and east of the MHCP plan area. Available habitat in San Diego County has been greatly reduced and fragmented through urban and agricultural development. Periodic disturbances that reduce shrub cover and increase cover by annual plants may improve habitat for this species. Only about 31% of the remaining grasslands in the MHCP area are expected to be conserved, and much if this occurs on clay soils unsuitable for burrow construction and in isolated areas that are too small to support viable populations of kangaroo rat. Nevertheless, Stephens’ kangaroo rat could potentially colonize grasslands or agricultural fields in Oceanside, in the vicinity of occupied habitat on Camp Pendleton and Fallbrook Navel Weapons Annex. The 2003 wildfires burned large areas of San Diego County, including approximately 19,000 acres (25%) of habitat suitable for the Stephens’ kangaroo rat. Because Stephens’ kangaroo rats prefer low, sparse vegetation, compared to denser grassland or coastal sage scrub, the long-term effects of fire may be beneficial to the species.

Recent mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) analysis found that the different geographic regions within the species’ range (northern, central and southern) differ genetically, with the central area having the greatest diversity of genetic lineages. The data indicate that genetic flow has been restricted among the different geographic regions of the species’ range. A notable finding was that genetic diversity of sample sites in the southern part of species’ range (Fallbrook, Camp Pendleton, Lancaster Valley, and Guejito) was much lower than the northern and central sample sites. This low diversity may indicate a possible population bottleneck that occurred during a recent range expansion in the southern region. The genetic characteristics of the Anza and Cahuilla valleys population are unknown.

Other conservation efforts involving this species include the Lake Mathews MSHCP, Pacific Gateway Homes HCP, and Ridge at Cresta Verde HCP. A previously unknown population of the kangaroo rat was discovered in the Ramona Valley, San Diego County in October 1997. It is not known if this species still inhabits extreme southwestern San Bernardino County.

At the end of 2002, the DFG considered the trend and status for the Stephens’ kangaroo rat to be Unknown.

Tipton
kangaroo rat
Dipodomys nitratoides
nitratoides
State: Endangered 1989
Federal: Endangered 1988

General Habitat:

Tipton kangaroo rats are limited to arid land
communities of the valley floor in the Tulare Basin,
in level to nearly level terrain at an elevation of 200 to 300 feet. Woody shrubs such as spiny saltbush,
iodine bush, and mesquite are sparsely scattered
over the terrain with scant to moderate ground
cover of grasses and forbs. Soils are typically
fine-textured and alkaline.

Description:

The Tipton kangaroo rat is one of three subspecies
of the San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys
nitratoides). Tipton kangaroo rats are visually
similar to other kangaroo rats; they have a tawny
yellow head and back with a white belly and a white
stripe on the elongated hind legs that continue down
the sides of the otherwise black tail. Other
characteristics include: a large head, compared to
other rodents, with large eyes and small rounded
ears; small forelegs with strong claws; and a long,
tufted tail. Adult Tipton kangaroo rats weigh about
one to 1.3 ounces.

Status:

This subspecies originally occupied a range that included the Tulare Lake Basin in portions of Fresno, Kings, Tulare, and Kern counties. This geographic range encompassed about 1.7 million acres. An estimate of historic population based on today's density data and the estimated extent of former range is about 17.2 million individuals. Currently, approximately 190,200 individuals, or about 1 percent, remain. The conversion of native habitat to agricultural, residential, and commercial developments and flooding remain the principal threats to this species.

The recovery options for the Tipton kangaroo rat are addressed in the USFWS Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley, California, completed in 1998. Proposed actions include establishment of habitat preserves and captive breeding and translocation of populations. Severe declines, beginning in 1994, affected all kangaroo rat populations, including Tipton, in the southern San Joaquin Valley. In 1998 and 1999 populations slowly returned to previous population levels of the early 1990s. As of 2003, the population levels of Tipton kangaroo rats are largely unknown but presumed to be still fairly low and vulnerable to further declines. Dense vegetation due to above average rainfall has had a negative impact on this and other kangaroo rat species. During wet years, kangaroo rat species may suffer from diseases precipitated by low food stores and seeds that are moldy.

The closely related short-nosed kangaroo rat (D. n. brevinasus) occurs at the Lokern grazing study area. Findings by researchers regarding the affects of cattle grazing on the short-nosed kangaroo rat may have application to the Tipton kangaroo rat. Short-nosed kangaroo rats have steadily increased in number since 1998, due in large part to the below-average rainfall experienced since 1999. Numbers of the species are now high across most of the Lokern Study Area. In 1999 and 2000 more short-nosed kangaroo rats were caught on the grazed plots compared to the ungrazed plots, but the lack of grass in both controls and treatments in recent years has masked any benefit we found from grazing. Higher than average level of rainfall is needed in future years to return the control sites to high grass cover. Once the control plots are grassy, researchers should be able to quantify the effect of cattle grazing on populations of short-nosed kangaroo rats.

The DFG is involved in several conservation efforts for Tipton kangaroo rat including the Kern County Valley Floor and Waste Facilities HCPs, Kern Water Bank HCP, Metropolitan Bakersfield HCP, and the PG&E San Joaquin Valley HCP. Despite these conservation efforts, the species is in severe decline; extinction could occur if current levels of habitat loss continue into the future.

The status in 2003 of the Tipton kangaroo rat: Declining.

Fresno kangaroo rat Dipodomys
nitratoides
exilis
State: Endangered 1980
Federal: Endangered 1985

General Habitat:

The Fresno kangaroo rat occupies chenopod
scrub and grassland in the San Joaquin Valley.

The historic range of the Fresno kangaroo rat
extended from north central Merced County,
south through southwestern Madera and
central Fresno counties. Typical plants within
the species habitat include seep weed, iodine
bush, saltbush, peppergrass, filaree, wild oats,
and foxtail fescue.

Description:

The Fresno kangaroo rat is one of three
subspecies of the San Joaquin kangaroo rat.

The Fresno kangaroo rat is the smallest of the
San Joaquin kangaroo rats with a total length
of nine inches, including a five-inch tail. Adults
weigh about one ounce. Their fur is dark
yellowish-buff on the back and white on the
stomach. A white stripe extends along the
flanks and on the sides of the tufted tail.

Status:

The current population distribution and population size are unknown. The species is critically threatened by loss of habitat and fragmentation throughout its range. Surviving populations are isolated and are likely small. The species is also threatened by flooding and the use of rodenticides within its range.

Demographic studies, initiated in 1993, are continuing to locate any extant populations of Fresno kangaroo rats.

Beginning in 1995 and continuing to 2003, fire management has been applied to the habitat supporting a small population of kangaroo rats on a small patch of habitat at the Lemoore Naval Air Station, Fresno County.

Additional study and management is planned; discussions are ongoing between land managers and researchers concerning the future management of larger tracts of land that may constitute suitable habitats at Lemoore NAS and at other locations within the range of the species in the San Joaquin Valley. Populations of Fresno kangaroo rats are suspected on certain private lands, but access to conduct the necessary surveys has not been granted.

The recovery options for the Fresno kangaroo rat have been addressed in the USFWS Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley, California, completed in 1998. The recovery plan calls for establishment of additional habitat preserves and the possible captive breeding and translocation of populations of this species onto those secure refuges. The Fresno kangaroo rat may well be one of the most severely endangered mammal species in the State and drastic measures may be needed to save it from extinction in the next decade. One option that could be a step toward recovery of the species would involve the rehabilitation of deteriorated kangaroo rat habitat at the DFG Alkali Sink Ecological Reserve where the species was last reported in 1992. The ecological reserve once supported a moderate population of the species. With suitable habitat established, the area could be re-populated with captive-reared Fresno kangaroo rats. Similar recovery actions could be attempted at other locations within the range of this species.

The status in 2003 of the Fresno kangaroo rat: Declining.

Salt-marsh
harvest mouse
Reithrodontomys
raviventris
State: Endangered 1971
Fully Protected
Federal: Endangered 1970
General Habitat:

The salt-marsh harvest mouse is found only in
California, inhabiting tidal and nontidal salt marshes of Suisun, San Pablo, and central and south San Francisco
Bays. Its preferred habitat is dominated by
pickleweed although this species can occur in the upper marsh zone dominated by other salt-tolerant plants.

Description:

The salt-marsh harvest mouse has rich brown fur on its
back, underparts of cinnamon to buffy white, and a
unicolored tail. It is very similar in appearance to the western harvest mouse, a closely-related species,
which complicates identification of the salt-marsh
form in field studies. The salt-marsh harvest mouse
can tolerate quite salty food and water.

Status:

The salt-marsh harvest mouse is threatened by loss and degradation of its habitat through human and humaninduced activities. Of the 193,800 acres of tidal marsh that bordered San Francisco Bay in 1850, only about 30,000 remain. Parts of the East Bay shoreline are eroding. About 600 acres of former salt marsh along Coyote Creek, Alviso Slough, and Guadalupe Slough have been converted to fresh- and brackish-water vegetation due to freshwater discharge from South Bay wastewater facilities. This area may no longer support the salt-marsh harvest mouse. Adverse impacts to harvest mouse habitat have also resulted from filling of marshes to allow development, invasion of non-native cordgrass and other non-native species, and pollution from urban run-off, industrial discharges, and sewage effluent. The salt-marsh harvest mouse is likely subject to predation by the non-native red fox and non-native feral cat.

The USFWS is preparing a recovery plan for tidal-marsh species in the San Francisco Bay, including the saltmarsh harvest mouse. Determining the distribution and abundance of the mouse is one of the management goals of the San Francisco Estuary Wetlands Regional Monitoring Program (WRMP) Plan, the first version of which was released in June 2002. The mission of the WRMP, which is a product of the San Francisco Estuary Institute and wetland managers representing a variety of agencies including the DFG, “is to provide the scientific understanding necessary to protect, create, restore, and enhance wetlands of the San Francisco Bay Region, through objective and cost-effective monitoring, research, and communication.” Although the initial focus of the WRMP is on the tidal bay lands of the San Francisco estuary, the geographic scope of the WRMP is the entire estuary plus the watersheds that drain to the estuary within the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area.

At the end of 2002, the DFG considered the population trend and status for the salt-marsh harvest mouse to be Unknown.

Amargosa vole Microtus californicus
scirpensis
State: Endangered 1980
Federal: Endangered 1984

General Habitat:

Habitat for the Amargosa vole consists of a
discontinuous, narrow band of small, permanent freshwater marshes along the Amargosa River of Inyo County. Bulrush is the dominant overstory species.

Associated wetland species include cattail, saltgrass,
and willow. The vole may occur downstream in adjacent
San Bernardino County. The flooding of potential or
inhabited vole habitat during late summer thunder
storms and extended periods of winter rainfall
probably allow permanent vole occupation only in
marshes on the margins of the river’s floodplain.

Description:

This small mammal is pallid, neutral gray above, smoky
gray below, has a tail which is brown above and grayish below, and has feet of brownish gray. The
comparatively short tail, small rounded ears, short
legs, and compact, almost-cylindrical body shape
distinguish voles from other mouse-like rodents. It
differs from most other subspecies of California vole
by its brighter coloration. As with other voles in the
genus Microtus, the Amargosa vole probably is active
year round.

Status:

The Amargosa vole is threatened by loss and degradation of its habitat through human and human-induced activities. Adverse impacts to vole habitat include groundwater pumping and water diversion, OHV use, cattle grazing, invasion by tamarisk and other non-native plants, and severe or prolonged flooding. Construction of the Tidewater-Tonopah Railroad and the Old Spanish Trail in the early 1900s, and development of springs in Shoshone and Tecopa, are believed to have fragmented or eliminated habitat that existed at that time. The vole is also subject to predation by the domestic cat from nearby human-occupied areas. The alien house mouse, found in marshes inhabited by this vole, may compete with the vole for food.

The USFWS prepared a Recovery Plan for this species in 1997. The Recovery Plan indicated that protection of extant wetland habitat and the water sources need to perpetuate these wetlands are critical to the survival and recovery of the Amargosa vole. Delisting criteria and species-specific management options were not proposed due to the lack of detailed biological information for the species.

An analysis of effect of habitat fragmentation and genetics of the Amargosa vole revealed a significant level of differentiation between populations from different marshes. Because the marshes occupied by the Amargosa vole are fragmented within the surrounding desert habitat, dispersal by the voles, and consequently genetic exchange between populations, is limited. The data obtained in this study suggested a relatively recent divergence of the Amargosa vole from closely related species, and that is is persisting along an independently evolving lineage. Such data can be used to guide conservation activities by identifying individual marshes that are critical to preserving the genetic diversity of the species.

The vole is a featured species in the planning effort for the Northern and Eastern Mojave Desert Management Plan developed by the BLM, with considerable contribution by the USFWS and NPS. The BLM’s July 2002 proposed plan included the elements of the Recovery Plan, including preservation and management of its remaining habitat. The final plan was approved by the BLM in December 2002, as an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Plan of 1980. Although the planning team had considered an alternative plan that would have emphasized managing lands for recovery of the vole, desert tortoise, and other species, the team recommended a plan allowing less land devoted to such recovery. For the Amargosa vole, the final plan maintains the emphasis of the alternative in protecting the watershed of the Amargosa River. Both versions of the plan propose establishing an Amargosa River Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC). The final plan identifies five areas along the river for potential implementation of a conservation strategy for the vole. Two of the areas are Areas of Critical Ecological Concern: the Grimshaw Lake Natural Area and the Amargosa Canyon Natural Area.

The final plan proposes identifying potential segments of the Amargosa River for addition to the National Wild and Scenic River system. The BLM anticipates purchasing approximately 2,600 acres of privately-held land containing currently-suitable and/or potentially-restorable habitat for the vole.

The DFG considers the population trend and status for the Amargosa vole to be Unknown.

Sierra Nevada
red fox
Vulpes vulpes
necator
State: Threatened 1980
Federal: None

General Habitat:

The Sierra Nevada red fox is known to inhabit
types of vegetation similar to those used by the
marten and wolverine. Sightings of the
subspecies have been reported from the 5,000
to 7,000 foot elevation range with extremes
placed at 3,900 feet in Yosemite Valley and
11,900 feet at Lake South America in the
southern Sierra Nevada. The range is described
as the southern Cascade Range in northern
California, southeastward to the northern Sierra
Nevada, and then south along the Sierra Nevada
crest to Tulare County. Preferred habitat for
the Sierra Nevada red fox appears to be red fir
and lodgepole pine forests in the sub-alpine, and
in the alpine of the Sierra Nevada.

Description:

The Sierra Nevada red fox, California's only
indigenous subspecies, is one of 10 recognized
North American subspecies of Vulpes. The
Sierra Nevada red fox is distinguished from
members of the introduced lowland population of
red foxes by its slightly smaller size and darker
colored fur.

Status:

The Sierra Nevada red fox inhabits remote areas of the State where chance encounters with humans are uncommon. It occurs at low densities throughout Sierra Nevada and Cascade Range of California.

Threats to the Sierra Nevada red fox are unknown.

The existence of the Sierra Nevada red fox in the Lassen Peak region has provided an opportunity to conduct research to assist in the recovery of this threatened species and to increase our information base on the ecology of the subspecies. Fox populations have been confirmed in two proposed wilderness areas: Wild Cattle Mountain on the southern boundary of Lassen Volcanic National Park and in Heart Lake on the southwestern boundary of the park below Brokeoff Mountain.

