B_MND with attachments.pdf — Bakersfield City Council, October 21, 2026

JF \ G:\pln\shared\15_Zone Change\01_Active\2024\PP-ZC-24-0004_Austin Creek Park Prezone\02_Application Material\Studies\IS_MND_ZC 24-0004 Final.docx

Page 1 of 38 ends

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
The City of Bakersfield Community Development Department has completed an initial study (attached) of the possible environmental effects of the following-described project and has determined that a Mitigated 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 NO. (or Title): Zone Change No. 24-0004
COMMENT PERIOD BEGINS: July 10, 2026
COMMENT PERIOD ENDS: August 10, 2026
MITIGATION MEASURES (included in the proposed project to avoid potentially significant effects, if required):

Biological Resources Impact Mitigation Measures:

BIO-1 A biological resource pre-activity survey conducted by a qualified biologist no more that 30-days before the start of construction activities.

BIO-2 Biological resource monitoring during each initial phase of ground disturbance.

BIO-3 Compliance reporting provided to the required oversight agencies for all biological resource field surveys, monitoring, and additional tasks as warranted.

BIO-4 A Worker Environmental Awareness Program outlining special-status species that may access, use or otherwise transverse the project area will be implemented.

BIO-5 If known or natal SJKF dens are identified at any time during construction, protocols enumerated in the USFWS Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance (2011) should be implemented, and the appropriate agencies contacted for guidance.

BIO-6 Vertical sided trenching deeper than 2-feet will include escape ramps at no more than a 1:1 ratio every 100 feet.

BIO-7 Vertical sided holes that are not capable of being ramped should be covered or otherwise secured to the greatest extent practicable.

BIO-8 Pipes, conduit and similar material 3 inches or greater should be capped to prevent wildlife from becoming inadvertently trapped in the piping.

JF \ G:\pln\shared\15_Zone Change\01_Active\2024\PP-ZC-24-0004_Austin Creek Park Prezone\02_Application Material\Studies\IS_MND_ZC 24-0004 Final.docx

Page 2 of 38 ends

BIO-9 If ground-disturbing activities are planned during the nesting season for migratory birds that may nest on or near the site (generally February 1 through August 31), nesting bird surveys are recommended prior to the commencement of ground disturbance for project activities.

BIO-10 If nesting birds are present, no new construction or ground disturbance should occur within an appropriate avoidance area for that species until young have fledged, unless otherwise approved and monitored by a qualified onsite biologist.

BIO-11 Minimum avoidance zones for active nests should be implemented as follows: Ground or low-shrub nesting non-raptors – 300 feet (91 meters); Burrowing owl – as appropriate based on nest location, existing surrounding activity, and evaluation of owl behavior.

Coordination with CDFW may be warranted; Sensitive raptors (e.g., prairie falcon, golden eagle) – 0.5 miles (0.8 kilometers); and other raptors – 500 feet (152 meters).

Cultural Resources Impact Mitigation Measures:

CUL-1 No cultural resources were identified. No further work is required. If archaeological resources are encountered during the course of construction, a qualified archaeologist should be consulted for further evaluation to include any tribal cultural resources.

CUL-2 If human remains or potential human remains are observed during construction, work in the vicinity of the remains will cease, and they will be treated in accordance with the provisions of State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. The protection of human remains follows California Public Resources Codes, Sections 5097.94, 5097.98, and 5097.99, and 5024.1 resource to a California Native American tribe.

Geology and Soils/Paleontological Mitigation Measures
GEO-1 7.5.During construction, if paleontological resources are encountered during construction or ground disturbance activities, all work within 50 feet of the find shall immediately cease and the area cordoned off until a qualified paleontological resource specialist can evaluate the find and make recommendations. If the specialist determines that the discovery represents a potentially significant paleontological resource, additional investigations may be required. These additional studies may include fossil salvage. Ground disturbance in the vicinity of the discovery site (within 50 feet) shall not resume until the resource-appropriate measures are implemented or the materials are determined to be less than significant.

JF \ G:\pln\shared\15_Zone Change\01_Active\2024\PP-ZC-24-0004_Austin Creek Park Prezone\02_Application Material\Studies\IS_MND_ZC 24-0004 Final.docx Page 3 of 38

INITIAL STUDY

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

1. Project (Title & No.): Zone Change No. 24-0004

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

3. Contact Person (name, title, phone): Jose Fernandez (661) 326-3778

4. Project Location: The project is located on the east side of Jenkins Road at Austin Creek Avenue, in northwest Bakersfield (Assessor Parcel Numbers 529-012-10 and 529-012-11)

5. Applicant (name and address): Provost & Pritchard
Attention: Adam Ojeda
1518 Mill Rock Way
Bakersfield, CA 93311

6. General Plan Designation: OS-P (Parks and Recreation)

7. Pre-Zoning: OS (Open Space) and A (Agriculture)

8. Description of Project Provost and Pritchard (applicant), representing the North of the River Recreation and Parks District (Owner), is proposing a pre-zone change from County Open Space (OS) and Agriculture (A) to City Recreation Estate (R-E) zone district to facilitate the development of a public park on approximately 9.3 acres.

9. Environmental setting
The proposed project site is currently vacant undeveloped land. Surrounding properties are developed as: vacant undeveloped land City zoned R-1(Single-Unit Dwelling) and City M-1 (Light Manufacturing) to the north, a school district transportation facility County zoned A (Agriculture) to the east, residential development County zoned E, 1/4 (Estate, 0.25 acres) to the south, and vacant undeveloped land City zoned R-1 to the west.

10. Other public agencies whose approval is anticipated to be required (e.g., permits, financing approval or participation agreement):
• City of Bakersfield – Mitigated Negative Declaration consideration and adoption • City of Bakersfield – Improvement Plans
• City of Bakersfield – Building permits
• San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District – Indirect Source Rule compliance JF \ G:\pln\shared\15_Zone Change\01_Active\2024\PP-ZC-24-0004_Austin Creek Park Prezone\02_Application Material\Studies\IS_MND_ZC 24-0004 Final.docx Page 4 of 38

JF \ G:\pln\shared\15_Zone Change\01_Active\2024\PP-ZC-24-0004_Austin Creek Park Prezone\02_Application Material\Studies\IS_MND_ZC 24-0004 Final.docx Page 5 of 38

JF \ G:\pln\shared\15_Zone Change\01_Active\2024\PP-ZC-24-0004_Austin Creek Park Prezone\02_Application Material\Studies\IS_MND_ZC 24-0004 Final.docx Page 6 of 38

JF \ G:\pln\shared\15_Zone Change\01_Active\2024\PP-ZC-24-0004_Austin Creek Park Prezone\02_Application Material\Studies\IS_MND_ZC 24-0004 Final.docx Page 7 of 38

JF \ G:\pln\shared\15_Zone Change\01_Active\2024\PP-ZC-24-0004_Austin Creek Park Prezone\02_Application Material\Studies\IS_MND_ZC 24-0004 Final.docx Page 8 of 38

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 □ Greenhouse Gas Emissions □ 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.

June 15, 2026

Signature Date
_______Jose Fernandez
Printed name
JF \ G:\pln\shared\15_Zone Change\01_Active\2024\PP-ZC-24-0004_Austin Creek Park Prezone\02_Application Material\Studies\IS_MND_ZC 24-0004 Final.docx Page 9 of 38

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.

Environmental Checklist and Analysis
JF \ G:\pln\shared\15_Zone Change\01_Active\2024\PP-ZC-24-0004_Austin Creek Park Prezone\02_Application Material\Studies\IS_MND_ZC 24-0004 Final.docx Page 10 of 38

Environmental Checklist and Analysis Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
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. In nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are
experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project
conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations
governing scenic quality?
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
Discussion
a. Less than significant impact. The project is located outside the City limits, at the northeast corner of Austin Creek Avenue and Jenkins Road, in northwest Bakersfield. The existing visual environment in the area adjacent to the project consists of vacant undeveloped land to the north, school district transportation facility to the east and residential development to the south.

The construction of a public park at the site would be in character and compatible with existing urban land uses in the vicinity of the site and is a natural extension of the urban growth occurring in the project area. Therefore, the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista and impacts are less than significant.
b. No impact. There are no trees, rock outcrops, or historic buildings located within the project site.

Additionally, the project is not located adjacent to or near any officially designated or potentially eligible scenic highways to be listed on the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) State Scenic Highway System (Caltrans, n.d.). The closest section of highway eligible for state scenic highway designation is State Route (SR) 14 located in Kern County approximately 60 miles to the southeast of the project area. Therefore, the project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcrops, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway.
c. Less than significant impact. Please refer to responses I.a, I.b and I.d. The project does not conflict with any applicable vista protection standards, scenic resource protection requirements or design criteria of federal, state, or local agencies and, the project would be consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan (MBGP) designations and Zoning Ordinance classifications for the project area. The area is not regarded or designated within the MBGP as visually important or “scenic.” Therefore, the project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings and impacts are less than significant. d. Less than significant impact. This project involves incremental urban growth within the City of Bakersfield’s sphere of influence. This project would have to comply with City development Environmental Checklist and Analysis
JF \ G:\pln\shared\15_Zone Change\01_Active\2024\PP-ZC-24-0004_Austin Creek Park Prezone\02_Application Material\Studies\IS_MND_ZC 24-0004 Final.docx Page 11 of 38

standards, including Title 17 (Zoning Ordinance), Title 15 (buildings and construction), as well as California Code of Regulations Title 24. Together, these local and state requirements oblige project compliance with current lighting and signage standards that minimize unwanted light or glare to spill over into neighboring properties. Therefore, the project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area and impacts are less than significant.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)) or timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526) or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code section
51104(g))?
d. Result in the loss of forestland or conversion of forest land to non-forest?
e. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Discussion
a. Less than significant impact. The project site consists of approximately 9 acres, of which roughly half is designated as Prime Farmland pursuant to the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) (CDOC, 2022). Prime Farmland is defined as land with the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for the production of crops and is considered a valuable agricultural resource under CEQA.

The site is currently vacant and does not appear to be actively cultivated for agricultural production and the surrounding area is characterized by urban development. The project proposes development of a public park on the site. The General Plan designates the property as Environmental Checklist and Analysis
JF \ G:\pln\shared\15_Zone Change\01_Active\2024\PP-ZC-24-0004_Austin Creek Park Prezone\02_Application Material\Studies\IS_MND_ZC 24-0004 Final.docx Page 12 of 38

OS-P (Parks and Recreation), which anticipates open space and recreational uses rather than agricultural activities. While this represents a loss of land classified as Prime Farmland, the impact is reduced by the fact that the site is already planned for park and recreational use under the General Plan. Additionally, the development of a park would maintain the site in a largely open and permeable condition, which is more compatible with the preservation of open space compared to urban or intensive development.

Furthermore, the site is not under a Williamson Act contract, and the proposed use would not conflict with any existing agricultural zoning or preservation policies. The conversion is therefore consistent with adopted land use plans and does not introduce new development pressure beyond what has already been anticipated. Therefore, the conversion to a public park would be consistent with planned land use patterns, and impacts are less than significant. b. No impact. The project site is currently county zoned A (Agriculture) but not used for agricultural purposes and is not under a Williamson Act contract (KernGIS, 2026). Therefore, the project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. c. No impact. As discussed in II.b, the project site is zoned A. There are no forest lands located on the site. Therefore, the project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land or timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. d. No impact. There are no forestlands within the project site. Therefore, the project would not result in the loss of forestland or conversion of forest land to non-forest. e. Less than significant impact. Please refer to responses II.a through II.d. This 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. Therefore, the project would result in no impact related to the change in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use, and impacts are less than significant.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
JF \ G:\pln\shared\15_Zone Change\01_Active\2024\PP-ZC-24-0004_Austin Creek Park Prezone\02_Application Material\Studies\IS_MND_ZC 24-0004 Final.docx Page 13 of 38

d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Discussion
a. Less than significant impact. The project site is located within the jurisdiction of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD), which is responsible for implementing regional air quality plans to attain state and federal standards. The proposed project consists of development of an approximate 9 acre public park on a site designated for Parks and Recreation (OS-P) in the General Plan. As such, the project is consistent with planned land uses and regional growth assumptions used in air quality planning efforts. The project would not introduce land uses or population growth beyond what has already been accounted for in applicable air quality plans. The project was reviewed using the SJVAPCD Small Project Analysis Levels (SPAL) and is below the established threshold listed in Table 6: Recreational for City Parks not exceeding the 256 acre size threshold and HHDT trips. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan and Impacts would be less than significant.
b. Less than significant impact. Project construction would result in temporary emissions from grading activities, construction equipment, and worker trips. However, given the relatively small size of the project (approximately 9 acres) and the limited duration of construction activities, emissions are expected to be below SJVAPCD significance thresholds. Operational emissions associated with a park use are minimal, consisting primarily of infrequent vehicle trips and passive recreational activities. The project does not include stationary sources of emissions.

Compliance with standard SJVAPCD rules and implementation of basic construction best management practices (BMPs), such as dust control measures, would further reduce emissions.

As a result, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants. Impacts would be less than significant.
c. Less than significant impact. Sensitive receptors include residences, schools, and other locations where people may be more vulnerable to air pollution. Construction activities could temporarily generate dust and equipment emissions; however, these impacts would be short-term and localized. Implementation of standard dust control measures in accordance with SJVAPCD Regulation VIII (Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions) would minimize potential exposure. The proposed park use does not include significant operational emission sources that would expose nearby receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
d. Less than significant impact. The land use proposed for this project does not have the potential to create objectionable odors. This project is not included on the list of land uses generally regarded to have site odor problems per Table 6 of the Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (SJVAPCD, 2015). In addition, there are no significant existing odorgenerating facilities located in close proximity to the site that would adversely affect future residents. Project emissions estimates further indicate that operational activities would not generate odors at a level that would affect surrounding receptors. For these reasons, the proposed Project would not generate objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people, nor would it expose future residents to significant odor impacts. Therefore, the project impacts are less than significant.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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 Wildlife 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 Wildlife 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?
Discussion
a. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. A biological desktop review was prepared by Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group, dated January 21, 2026 for the project site using available databases and aerial imagery. No field survey was conducted . The site consists primarily of agricultural and ruderal habitat, which may provide limited foraging or nesting opportunities for common wildlife species .

Numerous special-status plant and wildlife species were evaluated for potential occurrence; however, the majority were determined to be absent due to lack of suitable habitat. One species, the San Joaquin kit fox, has a possible potential to occur due to the presence of ruderal habitat and its known occurrence within the City of Bakersfield.

