Agenda packet — Visalia City Council, November 18, 2024 (part 2 of 10)

ERM-1.2: Development in Environmentally Sensitive Areas The County shall limit or modify proposed development within areas that contain sensitive habitat for special status species and direct development into less significant habitat areas. Development in natural habitats shall be controlled so as to minimize erosion and maximize beneficial vegetative growth.

ERM-1.9: Coordination of Management on Adjacent Lands The County shall work with other government land management agencies (such as the Bureau of Land Management, US Forest Service, National Park Service) to preserve and protect biological resources, including those within and adjacent to designated critical habitat, reserves, preserves, and other protected lands, while maintaining the ability to utilize and enjoy the natural resources in the County.

ERM-1.12: Management of Oak Woodland Communities The County shall support the conservation and management of oak woodland communities and their habitats.

3.2.1.1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
FGMP-8.8: Erosion Mitigation Measures The County shall require erosion mitigation measures in new developments to prevent soil loss.

3.2.1.1.3 WATER QUALITY
WR-2: To provide for the current and long-range water needs of the County and for the protection of the quality of surface water and groundwater resources.

WR-2.3: Best Management Practices (BMPs) The County shall continue to require the use of feasible BMPs and other mitigation measures designed to protect surface water and groundwater from the adverse effects of construction activities, agricultural operations requiring a County Permit and urban runoff in coordination with the Water Quality Control Board.

3.2.2 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
Permits may be required from CDFW and/or USFWS if activities associated with a project have the potential to result in the “take” of a species listed as threatened or endangered under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) and/or Endangered Species Act (ESA), respectively. Take is defined by CESA as, “to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture or kill” (California Fish and Game Code, Section 86). Take is more broadly defined by the ESA to include “harm” (16 USC, Section 1532(19), 50 CFR, Section 17.3). CDFW and USFWS are responsible agencies under CEQA and NEPA. Both agencies review CEQA and NEPA documents in order to determine the adequacy of the treatment of endangered species issues and to make project-specific recommendations for their conservation.

3.2.3 DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT
When species are listed as threatened or endangered, the USFWS often designates areas of “critical habitat” as defined by section 3(5)(A) of the ESA. Critical habitat is a term defined in the ESA as a specific geographic area that contains features essential for the conservation of a threatened or endangered species and that may require special management and protection. Critical habitat is a tool that supports the continued conservation of imperiled species by guiding cooperation with the federal government.

Designations only affect federal agency actions or federally funded or permitted activities. Critical habitat does not prevent activities that occur within the designated area. Only activities that involve a federal permit, license, or funding and are likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat will be affected. 299
City of Visalia November 1,
2024
Biological Evaluation
Section Three: Impacts and Mitigation
www.provostandpritchard.com 3-4

3.2.4 MIGRATORY BIRDS
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA: 16 USC 703-712) prohibits killing, possessing, or trading in any bird species covered in one of four international conventions to which the United States is a party, except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. The name of the act is misleading, as it covers almost all bird’s native to the United States, even those that are non-migratory. The MBTA encompasses whole birds, parts of birds, and bird nests and eggs. Additionally, California Fish and Game Code makes it unlawful to take or possess any non-game birds covered by the MBTA (Section 3513), as well as any other native non-game birds (Section 3800).

3.2.5 BIRDS OF PREY
Birds of prey are protected in California under provisions of California Fish and Game Code (Section 3503.5), which states that it is unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the order Falconiformes (hawks and eagles) or Strigiformes (owls), as well as their nests and eggs. The bald eagle and golden eagle are afforded additional protection under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 USC 668), which makes it unlawful to kill birds or their eggs, or take feathers or nests, without a permit issued by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior.

3.2.6 NESTING BIRDS
In California, protection is afforded to the nests and eggs of all birds. California Fish and Game Code (Section 3503) states that it is “unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto.” Breeding-season disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort is considered a form of “take” by the CDFW.

3.2.7 WETLANDS AND OTHER “JURISDICTIONAL WATERS”
The definition of “waters of the United States” (WOTUS) often changes from one presidential administration to the next and can also be affected by the outcomes of court cases involving federal jurisdiction of waters. The current definition (i.e. “Conforming Rule”) was adopted under the Biden Administration in early 2023 and was subsequently revised in September 2023 to incorporate the U.S.

Supreme Court’s May 25, 2023, decision in the case of Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

The Conforming Rule has adopted much of the same WOTUS designations as the pre-2015 rules but has incorporated the most recent science and court case rulings. The extent of jurisdiction has been defined in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) but is also subject to interpretation by the federal courts.

Jurisdictional waters generally include the following categories:
1) Traditional Navigable Waters, the territorial seas, or interstate waters (not including interstate wetlands);
2) Impoundments of waters of the United States;
3) Tributaries of:
a. Traditional Navigable Waters, territorial seas, or interstate waters (not including interstate wetlands); or
b. Impoundments of water of the United States when the tributaries meet the relatively permanent standard.
4) Wetlands:
a. Adjacent to Traditional Navigable Waters, the territorial seas, or interstate waters; b. Adjacent to and with a continuous surface connection to relatively permanent impoundments of waters of the United States
c. Adjacent to and with a continuous surface connection to relatively permanent jurisdictional tributaries.
300
City of Visalia November 1,
2024
Biological Evaluation
Section Three: Impacts and Mitigation
www.provostandpritchard.com 3-5
5) Intrastate lakes and ponds not identified in items 1 through 4 of this section that are relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water with a continuous surface connection to the waters identified in items 1 or 3 above.

Exclusions under the new definition include the following:
1) Waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons, designed to meet the requirements of the CWA;
2) Prior converted cropland designated by the Secretary of Agriculture. The exclusion would cease upon a change of use, which means that the area is no longer available for the production of agricultural commodities. Notwithstanding the determination of an area's status as prior converted cropland by any other Federal agency, for the purposes of the CWA, the final authority regarding CWA jurisdiction remains with USEPA; 3) Ditches (including roadside ditches) excavated wholly in and draining only dry land and that do not carry a relatively permanent flow of water;
4) Artificially irrigated areas that would revert to dry land if the irrigation ceased; 5) Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating or diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing;
6) Artificial reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating or diking dry land to retain water for primarily aesthetic reasons; 7) Waterfilled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States; and
8) Swales and erosional features (e.g., gullies, small washes) characterized by low volume, infrequent, or short duration flow.

The Conforming Rule has incorporated the best available science, relevant supreme court cases, public comment, technical expertise, and experience gained from more than 45 years of implementing the pre2015 “waters of the United States” framework to inform jurisdictional limits. One significant court case involves the U.S. Supreme Court in its 2001 Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. United States Army Corps of Engineers (SWANCC) decision. It was determined that channels and wetlands isolated from other jurisdictional waters cannot be considered jurisdictional on the basis of their use, hypothetical or observed, by migratory birds.

Similarly, in its 2006 consolidated Carabell/Rapanos decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a significant nexus between a wetland and other navigable waters must exist for the wetland itself to be considered a jurisdictional water. The Supreme Court heard Sackett v. United States EPA in May 2023, to determine governing standards of a significant nexus between waters of the United States and adjacent wetlands. The court decided that adjacent wetlands would be protected under the CWA only if it maintained a continuous surface water connection with a federal water body. This decision has limited protection for networks of wetlands connected to navigable waters through subsurface flow. The final decision was enacted in September 2023.

The USACE regulates the filling or grading of waters of the United States. under the authority of Section 404 of the CWA. The extent of jurisdiction within drainage channels is defined by “ordinary high-water marks” on opposing channel banks. All activities that involve the discharge of dredge or fill material into waters of the United States are subject to the permit requirements of the USACE. Such permits are typically 301
City of Visalia November 1,
2024
Biological Evaluation
Section Three: Impacts and Mitigation
www.provostandpritchard.com 3-6
issued on the condition that the applicant agrees to provide mitigation that results in no net loss of wetland functions or values. No permit can be issued until the RWQCB issues a Section 401 Water Quality Certification (or waiver of such certification) verifying that the proposed activity will meet state water quality standards.

Under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1969, the SWRCB has regulatory authority to protect the water quality of all surface water and groundwater in California (“waters of the state”). Nine RWQCBs oversee water quality at the local and regional level. The RWQCB for a given region regulates discharges of fill or pollutants into waters of the state through the issuance of various permits and orders.

Discharges into Waters of the State that are also WOTUS require a Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the RWQCB as a prerequisite to obtaining certain federal permits, such as a Section 404 Clean Water Act permit. Discharges into all Waters of the State, even those that are not also WOTUS, require waste discharge requirements (WDRs), or waivers of WDRs, from the RWQCB. The RWQCB also administers the Construction Storm Water Program and the federal National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Projects that disturb one acre or more of soil must obtain a Construction General Permit under the Construction Storm Water Program. A prerequisite for this permit is the development of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) by a certified Qualified SWPPP Developer. Projects that discharge wastewater, storm water, or other pollutants into a WOTUS may require an NPDES permit.

CDFW has jurisdiction over the bed and bank of natural drainages and lakes according to provisions of Section 1601 and 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code. Activities that may substantially modify such waters through the diversion or obstruction of their natural flow, change or use any material from their bed or bank, or deposits debris within them require a notification of a Lake or Streambed Alteration. If CDFW determines that the activity may adversely affect fish and wildlife resources, a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement will be prepared. Such an agreement typically stipulates that certain avoidance and minimization measures will be implemented to protect the habitat values of the lake or drainage in question and the plant, fish, and wildlife species that may be present within these resources.

3.3 POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT PROJECT-RELATED IMPACTS AND

MITIGATION
Species protected by California Fish and Game Code, CDFW, USFWS, CEQA, or NEPA that have the potential to be impacted by project activities include American badger, burrowing owl, pallid bat, loggerhead strike San Joaquin kit fox, western mastiff bat, and Swainson’s hawk. Corresponding mitigation measures can be found below.

3.3.1 GENERAL PROJECT-RELATED IMPACTS
The project has the potential to impact a number of sensitive resources, as described in more detail in the following sections. Impacts to these resources would be a violation of state and federal laws or considered a potentially significant impact under CEQA and NEPA Implementation of the following measures will help reduce potential impacts to these resources to a less than significant level under CEQA and NEPA and will help with complying with state and federal laws protecting these resources:

Mitigation Measure BIO-1a (WEAP Training): Prior to initiating construction activities (including staging and mobilization), all personnel associated with project construction will attend a mandatory Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training, conducted by a “qualified biologist”(someone who is familiar with the species on the document), to aid workers in identifying special status resources that may occur in the APE. The specifics of this program will include identification of the sensitive species and suitable habitats, a description of the regulatory status 302
City of Visalia November 1,
2024
Biological Evaluation
Section Three: Impacts and Mitigation
www.provostandpritchard.com 3-7
and general ecological characteristics of sensitive resources, and review of the limits of construction and mitigation measures required to reduce impacts to biological resources within the work area. This training will discuss special status species, describe the laws and regulations in place to provide protection of these species, identify the penalties for violation of applicable environmental laws and regulations, and include a list of required protective measures to avoid “take.” A fact sheet summarizing this information, along with photographs or illustrations of sensitive species with potential to occur on the APE, will also be prepared for distribution to all contractors, their employees, and all other personnel involved with construction of the project. All trainees will sign a form documenting that they have attended WEAP training and understand the information presented to them.

Mitigation Measure BIO-1b (BMPs): The project proponent will require that all workers employ the following best management practices (BMPs) in order to avoid and minimize potential impacts to special status species:
• Vehicles will observe a 15-mph speed limit while on unpaved access routes. • Workers will inspect areas beneath parked vehicles, equipment, and materials prior to mobilization. If special status species are detected, the individual will either be allowed to leave of its own volition or will be captured by the “qualified biologist” (must possess appropriate collecting/handling permits) and relocated out of harm’s way to the nearest suitable habitat beyond the influence of the project work area. “Take” of a state or federal special status (rare, California Species of Special Concern, threatened, or endangered) species is prohibited. • The presence of any special status species will be reported to the project’s “qualified biologist”, who will submit the occurrence to the CNDDB. If necessary, the biologist will report the occurrence to CDFW and/or USFWS.

3.3.2 PROJECT-RELATED MORTALITY AND/OR NEST ABANDONMENT OF MIGRATORY

BIRDS, RAPTORS, AND SPECIAL STATUS BIRDS
The APE contains suitable nesting and foraging habitat for a variety of protected bird species, such as migratory birds, raptors, and special status birds. The survey was conducted within the nesting bird season, and no active nests were observed. However, protected birds could nest on the ground or in shrubs, trees, or structures within the APE and forage within the APE. Swainson’s hawk and loggerhead shrike are the special status birds observed during the field survey. Protected birds located within or adjacent to the APE during construction have the potential to be injured or killed by project-related activities. In addition to the direct “take” of protected birds within the APE or adjacent areas, these birds nesting in these areas could be disturbed by project-related activities resulting in nest abandonment. Projects that adversely affect the nesting success of protected birds or result in the mortality of these birds would be a violation of state and federal laws and considered a significant impact under CEQA.

While foraging habitat for protected birds is present on the site, suitable foraging habitat is located adjacent to the site and within the vicinity of the site. Loss of the foraging habitat from implementation of the Project is not considered a significant impact.

Implementation of the following measures will reduce potential impacts to protected nesting birds to a less than significant level under CEQA and will help the project comply with state and federal laws protecting these bird species.
303
City of Visalia November 1,
2024
Biological Evaluation
Section Three: Impacts and Mitigation
www.provostandpritchard.com 3-8
Mitigation Measure BIO-2a (Avoidance): The project’s construction activities will occur, if feasible, between September 16 and January 31 (outside of the nesting bird season) to avoid impacts to nesting birds.

Mitigation Measure BIO-2b (Pre-construction Surveys): If activities must occur within nesting bird season (February 1 to September 15), a “qualified biologist”(someone who is familiar with bird identification and nesting bird surveys) will conduct a pre-construction survey for Swainson’s hawk nests onsite and within a 0.5-mile radius within 5 calendar days prior to the start of construction.

This survey will be conducted in accordance with the Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson's Hawk Nesting Surveys in California's Central Valley (Swainson's Hawk Technical Advisory Committee 2000), or current guidance. The Swainson’s hawk survey will not be completed between April 21 to June 10 due to the difficulty of identifying nests during this time of year. The survey would also include inspecting for nesting migratory birds within the APE and up to 50 feet outside of the APE, and for other nesting raptors within and up to 450 feet outside of the APE. All raptor nests would be considered “active” upon the nest-building stage. If no active nests are observed, no further mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measure BIO-2c (Avoidance Buffers): On discovery of any active nests or breeding colonies near work areas, a “qualified biologist” will determine appropriate avoidance buffer distances based on applicable CDFW and/or USFWS guidelines, the biology of the species, conditions of the nest(s), and the level of project disturbance. If necessary, avoidance buffers will be identified with flagging, fencing, or other easily visible means, and will be maintained until the biologist has determined that the nestlings have fledged.

Mitigation Measure BIO-2d (Consultation with CDFW): In the event an active Swainson’s hawk nest is detected within or adjacent to the APE and an appropriate avoidance buffer cannot be implemented, CDFW will be consulted to determine how to protect the nest so the Project may proceed.

3.3.3 PROJECT-RELATED MORTALITY AND/OR DISTURBANCE TO BURROWING OWL The Project area contains suitable nesting and foraging habitat for burrowing owls. Construction activities that adversely affect the nesting success of burrowing owls or result in the mortality of individuals constitute a violation of state and federal laws and would be considered a significant impact under CEQA and NEPA. While the project site may remove some potential foraging habitat for BUOW, there is abundant foraging habitat adjacent to the site that could be used, and implementation of the project would not significantly reduce potential foraging habitat for this species. Therefore, no mitigation measures are warranted for loss of BUOW foraging habitat.

Implementation of the following measures would reduce potential impacts to nesting or roosting BUOW to a less than significant level under CEQA and NEPA and ensure compliance with state and federal laws protecting this avian species.

Mitigation Measure BIO-3a (Pre-construction Take Avoidance Survey): A “qualified biologist” (someone who is familiar with species identification and their sign, and habitat use) will conduct a pre-construction take avoidance survey for BUOW and suitable burrows, in accordance with CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012), within seven (7) days prior to the start of construction activities. The survey shall include the proposed work area and surrounding lands up to 500 feet. If no BUOW individuals or active burrows are observed, no further mitigation is 304
City of Visalia November 1,
2024
Biological Evaluation
Section Three: Impacts and Mitigation
www.provostandpritchard.com 3-9
required. If construction is hauled for (7) consecutive days another pre-activity survey shall be completed.

Mitigation Measure BIO-3b (Avoidance): If an active BUOW burrow is detected, the occurrence will be reported to the CNDDB, and avoidance buffers shall be implemented. A “qualified biologist” will determine appropriate avoidance buffer distances based on applicable CDFW and/or USFWS guidelines, the biology of the species, conditions of the burrow(s), and the level of project disturbance. If necessary, avoidance buffers will be identified with flagging, fencing, or other easily visible means, and will be maintained until the biologist has determined that the nestlings have fledged and all BUOW have left the Project area.

Mitigation Measure BIO-3c (Passive Relocation): If avoidance of an active BUOW burrow is not feasible, passive relocation during the non-breeding season (September 1 through January 31) could be utilized or during the breeding season (February 1 through August 31) if a “qualified biologist” determines that there are no young in the burrow. Prior to completion a “qualified biologist” will prepare a passive relocation plan that would detail the methods to be used. It would include the tools to exclude the BUOW from its burrow (i.e., one-way doors or other devices) and excavate the burrow (hand tools and machinery, if needed). Following completion of passive relocation, a report will be prepared that would document the methods and results of these efforts.

3.3.4 PROJECT-RELATED MORTALITY AND/OR DISTURBANCE OF MATERNITY ROOSTING

BATS AND SPECIAL STATUS BATS
The oak trees and bridges within or adjacent to the APEs could support maternity roosting bats and roosting special status roosting bats, including the pallid bat and western mastiff bat, which are California species of special concern. Roosting habitat becomes especially sensitive to all bat species during the maternity roosting season (generally March 1 to August 31, depending on location and temperatures during a given year) and winter season. During the winter, some bats, including pallid pat and western mastiff bat, may roost within the bridges adjacent to the APE. Bats are not expected to overwinter in the oak trees due to their inability to retain heat in the winter. Projects that impact maternity roosting bats or roosting special status bats would be considered a significant impact under CEQA.

Implementation of the following measures will reduce potential impacts to maternity roosting bats and roosting special status bats to a less than significant level under CEQA.

Mitigation Measure BIO-3a (Focused Surveys): Within seven days prior to the start of construction activitiesfocused surveys will be conducted by a “qualified biologist” (someone who is familiar with the roosting behavior and habitat of the species and can identify the species sign). They will include a daytime roost survey and dusk emergence survey. The daytime roost survey will include surveying for roosting bats within potential suitable structures (i.e., oak trees and bridges) within and adjacent to each APE, where accessible.

The dusk emergence survey will include surveying for emerging bats at areas where bat sign or likely bat roost areas were observed during the daytime roost survey. It should be conducted on a warm night during dry weather conditions and from approximately 15 minutes before sunset to 1 hour after sunset. If no roosting bats are discovered tree or branch removal must be completed within two days.
305
City of Visalia November 1,
2024
Biological Evaluation
Section Three: Impacts and Mitigation
www.provostandpritchard.com 3-10
Mitigation Measure BIO-3b (Avoidance Buffers): Should any active bat roosts be observed during the focused surveys, a “qualified biologist” will determine appropriate avoidance buffers (i.e., construction setback distances) based on the biology of the species, conditions of the roost(s), and the level of project disturbance, if appropriate. If necessary, avoidance buffers will be identified with flagging, fencing, or other easily visible means, and will be maintained until the biologist has determined that the roost will no longer be impacted by construction.

Mitigation Measure BIO-3c (ITP and Passive Relocation): If an active BUOW burrow is detected within the proposed work area and cannot be avoided, it is recommended the Project obtain an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) in order to implement a passive relocation plan. Passive relocation will occur during the non-breeding season (September 1 through January 31) or during the breeding season (February 1 through August 31) if a “qualified biologist” determines that there are no young in the burrow. A “qualified biologist” will prepare the passive relocation plan that would detail the methods to be used. It would include the tools to exclude the BUOW from its burrow (i.e., one-way doors or other devices) and excavate the burrow (hand tools and machinery, if needed).

3.3.5 PROJECT-RELATED MORTALITY AND/OR DISTURBANCE TO SAN JOAQUIN KIT FOX The project site contains suitable denning and foraging habitat for San Joaquin kit fox (SJKF). SJKF denning within the project site during construction have the potential to be injured or killed by project-related activities. Projects that result in the mortality of individuals would be considered a violation of state and federal laws and considered a potentially significant impact under CEQA and NEPA. While the project site may remove some potential foraging habitat for SJKF, there is abundant foraging habitat adjacent to the site that could be used, and implementation of the project would not significantly reduce potential foraging habitat for this species. Therefore, no mitigation measures are warranted for loss of SJKF foraging habitat.

Implementation of the following measures will reduce potential impacts to SJKF to a less than significant level under CEQA and NEPA and will ensure compliance with state and federal laws protecting this species.

Mitigation Measure BIO-4a (Pre-Construction Survey): Within fourteen (14) days prior to the start of construction a “qualified biologist” will conduct a pre-construction survey for San Joaquin kit fox will be conducted on and within 200 feet of proposed work areas.

Mitigation Measure BIO-4b (Establish Buffers): On discovery of any SJKF dens near the project area a “qualified biologist” (someone familiar with the identification and sign of this species) will determine appropriate construction setback distances (buffer zones) based on applicable CDFW and/or USFWS guidelines (see below). If needed, construction buffers will be identified with flagging, fencing, or other easily visible means. They will be maintained until the biologist has determined that the den will no longer be impacted by construction.

1. At least 100 feet around den(s);

2. At least 200 feet around natal dens (which SJKF young are reared); and

3. At least 500 feet around any natal dens with pups (except for any portions of the buffer zone that is already fully developed).

Mitigation Measure BIO-4c (Avoidance and Minimization): The project will observe all avoidance and minimization measures during construction and on-going operational activities as required by the “qualified biologist” and the USFWS’s Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance (2011), including, but not limited to:
maintaining buffer zones, construction speed limits, covering of pipes, installation of escape 306
City of Visalia November 1,
2024
Biological Evaluation
Section Three: Impacts and Mitigation
www.provostandpritchard.com 3-11
structures, restriction of herbicide and rodenticide use, proper disposal of food items and trash, prohibition of pets and firearms, and completion of an employee education program (see BIO-1a).

3.3.6 PROJECT-RELATED MORTALITY AND/OR DISTURBANCE TO AMERICAN BADGER The project site contains grassland habitat that could potentially be used by American badger. American badgers denning within the project site during construction have the potential to be injured or killed by project-related activities. Projects that result in the mortality of individuals would be considered a potentially significant impact under CEQA and NEPA.

Implementation of the following measures will reduce potential impacts to American badgers to a less than significant level under CEQA and NEPA. The following measures will be implemented prior to the start of construction:

Mitigation Measure BIO-5a (Pre-construction Take Avoidance Survey): A “qualified biologist” (someone familiar with the identification and sign of this species) will conduct a pre-construction survey of project areas within seven (7) days prior to vegetation clearing or ground disturbing activities. The goal of this survey is to search for potential badger dens.

Mitigation Measure BIO-5b (Remote Cameras): If potential dens for American badger are detected during the pre-construction survey, each potential den will be monitored with remote cameras for a period of three consecutive nights. If there is no activity at the den location recorded for three consecutive nights, the den can be deemed “inactive” or “unoccupied” and closed or excavated.

Mitigation Measure BIO-5c (Den Avoidance): If an American badger is denning on or within 50 feet of the project site, the project proponent shall avoid the den by a minimum 50-foot buffer.

Mitigation Measure BIO-5d (Eviction and Den Excavation): If an American badger is denning on or within 50 feet of the project site and it cannot be avoided, the badger may be evicted, and the den excavated outside of the natal season (generally March 15 – June 15) or if it is determined that there are no kits in the den. Prior to the planned eviction and den excavation, a remote camera will be placed at the den entrance for a minimum of three consecutive nights to record the general time when the badger leaves the den. If it is outside of the natal season or it is determined by a “qualified biologist” that there are no “kits” present in the den the badger will be evicted from the den and the den excavated by hand, with the assistance of machinery, after it has left the den for that night. Should any “kits” be discovered during the excavation the work will stop and the crew will leave the site immediately so the female can rescue her kits and relocate them.

3.4 SECTION 7 DETERMINATIONS
In addition to the occurrence analysis performed in Table 1and Table 2 of this document, Table 3 summarizes project effect determinations for federally-listed species found on the CNDDB list generated on May 30, 2024, and the USFWS IPaC list generated on May 30, 2024 (see Appendix B and Appendix C, respectively), in accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.