Since 1997, the University of California at Berkeley, Lassen Volcanic National Park, Lassen National Forest, and the DFG has been conducting research on the Sierra Nevada red fox in Lassen Volcanic National Park. Research has included home range size and composition, habitat use for foraging and reproduction, seasonal movements between federal and private lands, diet, local density and spatial interactions with other sympatric carnivores such as coyotes (Canis latrans) and bobcats (Lynx rufus). Pilot studies were conducted in the summers of 1998 and 1999 and full-time research commenced in March 2000. In March 2000, researchers began a 30-month investigation of the basic ecology of the Sierra Nevada red fox in the Lassen Peak region. Radio-collared animals were tracked using ground and aerial telemetry, and non-collared animals were detected by systematic photostation surveys. Of particular interest were data on seasonal and elevational movements of red foxes and relationship to prey availability and the presence of other carnivore species in the Park.

As of July 2001, five red foxes (one male and four females) had been radio-collared and tracked by telemetry.

Summer home ranges, primarily between June and October, averaged 2300 acres and had little overlap, suggesting territoriality. In winter, the foxes moved up to nine miles southward to lower elevations, returning to higher elevations once spring returned. The locations and characteristics of red fox rest sites and dens were recorded, and scats were collected for diet analysis. Photostations detected red foxes most often between 2100 and 0500 hrs.

The ongoing research is a spin-off of a study of the wolverine (Gulo gulo), initiated in 1990, using remote, automatic cameras for the first time in a large scale field investigation of a furbearer. That earlier study incidentally yielded the first documented photographs of the Sierra Nevada red fox in the Lassen Park area.

Since then, additional remote-camera photographs of Sierra Nevada red foxes have been taken at that location in conjunction with the ongoing research of the subspecies. The techniques used in the wolverine study (i.e., baited stations with remote cameras) have shown promise for application to the study of several other carnivores including the Sierra Nevada red fox. Genetic samples taken from red foxes captured during this study are currently under analysis.

The current status of the Sierra Nevada red fox is unknown.

San Joaquin kit fox Vulpes macrotis
mutica
State: Threatened 1971
Federal: Endangered 1967

General Habitat:

Kit foxes occur in the remaining native valley and
foothill grasslands and chenopod scrub communities
of the valley floor and surrounding foothills from
southern Kern County north to Los Baños, Merced
County. In addition, smaller, less dense populations
are thought to exist further north and in the
narrow corridor between Interstate 5 and the
Interior Coast Range from Los Baños to Alameda
and Contra Costa Counties. Portions of Monterey,
Santa Clara, San Benito, San Luis Obispo, and Santa
Barbara counties are also included in the range of
the San Joaquin kit fox.

Description:

The kit fox (Vulpes macrotis) is the smallest canid
species in North America. San Joaquin kit foxes
have an average body length of 20 inches, an
average tail length of 12 inches and stand about
nine to 12 inches at the shoulder. These slenderbuilt mammals are characterized by relatively long legs and large, conspicuous ears. Adult males weigh
about five pounds, and adult females weigh about

4.6 pounds.

Status:

Currently, kit foxes occur in the remaining native valley and foothill grasslands and chenopod scrub communities of the valley floor and surrounding foothills from southern Kern County north to Los Baños, Merced County.

Distribution is spotty within this broad range. In addition, smaller, less dense populations are thought to exist further north and in the narrow corridor between Interstate 5 and the Interior Coast Range from Los Baños to Contra Costa County. Portions of Monterey, Santa Clara, San Benito, San Luis Obispo, and Santa Barbara counties are also included in the range of the San Joaquin kit fox. Studies and information from various sources indicate that a density of one kit fox per square mile in suitable habitat is a reasonable figure to use to estimate populations based on known acreage of habitat, although densities can range from less than one to over six foxes per square mile.

Loss of native habitat to various kinds of agriculture (e.g., cotton fields and vineyards), and residential and commercial developments remain the principal threats to this species. Several research projects funded by the DFG and studies by cooperators, begun in the mid-1990s and continuing to the present, are yielding more information about the habitat needs and biology of the kit fox. The recovery actions recommended for the kit fox are contained in the USFWS Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley, California, which was completed in 1998. The kit fox is described as a keystone species (i.e., a species essential to the health of the natural community), and efforts to save habitat for this species will result in benefits to other endangered plant and animal populations.

Long-term ecological studies at the Elk Hills Naval Petroleum Reserve in western Kern County terminated several years ago following the sale of the Reserve to private interests in the late 1990’s. However, the landmark research that was conducted over a period of more than a decade is currently being published in a number of journal articles and will make valuable contributions to our understanding of the biology, ecology, and management of the species and its recovery. Considerable research activity has been initiated or continued for the kit fox in recent years. One study, started in 1997, examines the special case of the kit fox in the urban environment. Kit foxes have been captured, radio-collared and their movements monitored within the city of Bakersfield, Kern County. This field phases of this investigation of the demography and ecology of San Joaquin kit foxes in urban environments will continue through June 2004, and then data analyses and report and manuscript preparation will be conducted. Preliminary results have indicated that urban kit fox populations exhibit favorable demographic patterns, and that conservation of these populations could contribute to overall recovery efforts. The DFG has contributed funding, derived from federal sources, and support for this project.

Other studies on the San Joaquin kit fox include:
• An investigation of the effects of two-lane highways on San Joaquin kit foxes was initiated in 2001 and data collection will continue through June 2004. Results from this investigation will be used to develop strategies to mitigate road effects on kit foxes. Kit foxes are impacted by highways through direct road killing mortalities as well as indirectly through habitat loss and fragmentation effects. • A study of the effects of livestock grazing and agricultural burning, as well as other farmland and ranchland activities on competitive interactions between San Joaquin kit foxes and coyotes was initiated in January 2003 and data collection will continue through June 2004. Results from this investigation will assist in developing habitat management strategies that may benefit kit foxes on these private lands. • Research on the use of artificial den structures by San Joaquin kit foxes was initiated in May 2001 and data collection will continue through June 2004. Results from this investigation will be used to develop strategies to mitigate den loss and also to enhance den availability in areas where natural dens are a limiting factor for kit foxes. Escape dens help kit foxes avoid predation by coyotes and may provide secure sites for pup rearing.
• An investigation of strategies to facilitate survival of kit foxes crossing agricultural lands was initiated in 2001. This project is on-going, and represents a new approach to kit fox conservation in that it involves the establishment of a Safe Harbor Agreement with Paramount Farms. The DFG has contributed funding, derived from federal sources, for this effort.
• An investigation was completed in January 2003 on the efficacy of using search dogs and fecal DNA analyses as a non-invasive strategy for collecting demographic and ecological data on San Joaquin kit foxes. A doctoral dissertation and several manuscripts are being prepared that report the results of this effort. The technique proved to be useful where specially trained searchers were employed. Research confirmed Numerous locations throughout the historic range of San Joaquin kit foxes confirmed that populations still exist in western Kern County and the Carrizo Plain National Monument and along the west side of the San Joaquin Valley north to Santa Nella. Despite the extensive search effort, no kit fox sign was found along the west side from Santa Nella to Contra Costa County, or in Valley floor locations north of Kern County. One kit fox was observed in eastern Merced County.

Various other studies have been conducted with San Joaquin kit foxes to examine social ecology and range-wide genetic exchange, kit fox-red fox interactions, and kit fox use of agricultural lands. Several manuscripts for scientific journal publications and technical reports for these past and ongoing studies have been produced.

Protection for the kit fox is addressed in several conservation plans. Some examples of these plans include the Kern County Valley Floor and Waste Facilities HCPs, Kern Water Bank HCP, Metropolitan Bakersfield HCP, and the PG&E San Joaquin Valley HCP. Despite these efforts, and other conservation efforts, San Joaquin kit foxes continue to decline throughout their range and are close to extinction in the northern most part of the range in Contra Costa and Alameda counties.

The status in 2003 of the San Joaquin kit fox: Declining.

Island fox Urocyon littoralis
State Threatened 1971
Federal Endangered 2004

General Habitat:

The island fox occurs on the six largest California
Channel Islands, as follows: San Miguel, Santa Rosa,
Santa Cruz, Santa Catalina, San Nicolas, and San
Clemente. The fox appears to use most habitat types
found on these islands.

Description:

This small fox has pepper-and-salt upper pelage with
underfur that is rufous or buffy in color, with a dorsal median black stripe ending in the black tip of the tail.

Faces are marked by distinctive black, white, and
rufous-colored patterns. At 12 to 13 inches in height
and 3 to 4 pounds, the island fox is about the size of a housecat. The island fox feed largely on insects, mice, and wild-growing fruits. They can live as long as 10
years, generally mate for life and give birth to litters of 2-5 pups in mid-April.

Status:

The island fox is endemic to the Channel Islands and is distributed as six genetically distinct subspecies, one on each of the six largest Channel Islands: San Miguel, Santa Rosa, Santa Cruz, San Nicolas, Santa Catalina, and San Clemente. On March 5, 2004 the Channel Island Fox of Santa Cruz, Santa Rosa, San Miguel, and Santa Catalina Islands were federally listed as endangered species. Fox populations on at least four of the six islands have experienced recent catastrophic declines – as much as 95% over 1994 population levels. The total island fox population is currently estimated at about 1300 individuals. This precipitous decline resulted in the island fox being listed as critically endangered by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). Many experts fear the island fox could become extinct without implementation of recovery activities and intensive management.

The NPS released a recovery strategy for foxes on the northern Channel Islands in 2003. The island fox is threatened primarily by golden eagle predation. Loss and degradation of its habitat, a result of overgrazing by non-native animals, disease, and low natural recruitment also threaten this species.

Golden eagle predation is severely impacting the island fox, which has no native predator. Golden eagles first arrived on Santa Cruz Island, and then spread to San Miguel and Santa Rosa Islands, in the 1990s. The first golden eagle nest was observed in 1999. Prior to that time, golden eagles were only occasional visitors to the Channel Islands. Feral pigs, introduced by early settlers on the islands in the 1850s, provide abundant year-round prey for the golden eagles, which now have established resident populations. The eagles also use the island fox as a prey species. The pigs adversely altered the native vegetation on the Channel Islands and restructured the food web.

The pigs, and other introduced non-native animals, have fragmented native vegetation and converted stands of coastal sage scrub, chaparral, and oak woodlands to non-native annual grassland. The loss of plant species limits the native plant food sources available to the fox and reduces the numbers and availability of small animal prey species.

Loss of vegetation structure has eliminated cover for the island fox, increasing its vulnerability to predation.

Island fox populations have declined dramatically as a result of predation by golden eagle. Research has provided correlation between the establishment of eagles on the islands and the decline of the island fox. On Santa Cruz island, the population of 1500 - 2000 individuals in 1993 dropped to fewer than 100 individuals in the wild by 2003.

The cause of death in 21 of 29 foxes was due to golden eagle predation. On San Miguel Island, the first recorded fox mortality attributed to eagle predation was in 1995, the year in which the first golden eagle was sighted on the island. The San Miguel Island fox population showed dramatic decline, similar to that on Santa Cruz Island over the same time period, dropping from about 450 individuals to 39. A radiotelemetry study during 1998-1999 confirmed that golden eagle predation was the major cause of fox mortality on San Miguel Island. All but one of the 39 remaining foxes is now in captivity. Of the ~1700 foxes reported on Santa Rosa Island in 1994, 56 remain.

All 56 individuals are in captivity. Similar trends are seen on Santa Catalina Island (~1300 in 1994; 220 in 2003). A monitoring study of the San Nicholas Island population was begun in the summer of 2000. There are an estimated 734 animals in the wild. In an attempt to safeguard remaining foxes and augment natural reproduction, the entire wild populations of San Miguel and Santa Rosa Islands and a portion of the populations of Santa Catalina and Santa Cruz islands were placed into captive breeding programs. Captive-breeding began on San Miguel Island in 1999, on Santa Rosa Island in 2000, and on Santa Cruz Island in 2002.

Possibly related to the influx of golden eagles is the decline and elimination of the bald eagle on the Channel Islands. The bald eagle occurred historically on the islands but disappeared by the 1960s as a result of eggthinning caused by eating prey contaminated with DDT. Bald eagles nested on the perimeters of the islands near to their marine prey base. The bald eagle is highly territorial, and golden eagles were not resident on the Channel Islands when bald eagles were there in large numbers. Once the bald eagles were eliminated, a niche that could be occupied by another large raptor was available. NPS is reintroducing the bald eagle to the islands in conjunction with capturing the remaining golden eagles on the Channel Islands. The Santa Cruz Predatory Bird Group is working the USFWS, NPS, and TNC to remove golden eagles from the Santa Cruz, Santa Rosa, and San Miguel Islands.

They have removed 32 eagles and relocated them into suitable habitat in northern California. None of these eagles has returned to the Channel Islands according to telemetry data obtained from the released eagles. NPS estimates that six golden eagles, two pair and two lone eagles, remain on Santa Cruz Island. There were active nests on Santa Cruz and Santa Rosa Islands in 2003. Golden eagle predation on the island fox continues on Santa Cruz Island. The most recent eagle predation event occurred in November 2003.

The interactions between the golden eagle, bald eagle, feral pig, and island fox exemplify one of many challenges facing conservation biologists: how to protect a critically endangered species being impacted by another protected species. The proposal to removal golden eagles from the Channel Islands is not without controversy although capturing the remaining eagles is critical to the survival of the island foxes. Removal of feral pigs is part of a conservation plan prepared by NPS for Santa Cruz Island. The plan is based on the eradication of the island pigs with the goal of eliminating the eagles' prey base. Removal of the eagles must be concurrent with eradication of the feral pigs so that the eagles do not concentrate prey activities on the island fox.

Populations of the fox on the southern three islands have faced other threats. The San Clemente Island population (~1000 animals in 1994; 500-875 in 2003) has been impacted by a history of severe overgrazing, use of the island as a Navy bombing range, a widespread feral cat problem, and predator management activities to protect the island loggerhead shrike, another federally-listed species. In an attempt to offset fox predation of the shrikes, the Navy implemented control activities for non-native predators (black rat and feral cat), as well as for the island fox.

The Navy euthanized 13 foxes and shipped 15 foxes off the island to zoos. Euthanasia ceased in 1999.

Subsequently, foxes were captured and held in captivity while fledgling shrikes were vulnerable to predation.

Vehicle collisions are another source of fox mortality on San Clemente Island. On San Nicolas Island, vehicle collisions are the largest documented mortality source, with an average of 13 fox carcasses attributed to vehicle collisions recovered each year. The population on Santa Catalina Island was decimated by an outbreak of canine distemper in 1999-2000. The disease was likely introduced by an unvaccinated pet dog brought to the island. The Catalina Island Conservancy, with assistance from the Institute for Wildlife Studies, began a field vaccination program for wild foxes and a captive breeding program. The field vaccination program is part of a multifaceted recovery program initiated in 2000. According to Institute for Wildlife Studies, the wild population of foxes on Santa Catalina Island is estimated at about 220 adults.

Morphological and genetic variation within and among populations of island foxes has been studied by a number of researchers. The levels of variability found support differentiation of the island fox into subspecies. The genetic data shows that inter-island diversity is greater than intra-island diversity. Genetic evidence suggests that the island foxes descended from the gray fox on the California mainland during one colonization event that occurred approximately 10,000-16,000 years before present. The genetic studies have also revealed that the populations on San Miguel and San Nicholas Islands have the lowest genetic variability of the island fox populations. This lack of variability could be attributed either to extensive inbreeding or a genetic bottleneck resulting from low population densities. A genetic bottleneck refers to a reduced pool of genetic material usually due to a catastrophic event that reduces the size of the original population. The foxes on San Nicholas Islands have essentially no variability and their population consists largely of adult animals. Low levels of reproduction observed for the foxes on San Nicholas Island and in captivity may be due to such a bottleneck. Genetically, the foxes on San Miguel are most closely related to foxes on Santa Rosa Island. Populations on these islands also occur at such low population numbers that they are highly vulnerable to random extinction events. NPS has funded genetic studies on all foxes in the captive breeding program. The results are being used to ensure that interbreeding between closely-related animals does not occur and to maximize the limited diversity that does occur. Introduction of foxes to the captive breeding program from another island may be necessary to increase the genetic diversity of the San Nicholas and Santa Rosa Island foxes.