If known or natal SJKF dens are identified at any time during construction, protocols enumerated in the USFWS Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Environmental Checklist and Analysis
JF \ G:\pln\shared\15_Zone Change\01_Active\2024\PP-ZC-24-0004_Austin Creek Park Prezone\02_Application Material\Studies\IS_MND_ZC 24-0004 Final.docx Page 15 of 38

Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance (2011) should be implemented, and the appropriate agencies contacted for guidance.

Direct and indirect impacts, in the form of “incidental take” of a threatened, endangered, or otherwise protected species, are not expected as a result of the development of the proposed project. Implementation of standard measures for the protection of biological resources are recommended to avoid and minimize potential impact to general wildlife. These measures include BIO-1 through BIO-3.

However, the project consists of development of a park on a previously disturbed site, and the biological assessment concluded that the project would not result in physical disturbance to special-status species. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
b. No impact. No riparian habitat or natural communities of special concern were identified on the project site or in the immediate vicinity (Provost and Pritchard, 2025). The site is characterized by disturbed agricultural and ruderal land uses, which do not support sensitive biological communities. Therefore, the project would not result in impacts to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities.
c. No impact. No features, identified in wetland categories, appear on the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory mapping (USFWS 2025) on the proposed, modified project site. No federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act were identified during the field study conducted for the preparation of this report. No substantial adverse effect will occur as a result of the development of the project.
d. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. No migratory wildlife corridors were identified during the literature search or field study. The project will not interfere substantially with the movement of any native fish of wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. With the implementation of measures BIO-1 through BIO-8, the project would not interfere substantially with wildlife movement or impede use of native wildlife nursery sites.(Provost and Pritchard, 2025). Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. e. No impact. There are no biological resources on the site which are protected by local policies.

Impacts from conflicts with local policies will not occur. No additional mitigation measures are recommended (Provost and Pritchard, 2025).
f. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Please refer to responses IV.a, IV.d., with implementation of Mitigation BIO-1 through BIO-8 the project would not conflict with the provisions of a local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan, and impacts are less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project;
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5?
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
JF \ G:\pln\shared\15_Zone Change\01_Active\2024\PP-ZC-24-0004_Austin Creek Park Prezone\02_Application Material\Studies\IS_MND_ZC 24-0004 Final.docx Page 16 of 38

b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
Discussion
a. No impact. A cultural resources desktop review was conducted by Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group, dated February 18, 2026 for the project, including a records search through the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) at the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center. The records search identified no recorded cultural or historical resources within the project site . Additionally, no resources within the project area or surrounding one-half mile radius are listed on the National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historical Resources, or other recognized inventories .

Although several prior cultural resource studies have been conducted within the project area, no resources were identified. Therefore, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.
b. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The CHRIS records search did not identify any known archaeological resources within the project site (Provost and Pritchard Cultural Memo, 2026). While four cultural resources were identified within a one-half mile radius, these are not located on the project site and would not be impacted.

Additionally, the project as proposed does not include ground-disturbing activities associated with the annexation and zone change. As such, no impacts to archaeological resources are anticipated at this time. However, in the event that future ground disturbance occurs, standard procedures would require work to stop if resources are encountered and a qualified archaeologist be consulted. Therefore, the likelihood of archeological resources being present and intact is low. With the implementation of measures CUL-1 through CUL-2, the project would not significantly affect archeological resources, and impacts are less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
c. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. There are no known human remains on the site. The project could inadvertently uncover or damage previously unknown human remains.

Measure CUL-2 requires that if any human remains are found at the site during construction, work would cease, and the remains would be handled pursuant to applicable law. With implementation of measure CUL-2, the project would not significantly disturb any human remains, therefore the project would not significantly affect archeological resources, and impacts are less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
JF \ G:\pln\shared\15_Zone Change\01_Active\2024\PP-ZC-24-0004_Austin Creek Park Prezone\02_Application Material\Studies\IS_MND_ZC 24-0004 Final.docx Page 17 of 38

VI. ENERGY: Would the project;
a. Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or
operation?
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Discussion
a. Less than significant impact. The proposed project involves development of a public park on an approximately 9-acre site. Construction activities would require the use of energy in the form of fuel for construction equipment, worker vehicle trips, and transport of materials. These activities would be temporary and typical of small-scale construction projects. The project would be required to comply with applicable regulations, including idling restrictions and standard construction practices, which would minimize unnecessary fuel consumption.

Operational energy demand associated with the park would be minimal. Energy use would be limited to features such as lighting, irrigation systems, and minor maintenance activities. The project would not include energy-intensive uses such as industrial operations or large buildings.

Additionally, park development generally promotes outdoor recreation and passive uses, which are not energy-intensive.

All new construction within the City of Bakersfield must adhere to modern building standards, including California Code of Regulations Title 24, which outlines energy efficiency standards for new buildings to ensure that they do not wastefully, inefficiently, or unnecessarily consume energy. Therefore, the project would not result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation, and impacts are less than significant. b. Less than significant impact. There is no adopted plan by the City of Bakersfield for renewable energy or energy efficiency. As mentioned above, all new development projects within the City are required to adhere to modern building standards related to energy efficiency. Additionally, the City encourages applicants and developers to go beyond the required standards and make their developments even more efficient through programs such as LEED, or Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, which is a green building rating system that provides a framework to create healthy, highly efficient, and cost-saving green buildings. Other encouraged programs available to applicants and developers are Title 20 appliance energy efficiency standards and 2005 building energy efficiency standards. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, and impacts are less than significant.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project;
a. Directly or indirectly cause 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 Alquist-Priolo 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 and Geology Special
Publication 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 Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial
direct or indirect 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?
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Discussion
a. The following discusses the potential for the project to expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects because of various geologic hazards. The City is 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 County) to 8.3 (San Andreas). Potential seismic hazards in the planning area involve strong ground shaking, fault rupture, liquefaction, and landslides. i. No impact. Ground rupture is ground deformation that occurs along the surface trace of a fault during an earthquake. According to the California Department of Conservation’s (CDOC) Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation map, the project site is not located within an Environmental Checklist and Analysis
JF \ G:\pln\shared\15_Zone Change\01_Active\2024\PP-ZC-24-0004_Austin Creek Park Prezone\02_Application Material\Studies\IS_MND_ZC 24-0004 Final.docx Page 19 of 38

earthquake fault zone (CDOC, n.d.). Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving rupture of a known earthquake fault. ii. Less than significant impact. The City is within a seismically active area. 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 (specifically Seismic Zone 4, which has the most stringent seismic construction requirements in the United States), and to adhere to all modern earthquake construction standards. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving strong seismic ground shaking, and impacts are less than significant.
iii. Less than significant impact. The most common seismic-related ground failure is liquefaction and lateral spreading. In both cases, during periods of ground motion caused by an event such as an earthquake, loose materials are transformed from a solid state to near-liquid state as a result of increased pore water pressure. Such ground failure generally requires a high-water table and poorly draining soils in order for such ground failure to occur.

Soils underlain the project site include Granoso sandy loam and Kimberlina fine sandy loam (USDA, n.d.). The potential for liquefaction at the project site is low. The site is not within an area with high ground water. In addition, 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, including those relating to soil characteristics. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, and impacts are less than significant. iv. No impact. In Kern County, the common types of landslides induced by earthquake occur on steeper slopes found in the foothills and along the Kern River Canyon; in these areas, landslides are generally associated with bluff and stream bank failure, rockslide, and slope slip on steep slopes. The project site is relatively flat and level with no major changes in grade. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving landslides.
b. Less than significant impact. The relatively low precipitation in the project area [on average about 6 inches/year results in surface runoff that is intermittent and temporary in nature (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2025).The erosion potential at the site and the fact that the soils are well drained coupled with low average rainfall in the area does not make the project site likely to have substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. The project site’s soils have low-to-moderate susceptibility to erosion by rainfall (USDA, n.d.).

Construction of the site would temporarily disturb soils, which could loosen soil, and the removal of vegetation could contribute to future soil loss and erosion by wind and storm water runoff. The project would have to request coverage under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activities (No. 2012- 0006-DWQ) (General Permit) because the project would result in 1 or more acres of ground disturbance. To conform to the requirements of the General Permit, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would need to be prepared that specifies best management (BMPs) to prevent construction pollutants, including eroded soils (such as topsoil), from moving offsite.

Implementation of the General Permit and BMPs requirements would mitigate erosion of soil during construction activities.

During operation, the soils would be sufficiently compacted to required engineered specifications, revegetated in compliance with City requirements, or paved over with impervious surfaces such that Environmental Checklist and Analysis
JF \ G:\pln\shared\15_Zone Change\01_Active\2024\PP-ZC-24-0004_Austin Creek Park Prezone\02_Application Material\Studies\IS_MND_ZC 24-0004 Final.docx Page 20 of 38

the soils at the site would not be particularly susceptible to soil erosion. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil, and impacts are less than significant. c. Less than significant impact. As discussed above, the project site’s soils would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, lateral spreading, or landslides.

Collapsible soils consist of loose, dry, low-density materials that collapse and compact under the addition of water or excessive loading. 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, including those relating to soil characteristics. Therefore, the project would not 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, and impacts are less than significant.
d. Less than significant impact. The soils identified on site, milham sandy loam, do not have a high potential to be expansive (USDA, n.d.). Additionally, 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, including those relating to soil characteristics. Therefore, the project would not be located on expansive soil creating substantial risks to life or property, and impacts are less than significant.
e. No impact. The project, if developed in the City, would not require the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems because the project would connect to existing City sewer services in the area. Therefore, there would be no impacts related to soils incapable of adequately supporting septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems. f. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Paleontological sensitivity is determined by the potential for a geologic unit to produce scientifically significant fossils. Because paleontological resources typically occur in the substratum soil horizon, surface expressions are often not visible during a pedestrian survey. Paleontological sensitivity is derived from known fossil data collected from the entire geologic unit. The project site is entirely underlain by alluvial fan deposits of late Holocene age, which presumably transition in the subsurface into older, Pleistocene-age deposits.

Due to the presence of alluvial deposits, there is the potential to unearth previously unknown paleontological resources at the project site, and grading and other ground-disturbing activities have the potential to damage or destroy such resources. Therefore, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, the project would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature, and impacts are less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: Would the project;
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
JF \ G:\pln\shared\15_Zone Change\01_Active\2024\PP-ZC-24-0004_Austin Creek Park Prezone\02_Application Material\Studies\IS_MND_ZC 24-0004 Final.docx Page 21 of 38

b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
Discussion
a. Less than significant impact. The proposed project consists of development of a public park on an approximately 9-acre site. Construction activities would generate short-term greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the use of heavy equipment, material transport, and worker vehicle trips.

These emissions would be temporary and typical of small-scale construction projects.

Operational GHG emissions associated with the project would be minimal. The park use would generate limited vehicle trips and low energy demand associated with features such as lighting and irrigation. The project does not include industrial uses, large buildings, or other significant sources of ongoing emissions. Additionally, the park would provide open space and recreational opportunities, which are generally associated with low-intensity land uses and may contribute to broader community sustainability goals.

Given the small scale of the project, temporary nature of construction emissions, and minimal operational emissions, the project would not generate greenhouse gas emissions that would have a significant impact on the environment. Impacts would be less than significant. b. Less than significant impact. The project would be required to comply with applicable state and local regulations aimed at reducing GHG emissions, including energy efficiency standards under Title 24 of the California Building Standards Code and vehicle emission standards established by the State. The proposed park use is consistent with the City’s General Plan designation of OS-P (Parks and Recreation), which anticipates low-intensity, open space uses.

The project would not conflict with any applicable greenhouse gas reduction plans, such as statewide targets established under Assembly Bill 32 or Senate Bill 32. Due to its low operational emissions and consistency with planned land uses, the project supports broader efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Therefore, the project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Impacts would be less than significant.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IX. 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
materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
JF \ G:\pln\shared\15_Zone Change\01_Active\2024\PP-ZC-24-0004_Austin Creek Park Prezone\02_Application Material\Studies\IS_MND_ZC 24-0004 Final.docx Page 22 of 38

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 §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 or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Discussion
a. Less than significant impact. The proposed project consists of development of a public park, which would not involve the routine use, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials beyond typical small quantities associated with maintenance activities (e.g., fuels, oils, or landscaping products). These materials would be handled in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations. As such, the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment and impacts are less than significant.
b. Less than significant impact. Please refer to response VIX.a. Therefore, the project would not 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 and impacts are less than significant.
c. No impact. The closest school is Providence Classical Academy, located approximately 0.33 miles southeast of the project site. Therefore, the project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 miles of an existing or proposed school.
d. No impact. The EnviroStor (DTSC, 2025) and Cortese lists (DTSC, n.d.) pursuant to Government Code (GC) Section 65962.5 were reviewed. No portion of the project site is identified on either list, which provides the location of known hazardous waste concerns. Therefore, the project would not be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to GC Section 65962.5 and, as a result, create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.
e. No impact. The project site is not located within the Kern County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan area (Kern County, 2011). The closest airport to the project site is the Bakersfield Municipal Airport, which is located approximately 6 miles northeast of the project site. Therefore, the project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area. The project is not located within a distance an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted.