Table 3: Section 7 Determinations
Species Determination Rationale for Determination
Blunt-nosed leopard lizard
(Gambelia sila)
No effect
Habitat absent. APE is outside of the known
distribution range of this species.
307
City of Visalia November 1,
2024
Biological Evaluation
Section Three: Impacts and Mitigation
www.provostandpritchard.com 3-12
Species Determination Rationale for Determination
Buena Vista Lake ornate shrew
(Sorex ornatus relictus)
No effect
Habitat absent. Habitat required by this species
for burrowing and foraging are absent from the
APE.

California condor
(Gymnogyps californianus)
No effect
Habitat absent. Habitats required by this species
for nesting and foraging are absent from the
APE.

California jewelflower
(Caulanthus californicus)
No effect
Habitat absent. Habitats and soils required by
this species are absent from the APE.

California tiger salamander
(Ambystoma californiense)
No effect
Habitat absent. Breeding habitat for this species
is missing from the APE.

Greene’s tuctoria
(Tuctoria greenei)
No effect
Habitat absent. The required soil and habitat for
this species were missing from the APE.

Hoover’s spurge
(Euphorbia hooveri)
No effect
Habitat absent. The required soil and habitat for
this species were missing from the APE.

Lassics lupine
(Lupinus constancei)
No effect
Habitat absent. The APE is outside the species
range.

San Joaquin adobe sunburst
(Pseudobahia peirsonii)
No effect
Habitat absent. The required soil and habitat for
this species were missing from the APE.

San Joaquin kit fox
(Vulpes macrotis mutica)
May effect, but
not likely to
adversely
affect
Habitat absent. Some potential denning habitat
and foraging sites were observed within the APE.

Plus, California ground squirrels and their
burrows were observed within the APE providing
denning and a prey base. Implementation of
BIO-5a, BIO-5b, BIO-5c will avoid and minimize
effects to this species.

San Joaquin Valley Orcutt grass
(Orcuttia inaequalis)
No effect Habitat absent. The required soil and habitat for this species were missing from the APE.

Tipton kangaroo rat
(Dipodomys nitratoides
nitratoides)
No effect
Habitat absent. Habitats required by this species
are absent from the APE.

Valley elderberry longhorn
beetle
(Desmocerus californicus
dimorphus)
No effect
Habitat absent. No valley elderberry shrubs were
observed in the APE.

Vernal pool fairy shrimp
(Branchinecta lynchi)
No effect
Habitat absent. Vernal pool habitat was absent
within the APE.

Vernal pool tadpole shrimp
(Lepidurus packardi)
No effect
Habitat absent. Vernal pool habitat was absent
within the APE.

Western yellow-billed cuckoo
(Coccyzus americanus
occidentalis)
No effect
Habitat absent. APE is out of 0000the species
range.
308
City of Visalia November 1,
2024
Biological Evaluation
Section Three: Impacts and Mitigation
www.provostandpritchard.com 3-13

3.5 LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT PROJECT-RELATED IMPACTS

3.5.1 PROJECT-RELATED IMPACTS TO SPECIAL STATUS PLANT SPECIES ABSENT FROM, OR

UNLIKELY TO OCCUR ON THE APE
Of the 23 regionally occurring special status plant species, all 23 are considered absent from or unlikely to occur within the APE due to past or ongoing disturbance and/or the absence of suitable habitat. These species include: alkali sink goldfields, brittlescale, calico monkeyflower, California jewelflower, California alkali grass, California satintail, Coulter’s goldfields, Earlimart orache, Greene’s tuctoria, heartscale, Hoover’s spurge, Kaweah brodiaea, lassics lupine, lesser saltscale, recurved larkspur, Sanford’s arrowhead, San Joaquin adobe sunburst, San Joaquin Valley Orcutt grass, spiny-sepaled button-celery, striped adobelily, subtle orache, vernal pool smallscale, and winter’s sunflower.

Since it is unlikely that these species would occur onsite, implementation of the project should have no impact on these 23 special status species through construction mortality, disturbance, or loss of habitat.

Mitigation measures are not warranted.

3.5.2 PROJECT-RELATED IMPACTS TO SPECIAL STATUS ANIMAL SPECIES ABSENT FROM,

OR UNLIKELY TO OCCUR ON THE APE
Of the 23 regionally occurring special status animal species, 16 are considered absent from or unlikely to occur within the APE due to past or ongoing disturbance and/or the absence of suitable habitat. These species include: blunt-nosed leopard lizard, Buena Vista Lake ornate shrew, California condor, California tiger salamander, Crotch’s bumble bee, foothill yellow-legged frog, northern California legless lizard, northern leopard frog, northwestern pond turtle, Tipton kangaroo rat, tricolored blackbird, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, vernal pool fairy shrimp, vernal pool tadpole shrimp, western spadefoot, and western yellow-billed cuckoo.

Since it is unlikely that these species would occur onsite, implementation of the project should have no impact on these 16 special status species through construction mortality, disturbance, or loss of habitat.

Mitigation measures are not warranted.

3.5.3 PROJECT-RELATED IMPACTS TO RIPARIAN HABITAT AND NATURAL COMMUNITIES

OF SPECIAL CONCERN
Riparian habitat is absent from the APE and adjacent lands. There are no CNDDB-designated “natural communities of special concern” recorded within the APE or surrounding lands. Mitigation is not warranted.

3.5.4 PROJECT-RELATED IMPACTS TO REGULATED WATERS, WETLANDS, AND WATER

QUALITY
Since construction would involve ground disturbance over an area greater than one acre, the project would also be required to obtain a Construction Stormwater General Permit under the Storm Water Program administered by the RWQCB. A prerequisite for this permit is the development of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) so activities do not adversely affect water quality.

3.5.5 PROJECT-RELATED IMPACTS TO WILDLIFE MOVEMENT CORRIDORS AND NATIVE

WILDLIFE NURSERY SITES
The APE has suitable features (buildings and trees) that could be used by maternity roosting bats, which are considered native wildlife nursery sites. The potential impacts to maternity roosting bats have been addressed in Mitigation Measures BIO 3a-3c. It is likely other native species would utilize any features of the APE as a wildlife nursery site.
309
City of Visalia November 1,
2024
Biological Evaluation
Section Three: Impacts and Mitigation
www.provostandpritchard.com 3-14
Most of the APE does not contain features that would be likely to function as wildlife movement corridors.

Cameron Creek could be potentially used as a wildlife movement corridor, but disturbance to this creek would be temporary in nature and would not disturb wildlife movement. Furthermore, the project was located in an area regularly disturbed by humans which would discourage dispersal and migration.

3.5.6 PROJECT-RELATED IMPACTS TO CRITICAL HABITAT
Designated critical habitat is absent from the APE and surrounding lands. Therefore, there would be no impact to critical habitat, and mitigation measures are not warranted.

3.5.7 LOCAL POLICIES OR HABITAT CONSERVATION PLANS
The project appears to be consistent with the goals and policies of the Tulare County General Plan. There are no known HCPs or NCCPs in the project vicinity. Mitigation measures are not warranted.

3.5.8 PROJECT-RELATED IMPACT TO ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT
Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) and Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC) are absent from the project site and surrounding lands, and consultation with the National Marine Fisheries (NMFS) Service would not be required. Query results of the NMFS EHF Mapper can be found in Appendix E at the end of this document. Mitigation measures are not warranted
310
City of Visalia November 1,
2024
Biological Evaluation
Section Four: References
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-1
4 REFERENCES
n.d. "Califorina Department of Fish and Wildlife ." Lassics Lupine (Lupinus constancei). Accessed 06 20, 2024. https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Plants/Endangered/Lupinus-constancei.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2024a. California Natural Diversity Database- RareFind. Accessed June 2024.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2024b. "State and federally listed endangered, threatened, and rare plants of California." Accessed June 2024.
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109390&inline.

Cornell Lab of Ornithology. 2024. eBird. Accessed June 2024. https://ebird.org/.

Department of Water Resources. 2019. Groundwater Basin Boundary Assessment Tool. Accessed June 2024. https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/bbat/.
2023. "Fedcenter.gov." Endangered Species Status for Lassics Lupine and Designation of Critical Habitat (Final). 10 5.

Accessed 20 06, 2024. https://www.fedcenter.gov/Articles/index.cfm?id=41445. 2019. "iNaturalist." Monarch (Danaus plexippus). Accessed 06 24, 2024. https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/48662-Danaus-plexippus. iNaturalist. 2024. Observations of Special Status Species. Accessed June 2024. https://www.inaturalist.org/.

State of California Natural Resources Agency Department of Fish and Game. 2012. "Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation." Accessed June 2024.

State Water Resources Control Board. 2021. "State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharge of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State." Accessed June 2024.

Swainson's Hawk Technical Advisory Committee. 2000. "Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson's Hawk Nesting Surveys in California's Central Valley." May. Accessed January 2024.

The California Burrowing Owl Consortium. 1993. "Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines." Accessed June 2024.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2024. Essential Fish Habitat Mapper. Accessed June 2024. https://www.habitat.noaa.gov/apps/efhmapper/?page=page_5. 2012. "Tulare.ca.us." generalplan.co.tulare.ca.us. 08. Accessed 06 20, 2024. https://generalplan.co.tulare.ca.us/documents/GP/001Adopted%20Tulare%20County%20General %20Plan%20Materials/000General%20Plan%202030%20Part%20I%20and%20Part%20II/GENE RAL%20PLAN%202012.pdf.

United States Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual." Accessed June 2024.
311
City of Visalia November 1,
2024
Biological Evaluation
Section Four: References
www.provostandpritchard.com 4-2
United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resource Conservation Service. 2024. Soil Survey Area.

Accessed June 2024. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/publications/Lists%20of%20Hydric%20Soils%20- %20Query%20by%20Soil%20Survey%20Area%20Map%20Unit%20Rating.html.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2024a. Waters GeoViewer. Accessed June 2024. https://www.epa.gov/waterdata/waters-geoviewer.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2024b. Information on Planning and Consultation. Accessed June 2024. https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/.
—. 2024c. National Wetlands Inventory. Accessed June 2024. https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html.
—. 1998. "Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley, California." Accessed June 2024.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. "Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance." Accessed June 2024.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2024d. Environmental Conservation Online System. Accessed June 2024. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/.

University of California, Berkeley. 2024. The Jepson Herbarium. Accessed June 2024. http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/eflora/.
n.d. "Weatherspark." Climate and Average Weather Year Round in Visalia. Accessed 06 14, 2024. https://weatherspark.com/y/1510/Average-Weather-in-Visalia-California-United-States-YearRound. 312
Appendices
Appendix A: Representative
Photos of the APE
313
City of Visalia
Cameron Creek Project Appendix A
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group A-1
Photograph 1
Valley oak trees in the ruderal portion of the APE.

Photograph 2
Overview of the vegetation
in Cameron Creek.
314
City of Visalia
Cameron Creek Project Appendix A
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group A-2
Photograph 3
Overview of Cameron Creek
with orchards adjacent to
the creek .

Photograph 4
Overview of pooled water in
Cameron Creek.
315
City of Visalia
Cameron Creek Project Appendix A
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group A-3
Photograph 5
Overview of the habitat
where the Swainson's hawk
was observed.

Photograph 6.

Agricultural field adjacent
to the APE.
316
City of Visalia
Cameron Creek Project Appendix A
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group A-4
Photograph 7
A fallow field south of the
Rector Check.

Photograph 8
A water recharge basin adjacent to the APE near the
Measurement Check.
317
City of Visalia
Cameron Creek Project Appendix A
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group A-5
Photograph 9
Cliff swallow nests under
one of the bridges in Cameron Creek north of the Rector Check.

Photograph 10
Owl nest box near the APE
east of the Measurement
Check .
318
City of Visalia
Cameron Creek Project Appendix A
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group A-6
Photograph 11
Striped sunk scat observed
near the Rector Check.

Photograph 12
The lower jaw bone of a
canine observed near the
Measurement Check.
319
City of Visalia
Cameron Creek Project Appendix A
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group A-7
Photograph 12
Active stick nest within the
APE east of the Lovers
Check.

Photograph 14
Overview of an small mammal burrow with a California scrub jay chick carcass. 320
Appendices
Appendix B: CNDDB 11-QUAD

SPECIES LIST
321
Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
Agelaius tricolor
tricolored blackbird
ABPBXB0020 None Threatened G1G2 S2 SSC
Ambystoma californiense pop. 1
California tiger salamander - central California DPS
AAAAA01181 Threatened Threatened G2G3T3 S3 WL
Andrena macswaini
An andrenid bee
IIHYM35130 None None G2 S2
Anniella pulchra
Northern California legless lizard
ARACC01020 None None G3 S2S3 SSC
Antrozous pallidus
pallid bat
AMACC10010 None None G4 S3 SSC
Ardea herodias
great blue heron
ABNGA04010 None None G5 S4
Athene cunicularia
burrowing owl
ABNSB10010 None None G4 S2 SSC
Atriplex cordulata var. cordulata
heartscale
PDCHE040B0 None None G3T2 S2 1B.2
Atriplex cordulata var. erecticaulis
Earlimart orache
PDCHE042V0 None None G3T1 S1 1B.2
Atriplex depressa
brittlescale
PDCHE042L0 None None G2 S2 1B.2
Atriplex minuscula
lesser saltscale
PDCHE042M0 None None G2 S2 1B.1
Atriplex persistens
vernal pool smallscale
PDCHE042P0 None None G2 S2 1B.2
Atriplex subtilis
subtle orache
PDCHE042T0 None None G1 S1 1B.2
Bombus crotchii
Crotch's bumble bee
IIHYM24480 None Candidate
Endangered
G2 S2
Bombus pensylvanicus
American bumble bee
IIHYM24260 None None G3G4 S2
Branchinecta lynchi
vernal pool fairy shrimp
ICBRA03030 Threatened None G3 S3
Brodiaea insignis
Kaweah brodiaea
PMLIL0C060 None Endangered G1 S1 1B.2
Buteo swainsoni
Swainson's hawk
ABNKC19070 None Threatened G5 S4
Quad IS (Traver (3611944) OR Monson (3611943) OR Ivanhoe (3611942) OR Woodlake (3611941) OR Goshen (3611934) OR Visalia (3611933) OR Exeter (3611932) OR Rocky Hill (3611931) OR Paige (3611924) OR Tulare (3611923) OR Cairns Corner (3611922) OR Lindsay (3611921))
Query Criteria:

Report Printed on Thursday, May 30, 2024
Commercial Version -- Dated May, 3 2024 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 1 of 3 Information Expires 11/3/2024
Selected Elements by Scientific Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
322
Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
Caulanthus californicus
California jewelflower
PDBRA31010 Endangered Endangered G1 S1 1B.1
Chrysis tularensis
Tulare cuckoo wasp
IIHYM72010 None None G1G2 S2
Coccyzus americanus occidentalis
western yellow-billed cuckoo
ABNRB02022 Threatened Endangered G5T2T3 S1
Delphinium recurvatum
recurved larkspur
PDRAN0B1J0 None None G2? S2 1B.2
Desmocerus californicus dimorphus
valley elderberry longhorn beetle
IICOL48011 Threatened None G3T3 S3
Diplacus pictus
calico monkeyflower
PDSCR1B240 None None G2 S2 1B.2
Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides
Tipton kangaroo rat
AMAFD03152 Endangered Endangered G3T1T2 S2
Emys marmorata
western pond turtle
ARAAD02030 Proposed
Threatened
None G3G4 S3 SSC
Eryngium spinosepalum
spiny-sepaled button-celery
PDAPI0Z0Y0 None None G2 S2 1B.2
Eumops perotis californicus
western mastiff bat
AMACD02011 None None G4G5T4 S3S4 SSC
Euphorbia hooveri
Hoover's spurge
PDEUP0D150 Threatened None G1 S1 1B.2
Fritillaria striata
striped adobe-lily
PMLIL0V0K0 None Threatened G1 S1 1B.1
Great Valley Valley Oak Riparian Forest
Great Valley Valley Oak Riparian Forest
CTT61430CA None None G1 S1.1
Helianthus winteri
Winter's sunflower
PDAST4N260 None None G2? S2? 1B.2
Imperata brevifolia
California satintail
PMPOA3D020 None None G3 S3 2B.1
Lanius ludovicianus
loggerhead shrike
ABPBR01030 None None G4 S4 SSC
Lasthenia chrysantha
alkali-sink goldfields
PDAST5L030 None None G2 S2 1B.1
Lasthenia glabrata ssp. coulteri
Coulter's goldfields
PDAST5L0A1 None None G4T2 S2 1B.1
Lepidurus packardi
vernal pool tadpole shrimp
ICBRA10010 Endangered None G3 S3
Linderiella occidentalis
California linderiella
ICBRA06010 None None G2G3 S2S3
Lithobates pipiens
northern leopard frog
AAABH01170 None None G5 S2 SSC
Report Printed on Thursday, May 30, 2024
Commercial Version -- Dated May, 3 2024 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 2 of 3 Information Expires 11/3/2024
Selected Elements by Scientific Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
323
Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
Lytta hoppingi
Hopping's blister beetle
IICOL4C010 None None G1G2 S2
Lytta molesta
molestan blister beetle
IICOL4C030 None None G2 S2
Northern Claypan Vernal Pool
Northern Claypan Vernal Pool
CTT44120CA None None G1 S1.1
Northern Hardpan Vernal Pool
Northern Hardpan Vernal Pool
CTT44110CA None None G3 S3.1
Orcuttia inaequalis
San Joaquin Valley Orcutt grass
PMPOA4G060 Threatened Endangered G1 S1 1B.1
Pseudobahia peirsonii
San Joaquin adobe sunburst
PDAST7P030 Threatened Endangered G1 S1 1B.1
Puccinellia simplex
California alkali grass
PMPOA53110 None None G2 S2 1B.2
Rana boylii pop. 5
foothill yellow-legged frog - south Sierra DPS
AAABH01055 Endangered Endangered G3T2 S2
Rhaphiomidas trochilus
San Joaquin Valley giant flower-loving fly
IIDIP05010 None None G1 S1
Sagittaria sanfordii
Sanford's arrowhead
PMALI040Q0 None None G3 S3 1B.2
Spea hammondii
western spadefoot
AAABF02020 Proposed
Threatened
None G2G3 S3S4 SSC
Sycamore Alluvial Woodland
Sycamore Alluvial Woodland
CTT62100CA None None G1 S1.1
Talanites moodyae
Moody's gnaphosid spider
ILARA98020 None None G2G3 S2S3
Taxidea taxus
American badger
AMAJF04010 None None G5 S3 SSC
Tuctoria greenei
Greene's tuctoria
PMPOA6N010 Endangered Rare G1 S1 1B.1
Valley Sacaton Grassland
Valley Sacaton Grassland
CTT42120CA None None G1 S1.1
Vulpes macrotis mutica
San Joaquin kit fox
AMAJA03041 Endangered Threatened G4T2 S3
Record Count: 56
Report Printed on Thursday, May 30, 2024
Commercial Version -- Dated May, 3 2024 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 3 of 3 Information Expires 11/3/2024
Selected Elements by Scientific Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
324
Appendices
Appendix C: IPAC SPECIES LIST
325
06/01/2024 00:11:59 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: 2024-0098238
Project Name: Cameron Creek
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) 326
Project code: 2024-0098238 06/01/2024 00:11:59 UTC
2 of 8
(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, intentional or unintentional, 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/whatwe-do.

The MBTA has no provision for allowing take of migratory birds that may be unintentionally killed or injured by otherwise lawful activities. 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.
327
Project code: 2024-0098238 06/01/2024 00:11:59 UTC
3 of 8
▪
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
328
Project code: 2024-0098238 06/01/2024 00:11:59 UTC
4 of 8

PROJECT SUMMARY
Project Code: 2024-0098238
Project Name: Cameron Creek
Project Type: Water Supply Facility - New Constr
Project Description: The proposed Project is for construction of three check structures in Cameron Creek to utilize the Creek as a linear recharge facility. The total area of potential effect covered under CEQA would be approximately 8 acres.

Project Location:

The approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https:// www.google.com/maps/@36.29829695,-119.26089036054393,14z Counties: Tulare County, California
329
Project code: 2024-0098238 06/01/2024 00:11:59 UTC
5 of 8

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.
1 330
Project code: 2024-0098238 06/01/2024 00:11:59 UTC
6 of 8

MAMMALS

NAME STATUS
Buena Vista Lake Ornate 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
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
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
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
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
Endangered
Northwestern Pond Turtle Actinemys marmorata
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1111
Proposed
Threatened

AMPHIBIANS

NAME STATUS
California Tiger Salamander Ambystoma californiense
Population: U.S.A. (Central CA DPS)
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2076
Threatened
Western Spadefoot Spea hammondii
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5425
Proposed
Threatened

INSECTS
331
Project code: 2024-0098238 06/01/2024 00:11:59 UTC
7 of 8

NAME STATUS
Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743
Candidate

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
Threatened

FLOWERING PLANTS

NAME STATUS
Lassics Lupine Lupinus constancei
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/7976
Endangered

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.
332
Project code: 2024-0098238 06/01/2024 00:11:59 UTC
8 of 8

IPAC USER CONTACT INFORMATION
Agency: Private Entity
Name: Jenny McCarthy
Address: 1800 30th Street, Suite 280
City: Bakersfield
State: CA
Zip: 93308
Email [email protected]
Phone: 7073842510
333
Appendices
Appendix D: NRCS WEB SOIL

SURVEY REPORT
334
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
Tulare County,
Western Part,
California
Cameron Creek
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service
May 30, 2024335
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 2 336
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.
3 337
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 Tulare County, Western Part, California..........................................................13 122—Grangeville sandy loam, drained, 0 to 2 percent slopes....................13 References............................................................................................................15 4 338
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 5 339
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
6 340
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
7 341
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. 8 342
9 Custom Soil Resource Report
Soil Map
4019100 4019500 4019900 4020300 4020700 4021100 4021500 4021900 4019100 4019500 4019900 4020300 4020700 4021100 4021500 4021900 296800 297200 297600 298000 298400 298800 299200 299600 300000 300400 300800 301200 296800 297200 297600 298000 298400 298800 299200 299600 300000 300400 300800 301200 36° 19' 18'' N
119° 15' 51'' W
36° 19' 18'' N
119° 12' 48'' W
36° 17' 42'' N
119° 15' 51'' W
36° 17' 42'' N
119° 12' 48'' W
N
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 11N WGS84 0 1000 2000 4000 6000
Feet
0 300 600 1200 1800
Meters
Map Scale: 1:20,900 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet. 343

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.

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: Tulare County, Western Part, California Survey Area Data: Version 17, Aug 31, 2023
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger.

Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Mar 16, 2022—May 30, 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
10 344
Map Unit Legend
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 122 Grangeville sandy loam,
drained, 0 to 2 percent slopes

8.0 100.0%
Totals for Area of Interest 8.0 100.0%
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
11 345
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
12 346
Tulare County, Western Part, California
122—Grangeville sandy loam, drained, 0 to 2 percent slopes Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: hp4s
Elevation: 190 to 400 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 8 to 12 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 63 to 64 degrees F
Frost-free period: 250 to 275 days
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season
Map Unit Composition
Grangeville and similar soils: 90 percent
Minor components: 10 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Grangeville
Setting
Landform: Alluvial fans, flood plains
Landform position (two-dimensional): Footslope, toeslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Base slope
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Convex, linear
Parent material: Alluvium derived from granitic rock sources Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 16 inches: sandy loam
Bg - 16 to 27 inches: sandy loam
2C - 27 to 67 inches: stratified loamy sand to silt loam Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 2 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Somewhat poorly drained
Runoff class: Negligible
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High (2.00 to 6.00 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: Rare
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 5 percent
Gypsum, maximum content: 1 percent
Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum: 4.0
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Moderate (about 6.6 inches) Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 1
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4c
Hydrologic Soil Group: A
Ecological site: R017XY906CA - Non-Alkali San Joaquin Valley Desert Hydric soil rating: Yes
Custom Soil Resource Report
13 347
Minor Components
Tujunga
Percent of map unit: 3 percent
Landform: Flood plains
Ecological site: R017XY904CA - Subirrigated Deep Alluvial Fans Hydric soil rating: No
Yettem
Percent of map unit: 3 percent
Landform: Flood plains, alluvial fans
Ecological site: R017XY904CA - Subirrigated Deep Alluvial Fans Hydric soil rating: No
Grangeville, saline-sodic
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Landform: Alluvial fans, flood plains
Ecological site: R017XY904CA - Subirrigated Deep Alluvial Fans Hydric soil rating: Yes
Hanford
Percent of map unit: 1 percent
Landform: Alluvial fans, flood plains
Ecological site: R017XY904CA - Subirrigated Deep Alluvial Fans Hydric soil rating: No
Nord
Percent of map unit: 1 percent
Landform: Alluvial fans, flood plains
Ecological site: R017XY904CA - Subirrigated Deep Alluvial Fans Hydric soil rating: No
Custom Soil Resource Report
14 348
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 15 349
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
16 350
Appendices
Appendix E: NMFS EFH MAPPER
351
EFH Mapper Report
EFH Data Notice
Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) is defined by textual descriptions contained in the fishery management plans developed by the regional fishery management councils. In most cases mapping data can not fully represent the complexity of the habitats that make up EFH. This report should be used for general interest queries only and should not be interpreted as a definitive evaluation of EFH at this location. A location-specific evaluation of EFH for any official purposes must be performed by a regional expert. Please refer to the following links for the appropriate regional resources.