In 2001, DFG received funds to initiate a candidate conservation agreement for island fox on Santa Cruz Island.

This effort will include implementation of many of the actions included in the NPS recovery strategy. In 2002, the DFG used federal funds to help eliminate feral pigs from Santa Cruz Island. Six fenced enclosures will be built by TNC. Each enclosure will constitute a discrete management unit of about 12,000 acres. The DFG will manage public hunts within each enclosure to eliminate pigs.

DFG has participated in the Island Fox Conservation Working Group (IFCWG). The IFCWG is a team of experts convened by the NPS in 1999 and 2000 to recommend appropriate recovery actions for the island fox, The group is a loose affiliation of representatives of public agencies, landowners, conservancies, zoological institutions, nonprofits, and academia concerned about conservation efforts for the island fox. Its initial purpose was to evaluate the status of island foxes on park lands and to make findings regarding appropriate recovery actions. Their focus later broadened to include all six subspecies. Individual working groups exchanged information on a variety of topics including captive breeding, veterinary care, and management of wild populations. They contributed to development of a recovery plan for the fox on the three northern islands.

The NPS released the recovery strategy for review in August 2003. Recovery strategy objectives are to remove mortality factors for all populations, augment fox populations through captive breeding, establish monitoring and management programs to protect the fox populations, and implement habitat restoration activities. The overall goal of the recovery strategy is to minimize the threat of extinction for the three subspecies of foxes under NPS jurisdiction. This recovery strategy can also be applied to the other islands. A Channel Island Fox Integrated Recovery Implementation Team was formed in 2004 and is currently working on developing a coordinated recovery implementation strategy. In the absence of active, intensive management based on the best available science, the island fox is in danger of extinction.

Guadalupe fur seal Arctocephalus
townsendi
State Threatened 1971
Fully Protected
Federal Threatened 1985

General Habitat:

The Guadalupe fur seal is a pelagic species most of the year, occurring in Pacific Ocean waters as far south as the Mexico/Guatemala border, and as far north as the
Point Reyes National Seashore in California. When
ashore, this seal occupies rocky caves and crevices and sandy beaches.

Description:

Guadalupe fur seals are medium-sized eared seals (Family Otariidae). They have dense gray-brown underfur
covered with course guard hairs that tend to bleach out on the head and shoulders of adult males. Their
appearance is very similar to the northern fur seal
(Callorhinus ursinus) but the Guadalupe fur seal is
distinguished by a pointed muzzle. Males reach six feet in length and 350 pounds in weight, while females reach five feet in length and 100 pounds in weight. The
maximum life span is estimated to be 17 to 20 years.

Status:

Guadalupe fur seals were thought to be extinct in the late 1800's and early 1900's but in 1928, two fur seals were sighted at Isle de Guadalupe off the coast of Mexico. The major cause of the Guadalupe fur seal's decline was commercial hunting in the late 1700's and early 1800's. The species was exterminated in southern California waters by 1825. Commercial sealing continued in Mexican waters through 1894. The Guadalupe Fur Seal is included in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Animals as Vulnerable. Potential threats to the seal include injury or mortality due to entanglement in gill nets. Although human-caused mortalities to the Guadalupe fur seal have not been reported in California waters since specific records were kept starting in 1983, similar information is not available for Mexican waters. Juvenile female Guadalupe fur seals have been found stranded in central and northern California with net abrasions around the neck, fish hooks and monofilament line, and polyfilament string.

Guadalupe fur seals breed on Isla de Guadalupe and Isla Benito del Este off the coast of Baja California, Mexico.

Mating occurs approximately one week after pups are born; females bear a sole pup. In 1997 one Guadalupe fur seal was born on San Miguel Island off the California coast. The population is considered to be a single stock because all are recent descendants from one breeding colony at Isla Guadalupe, Mexico. The species has undergone an extreme genetic bottleneck; this reduction in genetic diversity may influence further population expansion.

Male seals are occasionally observed on rocky beaches of the southern Channel Islands. Little information exists on the diet or foraging behavior of this subspecies. However, it is believed that Guadalupe fur seals feed in deep waters on species of krill, squid, and small, schooling fish.

The most recent population estimate was made in 1993, and the estimate was 7,408 fur seals. Researchers estimate that the population is growing at a rate of approximately 14 percent. Mexican law fully protects the species and Guadalupe Island was declared a pinniped sanctuary by the Mexican government in 1975. The IUCN/SSC Seal Specialist Group recommended research to determine numbers and population limits for the Guadalupe Fur Seal, allowing an assessment of population status and development of conservation measures. No information is available for gillnet fisheries or related mortalities in Mexican waters.

The Status in 1997-1999 of the Guadalupe fur seal: Increasing to Stable

Wolverine Gulo gulo
State: Threatened 1971
Fully Protected
Federal: None

General Habitat:

The wolverine is reported from a series of habitat
types within an elevation range of 1,600 feet to
over 14,000 feet. Based on the number of sightings
in California, habitat generally consists of open
terrain near or above timberline.

Description:

The wolverine resembles a small, short-legged bear
with a coarse shaggy coat and a bushy tail. The
coat is heavy and dark brown with two broad,
light-colored bands extending from the shoulder to
meet at the base of the tail. Wolverines typically
weigh 35 to 60 pounds and measure 35 to 45 inches
long, including a six to 10 inch tail. They stand
about 14 to 18 inches at the shoulder. Their jaws
are very powerful and are adapted to crush and
shear frozen meat and bones. Sexes appear similar
except that males are 25 to 35 percent larger than
females. Wolverines subsist on a variety of foods
including small- and medium-sized mammals, birds,
insects, berries, and fungi. Carrion, especially in the form of large ungulates, is believed to be an
important component of the diet, particularly during
winter.

Status:

Wolverines are often regarded as animals of high-elevation habitats; however, sightings collected by the DFG over the past several decades indicate that the species inhabits a variety of habitat types within an elevation range between 1,600 feet and 14,200 feet. The mean elevation of over 150 sightings in California is about 8,000 feet. Habitat generally consists of open terrain at or above timberline.

The present and historical ranges of the species are rather similar. The historic range encompassed an area from Mount Shasta in the southern Cascade Range south to Monache Meadows in the Sierra Nevada of Tulare County. Portions of the North Coast Range are also included in the historical range. No population density data are available on the wolverine in the State due to difficulties involved in studying such an elusive and far-ranging species. An estimate of 50 to 100 wolverines was made over 20 years ago based on available habitat and home range information from studies in other parts of North America.

Specific threats to the wolverine are unknown. No management plans for this species have been prepared, partly because of the difficulty in collecting data and limited financial resources. No State or federal land-use planning documents address the habitat needs of wolverines at the present time.

Individual research programs, being carried out primarily by USFS and university biologists, continue to place remote camera stations out each winter in an attempt to photograph wolverines. The technique works well with a variety of species, including wolverines in other states, and has been adapted to a variety of research objectives since the DFG’s initial attempts with wolverines. Although none have been recorded yet, the primary goal of the ongoing study remains to document the occurrence of wolverines in selected habitats within the suspected range by the use of remote sensor cameras associated with a carrion bait station. An ongoing study, begun in 1997 in Lassen Volcanic National Park, to locate and capture Sierra Nevada red foxes for radio telemetry may offer a further opportunity to incidentally photograph wolverines.

The status in 2003 of the wolverine: Unknown.

Sierra Nevada
bighorn sheep
Ovis canadensis sierrae
(O. canadensis californiana)
State Threatened 1971
Endangered 1999
Fully Protected
Federal Endangered 2000

General Habitat:

The Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep is found on the eastern slopes of Sierra Nevada from alpine habitat down to Great Basin scrub. Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep occur in five
distinct geographic areas along the Sierra Nevada that are defined, from north to south, as: Lee Vining Canyon, Mono County (reintroduced); Wheeler Ridge, Inyo County
(reintroduced); Mount Baxter, Inyo County (native); Mount Williamson, Inyo County (native); and, Mount Langley, Inyo County (reintroduced). Basic habitat requirements include open, rocky, and precipitous slopes that are important to sheep for detecting and evading predators. These bighorn sheep occur as high as 14,000 feet in the summer and
typically descend to lower elevations in the winter,
depending on severity of storms.

Description:

The Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep is one of two subspecies of mountain sheep found in California, and one of four
found in North America. Both males and females have
horns. The horns of males are massive and may grow to
full curl when viewed from the side, and horns of females are 10 to 12 inches long and rather goat-like in appearance.

Adult males may be 40 inches tall at the shoulder and
weigh 200 pounds. Females weigh approximately 140
pounds. Formerly called Ovis canadensis californiana, the accepted name for the species is now O. canadensis
sierrae.

Status:

Action was taken in 1999 by the California Fish and Game Commission to list Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep (SNBS) as endangered under the State endangered species act. In addition, it was listed as endangered under the Federal endangered species act the same year. Listing under the Federal act became permanent in 2000. Those actions were taken in response to a significant decline in the population, from an estimated 310 individuals in 1985 to an estimated 100 individuals in 1999. Causes of the decline remain uncertain, but may have included predation, changes in habitat use, severe winters, and accidental deaths.

The Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep is one of the most endangered subspecies of large mammals in North America.

Because of this, and concomitant high levels of public concern, the Department of Fish and Game was provided funding through a member’s legislative request to implement a recovery program for these sheep. That funding allowed the Department to establish a long-term, comprehensive population recovery program. Elements of the recovery program include intensive population monitoring, reducing mortality, reestablishing additional populations in historical range of the species, and preparing for, and potentially implementing, captive breeding as a means to ensure the availability of translocation stock to increase populations and geographic distribution. Funding for the recovery program has since become part of the Department’s budget base. Continued monitoring of all bighorn sheep populations in the Sierra Nevada remains a high priority, and recovery will be dependent upon continued availability of monies for this important conservation effort. Since the recovery effort was initiated, the number of Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep has increased to an estimated 300 individuals.

The status in 2003 of the Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep: Increasing.

Peninsular
bighorn sheep
Ovis canadensis
cremnobates
State Threatened 1971
Federal Endangered 1998

General Habitat:

Peninsular bighorn sheep inhabit dry, rocky, lowelevation desert slopes, canyons, and washes from the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains near
Palm Springs, California south into Baja California,
Mexico. Mountains in this geographic area
collectively are referred to as the Peninsular
Ranges. Bighorn sheep in the Peninsular Ranges
seldom occur above 4,000 feet. Proximity to
sources of standing water such as springs, creeks,
and oases are also important elements of their
habitat.

Description:

Males and females both have horns; those of males
are curled but those of females are slightly curved
and are goat-like in appearance. Adult males can
weigh in excess of 200 pounds, and females weigh
approximately 125 pounds.

Status:

Bighorn sheep inhabiting the Peninsular Ranges were recognized originally as a distinct subspecies (Ovis canadensis cremnobates), but recently have been assigned to O. c. nelsoni. State-listed threatened status remains for the bighorn sheep occupying the Peninsular Ranges, and sheep in that area were listed in 1998 as an endangered population segment under the Federal Endangered Species Act. In listing the Peninsular bighorn sheep as endangered, the USFWS determined that the sheep are in danger of extinction throughout a significant portion of their range due to disease, insufficient lamb recruitment, habitat loss, habitat degradation and fragmentation by urban and commercial development, and predation coinciding with low population numbers. The greater bighorn sheep population in the Peninsular Ranges is considered a metapopulation; each ewe group, or subpopulation, is essential for the survival and recovery of the overall population.

Loss of winter forage sites and lambing sites, off-highway vehicle use within the range of the species, impacts to water sources, overgrazing by cattle and domestic sheep, exposure to diseases of domestic livestock, and the spread of rangeland weeds have adversely affected these animals. Habitat fragmentation, often a result of human encroachment into native habitat, restricts the sheep to small or isolated areas, limits movement of the sheep between subpopulations (referred to as ewe groups), and results in genetic isolation. Since 1970, metapopulations of bighorn sheep have experienced additional fragmentation as a result of the expansion of the interstate highway system in southeastern California. Some reestablishment of populations has occurred since then via translocation. In the 1990's, heavy mountain lion predation in conjunction with lowered lamb recruitment rates suppressed bighorn populations. Although a healthy bighorn population can withstand predation, a population debilitated by low survivorship and disease is often not able to survive additional threats.

The impacts of human encroachment into bighorn sheep habitat have been well documented in the preparation of the Coachella Valley MSHCP. Hiking trails located in bighorn habitat and vehicular use in proximity to the sheep have resulted in sheep avoidance of areas normally used. When golf courses and residential developments have been located within Peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, some ewe groups have become habituated to foraging in urban areas. Foraging around dwellings is especially problematic during the warm season when native food plants dry out and become less palatable. At least five bighorn sheep apparently died after eating toxic ornamental plants in the Coachella Valley (oleander has been implicated), and intestinal nematode parasites have been detected in bighorn sheep that graze regularly on lawns. Bighorn sheep at the urban interface are also threatened by domestic dogs, automobiles, and drowning. For example, a six-year study conducted by the Bighorn Institute, a conservation and research group working with USFWS, BLM, and DFG, showed that urbanization accounted for 34% of the adult bighorn mortalities in the Coachella Valley area. Over a three-month period, law enforcement officers and Bighorn Institute personnel herded groups of bighorn sheep off Highway 111 over 24 times.

The Coachella Valley MSHCP Plan Area supports four of the eight subpopulations, or ewe groups, of the Peninsular bighorn sheep metapopulation. Each ewe group is designated by the name of the area in which they occur: the San Jacinto Mountains group, the northern Santa Rosa Mountains group, the southern Santa Rosa Mountains group, and the Deep Canyon group. These ewe groups form the basis for the four recovery regions in the federal recovery plan. The Plan ensures conservation of habitat and connectivity among the four areas through conservation of 168,350 acres of essential habitat (97%). Three conservation areas will protect essential habitat for the bighorn sheep: Cabezon Conservation Area, Snow Creek/Windy Point Conservation Area, and Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Area. Special measures will be implemented in these areas to ensure protection of bighorn during lambing season and to minimize human impacts on bighorn habitat.

In 1997, a working group was formed to collaborate on a federal recovery plan for bighorn sheep in the Peninsular Ranges. The working group included representatives from the DFG, DPR, BLM, USFWS, USFS, University of California, Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, Bighorn Institute, and the Zoological Society of San Diego.

Following listing of the peninsular bighorn sheep in 1998, the working group was reorganized as a recovery team.

In 2000, the Recovery Plan for Bighorn Sheep in the Peninsular Ranges was completed, and currently is being implemented. The primary charge of the recovery team is to advise the USFWS with respect to actions that will conserve and maintain bighorn sheep in viable numbers through the application of scientifically based management decisions.

Critically important to the long term survival of bighorn sheep in the Peninsular Ranges, and in California in general, is the maintenance of "connectivity" between areas occupied by subpopulations, which facilitates emigration and immigration and, thereby, gene flow and opportunities to colonize vacant habitat. In 1994, the number of bighorn sheep in the Peninsular Ranges was estimated at 360 adults, distributed among eight distinct population segments. Subsequent surveys have yielded population estimates that suggest an upward trend in numbers. In 2002, the total number of bighorn sheep occupying the Peninsular Ranges was estimated to be 670.

Population assessments from ground monitoring and aerial surveys will continue as part of the recovery effort.