f. Less than significant impact. Access to the site would be maintained throughout the construction period, and appropriate detours would be provided in the event of potential temporary road closures. 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. The project is typical of urban development in Bakersfield, and is not inconsistent with the adopted City of Bakersfield Hazardous Materials Area Plan (City of Bakersfield, 1996). This plan identifies responsibilities and provides coordination of emergency response at the local level to hazardous materials incidents. Therefore, the project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan and impacts are less than significant. g. Less than significant impact. The project site is not located within a fire hazard severity zone (City of Bakersfield, 2025). The Fire Prevention Division of the Kern County Fire Department inspects all new construction, major remodels, and fire protection system revisions to ensure compliance with the California Fire Code and conducts enforcement of the fire code (City of Bakersfield, 2002). The project site would be developed with hardscapes and irrigated landscaping, which would further reduce fire potential at the site. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands and impacts are less than significant.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project;
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
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 through the addition of impervious
surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. Result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite?
iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of Environmental Checklist and Analysis
JF \ G:\pln\shared\15_Zone Change\01_Active\2024\PP-ZC-24-0004_Austin Creek Park Prezone\02_Application Material\Studies\IS_MND_ZC 24-0004 Final.docx Page 24 of 38

pollutants due to project inundation?
e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management
plan?
Discussion
a. Less than significant impact. Construction would include ground disturbing activities. As discussed in VII.b, the project site’s soil types have a low-to-medium susceptibility to sheet and rill erosion by rainfall and a low susceptibility to wind erosion at the ground surface. Disturbance of onsite soils during construction could result in soil erosion and siltation, and subsequent water quality degradation through increased turbidity and sediment deposition during storm events to offsite locations. Additionally, disturbed soils have an increased potential for fugitive dust to be released into the air and carried offsite. As described in VII.b, the project would be required to comply with the General Permit. To conform to the requirements of the General Permit, a SWPPP would need to be prepared that specifies BMPs to prevent construction pollutants from moving offsite. The project is required to comply with the General Permit because project-related construction activities would disturb at least 1 acre of soil. Therefore, by complying with the permit, the project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, and impacts are less than significant.
b. Less than significant impact. Potable water from the project would be supplied by the Vaughn Water Company. Vaughn has provided a “Will Serve” letter stating that they would supply potable water (Vaughn, 2025). Therefore, the project would not 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, and impacts are less than significant.
c. The following discusses whether the project would substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces.
i. Less than significant impact. The project site does not contain any blue-line streams or other surface water features and therefore, the project would not alter the course of a river or stream. The project site would be graded and, as a result, the internal drainage pattern at the site would be altered from the baseline condition. Additionally, the project would result in increased impervious surfaces (i.e., building pads, sidewalks, asphalt parking area, etc.) at the site, which would reduce percolation to ground and result in greater amounts of storm water runoff concentrations at the site. If uncontrolled, differences in drainage patterns and increased impervious surfaces could result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite. However, the project would be required to comply with the General Permit during construction and MS4 permit during operation. In order to comply with the MS4 Permit, the City requires compliance with adopted building codes, including complying with an approved drainage plan, which avoids on- and offsite flooding, erosion, and siltation problems. Therefore, the project would not 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 that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite, and impacts are less than significant. ii. Less than significant impact. Please refer to response X.c.i. Therefore, the project would not 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 Environmental Checklist and Analysis
JF \ G:\pln\shared\15_Zone Change\01_Active\2024\PP-ZC-24-0004_Austin Creek Park Prezone\02_Application Material\Studies\IS_MND_ZC 24-0004 Final.docx Page 25 of 38

amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or offsite, and impacts are less than significant.
iii. Less than significant impact. In order to comply with the City’s MS4 Permit, the City requires compliance with an approved drainage plan that would avoid on- and offsite flooding thus, the project would not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, and impacts are less than significant. iv. Less than significant impact. A review of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Maps, shows the project site is located in Zone X, which is a minimal risk area outside the 1-percent and 0.2-percent-annual-chance floodplain (FEMA, n.d.). Therefore, the project would not impede or redirect flood flows, and impacts are less than significant.
d. Less than significant impact. The City of Bakersfield is located within Central California and is not near a coastal environment that risks flood inundation. In addition, the City is not located within a tsunami zone as identified by the California Department of Conservation’s Tsunami Map. As mentioned above, the project site is located in Zone X, which is a minimal risk area outside the 1- percent and 0.2-percent-annual-chance floodplain. The project site, like most of the City, is located within the Lake Isabella flood inundation area (USACE, n.d), which is the area that would experience flooding in the event that there was a catastrophic failure of the Lake Isabella Dam. There is an approved Lake Isabella Dam Failure Evacuation Plan (Kern County Fire Department, 2009)) that establishes a process and procedures for the mass evacuation and short-term support of populations at risk below the Lake Isabella Dam. The City would utilize the Evacuation Plan to support its Emergency Operations Plans. Due to the project’s location and implementation of related emergency safety plans, the project would not likely risk release of pollutants due to project inundation in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, and impacts are less than significant.
e. Less than significant impact. Please refer to response X.c.i. There is currently no adopted groundwater management plan for the project site or its vicinity. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan, and impacts are less than significant.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project;
a. Physically divide an established community?
b. Cause a significant environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
Discussion
a. No impact. The project is a continuation of the existing urban development pattern of the City or is an infill development. The project is not a long and linear feature, such as a freeway, railroad track, block wall, etc., that would have the potential to divide a community. The project is the Environmental Checklist and Analysis
JF \ G:\pln\shared\15_Zone Change\01_Active\2024\PP-ZC-24-0004_Austin Creek Park Prezone\02_Application Material\Studies\IS_MND_ZC 24-0004 Final.docx Page 26 of 38

development of a 9-acre project site that does not impede existing or future movement or development of the City. Therefore, the project would not physically divide an established community.
b. Less than significant impact. The project site is designated as OS-P (Parks and Recreation) in the City’s General Plan. The proposed use as a public park is consistent with this designation, which anticipates open space and recreational uses. The project would not conflict with applicable land use policies or regulations intended to avoid or mitigate environmental impacts.

Additionally, the project would be subject to review and approval by the City and would comply with all applicable zoning and development standards. As the project is consistent with the General Plan and does not introduce incompatible land uses, it would not result in a significant environmental impact due to a land use conflict. Impacts would be less than significant.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project;
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a 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 delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
Discussion
a. Less than significant impact. The project site does not contain any previously drilled oil wells.

Because there is no ongoing or reasonably foreseeable future mineral extraction, development of the site would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region or state. Therefore, impacts on mineral resources would be less than significant.
b. No impact. The project site is currently designated A (Agriculture). No portion of the site is designated for a potential mineral resource extraction use such as R-MP (Mineral and Petroleum). Therefore, the project would not 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.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIII. NOISE: Would the project result in:
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
JF \ G:\pln\shared\15_Zone Change\01_Active\2024\PP-ZC-24-0004_Austin Creek Park Prezone\02_Application Material\Studies\IS_MND_ZC 24-0004 Final.docx Page 27 of 38

b. Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or 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?
Discussion
a. Less than significant impact. The project would generate noise during construction by the use of construction equipment. Typical construction equipment generates sound levels between 80 and 85 A-weighted decibels (dBA), which is a decibel system reflective of human hearing characteristics. At 80 to 85 dBA, the human response to such a sound level is annoyance and difficulty hearing conversation. As noise attenuates 7.5 dBA per a doubling of distance away from the sound-emitting source, it would require 800 feet away from an 85-dBA sound-emitting source to obtain a 55-dBA sound level, which is considered “quiet” to the human ear. Project construction would be limited to 6 a.m. and 9 p.m. on weekdays and 8 a.m. and 9 p.m. on weekends per Bakersfield Municipal Code Chapter 9.22 (Noise).

Project operations would generate sound levels typical of park land uses which would have to comply with Bakersfield Municipal Code regarding noise. Therefore, the project would not expose 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, and the impacts are less than significant.
b. Less than significant impact. Some ground-borne vibration and noise would originate from earth movement and building activities during the project’s construction phase. Ground-borne noise and vibration from construction activity would be mostly low to moderate. The operation of typical construction equipment would generate ground-borne vibrations that would not exceed guidelines that are considered unsafe for any type of buildings. Operation of the proposed park use would not generate ground-borne vibration. Therefore, the project would not expose persons to or generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels, and impacts are less than significant.
c. No impact. The project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels for a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project result in:
a. Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads Environmental Checklist and Analysis
JF \ G:\pln\shared\15_Zone Change\01_Active\2024\PP-ZC-24-0004_Austin Creek Park Prezone\02_Application Material\Studies\IS_MND_ZC 24-0004 Final.docx Page 28 of 38

or other infrastructure)?
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Discussion
a. No impact. The project proposes development of a public park for the residents of Bakersfield which is the logical extension of existing urban development. The project would also require the extension of infrastructure. Therefore, the project would not induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly, and impacts are less than significant. b. No impact. The project site consists of undeveloped land. Therefore, the project would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES: Would the project result in:
a. 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?
iv. Parks?
v. Other public facilities?
Discussion
a. The following discusses whether the project would result in substantial adverse physical impacts to public services. The need for additional public service is generally directly correlated to population growth and the resultant additional population’s need for services beyond what is currently available.
i. Less than significant impact. Fire protection services for the Metropolitan Bakersfield area are provided through a joint fire protection agreement between the City and County. The proposed project consists of development of a public park on an Environmental Checklist and Analysis
JF \ G:\pln\shared\15_Zone Change\01_Active\2024\PP-ZC-24-0004_Austin Creek Park Prezone\02_Application Material\Studies\IS_MND_ZC 24-0004 Final.docx Page 29 of 38

approximately 9-acre site. Therefore, the project would not introduce residential or intensive commercial uses that would substantially increase demand for public services such as fire protection, and impacts are less than significant. ii. Less than significant impact. Once annexed into the City, Police protection for the project would be provided by the Bakersfield Police Department. The proposed project consists of development of a public park on an approximately 9-acre site. Therefore, the project would not introduce residential or intensive commercial uses that would substantially increase demand for public services such as police protection, and impacts are less than significant.
iii. Less than significant impact. The proposed project consists of development of a public park on an approximately 9-acre site. The project would not introduce residential or intensive commercial uses that would substantially increase demand for public services such as additional schools, and impacts are less than significant. iv. Less than significant impact. The proposed project consists of development of a public park on an approximately 9-acre site. The project would not introduce residential or intensive commercial uses that would substantially increase demand for public services such as additional parks. The project itself is a park and would therefore contribute to the City’s park and recreational facilities, rather than create a demand for additional parkland. Therefore, the project would be served by existing police and fire protection services, and impacts are less than significant. v. Less than significant impact. The proposed project consists of development of a public park on an approximately 9-acre site. The low-intensity nature of the proposed use would not require the construction of new or expanded governmental facilities.

Additionally, the project and eventual buildup of this area would result in an increase in maintenance responsibility for the City. Though the project may necessitate increased maintenance for other public facilities, this potential increase can be paid for by property taxes generated by this development. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the 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 other public facilities, and impacts are less than significant.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVI. RECREATION: Would the project result in:
a. Would the project 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?
Discussion
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
JF \ G:\pln\shared\15_Zone Change\01_Active\2024\PP-ZC-24-0004_Austin Creek Park Prezone\02_Application Material\Studies\IS_MND_ZC 24-0004 Final.docx Page 30 of 38

a. Less than significant impact. Please refer to response XV.a.iv. Therefore, the project would not 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, and impacts are less than significant.
b. Less than significant impact. Please refer to response XV.a.iv. Therefore, the project would not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment, and impacts are less than significant.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVII. TRANSPORTATION: Would the project result in:
a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines §
15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
d. Result in inadequate emergency access?
Discussion
a. Less than significant impact. The proposed project consists of development of a public park on an approximately 9-acre site. The project would result in temporary construction-related traffic impacts.

Construction workers traveling to and from the project site as well as construction material delivery would result in additional vehicle trips to the area’s roadway system. Construction material delivery may require a number of trips for oversized vehicles that may travel at slower speeds than existing traffic and, due to their size, may intrude into adjacent travel lanes. These trips may temporarily degrade level of service on area roadways and at intersections. Additionally, the total number of vehicle trips associated with all construction-related traffic, including construction worker trips, could temporarily increase daily traffic volumes on local roadways and intersections. The project may require temporary lane closures or the need for flagmen to safely direct traffic on roadways near the project site. However, once the project is built, it would not result in any permanent trafficrelated effects.

The project would generate a limited number of vehicle trips associated with park visitors and maintenance activities. The site would be accessed via existing public roadways, and no major modifications to the circulation system are anticipated.

The project would be designed to include pedestrian access and internal pathways, dedication and improvement of streets, traffic control measures during construction, pedestrian access, and the payment of impact fees consistent with applicable City standards. The low-intensity nature of the proposed use would not conflict with adopted circulation plans, policies, or programs.

Additionally, the project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation of OS-P (Parks and Recreation), which anticipates such uses. Therefore, the project would not conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, and impacts are less than significant. b. Less than significant impact. Please refer to response XVII.a. The project would not conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways, and impacts are less than significant.
c. Less than significant impact. The project would have to comply with all conditions placed on it by the City Traffic Engineering Division in order to comply with accepted traffic engineering standards intended to reduce traffic hazards, including designing the roads so that they do not result in design feature hazards. The project is within the City limits and surrounded by compatible existing and planned land uses and land use designations. Therefore, the project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses, and impacts are less than significant.
d. Less than significant impact. There is the potential that, during the construction phase, the project would impede emergency access. For projects that require minor impediments of a short duration (e.g., pouring a new driveway entrance), the project would be required to obtain a street permit from City Public Works. If a project requires lane closures and/or the diversion of traffic, then a Traffic Control Plan, subject to Public Works approval, would be required. During operations, the project would have to comply with all applicable City policies and requirements to ensure adequate emergency access. The need for such permits is determined by the Public Works Department during the permitting and construction phases of their permitting process. In addition, the site plans have been designed in accordance with all City development standards, and impacts are less than significant.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project result in:

Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code § 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k)?
b. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Environmental Checklist and Analysis
JF \ G:\pln\shared\15_Zone Change\01_Active\2024\PP-ZC-24-0004_Austin Creek Park Prezone\02_Application Material\Studies\IS_MND_ZC 24-0004 Final.docx Page 32 of 38

Public Resources Code § 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code §
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe?
Discussion
a. Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. A Cultural Resources Desktop Review was conducted for the project site (Provost and Pritchard, 2026). The Cultural Resources review determined that there are no cultural resources which include any tribal cultural resources within the project site. A determination of no adverse effect and no significant impact will result from the project. However, in the event that any unknown resources are encountered, measures CUL1 through CUL-2 would be implemented. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.
b. Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. See response XVII.a. above. Therefore, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is determined by the lead agency to be significant, and impacts are less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVIV. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project result in:
a. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development
during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
c. Result in a determination by the waste water 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?
d. Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
e. Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Discussion
a. Less than significant impact. The proposed project consists of development of a public park on an approximately 9-acre site. The project would require connection to existing water infrastructure for irrigation and minor facilities, as well as stormwater management features Environmental Checklist and Analysis
JF \ G:\pln\shared\15_Zone Change\01_Active\2024\PP-ZC-24-0004_Austin Creek Park Prezone\02_Application Material\Studies\IS_MND_ZC 24-0004 Final.docx Page 33 of 38

consistent with City standards. Wastewater demand would be minimal, limited to any small restroom facilities, if included.

Existing public infrastructure is available to serve the project, and any required connections or minor extensions would be constructed in accordance with applicable standards. The lowintensity nature of the park use would not require the construction of new or expanded treatment facilities. Stormwater would be managed on-site through standard design measures.

Therefore, the project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded utilities that would cause significant environmental effects, and impacts are less than significant.
b. Less than significant impact. The Vaughn Water Company has provided a “Will Serve” letter stating that they will provide water to the property (Vaughn, 2025). The proposed development would not result in a need for significant additional systems or substantially alter the existing water utilities in the area. Therefore, the project would have sufficient water supplies available from existing entitlements and resources, and new or expanded entitlements would not be needed, and impacts are less than significant.
c. Less than significant impact. Once the project annexes into the City, the wastewater as a result of the project would be treated at WWTP No. 3, which is owned and operated by the City. The proposed project would generate minimal wastewater, limited to potential restroom facilities.