West Coast Regional Office
EFH
No additional Essential Fish Habitats (EFH) were identified at the report location.

Pacific Salmon EFH
No Pacific Salmon Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) were identified at the report location.

Atlantic Salmon
No Atlantic Salmon were identified at the report location.

HAPCs
No Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC) were identified at the report location.

EFH Areas Protected from Fishing
No EFH Areas Protected from Fishing (EFHA) were identified at the report location.

Spatial data does not currently exist for all the managed species in this area. The following is a list of species or management units for which there is no spatial data. **For links to all EFH text descriptions see the complete data inventory: open data inventory --> Pacific Coastal Pelagic Species,
Jack Mackerel,
Pacific (Chub) Mackerel,
Pacific Sardine,
Northern Anchovy - Central Subpopulation,
Northern Anchovy - Northern Subpopulation,
Pacific Highly Migratory Species,
Bigeye Thresher Shark - North Pacific,
Bluefin Tuna - Pacific,
Dolphinfish (Dorado or Mahimahi) - Pacific,
Pelagic Thresher Shark - North Pacific,
Swordfish - North Pacific
352
Appendices
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 C-1
Appendix C: Class III Inventory/Phase I Survey
353

CLASS III INVENTORY/PHASE I SURVEY,

CAMERON CREEK CHECK STRUCTURE LINEAR

RECHARGE PROJECT,

TULARE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for:

Briza Sholars
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group
455 W. Fir Avenue
Clovis, CA 93611
Prepared by:

Peter A. Carey, M.A., RPA,
Dustin Merrick, M.A., RPA,
and
Sarah Stringer-Bowsher, M.A., RPH
ASM Affiliates
4800 Stockdale Hwy, Ste 405
Bakersfield, CA 93309
September 2024
PN 36510.64
354
355
Table of Contents
Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY......................................................................................... v

1. INTRODUCTION AND REGULATORY CONTEXT...................................... 1

1.1 PROJECT LOCATION ................................................................................................ 1

1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS ...................... 5

1.3 REGULATORY CONTEXT........................................................................................ 6

1.3.1 National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 ................................................... 6

1.3.2 California Environmental Quality Act.................................................................. 7

1.3.3 California Register of Historical Resources Significance Criteria ....................... 8

2. ENVIRONMENTAL AND CULTURAL BACKGROUND............................ 11

2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND AND GEOARCHAEOLOGY ................... 11

2.1.1 Environmental Setting......................................................................................... 11

2.1.2 Geology and Geomorphology............................................................................. 11

2.1.3 Soils..................................................................................................................... 11

2.1.4 Buried Site Sensitivity ........................................................................................ 12

2.2 ETHNOGRAPHIC BACKGROUND ........................................................................ 19

2.3 PRE-CONTACT ARCHAEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND...................................... 20

2.4 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND................................................................................ 23

2.4.1 Tulare Irrigation District ..................................................................................... 24

2.4.2 Cameron Creek.................................................................................................... 26

2.5 ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR WATER CONVEYANCE SYSTEMS.................. 37

3. ARCHIVAL RECORDS AND SACRED LANDS FILE SEARCHES........... 41

3.1 ARCHIVAL RECORDS SEARCH............................................................................ 41

3.2 PREVIOUSLY RECORDED RESOURCE WITHIN THE APES............................ 43 Cameron Creek (P-54-004877).................................................................................... 43 SCE Big Creek Hydroelectric System, East & West 220kV Transmission Line (P-54- 004832) ........................................................................................................................ 43 Wylie Hinds Ranch (P-54-003229).............................................................................. 44

3.3 SACRED LANDS FILE............................................................................................. 44

4. METHODS AND RESULTS............................................................................... 45

4.1 FIELD METHODS..................................................................................................... 45

4.2 SURVEY RESULTS .................................................................................................. 45

4.2.1 Built Environment Results.................................................................................. 45

4.2.2 Archaeological Results........................................................................................ 51

5. SUMMARY, EVALUATION, ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................... 53

5.1 EVALUATION........................................................................................................... 53

5.2 ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS ................................................................................... 56

5.3 RECOMMENDATIONs............................................................................................. 57 356
Table of Contents
ii ASM Affiliates
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 59

CONFIDENTIAL APPENDICES
Appendix A: Construction Drawings
Confidential Appendix B: Records Search and Sacred Lands File Searches Confidential Appendix C: DPR Forms
Confidential Appendix D: Friant-Kern Canal evaluation and SHPO concurrence

LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1. APE locations of the three segments and measurement locations, Tulare County, California. ................................................................................... 3 Figure 2. APE locations of the three segments included in the Project, Tulare County, California. ............................................................................................... 4 Figure 3. Geological Overview of the APE. ...................................................................... 13 Figure 4a. Buried Site Sensitivity of the APE. .................................................................... 14 Figure 4b. Buried Site Sensitivity of the APE. .................................................................... 15 Figure 4c. Buried Site Sensitivity of the APE. .................................................................... 16 Figure 4d. Buried Site Sensitivity of the APE. .................................................................... 17 Figure 4e. Buried Site Sensitivity of the APE. .................................................................... 18 Figure 5. A 1929 location and boundary map of irrigation districts in Tulare and lower Kings counties. Source: Adams 1929, Plate XXVI. .............................. 29 Figure 6. Tulare Irrigation District service area map, 2022. .......................................... 30 Figure 7. An 1885 irrigation map that also identifies the alignment of the Kaweah River, St. Johns Channel, associated creeks, and canals, including Cameron Creek. Source: Hammond 1885. ....................................................... 31 Figure 8. Excerpt from 1892 atlas map for T18S R25E that identifies the alignment of Cameron Creek. Source: Thompson 1892a. .............................. 32 Figure 9. Excerpt from 1892 atlas map for T19S R25E that identifies the alignment of Cameron Creek and the TID Canal. Source: Thompson 1892b. ................................................................................................................... 33 Figure 10. An excerpt from a 1926 USGS topographical map that identifies the alignment of Cameron Creek and the TID Canal. Source: USGS 1926. ....... 34 Figure 11. An excerpt from a 1950 USGS topographical map that identifies the alignment of Cameron Creek and the TID Canal. Source: USGS 1950. ....... 35 Figure 12. A 1956 aerial photograph that identifies the alignment of Cameron Creek and the TID Canal. Source: USDA 1956. .............................................. 36 Figure 13. Lovers Check APE segment of Cameron Creek, facing west. ........................ 46 Figure 14. Rector Check APE segment of Cameron Creek, facing southwest. ............... 47 Figure 15. Measurement Check APE segment of Cameron Creek, facing north, northeast. ............................................................................................................. 48 Figure 16. County Bridge at Road 148, facing northeast. ................................................. 49 Figure 17. Transmission Corridor (P-54-004832), facing south, southeast. .................... 50 Figure 18. TID Turnout, facing north, northwest. ............................................................. 51 357
Table of Contents
Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project iii

LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1. Previous Reports ................................................................................................. 41 Table 2. Previously Recorded Resources ......................................................................... 42 358
359
Management Summary
Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project v

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
An intensive Class III cultural resources inventory/Phase I survey was conducted for the Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project (Project), Tulare County, California. The Project is within Tulare County, approximately 6 to 8 miles (mi.) east of the incorporated city of Tulare.

This places the Project on the open flats of the San Joaquin Valley. Specifically, the Project is within Section 36, Township 19 South, Range 25 East (T19S/R25E) and Sections 2 and 3 T18S/R25E, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian (MDBM), as depicted on the Visalia and Exeter topographic maps. The proposed Project site consists of water conveyance features and agricultural fields adjacent to unpaved and paved roads. The Area of Potential Effect (APE) for the Project is approximately 16.1 acres (ac.). This includes all construction staging and access areas needed for construction equipment. The vertical APE, defined as the maximum depth of excavation for the Project, is 3 ft. (ft.)
ASM Affiliates (ASM) conducted this study, with Director Peter A. Carey, M.A., RPA, serving as principal investigator. Senior Archaeologist Dustin Merrick, M.A., RPA was a contributing author of this report. Sarah Stringer-Bowsher, M.A., RPH, prepared the site-specific history and completed the evaluation and assessment of impacts for the built resources. The study was undertaken to assist with compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended, and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

To determine whether the Project APE had been previously surveyed for cultural resources, and/or whether any such resources were known to exist within or near to it, staff of the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center (SSJVIC) conducted an archival records search on June 10 24, 2024. According to the SSJVIC, three previous studies (TU-01383, TU-01690, TU-1966) have been conducted within the Project APE. Approximately five percent of the Project APE has been previously studied. An additional 12 previous studies were identified within the 0.5-mi. buffer.

The SSJVIC data identified three previously recorded cultural resources (P-54-003229, P-54- 004832, and P-54-004877) within the APE. An additional 13 previously recorded cultural resources were identified within 0.5 mi. of the Project APE. The closest of these resources is less than 0.1 mi. from the Project APE.

As part of the CEQA process, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was contacted to request a list of Tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the Project APE, as well as a Sacred Lands File (SLF). On June 10, 2024, the NAHC responded with negative SLF results and 21 Tribal contacts from 11 Tribes. Outreach letters were mailed and emailed to all listed Tribes on July 29, 2024. No responses were received.

The Class III inventory/Phase I survey fieldwork was conducted on July 30, 2024, with parallel transects spaced at maximum 15-meter (m) intervals walked throughout the Project APE. Much of the Project APE appears to have been disturbed to create the extant water conveyance features and roads. Due to the previous disturbances, ground surface visibility within the APE was excellent (greater than 95 percent) except for the portions of the water conveyance features that were filled with water for the Class III inventory/Phase I survey. Soils consisted of tan to brown sandy loam throughout the Project APE. Non-native vegetation inhibited visibility. Modern refuse including 360
Management Summary
vi ASM Affiliates
plastic buckets, milled lumber, plastic sheeting, concrete fragments, and a mattress were observed.

No archaeological resources of any kind were identified within the Project APE.

The APE includes three segments of Cameron Creek, which functions as part of Tulare Irrigation District’s system as well as other irrigation districts. The entire Tulare Irrigation District has not been recorded or evaluated, which includes Cameron Creek, but it is clear that the Tulare Irrigation District system is critical to agricultural and community development in Tulare County. Therefore, for the purposes of this Project, ASM recommends that the segments of Cameron Creek (P-54- 004877) within the APE are assumed eligible for listing in the NRHP/CRHR under Criteria A/1 for association with significant local historical events, namely the development of agriculture and population growth in Tulare County.

As a result of the physical effects and impacts to the segments of the segments of Cameron Creek within the three APEs, ASM recommends a finding of no adverse effect under Section 106 of the NHPA and less-than-significant impact under CEQA. It is further recommended that, in the unlikely event that cultural resources are identified during Project construction, work be halted within a 100-ft. radius of the find and a qualified archaeologist be contacted to evaluate the newly discovered resource. Appropriate project conditions and mitigation measures should be adopted by the lead agency to reduce those impacts to less-than-significant. 361

1. Introduction and Regulatory Context
Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project 1

1. INTRODUCTION AND REGULATORY CONTEXT
ASM Affiliates (ASM) was retained by the Provost and Pritchard Consulting Group to conduct an intensive Class III inventory/Phase I survey for the Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project (Project), located approximately 6 to 8 miles (mi.) east of the City of Tulare, Tulare County, California (Figure 1). The study was undertaken to assist with compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended, and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The investigation was conducted, specifically, to ensure that significant impacts or adverse effects to historic properties or historical resources do not occur as a result of Project construction.

This study included:
• A background records search and literature review to determine if any known cultural resources were present in the Project zone and/or whether the area had been previously and systematically studied by archaeologists;
• An on-foot, intensive inventory of the Project site to identify and record previously undiscovered cultural resources and to examine known sites; and • A preliminary assessment of any such resources found within the subject property.

Peter A. Carey, M.A., RPA, served as principal investigator, and ASM Assistant Archaeologist Daniel Ware, B.A., conducted the fieldwork. Dustin Merrick, M.A., RPA, was a contributing author of this report. Sarah Stringer-Bowsher, M.A., RPH, prepared the site-specific history, and completed the evaluation and assessment of impacts for the built resources.

This document constitutes a report on the Class III inventory/Phase I survey. Subsequent chapters provide background to the investigation, including historic context studies; the findings of the archival records search; a summary of the field surveying techniques employed; and the results of the fieldwork. We conclude with management recommendations for the Project.

1.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The Project is within Tulare County, approximately 6 to 8 miles (mi.) east of the City of Tulare.

The Project sites are on Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 158-040-019 and 158-040-004. This places the Project on the open flats of the San Joaquin Valley. Specifically, the Project is within Section 36, Township 19 South, Range 25 East (T19S/R25E) and Sections 2 and 3 (T18S/R25E), Mount Diablo Base and Meridian (MDBM), as depicted on the Visalia and Exeter topographic maps. The proposed Project site consists of water conveyance features adjacent to unpaved and paved roads.

Elevations within the Project area, which is mostly flat, range from 335 ft. (ft.) above mean sea level (amsl) to 360 ft. amsl.
362
363

1. Introduction and Regulatory Context
Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project 3 Figure 1. APE locations of the three segments and measurement locations, Tulare County, California. 364

1. Introduction and Regulatory Context
4 ASM Affiliates
Figure 2. APE locations of the three segments included in the Project, Tulare County, California. 365

1. Introduction and Regulatory Context
Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project 5

1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND AREA OF POTENTIAL

EFFECTS
Project Background and Purpose
The City of Visalia (City) is looking to construct new check structures in Cameron Creek to utilize the Creek as a linear recharge facility. The proposed Project’s goal is to increase groundwater recharge through linear water pools that will percolate over time to recharge the groundwater aquifer in the vicinity of the City limits.

This proposed Project was conceived through a cooperative program for groundwater management between the City of Visalia, Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District (KDWCD), and Tulare Irrigation District (TID). The proposed Project was further refined through a reconnaissance study conducted in 2010. The study included a pool capacity analysis that was performed on several sections within Cameron Creek. This study has guided some of the check structure location, however, through coordination with KDWCD and TID, the potential check structure locations were selected based upon access and operability.

The proposed Project is being funded by the California Department of Water Resources through the Sustainable Groundwater Management Grant program.

Project Description
The proposed Project proposes to construct up to three (3) reinforced concrete check structure facilities within Cameron Creek. All check structures would be equipped with automatic gates capable of passing high flows (250 cfs) while maintaining high water levels in the channel making Cameron Creek a linear recharge basin. The three intermittent sections of Cameron Creek that are included in the proposed Project begin at the Cameron Creek diversion from Tulare Irrigation District’s Main Intake Canal (MIC) east of Road 156 and end at the intersection of Lovers Lane and Caldwell Avenue.

For each of the three check structures, it is anticipated that excavation in the creek channel and embankment would reach approximately 65 ft. horizontally at a depth of about 10 ft. from channel top (excavation from channel bottom will likely be only 2–3 ft.). Excavation for construction would only be the amount necessary for constructing the structures. Once completed, excavated soil would be backfilled around the structure and the channel prism re-graded to match existing conditions. No material export is anticipated, and earthwork will be balanced on site. The proposed Measurement Check APE does not include the Main Intake Canal.

The Area of Potential Effect (APE) for the Project site is approximately 16.1 acres (ac.). This includes all construction staging and access areas needed for construction equipment. The vertical APE, defined as the maximum depth of excavation for the check structures, is not expected to exceed 3 ft. Construction drawings for both locations are available in Appendix A 366

1. Introduction and Regulatory Context
6 ASM Affiliates

1.3 REGULATORY CONTEXT

1.3.1 National Historic Preservation Act Section 106
NHPA Section 106 is applicable to federal undertakings, including Projects financed or permitted by federal agencies regardless of whether the activities occur on federally managed or privately owned land. Its purpose is to determine whether adverse effects will occur to significant cultural resources, defined as “historical properties” that are listed in or determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The criteria for NRHP eligibility are defined at 36 CFR § 60.4 as follows:

The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and that:
(A) are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or
(B) are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or (C) embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or
(D) have yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

There are, however, restrictions on the kinds of historical properties that can be NRHP listed.

These have been identified by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), as follows:

Ordinarily cemeteries, birthplaces, or graves of historical figures, properties owned by religious institutions or used for religious purposes, structures that have been moved from their original locations, reconstructed historic buildings, properties primarily commemorative in nature, and properties that have achieved significance within the past 50 years shall not be considered eligible for the National Register. However, such properties will qualify if they are integral parts of districts that do meet the criteria or if they fall within the following categories:
(a) A religious property deriving primary significance from architectural or artistic distinction or historical importance; or
(b) A building or structure removed from its original location but which is significant primarily for architectural value, or which is the surviving structure most importantly associated with a historic person or event; or
(c) A birthplace or grave of a historical figure of outstanding importance if there is no appropriate site or building directly associated with his productive life. 367

1. Introduction and Regulatory Context
Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project 7 (d) A cemetery which derives its primary significance from graves of persons of transcendent importance, from age, from distinctive design features, or from association with historic events; or
(e) A reconstructed building when accurately executed in a suitable environment and presented in a dignified manner as part of a restoration master plan, and when no other building or structure with the same association has survived; or (f) A property primarily commemorative in intent if design, age, tradition, or symbolic value has invested it with its own exceptional significance; or (g) A property achieving significance within the past 50 years if it is of exceptional importance. (ACHP n.d.)
Integrity
A site must have integrity and meet one of the four criteria of eligibility to demonstrate its historic associations in order to convey its significance. A property must be associated with one or more events important in history or prehistory to be considered for listing under Criterion A.

Additionally, the specific association of the property itself must also be considered significant.

Criterion B applies to properties associated with individuals whose specific contributions to history can be identified and documented. Properties significant for their physical design or construction under Criterion C must have features with characteristics that exemplify such elements as architecture, landscape architecture, engineering, and artwork. Criterion D most commonly applies to properties that have the potential to answer, in whole or in part, important research questions about human history that can only be answered by the actual physical materials of cultural resources. A property eligible under Criterion D must demonstrate the potential to contain information relevant to the prehistory and history (National Register Bulletin 15).

A district, site, building, structure, or object may also be eligible for consideration as a historic property if that property meets the criteria considerations for properties generally less than 50 years old, in addition to possessing integrity and meeting the criteria for evaluation.

1.3.2 California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA is applicable to discretionary actions by state or local lead agencies. Under CEQA, lead agencies must analyze impacts to cultural resources. Significant impacts under CEQA occur when “historically significant” or “unique” cultural resources are adversely affected, which occurs when such resources could be altered or destroyed through Project implementation. Historically significant cultural resources are defined by eligibility for or by listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). In practice, the federal NRHP criteria (below) for significance applied under Section 106 are generally (although not entirely) consistent with CRHR criteria (see PRC § 5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4852 and § 15064.5(a)(3)).

CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 defines historical resources as:
368

1. Introduction and Regulatory Context
8 ASM Affiliates

1. A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission, for listing in the CRHR (Pub. Res. Code § 5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 14 CCR, Section 4850 et seq.).

2. A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or identified as significant in an historical resource survey meeting the requirements section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, shall be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant.

3. Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California may be considered to be an historical resource, provided the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing in the CRHR (Pub.

Res. Code, § 5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 14 CCR, Section 4852)

4. The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in the CRHR, not included in a local register of historical resources (pursuant to section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code), or identified in an historical resources survey (meeting the criteria in section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be an historical resource as defined in Public Resources Code sections 5020.1(j) or 5024.1.

Unique resources under CEQA are those that represent:

An archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria:
(1) Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information. (2) Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type.
(3) Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person (PRC § 21083.2(g)).

Preservation in place is the preferred approach under CEQA to mitigating adverse impacts to significant or unique cultural resources.

1.3.3 California Register of Historical Resources Significance Criteria The CRHR program encourages public recognition and protection of resources of architectural, historical, archeological, and cultural significance, identifies historical resources for state and local 369

1. Introduction and Regulatory Context
Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project 9 planning purposes, determines eligibility for state historic preservation grant funding and affords certain protections under CEQA. The criteria established for eligibility for the CRHR are directly comparable to the NRHP criteria.

To be eligible for listing in the CRHR, a resource must satisfy at least one of the following four criteria:

1. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States.

2. It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history.

3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values.

4. It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.

Historical resources eligible for listing in the CRHR must meet at least one of the criteria of significance described above and retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as historical resources and to convey the reasons for their significance. For the purposes of eligibility for CRHR, integrity is defined as “the authenticity of an historical resource’s physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during the resource’s period of significance” (California Office of Historic Preservation 2001). This general definition is strengthened by the more specific definition offered by the NRHP—the criteria and guidelines on which the CRHR criteria and guidelines are based upon. In 2012, the California Office of Historic Preservation clarified that the intent of the CRHR regulations is to be the same as the NRHP (California Department of Transportation 2012).

1. 370
371

2. Environmental and Cultural Background
Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project 11

2. ENVIRONMENTAL AND CULTURAL

BACKGROUND

2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND AND

GEOARCHAEOLOGY

2.1.1 Environmental Setting
The Project area is directly south of the city of Visalia, California, in the eastern portion of the San Joaquin Valley. Bisected by Cameron Creek, the APE includes three segments: 1) Lovers Check Segment, 2) Rector Check Segment, and 3) Measurement Check Segment (Figure 1). These segments are located within three miles of each other and are associated with alluvial fans and floodplain deposits. The average elevation of the APE is approximately 331 ft. (ft.) above sea level with slopes ranging from zero to two percent. Bisected by Cameron Creek, the APE consists of the active channel and adjacent agricultural fields that flank the channel. As outlined below, soils in the Project area formed between the Historic era/modern times (<150 years before present [YBP]) and the late Holocene (4000–2000 YBP).

2.1.2 Geology and Geomorphology
The San Joaquin Valley consists of an asymmetric structural trough that is bounded to the west by the Coast Range, and to the east by the Sierra Nevada Range. As exhibited in Figure 3, the APE is in the eastern portion of the valley and is marked by extensive deposits of Quaternary alluvium.

Great alluvial fans originating from the Sierra Nevada Range flank the eastern portion of the valley, delivering particles of granite, schist, quartzite, and other minerals eroded by glaciers and fluvial processes (Arroues et al. 2020:04). Post Euro-American developments including agricultural expansion, channelization, and levee construction have caused dramatic landscape changes in the San Joaquin Valley (Klingler and Dalldorf 2023:03). As discussed below, the soils mapped in the APE exhibit a fair degree of surface disturbance due to agricultural activities, which could obscure archaeological visibility at the surface.

2.1.3 Soils
Soils in the APE were identified through the US Department of Agriculture’s National Resource Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS 2019) Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) soil data. Soils in the APE consist of alluvial deposits ranging in age from Historic era/modern (<150 YBP) to the late Holocene (4000–2000 YBP). The dates provided below originate from Meyer et al. (2010:

Appendix C). Soil types accounting for less than three percent of the APE were not included. Soil map are as follows:
• Grangeville; (Latest Holocene; 2000–1000 YBP);
• Tujunga; (Historic era to modern; <150 YBP);
• Yettem; (Late Holocene; 4000–2000 YBP);
372

2. Environmental and Cultural Background
12 ASM Affiliates
Soils in the APE consist of young to very young soils formed in alluvium derived from granite sources. The Grangeville soil series, which accounts for 90 percent of the study area, is marked by Ap1/Ap2 horizons that extend to a depth of 41 centimeters below surface (cmbs) (USDA-NRCS 2019). An Ap horizon is defined as a layer of soil that parallels the earth’s surface, and is denoted by anthropogenic disturbances (e.g., agricultural ploughing). In short, soils that flank Cameron Creek are young and marked by recent disturbance via agricultural activities.

2.1.4 Buried Site Sensitivity
Traditional methods used to locate precontact sites (i.e., pedestrian survey, shovel scrapes) are not capable of detecting buried archaeological deposits because their scope of investigation is limited to the surface of selected landforms. In the Project APE, the majority of soils at the surface belong to the Grangeville series, which formed during the latest Holocene (2000–1000 YBP). As such, cultural materials pre-dating the latest Holocene are unlikely to be represented at the surface. In addition, the upper 41 cmbs of the APE exhibits Ap1/Ap2 soil horizons, which denotes a fair degree of disturbance at/near the surface. This indicates that the surface of the APE does not necessarily reflect the deposits that extend into the lower portions of the vertical APE.