Long-term monitoring provides information on the ecology of the sheep and documents habitat use, nutritional levels, disease exposure, nursing rates, survival rates, and causes of death.

In 2001, the Federal Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund was been used to protect one particular ewe group in the Coachella Valley. These grants are authorized by Section 6 of the Endangered Species Act and enable states to work with private landowners, conservation groups, and other agencies to initiate conservation planning efforts and acquire and protect habitat to support the conservation of threatened and endangered species. The Northern Santa Rosa ewe group was most impacted by the urban environment where its home range corresponds to the boundaries of the City of Rancho Mirage. This ewe group declined considerably from its historic levels in the 1970's. Given high levels of mortality, it was unlikely that the Northern Santa Rosa ewe group would survive without intervention. The City of Rancho Mirage, USFWS, DFG, and the Recovery Team agreed that a barrier fence along the wildland/urban interface would be the solution to the high mortality rates experienced by the Northern Santa Rosa ewe group. Funding was used to acquire a key parcel, thereby facilitating fence construction. Additional acquisitions under this fund are proposed.

The status in 2003 of bighorn sheep in the Peninsular Ranges is increasing.

5-YEAR REVIEW
San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica)

GENERAL INFORMATION
Species: San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica)
Date listed: March 11, 1967
FR citation: 32 FR 4001
Classification: Endangered
Most recent status review:

The most recent status review of the San Joaquin kit fox was a 5-year review completed by the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office in 2010 (Service 2010).

Methodology used to complete the review:

In accordance with section 4(c)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), the purpose of a 5-year review is to assess each listed species to evaluate whether or not the species’ status has changed and it should be classified differently or removed from the Lists of Threatened and Endangered Wildlife and Plants. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (Service) Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office (SFWO) conducted a Species Status Assessment (SSA) and developed an SSA report on the San Joaquin kit fox (Service 2020) which was used to inform this 5-year review. The SSA report represents our evaluation of the best available scientific information, including the habitat and demographic needs and the current and future condition of the San Joaquin kit fox. Independent peer reviewers reviewed the SSA report.

FR Notice citation announcing this status review:

A notice announcing the initiation of the 5-year review for this taxon and the opening of a 60- day period to receive information from the public was published in the Federal Register on July 26, 2019 (84 FR 36116; Service 2019). We did not receive any responses to our request for comments.

REVIEW ANALYSIS
Updated Information and Species Status
A summary of new information included throughout the SSA report is included in Chapter 1.

The SSA report provides a summary of the factors influencing viability of the species, management and conservation measures, and current status of the species in Chapter 3, and projects potential future condition of the species under three plausible scenarios in Chapter 4.

The SSA report provides an analysis of the current and future condition of 16 geographic analysis units throughout the current range of the species. A summary of species viability is presented in Chapter 5.

Threats
The final listing rule did not include an analysis of threats to the San Joaquin kit fox; however, information available at the time of listing, and summarized in the 2010 5-year review (Service 2010), identify the following threats: the conversion of habitat to agriculture and industrial 2 development (Factor A); overutilization due to furbearer trapping (Factor B); competition (Factor C); pesticide use (Factor E); vehicle-caused mortality (Factor E); and accidental shooting by night-hunters (Factor E). Threats identified in the 2010 5-year review include: habitat loss and modification due to agricultural conversion, infrastructure construction, urban development, energy development, mining activities, changes in wildfire prevalence, changes to vegetation structure, and poor grazing regimes (Factor A); predation (Factor C); pesticide use (Factor E); vehicle-caused mortality (Factor E); selenium accumulation (Factor E); off-road vehicle use (Factor E); effects associated with small population size (Factor E); climate change (Factor E); and research-related activities (Factor E). Current or potential future threats to the San Joaquin kit fox include: habitat fragmentation and development due to agricultural production, urban development, and energy development (Factor A); predation (Factor C); disease (Factor C); pesticide use (Factor E); road mortality (Factor E); and climate change (Factor E).

Distribution and Abundance
As described in Chapter 3 of the SSA report, there are no current rangewide survey data available for the San Joaquin kit fox. A patchwork of survey results and data from the California Natural Diversity Database indicate populations have persisted throughout the western portion of the San Joaquin Valley south of San Luis Reservoir to the Buena Vista Valley, in the Panoche and Cuyama Valleys, and Carrizo Plain. Populations also continue to persist in the central portion of the Valley around Kern NWR and Semitropic Ecological Reserve, in Bakersfield, and in the southeastern portion of the Valley north to Porterville. Data from northern portions of the range show an absence from those areas recently (California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2020); however, recent survey efforts have been opportunistic and do not likely cover all of the available habitat.

Cypher et al. (2013) calculated that a population of 3,616 foxes might currently remain within the species range; however, this number may over-estimate the effective population size. Prior to the sarcoptic mange epidemic, the Bakersfield population appeared to be stable or expanding with a population of 200–400 animals (Cypher and Van Horn Job 2012), making it one of the largest remaining populations. However, this population is currently undergoing a severe decline.

San Joaquin kit foxes can exhibit significant population size variability. Most of the populations in natural areas fluctuate regularly depending on environmental conditions, particularly extremes of rainfall that have effects on prey species. Because of this, measuring changes in occupied areas through surveys has been a more effective way of assessing long-term populations viability rather than population numbers.

Recovery Criteria
Recovery Plan: Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley, California (1998) The Recovery Plan has downlisting and delisting criteria related to three main components:
protected habitat, management plans, and population density (Table 1). 3 Table 1. Downlisting and delisting recovery criteria for the San Joaquin kit fox (Service 1998) Recovery
Step
Secure and protect specified
recovery areas from incompatible
uses
Management Plan approved
and implemented for recovery
areas that include survival of
the species as an objective
Population monitoring in
specified recovery areas
shows
Downlist The three core populations, Carrizo
Natural Area, western Kern County,
and Ciervo-Panoche Area; three
satellite populations
For all protected areas identified
as important to continued
survival
Stable or increasing
populations in the three core
areas through one precipitation
cycle; population interchange
between one or more core
populations and the three
satellite populations
Delist Several additional satellite
populations (number dependent on
results of research) encompassing as
much as possible of the environmental
and geographic variation of the
historic geographic range
For all protected areas identified
as important to continued
survival
Stable or increasing
populations in the three core
areas and three or more of the
satellite areas during one
precipitation cycle
Our SSA analysis indicated that the criterion related to population growth is not met; the criterion related to habitat protection is partially met, and the criterion for management plans is partially met. Details are provided in Chapter 3 of the SSA report. In summary, the downlisting criteria for the species are not met.

Synthesis
At the time that the San Joaquin kit fox was listed, the conversion of native habitat to agriculture was considered to be the primary threat to species. Habitat loss and the degradation of remaining habitat continue to be primary threats to the species’ recovery. After reviewing the best available scientific information and comparing current and future condition with the recovery criteria for the species, we conclude that the San Joaquin kit fox remains an endangered species.

RESULTS
Recommended Classification:
____ Downlist to Threatened
____ Uplist to Endangered
____ Delist (Indicate reasons for delisting per 50 CFR 424.11):
____ Extinction
____ Recovery
____ Original data for classification in error
__X_ No change is needed
New Recovery Priority Number: No change
The Service has determined that the current recovery priority number (3C) should remain unchanged. The current recovery number, "3", indicates that the taxon is a subspecies that faces a 4 high degree of threat as well as a high potential for recovery. The “C” indicates conflict with construction or other development projects or other forms of economic activity.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE ACTIONS
x The 1998 Recovery Plan identified core and satellite areas where subpopulations of San Joaquin kit fox occur. However, baseline mapping and quantification of the extant habitat remaining in each core and satellite area at the time of Recovery Planning has not yet been completed. Mapping efforts that quantify the acreage of suitable/native habitat and altered or degraded habitat in core, satellite, and linkage areas at 1) the time of the 1998 Recovery Plan, and 2) the current time, will assist the Service and other conservation entities in prioritizing conservation strategies and in determining progress in meeting recovery goals for protection of core and satellite areas. The locations, acreage, and quality (or characteristics) of protected habitat could also be compiled and mapped. x Studies that assist in determining the population-level effects of contaminants, including first and second generation anticoagulant rodenticides, on San Joaquin kit fox or surrogate species are needed. Studies that test correlations between rodenticide use and San Joaquin kit fox population parameters, measure sublethal effects on behavior, or quantify rodenticide/pesticide effects on availability of prey in relation to the energetic needs of the San Joaquin kit fox would provide information useful to recovery actions. x Focus land acquisitions on the establishment of large blocks of land (at least 10,000 acres in size) on the San Joaquin Valley floor and western fringes. Such large parcels are critical to supporting sustainable populations of San Joaquin kit fox for long-term conservation, and should be linked with protected broad dispersal corridors. These acquisitions are most likely to aid San Joaquin kit fox recovery if they build on existing protected lands to achieve larger expanses of protected land, if acquired lands possess the vegetative structure and native prey base that are associated with thriving San Joaquin kit fox populations, and if acquired lands are not isolated from extant populations of either the San Joaquin kit fox or its prey species. Large holdings of native habitat are also expected to be less suitable for coyotes and red fox that are responsible for high levels of San Joaquin kit fox mortality. In limited circumstances, lands no longer suitable for agriculture, such as those targeted for land retirement, may be restored and conserved through fee title acquisition, conservation easement acquisition, or conservation banking arrangements from willing sellers or participants. However, on suboptimal habitat, conservation planning should recognize the lag times inherent in restoration of the ecological community needed to support the San Joaquin kit fox. Linkages will be most effective in contributing to San Joaquin kit fox recovery where they link to habitat that retains the characteristics needed to sustain resident populations. x A rangewide census of San Joaquin kit fox should be conducted using a statistically robust methodology. Collaboration with U.S. Geological Service on methods that utilize occupancy models may be a promising approach, but needs additional consideration.

Some biologists have suggested that more northerly satellite areas and/or linkages have become population sinks for the San Joaquin kit fox and this possibility merits further study to determine what factors contribute to population status in these areas, and how 5 these factors may be altered to promote range-wide recovery. x Sarcoptic mange (Sarcoptes scabei) has been documented in the Bakersfield kit fox population and a recent outbreak is currently causing a population decline (Deatherage 2020). Current efforts to control and contain sarcoptic mange should continue to be implemented to limit the effect of the outbreak and suppress the spread of the disease within and outside of the Bakersfield population. In addition, research on more effective treatment options and mite control techniques are needed.

REFERENCES
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. (2020). California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) – Government version dated June 1, 2020. Retrieved June 15, 2020 from https://map.dfg.ca.gov/rarefind/view/RareFind.aspx.

Cypher, B.L., and C.L. Van Horn Job. 2012. Management and conservation of San Joaquin Kit Foxes in urban environments. Proceedings of the Vertebrate Pest Conference 25:347– 252.

Deatherage, N.A. 2020. Urban Landscape Attributes and Intraguild Competition Affect San Joaquin Kit Fox Occupancy and Spatiotemporal Activity. Master’s Thesis. Department of Biology, California State University, Bakersfield. 114 p. (Service) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2019. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Initiation of 5-Year Status Reviews for 58 Species in California, Nevada, and the Klamath Basin of Oregon. Federal Register 84(144): 36116 – 36118. (Service) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2020. Species Status Assessment Report for the San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica) Version 1.0. August 2020. Sacramento, CA. 6 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
5-YEAR REVIEW of San Joaquin kit fox
Current Classification: Endangered

Recommendation resulting from the 5-Year Review:
____ Downlist to Threatened
____ Uplist to Endangered
____ Delist
__X_ No change needed
FIELD OFFICE APPROVAL:

Field Supervisor, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office
Approve _________________________________________ Date _________ MICHAEL SENN Digitally signed by MICHAEL SENN Date: 2020.09.11 16:55:12 -07'00'
Species Status Assessment Report
for the
San Joaquin kit fox
(Vulpes macrotis mutica)
Photo by Tim Ludwick
Version 1.0
August 2020
ii
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the following people for providing substantial information and insights for our SSA Analysis: Brian Cypher (Endangered Species Recovery Program, CSU-Stanislaus), Dave Hacker (CDFW), and the Participants of the 2019 SSA Workshop.

Prepared by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife USFWS
August 2020
iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The San Joaquin kit fox was listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Preservation Act in 1967, because of increasing threats of habitat loss. The San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica) is the largest subspecies of kit fox (Vulpes macrotis). The San Joaquin kit fox’s range is restricted to the San Joaquin Valley in south-central California, as well as the Carrizo Plain, Panoche Valley, and adjacent smaller valleys in the Coast Range. The preferred habitat of the San Joaquin kit fox is native, sloping annual grassland with sparse vegetation (Cypher 2006, pp. 1–2).

This report summarizes the results of a species status assessment (SSA) that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) completed for the San Joaquin kit fox. To assess the species’ viability, we used the three conservation biology principles of resiliency, redundancy, and representation (together, the 3 R’s). These principles rely on assessing the species at an individual, population and species level in order to determine whether the species can maintain its persistence into the future and avoid extinction by having multiple resilient populations distributed widely across its range. The species occurs across much of its historical range which corresponds to the areas identified in recovery criteria for the San Joaquin kit fox in the 1998 Upland Species Recovery Plan (USFWS 1998), although kit fox have not been documented in portions of the range in over 10 years. There are 16 geographic units where the species can be found, representing the breadth of the historical range of the species. These regions are based on the units from the 1998 Upland Species Recovery Plan (USFWS 1998, p. 132–134) and 2010 5-year Review (USFWS 2010b, p. 12). For this SSA, resiliency of the San Joaquin kit fox was assessed at the geographic unit as a surrogate for the population level. Data on long-term occupancy of these known sites suggest that San Joaquin kit foxes still have relatively high resiliency in much of the southern and western portion of the San Joaquin Valley, despite frequent and sometimes extreme population fluctuations. For the San Joaquin kit fox, resiliency was assessed using information on occupancy, population trend, connectivity, prey availability, terrain slope, and native habitat.

Our analysis of the past, current, and future influences on San Joaquin kit fox needs for long-term viability revealed that there are several factors that contribute to the current condition and pose a risk to the future viability of the species. These risks, or stressors as we call them in this document, include habitat modification or destruction, climatic variability, rodenticide use, predation, and disease. Under current conditions, we determine the San Joaquin kit fox has 3 geographic analysis units in high condition, 5 units in moderate condition, and 3 units in in low condition. Five of the analysis units were in very low condition. The condition of a unit characterizes the probability that San Joaquin kit foxes will continue to persist. High condition equates to a high likelihood of continued persistence, while low condition equates to an increased risk of extirpation.

The influences to viability described above play a large role in the future resiliency, redundancy, and representation of the San Joaquin kit fox. If geographic units lose resiliency, they are more vulnerable to extirpation, which results in losses of representation and redundancy for the species ultimately reducing viability. The rates at which future stressors might act on specific regions and the long-term efficacy of the current conservation actions are unknown. Therefore, we forecasted how possible future conditions could impact the resiliency, redundancy, and representation and overall condition of the San Joaquin kit fox. In order to assess future condition, we have developed three future, plausible scenarios. The following is a description of these future scenarios, the status of the San Joaquin kit fox when analyzed under each scenario, and a summary of the assumptions we made under each scenario:
iv
Scenario 1 assumes that there will be warm and wet conditions (CNRM-CM5, RCP 4.5). We assume under this emission and global circulation scenario that increased precipitation and frequency of extreme weather events will lower habitat suitability for the species. Under a warm and wet scenario we expect an increase in herbaceous vegetation that may reduce overall habitat availability. However, we assumed that populations on protected lands with habitat management plans will have grazing or other management activities that will counteract the increases in vegetation in some cases. In addition to changes in habitat suitability, we expect an increase in drought years. Drought years are associated with decreased reproduction, presumably because of decreases in prey availability or other factors. Development and land conversion continues in this scenario at current rates, which continues to negatively impact San Joaquin kit fox populations on unprotected lands by decreasing the size and connectivity of suitable habitat.