Existing wastewater infrastructure and treatment capacity are sufficient to accommodate the project’s demand. Therefore, the project would not result in a determination that additional wastewater treatment capacity is required, and impacts are less than significant. d. Less than significant impact. The project would generate minimal solid waste during operation, primarily consisting of typical park-related waste such as litter and maintenance debris.

Construction would generate temporary waste, which would be disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations. The Solid Waste Division of Public Works will conduct a detailed review of the facility at the time of development to incorporate appropriate on-site trash facilities, subject to city approval. Therefore, the project would be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs, and impacts are less than significant.
e. Less than significant impact. By law, the project would be required to comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations, including those relating to waste reduction, litter control, and solid waste disposal. Therefore, impacts are less than significant.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XX. WILDFIRES: Would the project result in:
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
JF \ G:\pln\shared\15_Zone Change\01_Active\2024\PP-ZC-24-0004_Austin Creek Park Prezone\02_Application Material\Studies\IS_MND_ZC 24-0004 Final.docx Page 34 of 38

c. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
d. Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Discussion
a. Less than significant impact. The project is not located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones. The project is located in an urbanized area and access to the site would be maintained throughout the construction period. The project would not interfere with any local or regional emergency response or evacuation plans because the project would not result in substantial alteration to the adjacent and area circulation system. The project is typical of urban development in Bakersfield, and is not inconsistent with the adopted City of Bakersfield Hazardous Materials Area Plan (Bakersfield, 1996). This plan identifies responsibilities and provides coordination of emergency response at the local level to hazardous materials incidents. Therefore, the project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, and impacts are less than significant.
b. Less than significant impact. As mentioned above, the project is not located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones. Additionally, the project site is relatively flat, not near wildlands, the site and its surrounding do not possess high fuel loads (i.e., lots of vegetation and other burnable material) to exacerbate wildfire risks and therefore, fire-related pollutant concentrations. Therefore, the project would not exacerbate wildfires and expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, and impacts are less than significant.
c. Less than significant impact. The project is in a developed area with existing infrastructure such as roads, power lines, utilities etc., to support the development of this project. Therefore, the project would not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment, and impacts are less than significant.
d. Less than significant impact. The project site is relatively flat, is not within a floodplain, and is not located in a fire risk area. The project would not expose people or structures to substantial risks associated with downslope or downstream flooding, landslides, post-fire slope instability, runoff, or drainage changes, and impacts are less than significant.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: Would the project result in:

a. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of life 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,
substantially 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?
Discussion
a. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The project must comply with listed plant and animal species protected under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) and the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), as directed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California State Department of Fish and Wildlife, respectively. In addition, measures BIO-1 through BIO-11 would be implemented to avoid any impacts to special status species. There are no important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory found at the site.

However, measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 would be implemented to avoid any potential impacts to cultural or historical resources. Therefore, with the implementation of measures, the project would not 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 selfsustaining 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, and impacts are less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
b. Less than significant impact. Under Section 15065(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency shall find that a project may have a significant effect on the environment where there is substantial evidence that the project has potential environmental effects “that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable.” This section further states that cumulatively considerable means “that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.”
Past, present, and future projects in proximity to the project were considered and evaluated as part of this Initial Study. Also, in addition to project specific impacts, this Initial Study considered the projects potential for incremental effects that are cumulatively considerable. As described in the responses above, there is no substantial evidence that there are cumulative effects associated with this project. In addition, any future development projects not identified above would be required to undergo a separate environmental analysis and mitigate any project- or site-specific potential impacts, and, impacts are less than significant.

c. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. As described in the responses above, the project, with mitigation, would not have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly, and impacts are less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

References
Caltrans. (n.d.). California State Scenic Highway System Map. Retrieved from California Department of Transportation:
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f 1aacaa
CDOC. (2026). California Important Farmland FInder. Retrieved from California Department of Conservation: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/ CDOC. (n.d.). Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. Retrieved from Department of Conservation California Geological Survey:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/eqzapp/ CDOC. (n.d.). Well Finder. Retrieved from California Department of Conservation:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr/wellfinder/
City of Bakersfield. (1989). Subdivision and Engineering Design Policy Manual. Bakersfield. Retrieved from https://content.civicplus.com/api/assets/ca-bakersfield/e1fc107e-67a1-4264-8cad21b263cfe3e8/subdivision-engineering-design-manual-1989-pdf-.pdf?sq=cb0ab94f-1777-ce46-5822- 690d8a00f8f2&scope=all
City of Bakersfield. (1996). Hazardous Materials Area Plan. Bakersfield.

City of Bakersfield. (2002). Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan. Bakersfield. Retrieved from City of Bakersfield. (2022, July 26). Historic Buildings and Sites in Bakersfield. Retrieved from https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/eb1b154414724e1d8b39ef7ff1ee46a2 City of Bakersfield. (2025). Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Area. Bakersfield. Retrieved from https://content.civicplus.com/api/assets/1cb624df-5c64-473b-95e4- c6b51c7537ea?cache=1800
City of Bakersfield. 2026. Wastewater Treatment Plants.

DTSC. (2025). Envirostor. Retrieved from California Department of Toxic Substances Control:
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/
DTSC. (n.d.). Department of Toxic Substances Control. Retrieved from DTSC’s Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List – Site Cleanup (Cortese List): https://dtsc.ca.gov/dtscs-cortese-list/ FEMA. (n.d.). FEMA Flood Map Service Center. United States. Retrieved from https://msc.fema.gov/portal/home
https://content.civicplus.com/api/assets/6c7a0380-7841-40d6-b3ef-23ceb4fa0fd7 Kern County Fire Department. (2009, December). Lake Isabella Dam Failure Evacuation Plan. California, Kern County. Retrieved from https://kerncountyfire.org/wp-content/uploads/Isabella-Dam-FailurePlan.pdf Kern County. (2011). Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. California, Kern County. Retrieved from https://docs.bakersfieldcity.us/WebLink/DocView.aspx?dbid=0&id=932206&page=1&cr=1 Environmental Checklist and Analysis
JF \ G:\pln\shared\15_Zone Change\01_Active\2024\PP-ZC-24-0004_Austin Creek Park Prezone\02_Application Material\Studies\IS_MND_ZC 24-0004 Final.docx Page 38 of 38

KernGIS. (2026, March 17). ArcGIS. Retrieved from Kern COunty WIlliamson Act- Active:
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html?layers=49aeef8ba48e4159a64923306820ac69 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2025). NOW Data. Retrieved from National Weather Service: https://www.weather.gov/wrh/Climate?wfo=hnx Provost & Pritchard Biological Review (2026). Biological Desktop Review for Parcel Merger, Zone Change, and Annexation Assistance for Austin Creek Park. Bakersfield, California.

Provost & Pritchard Cultural Resources Review (2026). Cultural Resources Desktop Review for Parcel Merger, Zone Change, and Annexation Assistance for Austin Creek Park. Bakersfield, California.

SJVAPCD. (2015, March 19). Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. Retrieved from https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/g4nl3p0g/gamaqi.pdf
Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center. (2014). Cultural Resources Records Search. Bakersfield.

USACE. (n.d). Anticipated areas to flood in unlikely failure of Isabella Dam. Californa, Kern County.

Retrieved from
https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/bakersfield.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/ 8/04/804257c6-3a0c-54aa-a8b0-c8feb01b5631/594469881bd09.pdf.pdf USDA. (n.d.). United States Department of Agriculture National Resources Conservation Service.

Retrieved from Web Soil Survey: https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx USFWS. (2023, April 25). National Wetlands Inventory Surface Waters and Wetlands. Retrieved from United States Fish and Wildlife Service: https://fwsprimary.wim.usgs.gov/wetlands/apps/wetlandsmapper/ Vaughn Water Company. (2025). Will Serve for Water Service. Bakersfield. 455 W Fir Ave, Clovis, CA 93611 • (559) 449-2700
www.provostandpritchard.com
Engineering • Structural • Geostructural • Surveying • Planning • Environmental • GIS • Construction Services • Hydrogeology • Consulting Clovis • Visalia • Bakersfield • Modesto • Los Banos • Chico • Sacramento • Sonora • San Luis Obispo • Riverside • Camarillo • Boise, ID

MEMORANDUM
To:

Steph Thisius
North of the River Recreation & Park District
From: Jenny McCarthy
Subject:

Biological Desktop Review for Parcel Merger, Zone Change, and Annexation Assistance for Austin Creek Park
Date: January 21, 2026

PROJECT BACKGROUND AND LOCATION
North of the River Recreation & Parks District (District) is applying for a parcel merger, zone change, and annexation for the future creation of Austin Creek Park. These parcels (APN 529-012-10 and 529-012-11) are located at the northeast corner of Austin Creek Ave. and Jenkins Rd. in Bakersfield, California. The parcels total approximately 9.3 acres and are currently under the District’s service and the City’s sphere of influence, with the goal to incorporate the parcels into the City of Bakersfield jurisdiction. See Appendix A for a map of the project site.

STUDY METHODOLOGY
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group biologist, Jenny McCarthy, conducted a desktop analysis of potential Project-related impacts to biological resources based on the resources known to occur, or with potential to occur, within the Project site. Sources of information used in preparation of this analysis included: CDFW’s California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB; see Appendix B for the species list) and California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS) Online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California; CalFlora’s online database of California native plants; Jepson Herbarium’s online database (i.e., Jepson eFlora); United States Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS), Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC; see Appendix C for the species list) system, and National Wetlands Inventory (NWI); iNaturalist; NatureServe Explorer’s online database; United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service’s (NRCS) Web Soil Survey, California Herps website; and various manuals, reports, and references related to plants and animals of the San Joaquin Valley region. No field survey was conducted. The assessment of habitats within the site was completed utilizing satellite and historical imagery. Recommendations were then developed to avoid any potential impacts to protected resources that may occur on or near the site.

EXISTING CONDITIONS
As follows are details on the topography, climate, waters, soils, and biotic habitats of the site.

TOPOGRAPHY
The Project site is located within the United States Geological Survey Rosedale 7.5-minute quadrangles. The Project site is located in the southeast and southwestsection corner of Section 29, Township 26 south, Range 21 East, in the center portion of Kern County. The topography within the site is relatively flat, with elevations of approximately 365 feet above mean sea level.

North of the River Recreation & Park District January 21, 2026 Parcel Merger, Zoner Change, and Annexation Biological Desktop Review Page 2 of 17 Job No.: 4427-24-001

CLIMATE
Like most of California, the site experiences a Mediterranean climate. Warm, dry summers are followed by cool, moist winters. In the summer, average high temperatures range between 91- and 99 degrees Fahrenheit (°F), but do not often exceed 105 °F, and the humidity is generally low. Winter temperatures are often below 41°F during the day and rarely exceed 66°F. On average, the City of Bakersfield receives approximately 7 inches of precipitation in the form of rain yearly, most of which occurs between October and May, (Weather Spark) and the site would be expected to receive similar amounts of precipitation.

WATERS
The nearest surface water feature is a stormwater basin that is adjacent to the Project site on Jenkins Rd. and will not be impacted by project activities.

SOILS
Two soil mapping units representing one soil type were identified within the Project sites (see Appendix D for the Web Soil Survey Report). The soil was Milham which contained sandy loam and 0 to 2 percent slopes MLRA 17. This soil is well drained with medium runoff, moderate to slow permeability, and is predominantly non-hydric according to the Major Land Resource Area of California. This soil is used for wildlife habitat, livestock grazing, and row crops.

Hydric soils are defined as soils that are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions such that under sufficiently wet conditions, hydrophytic vegetation can be supported. Hydric soil ratings are derived from specific soil properties as well as climate, parent material, vegetation, landform type, and biological activity of a certain location. Both of the major soil mapping units and minor soil units located on the Project sites were identified as non-hydric.

BIOTIC HABITAT
The Project site appears to consist mostly of an agricultural field and ruderal field habitat. A majority of the project would take place in an agricultural field that contains a pre-existing dirt road along the perimeter of the agricultural field. Adjacent to the agricultural field is a ruderal field that appears to contain scattered shrubs throughout the habitat. The agricultural field and ruderal field could provide foraging habitat for songbirds, such as white-crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys) and house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus), and nesting habitat for ground-nesting birds such as horned lark (Eremophila alpestris) and killdeer (Charadrius vociferus). Both fields could also provide foraging habitat for nocturnal species such as striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis) and coyote (Canis latrans).

SENSITIVE RESOURCES
As follows are details on the special status species, migratory birds, designated habitat and communities, and wildlife movement corridors, and native wildlife nursery sites that could be impacted by Project-related activities.

SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES
A query of the CNDDB for occurrences of special status plant and animal species was conducted for the Rosedale USGS 7.5-Minute quadrangle and for the eight surrounding USGS quadrangles: Rio Bravo, Oildale, Tupman, Stevens, North of Oildale, Famoso, Gosford, and Wasco A query of the IPaC was also completed for the site and their potential to occur within the site These species are listed in below.

North of the River Recreation & Park District January 21, 2026 Parcel Merger, Zoner Change, and Annexation Biological Desktop Review Page 3 of 17 Job No.: 4427-24-001
Table 1: List of Special Status Plants with Potential to Occur on the Site and/or in the Vicinity Species Status* Habitat Occurrence within the Site
Alkali mariposa-lily
(Calochortus striatus
CNPS 1B
Found in the Sierra Nevada
foothills, the Desert Mountains,
and the Mojave Desert in
alkaline meadows, ephemeral
washes, and moist creosotebush scrub in chaparral, alkali scrub communities, meadows,
and seeps. Found at elevations
between 200 and 500 feet.

Sometimes associated with
vernal pools. Blooms April –
June.

Absent. The required habitat is
absent from the Project site.

Alkali-sink goldfields
(Lasthenia
chrysantha)
CNPS 1B
Found growing in alkali soils in
the San Joaquin Valley and
throughout the Delta-Bay region
of California in low and flooded
areas at elevations below 200
feet. Blooms March – June.

Absent. The Project site is outside
the elevational range of this species.

Bakersfield cactus
(Opuntia basilaris var.
treleasei)

FE, CE, CNPS
1B
Found in coarse or cobbly welldrained granitic sand within grasslands at elevations between
350 and 500 feet. Blooms March
– April.

Absent. The required habitat is
absent from the Project site.