Based on these data, the Project APE is mapped as having high buried site sensitivity, with limited archaeological visibility at or near the surface (Figures 4a through 4e). Construction activities in the active channel are less likely to impact archaeological deposits because of the active nature of the channel. However, the deposits on either side of the channel have high buried site potential.

As stated above, the Project would be constructed within the canal channel and embankments.

Therefore, the disturbance of buried archaeological deposits during Project activities is considered unlikely.
373

2. Environmental and Cultural Background
Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project 13 Figure 3. Geological Overview of the APE.
374

2. Environmental and Cultural Background
14 ASM Affiliates
Figure 4a. Buried Site Sensitivity of the APE.
375

2. Environmental and Cultural Background
Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project 15 Figure 4b. Buried Site Sensitivity of the APE.
376

2. Environmental and Cultural Background
16 ASM Affiliates
Figure 4c. Buried Site Sensitivity of the APE.
377

2. Environmental and Cultural Background
Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project 17 Figure 4d. Buried Site Sensitivity of the APE.
378

2. Environmental and Cultural Background
18 ASM Affiliates
Figure 4e. Buried Site Sensitivity of the APE.
379

2. Environmental and Cultural Background
Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project 19

2.2 ETHNOGRAPHIC BACKGROUND
Penutian-speaking Yokuts tribal groups occupied the southern San Joaquin Valley region and much of the nearby Sierra Nevada. Ethnographic information about the Yokuts was collected primarily by Powers (1971, 1976 [originally 1877]), Kroeber (1925), Gayton (1930, 1948), Driver (1937), and Harrington (n.d.). For a variety of historical reasons, existing research information emphasizes the central Yokuts tribes which occupied both the valley and particularly the foot.hills of the Sierra Nevada. The northernmost tribes suffered from the influx of Euro Americans during the Gold Rush and their populations were in substantial decline by the time ethnographic studies began in the early twentieth century. In contrast, the southernmost tribes were partially removed by the Spanish to missions and eventually absorbed into multi-tribal communities on the Sebastian Indian Reservation (on Tejon Ranch), and later the Tule River Reservation and Santa Rosa Rancheria to the north. The result is a scarcity of ethnographic detail on southern Valley tribes, especially in relation to the rich information collected from the central foothills tribes where native speakers of the Yokuts dialects are still found. Regardless, the general details of indigenous lifeways were similar across the broad expanse of Yokuts territory, particularly in terms of environmentally influenced subsistence and adaptation and with regard to religion and belief, which were similar everywhere.

Following Kroeber (1925: Plate 47), the City of Visalia region lies in a contact zone between a series of Yokuts tribal groups. Kroeber places the Chunut to the south of the Project APE, along Tulare Lake, the Choinok to the southeast, Wolasi to the northeast along Cameron Creek, and the Telamni further north, near Visalia. No historic villages are recorded in the immediate Project area by Kroeber (1925).

The Yokuts settlement pattern was largely consistent, regardless of specific tribe involved. Winter villages were typically located along lakeshores and major stream courses (as these existed circa 150 YBP), with dispersal phase family camps at elevated spots on the valley floor and near gathering areas in the foothills.

Most Yokuts groups, again regardless of specific tribal affiliation, were organized as a recognized and distinct tribelet, a circumstance that almost certainly pertained to the tribal groups noted above.

Tribelets were land-owning groups organized around a central village and linked by shared territory and descent from a common ancestor. The population of most tribelets ranged from about 150 to 500 people (Kroeber 1925).

Each tribelet was headed by a chief who was aided by a variety of assistants, the most important of whom was the winatum, a herald or messenger and assistant chief. A shaman also served as religious officer. While shamans did not have any direct political authority, as Gayton (1930) has illustrated, they maintained substantial influence within their tribelet.

Shamanism is a religious system common to many Native American tribes. It involves a direct and personal relationship between the individual and the supernatural world enacted by entering a trance or hallucinatory state (usually through the ingestion of psychotropic plants, such as jimsonweed or more typically native tobacco). Shamans were considered individuals with an unusual degree of supernatural power, serving as healers or curers, diviners, and controllers of 380

2. Environmental and Cultural Background
20 ASM Affiliates
natural phenomena (such as rain or thunder). Shamans also produced the rock art of this region, depicting the visions they experienced in vision quests believed to represent their spirit helpers and events in the supernatural realm (Whitley 1992, 2000).

The centrality of shamanism to the religious and spiritual life of the Yokuts was demonstrated by the role of shamans in the yearly ceremonial round. The ritual round, performed the same way each year, started in the spring with the jimsonweed ceremony, followed by rattlesnake dance and (where appropriate) first salmon ceremony. After returning from seed camps, fall rituals began in the late summer with the mourning ceremony, followed by first seed and acorn rites, and then bear dance (Gayton 1930:379). In each case, shamans served as ceremonial officials responsible for specific dances involving a display of their supernatural powers (Kroeber 1925).

Subsistence practices varied from tribelet to tribelet based on the environment of residence.

Throughout Native California, and Yokuts territory in general, the acorn was a primary dietary component, along with a variety of gathered seeds. Valley tribes augmented this resource with lacustrine and riverine foods, especially fish and wildfowl. As with many Native California tribes, the settlement and subsistence rounds included the winter aggregation into a few large villages, where stored resources (like acorns) served as staples, followed by dispersal into smaller camps, often occupied by extended families, where seasonally available resources would be gathered and consumed.

Although population estimates vary and population size was greatly affected by the introduction of Euro-American diseases and social disruption, the Yokuts were one of the largest, most successful groups in Native California. Cook (1978) estimates that the Yokuts region contained 27 percent of the aboriginal population in the state at the time of contact; other estimates are even higher. Many Yokuts people continue to reside in the southern San Joaquin Valley today.

2.3 PRE-CONTACT ARCHAEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND
The southern San Joaquin Valley region has received minimal archaeological attention compared to other areas of the state. In part, this is because the majority of California archaeological work has been concentrated in the Sacramento Delta, Santa Barbara Channel, and central Mojave Desert areas (see Moratto 1984). Although knowledge of the region’s prehistory is limited, enough is known to determine that the archaeological record is broadly similar to south-central California as a whole (see Gifford and Schenk 1926; Hewes 1941; Wedel 1941; Fenenga 1952; Elsasser 1962; Fredrickson and Grossman 1977; Schiffman and Garfinkel 1981). Based on these sources, the general prehistory of the region can be outlined as follows.

Initial occupation of the region occurred at least as early as the Paleoindian Period, or prior to about 10,000 YBP. Evidence of early use of the region is indicated by characteristic fluted and stemmed points found around the margin of Tulare Lake, in the foothills of the Sierra, and in the Mojave Desert proper.

Both fluted and stemmed points are particularly common around lake margins, suggesting a terminal Pleistocene/early Holocene lakeshore adaptation similar to that found throughout western North America at the same time; little else is known about these earliest peoples. More than 250 381

2. Environmental and Cultural Background
Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project 21 fluted points have been recovered from the Witt Site (CA-KIN-32), located along the western shoreline of ancient Tulare Lake, west of the Project APE, demonstrating the importance of this early occupation in the San Joaquin Valley (see Fenenga 1993). Additional finds consist of a Clovis-like projectile point discovered in a flashflood cut-bank near White Oak Lodge in 1953 on Tejon Ranch (Glennan 1987a, 1987b). More recently, a similar fluted point was found near Bakersfield (Zimmerman et al. 1989), and a number are known from the Edwards Air Force Base and Boron area of the western Mojave Desert. Although human occupation of the state is wellestablished during the Late Pleistocene, relatively little can be inferred about the nature and distribution of this occupation with a few exceptions. First, little evidence exists to support the idea that people at that time were big-game hunters similar to those found on the Great Plains.

Second, the western Mojave Desert evidence suggests small, very mobile populations that left a minimal archaeological signature. The evidence from the ancient Tulare Lake shore, in contrast, suggests much more substantial population and settlements which, instead of relying on big-game hunting, were tied to the lacustrine lake edge. Variability in subsistence and settlement patterns is thus apparent in California, in contrast to the Great Plains.

Substantial evidence for human occupation across California, however, first occurs during the middle Holocene, roughly 7500 to 4000 YBP. This period is known as the Early Horizon, or alternatively as the Early Millingstone, along the Santa Barbara Channel. In the south, populations concentrated along the coast with minimal visible use of inland areas. Adaptation emphasized hard seeds and nuts with toolkits dominated by mullers and grindstones (manos and metates).

Additionally, little evidence for Early Horizon occupation exists in most inland portions of the state, partly due to a severe cold and dry paleoclimatic period occurring at this time, although a site deposit dating to this age has been identified along the ancient Buena Vista shoreline in Kern County to the south (Rosenthal et al. 2007). Regardless of specifics, Early Horizon population density was low with a subsistence adaptation more likely tied to plant food gathering than hunting.

Environmental conditions improved dramatically after about 4000 YBP during the Middle Horizon (or Intermediate Period). This period is known climatically as the Holocene Maximum (circa 3800 YBP) and was characterized by significantly warmer and wetter conditions than previously experienced. It was marked archaeologically by large population increase and radiation into new environments along coastal and interior south-central California and the Mojave Desert (Whitley 2000). In the Delta region to the north, this same period of favorable environmental conditions was characterized by the appearance of the Windmiller culture which exhibited a high degree of ritual elaboration (especially in burial practices) and perhaps even a rudimentary mound-building tradition (Meighan, personal communication, 1985). Along with ritual elaboration, Middle Horizon times experienced increasing subsistence specialization, perhaps correlating with the appearance of acorn processing technology. Penutian speaking peoples (including the Yokuts) are also posited to have entered the state roughly at the beginning of this period and, perhaps, to have brought this technology with them (cf. Moratto 1984). Likewise, it appears the so-called “Shoshonean Wedge” in southern California, the Takic-speaking groups that include the Gabrielino/Fernandeño, Tataviam, and Kitanemuk, may have moved into the region at that time (Sutton 2009), rather than at about 1500 YBP as first suggested by Kroeber (1925).

Evidence for Middle Horizon occupation of interior south-central California is substantial. For example, in northern Los Angeles County along the upper Santa Clara River, to the south of the 382

2. Environmental and Cultural Background
22 ASM Affiliates
San Joaquin Valley, the Agua Dulce village complex indicates occupation extending back to the Intermediate Period, when the population of the village may have been 50 or more people (King et al. n.d.). Similarly, inhabitation of the Hathaway Ranch region, near Lake Piru, and the Newhall Ranch, near Valencia, appears to date to the Intermediate Period (W&S Consultants 1994). To the west, little or no evidence exists for pre-Middle Horizon occupation in the upper Sisquoc and Cuyama River drainages; populations first appear there at roughly 3500 YBP (Horne 1981). The Carrizo Plain, the valley immediately west of the San Joaquin, experienced a major population expansion during the Middle Horizon (W&S Consultants 2004; Whitley et al. 2007), and recently collected data indicates the Tehachapi Mountains region was first significantly occupied during the Middle Horizon (W&S Consultants 2006). A parallel can be drawn to the inland Ventura County region where a similar pattern has been identified (Whitley and Beaudry 1991), as well as the western Mojave Desert (Sutton 1988a, 1988b), the southern Sierra Nevada (W&S Consultants 1999), and the Coso Range region (Whitley et al. 1988). In all of these areas a major expansion in settlement, the establishment of large site complexes and an increase in the range of environments exploited appear to have occurred sometime roughly around 4,000 YBP. Although most efforts to explain this expansion have focused on local circumstances and events, it is increasingly apparent this was a major occurrence throughout southern California, and any explanation must be sought at a larger level of analysis (Whitley 2000). Additionally, evidence from the Carrizo Plain suggests the origins of the tribelet level of political organization developed during this period (W&S Consultants 2004; Whitley et al. 2007). Whether this same demographic process holds for the southern San Joaquin Valley, including the current Project APE, is yet to be determined.

The beginning of the Late Horizon is set variously at 1500 and 800 YBP, with a growing archaeological consensus for the shorter chronology. Increasing evidence suggests the importance of the Middle-Late Horizons transition (AD 800 to 1200) in the understanding of south-central California prehistory. This corresponds to the so-called Medieval Climatic Anomaly, followed by the Little Ice Age, and this general period of climatic instability extended to about AD 1860. It included major droughts matched by intermittent “mega-floods,” and resulted in demographic disturbances across much of western North American (Jones et al. 1999). It is believed to have resulted in major population decline and abandonments across south-central California, involving as much as 90 percent of the interior populations in some regions, including the Carrizo Plain (Whitley et al. 2007). It is not clear whether site abandonment was accompanied by a true reduction in population or an agglomeration of the same numbers of people into fewer but larger villages in more favorable locations. Population along the Santa Barbara coast appears to have spiked at about the same time that it collapsed on the Carrizo Plain (Whitley et al. 2007). Along Buena Vista Lake, in Kern County, population appears to have been increasingly concentrated toward the later end of the Medieval Climatic Anomaly (Culleton 2006), and population intensification also appears to have occurred in the well-watered Tehachapi Mountains during this same period (W&S Consultants 2006).

What is clear is that Middle Period villages and settlements were widely dispersed across the southcentral California landscape, including in the Sierra Nevada and the Mojave Desert. Many of these sites are found at locations that lack existing or historically known fresh water sources. Late Horizon sites, in contrast, are typically concentrated in areas where fresh water was available during the historical period, if not currently.
383

2. Environmental and Cultural Background
Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project 23 One extensively studied site that shows evidence of intensive occupation during the Middle-Late Horizons transition (~1500-500 YBP) is the Redtfeldt Mound (CA-KIN-66/H), located west of the current Project APE, near the north shore of ancient Tulare Lake. There, Siefkin (1999) reported on human burials and a host of artifacts and ecofacts excavated from a modest-sized mound. He found that both Middle Horizon and Middle-Late Horizons transition occupations were more intensive than Late Horizon occupations, which were sporadic and less intensive (Siefkin 1999:110-111).

The Late Horizon can then be understood as a period of recovery from a major demographic collapse. One result is the development of regional archaeological cultures as the precursors to ethnographic Native California, suggesting that ethnographic lifeways recorded by anthropologists extend roughly 800 years into the past.

The position of southern San Joaquin Valley prehistory relative to patterns seen in surrounding areas is still somewhat unknown. The presence of large lake systems in the valley bottoms appears to have mediated some of the desiccation seen elsewhere. But, as the reconstruction of Soda Lake in the nearby Carrizo Plain demonstrates (see Whitley et al. 2007) environmental perturbations had serious impacts on lake systems too. Identifying certain prehistoric demographic trends for the southern San Joaquin Valley, and determining how these trends (if present) correlate with those seen elsewhere, is a current important research objective.

2.4 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
Spanish explorers first visited the San Joaquin Valley in 1772, but its lengthy distance from the missions and presidios along the Pacific Coast delayed permanent settlement for many years, including during the Mexican period of control over the Californian region. In the 1840s, Mexican rancho owners along the Pacific Coast allowed their cattle to wander and graze in the San Joaquin Valley (JRP Historical Consulting 2009). The Mexican government granted the first ranchos in the southern part of the San Joaquin Valley in the early 1840s, but these did not result in permanent settlement. It was not until the annexation of California in 1848 that the exploitation of the southern San Joaquin Valley began (Pacific Legacy 2006).

The discovery of gold in northern California in 1848 resulted in a dramatic increase of population, consisting in good part of fortune seekers and gold miners, who began to scour other parts of the state. After 1851, when gold was discovered in the Sierra Nevada Mountains in eastern Kern County, the population of the area grew rapidly. Some new immigrants began ranching in the San Joaquin Valley to supply the miners and mining towns. Ranchers grazed cattle and sheep, and farmers dry-farmed or used limited irrigation to grow grain crops, leading to the creation of small agricultural communities throughout the valley (JRP Historical Consulting 2009).

After the American annexation of California, the southern San Joaquin Valley became significant as a center of food production for this new influx of people in California. The expansive unfenced and principally public foothill spaces were well suited for grazing both sheep and cattle. As the Sierra Nevada gold rush presented extensive financial opportunities, ranchers introduced new breeds of livestock, consisting of cattle, sheep, and pig (Boyd 1997). 384

2. Environmental and Cultural Background
24 ASM Affiliates
With the increase of ranching in the southern San Joaquin Valley came the dramatic change in the landscape, as ranchers replaced native flora with non-native grasses that were more beneficial for grazing and pasture (Preston 1981). After the passing of Swamp Land Act, also known as the Arkansas Act, in 1850, farming began incrementally supplanting ranching as a more profitable enterprise as large tracts of land began to be reclaimed for agricultural use, aided in part by the extension of the railroad in the 1870s (Pacific Legacy 2006).

The Santa Fe and Southern Pacific Railroads extended into Tulare County in the 1870s.

Deliberations among the major owners of the rail companies resulted in a decision that one large town would be developed in the approximate middle of each San Joaquin Valley county, to serve as county seat and railroad hub. The location of the City of Tulare was one such selected spot, placed at the intersection of the Santa Fe and Southern Pacific railroads (Preston 1981). Prior to that time, this area had relatively few settlers due to the lack of surface water, with most Euro Americans settling either farther north and east, closer to the main branches of the Kaweah and Kings Rivers, or to the south and east, along the Tule River (Menafee and Dodge 1913). Irrigation in Tulare County1
began in 1872 (Menafee and Dodge 1913:192).

Following the passage of the federal Homestead Act 1862 and the statewide “No-Fence” law in 1874, ranching practices began to decline, while farming expanded in the San Joaquin Valley in both large land holdings and smaller, subdivided properties (Robinson 1948). As the farming population grew, so did the demand for irrigation. During the period of reclaiming unproductive land in the southern San Joaquin Valley, grants were given to individuals who had both the resources and the finances to undertake the operation alone.

Three competing partnerships developed during this period which had a great impact on control of water, land reclamation and ultimately agricultural development in the San Joaquin Valley:

Livermore and Chester, Haggin and Carr, and Miller and Lux, perhaps the most famous of the enterprises (Morgan 1914). Miller and Lux ultimately became one of the biggest private property holders in the country, controlling the rights to more than 22,000 square mi. Miller and Lux’s impact extended far beyond Kern County, however. They recognized early on that control of water would have important economic implications, and they played a major role in the water development of the state. They controlled, for example, more than 100 mi. of the San Joaquin River with the San Joaquin and Kings River Canal and Irrigation System (Levine 2011).

The controversies associated with these endeavors and many others resulted in the Wright Act of 1887, which provided for the ownership of land and water as a collective rather than as separate rights. It further allowed the creation of irrigation districts comprised of local landowners.

2.4.1 Tulare Irrigation District
Local farmers recognized their precarious position as independent water rights users and the strength of water collectives that ultimately culminated in the support of the Wright Act of 1887 (Adams 1916:28). The first two districts created in Tulare County were the Alta Irrigation District, on the Kings River, and the Tulare Irrigation District (TID), which includes the Project APE (Preston 1981). The TID was organized on September 21, 1889. The original proposal for the 1 This included Kings County at that time.
385

2. Environmental and Cultural Background
Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project 25 formation of an irrigation district covered 210,000 ac. that extended from the Sierra Nevada foothills to Tulare Lake. This was eventually reduced to 39,360 ac. (Figure 5) (Adams 1916:28).

In January 1948, the so-called “Kaweah Lands” (approximately 11,000 ac.) were annexed. In October 1948, approximately 31,000 ac. previously served by the Packwood Canal Company were annexed to the TID (TID n.d.). Figure 6 shows the present-day boundaries of the TID.

The first waterworks that served the TID were the Kaweah Canal and Rocky Ford Canal (Adams 1916:29). Initially, $500,000 in bonds were issued with $250,000 paid for two canals: Settlers Canal and Kaweah Canal. The Main Canal was the first project of TID that also included construction of laterals (Adams 1916:28). Construction included diversion works on the St. Johns River, the main canal heading at the river (including a large flume over the river), together with the purchase of water rights of the Kaweah Canal and Irrigation Company, Rocky Ford Canal and Irrigation Company, and Settlers Ditch Company. The remainder was used for canal construction within the original TID boundaries. The 1893 depression caused financial difficulties—devalued agriculture prices prompted reduced or no crop planting, homeowners lost their homes, and businesses failed. The TID faltered as some questioned the legality of the TID’s organization and therefore the bonds collected under that organization. By 1895, many bondholders could not pay the TID assessment. During 1893-1898, some water trickled through the canals, but TID operations fundamentally ceased. During this period, litigation over the bonds continued, and economic conditions in both Tulare and the surrounding country reflected the effects of a national depression (Adams 1916:28). In the early twentieth century, TID became more financially solvent and on October 17, 1903, bonds had been repaid. Thereafter, TID required only one assessment for system betterment in 1909 and all other assessments were replaced by water tolls (Adams 1916:30; Adams 1929:246).

By the early 1900s, most irrigation water was supplied by rivers, creeks, and canals, but increasingly pump irrigation through wells supplemented the water supply. Deciduous trees and vineyards required only two seasonal irrigation deliveries until they matured and thereafter needed only one. While alfalfa required two or three seasonal deliveries, and citrus required a more frequent supply. Most of Tulare County agricultural land was cultivated vineyards of table grapes and grapes used for raisins, with citrus (largely navel oranges) on the rise for crop production as irrigation increased. Peaches were a predominant deciduous fruit crop. Dry farming of wheat and small grains was also prevalent. By 1909, the population in the county had grown to 35,000, which is attributable to railroads that facilitated agricultural transport and contributed to population growth (Visalia Times-Delta 1909a, 1909b). Agricultural development significantly increased between 1913 and 1917. While only 100 ac. had been irrigated in 1913, four years later it had grown to more than 12,000 ac. Raisins and orchard crops produced the greatest revenue with significant production of wheat and grains. Cattle raising significantly contributed to the economy with lesser contribution from dairies (Tulare County Board of Trade 1917). By 1920, the population had almost doubled from 1909 (Tulare County Board of Trade 1939). In 1927, only 7,100 acres were irrigated directly by the TID with private pumping plants supplying an additional 15,000 acres. By 1927, 735 farming operations existed within the TID boundaries, primarily composed of 38 ac. properties with two large holdings of 2,800 ac. and 1,500 ac. (Adams 1929:246).
386

2. Environmental and Cultural Background
26 ASM Affiliates
Every decade from 1930 to 1990, the number of dairy cows increased as the dairy industry became an important economic driver for Tulare County (Schultz 2000). While Los Angeles ranked first as the “most productive” agricultural county in the U.S. between 1910 and 1949, Tulare County ranked second in California (Los Angeles Almanac 2024). By 1939, Tulare County was the fourth ranking agricultural county in the U.S. with oranges, grapes and raisins, cotton, cattle, and dairies as the largest revenue producers (Tulare County Board of Trade 1939). Population in the San Joaquin Valley grew exponentially between 1935 and 1940 with the population increase of 38.4 percent in Tulare County, 38.5 percent in Kings County, and 63.6 percent in Kern County (Regional Water Management Group, Kaweah River Basin 2017: 5-3). By 1945, much of the agricultural acreage was dedicated to truck crops though orchard crops and grapes continued to produce the highest revenue. Dairying outpaced livestock, and poultry production increased with cotton and alfalfa the highest-producing field crops (Hemphill 1945). By 1959, cotton and alfalfa remained the highest-producing field crops, but fruit crops produced the greatest revenue with grapes and raisins maintaining the largest portion of that sector. Field crops outpaced livestock with apiary-related products a close second to field crops (Mankins 1959).

Agricultural expansion required a supplemental water supply that TID secured in a 1950 contract with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation for an annual supply of 30,000 ac. ft. of Class 1 water, and up to 141,000 ac. ft. of Class 2 water from the Friant-Kern Canal. Subsequently, the TID proceeded with extensive improvements to the existing canal system, and the extension of the canal system to serve annexed areas. This work consisted of enlarging and/or relocating canals, construction of diversion structures, road crossings, check-gates, siphons, installing pipelines, etc. The majority of this work occurred between 1951-1964 (TID n.d.). Changes made to the MIC began after 1956 (USDA 1956). The TID and the Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District formed the Kaweah River Power Authority (KRPA) in 1982. A 17MW hydroelectric power plant was constructed and went online in 1992, delivering power to the Southern California Edison Company (TID n.d.).