Under the conditions described in this scenario, we projected that the species would have zero populations in high condition, 7 populations in moderate condition, 3 populations in low condition, and 6 populations in very low condition. Management on protected lands is particularly important on the edges of the species range where populations are small and climate effects compound existing threats. As population resiliency is lowered across the species range, redundancy and representation are also reduced for the species. In particular, the prediction that all populations outside of the Carrizo Plain and Western Kern core areas are in low or very low condition and that connectivity will continue to decline results in a decrease in representation across the species.

Scenario 2 assumes that there will be hot and dry conditions (MIROC-ESM, RCP 8.5). We assume under this emission and global circulation scenario that decreased precipitation and increased extreme weather events will influence habitat for the species. We again assumed that increased drought years will limit reproduction for the species, however this may be offset by increases on overall habitat suitability and prey abundance. Although we expect an increase in fallowed agriculture lands, this has uncertain conservation value for the species and we do not expect this to contribute to habitat for the kit fox without specific recovery actions. Although a drier climate tends to point toward an increase in suitable habitat for the species, it is unlikely that the species will expand into any new areas without restoration and/or other recovery actions. Instead, we project in this scenario that development continues at its current rate, reducing habitat size and connectivity for populations in unprotected areas.

Under the conditions described in this scenario, we projected that the species would have 3 populations in high condition, 4 in moderate condition, 4 in low condition, and 5 populations in very low condition. Under this scenario decreases in habitat due to development are somewhat offset by increasing habitat suitability and, thus, representation and redundancy remain similar to the current condition.

Scenario 3 makes the same climate assumptions as in Scenario 2: hot and dry conditions and increased droughts. However, in this scenario we assume that there will be aggressive restoration of fallowed agricultural lands, particularly in the central portion of the species range. We assume that development will continue in the San Joaquin Valley, reducing habitat size and connectivity for some populations, but that restoration will increase the condition for these two factors in some locations. v
Under the conditions described in this scenario, we projected that the species would have 6 populations in high condition, 5 in moderate condition, 1 in low condition, and 4 in very low condition. This is the most optimistic of our future scenarios.

The projected conditions under all scenarios rely on continuation of management activities in protected lands. The importance of habitat management is especially important under the warm and wet climate projection, but we emphasize that management is important under all potential climate projections. The main difference between outcomes of the scenarios depends on the implementation of strategic restoration of fallowed agricultural lands. The current emphasis on strategic land restoration and recovery for upland species in the San Joaquin Valley increases the likelihood of implementation of the restoration projections associated with Scenario 3. vi
Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................................... iii Chapter 1. Introduction................................................................................................................................10

1.1 Petition History and Previous Federal Actions .............................................................................10

1.2 The Species Status Assessment Framework..................................................................................11

1.3 Summary of New Information .....................................................................................................12

1.4 Uncertainties and Assumptions....................................................................................................13 Chapter 2. Species Ecology and Needs.........................................................................................................13

2.1 Taxonomy and Genetics.....................................................................................................................13

2.2 Species Description ............................................................................................................................13

2.3 Range of the San Joaquin Kit Fox.......................................................................................................15

2.4 Species Ecology..................................................................................................................................17

2.4.1 Habitat.........................................................................................................................................17

2.4.2 Diet .............................................................................................................................................18

2.4.3 Reproduction and Lifecycle .........................................................................................................19

2.4.4 Survivorship ................................................................................................................................19

2.4.5 Den Use and Home Range ..........................................................................................................20

2.4.6 Metapopulation Dynamics...........................................................................................................21

2.5 San Joaquin Kit Fox Needs.................................................................................................................22

2.5.1 Individual Needs..........................................................................................................................22

2.5.2 Population Needs ........................................................................................................................23

2.5.3 Species Needs..............................................................................................................................25

2.5.4 Summary of Species Needs in Terms of the 3Rs..........................................................................26 Chapter 3. Historical and Current Condition................................................................................................26

3.1 Historical Distribution and Abundance...........................................................................................27

3.2 Distribution and Abundance...........................................................................................................27

3.2.1 Analysis Units..............................................................................................................................30

3.3 Stressors Affecting the Species’ Condition..........................................................................................30

3.3.1 Land Development......................................................................................................................32

3.3.2 Climate Variability .......................................................................................................................37

3.3.3 Pesticide Use................................................................................................................................40

3.3.4 Predation .....................................................................................................................................41

3.3.5 Disease ........................................................................................................................................42 vii

3.3.6 Road Mortality.............................................................................................................................42

3.3.7 Existing Regulation......................................................................................................................44

3.4 Analysis of Current Condition ............................................................................................................47

3.4.1 Uncertainty of Current Condition Analysis ..................................................................................53 Chapter 4. Future Condition ........................................................................................................................54

4.1 Factors Influencing Future Viability....................................................................................................54

4.1.1 Climate Change............................................................................................................................54

4.1.2 Habitat Modification and Destruction..........................................................................................55

4.1.3 Strategic Land Retirement and Restoration ..................................................................................56

4.1.4 High Speed Rail ...........................................................................................................................56

4.2 Future Scenarios.................................................................................................................................56

4.2.1 Scenario 1 ....................................................................................................................................57

4.2.2 Scenario 2 ....................................................................................................................................58

4.2.3 Scenario 3 ....................................................................................................................................58

4.3 Analysis of Future Scenarios...............................................................................................................58

4.3.1 Future Condition Uncertainty ......................................................................................................60 Chapter 5. Species Viability ..........................................................................................................................61

5.1 Resiliency ...........................................................................................................................................61

5.2 Redundancy........................................................................................................................................62

5.3 Representation....................................................................................................................................62

5.4 Synopsis of Viability ...........................................................................................................................63 Literature Cited ............................................................................................................................................64 Personal communication..............................................................................................................................74 viii
Figures
Figure 1. The three phases (blue boxes) of the SSA Framework used to guide this analysis...........................11 Figure 2. San Joaquin kit fox. Photo taken while conducting spotlight surveys .............................................14 Figure 3. Historical range of the San Joaquin kit fox.....................................................................................16 Figure 4. An example of San Joaquin kit fox habitat within the Carrizo Plain National Monument...............18 Figure 5. General overview illustration of how resiliency, redundancy, and representation influence what a species needs for viability. ............................................................................................................................22 Figure 6. San Joaquin kit fox lifecycle diagram..............................................................................................23 Figure 7. Core Conceptual Model showing the needs for San Joaquin kit fox population resiliency. .............25 Figure 8. San Joaquin kit fox occurrence map...............................................................................................29 Figure 9. Geographic Analysis Units across the historic range of the San Joaquin kit fox..............................31 Figure 10. Modeled suitable habitat for the San Joaquin kit fox. ...................................................................33 Figure 11. Land protection across the historic range of the San Joaquin kit fox. ...........................................39 Figure 12. Core conceptual model showing the stressors and needs for the San Joaquin kit fox....................43 Figure 13. Current condition of the San Joaquin kit fox in 16 geographic analysis units................................52 ix
Table 1. Recovery Criteria for the San Joaquin kit fox. .................................................................................10 Table 2. Timeline showing one year in the lifecycle of a San Joaquin kit fox. ................................................19 Table 3. Projected population growth in the southern San Joaquin Valley ....................................................34 Table 4. Stressors used to analyze the current and future condition of the San Joaquin kit fox......................47 Table 5. Definitions for demographic and habitat conditions for the analysis of the San Joaquin kit fox.......49 Table 6. Current condition of the San Joaquin kit fox across 16 geographic analysis units. ...........................51 Table 7. Uncertainty Assumptions................................................................................................................53 Table 8. Plausible future scenarios used to evaluate future condition of San Joaquin kit fox populations. .....57 Table 9. Future condition of the San Joaquin kit fox ....................................................................................60 10 Chapter 1. Introduction
This report summarizes the results of a Species Status Assessment (SSA) conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) for the San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica). The San Joaquin kit fox is a small canid endemic to the San Joaquin Valley and adjacent valleys of California.

We used the SSA framework to conduct an in-depth review of the species’ biology and the stressors that impact it, to evaluate its current biological status, and to predict the future status of resources and conditions as a means of assessing the San Joaquin kit fox’s viability. This SSA report summarizes the results of our analysis using this framework. As new information becomes available, we intend to update this SSA report as needed so that it can support all functions of the Endangered Species program.

The purpose of this SSA report is to provide the biological and scientific foundation of the current 5-year review and ongoing recovery implementation. Importantly, this SSA report does not result in a decision document, but instead provides the biological information and scientific analysis needed to support future decisions made by the USFWS under the Act. Decisions for changing the status of the San Joaquin kit fox will be made by the USFWS after reviewing the SSA report and all relevant laws, regulations, and policies, and the USFWS will announce the policy decision independently in the Federal Register.

1.1 Petition History and Previous Federal Actions
The San Joaquin kit fox was listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Preservation Act in 1967, at which time it was not subject to the current listing processes. The species recovery strategy is described in the Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley, California, along with 33 additional species of plants and animals that occur in the region (USFWS 1998, entire). A 90-day finding on a petition to delist the San Joaquin kit fox was published in 57 FR 28167 on June 24, 1992 (USFWS 1992, entire). The Service’s finding was that the petition did not present substantial scientific information indicating that delisting the kit fox was warranted. The petition was based on taxonomic considerations. The Service concluded that the status of kit fox and swift fox (Vulpes velox) taxonomy remained a subject of ongoing scientific debate, but found that, regardless of the outcome of the continuing debate, the San Joaquin kit fox was a distinct population segment subject to protection under the ESA (USFWS 1992, entire). The Service published the last 5-year Review on February 16, 2010 (USFWS 2010b, entire). The Service published a notice announcing initiation of the 5-year review of this taxon and the opening of a 60-day period to receive information from the public in the Federal Register on July 2, 2019 (USFWS 2019, entire).

Recovery Plan Summary
The San Joaquin Valley Upland Species Recovery Plan (USFWS 1998) outlined specific de-listing and downlisting criteria for the San Joaquin kit fox (Table 1).

Table 1. Recovery Criteria for the San Joaquin kit fox.

Recovery Step Secure and protect specified
recovery areas from
incompatible uses
Management Plan approved
and implemented for recovery
areas that include survival of
the species as an objective
Population monitoring in
specified recovery areas shows:

Downlist to
threatened
The three core populations,
Carrizo Natural Area, western
Kern County, and CiervoFor all protected areas identified as important to continued survival
Stable or increasing populations in
the three core areas through one
precipitation cycle; population
11 Panoche Area; three satellite
populations
interchange between one or more
core populations and the three
satellite populations
Delist Several additional satellite
populations (number dependent
on results of research)
encompassing as much as
possible of the environmental
and geographic variation of the
historic geographic range
For all protected areas identified
as important to continued survival
Stable or increasing populations in
the three core areas and three or
more of the satellite areas during one
precipitation cycle
The plan also outlined site-specific protection requirement that are required to meet delisting criteria. In the Ciervo-Panoche area and western Kern County the plan specifies that 90% of existing potential habitat needs to be protected. In the Carrizo Plain, 100% of existing potential habitat should be protected. Outside of the 3 core areas above the plan specifies that 80% of existing habitat should be protected in greater than or equal to 9 satellite populations.

1.2 The Species Status Assessment Framework
This SSA report summarizes the results of our in-depth review of the San Joaquin kit fox’s biology and stressors, an evaluation of the species’ biological status, and an assessment of the resources and conditions needed to maintain long-term viability. For the purposes of this assessment, we define viability as the ability of the species to sustain populations in the wild into the future in a biologically meaningful timeframe, which is 60 years for our analyses (explanation for our timeframes given in Chapter 4. Future Condition).

Using the SSA Framework (Figure 1), we considered what
the San Joaquin kit fox needs to be viable into the future by characterizing the current and future condition of the species using the concepts of resiliency, redundancy, and
representation (the “3Rs”) from conservation biology
(Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 308–311; USFWS 2016, p.12). • Resiliency is the ability of populations to tolerate
natural, annual variation in their environment and to
recover from periodic or random disturbances, known as
stochastic events. Resiliency can be measured using
metrics like vital rates, such as annual births and deaths, and population size. In general, populations with high
abundance and stable or increasing population trends are more resilient than those with limited resources or
declining populations. Populations with high resiliency can better withstand stochastic changes in demography
or their environment due to natural or anthropogenic
disturbances.
• Redundancy is the ability of a species to withstand
catastrophic events, such as a rare, destructive natural event that affects multiple populations. Redundancy is
measured by the duplication and distribution of
Figure 1. The three phases (blue boxes) of the
SSA Framework used to guide this analysis.

To assess the viability of the San Joaquin kit fox,
we evaluated the species’ needs, the current
availability and condition of those needs, and the
species’ current condition. We then predicted the
species’ future condition based on the future
availability and condition of the species’ needs.
12 populations across the range of the species. The more redundant a species, or the greater number of populations a species has distributed over a larger landscape, the better able it is to recover from catastrophic events. Redundancy helps “spread the risk” and ensures all populations are not extirpated at once due to a catastrophic event. • Representation is the ability of a species to adapt to changing physical (climate, habitat) and biological (diseases, predators) conditions. Representation can be measured by looking at the genetic, morphological, behavioral, and ecological diversity within and between populations across a species’ range. The more representation, or diversity, a species has, the more likely it is to adapt to and persist with natural or human-caused changes to its environment.

For the purpose of this SSA, viability is defined as the ability of a species to sustain populations in the wild over time. Viability is not a single state; rather, there are degrees of viability. In other words, we do not conclude that a species is or is not viable upon completion of an SSA. Instead, we characterize the resiliency, redundancy, and representation a species currently presents and predict how these characteristics may change into the future. Species with higher resiliency, redundancy, and representation are more protected from the vagaries of the environment, can better tolerate stressors and adapt to changing conditions, and are thus more viable than species with low levels of the 3Rs.

To assess the viability of the San Joaquin kit fox, we analyzed the species’ ecology, historic and current conditions, and projected the viability of the species under several future scenarios, all in the context of the 3Rs and using the best scientific data available. Chapter 2 of this SSA report summarizes the biology, ecology, and needs of the San Joaquin kit fox at the individual, population, and species levels. Chapter 3 examines the stressors which impact the resiliency of San Joaquin kit fox populations and analyzes the historical and current conditions of the species. Chapter 4 predicts the future condition of the species under three potential scenarios. In Chapter 5, we summarize all the information presented in this SSA and analyze the viability of the San Joaquin kit fox.

1.3 Summary of New Information
Since the completion of the 5-year review for the San Joaquin kit fox in 2010, we evaluated new peer-reviewed literature and solicited data and new information from partner agencies within the state of California, including, but not limited to, state wildlife management agencies, universities, private contractors, and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Specifically, we requested new information (after 2010) on:
• The species’ distribution, population sizes, population trends, and any updates to the species range or mapped colonies;
• The magnitude and severity of ongoing habitat loss;
• Other threats to the species including energy development, wildfire and rodenticide use; • Updates to laws, regulations, or policies that might apply to the species; and • Any ongoing conservation for the species and its habitats.

Our literature review and data solicitation resulted in new information on the impacts of solar facilities, genetic structure, habitat extent, and sarcoptic mange impacts. We incorporated these data, which include spatial data, peer-reviewed literature, reports, and personal communications, into various parts of the SSA, including the analysis of the current distribution of the San Joaquin kit fox 13 and the severity of stressor and related conservation actions. If we lacked specific data for some aspect of our analysis, we used information from the desert kit fox (Vulpus macrotis macrotis).