Bakersfield smallscale
(Atriplex tularensis)
CE, CNPS 1A
Historically found in the
southernmost portion of the San
Joaquin Valley in valley sink
scrub habitat and associated
with saltgrass. Grows at
elevations between 250 and 700
feet. Blooms June – October.

Absent. The required habitat is
absent from the Project site.

California jewelflower
(Caulanthus
californicus)

FE, CE, CNPS
1B
Found in the San Joaquin Valley
and western Transverse Ranges
in sandy soils. Occurs on flats
and slopes, generally in nonalkaline grassland at elevations between 200 and 6,100 feet.

Blooms February – April.

Absent. The required habitat is
absent from the Project site.

California satintail
(Imperata brevifolia)
CNPS 2B
Often found in wet springs,
meadows, streambanks, and
floodplains, and can also be
found in coastal scrub, riparian
scrub, Mojavean desert scrub,
chaparral, and alkali seeps at
elevations below 1,600 feet.

Blooms September – May.

Absent. The required habitat is
absent from the Project site.

Heartscale
(Atriplex cordulata
var. cordulata)
CNPS 1B
Found in the Central Valley in
saline or alkaline soils within
shadscale scrub, valley
grassland, and wetland-riparian
communities at elevations below
250 feet. Blooms June – July.

Absent. The required habitat is
absent from the Project site.

North of the River Recreation & Park District January 21, 2026 Parcel Merger, Zoner Change, and Annexation Biological Desktop Review Page 4 of 17 Job No.: 4427-24-001
Species Status* Habitat Occurrence within the Site
Hispid salty bird'sbeak
(Chloropyron molle
ssp. hispidum)
CNPS 1B
Grows in the damp, alkali soils of
meadows, playas, and sinks in
the San Joaquin Valley and
Delta-Bay region of California.

Found at elevations below 450
feet. Blooms June – July.

Absent. The required habitat is
absent from the Project site.

Horn’s milk-vetch
(Astralagus hornii var.
hornii)
CNPS 1B
This facultative species is most
frequently found in the San
Joaquin Valley and foothills of
the Sierra Nevada in the alkali
soils of lake margins, meadows,
seeps, and playas at elevations
between 200 and 1,000 feet.

Blooms May – September.

Absent. The required habitat is
absent from the Project site.

Kern mallow
(Eremalche parryi ssp.
kernensis)
FE, CNPS 1B
Occurs in the San Joaquin Valley
and the Southern Inner Coast
Ranges in eroded hillsides and
alkali flats and often on dry,
open, sandy to clay soils and
within alkali scrub communities
at elevations between 200 and
4,300 feet. Blooms March –
May.

Absent. The required habitat and
soil are absent from the Project site.

Mason’s neststraw
(Stylocline masonii)
CNPS 1B
Occurs in a variety of habitats
across central California: from
the coastal range to the foothills
of the Sierra Nevada. Found in
chenopod scrub and woodland
habitats at elevations between
300 and 4,000 feet. Blooms
March – June.

Absent. The required habitat is
absent from the Project site.

Oil neststraw
(Stylocline citroleum)
CNPS 1B
Occurs in valley and foothill
areas of central and southern
California in oil-producing areas.

Grows in clay soils at elevations
between 150 and 1,000 feet.

Blooms March – April.

Absent. The required habitat and
soil are absent from the Project site.

Recurved larkspur
(Delphinium
recurvatum)
CNPS 1B
Occurs in chenopod scrub,
cismontane woodland, and
grassland habitats on poorly
drained, fine, alkaline soils; often
in valley saltbush or valley
chenopod scrub communities at
elevations between 100 and
2,600 feet. Blooms March –
June.

Absent. The required habitat and
soil are absent from the Project site.

San Joaquin
woollythreads
(Monolopia
congdonii)
FE, CNPS 1B
Occurs in the San Joaquin Valley
in sandy soils on alkaline or
loamy plains in valley and foothill
grassland and alkali scrub
communities at elevations
between 150 and 2,800 feet.

Blooms February – May.

Absent. The required habitat and
soil are absent from the Project site.

North of the River Recreation & Park District January 21, 2026 Parcel Merger, Zoner Change, and Annexation Biological Desktop Review Page 5 of 17 Job No.: 4427-24-001
Species Status* Habitat Occurrence within the Site
Slough thistle
(Cirsium crassicaule)
CNPS 1B
Found in the San Joaquin Valley
in freshwater sloughs, marshes,
and riverbanks at elevations
below 300 feet. Blooms March –
June.

Absent. The Project site is outside of
the elevational range of this species.

Tejon poppy
(Eschscholzia
lemmonii ssp.
kernensis)
CNPS 1B
Occurs in the grasslands of the
southern portion of the San
Joaquin Valley and the foothills
of the Transverse Ranges at
elevations between 650 and
3,300 feet. However,
observations in the vicinity are
well above this range, at up to
5,300 feet. Blooms March –
May.

Absent. The Project site is outside of
the elevational range of this species.

Table 2: List of Special Status Animals with Potential to Occur on the Site and/or in the Vicinity Species Status* Habitat Occurrence within the Site
American badger
(Taxidea taxus)
CSSC
Prefers drier open stages of
shrub, forest, and herbaceous
habitats with friable soils to
burrow, but can be found within
numerous habitats throughout
California, including the margins
of agricultural lands. Needs a
sufficient prey base of burrowing
rodents.

Unlikely. This species may pass
through the area but is unlikely to
den within the Project site due to
the lack of suitable habitat.

The most recent recorded
observation occurred 6.5 miles
north-northeast of the Project site
in 2025.

Bakersfield legless
lizard
(Anniella grinnelli)
CSSC
Can be found burrowing in
moist, sandy soil within
grassland, sand/dune, or
chaparral habitats. Fallen logs,
woody debris, and leaf litter
under trees and bushes in sunny
areas often indicate suitable
habitat. The current known
range is restricted to the east
side of the Carrizo Plain and
within the city limits of
Bakersfield.

Absent. No suitable habitat is visible
within the Project site.

Blunt-nosed leopard
lizard
(Gambelia sila)

FE, CE, CFP
Occurs in the San Joaquin Valley
region in expansive, arid areas
with scattered vegetation. Today
they inhabit non-native
grassland and alkali sink scrub
communities of the valley floor
marked by poorly drained,
alkaline, and saline soils. They
can be found at elevations
ranging from approx. 100 to
2,600 feet. They are absent from
areas with steep slopes and
dense vegetation, and areas
subject to seasonal flooding.

Adults may excavate shallow
Absent. No suitable habitat is visible
within the Project site.

North of the River Recreation & Park District January 21, 2026 Parcel Merger, Zoner Change, and Annexation Biological Desktop Review Page 6 of 17 Job No.: 4427-24-001
Species Status* Habitat Occurrence within the Site
burrows but rely on deeper preexisting rodent burrows for hibernation and reproduction.

Buena Vista Lake
ornate shrew
(Sorex ornatus
relictus)

FE, CSSC
Prefers moist soils, inhabiting
marshes, swamps, and riparian
shrublands in the Tulare Basin.

Uses stumps, logs, and leaf litter
for cover.

Absent. No suitable habitat is visible
within the Project site.

Burrowing owl
(Athene cunicularia)

CCE, CSSC
Resides in open, dry grasslands,
deserts, scrublands, and other
areas with low growing
vegetation. Nests and roosts
underground in existing burrows
created by mammals, most often
by ground squirrels, and humanmade structures.

Possible. The ruderal habitat could
provide burrowing habitat for this
species, pending the availability of
small mammal burrows. The nearest
recorded observation occurred
three miles west of the Project site
in 2006.

California condor
(Gymnogyps
californianus)

FE, CE, CFP
Typically nests in cavities in
canyon or cliff faces but has also
been recorded nesting in giant
sequoias in Tulare County.

Requires vast expanses of open
savannah, grassland, and/or
foothill chaparral in mountain
ranges of moderate altitude.

Forages for carrion up to 100
miles from their roost/nest sites.

Absent. No suitable habitat is visible
within the Project site.

California glossy
snake
(Arizona elegans
occidentalis)
CSSC
Inhabits arid scrub, rocky
washes, grasslands, and
chaparral. Prefers open areas
with loose soil for easy
burrowing. This species occurs
near the Pacific Coast ranges
from the eastern part of the San
Francisco Bay Area south to
northwestern Baja California but
is absent along the central coast.

Absent. No suitable habitat is visible
within the Project site.

Coast horned lizard
(Phrynosoma
blainvillii)
CSSC
Found in grasslands, coniferous
forests, woodlands, and
chaparral, primarily in open
areas with patches of loose,
sandy soil and low-lying
vegetation in valleys, foothills,
and semi-arid mountains.

Frequently found near ant hills
and along dirt roads in lowlands
along sandy washes with
scattered shrubs.

Absent. No suitable habitat is visible
within the Project site.

Crotch’s bumble bee
(Bombus crotchii)
CCE
Occurs throughout coastal
California, as well as east to the
Sierra Nevada-Cascade crest,
and south into Mexico. Food
plant genera include
snapdragons, scorpionweeds,
primroses, poppies, and
Absent. No suitable habitat is visible
within the Project site.

North of the River Recreation & Park District January 21, 2026 Parcel Merger, Zoner Change, and Annexation Biological Desktop Review Page 7 of 17 Job No.: 4427-24-001
Species Status* Habitat Occurrence within the Site
buckwheats. Nests are often
located underground in
abandoned rodent nests, or
above ground in tufts of grass,
old bird nests, rock piles, or
cavities in dead trees. This
species overwinters under leaf
litter or soft soil.

Giant gartersnake
(Thamnophis gigas)
FT, CT
Occurs in marshes, sloughs,
canals, ditches, rice fields, and
adjacent uplands. Prefers
locations with emergent
vegetation for cover and open
areas for basking. This species
uses small mammal burrows
adjacent to aquatic habitats for
hibernation in the winter and to
escape from excessive heat in
the summer.

Absent. The Project site is outside
the current range of this species.

Giant kangaroo rat
(Dipodomys ingens)
FE, CE
Inhabits annual grassland
communities with few or no
shrubs and well-drained, sandyloam soils on gentle slopes on the western side of the San
Joaquin Valley.

Absent. No suitable habitat is visible
within the Project site.

Le Conte’s thrasher
(Toxostoma lecontei)
CSSC
Primarily resides in desert
habitats in the Mojave and
Sonoran deserts, including open
desert wash, desert scrub, alkali
desert scrub, and desert
succulent scrub. Nests 2-8 feet
above the ground in dense, spiny
shrub or densely branched cacti.

Absent. No suitable habitat is visible
within the Project site.

Least Bell’s vireo
(Vireo bellii pusillus)
FE, CE
This migratory species breeds in
southern California. Breeding
habitat consists of dense, low,
shrubby, riparian vegetation in
the vicinity of water or dry river
bottoms. By the early 1980s, this
species was extirpated from
most of its historic range in
California, including the Central
Valley.

Absent. No riparian habitat is visible
within the Project site.

Monarch butterfly
(Danaus plexippus)
FPT
Roosts in wind-protected tree
groves (eucalyptus, Monterey
pine, cypress), with nectar and
water sources nearby. Larval
host plants consist of milkweeds.

Winter roost sites extend along
the Pacific Coast from northern
Mendocino to Baja California,
Mexico.

Absent. No overwinter sites or larval
host plants are visible within the
Project site.

Mountain plover -
nesting
CSSC Breeds on open plains at
moderate elevations outside of
Absent. No suitable habitat is visible
within the Project site.

North of the River Recreation & Park District January 21, 2026 Parcel Merger, Zoner Change, and Annexation Biological Desktop Review Page 8 of 17 Job No.: 4427-24-001
Species Status* Habitat Occurrence within the Site
(Charadrius
montanus)
California. Winters in short-grass
plains and fields, plowed or
fallow fields, and sandy deserts
within California. Prefers flat,
bare ground with burrowing
rodents.

Nelson’s antelope
squirrel
(Ammospermophilus
nelsoni)
CT
Found in the western San
Joaquin Valley on dry, sparsely
vegetated, loamy soils. Relies
heavily on existing small
mammal burrows.

Absent. No suitable habitat is visible
within the Project site.

Northwestern pond
turtle
(Actinemys
marmorata)

FPT, CSSC
An aquatic turtle of ponds,
marshes, slow-moving rivers,
streams, and irrigation ditches
with riparian vegetation.

Requires adequate basking sites
and sandy banks or grassy open
fields to deposit eggs.

Absent. No suitable habitat is visible
within the Project site.

San Joaquin
coachwhip
(Masticophis
flagellum ruddocki)
CSSC
Found in open dry habitats with
little or no tree cover in valley
grassland and saltbush scrub
communities in the San Joaquin
Valley from the Grapevine north
into the inner South Coast
Ranges and to Alameda County.

Relies on mammal burrows for
refuge and oviposition sites.

Absent. No suitable habitat is visible
within the Project site.

San Joaquin kit fox
(Vulpes macrotis
mutica)
FE, CT
Opportunistically forages in a
variety of habitats. Dens in
burrows within alkali sink, valley
grassland, and woodland
habitats in valleys and adjacent
foothills and in human-made
structures in cities, rangeland,
and agricultural areas. Occurs in
the San Joaquin Valley and other
smaller valleys to the west.

Possible. The ruderal habitat within
the Project site could provide
suitable denning habitat for this
species. Furthermore, the City of
Bakersfield has the densest
population of urban kit foxes,
increasing the likelihood of this
species presence. The nearest
recorded observation occurred 2.5
miles north of the Project site in
2006.

Short-nosed kangaroo
rat
(Dipodomys
nitratoides
brevinasus)
CSSC
Inhabit grasslands with scattered
shrubs and desert-shrub
associations on powdery soils.

They inhabit highly saline soils
around Soda Lake on the Carrizo
Plain, and less saline soils
elsewhere. In the Panoche
Valley, San Benito County, this
species is found on gently
sloping and rolling, low hilltops
that have some shrubs. Over
most of their range, they are
generally more numerous in
lighter, powdery soils such as the
sandy bottoms and banks of
arroyos and other sandy areas.

Absent. No suitable habitat is visible
within the Project site.

North of the River Recreation & Park District January 21, 2026 Parcel Merger, Zoner Change, and Annexation Biological Desktop Review Page 9 of 17 Job No.: 4427-24-001
Species Status* Habitat Occurrence within the Site
Swainson’s hawk
(Buteo swainsoni)
CT
Nests in large trees in open
areas adjacent to grasslands,
grain or alfalfa fields, or livestock
pastures suitable for supporting
rodent populations.

Absent. No suitable forging or
nesting habitat is visible within the
Project site. There is, however,
suitable nesting habitat within 0.5
miles of the Project site.