2.4.2 Cameron Creek
As part of the Sierra Nevada watershed, Cameron Creek was one of eight creeks that supplied water that irrigated thousands of acres in the San Joaquin Valley (Visalia Times-Delta 1909a). The southern side of the Kaweah Basin is fed by the Lower Kaweah River that conveys water primarily through three main distributive natural channels: Mill Creek, Packwood Creek, and Cameron Creek. Segments of Cameron Creek supported irrigation systems for the Lakeland Irrigation District and the Corcoran Irrigation District as well as the TID. An 1885 irrigation map shows a segment of the Kaweah River, St. Johns Channel, and associated creeks and canals, including Cameron Creek (Figure 7). The alignments in Figure 5 predate the TID. When the TID acquired extant canals and utilized creeks for its irrigation system, Cameron Creek was “one of the lesser delta channels of Kaweah River. It receives a portion of the flow of Deep Creek at a point about 6 miles due east from Visalia, and has a southwesterly course to Tulare Lake. It passes just to the northward of Tulare. An artificial channel at the head of this water way [sic], constructed to improve its connection with Deep Creek, was closed by an order of court some years ago” (Grunsky 1898:14). At that time, Packwood Creek Canal was a primary canal that flowed in a southwesterly direction toward Tagus where the creek delivered water to a distribution system located southwest of Tagus. In the spring months, excess water flowed through Cameron Creek via the Deep Creek channels as well as Kaweah and Tulare canals, which the Cameron Creek 387

2. Environmental and Cultural Background
Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project 27 Company facilitated. The TID acquired the Cameron Creek Company facilities and integrated them into its system (Grunsky 1898:29).

Over time, Cameron Creek was channelized for more effective use by TID. During 1892–1925, significant improvements to the TID system included some channelization and realignment of Cameron Creek (Figure 8-10). It appears that at least some portions of Cameron Creek had a levee by 1900 (Visalia Times 1900). The TID Canal intersected with Cameron Creek just east of the Measurement Check APE (Thompson 1892a, 1892b; USGS 1926). By the early 1920s, TID alternated between the Tulare Canal and Cameron Creek for conveyance and in 1924 Cameron Creek did not transport any water due to lack of water available (Visalia Times-Delta 1925:4).

During 1929–1931 and 1933–1934, the Kaweah Basin experienced drought with only some water trickling through Cameron Creek and other creeks (Tulare Daily Times 1931). Conversely, in 1932 a hurricane caused massive flooding on Cameron Creek (Austin 2012: 27, 247 327). It appears that TID channelized Cameron Creek and, as part of that channelization, created levees as maintenance roads on both sides of Cameron Creek within the APEs beginning at the intersection with the TID Canal in the SW¼ of Section 36, T 18S, R25E between 1926 and 1950 (Figure 11) (USGS 1950, 1952). Most likely the levees were constructed in response to the 1932 flood. The 1955 flood was the most significant flood within written record as it overtook Cameron Creek, Packwood Creek, and Mill Creek but significantly affected Cameron Creek. Severe damage directly caused closure of the sawmill adjacent to Cameron Creek. Cameron Creek Colony was significantly flooded. Another flood in 1966 flooded agricultural land adjacent to Cameron Creek as well as Deep Creek, Outside Creek, and Cross Creek (Austin 2012:291, 308, 320). It is not clear who constructed the levees, but levees constructed on St. Johns River/Channel (a major waterway for the TID system), were constructed for flood control and were largely constructed without engineering design and ad hoc (Regional Water Management Group, Kaweah River Basin 2017:8- 5). Today, the historical levees within the APEs are not berms but instead flat and driveable maintenance roadways on either banks of the channelized Cameron Creek.

Sometime during 1926–1950, the agricultural Cameron Creek Colony also developed between 1926 and 1950 along the southern side of Cameron Creek outside the APE in the SE¼ of Section 36, T18S, R25E and the SW¼ of Section 36, T18S, R26E. Within the three APE segments, the TID rerouted only one segment of Cameron Creek between Road 148 and Road 152 north of Avenue 288 sometime during 1956–1969 as part of the TID’s major program of improving the system2 (Figure 12) (USDA 1956, 1969; USGS 1950, 1952). By 1957, one segment of Cameron Creek was 15 ft. wide and approximately 10 ft. deep and water was flowing through it for the TID system (Tulare Advance-Register 1957:1).
2 It is important to note that TID’s first program of significant improvements was 1892-1925. The second TID improvement program was completed during 1951-1964. The partially realigned segment within the Rector APE was completed within the second program of TID system improvements. 388
389

2. Environmental and Cultural Background
Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project 29 Figure 5. A 1929 location and boundary map of irrigation districts in Tulare and lower Kings counties. Source: Adams 1929, Plate XXVI. 390

2. Environmental and Cultural Background
30 ASM Affiliates
Figure 6. Tulare Irrigation District service area map, 2022. 391

2. Environmental and Cultural Background
Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project 31 Figure 7. An 1885 irrigation map that also identifies the alignment of the Kaweah River, St. Johns Channel, associated creeks, and canals, including Cameron Creek. Source: Hammond 1885. 392

2. Environmental and Cultural Background
32 ASM Affiliates
Figure 8. Excerpt from 1892 atlas map for T18S R25E that identifies the alignment of Cameron Creek. Source: Thompson 1892a. 393

2. Environmental and Cultural Background
Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project 33 Figure 9. Excerpt from 1892 atlas map for T19S R25E that identifies the alignment of Cameron Creek and the TID Canal. Source: Thompson 1892b. 394

2. Environmental and Cultural Background
34 ASM Affiliates
Figure 10. An excerpt from a 1926 USGS topographical map that identifies the alignment of Cameron Creek and the TID Canal. Source: USGS 1926. 395

2. Environmental and Cultural Background
Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project 35 Figure 11. An excerpt from a 1950 USGS topographical map that identifies the alignment of Cameron Creek and the TID Canal. Source: USGS 1950. 396

2. Environmental and Cultural Background
36 ASM Affiliates
Figure 12. A 1956 aerial photograph that identifies the alignment of Cameron Creek and the TID Canal. Source: USDA 1956. 397

2. Environmental and Cultural Background
Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project 37

2.5 ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR WATER CONVEYANCE

SYSTEMS
The period of significance for historic water conveyance systems begins with the initial date of construction and considers any alignment changes that have been made over time. The period of significance must also consider the construction history of the linear systems, which may have been constructed and/or reconstructed or realigned by individuals, collectives, and/or irrigation districts and water companies over time.

Main Canals, Laterals, and Ditches
Main canals, laterals, or ditches can be individually eligible for the NRHP (Criteria A-D) and CRHR (Criteria 1-4). While the following criteria was developed for the Friant-Kern Canal, it is still applicable to smaller irrigation systems:3
Criterion A/1: They have had a significant impact on the settlement, agricultural economy, or development patterns of the Project area; they have been defining elements in the evolution of the cultural landscape; they are directly associated with important events.

Criterion B/2: They are the result of the direct efforts of a prominent individual associated with the development of the local area or region and are the most prominent feature associated with that individual.

Criterion C/3: They represent the distinctive characteristics of canal design and/or methods of construction used during the period of construction, which may include solving engineering design problems due to topography, grade, length, and natural obstacles, and resulted in complex or innovative solutions; they are among the best or a rare surviving example of a distinctive type of water conveyance structure; they represent the evolving technology in the engineering, design, and construction of water conveyance structures; they were identified during the construction period as an individually significant feature; or they embody the work of a significant engineer or builder.

Criterion D/4: They have the ability to yield information important to understanding the history of the local area or region that cannot be found in historical documentation.

Integrity
The need for continual maintenance and repairs to canals requires special consideration of integrity. Irrigation systems are constantly evolving as features are upgraded, repaired, or replaced.

Alterations made to canals during the period of significance, and even subsequent thereto, may not nullify eligibility if a canal retains certain key qualities. Most important are integrity of location, association, and overall design configuration of the conveyance prism (i.e. depth and width) and water control features. A canal which has retained its original form and associated appurtenant features has a high degree of integrity. It is not uncommon for canal lining to be replaced, or for previously unlined segments to be lined. Such changes may not preclude a canal’s eligibility if 3 The section has been excerpted and adapted from Heather K. Norby and Stephen R. Wee, Historic Property Survey Report: Friant Kern Canal, JRP Historical Consulting, 2019:52-53. 398

2. Environmental and Cultural Background
38 Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project replacement features are in‐kind, or they do not significantly damage the canal’s historic association or its overall design. If—in addition to integrity of association, location, and overall design—the historical setting and feeling of a canal are maintained, then the likelihood is even higher that an altered canal could remain eligible. On the other hand, if an entire canal is piped, it would no longer convey any of its original design, workmanship, materials, or historical association and would not be contributing. Conversely, partial piping of a significant canal may not preclude eligibility if a majority of a canal is still open and intact.

Appurtenant Canal Features4
Although appurtenant canal features are all operationally and thematically related to canals/laterals/ditches, each feature type serves a specific purpose. These features can be divided into five categories of structures: conveyance, regulating, protective, water measurement, and bridges. The first four of these types were built to function as part of the canal, while the bridges were built to function independently of the canal.

1. Conveyance Structures
Conveyance structures are features such as inverted siphons, drops, chutes, flumes, tunnels, and pipelines that are used to safely transport water from one location to another traversing various existing natural and manmade topographic features along the way. There are two types of pipelines, those that carry water below ground and those that transport water above ground.

2. Regulating Structures
Regulating structures are used to raise, lower, or control the release and volume of the water flow.

Regulating structures that are at the source of the water supply include headworks and turnouts.

Headworks control the release of water into the canal, and they are often downstream from a major diversion or storage facility. Regulating structures along the course of a canal include turnouts, checks, check‐drops, radial gates, reservoirs, and diversion structures. The smaller regulating structures like checks and turnouts are basic components of an irrigation system.

3. Protective Structures
Protective structures protect the canal system and adjacent property from damage which would result from uncontrolled storm runoff or drainage water, or an uncontrolled excess of flow within the canal. Several different types of structures perform this function, including overchutes, drainage inlets, siphon spillways, and wasteways.

4. Water Measurement Structures and Objects
Water measurement structures are used to gauge water flow and ensure its equitable distribution.

Many different types of water measurement structures are used in irrigation systems.

5. Bridges
Bridges crossing canals range from single-lane bridges, multi‐lane highway bridges, farm bridges, pedestrian bridges, and maintenance bridges.
4 Ibid., 53-54.
399

2. Environmental and Cultural Background
Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project 39 Significance
Secondary to the canals in distributing water are the thousands of appurtenant features. With the exception of bridges, these appurtenant features are important to the overall operation of the main canals yet are too small in size and repetitive in design to merit individual eligibility. Even though bridges cross canals and can be physically tied to the canal prism, bridges have no connection to the operation of the TID and therefore merit separate evaluation from other appurtenant features.

Bridges would rarely be individually eligible for the NRHP in association with this historic context.

Registration Requirements
Appurtenant canal features can be eligible for listing in the NRHP and the CRHR for the following reasons:

Criterion A/1: They are directly associated with important events that occurred along canals; Criterion B/2: not applicable;
Criterion C/3: They are among the best or a rare surviving example of a distinctive type of appurtenant canal feature; they represent the evolving technology in the design of appurtenant canal features; they represent a unique design solution developed in response to a difficult engineering challenge; they were identified during the construction period as an individually significant feature;
Criterion D/4: They have the ability to yield information important to understanding the history of the system.

Integrity
As with canals, many appurtenant features are upgraded, altered, or even replaced over time due to ongoing maintenance needs. The integrity of a structure’s historic materials, workmanship and design is essential for NRHP eligibility under any criterion. Location is of primary importance under Criterion A and C — a structure will rarely qualify under this criterion if it does not remain on its historic site along its associated canal.

Historical structures are typically evaluated for NRHP eligibility under Criteria A and/or B, for their associative values with major historical trends or individuals, and C for potential design or engineering importance. Conveyance systems are typically eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criteria A and/or C.

The CRHR Criteria and registration requirements for conveyance systems mirror the NRHP Criteria and registration requirements. Conveyance systems are typically eligible for listing in the CRHR under Criteria 1 and/or 3.
400
401

3. Archival Records and Sacred Lands File Searches
Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project 41

3. ARCHIVAL RECORDS AND SACRED LANDS FILE

SEARCHES

3.1 ARCHIVAL RECORDS SEARCH
To determine whether the Project APE had been previously surveyed for cultural resources, and/or whether any such resources were known to exist within or near to it, staff of the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center (SSJVIC) conducted an archival records search on June 10, 2024. The records search was completed to determine: (i) if pre-contact or historic-era cultural resources had previously been recorded within the Project APE; (ii) if the Project APE had been systematically surveyed by archaeologists prior to the initiation of this fieldwork; and/or (iii) whether the area surrounding the proposed Project was known to contain archaeological sites or built environment resources and to thereby be culturally sensitive. Records examined included archaeological site files and maps, the NRHP, Historic Property Data File, California Inventory of Historic Resources, and the California Points of Historic Interest. The records search included the Project APE and a 0.5- mi. buffer.

According to the SSJVIC, three previous studies (TU-01383, TU-01690, TU-1966) have been conducted within the Project APE (Table 1). Approximately five percent of the Project APE has been previously studied. An additional 12 previous studies were identified within the 0.5-mi. buffer.

The SSJVIC data identified three previously recorded cultural resources (P-54-003229, P-54- 004832, and P-54-004877) within the APE (Table 2). An additional 13 previously recorded cultural resources were identified within 0.5 mi. of the Project APE. The closest of these resources is less than 0.1 mi. from the Project APE. The results of the SSJVIC records search are available in Confidential Appendix A.

Table 1. Previous Reports
Report # Year Author Title
APE
Relationship
TU-00134 1998
Parr, Robert E. and
Sutton, Mark Q./
Center for
Archaeological
Research, California
State University,
Bakersfield
Archaeological Assessment of the Tulare
Irrigation District Main Canal Lining Project,
Tulare County, California
Outside
TU-00449 1994
Roop, William/
Archaeological
Resource Service
A Cultural Resources Evaluation of an
Approximately 40 Acre Parcel South of East
Tulare Avenue and East of McAuliff Street,
Visalia, California
Outside
TU-01144 2002
Cherry, Nikki/
ARCADIS Geraghty
& Miller
FCC011219G (Second Submittal) Section 106
Review for One Telecommunication Site Outside
TU-01167 2002 Villacorta, Estella/
GeoTek, Inc.

Section 106 Review, GeoTek Project
#0032SA2-017B Caldwell Avenue, Visalia,
California 93292
Outside
402

3. Archival Records and Sacred Lands File Searches
42 Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project Report # Year Author Title
APE
Relationship
TU-01171 2003 Wren, Donald G./
Individual Consultant
A Cultural Resource Study: Park Creek Village
Apartments, APN #128-210-001, Farmersville,
California
Outside
TU-01383 2010 Parr, Robert E./ Cal
Heritage
Cultural Resource Assessment for the Southern
California Edison Company Rector Substation
Waterline Improvement Project near the City of
Visalia, Tulare County, California (WO
800249915)
Within
TU-01659 2009 Haley, Kathryn/ ICF
Jones & Stokes
Historic Property Survey Report for Avenue 280
Road Widening Project, Tulare County,
California
Outside
TU-01659A 2009
Haley, Kathryn/ ICF
Jones & Stokes (for
Cal Trans)
Avenue 280 Road Widening Project Historic
Resources Evaluation Report Outside
TU-01659B 2009
O’Brien, Traci/ ICF
Jones & Stokes (for
Cal Trans)
Avenue 280 Road Widening Project
Archaeological Survey Report Outside
TU-01690 2014 Travers, Aniela/ EBI
Consulting
Cultural Resources Survey Farmersville
West/CVU3073 28685 Road 148, Visalia,
Tulare County, California
Within
TU-01764 2017
Foglia, Shannon E,
Cooley, Theodore G.,
and Miller, Chandra/
AECOM
Cultural Resources Survey Report for the
Proposed Southern California Edison North of
Magunden Transmission Line Rating
Remediation Project, Kern and Tulare Counties,
California
Outside
TU-01770 2017 Chandler, Evelyn/
Paleo Solutions, Inc.

Archaeological Survey Report for the Southern
California Edison Company Transmission Line
Rating Remediation (TLRR) Project for the
Rector Material Yard, Tulare County, California
Outside
TU-01936 2022
Sauls, Consuelo Y./
Taylored
Archaeology
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the
Higgin's Ranch Annexation and Tentative
Subdivision Map Project, City of Visalia, Tulare
County, California
Outside
TU-1966 2022
Carey, Peter A.,
Whitley, David S.,
and Azpitarte,
Robert/ASM
Affiliates, Inc.

Phase I Survey, Pearl Woods Subdivision
Project, Tulare County, California Within
TU-01977 2021
Andrews, Sheri and
Whitley, David S./
ASM Affiliates, Inc.

Class III Inventory/Phase I Survey, Tract 92
Water System Consolidation and Upgrade
Project, Tulare County, California.

Outside
Table 2. Previously Recorded Resources
Primary # Type Description Eligibility Status APE Relationship P-54-000016 Prehistoric-era site GWH 132. J-90 Old
Broder Unknown Outside
P-54-000107 Prehistoric-era site Lithic scatter Unknown Outside P-54-004626 Historic-era structure
Southern Pacific
Railroad; San Joaquin
Valley Railroad
Determined not eligible Outside
P-54-003229 Historic-era structure Wylie Hinds Ranch Unevaluated Within P-54-004832
Historic-era
structure/ District
element
Big Creek East & West
Transmission Line Determined eligible Within
403

3. Archival Records and Sacred Lands File Searches
Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project 43 Primary # Type Description Eligibility Status APE Relationship P-54-004877 Historic-era structure Cameron Creek Channel and Levees Unevaluated Within
P-54-004878 Historic-era structure PL-31 Unevaluated Outside P-54-004881 Historic-era structure PL-38 Unevaluated Outside P-54-004883 Historic-era structure PL-41 Unevaluated Outside P-54-005066 Historic-era structure 3415 E. Caldwell Ave Recommended not eligible Outside P-54-005067 Historic-era structure 3800 E. Caldwell Ave Recommended not eligible Outside P-54-005221
Historic-era
structure/ District
element
Rector Substation Determined Eligible Outside
P-54-005289 Historic-era structure Bliss Ditch/ CWA20-
231-1 Recommended not eligible Outside
P-54-005296 Historic-era structure Tulare Irrigation District Canal Unevaluated Adjacent
P-54-005667 Historic-era structure Extension Ditch Unevaluated Outside CHL 471 Historic-era
road/route Butterfield Stage Route California Historic Landmark Outside

3.2 PREVIOUSLY RECORDED RESOURCE WITHIN THE APES
Cameron Creek (P-54-004877)
A short segment of Cameron Creek and its associated levee was recorded but not evaluated in 2007 (Armstrong and MacDonald 2007).

SCE Big Creek Hydroelectric System, East & West 220kV Transmission Line (P-54-004832)
According to Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC,
The Big Creek East & West 220kV Transmission Line is a contributing element to the NRHP / CRHR listed Big Creek Hydroelectric System Historic District.

The Big Creek Hydroelectric System Historic District has been determined eligible for NRHP listing by the California State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) by consensus. The BCHSHD includes the Big Creek Hydroelectic [sic] System East & West Transmission Line and its modern-day segments identified as Big Creek #1-Rector, Rector-Vestal #1, Magunden-Vestal #1, Magunden-Pastoria #1, PardeePastoria East, Pardee-Sylmar #1, Eagle Rock-Sylmar East, Big Creek #1- Powerhouse #2, Powerhouse #2-Powerhouse #3, Big Creek #3-Rector, RectorVestal #2, Magunden-Vestal #2, Magunden-Pastoria #2, Pardee-Pastoria West, Pardee-Sylmar #2, and Eagle Rock-Sylmar West 220kV Transmission Lines.

For its direct association with the Big Creek Hydroelectric System, as the first highvoltage transmission line constructed from Big Creek to coney electricity [sic] to and support industrialization of the Los Angeles region, and for its embodiment of innovative electrical engineering technicques [sic] at an electric power conveyance system between 1912-1929, the 241-mile Big Creek Hydroelectric System Historic East & West 220kV Transmission Line is eligible for inclusion on the National 404

3. Archival Records and Sacred Lands File Searches
44 Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project Register of Historic Places Criterion A, B, and C and the California Register of Historic Places under Criteria 1, 2, and 3 as a contributing element to the BCHSHD within the established 1911-1929 period of significance (Urbana Preservation & Planning 2020).

Wylie Hinds Ranch (P-54-003229)
The ranch was recorded in 1980 with the intention of recordation of a site that no longer exists and has no known built environment associated features (Ramsey 1980). This resource is not considered further in this report.

3.3 SACRED LANDS FILE
As part of the CEQA process, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was contacted to request a list of Tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the Project APE, as well as a Sacred Lands File (SLF). On June 10, 2024, the NAHC responded with negative SLF results and 21 Tribal contacts from 11 Tribes. Outreach letters were mailed and emailed to all listed Tribes on July 29, 2024. No responses were received. NAHC request, NAHC results, Tribal outreach letters, and Tribal responses can be found in Confidential Appendix B. 405

4. Methods and Results
Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project 45

4. METHODS AND RESULTS

4.1 FIELD METHODS
An intensive Class III inventory/Phase I survey of the Project APE was conducted by ASM Assistant Archaeologist Daniel Ware, B.A., on July 30, 2024. The Class III inventory/Phase I survey included a review of the Project APE for the presence of built environment features. The field methods employed also included intensive pedestrian examination of the ground surface for evidence of archaeological sites in the form of artifacts, surface features (such as bedrock mortars, historical mining equipment), and archaeological indicators (e.g., organically enriched midden soil, burnt animal bone); the identification and location of any discovered sites, should they be present; tabulation and recording of surface diagnostic artifacts; site sketch mapping; preliminary evaluation of site integrity; and site recording, following the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Instructions for Recording Historic Resources using California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) series 523 forms. Parallel survey transects spaced at maximum intervals of 15 meters (m) apart were employed for pedestrian survey of the 16.1 ac. Project APE.

4.2 SURVEY RESULTS

4.2.1 Built Environment Results
Background research, field survey, and contemporary aerial photographic surveys revealed several built environment resources associated with the three previously identified built environment resources, consisting of the historic-era Cameron Creek Channel and Levees (P-54-004877), Wylie Hinds Ranch (P-54-003229), and Big Creek Hydroelectric System (P-54-004832). Within the three APEs (Measurement Check, Rector Check, and Lovers Check), there are segments of Cameron Creek referenced that function as part of TID and other irrigation districts.

Rector Check Segment (P-54-004877)
A fallen utility post (14 in. in diameter) was noted in the Rector Check APE. It was lying across the canal, likely used as a footbridge by locals.

Cameron Creek (P-54-004877)
This section of Cameron Creek was present within the APE. Within the Lovers Check APE, riprap was present throughout (Figure 13). The creek prism is trapezoidal in shape and of earthen material. This section is primarily dry with incremental standing water. The entire section of the creek is 40 ft. across. The base is 15 ft. across. The walls of the creek bed are both 6 ft. high and approximately 5 ft. wide. Along the north bank, the dirt road functions as a levee without a berm and is 15 ft. across. Along the south bank, the dirt road functions as a levee without a berm and is also 15 ft. across. Both roads function as levees without berms and are the same height as the surrounding land. Orchards are present to the south. Empty fields exist to the north. Modern trash was found along the length of the entire segment. Wall erosion was noted along the east side of the south bank.
406

4. Methods and Results
46 Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project Figure 13. Lovers Check APE segment of Cameron Creek, facing west.

Within the Rector Check APE, the creek is completely dry (Figure 14). Dirt roads that function as levees are present on both sides and are the same height as the surrounding land. The north levee road is 17 ft. wide. The south levee road is 11 ft. wide. The walls of the creek bed are approximately 8 ft. wide. The north wall is approximately 8 ft. high. The south bank wall is approximately 13 ft. high. These heights stay consistent throughout the length of the segment. The base of the creek bed is 20 ft. across. The creek is approximately 36 ft. wide. Riprap and modern refuse are present throughout the entire segment. Fallow fields and orchards are interspersed on both sides of the segment. A private property with an associated farm bridge across the canal is present along the southeast bank.
407

4. Methods and Results
Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project 47 Figure 14. Rector Check APE segment of Cameron Creek, facing southwest.

Within the Measurement Check APE, the segment of Cameron Creek is completely dry (Figure 15). Roads that function as levees are present on both sides of the creek segment. The southern levee road is 13 ft. wide. The northern levee road is 13 ft. wide. The levee roads are 3 ft. higher than surrounding orchard ground. The base of the creek bed is 20 ft. wide. The creek bed walls are 15 ft. high and 10 ft. wide. The creek segment is 40 ft. wide. A basin is adjacent to Road 156 and immediately south of the creek, but outside the APE. A second basin just east of the canal is also outside the APE. Orchards surround the Measurement Check APE, with the exception of the two basins to the south and east. Riprap and modern trash are present throughout this segment of the creek.
408

4. Methods and Results
48 Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project Figure 15. Measurement Check APE segment of Cameron Creek, facing north, northeast.