1.4 Uncertainties and Assumptions
This report incorporates the best available information through reports, peer-reviewed literature, and communication with species experts. When information is not available at the species level, we sometimes use surrogate species, but are always careful to make this clear throughout the report.

Because the species’ historical range covers a broad area throughout the San Joaquin Valley, and because current surveys and research tends to be restricted to discrete plots within land management units (e.g., survey grids within National Wildlife Refuges, Ecological Reserves, etc.), we generally assume that these findings carryover more broadly into other areas of contiguous habitat.

Additional uncertainties and assumptions are highlighted in Chapter 4 (Historical and Current Condition) and Chapter 5 (Future Condition).

Chapter 2. Species Ecology and Needs
In this chapter, we provide basic biological information about the San Joaquin kit fox, including its taxonomic history and relationships, morphological description, physical environment, and reproductive and other life history traits. We then outline the needs of the San Joaquin kit fox at the individual, population and species levels. This is not an exhaustive review of the species’ natural history; rather, it provides the ecological basis for the SSA analyses conducted in this report.

2.1 Taxonomy and Genetics
The San Joaquin kit fox is one of two currently recognized subspecies of kit fox (Vulpes macrotis) and was first described by Merriam (1902, p. 74) from a locality near Tracy in San Joaquin County, California. The taxonomic treatment of the smaller Vulpes foxes has varied over time, but genetic work supports the recognition of V. m. mutica as a valid subspecies (Mercure et al. 1993, p. 1323).

The taxonomy of small, North American foxes has been revised several times, and several different taxonomies for these species have been proposed (Rohwer and Kilgore 1973, entire; Waithman and Roest 1977, entire). More recently, Dragoo et al. (1990, pp. 927–328) proposed that all small, aridland foxes belonged to the swift fox (V. velox) and proposed that the kit fox be synonymized under V. velox macrotis. Genetic work concluded that while there was evidence of limited hybridization between the swift fox and kit fox, it was over a limited geographic area and the two should be considered separate species and that the San Joaquin Valley population of the kit fox was the most distinct and should be considered a valid subspecies (Mercure et al. 1993, pp. 1323, 1325–1326).

Mercure et al. (1993) also concluded that (Mercure et al. 1993, p. 1323). Recent genetic work focusing on the San Joaquin kit fox provided evidence for 3 population clusters centered on Bakersfield, the Lokern Valley-Carrizo Plain-Camp Roberts area, and the Ciervo-Panoche region (Wilbert 2005, p 74).

2.2 Species Description
The San Joaquin kit fox is the larger of the two subspecies of kit fox, which is the smallest canid species in North America. Grinnell et al. (1937, p. 399) found a difference in body size between males and females: males averaged 31.7 inches (80.5 centimeters ) in total length, and 11 .6 inches (29.5 centimeters ) in tail length; females averaged 30.3 inches (76.9 centimeters ) in total length, and

11.2 inches (28.4 centimeters ) in tail length. Kit foxes have long slender legs and are about 12 inches 14 (30 centimeters) high am the shoulder. The average weight of adult males is 5 pounds (2.3 kilograms), and of adult females is 4.6 pounds (2.1 kilograms) (Morrell 1972, p. 21). General physical characteristics of kit foxes include a small, slim body, relatively large ears set close together, narrow nose, and a long, bushy tail tapering slightly toward the tip (Figure 2). The tail is typically carried low and straight. Color and texture of the fur coat of kit foxes varies geographically and seasonally. The most commonly described colorations are buff, tan, grizzled, or yellowish-gray dorsal coats (McGrew 1979, p. 1). Two distinctive coats develop each year: a tan summer coat and a silver-gray winter coat (Morrell 1972, p. 19). The undersides vary’ from light buff to white, with the shoulders, lower sides, flanks and chest varying from buff to a rust color. The ear pinna (external ear flap) is dark on the back side, with a thick border of white hairs on the forward-inner edge and inner base (Grinnell et al. 1937, p. 399). The tail is distinctly black tipped (Figure 2). The foot pads of kit foxes are small by comparison with other canids. A sample of 21 tracks from throughout the San Joaquin Valley had an average length of 1.2 inches (3.1 centimeters) and an average width of 1 inch (2.6 centimeters) (Orloff et al. 1993, p. 50). Other characteristics such as the degree to which the feet are furred and the size, shape, and configuration of the pads distinguish kit fox tracks from those of cooccurring canids and domestic cats (Orloff et al. 1993, p. 50). Because all three fox species that occur in the San Joaquin Valley are primarily nocturnal, identification of free-living, and often fast-moving, animals can be a challenge. The black-tipped tail and coat color differences usually distinguish kit foxes from red foxes (V. vulpes). At 8 to 11 pounds (4 to 5 kilograms), the red fox also is much heavier than the kit fox. Gray foxes (Urocvon cinereoargenteus) are sometimes misidentified as kit foxes, especially in winter when the kit fox coat is thicker and has more gray. Both species have a black tail tip but gray foxes also have a distinctive black stripe running along the top of the tail. Gray foxes are more robust than kit foxes; they are heavier with an average body weight of about 8 pounds (3.6 kilograms) (Grinnell et al. 1937, p. 402). However, San Joaquin kit foxes have longer ears, averaging

3.4 inches (8.6 centimeters) compared with 3 inches (7.8 centimeters) for gray foxes (Grinnell et al. 1937, p. 399).

Figure 2. San Joaquin kit fox. Photo taken while conducting spotlight surveys (Tim Ludwick/USFWS). 15 2.3 Range of the San Joaquin Kit Fox
Historically, the San Joaquin kit fox occupied an area of the San Joaquin Valley from Kern County north to Tracy on the western side and the Merced River on the eastern side as well as the Carrizo Plain, Panoche Valley, and adjacent smaller valleys in the Coast Range (Grinnell et al. 1937, p. 403) (Figure 3).

At the time the Recovery Plan was developed the range was likely similar to the historical range, research projects and incidental sightings indicated that kit foxes inhabited some areas of suitable habitat on the San Joaquin Valley floor and in the surrounding foothills of the coastal ranges and Sierra Nevada; Tehachapi Mountains, from southern Kern County north to Contra Costa, Alameda, and San Joaquin Counties on the west; near La Grange, Stanislaus County, and across some of the larger scattered islands of natural land on the Valley’ floor in Kern, Tulare, Kings, Fresno, Madera and Merced Counties (Grinnell et al. 1937, pp. 403–404). Kit foxes also occurred westward into the interior coastal ranges in Monterey, San Benito, and Santa Clara Counties, including the Pajaro River watershed, the Salinas River watershed, and in the upper Cuyama Valley (Cypher et al. 2003, p. 126).

Kit foxes inhabit several urban areas in the San Joaquin Valley including the cities of Taft, Coalinga, and Bakersfield (Harrison et al. 2011, p. 304).
16 Figure 3. Historical range of the San Joaquin kit fox. Observations from the California Natural Diversity Database (CDFW 2020).
17 2.4 Species Ecology

2.4.1 Habitat
The Central Valley of California is characterized by a Mediterranean climate (O’Farrell et al. 2016 p. 4). Winters within the range of the San Joaquin kit fox are cool and daytime temperatures rarely fall below 50.0⸰F (10⸰C); overnight temperatures do not often drop below freezing (Williams 1992, p. 302). On the other hand, summers are long and hot with midday temperatures that regularly exceed 100.4⸰F (38⸰C) (Williams 1992, p. 302; O’Farrell et al. 2016 p. 4). The San Joaquin Valley receives <

5.9 in (15 cm) of rain annually (Williams and Kilburn 1991, p. 6). Most rain that does fall, occurs during the winter months - between November and April (Williams and Kilburn. 1991, p. 2). Due to limited annual rainfall and high summer temperatures, the southwestern portion of the San Joaquin Valley is characterized as a climatic desert (Germano et al. 2011, pp. 139–145). Even so, the cool wet winters allow rich grasslands to form on the western slopes of the valley, which support a wide diversity of endemic plants and animals (Williams 1992, pp. 302–303).

Historically, the San Joaquin Valley floor was a mosaic of uplands, wetlands, and riparian corridors.

The wetlands were fed by runoff from the nearby Sierra Nevada Mountains that flowed into seasonal wetlands that surrounded shallow lakes (Griggs et al. 1992, pp. 111–118). Much of the southwestern San Joaquin Valley was desert-scrub with alkali-sink habitats (Germano et al. 2011, p. 139). San Joaquin kit fox were historically found throughout upland habitats within the San Joaquin, Salinas, Cuyama, Panoche Valleys along with adjacent smaller adjacent valleys. San Joaquin kit fox are uniquely adapted to desert climates and reach their highest densities in landscapes with low stature vegetation, gentle slopes, and abundant small mammal prey.

The kit fox is primarily found in association with Valley Sink Scrub, interior Coast Range Saltbush Scrub, Upper Sonoran Subshrub Scrub, Annual Grassland, and other grassland vegetation communities. Within these communities, optimal habitat for the San Joaquin kit fox is sparsely vegetated communities on gentle slopes (McGrew 1979, p. 123; Cypher et al. 2013, p. 26) (Figure 4).

Plant communities such Northern Hardpan Vernal Pool, Northern Claypan Vernal Pool, Alkali Meadow, and Alkali Playa are often smaller and more widely scattered; and in general, do not provide good denning habitat for kit foxes because all have moist or waterlogged clay or clay-like soils. However, where they are interspersed with more suitable kit fox habitats they provide food and cover. Kit fox can also be found in human altered habitats such as grazed grasslands, petroleum fields (Morrell 1972, p. 4; O’Farrell 1984, p. 208), urban areas, and survive adjacent to tilled or fallow fields (Warrick et al. 2007, p. 275). In the northern portion of their range, kit foxes commonly are associated with annual grassland (Orloff et al. 1986, p. 62). 18 Figure 4. An example of San Joaquin kit fox habitat within the Carrizo Plain National Monument.

Kit fox dens are primarily found in loose texture soils (Morrell 1972, p. 10). However, kit foxes will occupy soils with a high clay content where they modify burrows dug by other animals (Orloff et al. 1986, p. 63).

2.4.2 Diet
Although the kit fox diet can vary seasonally and in response to available prey, kangaroo rat remains comprised 80 to 90 percent of fecal material at most collecting sites throughout the range of the kit fox (Laughrin 1970, p. 11). Data suggests that kangaroo rats might be the preferred prey species, even in areas where other prey, such as leporids, are present (Koopman et al. 2001, p. 82). Kit fox in the Elk Hills showed a slight preference for kangaroo rats, although when leporid populations were high, those species were increasingly incorporated into their diet (Cypher et al. 2000, p. 20). Kit foxes are also known to consume other small mammal species, including leporids (rabbits and hares: Lepus and Sylvilagus spp.), ground squirrels (Ammospermophilus and Spermophilus spp.), and insects (Archon 1992, p. 43, Cypher and Brown 2006. pp. 9–10, Table 4); however, consumption of these species appears to be secondary to consumption of kangaroo rats in non-urban populations (Cypher et al. 2000, p. 20). In the southern San Joaquin Valley, kangaroo rats were found to be the primary small mammal present at undeveloped and moderately developed sites, while smaller rodents (California pocket mice [Chaetodipus californicus], San Joaquin pocket mice [Perognathus inornatus], deer mice [Peromyscus maniculatus], and house mice [(Mus musculus]) were found most frequently at an intensively developed site (Spiegel et al. 1996, pp. 43–46, Table 2). At Bethany Reservoir in Alameda County, California ground squirrels were found to be the most common prey and no kangaroo rats (Dipodomys sp.) were detected at this site (Orloff et al. 1986, p. 63). In some instances, ground 19 squirrels have also been found to be an important food item where kangaroo rats appeared to be abundant (Balestreri 1981, pp. 14 19–20, Table 4). In the Bakersfield vicinity, urban kit foxes have access to anthropogenic food resources to supplement available natural prey so, in general, food is abundant. (Newsome et al. 2010, p. 1317)

2.4.3 Reproduction and Lifecycle
Kit foxes can breed when 1 year old but may not breed their first year of adulthood (Morrell 1972, p. 20). Adult pairs remain together all year, sharing the home range but not necessarily the same den.

During September and October, adult females begin to clean and enlarge natal or pupping dens which often have multiple openings (Morrell 1972, p. 10). Mating and conception take place between late December and March (Morrell 1972, p. 19; Spencer et al. 1992, p. 9) (Table 2). The median gestation period is estimated to range from 48 to 52 days. Litters of from two to six pups are born sometime between February and late March (Morrell 1972, p. 19; Spencer et al. 1992, p. 9). The female is rarely seen hunting during the time she is lactating. During this period the male provides most of the food for her and the pups. The pups emerge above ground at slightly more than 1 month of age. After 4 to 5 months, usually in August or September, the family bonds begin to dissolve and the young begin dispersing. Occasionally juveniles will remain with the family group beyond the first summer (Koopman et al. 2000, p. 220). During a 6-year study at the Elk Hills Naval Petroleum Reserves in California, pups dispersed an average distance of approximately 5 miles (8 kilometers) from the natal den (Scrivner et al. 1987, p. 20). Adult and juvenile kit foxes radio-collared at the Elk Hills Naval Petroleum Reserves in California dispersed through disturbed habitats, including agricultural fields, oil fields, rangelands, and across highways and aqueducts. One pup crossed the Temblor Range into the Carrizo Plain (Scrivner et al. 1987, p. 27). Reproductive success of kit foxes appears to be closely correlated with abundance of their prey (Egoscue 1975, p. 126).

Recent studies have supported early observations that kit fox appear to be strongly linked ecologically to kangaroo rats (White and Ralls 1993, pp. 863, 865–866).

Table 2. Timeline showing one year in the lifecycle of a San Joaquin kit fox.

Life Stage Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Pup Birth
Developing In Den
Emerge from Den
Juvenile Dispersal
Adult Mating
Gestation
Birth
Pup Rearing

2.4.4 Survivorship
Kit foxes are generally short-lived and have a low juvenile survival rate. Desert kit foxes in a Utah population had an average age of 2 years (Egoscue 1975, p. 124) and in a population at the Elk Hills Naval Petroleum Reserve-1, animals less than 1 year old outnumbered older foxes by 2.8:1 (Berry et 20 al. 1987a, pp. 18, 23). Despite this, individual kit foxes can have a relatively long lifespan. Kit foxes on Naval Petroleum Reserve-1 (NPR-1) were found to live as long as 8 years (Berry et al. 1987a, p. 18, Table 4) but such longevity appears to be rare. Annual survival rates of juvenile foxes have ranged from 0.26 on Naval Petroleum Reserve-1 in California (Berry et al. 1987a, pp. 19, 24, 25, Table 6) to 0.21 to 0.41 on the Carrizo Plain (Ralls and White 1995, p. 726, Table 1). An annual adult mortality rate of approximately 50 percent has been reported (Morrell 1972, p. 22; Berry et al. 1987a, pp. 19, 24; Ralls and White 1995, p. 726, Table 1; Standley et al. 1992, p. 17).

Predation by larger carnivores (e.g., coyotes) is high and presumed to be a major factor in regulating kit fox populations (White and Garrott 1997, p. 1983). The effects of disease, parasites and accidental death are largely unknown, but were thought to account for only a small portion of mortality (Berry et al. 1987a, pp. 22–23, 27). More recent data from Camp Roberts and Bakersfield is challenging this assumption (section 3.3.5). Drought plays a role in low reproductive success (i.e., pups are born but do not survive to weaning). Adults can maintain weight and body condition and females can give birth, but pairs apparently cannot catch enough prey to support pups (White and Ralls 1993, p. 866). Success decreases when the density of prey species drops because of drought, too much rainfall, or other circumstances (White and Ralls 1993, p. 864).