Tipton kangaroo rat
(Dipodomys
nitratoides
nitratoides)
FE, CE
Inhabits saltbush scrub and sink
scrub communities in the Tulare
Lake Basin of the southern San
Joaquin Valley. This species
needs soft friable soils to
burrow.

Absent. No suitable habitat is visible
within the Project site.

Tricolored blackbird
(Agelaius tricolor)

CT, CSSC
Nests colonially near fresh water
in dense cattails or tules, or in
thickets of riparian shrubs.

Forages in grassland and
cropland. Large colonies are
often found foraging in dairy
farm feed fields.

Absent. No suitable nesting habitat
is visible within the Project site.

Tulare grasshopper
mouse
(Onychomys torridus
tularensis)
CSSC
Typically inhabits arid shrubland
communities in hot, arid
grassland and shrubland
associations.

Absent. No suitable habitat is visible
within the Project site.

Vernal pool fairy
shrimp
(Branchinecta lynchi)
FT
Occupies vernal and seasonal
pools, with clear to tea-colored
water, in grass or mud-bottomed
swales, and basalt depression
pools.

Absent. No seasonal pools or vernal
pools are visible within the Project
site.

Western mastiff bat
(Eumops perotis
californicus)
CSSC
Found in open, arid to semi-arid
habitats, including dry desert
washes, flood plains, chaparral,
oak woodland, open ponderosa
pine forest, grassland, and
agricultural areas, where it feeds
on insects in flight. Roosts most
commonly in crevices in cliff
faces but may also use high
buildings and tunnels.

Absent. No roosting habitat is visible
within the Project site.

Western spadefoot
(Spea hammondii)

FPT, CSSC
The majority of the time this
species is terrestrial and occurs
in small mammal burrows and
soil cracks, sometimes in the
bottom of dried pools. Prefers
open areas with sandy or
gravelly soils, in a variety of
habitats including mixed
woodlands, grasslands, coastal
sage scrub, chaparral, sandy
washes, lowlands, river
floodplains, alluvial fans, playas,
alkali flats, foothills, and
mountains. Vernal or seasonal
pools, that hold water for a
minimum of three weeks, are
necessary for breeding.

Absent. No suitable breeding or
adult habitat is visible within the
Project site.

North of the River Recreation & Park District January 21, 2026 Parcel Merger, Zoner Change, and Annexation Biological Desktop Review Page 10 of 17 Job No.: 4427-24-001
Species Status* Habitat Occurrence within the Site
White-tailed kite
(Elanus leucurus)
CFP
Occurs in rolling foothills and
valley margins with scattered
oaks and river bottomlands or
marshes next to deciduous
woodland. Often occurs in open
grasslands, meadows, or
marshes for foraging close to
isolated, dense-topped trees for
nesting and perching.

Absent. No suitable habitat is visible
within the project site.

*EXPLANATION OF OCCURRENCE DESIGNATIONS AND STATUS CODES Possible: Species not observed on the site, but it could occur there from time to time.

Unlikely: Species not observed on the site, and would not be expected to occur there except, perhaps, as a transient.

Absent: Species not observed on the site and precluded from occurring there due to absence of suitable habitat.

STATUS CODES
FE Federally Endangered CT California Threatened
FT Federally Threatened CE California Endangered
FPT Federally Threatened (Proposed) CCE California Endangered (Candidate CFP California Fully Protected
CSSC California Species of Special Concern

CNPS LISTING
1A Plants presumed extinct in California.
1B Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in
California and elsewhere. 2B Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere.

KERN COUNTY GENERAL PLAN
The Kern County General Plan (Kern County General Plan) contains the following goals and policies related to the project:

1.10.5 Threatened and Endangered Species

Policies

29. The County will seek cooperative efforts with local, State, and federal agencies to protect listed threatened and endangered plant and wildlife species through the use of conservation plans and other methods promoting management and conservation of habitat lands.

31. Under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the County, as lead agency, will solicit comments from the California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service when an environmental document (Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or Environmental Impact Report) is prepared.

SENSITIVE HABITAT FEATURES, COMMUNITIES, AND REGULATED WATERS As follows are details on the natural communities of special concern, riparian habitat, designated critical habitat, and wildlife movement corridors and native wildlife nursery sites.

NATURAL COMMUNITIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN AND RIPARIAN HABITAT No natural communities of species concern and/or riparian habitat were identified on CDFW’s CNDDB rare find, and no riparian habitat was observed from Google Earth.

DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT
According to the IPaC, designated critical habitat is absent from the Project site and vicinity.

North of the River Recreation & Park District January 21, 2026 Parcel Merger, Zoner Change, and Annexation Biological Desktop Review Page 11 of 17 Job No.: 4427-24-001

WILDLIFE MOVEMENT CORRIDORS AND NATIVE WILDLIFE NURSERY SITES Most of the Project site is disturbed by agricultural activities, and the surrounding area is engulfed by encroaching suburban development. Wildlife movement corridor features are therefore absent from the Project site.

The Project site lacked any large trees or buildings that could serve as a roosting site or maternity roosting site for bats.

RECOMMENDATIONS
While there is a potential for San Joaquin kit fox and burrowing owl to occur on the Project site, this project would not result in any physical disturbance to either species. Therefore, no mitigation is recommended at this time.

If you have any questions or need further information, please do not hesitate to contact me at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Jenny McCarthy
Biologist
APPENDICES:

Appendix A – Aerial Map
Appendix B - CNDDB Species List
Appendix C - IPaC Species List
Appendix D – Soil Mapper

REFERENCES
Kern County General Plan. (n.d.). General Plans & Elements. Retrieved from https://kernplanning.com/planning/planning-documents/general-plans-elements/ Weather Spark. (2025, 23 Decemeber). Weather Spark. Retrieved from https://weatherspark.com/y/1451/Average-Weather-in-Bakersfield-California-United-States-YearRound Appendix A- Aerial Map
Cascade Ct
Dry
Creek Ln
Boyd Lake Dr
Patrick Ln
Smoke Creek Ave
Austin Creek Ave
Jenkins Rd
Vega Meadows Rd
Cedar Creek Ave
Rosedale Ln
Hageman Rd
Santa Fe Way
Project Site 0 250 500
Feet
1/2/2026 G:\North of River Recreation and Park District-4427\442724001-Austin Creek Park Annexation\400 GIS\Map\NRRPD_Austin_Creek_Park\NRRPD_Austin_Creek_Park.aprx o Prepared By
Esri, Vantor, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community Aerial Map
Austin Creek Park Annexation
AppendixA
Appendix B – CNDDB SPECIES LIST
Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
Actinemys marmorata
northwestern pond turtle
ARAAD02031 Proposed
Threatened
None G2 SNR SSC
Agelaius tricolor
tricolored blackbird
ABPBXB0020 None Threatened G1G2 S2 SSC
Ammospermophilus nelsoni
Nelson's (=San Joaquin) antelope squirrel
AMAFB04040 None Threatened G2G3 S3
Anarhynchus montanus
mountain plover
ABNNB03100 None None G3 S2 SSC
Anniella grinnelli
Bakersfield legless lizard
ARACC01050 None None G2G3 S2S3 SSC
Arizona elegans occidentalis
California glossy snake
ARADB01017 None None G5T2 S2 SSC
Astragalus hornii var. hornii
Horn's milk-vetch
PDFAB0F421 None None GUT1 S1 1B.1
Athene cunicularia
burrowing owl
ABNSB10010 None Candidate
Endangered
G4 S2 SSC
Atriplex cordulata var. cordulata
heartscale
PDCHE040B0 None None GNRT2 S2 1B.2
Atriplex coronata var. vallicola
Lost Hills crownscale
PDCHE04371 None None G4T3 S3 1B.2
Atriplex tularensis
Bakersfield smallscale
PDCHE04240 None Endangered GX SX 1A
Bombus crotchii
Crotch's bumble bee
IIHYM24480 None Candidate
Endangered
G2 S2
Buteo swainsoni
Swainson's hawk
ABNKC19070 None Threatened G5 S4
Calochortus striatus
alkali mariposa-lily
PMLIL0D190 None None G3 S2S3 1B.2
Caulanthus californicus
California jewelflower
PDBRA31010 Endangered Endangered G1 S1 1B.1
Chloropyron molle ssp. hispidum
hispid salty bird's-beak
PDSCR0J0D1 None None G2T1 S1 1B.1
Cirsium crassicaule
slough thistle
PDAST2E0U0 None None G1 S1 1B.1
Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh
Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh
CTT52410CA None None G3 S2.1
Delphinium recurvatum
recurved larkspur
PDRAN0B1J0 None None G2? S2 1B.2
Quad IS (Rosedale (3511942) OR Rio Bravo (3511943) OR Oildale (3511941) OR Tupman (3511933) OR Stevens (3511932) OR Gosford (3511931) OR North of Oildale (3511951) OR Famoso (3511952) OR Wasco (3511953)) Query Criteria:

Report Printed on Wednesday, December 31, 2025
Commercial Version -- Dated November, 30 2025 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 1 of 3 Information Expires 5/30/2026
Selected Elements by Scientific Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
Dipodomys ingens
giant kangaroo rat
AMAFD03080 Endangered Endangered G1G2 S2
Dipodomys nitratoides brevinasus
short-nosed kangaroo rat
AMAFD03153 None None G2T1T2 S1S2 SSC
Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides
Tipton kangaroo rat
AMAFD03152 Endangered Endangered G2T1T2 S2
Elanus leucurus
white-tailed kite
ABNKC06010 None None G5 S3S4 FP
Eremalche parryi ssp. kernensis
Kern mallow
PDMAL0C031 Endangered None G3G4T3 S3 1B.2
Eremophila alpestris actia
California horned lark
ABPAT02011 None None G5T4Q S4 WL
Eriastrum hooveri
Hoover's eriastrum
PDPLM03070 Delisted None G3 S3 4.2
Eschscholzia lemmonii ssp. kernensis
Tejon poppy
PDPAP0A071 None None G5T2 S2 1B.1
Eumops perotis californicus
western mastiff bat
AMACD02011 None None G4G5T4 S3S4 SSC
Gambelia sila
blunt-nosed leopard lizard
ARACF07010 Endangered Endangered G1 S2 FP
Great Valley Cottonwood Riparian Forest
Great Valley Cottonwood Riparian Forest
CTT61410CA None None G2 S2.1
Great Valley Mesquite Scrub
Great Valley Mesquite Scrub
CTT63420CA None None G1 S1.1
Helminthoglypta callistoderma
Kern shoulderband
IMGASC2080 None None G1 S1
Imperata brevifolia
California satintail
PMPOA3D020 None None G3 S3 2B.1
Lasiurus cinereus
hoary bat
AMACC05032 None None G3G4 S4
Lasthenia chrysantha
alkali-sink goldfields
PDAST5L030 None None G2 S2 1B.1
Masticophis flagellum ruddocki
San Joaquin coachwhip
ARADB21021 None None G5T2T3 S3 SSC
Monolopia congdonii
San Joaquin woollythreads
PDASTA8010 Endangered None G2 S2 1B.2
Onychomys torridus tularensis
Tulare grasshopper mouse
AMAFF06021 None None G5T1T2 S1S2 SSC
Opuntia basilaris var. treleasei
Bakersfield cactus
PDCAC0D055 Endangered Endangered G5T1 S1 1B.1
Perognathus inornatus
San Joaquin pocket mouse
AMAFD01060 None None G3 S2S3
Report Printed on Wednesday, December 31, 2025
Commercial Version -- Dated November, 30 2025 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 2 of 3 Information Expires 5/30/2026
Selected Elements by Scientific Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
Phrynosoma blainvillii
coast horned lizard
ARACF12100 None None G4 S4 SSC
Sorex ornatus relictus
Buena Vista Lake ornate shrew
AMABA01102 Endangered None G5T1 S1 SSC
Spea hammondii
western spadefoot
AAABF02020 Proposed
Threatened
None G2G3 S3S4 SSC
Stylocline citroleum
oil neststraw
PDAST8Y070 None None G3 S3 1B.1
Stylocline masonii
Mason's neststraw
PDAST8Y080 None None G1 S1 1B.1
Taxidea taxus
American badger
AMAJF04010 None None G5 S3 SSC
Thamnophis gigas
giant gartersnake
ARADB36150 Threatened Threatened G2 S2
Toxostoma lecontei
Le Conte's thrasher
ABPBK06100 None None G4 S3 SSC
Valley Saltbush Scrub
Valley Saltbush Scrub
CTT36220CA None None G2 S2.1
Valley Sink Scrub
Valley Sink Scrub
CTT36210CA None None G1 S1.1
Vireo bellii pusillus
least Bell's vireo
ABPBW01114 Endangered Endangered G5T2 S3
Vulpes macrotis mutica
San Joaquin kit fox
AMAJA03041 Endangered Threatened G4T2 S3
Record Count: 52
Report Printed on Wednesday, December 31, 2025
Commercial Version -- Dated November, 30 2025 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 3 of 3 Information Expires 5/30/2026
Selected Elements by Scientific Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Appendix C - IPAC SPECIES LIST
12/29/2025 23:20:13 UTC
United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Sacramento Fish And Wildlife Office
Federal Building
2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605
Sacramento, CA 95825-1846
Phone: (916) 414-6600 Fax: (916) 414-6713
In Reply Refer To:

Project Code: 2026-0031155
Project Name: Austin Creek Park Annexation
Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location or may be affected by your proposed project
To Whom It May Concern:

The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, as well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be completed by visiting the IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested through the IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list.

The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq.), Federal agencies are required to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered species and/or designated critical habitat.

A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2) Project code: 2026-0031155 12/29/2025 23:20:13 UTC
2 of 9
(c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a biological evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether the project may affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12.

If a Federal agency determines, based on the Biological Assessment or biological evaluation, that listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected by the proposed project, the agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 402. In addition, the Service recommends that candidate species, proposed species and proposed critical habitat be addressed within the consultation. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7 consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found in the "Endangered Species Consultation Handbook" at:
https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/endangered-species-consultationhandbook.pdf Migratory Birds: In addition to responsibilities to protect threatened and endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), there are additional responsibilities under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) to protect native birds from project-related impacts. Any activity resulting in take of migratory birds, including eagles, is prohibited unless otherwise permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)). For more information regarding these Acts, see https://www.fws.gov/program/migratory-bird-permit/what-we-do.

It is the responsibility of the project proponent to comply with these Acts by identifying potential impacts to migratory birds and eagles within applicable NEPA documents (when there is a federal nexus) or a Bird/Eagle Conservation Plan (when there is no federal nexus). Proponents should implement conservation measures to avoid or minimize the production of project-related stressors or minimize the exposure of birds and their resources to the project-related stressors.