Culvert
Within the Measurement Check APE, a single culvert was present along Sixth Avenue East. The culvert measures 11 ft. from opening to base of the canal. It is made of cast concrete, 2 ft. thick. A steel guardrail protects the culvert. Three concrete supports are present underneath the culvert and measure 1 ft. wide each
Farm Bridge
Within the Rector APE is a one-lane, farm bridge that facilitates access to both sides of Cameron Creek for agricultural purposes. The bridge measures 12.5 ft. wide, 1.5 ft. deep, approximately 5 ft. tall. The topside deck is formed concrete with the girder composed of wood beams that measure 5 in. thick. The foundations on either side are cast concrete. 409

4. Methods and Results
Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project 49 County Bridge at Road 148
The bridge in the Rector Check APE is on Road 148, approximately 1,750 ft. south of Avenue 288 (Figure 16). The bridge is made of cast concrete which measures 20 ft. in length and 1 ft. wide.

Metal guardrailing is present along the length of the top of the bridge. According to the National Bridge Inventory the bridge was constructed in 1951 and was determined not eligible for listing in the NRHP (U.S. Federal Highway Administration 2022). Underneath the road, a box culvert was observed. The culvert is approximately 1,070 ft. east of Avenue 288. The culvert opening is 6 ft. from the base of the creek and is cast concrete. It is 8 in. wide by 32 in. tall by approximately 70 ft. long. Metal road barriers are present on either side, each approximately 25 ft. long. A metal stamp on the western concrete abutment reads: “Tulare County BM 149-288”. The identified “1981” was visible but could not be photographed due to heavy traffic.

Figure 16. County Bridge at Road 148, facing northeast. 410

4. Methods and Results
50 Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project Transmission Corridor (P-54-004832)
The Big Creek Hydroelectric System Historic District intersects the APE; however, the transmission lines run above the APE (Figure 17), and no portions of the built resources are within the APE. P-54-004832 has already been determined eligible for NRHP listing by the California State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) by consensus. Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC 2020).

Figure 17. Transmission Corridor (P-54-004832), facing south, southeast.

Turnout
A turnout from the TID into the Cameron Creek was present on the eastern terminus of the Measurement Check APE (Figure 18). Based on historical aerials, the TID added an individual farm turnout on Cameron Creek in 2009, and it is considered a modern resource (Figure 18). Since the Cameron Creek turnout is under 50 years in age, it does not meet the age threshold for consideration in the NRHP.
411

4. Methods and Results
Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project 51 Figure 18. TID Turnout, facing north, northwest.

4.2.2 Archaeological Results
The proposed Project APE consists of water conveyance features surrounded by agricultural fields, paved roads, and unpaved roads (see Figures 13 through Figure 15). Much of the Project APE appears to have been disturbed to create the extant water conveyance features and roads (see Figure 15 through Figure 17). Due to the previous disturbances, ground surface visibility within the APE was excellent (greater than 95 percent) except for the portions of the water conveyance features that were filled with water for the Class III inventory/Phase I survey. Soils consisted of tan to brown sandy loam throughout the Project APE. Non-native vegetation inhibited visibility. Modern refuse including plastic buckets, milled lumber, plastic sheeting, concrete fragments, and a mattress were observed.

No archaeological resources of any kind were identified within the Project APE. 412
413

5. Summary, Impacts Assessment, and Recommendations
Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project 53

5. SUMMARY, EVALUATION, ASSESSMENT OF

EFFECTS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
An intensive Class III inventory/Phase I survey was conducted for the Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project, Tulare County, California. A records search was conducted at the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center, California State University, Bakersfield.

This search indicated that much of the Project APE had not been previously surveyed, and that three built environment resources were recorded within the Project APE. An NAHC SLF search was conducted for the Project APE and the NAHC responded with negative SLF results.

A Class III inventory/Phase I survey fieldwork of the Project APE was conducted in July 2024 with parallel transects at 15 m. intervals. Three resources, consisting of the Wylie Hinds Ranch (P-54-003229), Big Creek Hydroelectric System (P-54-004832), and a section of Cameron Creek (P-54-004877) were recorded as intersecting with the APE. An evaluation of these resources is provided below.

ASM identified a turnout within the Measurement Check APE. ASM considered whether it was potentially a contributing resource to TID’s Cameron Creek. Based on historical aerials, the TID added an individual farm turnout on Cameron Creek between 2005 and 2009, and is a modern resource. Since the Cameron Creek turnout is under 50 years in age, it does not meet the age threshold for consideration in the NRHP. ASM considered if the Cameron Creek turnout could be eligible under Criteria Consideration G. The National Register excludes properties that have achieved significance within the last 50 years, but allows some exceptions under Criteria Consideration G for properties of “exceptional importance” (NPS 1997: 41).To exhibit exceptional importance, a property must first be eligible under one of the four standard criteria and must be either associated with an event of extraordinary importance or be considered part of an entire category of resources so fragile that survivors of any age are unusual. Since the Cameron Creek turnout in the APE is neither associated with an event of extraordinary importance nor could be considered fragile, this resource does not qualify for Criteria Consideration G and is not considered a contributing historic property under Section 106 or a contributing historical resource under CEQA.

No additional built environment resources and no archaeological resources were identified within the APE.

5.1 EVALUATION
Cameron Creek Segments within APEs (P-54-004877)
The proposed Project includes three linear segments of Cameron Creek referenced as Measurement Check APE, Rector APE, and Lovers APE, and Cameron Creek functions as part of TID and other irrigation districts. The entire TID system has not been recorded and evaluated as a potential historic district. While the period of significance for a potential TID historic district may be 1889 (when the TID system was organized and absorbed existing waterways) through 1964 (the end of the mid-twentieth century era of redevelopment within the TID), it is outside the purview 414

5. Summary, Impacts Assessment, and Recommendations
54 Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project of this Project to record and evaluate the entire TID system. As part of this project, ASM has evaluated segments of Cameron Creek as a potential contributor to a TID historic district.

TID’s first program of significant improvements was 1892–1925. The second TID improvement program was completed during 1951–1964. As previously mentioned, there was a drought during 1929–1931 and 1933–1934 when little to no water flowed in Cameron Creek, but a flood in 1932 overtook Cameron Creek and caused massive damage. Therefore, the potential period of significance for Cameron Creek as a feature of the TID system is 1892–1925 (when Cameron Creek was utilized as a conveyance channel and was improved during the first program of TID system improvements), and 1935 (when the drought ended) to 1964 (the end of second improvement program).

ASM considered the potential eligibility of the segments of Cameron Creek within the Project APEs as a potential contributor to a historic district eligible for listing in the NRHP/CRHR under Criteria A/1, B/2, C/3, and D/4. Given that Cameron Creek is a natural creek that has been partially channelized and is not a built resource, ASM did not consider the possibility that Cameron Creek is potentially individually eligible for listing in the NRHP/CRHR under Criteria A/1, B/2, C/3, and D/4. The segments of Cameron Creek recorded within the APE are potentially eligible under NRHP/CRHR Criterion A/1 as part of the TID system. Cameron Creek is a primary waterway of the TID system as it carries water for the TID system and other irrigation districts. The TID system laid the foundation that facilitated agricultural growth and provided a consistent water supply that increased and sustained settlement and development in the broader areas of Tulare and Visalia, California. The TID system transformed the type of agricultural crops that could be farmed within the boundaries of the TID particularly high-revenue producing citrus that required more water deliveries than other crops. Therefore, the recorded segments of Cameron Creek meet NRHP/CRHR under Criteria A/1 and an assessment of integrity is warranted.

ASM assessed the integrity (location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association) of the three segments of Cameron Creek within the Project APEs with periods of significance of 1892–1925 and 1935–1964. ASM was not able to locate U.S. Army Corps of Engineers records that confirmed Cameron Creek channelization efforts or levee/road construction within the APEs, but other sources of historical information provided dates of likely improvements.

Based on available historical documents, ASM identified only one alignment alteration of Cameron Creek segments within the APEs, which is within the Rector APE and had been altered between 1926 and 1950. Channelization and levee/road construction did not change the alignment of the other two segments, although some other segments of Cameron Creek were realigned outside the APE. It is expected that a creek course, which is a natural body of water, would naturally change over time due to upstream water users and flooding events. Although the segment of Cameron Creek within the Rector APE was modified, it was within the second period of significance. Some segments outside the APEs had some realignments, which is expected of a natural waterway given the impacts of flood events and efforts to reduce erosion, but the recorded segments of Cameron Creek within the APEs retain high integrity of location and setting. The width of Cameron Creek varies within the three segments from 9 ft. (Measurement APE) to 18 ft. (Rector APE) to 20 ft. (Lovers APE). As a natural waterway, it is not a designed course and the width changed over time with upstream water users and flood events prompting modifications through channelization. The creek remains unlined and roughly retains the same form. Therefore, 415

5. Summary, Impacts Assessment, and Recommendations
Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project 55 it retains high integrity of design and materials. The recorded segments of Cameron Creek properly convey its history as an integral waterway for the TID system. As such, the recorded segments of Cameron Creek retain high integrity of feeling. Finally, Cameron Creek is a significant resource in agricultural development and the history of the surrounding area and continues to play a significant role in the present day. As such, the recorded segments of Cameron Creek retain high integrity of association to the themes of irrigated agriculture. Given that the entire TID system and the entire Cameron Creek has not been evaluated, ASM’s assessment is based on available information for the segments within the APEs. Based on that information, ASM assumes that the segments of Cameron Creek within the APEs are eligible for listing in the NRHP/CRHR under Criteria A/1 as a contributor to the TID system for the periods of significance of 1935–1964, which is when they may have been significantly improved last.

ASM considered whether the recorded segments of Cameron Creek are eligible under NRHP/CRHR Criteria C/3. It is expected that a creek course, which is a natural body of water, would naturally change over time due to upstream water users and flooding events. However, other than channelization and levee/road construction, there are no built resources associated with the TID within the APEs that represent a distinctive characteristic of type, period, or method of construction.

ASM then considered whether the recorded segments of Cameron Creek within the APEs are eligible under NRHP/CRHR Criteria D/4. Criterion D is not applicable as the segments of Cameron Creek do not have the potential to provide information about history or prehistory that is not available through historic research. As such, ASM recommends the recorded sections of Cameron Creek as not eligible under NRHP/CRHR Criteria D/4.

In summary, the recorded segments of Cameron Creek are recommended assumed eligible under NRHP and CRHR under Criteria A/1 as a contributor to TID system historic district with periods of significance of periods of significance of 1935–1964.

Culverts
Given that the culverts within the three APEs are associated with road construction and not Cameron Creek modifications, and because they will not be directly impacted by the proposed Project, ASM did not evaluate the culverts within the APE.

Farm Bridge
Within the Rector APE is a one-lane, farm bridge that facilitates access to both sides of Cameron Creek for agricultural purposes. The topside deck is formed concrete with the girder composed of wood beams. The foundations on either side are formed concrete. The bridge is not potentially eligible for listing to the NRHP as a contributor to a historic district. The precedent has already been set with the Friant-Kern Canal (FKC) evaluation and SHPO concurrence that categorically identified farm bridges as non-contributing resources for the larger and more expansive FKC (Norby and Wee 2019; Polanco 2019) (Appendix D). Therefore, a farm bridge associated with a 416

5. Summary, Impacts Assessment, and Recommendations
56 Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project creek within the TID system would similarly not embody characteristics to support the context and eligibility under Criteria A/1 or C/3.

County Bridge at Road 148
In 2022, a National Bridge Inventory conducted by the U.S. Federal Highway Administration identified the Road 148 bridge constructed in 1951 as not eligible for listing in the NRHP (U.S.

Federal Highway Administration 2022).

Transmission Corridor (P-54-004832)
The Big Creek Hydroelectric System Historic District has already been determined eligible for NRHP listing by the California State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) by consensus (Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC 2020).

5.2 ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS
The proposed Project will result in construction of three measurement checks. The proposed Project will only directly effect Cameron Creek and its associated levee/road. While the measurement check gates will be new structures on Cameron Creek, the project will not require widening Cameron Creek. The measurement check structure footprints will permanently impact both banks of Cameron Creek. As such, the Project will result in some physical effects to Cameron Creek (P-54-004877). The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties for Rehabilitation (Standards for Rehabilitation) allow for reasonable change to a historic property, including related new construction and changes to setting, provided that change does not destroy character-defining features unnecessarily or impair a historic property’s ability to convey its significance. Thus, following is an analysis of the proposed Project for compliance with the Standards for Rehabilitation.

Per the Standards for Rehabilitation, Cameron Creek would continue to fulfill its function and support TID in irrigating agricultural lands through water management as it has historically. The addition of measurement check gates will be an important addition to the TID system for waterflow regulation. The historic character of Cameron Creek would be preserved because the majority of extant materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the linear resource would be retained. Only a small amount of the historic materials will be impacted (i.e. soil removed for construction will be replaced post construction) and will result in an almost immeasurable percent change to the entire Cameron Creek. The spatial relationship between Cameron Creek and its setting would remain unchanged. The new measurement checks would be differentiated from the historic features of Cameron Creek, but still visually compatible in terms of materials, features, size, scale, and proportion. Additionally, views of the setting from the APE, including Cameron Creek, will remain the same. After completion of the project, Cameron Creek will remain in the same status of assumed eligibility for listing in the NRHP and CRHR as a contributing feature of the TID system. Therefore, ASM recommends that the Project will not result in an adverse effect to historic properties under Section 106 of the NHPA and a less-than-significant impact to a historical resource pursuant to CEQA.
417

5. Summary, Impacts Assessment, and Recommendations
Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project 57

5.3 RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the above analyses and findings, ASM recommends a finding of no adverse effect under NHPA and a less-than-significant impact under CEQA. The proposed Project will add three measurement check gates. However, the proposed Project follows the Standards for Rehabilitation; after the Project is completed, the overall historic character of Cameron Creek and the TID system will remain, and it will remain assumed eligible for the NRHP and CRHR.

It is further recommended that, in the unlikely event that previously unrecorded cultural resources are identified during Project construction, work be halted within a 100 ft. radius of the find and a qualified archaeologist be contacted to evaluate the newly discovered resource. 418
419
References
Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project 59

REFERENCES
Adams, Frank
1929 Irrigation Districts in California. Sacramento: California State Printing Office.

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
n.d. National Register Evaluation Criteria. Electronic document, http://www.achp.gov/ nrcriteria.html. Accessed June 18, 2018.

Armstrong, Matthew and Laura MacDonald
2007 Cultural Resources Inventory of the Southern California Edison Company Cross Valley Transmission Project, Tulare County, California. Submitted to Southern California Edison Company, Rosemead, CA.

Austin, John T.
2012 Floods and Droughts in the Tulare Lake Basin. Available at http://www.tularebasinwatershedpartnership.org/uploads/2/1/4/7/21473344/floods_an d_droughts_in_tulare_lake__basin_secondedition_2.pdf. Accessed August 29, 2024.

Boyd, W.H.
1997 Lower Kern River Country 1850-1950: Wilderness to Empire. Kings River Press, Lemoore.

Cook, S. F.
1978 Historical Demography. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 8, California, R. F. Heizer, editor, pp. 91-98. Washington, D.C., Smithsonian Institute.

Culleton, Brendan J.
2006 Implications of a Freshwater Radiocarbon Reservoir Correction for the Timing of the Late Holocene Settlement of the Elk Hills, Kern County, California. Journal of Science 33:1331-1339.

Driver, H.E.
1937 Cultural Element Distributions: VI, Southern Sierra Nevada. University of California Anthropological Records 1(2):53-154. Berkeley
Elsasser, A.
1962 Indians of Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks. Three Rivers: Sequoia Natural History Association.

Fenenga, F.
1952 The Archaeology of the Slick Rock Village, Tulare County, California. American Antiquity 17:339-347.
420
References
60 Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project Fenenga, G.
1993 Test Excavations at the Witt Site (CA-KIN-32). In W.J. Wallace and F.A. Riddell, editors, pp. 25-38, Finding the Evidence: The Quest for Tulare Lake’s Archaeological Past. Contributions to Tulare Lake Archaeology II. Redondo Beach, Tulare Lake Archaeological Research Group.

Fredrickson, D.A., and J. Grossman
1977 A San Dieguito component at Buena Vista Lake, California. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 4:173-190.

Gayton, A.H.
1930 Yokuts-Mono Chiefs and Shamans. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 24. Berkeley, 361-420.
1948 Yokuts and Western Mono Ethnography. University of California Anthropological Records 10:1–290. Berkeley.

Gifford, E.W., and W.E. Schenck
1926 Archaeology of the Southern San Joaquin Valley. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 23(1):1-122.

Glennan, W.S.
1987a Concave-Based Lanceolate Fluted Projectile Points from California. Prehistory of the Antelope Valley, California: An Overview, R.W. Robinson, ed., Antelope Valley Archaeological Society, Occasional Papers No.1: 21-24.
1987b Evidence for Paleoeastern Culture Type in the Southwestern Great Basin. Prehistory of the Antelope Valley, California: An Overview, R.W. Robinson, ed., Antelope Valley Archaeological Society, Occasional Papers No.1:11-20.

Grunsky, C.E.
1898 Irrigation Near Fresno. Water-Supply and Irrigation Papers of the United States Geological Survey, No. 18. Washington, Government Printing Office.

Harrington, John Peabody
n.d. Yokuts ethnographic notes. National Anthropological Archives.

Hewes, G.
1941 Archaeological reconnaissance of the central San Joaquin Valley. American Antiquity 7:123-133.
421
References
Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project 61 Hemphill, Oscar
1945 Agricultural Crop Report. Tulare County Department of Agriculture. Available at https://agcomm.co.tulare.ca.us/pest-exclusion-standardization/crop-reports1/cropreports-1940-1959/1945-crop-report/. Accessed September 4, 2024.

Horne, S.P.
1981 The Inland Chumash: Ethnography, Ethnohistory and Archaeology. Ph.D. dissertation, UCSB. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.

Jones. T.L., G.M. Brown, L.M. Raab, J.L. McVickar, W.G. Spaulding. D.J. Kennett, A. York, and P.L. Walker
1999 Demographic Crisis in Western North America during the Medieval Climatic Anomaly. Current Anthropology 40:137-170.

JRP Historical Consulting Services
2009 North Kern Water Storage District, Lateral Canal 8-1: Inventory and Evaluations, Kern County, California. Prepared for North Kern Water Storage District. 2019 Historic Property Survey Report: Friant Kern Canal.

King, C., C. Smith, and T. King
n.d. Archaeological Report Related to the Interpretation of Archaeological Resources Present at the Vasquez Rocks County Park. Report on file, SCCIC.

Kroeber, A.L.
1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 78.

Washington, D.C.

Levine, Yasha
2011 California Class War History: Meet the Oligarch Family That’s Been Scamming Taxpayers for 150 Years, and Counting! Available online at http://exiledonline.com/california-class-war-history-meet-the-oligarch-family-thatsbeen-scamming-taxpayers-for-150-years-and-counting/; accessed November 8, 2023.

Los Angeles Almanac
2024 “Once America’s Most Productive Agricultural County.” Available at https://www.laalmanac.com/agriculture/ag721.php. Accessed September 4, 2024.

Mankins, Elvin O.
1959 County of Tulare California: 1959 Annual Report. Available at https://agcomm.co.tulare.ca.us/pest-exclusion-standardization/crop-reports1/cropreports-1940-1959/1959-crop-report/. Accessed September 4, 2024.

Menafee, Eugene L. and Fred A. Dodge
1913 History of Tulare and Kings Counties, California. Historic Record Company, Los Angeles.
422
References
62 Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project Meyer, J., D. Craig Young, and Jeffrey S. Rosenthal
2010 Volume I: A Geoarchaeological Overview and Assessment of Caltrans Districts 6 and 9. Submitted to California Department of Transportation.

Moratto, M.
1984 California Archaeology. New York: Academic Press.

Morgan, W.A.
1914 History of Kern County, California with Biographical Sketches. Los Angeles: Historic Record Company.

Pacific Legacy, Inc.
2006 Southern San Joaquin Valley Oil Fields Comprehensive Study. Manuscript on file, BLM Bakersfield office.

Powers, Stephen
1971 The Yokuts Dance for the Dead. In The California Indians: A Source Book (second edition), edited by R.F. Heizer and M.A. Whipple, pp. 513-519. Berkeley, University of California Press (original 1877).
1976 Tribes of California. Berkeley, University of California Press (original 1877).

Preston, William L.
1981 Vanishing Landscapes: Land and Life in the Tulare Lake Basin. Berkeley, University of California Press.

Ramsey, Eleanor
1980 Historic Resources Inventory. Record on file at the Southern San Joaquin Information Center
Regional Water Management Group, Kaweah River Basin
2017 Integrated Regional Water Management Plan: A Collaborative Effort of Stakeholders within the Kaweah River Basin.

Robinson, W.W.
1948 Land in California: The Story of Mission Lands, Ranchos, Squatters, Mining Claims, Railroad Grants, Land Scrip, Homesteads. Oakland: University of California Press.

Rosenthal, J. S., White, G. G., & Sutton, M. Q.
2007 The Central Valley: A View from the Catbird’s Seat. California Prehistory:

Colonization, Culture, and Complexity(50):147-164.

Schiffman, R.A., and A.P. Garfinkel
1981 Prehistory of Kern County: An Overview. Bakersfield College Publications in Archaeology, Number 1.
423
References
Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project 63 Shultz, Tom
2000 The Dairy Industry in Tulare County. University of California Cooperative Extension.

Siefkin, Nelson
1999 Archaeology of the Redfeldt Mound (CA-KIN-66), Tulare Basin, California. M.A.

Thesis, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, California State University, Bakersfield.

Sutton, M.Q.
1988a An Introduction to the Archaeology of the Western Mojave Desert, California. Archives of California Prehistory, No. 14. Salinas: Coyote Press. 1988b On the Late Prehistory of the Western Mojave Desert. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 24(1):22-29.
2009 People and Language: Defining the Takic Expansion into the Southern California.

Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 40(2, 3): 31-73.

Thompson, H.
1892 California State Engineering Department. Fresno Sheet. Electronic document online at https://ia802207.us.archive.org/6/items/dr_california-state-engineering-departmentdetail-irrigation-map-fresno-shee-5832002/5832002.jpg. Accessed December 2023.

TID (Tulare Irrigation District)
n.d. Tulare Irrigation District History. Available online at http://tulareid.org/district-profile; accessed November 8, 2021.

Tulare Advance-Register
1957 “Most Irrigation Ditches are Full.” 30 December. Page 1.

Tulare County Board of Trade
1917 Bulletin. Available at agcomm.co.tulare.ca.us/pest-exclusion-standardization/cropreports1/crop-reports-1917-1939/1917-crop-report/. Accessed September 4, 2024. 1939 Bulletin. Available at https://agcomm.co.tulare.ca.us/pest-exclusionstandardization/crop-reports1/crop-reports-1917-1939/1939-crop-report/. Accessed September 4, 2024.

Tulare Daily Times
1931 “Ditch-Tender Found Dead in TID Canal.” 15 June. Page 1.

Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC
2020 Historic-Era Built Environment Survey Report, Transmission Line Rating Remediation Program | Kern River to Los Angeles Project, Kern and Los Angeles Counties, CA.

January.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
1956 Aerial. Available at Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC. 424
References
64 Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project U.S. Federal Highway Administration
2022 “National Bridge Inspection.” Available at https://data.freep.com/bridge/ California/tulare/rd-148-over-cameron-creek/06-46C0391/. Accessed August 30, 2024.

United States Geological Survey (USGS)
1926 “California (Tulare County) Exeter Quadrangle.” Topography by E. S. Rickard.

Surveyed 1924-1925.
1950 “Exeter Quadrangle, California-Tulare County.” Topography by Kelsh plotter 1950, Culture and Drainage by Multiplex Methods from Aeiral Photographs 1946.

Visalia Times
1900 “About the City.” Volume 16, Number 129. 22 January.

Visalia Times-Delta
1909a “Irrigation From Rivers and Wells Compared.” 18 December. Page 20. 1909b “Tulare County, California.” 18 December. Page 20. 1925 “Water May Be Scare Again in Some Canals: Tulare Irrigation District Doubting Summer.” 14 March. Page 4.

W&S Consultants
1994 Phase II Test Excavations and Determinations of Significance at CA-LAN-2133, - 2233, -2234, -2235, -2236, -2240, -2241 and -2242, Los Angeles County, California.

Manuscript on file, CSUF AIC.
1999 Class III Inventory/Limited Archaeological Testing Program for the Manuscript on file, CSUB AIC.
2004 Class II Inventory of the Carrizo Plain National Monument, San Luis Obispo County, California. Report on file, BLM Bakersfield office.
2006 Phase II Test Excavations and Determinations of Significance for the Tejon Mountain Village Project, Kern County, California. Report on file, Tejon Ranch Company.