Starvation, especially of pups, was noted to be a likely limiting factor for kit fox populations (Morrell 1972, p. 22). Consumption of small rodent species and leporids occurred concurrently with population increases in those species, suggesting to the authors that the ability to exploit a variety of resources on an opportunistic basis would enable kit foxes to persist in altered environments, and in areas subject to drought-related fluctuations in prey. Cypher et al. (2000, p. 31) suggested that kit fox preferentially forage on kangaroo rats and that declines in kangaroo rat densities negatively affect kit fox survival. Data from this study suggested that the relative rate of population growth was positively correlated with kangaroo rat presence and negatively correlated with the presence of other prey items. The decline in local kit fox populations has also been linked to the loss of kangaroo rat populations within that same area (Bean and White 2000, p. 7). Precipitation-mediated changes in prey availability are most often related to changes in vegetation. Low precipitation levels characteristic of droughts result in reduced seed production in the natural habitats of the San Joaquin Valley (Williams et al. 1993, pp. 36–37, 39, Figure 4; Germano and Williams 2005, p. 12).

During several years of drought, seed resources for granivorous rodents, such as kangaroo rats, become scarce, resulting in declining abundance of these kit fox prey species (Williams et al. 1993, p. 94, 95; Cypher et al. 2000, pp. 32–33; Germano and Williams 2005, p. 12). In many locations, kit fox population abundance responds to lower prey abundance by declining, although there generally is a lag-time of one or more years before kit fox declines occur (Cypher et al. 2000, p. 31). High rainfall events also are known to reduce prey abundance dramatically (Germano 2010, p. 86). In eastern Contra Costa County, kit foxes were believed to have been extirpated in the county primarily due to an intensive California ground-squirrel control program (Orloff et al. 1986, p. 68). To date, no studies have addressed the energetic relationships for the kit fox associated with capture effort and food value of different prey species.

2.4.5 Den Use and Home Range
San Joaquin kit foxes use dens for temperature regulation, shelter from adverse environmental conditions, reproduction, and escape from predators. Den characteristics and use vary by location and season. Dens may be constructed by the animal itself (Berry et al. 1987b, p. 26; USFWS 1983, p. 12), modified from those constructed by other animals (Morrell 1972, p. 10), or they may use 21 anthropogenic structures such as culverts, pipes, or other underground structures (Berry et al. 1987b, p. 22). Natal and pupping dens are generally larger than typical kit fox dens and nearly always have multiple entrances (Morrell 1972, p. 11; Berry et al. 1987b, p. 12, Table 1). Suitable den sites are an essential component of kit fox habitat as they provide shelter from extreme conditions, escape cover from predators, and provide a secure place to rear the young. In general, kit fox dens are found in flat or gently rolling terrain with slopes of less than 10 degrees and most dens (89%) are found on slopes of less than 30 percent (Archon 1992, p. 15, 30). Natal and pupping dens are generally found on flatter ground with slopes of about 6 degrees (O’Farrell and McCue 1981, p. 30; O’Farrell et al. 1980, pp. 44–45). Foxes change dens four or five times during the summer months and change natal dens one or two times per month (Morrell 1972, p. 15). Foxes on the Carrizo Plain Natural Area maintain numerous dens within their home range (White et al. 1994, p. 1833). Radio-telemetry studies indicate that foxes use individual dens for a median of 2 days (mean of 3.5 days) before moving to a different den. Den changes have been attributed to depletion of prey in the vicinity of the den, increases in external parasites such as fleas (Egoscue 1956, p. 353), and predator avoidance (White et al. 1994, p. 1833).

Kit fox home range in an area impacted by oil development in western Kern County found home ranges that averaged between 1.8 mi2 (4.6 km2) (Zoellick et al. 2002, p. 155) and 2.4 mi2 (6.13 km2) (Spiegel and Bradbury 1992, p. 85). Kit foxes on the Carrizo Plain had an average home range size of 4.5 mi2 (11.6 km2) (White and Ralls 1993, p. 864). A study conducted in conjunction with solar development on the northern end of the Carrizo Plain found an average home range size of 3.6 mi2 (9.4 km2) on the solar development site and 2.0 mi2 (5.1 km2) on the undeveloped reference site (Cypher et al. 2019, p. 23). In a fragmented landscape impacted by irrigated agriculture and with limited natural community availability home range sized averaged 1.3 mi2 (3.4 km2) (Cypher et al. 2014, p. 5). Occasionally foxes use home ranges much larger than reported by averages. Cypher et al. (2019, p. 23) reported home range sizes as small as 0.2 mi2 (0.5km2) up to 9.3 mi2 (24.1 km2).

Variations in home range appear to be related primarily to overall prey density. White and Ralls (1993, p. 866) found that home range sizes appeared to be associated with low prey availability on the Carrizo Plain where nocturnal rodents (primarily Dipodomys sp.) were the primary prey species.

The also documented that prey densities were less than 20% of that at oil field sites in western Kern County (White and Ralls 1993, p. 866) where average home ranges were approximately 50% smaller (Spiegel and Bradbury 1992, p. 85; Zoellick et al. 2002, p. 155). Cypher et al. (2019, p. 56) also hypothesized that this inverse relationship between prey availability and home range size might explain some of the differences they observed between the developed solar site and reference site.

Home range size in Bakersfield, where food is relatively abundant, averaged 0.7 mi2 (1.7 km2) (Frost 2005, p. 23). The maintenance of large and relatively non-overlapping home ranges, as noted on the Carrizo Plain, may be an adaptation to drought-induced periods of prey scarcity that are episodic and temporary on the Carrizo Plain (White and Ralls 1993, p. 866).

2.4.6 Metapopulation Dynamics
San Joaquin kit foxes persist across the landscape in scattered pockets of habitat of varying quality.

These populations are challenging to identify due to annual population fluctuations and the overall low density of many of the populations. Across the range of the species, kit fox populations experience marked instability driven by density-independent variations in reproductive rates (White and Garrott 1999, p. 491). Some habitat patches support populations with growth rates which encourage emigration, while other habitat patches are less favorable. Additionally, ongoing habitat 22 alteration as well as normal climatic variation can lead to rapid changes in the suitability of any habitat patch, further impacting growth rates and emigration. These source-sink dynamics are characteristic of a metapopulation, which often have a finite lifetime, and are prone to local extinction (Hanski 1991, p. 4).

2.5 San Joaquin Kit Fox Needs
A species can only be viable if its basic ecological needs are met. In this section, we translate our knowledge of the San Joaquin kit fox’s biology and ecology into its needs at the individual, population, and species levels. For individual San Joaquin kit fox, we describe the habitat resources or conditions that adults, pups, and juveniles need to complete each stage of their life cycle. We then describe the habitat and demographic conditions that San Joaquin kit fox populations need for resiliency. Finally, we describe what the species needs in order to be viable, in terms of resiliency, redundancy, and representation (Figure 5).

2.5.1 Individual Needs
Individual needs for San Joaquin kit foxes vary somewhat by life stage but are all centered on the availability of suitable dens for breeding and sheltering (Figure 6). Kit fox pups are born underground between February and March and spend the first month of their life underground. In order to survive this life stage, the pups need burrows that are deep enough to provide shelter from the environment and potential predators. Adequate prey is needed for the female to produce enough milk for the young to grow large enough to leave the den. While the pups are underground, the female rarely leaves the den and the male gathers food for the pair. Often the pair will move the young at least once prior to the young emerging from the den and so multiple suitable den locations within the territory are needed. Once the young emerge from the burrow, they continue to be fed by the adults for several months. The pups typically emerge from the burrow after about 1 month (generally April) and gradually become more independent from April through June. During this period the female needs adequate prey to continue to provide milk and the pups need adequate prey as they are weaned and begin to forage for themselves. The pups gradually disperse from the natal site and generally move far enough to find unoccupied territory with suitable den sites and prey.

However, it is likely that most individuals remain near their natal territories within their lifetime.

Because of this, habitat connectivity is essential for San Joaquin kit fox viability.

Figure 5. General overview illustration of how resiliency, redundancy, and representation influence what a species needs for viability.
23 San Joaquin kit foxes are most often limited to arid habitat with sparse or low vegetation, gentle slopes (less than 15%) with sandy-loam soils where den excavation or modification is relatively easy.

Although individual kit foxes have been found moving through or denning on steeper slopes, natal dens appear to be restricted to slopes of 10% or less. In all life stages, kit foxes rely on suitable dens for shelter and escape from predators.

San Joaquin kit foxes primarily feed on small mammals, mostly kangaroo rats and adult kit foxes need abundant small mammal prey in order to survive and raise pups. Adult kit foxes also prey on a wide variety of other animals including insects, birds, and lizards, but successful breeding appears closely related to the abundance of small mammal prey. Home ranges of San Joaquin kit foxes appear to vary in response to prey availability and habitat quality, but average 1.7 mi2 (4.5 km2). As such, adult and juvenile kit foxes require large enough or connected habitat patches in order to find enough prey.

Figure 6. San Joaquin kit fox lifecycle diagram. Letters in parentheses denote whether the need is essential for feeding (F), sheltering (S), breeding (B), or dispersal (D).

2.5.2 Population Needs
San Joaquin kit fox populations for the most part need the same habitat features as individuals, although in larger quantities. We describe habitat and demographic needs of San Joaquin kit foxes in relation to population resiliency.

Resiliency
Resiliency describes the ability of the species to withstand stochastic disturbance events, an ability that is associated with habitat quality and demographic characteristics of the populations.

The San Joaquin kit fox does not appear to have easily distinguishable populations that can be defined by discrete ranges or genetic differences. For the purposes of this SSA, we broadly define a population of San Joaquin kit fox as a group of animals in the same general space and with the Pup (< 5 months)
• Adult pair (F)
• Suitable den (S)
• Abundant suitable prey (F)
Juvenile (up to 1 year)
• Abundant suitable prey (F)
• Suitable den location (S)
• Connected habitat (D)
Adult
• Abundant suitable prey (F)
• Connected suitable habitat (F, B)
• Nearby mates (B)
• Suitable dens (S, B)
24 potential to breed. For convenience, we refer to populations using the core and satellite units identified in the 2010 5-year review (USFWS 2010b, p. 12). We modified the boundaries of the “core” and “satellite” areas based on updated information on kit fox distribution and included the Salinas Valley, which had not been included in the prior 5-year review (USFWS 2010b, p. 12). These core and satellite areas are used as our geographical analysis units throughout the remainder of the document. Much of the historic habitat of the San Joaquin kit fox has been converted to agriculture, fragmenting the historical range and isolating suitable habitat patches. Highly connected habitats still have the largest, most robust populations of San Joaquin kit foxes, suggesting that contiguous habitats are needed for long-term species’ survival. Populations likely need habitat patches of an appropriate size in order to sustain over time.

Demographic indicators that might suggest population resiliency are related to effective population size, fecundity, survival, and connectivity. Briefly, effective population size is calculated using an equation that incorporates heterozygosity, a measure of genetic diversity. Effective population size in wildlife is often much lower than census population size (Frankham 1995, entire). The ratio between effective population size and census population size varies based on factors such as unequal sex ratios, variance in family size, and population fluctuations. Of these factors, population fluctuations based on limited reproduction in drought years could be a contributing factor for San Joaquin kit foxes. Populations need sufficient numbers of juveniles and adults to be able to withstand drought conditions that limit reproduction. Because the species is relatively short-lived (Egoscue 1975, p. 124; Berry et al. 1987a, pp. 18, 23) and exhibits moderately high annual adult mortality (Morrell 1972, p. 22; Berry et al. 1987a, pp. 19, 24; Ralls and White 1995, p. 726, Table 1; Standley et al. 1992, p. 17), evidence of breeding is important.

Connectivity within and between populations is important to maintain (or in some cases, reestablish) gene flow. Although San Joaquin kit foxes probably occurred in connected populations throughout the historical range, anthropogenic habitat fragmentation has greatly reduced the potential for gene flow between populations in the current landscape. In isolated populations or genetic clusters, maintaining sufficient numbers of adults in a population to guard against loss of alleles (e.g., from demographic bottlenecks) is important. Attempting to reestablish connectivity between fragmented areas, when possible, will also add to population resilience.

Figure 7 presents a core conceptual model showing the needs for, and threats to, San Joaquin kit fox population resiliency. To remain ecologically functional, geographic analysis units need high levels of fecundity and juvenile survival as well as connectivity between habitat patches both within the unit and between adjacent geographic analysis units. High levels of fecundity and juvenile survival can drive population growth and allow smaller populations to recover from stochastic disasters, such as extreme weather events.

Given the relatively short longevity of adults, annual recruitment of juveniles is imperative to replace the loss of reproductive individuals every year. Connectivity between habitat patches encourages dispersal of individuals and maintains gene flow, which prevents extirpation due to low genetic diversity and accelerated genetic drift.

The best physical predictors of suitable habitat for the kit fox are land cover/land use, terrain ruggedness, and vegetation density (White et al. 1995, p. 344; USFWS 1998, p. 129, Warrick and Cypher 1998, p. 716; Cypher et al. 2013, p. 26). Highly suitable habitat for the kit fox is characterized by low slopes (< 5%) (Warrick and Cypher 1998, p. 716), arid land vegetation communities with 25 short stature (McGrew 1979, p. 3), and areas free of anthropogenic disturbance (Warrick et al. 2007, p. 276; Cypher et al. 2013, p. 26). This suggests a specific set of climatic and habitat conditions that are needed to maintain resiliency within the species range. Changes to vegetation and land cover, particularly during the breeding season could hinder the species’ long-term viability.

Figure 7. Core Conceptual Model showing the needs for San Joaquin kit fox population resiliency.

2.5.3 Species Needs
In order to adapt to changing environmental conditions, the species needs to maintain its ecological and genetic diversity (representation) in resilient populations distributed throughout the species range (redundancy).

Redundancy
Redundancy contributes to the ability of a species to withstand catastrophic events by spreading risk among multiple populations and/or across a large area. Thus, redundancy is related to the number, distribution, and resilience of populations. When evaluating redundancy, it is important to identify potential natural or anthropogenic catastrophic events that could occur within the range of the species and that could lead to population extirpations. For the San Joaquin kit fox, potential catastrophic events include a prolonged drought or large-scale disease outbreak. San Joaquin kit foxes are currently found in a band of habitat along the western San Joaquin Valley, the Carrizo Plain, and the Panoche Valley and as highly fragmented populations across the center, south, and eastern portions of the San Joaquin Valley. Because individual San Joaquin kit fox populations can often vary widely from year to year with changing environmental conditions, having multiple resilient populations is necessary for the species to weather potential catastrophic events.

Representation
Representation describes the ability of a species to adapt to changing environmental conditions, which is related to the breadth of genetic and ecological diversity within and among populations.

As a species, the San Joaquin kit fox needs multiple, resilient, connected populations that display a breadth of ecological and genetic diversity across its range. Schwartz et al. (2005, p. 34) found evidence consistent with a high gene flow across the range of the species and suggested that ongoing 26 gene flow (at least in the southern portion of the range) is occurring. They suggest that the data indicate that migration is likely in important factor in the partitioning of genetic variation (Schwartz et al. 2005, p. 34). Maintaining this diversity is important for the species to persist in the future in response to changing climatic variables or stochastic events. Well-connected geographic units with San Joaquin kit foxes that display high levels of immigration and emigration across the landscape ensure gene flow and allow for recolonization following droughts or other events that may depress a population.