For more information on avian stressors and recommended conservation measures, see https:// www.fws.gov/library/collections/threats-birds.

In addition to MBTA and BGEPA, Executive Order 13186: Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, obligates all Federal agencies that engage in or authorize activities that might affect migratory birds, to minimize those effects and encourage conservation measures that will improve bird populations. Executive Order 13186 provides for the protection of both migratory birds and migratory bird habitat. For information regarding the implementation of Executive Order 13186, please visit https://www.fws.gov/partner/council-conservationmigratory-birds.

We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Code in the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project that you submit to our office.

Project code: 2026-0031155 12/29/2025 23:20:13 UTC
3 of 9
▪
Attachment(s):

Official Species List

OFFICIAL SPECIES LIST
This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed action".

This species list is provided by:

Sacramento Fish And Wildlife Office
Federal Building
2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605
Sacramento, CA 95825-1846
(916) 414-6600
Project code: 2026-0031155 12/29/2025 23:20:13 UTC
4 of 9

PROJECT SUMMARY
Project Code: 2026-0031155
Project Name: Austin Creek Park Annexation
Project Type: Recreation - New Construction
Project Description: North of the River Recreation & Parks District (District) in the City of Bakersfield is proposing a parcel merger, zone change, and annexation to merge to parcels of vacant land, APN 529-012-10 and 529-012-11. These parcels are located in the northeast corner of Austin Creek Ave and Jenkins Rd. After the merger is complete, the District plans to develop the Austin Creek Park. This iPaC review is preliminary as part of a biological desktop review that was requested by the City prior to completing a CEQA report. There will be an additional iPaC review for the development of the Austin Creek Park as part of the CEQA process once the parcel merger is finalized.

Project Location:

The approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https:// www.google.com/maps/@35.40257865,-119.15443682392487,14z Counties: Kern County, California
Project code: 2026-0031155 12/29/2025 23:20:13 UTC
5 of 9

1. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT SPECIES
There is a total of 11 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list.

Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species list because a project could affect downstream species.

IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA Fisheries , as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the Department of Commerce.

See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office if you have questions.

NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce.
1 Project code: 2026-0031155 12/29/2025 23:20:13 UTC
6 of 9

MAMMALS

NAME STATUS
Buena Vista Lake Shrew Sorex ornatus relictus
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1610
General project design guidelines:
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/GJVVTLQW75C5BFJEDRGMEYUEMA/ documents/generated/11271.pdf
Endangered
Giant Kangaroo Rat Dipodomys ingens
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6051
General project design guidelines:
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/GJVVTLQW75C5BFJEDRGMEYUEMA/ documents/generated/11271.pdf
Endangered
San Joaquin Kit Fox Vulpes macrotis mutica
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2873
General project design guidelines:
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/GJVVTLQW75C5BFJEDRGMEYUEMA/ documents/generated/11271.pdf
Endangered
Tipton Kangaroo Rat Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7247
General project design guidelines:
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/GJVVTLQW75C5BFJEDRGMEYUEMA/ documents/generated/11271.pdf
Endangered
BIRDS

NAME STATUS
California Condor Gymnogyps californianus
Population: Wherever found, except where listed as an experimental population There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8193
General project design guidelines:
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/GJVVTLQW75C5BFJEDRGMEYUEMA/ documents/generated/11271.pdf
Endangered

REPTILES

NAME STATUS
Blunt-nosed Leopard Lizard Gambelia silus
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/625
General project design guidelines:

Endangered
Project code: 2026-0031155 12/29/2025 23:20:13 UTC
7 of 9

NAME STATUS
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/GJVVTLQW75C5BFJEDRGMEYUEMA/ documents/generated/11271.pdf
Northwestern Pond Turtle Actinemys marmorata
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1111
General project design guidelines:
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/GJVVTLQW75C5BFJEDRGMEYUEMA/ documents/generated/11271.pdf
Proposed
Threatened

AMPHIBIANS

NAME STATUS
Western Spadefoot Spea hammondii
Population: Northern DPS
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5425
General project design guidelines:
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/GJVVTLQW75C5BFJEDRGMEYUEMA/ documents/generated/11271.pdf
Proposed
Threatened

INSECTS

NAME STATUS
Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus
There is proposed critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743
General project design guidelines:
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/GJVVTLQW75C5BFJEDRGMEYUEMA/ documents/generated/11271.pdf
Proposed
Threatened

CRUSTACEANS

NAME STATUS
Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp Branchinecta lynchi
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/498
General project design guidelines:
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/GJVVTLQW75C5BFJEDRGMEYUEMA/ documents/generated/11271.pdf
Threatened

FLOWERING PLANTS

NAME STATUS
San Joaquin Wooly-threads Monolopia (=Lembertia) congdonii No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3746
Endangered
Project code: 2026-0031155 12/29/2025 23:20:13 UTC
8 of 9

CRITICAL HABITATS

THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S JURISDICTION.

YOU ARE STILL REQUIRED TO DETERMINE IF YOUR PROJECT(S) MAY HAVE EFFECTS ON ALL ABOVE LISTED SPECIES.

Project code: 2026-0031155 12/29/2025 23:20:13 UTC
9 of 9

IPAC USER CONTACT INFORMATION
Agency: Private Entity
Name: Jenny McCarthy
Address: 1518 Mill Rock Way, Suite 100
City: Bakersfield
State: CA
Zip: 93311
Email [email protected]
Phone: 7073842510
Appendix D -NRCS SOIL REPORT
United States
Department of
Agriculture
A product of the National
Cooperative Soil Survey,
a joint effort of the United
States Department of
Agriculture and other
Federal agencies, State
agencies including the
Agricultural Experiment
Stations, and local
participants
Custom Soil Resource
Report for
Kern County,
California,
Northwestern Part
Austin Creek Park Annexation
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service
December 31, 2025
Preface
Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas.

They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers.

Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment.

Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions.

The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations.

Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/ portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/? cid=nrcs142p2_053951).

Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations.

The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey.

Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 2 alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
3 Contents
Preface....................................................................................................................2 How Soil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................5 Soil Map.................................................................................................................. 8 Soil Map................................................................................................................9 Legend................................................................................................................10 Map Unit Legend................................................................................................ 11 Map Unit Descriptions.........................................................................................11 Kern County, California, Northwestern Part....................................................13 196—Milham sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes MLRA 17........................ 13 References............................................................................................................15 4 How Soil Surveys Are Made
Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity.

Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA.

The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape.

Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil-vegetation-landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries.

Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units).

Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil 5 scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research.

The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.

Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map.

The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil-landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific locations. Once the soil-landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded.

These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from one point to another across the landscape.

Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other properties.

While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field-observed characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management.

Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil.

Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date.

After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and Custom Soil Resource Report
6 identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately.

Custom Soil Resource Report
7 Soil Map
The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit. 8 9
Custom Soil Resource Report
Soil Map
3919660 3919710 3919760 3919810 3919860 3919910 3919960 3920010 3919660 3919710 3919760 3919810 3919860 3919910 3919960 304120 304170 304220 304270 304320 304370 304420 304470 304520 304570 304620 304120 304170 304220 304270 304320 304370 304420 304470 304520 304570 304620 35° 24' 15'' N
119° 9' 26'' W
35° 24' 15'' N
119° 9' 4'' W
35° 24' 3'' N
119° 9' 26'' W
35° 24' 3'' N N 119° 9' 4'' W
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 11N WGS84 0 100 200 400 600
Feet
0 35 70 140 210
Meters
Map Scale: 1:2,510 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet.

Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.

MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Map Unit Polygons
Soil Map Unit Lines
Soil Map Unit Points
Special Point Features
Blowout
Borrow Pit
Clay Spot
Closed Depression
Gravel Pit
Gravelly Spot
Landfill
Lava Flow
Marsh or swamp
Mine or Quarry
Miscellaneous Water
Perennial Water
Rock Outcrop
Saline Spot
Sandy Spot
Severely Eroded Spot
Sinkhole
Slide or Slip
Sodic Spot
Spoil Area
Stony Spot
Very Stony Spot
Wet Spot
Other
Special Line Features
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
Rails
Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:24,000.

Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.

Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale.

Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.

Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL:

Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required.

This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below.

Soil Survey Area: Kern County, California, Northwestern Part Survey Area Data: Version 18, Sep 2, 2025
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger.

Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Mar 12, 2022—Mar 22, 2022
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.

Custom Soil Resource Report
10 Map Unit Legend
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 196 Milham sandy loam, 0 to 2
percent slopes MLRA 17

9.2 100.0%
Totals for Area of Interest 9.2 100.0%
Map Unit Descriptions
The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit.

A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class.

Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils.

Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape.

The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.

Custom Soil Resource Report
11 An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions.

Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities.

Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement.

Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series.

Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas.

These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups.

A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps.

The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example.

An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha-Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.

An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.

Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example.

Custom Soil Resource Report
12 Kern County, California, Northwestern Part
196—Milham sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes MLRA 17
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 2ss91
Elevation: 200 to 1,200 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 5 to 8 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 63 to 65 degrees F
Frost-free period: 250 to 300 days
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated
Map Unit Composition
Milham and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Milham
Setting
Landform: Terraces, fan remnants, plains, alluvial fans Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread, rise
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Alluvium derived from igneous and sedimentary rock Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 4 inches: sandy loam
Bk - 4 to 10 inches: sandy loam
Btk1 - 10 to 22 inches: loam
Btk2 - 22 to 49 inches: clay loam
2Ck - 49 to 60 inches: sandy loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 2 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Medium
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high (0.20 to 0.60 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: Rare
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 10 percent
Gypsum, maximum content: 1 percent
Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to moderately saline (0.0 to 8.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum: 25.0
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: High (about 9.1 inches) Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 1
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7c
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Ecological site: R017XG043CA - Loamy 6-8" P.Z.

Hydric soil rating: No
Custom Soil Resource Report
13 Minor Components
Kimberlina
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: Alluvial fans
Landform position (three-dimensional): Talf
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Hydric soil rating: No
Panoche
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: Alluvial fans
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Hydric soil rating: No
Garces
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: Rims on basin floors
Landform position (three-dimensional): Talf
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Hydric soil rating: No
Custom Soil Resource Report
14 References
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition.

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00.

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31.

Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States.

Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States.

Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States.

National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries.

Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_054262
Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053577 Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053580 Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands Section.

United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y-87-1.

United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.

National forestry manual. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/ home/?cid=nrcs142p2_053374
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.

National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/ detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084 15 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.

National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nrcs142p2_054242
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/? cid=nrcs142p2_053624
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf Custom Soil Resource Report
16 455 W Fir Ave • Clovis, CA 93611 • (559) 449-2700
www.provostandpritchard.com

MEMORANDUM
To:

Steph Thisius
North of the River Recreation & Park District
From: Jackie Lancaster, Provost & Pritchard Project Administrator, Planning Service Sector Subject:

Cultural Resources Desktop Review for the Parcel Merger, Zone Change, and Annexation Assistance for Austin Creek Park
Date: February 18, 2026
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND LOCATION:

North of the River Recreation & Parks District (District) is applying for a parcel merger, zone change, and annexation for the future creation of Austin Creek Park. These parcels (APN 529-012-10 and 529-012-11) are located at the northeast corner of Austin Creek Ave. and Jenkins Rd. in Bakersfield, California. The parcels total approximately 9.3 acres and are currently under the District’s service and the City’s sphere of influence, with the goal to incorporate the parcels into the City of Bakersfield jurisdiction. See Error! Reference source not found. for a map of the Project site.

INTRODUCTION
This technical memo summarizes our review of potential cultural and historical resources for the proposed North of the River Recreation and Park District - Parcel Merger, Zone Change, and Annexation Assistance for Austin Creek Park Project (Project) and evaluates potential Project-related impacts to those resources.

This memo addresses historic properties including any prehistoric or historic districts, sites, buildings, structures, or objects that are eligible for or already listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and known cultural resources including any artifacts, records, and remains (surface or subsurface) that are related to and located within the Project area. Additionally, any Native American Tribal Cultural Resources known to be located in the Project area.

REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
State
The California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) contracts with the California Historical Resources Information System’s (CHRIS) Regional Information Centers (ICs) to maintain information in the CHRIS inventory and make it available to local, State, and federal agencies, cultural resource professionals, Native American Tribes, researchers, and the public.

Local
The Project site is located within Kern County, California. Kern County addresses Archaeological, Paleontological, Cultural, and Historical Preservation in the goals, policies, and standards of the County’s General Plan.1
1 Kern County General plan //efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://psbweb.co.kern.ca.us/planning/pdfs/kcgp/KCGP_Complete.pdf North of the River Recreation & Park District February 18, 2026 Cultural Resources Desktop Review for the Parcel Merger, Zone Change, and Annexation Assistance for Austin Creek Park Page 2 of 6 Job No.: 4427-24-001

GENERAL PLAN OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES
The General Plan identifies policies to protect local resources and are provided below. These standards must be met before Project approval.

POLICY 25 – The County will promote the preservation of cultural and historic resources which provide ties with the past and constitute a heritage value to residents and visitors.

IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE
K. Coordinate with the California State University, Bakersfield’s Archaeology Inventory Center.

L. The County shall address archaeological and historical resources for discretionary projects in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

M. In areas of known paleontological resources, the County should address the preservation of these resources where feasible.

N. The County shall develop a list of Native American organizations and individuals who desire to be notified of proposed discretionary projects. This notification will be accomplished through the established procedures for discretionary projects and CEQA documents.

O. On a project specific basis, the County Planning Department shall evaluate the necessity for the involvement of a qualified Native American monitor for grading or other construction activities on discretionary projects that are subject to a CEQA document.

STUDY METHODOLOGY
A review was conducted of State and local databases for the presence of archaeological or architectural resources listed or historic resources eligible for listing on the NRHP or applicable state registries. Additionally, a cultural resources Records Search and a Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands Search was also performed, and a summary of this research is outlined below.

CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL RESOURCES INFORMATION SYSTEM (CHRIS) - RECORDS SEARCH As stated above, California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) contracts with the California Historical Resources Information System’s (CHRIS) Regional Information Centers (ICs) to maintain information regarding historical resources inventory, and provides the data to local, State, and federal agencies, cultural resource professionals, Native American tribes, researchers, and the public. A records search request was submitted to the regional Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center (SSJVIC) at California State University, Bakersfield in January of 2026 to access this database and research whether or not any cultural or historical resources are known in the Project area. A response letter from SSJVIC, dated January of 2026, was received with the results of the requested records and database search (see Attachment A).