Wedel, W.
1941 Archaeological Investigations at Buena Vista Lake, Kern County, California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 130.

Whitley, D.S.
1992 Shamanism and Rock Art in Far Western North America. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 2(1):89-113.
2000 The Art of the Shaman: Rock Art of California. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.

Whitley, D.S., and M.P. Beaudry
1991 Chiefs on the Coast: The Development of Complex Society in the Tiquisate Region in Ethnographic Perspective. In The Development of Complex Civilizations in Southeastern Mesoamerica, edited by W. Fowler, pp. 101-120. Orlando: CRC Press. 425
References
Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project 65 Whitley, D.S., G. Gumerman IV, J. Simon, and E. Rose
1988 The Late Prehistoric Period in the Coso Range and Environs. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 24(1):2-10.

Whitley, D.S., J. Simon, and J.H.N. Loubser
2007 The Carrizo Collapse: Art and Politics in the Past. In A Festschrift Honoring the Contributions of California Archaeologist Jay von Werlhof, edited by R.L. Kaldenberg, pp. 199-208. Ridgecrest: Maturango Museum Publication 20.

Zimmerman, K.L., C.L. Pruett, and M.Q. Sutton
1989 A Clovis-Like Projectile Point from the Southern Sierra Nevada. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 11:89-91.
426
427

CAMERON CREEK LINEAR RECHARGE PROJECT

LOCATION MAP
ATTACHMENT 3
428
1 Rebecca Keenan
From: Vogler, William@DWR <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, October 25, 2024 9:26 AM
To: Rebecca Keenan
Subject: RE: Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project DRAFT IS/MND Attachments: 2024100477.pdf
Rebecca –
You do not need to send me the additional information that I previously requested. With the information provided in the project’s IS/MND, we were able to determine that the three proposed check structures do not meet the criteria to have these in the DSOD’s State jurisdiction.

Please let me know if you have any additional questions.

Take care,
Bill
Bill Vogler, P.E.

Area 7, Senior Engineer
Division of Safety of Dams
CA Department of Water Resources
916-565-7828 (office)
916-820-7875 (cell)
From: Rebecca Keenan <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2024 4:45 PM
To: Vogler, William@DWR <[email protected]>
Subject: Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project DRAFT IS/MND Hi Mr. Vogler,
Thank you for reaching out regarding the Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project DRAFT IS/MND. I’ve routed your ques6ons and contact informa6on over to our Consultant, and they are currently preparing a response.

I expect that they will have something over to you by some6me next week.

Thank you.

Warmly,
Rebecca Keenan, P.E.

ENGINEERING & BUILDING DEPT.

CITY OF VISALIA
315 E. Acequia Ave.

Visalia, CA 93291
Phone: (559) 713-4541
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 429
October 30, 2024
Rebecca Keenan
City of Visalia
315 East Acequia Avenue
Visalia, CA, 93291
Project: Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
District CEQA Reference No: 20241179
Dear Ms. Keenan:

The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (District) has reviewed the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) from the City of Visalia (City) for the Cameron Creek Linear Recharge project. Per the MND, the project consists of the construction of three (3) reinforced concrete check structure facilities within the Cameron Creek channel totaling 7,500 square feet of disturbed area (Project). The Project is located in Tulare County, CA just outside of the southeastern quadrant of the City of Visalia.

The District offers the following comments at this time regarding the Project:

Project Related Construction Emissions
The District recommends, to further reduce impacts from construction-related diesel exhaust emissions, the Project should utilize the cleanest available off-road construction equipment.

District Rules and Regulations
The District issues permits for many types of air pollution sources, and regulates some activities that do not require permits. A project subject to District rules and regulations would reduce its impacts on air quality through compliance with the District’s regulatory framework. In general, a regulation is a collection of individual rules, each of which deals with a specific topic. As an example, Regulation II (Permits) includes District Rule 2010 (Permits Required), Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review), Rule 2520 (Federally Mandated Operating Permits), and several other rules pertaining to District permitting requirements and processes.
430
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 2 of 4 District Reference No: 20241179
October 30, 2024
The list of rules below is neither exhaustive nor exclusive. Current District rules can be found online at: https://ww2.valleyair.org/rules-and-planning/current-district-rulesand-regulations. To identify other District rules or regulations that apply to future projects, or to obtain information about District permit requirements, the project proponents are strongly encouraged to contact the District’s Small Business Assistance (SBA) Office at (559) 230-5888.

District Rules 2010 and 2201 - Air Quality Permitting for Stationary Sources
Stationary Source emissions include any building, structure, facility, or installation which emits or may emit any affected pollutant directly or as a fugitive emission. District Rule 2010 (Permits Required) requires operators of emission sources to obtain an Authority to Construct (ATC) and Permit to Operate (PTO) from the District. District Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review) requires that new and modified stationary sources of emissions mitigate their emissions using Best Available Control Technology (BACT).

This Project may be subject to District Rule 2010 (Permits Required) and Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review) and may require District permits. Prior to construction, the Project proponent should submit to the District an application for an ATC. For further information or assistance, the project proponent may contact the District’s SBA Office at (559) 230-5888.

District Rule 9510 - Indirect Source Review (ISR)
The District has reviewed the information provided and has determined the project size is below the District Rule 9510, section 2.1 applicability threshold of 9,000 square feet of space. Therefore, District Rule 9510 requirements and related fees do not apply to the project.

District Rule 4002 (National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants)
In the event an existing building will be renovated, partially demolished or removed, the Project may be subject to District Rule 4002. This rule requires a thorough inspection for asbestos to be conducted before any regulated facility is demolished or renovated. Information on how to comply with District Rule 4002 can be found online at: https://ww2.valleyair.org/compliance/demolitionrenovation/ 431
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 3 of 4 District Reference No: 20241179
October 30, 2024
District Regulation VIII (Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions)
The project proponent may be required to submit a Construction Notification Form or submit and receive approval of a Dust Control Plan prior to commencing any earthmoving activities as described in Regulation VIII, specifically Rule 8021 – Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving Activities.

Should the project result in at least 1-acre in size, the project proponent shall provide written notification to the District at least 48 hours prior to the project proponents intent to commence any earthmoving activities pursuant to District Rule 8021 (Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving Activities). Also, should the project result in the disturbance of 5- acres or more, or will include moving, depositing, or relocating more than 2,500 cubic yards per day of bulk materials, the project proponent shall submit to the District a Dust Control Plan pursuant to District Rule 8021 (Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving Activities). For additional information regarding the written notification or Dust Control Plan requirements, please contact District Compliance staff at (559) 230-5950.

The application for both the Construction Notification and Dust Control Plan can be found online at: https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/fm3jrbsq/dcp-form.docx Information about District Regulation VIII can be found online at:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/dustcontrol
Other District Rules and Regulations
The Project may also be subject to the following District rules: Rule 4102 (Nuisance) and Rule 4641 (Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations).
432
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 4 of 4 District Reference No: 20241179
October 30, 2024
District Comment Letter
The District recommends that a copy of the District’s comments be provided to the Project proponent.

If you have any questions or require further information, please contact Eric McLaughlin by e-mail at [email protected] or by phone at (559) 230-5808.

Sincerely,
Tom Jordan
Director of Policy and Government Affairs
For: Mark Montelongo
Program Manager
cc: Briza Sholars
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group
400 E. Main Street, Suite 300
Visalia, CA 93291-6337
[email protected]
433
State of California – Natural Resources Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director Central Region
1234 East Shaw Avenue
Fresno, CA 93710
(559) 243 - 4005
www.wildlife.ca.gov
Conserving California’s Wildlife Since 1870

November 13, 2024
Rebecca Keenan, Engineer
City of Visalia
315 East Acequia Avenue
Visalia, California 93291
(559) 713-4636
Subject: Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project (Project) Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)
State Clearinghouse No.: 2024100477
Dear Rebecca Keenan:

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) received a MND from City of Visalia, as Lead Agency, for the above-referenced Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines.1
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and recommendations regarding those activities involved in the Project that may affect California fish and wildlife.

Likewise, CDFW appreciates the opportunity to provide comments regarding those aspects of the Project that CDFW, by law, may be required to carry out or approve through the exercise of its own regulatory authority under the Fish and Game Code.

While the comment period may have ended, CDFW respectfully requests that City of Visalia still consider our comments.

CDFW ROLE
CDFW is California’s Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources and holds those resources in trust by statute for all the people of the State (Fish & G. Code, §§ 711.7, subd. (a) & 1802; Pub. Resources Code, § 21070; CEQA Guidelines § 15386, subd. (a)). CDFW, in its trustee capacity, has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species (Id., § 1802.). Similarly, for purposes of CEQA,

1 CEQA is codified in the California Public Resources Code in section 21000 et seq. The “CEQA Guidelines” are found in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, commencing with section 15000.

Docusign Envelope ID: C00118A8-CA0E-4C07-987C-7BB5B1B6D735 434
Briza Sholars, Senior Planner
Provost & Pritchard
November 13, 2024

Page 2 ends

CDFW is charged by law to provide, as available, biological expertise during public agency environmental review efforts, focusing specifically on projects and related activities that have the potential to adversely affect fish and wildlife resources.

CDFW is also submitting comments as a Responsible Agency under CEQA (Pub.

Resources Code, § 21069; CEQA Guidelines, § 15381). CDFW expects that it may need to exercise regulatory authority as provided by the Fish and Game Code. As proposed, for example, the Project may be subject to CDFW’s lake and streambed alteration regulatory authority (Fish & G. Code, § 1600 et seq.). Likewise, to the extent implementation of the Project as proposed may result in “take” as defined by State law of any species protected under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Fish & G. Code, § 2050 et seq.), related authorization as provided by the Fish and Game Code will be required.

Fully Protected Species: CDFW has jurisdiction over fully protected species of birds, mammals, amphibians and reptiles, and fish, pursuant to Fish and Game Code sections 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515. Fully protected species may not be taken or possessed at any time and no licenses or permits may be issued for their take except as follows:
 Take is for necessary scientific research,
 Efforts to recover a fully protected, endangered, or threatened species, live capture, and relocation of a bird species for the protection of livestock, or  They are a covered species whose conservation and management is provided for in a Natural Community Conservation Plan (Fish & G. Code, §§ 3511, 4700, 5050, & 5515).

Additionally, specified types of infrastructure projects may be eligible for an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) for unavoidable impacts to fully protected species if certain conditions are met (see Fish & G. Code §2081.15). Project proponents should consult with CDFW early in the Project planning process if an ITP may be pursued for the Project.

Nesting Birds: CDFW has jurisdiction over actions with potential to result in the disturbance or destruction of active nest sites or the unauthorized take of birds. Fish and Game Code sections that protect birds, their eggs and nests include, sections 3503 (regarding unlawful take, possession or needless destruction of the nest or eggs of any bird), 3503.5 (regarding the take, possession or destruction of any birds-of-prey or their nests or eggs), and 3513 (regarding unlawful take of any migratory nongame bird).

Unlisted Species: Species of plants and animals need not be officially listed as Endangered, Rare, or Threatened (E, R, or T) on any State or Federal list to be considered E, R, or T under CEQA. If a species can be shown to meet the criteria for E, R, or T under CEQA Guidelines section 15380, CDFW recommends it should be fully considered in the environmental analysis for the Project.

Docusign Envelope ID: C00118A8-CA0E-4C07-987C-7BB5B1B6D735 435
Briza Sholars, Senior Planner
Provost & Pritchard
November 13, 2024

Page 3 ends

Water Rights: The capture of unallocated stream flows is subject to appropriation and approval by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) pursuant to Water Code section 1200 et seq. CDFW, as Trustee Agency, is consulted by the SWRCB during the water rights process to provide terms and conditions designed to protect fish and wildlife prior to appropriation of the State’s water resources. Certain fish and wildlife are reliant upon aquatic ecosystems, which in turn are reliant upon adequate flows of water. CDFW therefore has a material interest in assuring that adequate water flows within streams for the protection, maintenance, and proper stewardship of those resources. CDFW provides, as available, biological expertise to review and comment on environmental documents and impacts arising from project activities.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY
Proponent: City of Visalia
Objective: The Project proposes to construct up to three (3) reinforced concrete check structure facilities within the Cameron Creek channel. The check structures would be equipped with control gates and weir boards capable of passing high flows (250 cubic feet per second) while maintaining high water levels in the channel making Cameron Creek a linear recharge basin. Excavation for construction will be minimal and would only be the amount necessary for constructing the structures. Excavation through the creek channel and embankment would reach approximately 65 feet horizontally at a depth of about 10 feet from top of bank (excavation from channel bottom will likely be 3- 4 feet). Once completed, excavated soil would be backfilled around the structure and the channel prism re-graded to match existing conditions. No material export is anticipated, and earthwork would be balanced on site.

Location: The Project site is located within Cameron Creek where it diverts from Tulare Irrigation District’s Main Intake Canal, east of Road 156, with the end location northeast of the Lovers Lane and Caldwell Avenue intersection in Tulare County. The centroid of the Project is 36° 18’ 24.19” N, 119° 15’ 01.48” W. Lands surrounding Cameron Creek contain both Tulare County and the City of Visalia designations.

Timeframe: The Project would commence in September 2025 and is anticipated to be constructed within approximately four months.

COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CDFW offers the following comments and recommendations to assist the City of Visalia in adequately identifying and/or mitigating the Project’s significant, or potentially significant, direct, and indirect impacts on fish and wildlife (biological) resources.

Editorial comments or other suggestions may also be included to improve the CEQA document prepared for this Project.

Docusign Envelope ID: C00118A8-CA0E-4C07-987C-7BB5B1B6D735 436
Briza Sholars, Senior Planner
Provost & Pritchard
November 13, 2024

Page 4 ends

According to the MND and a review of aerial imagery, the Project site and surrounding Cameron Creek are largely comprised of ruderal herbaceous habitat surrounded by agricultural lands including orchards.

Currently, the MND acknowledges that the Project site is within the geographic range of several special-status animal species and proposes specific mitigation measures to reduce impacts to less than significant; however, CDFW has concerns about the ability of some proposed mitigation measures to reduce impacts to less than significant and to avoid unauthorized take for several special-status species including, but not limited to, the State threatened Swainson’s Hawk (Buteo Swainsoni); the State candidate western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea) and Crotch’s bumble bee (Bombus crotchii); and the State species of special concern American badger (Taxidea taxus), pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), western matif bat (Eumops perotis californicus), and loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus).

Comment 1: Swainson’s Hawk
Table 4-10 of the MND, List of Special-Status Animals with Potential to Occur on the Area of Potential Effect (APE), notes that a Swainson’s Hawk (SWHA) was observed flying over the APE and into a nearby tree during the reconnaissance survey for the Project. Mitigation measures BIO-3 through BIO-5 detail general migratory bird, raptor, and special-status bird measures, and include survey measures for SWHA that will be implemented as part of this Project. CDFW concurs with implementing mitigation measure BIO-3 to BIO-5 to minimize potential impacts to nesting birds, but recommends surveys be conducted following the entirety of the survey methods developed by the Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee (SWHA TAC 2000). Please note the survey protocol includes early season surveys to assist the Project proponent in implementing necessary avoidance and minimization measures, and in identifying active nest sites prior to initiating ground-disturbing activities. CDFW also recommends the following mitigation measures be incorporated:

Recommended Mitigation Measure 1: SWHA Buffers
If an active SWHA nest is found during focused surveys, CDFW recommends implementing a minimum ½-mile no-disturbance buffer until the breeding season has ended or until a qualified biologist has determined that the birds have fledged and are no longer reliant upon the nest site for survival.

Recommended Mitigation Measure 2: SWHA Take Authorization If a ½-mile no-disturbance nest buffer is not feasible, consultation with CDFW is warranted, and an ITP for SWHA may be necessary prior to project implementation to avoid unauthorized take, pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 2081, subdivision (b).

Docusign Envelope ID: C00118A8-CA0E-4C07-987C-7BB5B1B6D735 437
Briza Sholars, Senior Planner
Provost & Pritchard
November 13, 2024

Page 5 ends

Comment 2: Burrowing Owl
The California Fish and Game Commission (FGC) approved western burrowing owl (BUOW) as a candidate for potential listing as a protected species under CESA on October 10, 2024, and published these findings in the California Regulatory Notice Register (Notice Register) on October 25, 2024. As such, BUOW is now considered a candidate under CESA and receives the same legal protection afforded to an endangered or threatened species (Fish & G. Code, §§ 2074.2 & 2085).

The MND includes Mitigation Measures BIO-6 through BIO-8 to mitigate for potential impacts to BUOW, as the Project site is within the known geographic range of burrowing owl (BUOW) and the Project area contains suitable habitat for BUOW nesting and foraging. As BUOW is now a candidate under CESA, CDFW recommends that the Project’s mitigation measures be updated to reflect the species updated status and recommends the following measures be incorporated into the Project to avoid unauthorized take.

Recommended Mitigation Measure 3: BUOW Surveys Prior to Construction CDFW recommends that surveys, following the “Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines” (CBOC 1993) and CDFW’s “Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation” (CDFG 2012) be conducted within areas of suitable habitat the survey season immediately prior to construction.

Recommended Mitigation Measure 4: BUOW Consultation
If BUOW or burrows known to be currently or previously occupied by BUOW are found, either during surveys or Project activities, consultation with CDFW is warranted to discuss how to implement the Project and avoid take; or if avoidance is not feasible, to potentially acquire an ITP prior to any ground disturbing activities, pursuant Fish and Game Code section 2081 subdivision (b).

Comment 3: Crotch’s Bumble Bee
The MND notes that Crotch’s bumble bee is unlikely to occur within the Project site but no focused surveys were conducted for the species and there is limited information on whether an adequate habitat assessment for CBB was conducted. CBB are known to inhabit areas of grassland and ruderal habitats that contain requisite habitat elements for nesting, such as small mammal burrows and bunch/thatched grasses, and these habitat elements appear to be present within the Project site. As such, CDFW recommends the following:

Docusign Envelope ID: C00118A8-CA0E-4C07-987C-7BB5B1B6D735 438
Briza Sholars, Senior Planner
Provost & Pritchard
November 13, 2024

Page 6 ends

Recommended Mitigation Measure 5: CBB Habitat Assessment CDFW recommends a qualified biologist conduct a habitat assessment to determine if the Project site and the immediate surrounding vicinity contain habitat suitable to support CBB. Potential nesting sites, which include all small mammal burrows, perennial bunch grasses, thatched annual grasses, brush piles, old bird nests, dead trees, and hollow logs would need to be documented as part of the assessment.

Recommended Mitigation Measure 7: CBB Avoidance
If CBB is detected, then CDFW recommends that all small mammal burrows and thatched/bunch grasses be avoided by a minimum of 50 feet to avoid take and potentially significant impacts. If ground-disturbing activities will occur during the overwintering period (October through February), consultation with CDFW is warranted to discuss how to implement Project activities and avoid take. Any detection of CBB prior to or during Project implementation warrants consultation with CDFW to discuss how to avoid take.

Recommended Mitigation Measure 8: CBB Take Authorization If take cannot be avoided, CDFW recommends acquiring an ITP pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 2081(b), prior to initiating ground-disturbing activities.

Comment 4: Other State Special-Status Animals
The MND notes that the banks along Cameron Creek can provide suitable denning habitat for American badger (AMBA) and possible nesting habitat for loggerhead shrike (LOSH). CDFW concurs with Mitigation Measures BIO-3 through BIO-5, and BIO-15 through BIO-18, as methods to minimize potential impacts to these species, but also recommends the following:

Recommended Mitigation Measure 9: Surveys
CDFW recommends that a qualified biologist conduct focused surveys for the special-status species referenced above, as well as their requisite habitat features, to evaluate potential impacts resulting from Project activities.

Docusign Envelope ID: C00118A8-CA0E-4C07-987C-7BB5B1B6D735 439
Briza Sholars, Senior Planner
Provost & Pritchard
November 13, 2024

Page 7 ends

Recommended Mitigation Measure 10: Avoidance
Avoidance whenever possible is encouraged via delineation and observance of a 50-foot no-disturbance buffer around dens of AMBA. CDFW also recommends a minimum no-disturbance buffer of 250 feet around active LOSH nests.

Comment 5: Special-Status Bat Species
The MND acknowledges that the Project site contains habitat features, such as oak trees and bridges adjacent to the APE, that have the potential to support roosting western mastiff and pallid bats. Both species are known to occur in the vicinity of the Project site and historical and recent CNDDB observations for these species have been documented (CNDDB 2024). Project activities have the potential to affect habitat upon which special-status bat species depend on for successful breeding and have the potential to impact individuals and local populations. Mitigation measures BIO-9 through BIO-11 detail measures such as focused surveys, avoidance buffers, and eviction that may be undertaken to reduce the Project’s impact on these species. CDFW concurs with conducting surveys and recommends the addition of the following mitigation measure:

Recommended Mitigation Measure 11: Bat Roost Disturbance Minimization and Avoidance
If bats are present, CDFW recommends that a 100-foot no-disturbance buffer be placed around the roost and that a qualified biologist who is experienced with bats monitor them for signs of disturbance to bats from Project activity. If a bat roost is identified and work is planned to occur during the breeding season, CDFW recommends that no disturbance to maternity roosts occurs and that CDFW be consulted to determine measures to prevent breeding disruption or failure.

Editorial Comments and/or Suggestions
California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB)
Please note that the CNDDB is populated by records through voluntary submissions of species detections. As a result, species may be present in locations not depicted in the CNDDB but where there is suitable habitat and features capable of supporting species.

A lack of an occurrence record in the CNDDB does not mean a species is not present.

In order to adequately assess any potential Project related impacts to biological resources, surveys conducted by a qualified biologist during the appropriate survey period(s) and using the appropriate protocol survey methodology are warranted in order to determine whether or not any special-status species are present at or near the Project site.

Docusign Envelope ID: C00118A8-CA0E-4C07-987C-7BB5B1B6D735 440
Briza Sholars, Senior Planner
Provost & Pritchard
November 13, 2024

Page 8 ends

Lake and Streambed Alteration: The Project activities, as described, have the potential to temporarily and permanently impact water flows of Cameron Creek and are subject to CDFW’s regulatory authority pursuant to Fish and Game Code 1600 et seq.

Project activities that substantially change the bed, bank, and channel of any river, stream, or lake are subject to CDFW’s regulatory authority pursuant Fish and Game Code section 1600 et seq. Fish and Game Code section 1602 requires an entity to notify CDFW prior to commencing any activity that may (a) substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of any river, stream, or lake; (b) substantially change or use any material from the bed, bank, or channel of any river, stream, or lake (including the removal of riparian vegetation): (c) deposit debris, waste or other materials that could pass into any river, stream, or lake. “Any river, stream, or lake” includes those that are ephemeral or intermittent as well as those that are perennial and may include those that are highly modified such as canals and retention basins.

CDFW is required to comply with CEQA in the issuance of a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSAA); therefore, if the CEQA document approved for the Project does not adequately describe the Project and its impacts to lakes or streams, a subsequent CEQA analysis may be necessary for LSAA issuance. For information on notification requirements, please refer to CDFW’s website (https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/LSA) or contact CDFW staff in the Central Region Lake and Streambed Alteration Program at (559) 243-4593.

Nesting birds: CDFW encourages that Project ground-disturbing activities occur during the bird non-nesting season; however, if ground-disturbing or vegetation-disturbing activities must occur during the nesting season (February 1st through September 15th), the Project applicant is responsible for ensuring that implementation of the Project does not result in violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act or relevant Fish and Game Code sections as referenced above.

CDFW further recommends that a qualified biologist conduct a pre-construction survey for active nests no more than 10 days prior to the start of ground or vegetation disturbance to maximize the probability that nests that could potentially be impacted are detected. CDFW also recommends that surveys cover a sufficient area around the Project site to identify nests and determine their status. A sufficient area means any area potentially affected, either directly or indirectly, by the Project. In addition to direct impacts (i.e., nest destruction), noise, vibration, and movement of workers or equipment could also affect nests. CDFW recommends that a qualified biologist establish a behavioral baseline of all identified nests. Once Project activities begin, CDFW recommends having a qualified biologist continuously monitor nests to detect behavioral changes resulting from the Project. If behavioral changes occur, CDFW recommends halting the work causing that change and consulting with CDFW for additional avoidance and minimization measures.

Docusign Envelope ID: C00118A8-CA0E-4C07-987C-7BB5B1B6D735 441
Briza Sholars, Senior Planner
Provost & Pritchard
November 13, 2024

Page 9 ends

If continuous monitoring of identified nests by a qualified biologist is not feasible, CDFW recommends a minimum no-disturbance buffer of 250 feet around active nests of nonlisted bird species and a 500-foot no-disturbance buffer around active nests of nonlisted raptors. These buffers are advised to remain in place until the breeding season has ended or until a qualified biologist has determined the birds have fledged and are no longer reliant upon the nest or on-site parental care for survival. Variance from these no-disturbance buffers is possible when there is a compelling biological or ecological reason to do so, such as when the Project site would be concealed from a nest site by topography. CDFW recommends that a qualified biologist advise and support any variance from these buffers and notify CDFW in advance of implementing a variance.