San Joaquin kit fox habitat, although once widespread and abundant, has decreased dramatically since the early 1900s due in part to agricultural development. Today, the San Joaquin kit fox exists in a highly fragmented landscape and there is diminishing opportunity for gene flow across the range of the species. Connected habitats of appropriate composition are essential to the species survival; habitat fragmentation and decreased habitat connectivity can be detrimental to the long-term survival of the San Joaquin kit fox species. In order to adapt to changing physical and biological conditions, the species needs to maintain its genetic and ecological diversity (representation) and a certain number and distribution of resilient populations across its range (redundancy).

2.5.4 Summary of Species Needs in Terms of the 3Rs
When individual kit foxes have access to ample food, suitable den sites, and habitat, reproductive rates and populations increase. These conditions create large, resilient populations that can withstand periodic natural disturbances, such as drought or disease outbreaks (resiliency). At the population level, juvenile survival drives population growth and connectivity maintains dispersal and gene flow between occupied areas. The distribution of kit fox territories across the landscape, as well as high connectivity between areas of suitable habitat, create populations that can recover from catastrophic events (redundancy). At the species level, connectivity facilitates a network of multiple (redundant), self-sustaining (resilient) populations distributed across the San Joaquin kit fox’s range that display a breadth of genetic and ecological diversity (representation). This increases the ability of the species to adapt to changing physical and biological conditions (representation). Having sufficient resiliency, representation, and redundancy supports maintenance of the species in the wild over time (viability).

Chapter 3. Historical and Current Condition
In this chapter, we summarize the historical and current conditions of the San Joaquin kit fox at the population and species levels. To do this, we introduce the stressors that have and continue to influence the species’ condition as well as current conservation efforts which buffer against these stressors. We then detail how kit fox abundance has changed over time.

Finally, we put the species’ historical and current conditions in the context of the 3Rs to assess the species’ current viability. At the species level, the San Joaquin kit fox needs multiple, connected, resilient populations across the breadth of ecological settings in its range to be viable (Chapter 2).

For the purposes of this SSA we compiled spatial data from the California Natural Diversity Database (California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2020), California Conservation Easement Database (2019), California Protected Areas Database (2019) and data provided by researchers.

We used ESRI ArcGIS Pro for the spatial analyses conducted within this chapter. The data sources for these analyses are cited throughout this section.
27 3.1 Historical Distribution and Abundance
The historical range of the San Joaquin kit fox was first defined by Grinnell et al. (1937, p. 403).

Prior to 1930, kit foxes likely inhabited most of the San Joaquin Valley from southern Kern County north to Tracy (San Joaquin County), on the western side of the Valley, and near La Grange (Stanislaus County), on the eastern side. These authors believed that by 1930 the kit fox range had been reduced by more than half, with the largest portion of the range remaining in the southern and western parts of the Valley (Grinnell et al. 1937, p. 403). The range of the kit fox was refined and better defined in 1975 using prior range mapping efforts, sightings, den locations, and road killed records (Morrell 1975, p. 6, 10). Orloff et al. (1986, p. 62, 68) concluded that kit foxes were likely rare in Alameda County and may have been recently extirpated in Contra Costa County. A summary of that status of the kit fox in the northwestern portion of the range was uncertain, and, if present, consisted of small family groups in isolated habitat patches (Clark et al. 2007, p. 32).

In 1969, Laughrin (1970, p. 14) estimated that range-wide kit fox densities were 0.52 to 1.04 per square mile (0.2 to 0.4 per square kilometer). The population of kit fox in 1975 was estimated to be between 5,066 and 14,800 (Morrell 1975, p. 18). The estimated mean density of trappable adult kit foxes was from 2 to 2.8 per square mile (0.8 to 1.1 per square kilometer) between 1980 and 1982 on the Naval Petroleum Reserves in California (O’Farrell 1984, p. 208). In the 1983 recovery plan (USFWS 1983, p. 10), it was estimated that the population range-wide of adult kit foxes prior to 1930 may have been between 8,667 and 12,134 assuming an occupied range of 8,667 square miles (22,447 square kilometers) and densities of 1.04 to 1.55 per square mile (0.4 to 0.6 per square kilometer). The kit fox population in San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Kings, Tulare and Kern Counties was estimated to be about 11,000 animals in the early 1970s based on limited aerial surveys of pupping dens and amount of historic habitat, but without correction for cultivated and urbanized lands (Waithman 1974, p. 4). Laughrin (1970, p. 15) reported an estimated total population size of 1,000 to 3,000 foxes in 1969. In the 1983 recovery plan (USFWS 1983, p. 8), Morrell’s data was adjusted and a corrected estimate of 6,961 foxes in 1975 was obtained. When compared to the pre1930 estimate, this represents a possible population decline of 20 to 43 percent. Approximately 85 percent of the fox population in 1975 was found in only six counties (Kern, Tulare, Kings, San Luis Obispo, Fresno, and Monterey), and over half the population occurred in two of those counties:

Kern (41 percent) and San Luis Obispo (10 percent) (Morrell 1975, p. 19, Table X).

3.2 Distribution and Abundance
Although there are no current rangewide survey data available, a patchwork of survey results and data from the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) indicate that kit foxes were likely distributed throughout most of their historical range through the early 2000’s. The CNDDB is the most up-to-date resource for current sighting information. Data submission to CNDDB is voluntary and the database is a presence only record. However, it does provide a snapshot of distributional changes over time and can show where the most robust kit fox populations are found.

Data from four of the northern units seem to show an absence from those areas recently (California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2020), but recent survey efforts have been opportunistic and do not likely cover all of the available habitat. Extensive surveys using scent dogs in 2001-2003 (Smith et al. 2006, p. 214) did not detect any kit fox sign in the survey areas in Contra Costa and Alameda counties. Over a period of 30 months from 2005-2007 surveys (camera trap, track station, and spotlighting) were conducted throughout the Santa Nella area (Constable et al. 2009, pp. 15–18, Table 2). In that period, only 2 observations (1 track, 1 scat) were documented north of Highway 28 152 (Constable et al. 2009, pp. 16–17, 18, Table 2). The authors conducted a least-cost path analysis through the Santa Nella area and concluded that these 2 observations were most likely indicative of a dispersing kit fox and not a resident individual (Constable et al. 2009, p. 36). Scent dog surveys conducted in 2018 at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Site 300 did not detect any kit fox sign across approximately 33 km of transects (Woollet 2019, p. 8). Although there is habitat remaining in the Salinas Valley, there is no current documented evidence of kit foxes in this area and the species is no longer found at Fort Hunter-Liggett or Camp Roberts. Over the last decade, data in CNDDB shows a pattern of kit fox occurrence concentrated in the southwest San Joaquin Valley (mainly Kern and Kings Counties), the Carrizo Plain (San Luis Obispo County), and urban Bakersfield (Kern County). A continuous pattern of occurrences is also reported from the Semitropic area (Kern County), Ciervo-Panoche Valley (San Benito County), Coalinga area (Fresno County) and western Merced County. Additional reporting has documented kit foxes in the Cuyama Valley (Ueda 2020) and Cholame Valley (Purnell 2020, entire).

Cypher et al. (2013, entire) analyzed the remaining habitat within the range of San Joaquin kit fox quantified as “high” and “moderate” suitable habitat and the home range needed by a kit fox. They calculated that a population of 3,616 foxes might currently remain within the species range. While this estimate makes several assumptions, it is considered a valid model of the potential size of the kit fox population (Cypher, 2020 pers. comm). Given that no persistent kit fox populations are present in “moderate” suitable habitat, this number may over-estimate the effective population size (Cypher et al. 2013, p. 29). San Joaquin kit foxes can exhibit significant population size variability. Most of the populations in natural areas fluctuate regularly depending on environmental conditions, particularly extremes of rainfall that have effects on prey species. Because of this, measuring changes in occupied areas through surveys has been a more effective way of assessing long-term populations viability rather than population numbers.

Although no range-wide distribution surveys have been conducted, data indicate that the kit fox have a moderate to high likelihood of occurrence in 11 of the 16 geographic analysis units (Figure 8).

Populations have persisted throughout the western portion of the San Joaquin Valley south of San Luis Reservoir to the Buena Vista Valley, in the Panoche and Cuyama Valleys, and Carrizo Plain.

Populations also continue to persist in the central portion of the Valley around Kern NWR and Semitropic Ecological Reserve, in Bakersfield, and in the southeastern portion of the Valley north to Porterville. Based on available survey data detailed below, we evaluated the certainty of occurrence across its range. We categorized this certainty into “low”, “moderate”, and “high”. Low certainty of occurrence corresponded to those areas where either focused surveys (such as those at Camp Roberts) have documented a disappearance of the species or where broader surveys have not documented the species in over 15 years. Areas where we are moderately certain that the species persists are characterized by either more recent sightings or habitat connection to nearby areas with documented extant populations. Finally, those areas that correspond to high certainty are those areas where kit foxes are routinely documented. Currently, the only areas with high certainty of kit fox occupancy are found in the southern half of the San Joaquin Valley (Figure 8). Prior to the sarcoptic mange epidemic, the Bakersfield population has appeared stable or expanding with a population of 200–400 animals (Cypher and Van Horn Job 2012, p. 347), making it one of the largest remaining populations. Currently, this population is undergoing a severe decline which is discussed in detail in Section 3.2.5.
29 Figure 8. San Joaquin kit fox occurrence map. The kit fox range is divided into areas of “high”, “moderate”, and “low” certainty of occurrence based on California Natural Diversity Database information, researcher input, and other records. 30 3.2.1 Analysis Units
To assess the current condition across the range of the species, we used the geographic analysis units described in Section 2.5.2. These units generally center around historical kit fox sightings and, with a few exceptions, are bounded by topographical or man-made land use barriers that constrain kit fox movement. Although foxes do occur outside of these units (e.g. Cholame Valley), the analysis units represent the majority of the occupied habitat in a particular geographic area. However, these areas may provide important connectivity between geographic analysis units for dispersing kit foxes.

Throughout the historical range of the San Joaquin kit fox, sixteen distinct geographic units supporting kit fox populations have been identified (Figure 9). Within these units, individuals are scattered in pockets of optimal habitat in populations that are difficult to identify due to annual population fluctuations and lack of historic data. For a full description of these units see the recovery plan (USFWS 1998, p. 132-134).

3.3 Stressors Affecting the Species’ Condition
In this section, we discuss how the long-term viability of the San Joaquin kit fox is affected by the 3R’s. We discuss the external factors (stressors) that might influence the 3R’s, and thus the viability of the San Joaquin kit fox. Previous documents which address the status of the species (USFWS 1998, pp. 122–136, USFWS 2010b, entire) describe some of these threats. We will use the term ‘stressor’ to include previously identified threats, as well as other factors which might affect the overall viability of the species.

Through review of the available literature, we chose to evaluate stressors for which there is broad consensus of the potential to impact the species. These stressors include habitat modification and destruction, energy development, drought, disease or pathogens, rodenticides, and predation. There are other possible stressors identified as potential threats in other documents, which were considered in the course of our analysis, such as off road vehicle use, mining, and overgrazing (USFWS 1998, pp. 130–131; USFWS 2010b, pp. 25–70) but these stressors are most often associated with negative effects to individual animals rather than entire populations. Therefore, these stressors are excluded from further analysis in our SSA report. For the stressors which are included, we provide a description of the magnitude of the stressor, and an influence diagram modelling the potential impacts of the stressor on population resiliency (Figure 12), and a summary of ongoing and potential conservation that might lessen these impacts. 31 Figure 9. Geographic Analysis Units across the historic range of the San Joaquin kit fox. 32 3.3.1 Land Development
The loss and modification of habitat due to agricultural conversion, infrastructure construction, and urban development is the largest threat to the kit fox. Oil extraction and mining activities, solar energy development, changes in wildfire prevalence, and changes to vegetation structure due to nonnative species and altered grazing regimes also result in habitat losses on a smaller scale.

At the time of listing, the USFWS identified land conversion to agriculture as the main stressor leading to the decline of the San Joaquin kit fox. Land conversion due to agriculture, mining, road construction, and urban and residential development were all identified as threats (i.e., Stressors) in the latest 5-year Review (USFWS 2010b, p. 25 –64). As habitat loss increases, so does habitat fragmentation, leading to a decrease in habitat patch size and an increase in non-habitat, or matrix habitat, between patches; both the loss of habitat and the isolation of habitat patches can reduce population sizes to such low levels that species become locally extinct (Gaines et al. 1997, p. 294).

Several attempts have been made at quantifying the habitat loss in the San Joaquin Valley. Each estimate used different methodology to quantify habitat. However, they all paint a picture of significant habitat loss in the San Joaquin Valley to agricultural and urban development. The 1998 recovery plan estimated that less than 5 percent (approximately 150,000 acres or 60,700 hectares) of habitat on the San Joaquin Valley floor remained in native habitat at that time (USFWS 1998, p. 1).

More recently, Germano et al. (2011, pp. 140–145) estimated that at least 59% of habitat in the San Joaquin Valley has been converted to agriculture and or urban areas. Cypher et al. (2013, entire) developed a model of habitat suitability for the kit fox and estimated that according to their criteria there was approximately 1,647 mi2 (4,267 km2) of highly suitable and 2,150 mi2 (5,569 km2) of moderately suitable habitat remaining within the range of the species (Figure 10).

Today, land conversion due to transportation, energy development, agriculture, and urbanization continues to stress the San Joaquin kit fox and its habitat while also presenting an obstacle to recovery efforts. Habitat patches, primarily on private land, continue to be altered for agricultural use. However, conservation practices and land acquisitions since the time of listing have increased the amount of protected land. Although conservation efforts have helped the species in recent years, habitat loss in general remains the greatest factor negatively affecting the viability of the San Joaquin kit fox (USFWS 2010a, p. 69).

3.3.1.1 Agricultural Land Conversion
Agricultural activities have occurred in the San Joaquin Valley since the 19th century when the region was first settled. The Central Valley Project (CVP) was completed in 1951 and accelerated the conversion of native lands to agriculture so that by 1979, 1979 less than 2 percent of the valley remained uncultivated (USDI 2005, p. 1). Land conversion contributes to declines in kit fox abundance through both direct (mortality, injury, displacement) and indirect (reduction in carrying capacity, changes in kit fox predator and competitor density) effects. Although kit fox can use dry land farmed areas (Jensen 1972, p. 6), irrigated agricultural is generally avoided by kit foxes when foraging and not used for denning (Warrick et al. 2007, p. 275). Conversion of native habitats to agricultural land, particularly orchards and irrigated crops, likely places increased pressure on local populations and can present dispersal barriers to the kit fox. Although the pace of native habitat loss has likely slowed from earlier in the 20th century, land conversion to agriculture continues to occur.

Additionally, crop conversion is ongoing. Today, agricultural conversion from native habitat has slowed substantially, because most tillable land has already been cultivated due to lack of water or 33 Figure 10. Modeled suitable habitat for the San Joaquin kit fox. 34 irrigation, and the remaining land is ill suited to agricultural development (USFWS 1998, p. 92).

In addition to the direct loss of habitat for denning and foraging by kit fox, some trapping studies have shown a difference in the small mammal communities between lands in irrigated agriculture and adjacent undeveloped land (Warrick et al. 2007, p. 274). Pesticide application associated with agricultural development reduce prey availability and may indirectly harm kit foxes (Hosea 2000, p. 242; Nogeire et al. 2015, p. 7). Throughout the San Joaquin Valley, farmlands often border and are interspersed with remaining parcels of natural habitat, fragmenting remaining habitat. The structure of some annual crops, such as cotton which forms a dense thicket up to 3 feet tall, may impede kit fox movement between parcels of native land (Warrick et al. 2007, p.275).

Bakersfield City CouncilAugust 5, 2026

Bakersfield City Council
August 5, 2026