The results of the CHRIS records search includes known and recorded historic or cultural resources sites, inventory and excavation reports filed with the SSJVIC office, and a culmination of resources listed on the National Register of Historic Places, the OHP Built Environment Resources Directory, California State Historical Landmarks, California Register of Historical Resources, California Inventory of Historic Resources, and California Points of Historical Interest. The following is a summary of the results from this records search. • There have been three cultural resource study completed within the Project area: KE-01399, KE03454, and KE-04464. • There have been 17 additional cultural resource study completed within the one half-mile radius: KE00686, 01352, 01439, 02396, 02424, 03025, 03128, 03278, 03487, 03512, 03824, 04292, 04676, 04767, 04768, 05005, and 05085.
• There are no recorded resource within the Project area, and it is not known if any exist there.

North of the River Recreation & Park District February 18, 2026 Cultural Resources Desktop Review for the Parcel Merger, Zone Change, and Annexation Assistance for Austin Creek Park Page 3 of 6 Job No.: 4427-24-001
• There are four recorded cultural resources within a one-half mile radius: P-15-000560, 003029, 007975, and 008104. These resources consist of an historic era railroad, a historic era trash scatter, and two historic era buildings.
• There are no recorded cultural resources within the Project area or radius that are listed in the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, the California Points of Historical Interest, California Inventory of Historic Resources, for the California State Historic Landmarks.

NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION - SACRED LANDS FILE SEARCH The California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), created in statute in 1976 (Chapter 1332, Statutes of 1976), is a nine-member body whose members are appointed by the Governor. The NAHC identifies, catalogs, and protects Native American cultural resources, ancient places of special religious or social significance to Native Americans and known ancient graves and cemeteries of Native Americans on private and public lands in California. The NAHC is also charged with ensuring California Native American tribes’ accessibility to ancient Native American cultural resources on public lands, overseeing the treatment and disposition of inadvertently discovered Native American human remains and burial items, and administering the California Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, among many other powers and duties.

The NAHC in Sacramento was contacted in January 2026 to perform a search of the Sacred Lands File (SLF) to determine if any Native American resources have been recorded in the immediate Project area. The response letter dated January 21, 2026, confirms there are no known records associated with the Project (see Attachment B). The NAHC also provided a list of Native American tribes who may also have knowledge of cultural resources in the area. To provide a greater understanding beyond the results of the SLF, it is customary to reach out to local tribes during the CEQA process to further identify any potential impacts to cultural resources. Below is a list of local tribes that may be notified of the Project activities, if CEQA is required. Should any ground disturbing activities be planned in the future, it is recommended that you consult with local tribes on the provided list for their knowledge of the Project area.

1. Kitanemuk & Yowlumne Tejon Indians, Delia Dominguez, Chairperson

2. Northern Chumash Tribal Council, Violet Walker, Chairperson

3. Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe, Nichole Escalon, Cultural Specialist l

4. Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe, Shana Powers, THPO

5. Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe, Samantha McCarty, Cultural Specialist ll

6. Table Mountain Rancheria, Bob Pennell, Cultural Resource Director

7. Table Mountain Rancheria, Michelle Heredia-Cordova, Chairperson

8. Tejon Indian Tribe, Curtis Alcantar, Cultural and Natural Resource Manager

9. Tejon Indian Tribe, Candice Garza, CRM Scheduler

10. Tule River Indian Tribe, Felix Christman, THPO

11. Tule River Indian Tribe, Kerri Vera, Environmental Department

CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL LANDMARKS
California Historical Landmarks (CHLs) are buildings, structures, sites, or places that have been determined to have statewide historical significance and must be approved by the County Board of Supervisors or City Council, recommended by the State Historical Resources Commission, and designated by the Director of California State Parks. A determination of statewide significance is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), and an identification plaque is posted on-site.

There are no recorded cultural resources within the Project area or radius that are listed in the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, the California Points of Historical Interest, California Inventory of Historic Resources, for the California State Historic Landmarks.

RECOMMENDATIONS
The proposed Project would involve a parcel merger, zone change, and annexation for the future creation of Austin Creek Park. These parcels (APN 529-012-10 and 529-012-11) are located at the northeast corner of Austin Creek Ave and Jenkins Rd in Bakersfield, California. The parcels total approximately 9.3 acres and are currently under the District’s service and the City’s sphere of influence, with the goal to incorporate the parcels into the City of Bakersfield jurisdiction. There are no ground disturbing activities proposed as part to of this Project Description. No immediate mitigation measures are required.

In the future, if ground disturbing activities are proposed, the following mitigation measures would be required for any discoveries during ground disturbing activities:
• In the event that archaeological remains are encountered at any time during development or groundmoving activities within the entire project area, all work in the vicinity of the find shall halt until a qualified archaeologist can assess the discovery. The District would require that contractor implement all recommendations of the archaeologist necessary to avoid or reduce to a less than significant level potential impacts to cultural resource. Appropriate actions could include a Data Recovery Plan or preservation in place.
• If human remains are uncovered, or in any other case when human remains are discovered during construction, the Kern County Coroner will be notified to arrange proper treatment and disposition. If the remains are identified—on the basis of archaeological context, age, cultural associations, or biological traits—as those of a Native American, California Health and Safety Code 7050.5 and Public Resource Code 5097.98 require that the coroner notify the NAHC within 24 hours of discovery. The NAHC will then identify the Most Likely Descendent who will determine the manner in which the remains are treated.

If you have any further questions, please contact:

Jackie Lancaster, Senior Project Administrator
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group
Phone: (559) 636-1166
Email: [email protected]
Attachment A: CHRIS Record Search Results
Attachment B: NAHC Sacred Lands File Search Results
Attachment A: CHRIS Record Search Results
To: Jackie Lancaster Record Search 26-031
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group
455 W. Fir Ave.

Clovis, CA 93611
Date: January 26, 2026
Re: North of the River Recreation and Park District – Parcel Merger, Zone Change, & Annexation for Austin Creek Park Project
County: Kern
Map(s): Rosedale 7.5’

CULTURAL RESOURCES RECORDS SEARCH
The California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) contracts with the California Historical Resources Information System’s (CHRIS) regional Information Centers (ICs) to maintain information in the CHRIS inventory and make it available to local, state, and federal agencies, cultural resource professionals, Native American tribes, researchers, and the public. Recommendations made by IC coordinators or their staff regarding the interpretation and application of this information are advisory only. Such recommendations do not necessarily represent the evaluation or opinion of the State Historic Preservation Officer in carrying out the OHP’s regulatory authority under federal and state law.

The following are the results of a search of the cultural resource files at the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center. These files include known and recorded cultural resources sites, inventory and excavation reports filed with this office, and resources listed on the National Register of Historic Places, the OHP Built Environment Resources Directory, California State Historical Landmarks, California Register of Historical Resources, California Inventory of Historic Resources, and California Points of Historical Interest. Due to processing delays and other factors, not all of the historical resource reports and resource records that have been submitted to the OHP are available via this records search. Additional information may be available through the federal, state, and local agencies that produced or paid for historical resource management work in the search area.

PRIOR CULTURAL RESOURCE STUDIES CONDUCTED WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA AND THE ONE-HALF MILE RADIUS
According to the information in our files, there have been three previous cultural resource studies completed within the project area: KE-01399, KE-03454, and KE-04464. There have been 17 additional cultural resource studies conducted within a one-half mile radius: KE-00686, 01352, 01439, 02396, 02424, 03025, 03128, 03278, 03487, 03512, 03824, 04292, 04676, 04767, 04768, 05005, and 05085.

Record Search 26-031

KNOWN/RECORDED CULTURAL RESOURCES WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA AND THE ONE-HALF MILE RADIUS According to the information in our files, there are no recorded cultural resources within the project area. There are four recorded cultural resources within a one-half mile radius: P-15-000560, 003029, 007975, and 008104. These resources consist of an historic era railroad, an historic era trash scatter, and two historic era buildings.

There are no recorded cultural resources within the project area or radius that are listed in the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, the California Points of Historical Interest, California Inventory of Historic Resources, or the California State Historic Landmarks.

COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
We understand this project consists of the application of a parcel merger, zone change, and annexation for the future creation of Austin Creek Park. Because no ground disturbance will take place as a result of this project, no further cultural resource investigation is recommended at this time. However, prior to any future ground disturbance, we recommend a qualified, professional consultant conduct a field survey to determine if any cultural resources are present. A list of qualified consultants can be found at www.chrisinfo.org.

We also recommend that you contact the Native American Heritage Commission in Sacramento. They will provide you with a current list of Native American individuals/organizations that can assist you with information regarding cultural resources that may not be included in the CHRIS Inventory and that may be of concern to the Native groups in the area. The Commission can consult their "Sacred Lands Inventory" file to determine what sacred resources, if any, exist within this project area and the way in which these resources might be managed. Finally, please consult with the lead agency on this project to determine if any other cultural resource investigation is required. If you need any additional information or have any questions or concerns, please contact our office at (661) 654-2289.

By:

Celeste M. Thomson, Coordinator Date: January 26, 2026
Please note that invoices for Information Center services will be sent under separate cover from the California State University, Bakersfield Accounting Office.

Attachment B: NAHC Sacred Lands File Search Results
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor

NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION

Page 1 of 1 ends

January 21, 2026
Jackie Lancaster
Provost & Pritchard Consulting
Via Email to: [email protected]
Re: Austin Creek Annexation Project, Kern County
To Whom It May Concern:

As requested, a search of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) was completed based on information submitted for the above referenced project. The results were negative. Be aware that tribes do not always record their sacred sites in the SLF, nor are they required to do so. As such, an SLF search is not a substitute for consultation with all tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with a project’s geographic area.

Attached is a list of Native American tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project’s geographic area. Please contact all of the listed tribes as they may have information about sacred sites within the project area that is not listed with the NAHC.

If within two weeks of notification, a response has not been received, the Commission requests that you follow up with a telephone call or email to ensure that the project information was received.

If you receive notification of a change of address or phone number from a tribe, please inform the NAHC so that we can assure that our lists contain current information.

In addition to engaging in tribal consultation, you should consult the appropriate regional California Historical Research Information System (CHRIS) information center to determine whether it has information regarding the presence of recorded archaeological sites within the project area.

If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Mathew Lin, MPP
Cultural Resources Analyst
Attachment

CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagaling
Chumash

VICE-CHAIRPERSON
Buffy McQuillen
Yokayo Pomo, Yuki,
Nomlaki

SECRETARY
Isaac Bojorquez
Ohlone-Costanoan

PARLIAMENTARIAN
Wayne Nelson
Luiseño

COMMISSIONER
Sara Dutschke
Miwok

COMMISSIONER
Stanley Rodriguez
Kumeyaay

COMMISSIONER
Bennae Calac
Pauma-Yuima Band of
Luiseño Indians

COMMISSIONER
Vacant

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Andrew Alejandre
Paskenta Band of
Nomlaki Indians

NAHC HEADQUARTERS
1550 Harbor Boulevard
Suite 100
West Sacramento,
California 95691
(916) 373-3710
[email protected]
County Tribe Name Fed (F)
Non-Fed (N)
Contact Person Contact Address Phone # Fax # Email Address Cultural Affiliation Kitanemuk & Yowlumne Tejon Indians N Delia Dominguez, Chairperson 115 Radio Street Bakersfield, CA, 93305
(626) 339-6785 [email protected] Kitanemuk
Southern Valley Yokut
Northern Chumash Tribal Council N Violet Walker, Chairperson P.O. Box 6533 Los Osos, CA, 93412
(760) 549-3532 [email protected] Chumash
Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe F Nichole Escalon, Cultural Specialist l
P.O. Box 8 Lemoore, CA, 93245
(559) 924-1278 [email protected] Southern Valley Yokut Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe F Samantha McCarty, Cultural Specialist ll
P.O. Box 8 Lemoore, CA, 93245
(559) 633-3440 [email protected] Southern Valley Yokut Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe F Shana Powers, THPO P.O. Box 8 Lemoore, CA, 93245
(559) 423-3900 Southern Valley Yokut
Table Mountain Rancheria F Bob Pennell, Cultural Resource Director
P.O. Box 410 Friant, CA, 93626
(559) 325-0351 (559) 325-0394 [email protected] Yokut
Table Mountain Rancheria F Michelle Heredia-Cordova,
Chairperson
P.O. Box 410 Friant, CA, 93626
(559) 822-2587 (559) 822-2693 [email protected] Yokut
Tejon Indian Tribe F Curtis Alcantar, Cultural and
Natural Resource Manager
4941 David Road Bakersfield, CA, 93307
(661) 699-5138 calcantar@tejonindiantribensn.gov Kitanemuk Tejon Indian Tribe F Candice Garza, CRM Scheduler 4941 David Road Bakersfield, CA, 93307
(661) 345-0632 [email protected] Kitanemuk Tule River Indian Tribe F Kerri Vera, Environmental
Department
340 North Reservation Road Porterville, CA, 93257
(559) 781-4271 [email protected] Yokut
Tule River Indian Tribe F Felix Christman, THPO 340 North Reservation Road Porterville, CA, 93257
(559) 719-0420 felix.christman@tulerivertribensn.gov Yokut Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Contact List
Kern County
1/21/2026
Counties Last Updated
Kern Fresno,Kern,Kings,Los
Angeles,Madera,Monterey,San Benito,San Luis Obispo,TulareKern,Los Angeles,San Luis Obispo,Santa Barbara,Ventura 6/5/2023
Fresno,Kern,Kings,Merced,Monterey,San Benito,San Luis Obispo,Tulare 10/3/2023
Fresno,Kern,Kings,Merced,Monterey,San Benito,San Luis Obispo,Tulare 10/3/2023
Fresno,Kern,Kings,Merced,Monterey,San Benito,San Luis Obispo,Tulare 10/3/2023
Fresno,Kern,Kings,Madera,Monterey,San Benito,San Luis Obispo,TulareFresno,Kern,Kings,Madera,Monterey,San Benito,San Luis Obispo,Tulare 12/21/2023
Kern 3/4/2025Kern 3/4/2025Alameda,Amador,Calaveras,Contra Costa,Fresno,Inyo,Kern,Kings,Madera,Mariposa,Merced,Monterey,Sacramento,San 8/12/2025
Alameda,Amador,Calaveras,Contra Costa,Fresno,Inyo,Kern,Kings,Madera,Mariposa,Merced,Monterey,Sacramento,San 8/12/2025
This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code and Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.

This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources assessment for the proposed Austin Creek Annexation Project, Kern County.

Record: PROJ-2026-000276
Report Type: List of Tribes
Counties: Kern
NAHC Group: All
01/21/2026 01:31 PM
1 of 1

Bakersfield City CouncilOctober 21, 2026

Bakersfield City Council
October 21, 2026