Water Rights: The MND notes that approvals may be required from several agencies for Project activities within Cameron Creek including the TID, Central Valley Water Quality Control Board (CVWQCB), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and CDFW.

The Project will divert surface flow from Cameron Creek for groundwater storage within the vicinity of the City of Visalia. As stated previously, the capture of unallocated stream flows to artificially recharge groundwater aquifers is subject to appropriation and approval by the SWRCB pursuant to Water Code section 1200 et seq. CDFW recommends that the MND include a detailed description of the water rights and water entitlements that would pertain specifically to the Project and address any applications or change petitions that may be filed. CDFW, as Trustee Agency, is consulted by the SWRCB during the water rights process to provide terms and conditions designed to protect fish and wildlife prior to appropriation of the State’s water resources. Projectrelated diversion for groundwater recharge will impact riparian, wetland, fisheries and terrestrial (upland) wildlife species and their habitats. Given the potential for impacts to special-status species and their habitats it is advised that any required consultation with CDFW occur well in advance of the SWRCB water right application process.

Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems: Groundwater Sustainability Plans were prepared for the Kaweah Subbasin. The Kaweah Subbasin (Subbasin No. 5-22.11 of the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin) is designated a high priority Subbasin by the Department of Water Resources. SGMA defines sustainable groundwater management as, “management and use of groundwater in a manner that can be maintained during the planning and implementation horizon without causing undesirable results (Water Code, § 10721 (v)).” CDFW recommends that the MND include an analysis of Project-related activities in relation to the Greater Kaweah Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan, including analysis of potential undesirable results and adverse impacts to groundwater dependent ecosystems including the biological resources listed above.

ENVIRONMENTAL DATA
CEQA requires that information developed in environmental impact reports and negative declarations be incorporated into a database, which may be used to make Docusign Envelope ID: C00118A8-CA0E-4C07-987C-7BB5B1B6D735 442
Briza Sholars, Senior Planner
Provost & Pritchard
November 13, 2024

Page 10 ends

subsequent or supplemental environmental determinations (Pub. Resources Code, § 21003, subd. (e)). Accordingly, please report any special-status species and natural communities detected during Project surveys to the CNDDB. The CNDDB field survey form can be found at the following link:
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Submitting-Data. The completed form can be mailed electronically to the CNDDB at the following email address:

[email protected]. The types of information reported to the CNDDB can be found at the following link: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Plants-and-Animals.

FILING FEES
The Project, as proposed, could have an impact on biological resources, an assessment of filing fees is necessary. Fees are payable upon filing of the Notice of Determination by the Lead Agency and serve to help defray the cost of environmental review by CDFW. Payment of the fee is required in order for the underlying Project approval to be operative, vested, and final (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 14, § 753.5; Fish & G. Code, § 711.4; Pub. Resources Code, § 21089).

CONCLUSION
CDFW appreciates the opportunity to comment on the MND to assist the City of Visalia in identifying and mitigating Project impacts on biological resources. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Attachment 1) is included below to assist the City of Visalia with incorporating the recommended mitigation measures provided above.

More information on survey and monitoring protocols for sensitive species can be found at CDFW’s website (https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Survey-Protocols). If you have any questions regarding this letter or further coordination, please contact Marile Colindres, Environmental Scientist, at the address provided on this letterhead, by telephone at (559) 974-3452, or by electronic mail at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Julie A. Vance
Regional Manager
ec: State Clearinghouse
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
[email protected]
Docusign Envelope ID: C00118A8-CA0E-4C07-987C-7BB5B1B6D735 443
Briza Sholars, Senior Planner
Provost & Pritchard
November 13, 2024

Page 11 ends

Briza Sholars
Provost & Pritchard
[email protected]
Linda Connolly
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
[email protected]
Margarita Gordus
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
[email protected]
Docusign Envelope ID: C00118A8-CA0E-4C07-987C-7BB5B1B6D735 444
Briza Sholars, Senior Planner
Provost & Pritchard
November 13, 2024

Page 12 ends

REFERENCES
California Burrowing Owl Consortium. 1993. Burrowing owl survey protocol and mitigation guidelines. Pages 171-177 in Lincer, J. and K. Steenhof (editors). 1993. The burrowing owl, its biology and management. Raptor Research Report Number 9.

California Department of Fish and Game. 2012. Staff report on burrowing owl mitigation.

California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California, USA.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2024. Biogeographic information and observation system (BIOS). https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/BIOS. Accessed October 30, 2024.

Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee. 2000. Recommended timing and methodology for Swainson’s hawk nesting surveys in the central valley of California. Swainson’s hawk technical advisory committee U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Standard recommendations for the protection of the San Joaquin Kit Fox prior to or during ground disturbance. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, Sacramento, California.

Docusign Envelope ID: C00118A8-CA0E-4C07-987C-7BB5B1B6D735 445
Attachment 1

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE

RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING

PROGRAM (MMRP)
PROJECT: Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project (Project) Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)
State Clearinghouse No.: 2024100477

RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURE STATUS/DATE/INITIALS
Before Disturbing Soil or Vegetation
SWHA
Recommended Mitigation Measure 2:

SWHA Take Authorization
BUOW
Recommended Mitigation Measure 3:

BUOW Surveys Prior to Construction
Recommended Mitigation Measure 4:

BUOW Consultation
CBB
Recommended Mitigation Measure 5: CBB
habitat assessment
Recommended Mitigation Measure 6: CBB
surveys
Recommended Mitigation Measure 8: CBB
take authorization
Other State Species of Special Concern
Recommended Mitigation Measure 9:

Surveys
During Construction
SWHA
Recommended Mitigation Measure 1:

SWHA Buffers
CBB
Recommended Mitigation Measure 7:

CBB Avoidance
Other State Species of Special Concern
Recommended Mitigation Measure 10:

Avoidance
Special-Status Bat Species
Recommended Mitigation Measure 11:

Bat Roost Disturbance Minimization
and Avoidance
Docusign Envelope ID: C00118A8-CA0E-4C07-987C-7BB5B1B6D735 446

CITY OF VISALIA

CAMERON CREEK LINEAR

RECHARGE PROJECT

RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS

TULARE COUNTY
NOVEMBER 2024
PREPARED FOR:

City of Visalia
Tulare County
PREPARED BY:

PROVOST & PRITCHARD CONSULTING GROUP
455 W. Fir Avenue, Clovis, CA 93611
447
Report Prepared for:

City Of Visalia
Community Development Department
315 East Acequia Avenue
Visalia, CA 93291
Contact:

Rebecca Keenan, Engineer
(559) 713-4541
Brandon Smith, Principal Planner
(559) 713-4636
Report Prepared by:

Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group
Briza Grace Sholars, Senior Environmental Planner, Project Manager, QA/QC Jackie Lancaster, Senior Project Administrator, Technical Writer, Administrative Support Contact:

Briza Grace Sholars, Senior Environmental Planner
(559)4 49-2700
COPYRIGHT 2024 BY PROVOST & PRITCHARD CONSULTING GROUP ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group expressly reserves its common law copyright and other applicable property rights to this document. This document is not to be reproduced, changed, or copied in any form or manner whatsoever, nor are they to be assigned to a third party without first obtaining the written permission and consent of Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group In the event of unauthorized reuse of the information contained herein by a third party, the third party shall hold the firm of Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group harmless, and shall bear the cost of Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group's legal fees associated with defending and enforcing these rights.
448
City Of Visalia November 2024
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
Job No.: 1391-24-002

Page 1 ends

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Response to Public Comments ................................................................................................................. 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 1 Comment A – Phone call and Email with the Department of Water Resources – Division of Safety of Dams (October 25, 2024) ................................................................................................................................................. 1 Comment A/1........................................................................................................................................1 Response A/1 ........................................................................................................................................1 Comment Letter B – San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (October 30, 2024) .......................... 1 Comment B/1........................................................................................................................................1 Response B/1 ........................................................................................................................................1 Comment B/2........................................................................................................................................1 Response B/2 ........................................................................................................................................1 Comment B/2A......................................................................................................................................1 Response B/2A ......................................................................................................................................1 Comment B/2B......................................................................................................................................2 Response B/2B ......................................................................................................................................2 Comment B/2C......................................................................................................................................2 Response B/2C ......................................................................................................................................2 Comment B/2D......................................................................................................................................2 Response B/2D......................................................................................................................................2 Comment B/2E......................................................................................................................................3 Response B/2E.......................................................................................................................................3 Comment B/3........................................................................................................................................3 Response B/3 ........................................................................................................................................3 Comment Letter C - California Department of Fish and Wildlife (November 13, 2024) *Comment recevied after the close of the public comment Period on November 12, 2024 ..................................................................... 1 Comment C/1........................................................................................................................................1 Response C/1 ........................................................................................................................................1 Comment C/2........................................................................................................................................1 Response C/2 ........................................................................................................................................2 Comment C/3........................................................................................................................................2 Response C/3 ........................................................................................................................................3 Comment C/4........................................................................................................................................3 Response C/4 ........................................................................................................................................3 Comment C/5........................................................................................................................................3 Response C/5 ........................................................................................................................................4 Comment C/6........................................................................................................................................4 Response C/6 ........................................................................................................................................4 Comment C/7........................................................................................................................................4 Response C/7 ........................................................................................................................................5 Comment C/8........................................................................................................................................5 Response C/8 ........................................................................................................................................5 Comment C/9........................................................................................................................................5 Response C/9 ........................................................................................................................................6 Comment C/10......................................................................................................................................6 Response C/10 ......................................................................................................................................6 Comment C/11......................................................................................................................................6 Response C/11 ......................................................................................................................................6 449
City Of Visalia November 2024
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
Job No.: 1391-24-002

Page 2 ends

Comment C/12......................................................................................................................................6 Response C/12 ......................................................................................................................................7 450
City Of Visalia November 2024
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
Job No.: 1391-24-002
1 INTRODUCTION
The following are the City of Visalia’s responses to comments received during the public review period for the Initial Study (IS) and Mitigated Negative Declaration, dated November 2024, prepared for the Cameron Creek Lateral Recharge Project (Project). The Notice of Intent to adopt an IS/MND was circulated for public review from October 11, 2024, through November 12, 2024. Two (2) comments were received during the public review period; one (1) was received from the Department of Water Resources (DWR) – Division of Safety of Dams(DSOD) via phone call and email and one (1) letter was received from the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD).

One (1) comment letter was received from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife after the close of the comment period on November 12, 2024.

Comments received during and after the public review period did not result in changes to the IS/MND.

Although comments included standard recommendations and no new unavoidable significant effects were identified, and mitigation measures were not lessened as a result of responding to comments. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 2022 Section 15073.5 (c) 1, the IS/MND has not been substantially revised after public notice of its availability and therefore does not require recirculation. 451
City Of Visalia November 2024
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
Response to Comments
1 COMMENT A – PHONE CALL AND EMAIL WITH THE DEPARTMENT
OF WATER RESOURCES – DIVISION OF SAFETY OF DAMS
(OCTOBER 25, 2024)
COMMENT A/1
The City of Visalia received a phone call on October 21st, 2024, from the Department of Water Resources - Division of Safety Dams(DSOD) questioning a jurisdictional determination for the Project. DSOD jurisdiction is applicable to a project when a reservoir holding over 50 Acre-feet has embankments a certain height above grade, typically 6 feet.

RESPONSE A/1
Comment noted. This Project does not fall under DSOD jurisdiction. All water storage capacity is below existing grade. Ten feet from top of channel is from channel top of bank to the footing of our structure.

Most of that that (8+ feet) is below existing grade. The 65 feet width is perpendicular across the flow of the channel. We will have excavation that wide across the channel because Cameron Creek and its banks are that wide and we'll excavate for the structure floor and wingwall footings to embed into the banks on each side.

In a closing email, DSOD Senior Engineer provided a follow up email response to the City of Visalia on Friday, October 25th, 2024, and stated that with the information provided in the Project’s Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, they were able to determine that the three proposed check structures do not meet the criteria to fall under DSOD jurisdiction.
452
Comment A – Department of Water Resources – Division of Safety of Dams (October 21, 2024 – Phone Call, October 25, 2024 - Email) 453
From: Rebecca Keenan <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 25, 2024 1:00 PM
To: Matt Klinchuch <[email protected]>
Cc: BRANDON SMITH - [email protected] <[email protected]>; Briza Sholars <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project DRAFT IS/MND From: Vogler, William@DWR <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, October 25, 2024 9:26 AM
To: Rebecca Keenan <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project DRAFT IS/MND Rebecca –
You do not need to send me the additional information that I previously requested. With the information provided in the project’s IS/MND, we were able to determine that the three proposed check structures do not meet the criteria to have these in the DSOD’s State jurisdiction.

Please let me know if you have any additional questions.

Take care,
Bill
Bill Vogler, P.E.

Area 7, Senior Engineer
Division of Safety of Dams
CA Department of Water Resources
916-565-7828 (office)
916-820-7875 (cell)
454
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important From: Rebecca Keenan <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2024 4:45 PM
To: Vogler, William@DWR <[email protected]>
Subject: Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project DRAFT IS/MND Hi Mr. Vogler,
Thank you for reaching out regarding the Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project DRAFT IS/MND. I’ve routed your questions and contact information over to our Consultant, and they are currently preparing a response.

I expect that they will have something over to you by sometime next week.

Thank you.

Warmly,
Rebecca Keenan, P.E.

ENGINEERING & BUILDING DEPT.

CITY OF VISALIA
315 E. Acequia Ave.

Visalia, CA 93291
Phone: (559) 713-4541
Email: [email protected]
This e-mail (and attachments, if any) may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and as such may therefore be subject to public disclosure unless otherwise exempt under the Act. 455
City Of Visalia November 2024
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
Response to Comments
1 COMMENT LETTER B – SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR POLLUTION
CONTROL DISTRICT (OCTOBER 30, 2024)
COMMENT B/1
Project Related Emissions: The District recommends, to further reduce impacts from construction-related diesel exhaust emissions, the Projectshould utilize the cleanest available off-road construction equipment.

RESPONSE B/1
Comment noted. The Project will utilize the cleanest available off-road construction equipment as feasible.

COMMENT B/2
District Rules and Regulations - The District issues permits for many types of air pollution sources and regulates some activities that do not require permits. A Project subject to District rules and regulations would reduce its impacts on air quality through compliance with the District’s regulatory framework. In general, a regulation is a collection of individual rules, each of which deals with a specific topic. As an example, Regulation II (Permits) includes District Rule 2010 (Permits Required), Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review), Rule 2520 (Federally Mandated Operating Permits), and several other rules pertaining to District permitting requirements and processes.

The list of rules below is neither exhaustive nor exclusive. Current District rules can be found online at:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/rules-and-planning/current-district-rules-and-regulations. To identify other District rules or regulations that apply to future Projects, or to obtain information about District permit requirements, the Project proponents are strongly encouraged to contact the District’s Small Business Assistance (SBA) Office at (559) 230-5888.

RESPONSE B/2
Comment noted. The Project will comply with all applicable regulations of the SJVAPCD COMMENT B/2A
District Rules 2010 and 2201 - Air Quality Permitting for Stationary Sources - Stationary Source emissions include any building, structure, facility, or installation which emits or may emit any affected pollutant directly or as a fugitive emission. District Rule 2010 (Permits Required) requires operators of emission sources to obtain an Authority to Construct (ATC) and Permit to Operate (PTO) from the District. District Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review) requires that new and modified stationary sources of emissions mitigate their emissions using Best Available Control Technology (BACT).

This Project may be subject to District Rule 2010 (Permits Required) and Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review) and may require District permits. Prior to construction, the Project proponent should submit to the District an application for an ATC. For further information or assistance, the Project proponent may contact the District’s SBA Office at (559) 230-5888.

RESPONSE B/2A
Comment noted. The Project will comply with all applicable regulations of the SJVAPCD. 456
City Of Visalia November 2024
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
Response to Comments
2 COMMENT B/2B
District Rule 9510 - Indirect Source Review (ISR) - The District has reviewed the information provided and has determined the Project size is below the District Rule 9510, section 2.1 applicability threshold of 9,000 square feet of space. Therefore, District Rule 9510 requirements and related fees do not apply to the Project.

RESPONSE B/2B
Comments noted. The Project will comply with all applicable regulations of the SJVAPCD. The City understands the District Rule 9510 requirement does not apply to this Project due to the size of the Project being below the applicability threshold.

COMMENT B/2C
District Rule 4002 (National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants) - In the event an existing building will be renovated, partially demolished or removed, the Project may be subject to District Rule 4002. This rule requires a thorough inspection for asbestos to be conducted before any regulated facility is demolished or renovated. Information on how to comply with District Rule 4002 can be found online at:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/compliance/demolition-renovation/.

RESPONSE B/2C
Comment noted. There are no proposed buildings that will be renovated, partially demolished, or removed as part of the Project activities.

COMMENT B/2D
District Regulation VIII (Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions) - The Project proponent may be required to submit a Construction Notification Form or submit and receive approval of a Dust Control Plan prior to commencing any earthmoving activities as described in Regulation VIII, specifically Rule 8021 – Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving Activities.

Should the Project result in at least one (1)-acre in size, the Project proponent shall provide written notification to the District at least 48 hours prior to the Project proponents intent to commence any earthmoving activities pursuant to District Rule 8021 (Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving Activities). Also, should the Project result in the disturbance of 5-acres or more, or will include moving, depositing, or relocating more than 2,500 cubic yards per day of bulk materials, the Project proponent shall submit to the District a Dust Control Plan pursuant to District Rule 8021 (Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving Activities). For additional information regarding the written notification or Dust Control Plan requirements, please contact District Compliance staff at (559) 230-5950.

The application for both the Construction Notification and Dust Control Plan can be found online at:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/fm3jrbsq/dcp-form.docx
Information about District Regulation VIII can be found online at: https://ww2.valleyair.org/dustcontrol RESPONSE B/2D
Comment noted. The Project will comply with all applicable regulations of the SJVAPCD. 457
City Of Visalia November 2024
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
Response to Comments
3 COMMENT B/2E
Other District Rules and Regulations - The Project may also be subject to the following District rules: Rule 4102 (Nuisance) and Rule 4641 (Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations).

RESPONSE B/2E
Comment noted. The Project will comply with all applicable regulations of the SJVAPCD.

COMMENT B/3
District Comment Letter - The District recommends that a copy of the District’s comments be provided to the Project proponent.

RESPONSE B/3
Comment noted. SJVAPCD staff sent the comment letter directly to the Project proponent. 458
4 Comment Letter B – San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (October 30, 2024) 459
October 30, 2024
Rebecca Keenan
City of Visalia
315 East Acequia Avenue
Visalia, CA, 93291
Project: Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
District CEQA Reference No: 20241179
Dear Ms. Keenan:

The District offers the following comments at this time regarding the Project:

District Rules and Regulations
The District issues permits for many types of air pollution sources, and regulates some activities that do not require permits. A project subject to District rules and regulations would reduce its impacts on air quality through compliance with the District’s regulatory framework. In general, a regulation is a collection of individual rules, each of which deals with a specific topic. As an example, Regulation II (Permits) includes District Rule 2010 (Permits Required), Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review), Rule 2520 (Federally Mandated Operating Permits), and several other rules pertaining to District permitting requirements and processes.
460
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 2 of 4 District Reference No: 20241179
October 30, 2024
The list of rules below is neither exhaustive nor exclusive. Current District rules can be found online at: https://ww2.valleyair.org/rules-and-planning/current-district-rulesand-regulations. To identify other District rules or regulations that apply to future projects, or to obtain information about District permit requirements, the project proponents are strongly encouraged to contact the District’s Small Business Assistance (SBA) Office at (559) 230-5888.

District Rule 4002 (National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants)
In the event an existing building will be renovated, partially demolished or removed, the Project may be subject to District Rule 4002. This rule requires a thorough inspection for asbestos to be conducted before any regulated facility is demolished or renovated. Information on how to comply with District Rule 4002 can be found online at: https://ww2.valleyair.org/compliance/demolitionrenovation/ 461
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 3 of 4 District Reference No: 20241179
October 30, 2024
District Regulation VIII (Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions)
The project proponent may be required to submit a Construction Notification Form or submit and receive approval of a Dust Control Plan prior to commencing any earthmoving activities as described in Regulation VIII, specifically Rule 8021 – Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving Activities.

The application for both the Construction Notification and Dust Control Plan can be found online at: https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/fm3jrbsq/dcp-form.docx Information about District Regulation VIII can be found online at:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/dustcontrol
Other District Rules and Regulations
The Project may also be subject to the following District rules: Rule 4102 (Nuisance) and Rule 4641 (Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations).
462
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 4 of 4 District Reference No: 20241179
October 30, 2024
District Comment Letter
The District recommends that a copy of the District’s comments be provided to the Project proponent.

If you have any questions or require further information, please contact Eric McLaughlin by e-mail at [email protected] or by phone at (559) 230-5808.

Sincerely,
Tom Jordan
Director of Policy and Government Affairs
For: Mark Montelongo
Program Manager
cc: Briza Sholars
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group
400 E. Main Street, Suite 300
Visalia, CA 93291-6337
[email protected]
463
City Of Visalia November 2024
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
Response to Comments
1 COMMENT LETTER C - CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND
WILDLIFE (NOVEMBER 13, 2024) *COMMENT RECEVIED AFTER THE CLOSE OF THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ON NOVEMBER 12, 2024 COMMENT C/1
Swainson’s Hawk: Table 4-10 of the MND, List of Special-Status Animals with Potential to Occur on the Area of Potential Effect (APE), notes that a Swainson’s Hawk (SWHA) was observed flying over the APE and into a nearby tree during the reconnaissance survey for the Project. Mitigation measures BIO-3 through BIO-5 detail general migratory bird, raptor, and special-status bird measures, and include survey measures for SWHA that will be implemented as part of this Project. CDFW concurs with implementing mitigation measure BIO-3 to BIO-5 to minimize potential impacts to nesting birds, but recommends surveys be conducted following the entirety of the survey methods developed by the Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee (SWHA TAC 2000). Please note the survey protocol includes early season surveys to assist the Project proponent in implementing necessary avoidance and minimization measures, and in identifying active nest sites prior to initiating ground-disturbing activities. CDFW also recommends the following mitigation measures be incorporated:

RESPONSE C/1
Comment noted. The following mitigation measure has been included in the Biological EvaluationMitigation Measure BIO-2d (Consultation with CDFW): In the event an active Swainson’s hawk nest is detected within or adjacent to the APE and an appropriate avoidance buffer cannot be implemented, CDFW will be consulted to determine how to protect the nest so the Project may proceed.

COMMENT C/2
Burrowing Owl: The California Fish and Game Commission (FGC) approved western burrowing owl (BUOW) as a candidate for potential listing as a protected species under CESA on October 10, 2024, and published these findings in the California Regulatory Notice Register (Notice Register) on October 25, 2024. As such, BUOW is now considered a candidate under CESA and receives the same legal protection afforded to an endangered or threatened species (Fish & G. Code, §§ 2074.2 & 2085). The MND includes Mitigation Measures BIO-6 through BIO-8 to mitigate for potential impacts to BUOW, as the Project site is within the known geographic range of burrowing owl (BUOW) and the Project area contains suitable habitat for BUOW 464
City Of Visalia November 2024
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
Response to Comments
2 nesting and foraging. As BUOW is now a candidate under CESA, CDFW recommends that the Project’s mitigation measures be updated to reflect the species updated status and recommends the following measures be incorporated into the Project to avoid unauthorized take.

RESPONSE C/2
Comment noted. The following mitigation measure has been updated in the Biological EvaluationMitigation Measure BIO-3c (ITP and Passive Relocation): If an active BUOW burrow is detected within the proposed work area and cannot be avoided, it is recommended the Project obtain an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) in order to implement a passive relocation plan. Passive relocation will occur during the non-breeding season (September 1 through January 31) or during the breeding season (February 1 through August 31) if a “qualified biologist” determines that there are no young in the burrow. A “qualified biologist” will prepare the passive relocation plan that would detail the methods to be used. It would include the tools to exclude the BUOW from its burrow (i.e., one-way doors or other devices) and excavate the burrow (hand tools and machinery, if needed).

COMMENT C/3
Crotch’s Bumble Bee: The MND notes that Crotch’s bumble bee is unlikely to occur within the Project site but no focused surveys were conducted for the species and there is limited information on whether an adequate habitat assessment for CBB was conducted. CBB are known to inhabit areas of grassland and ruderal habitats that contain requisite habitat elements for nesting, such as small mammal burrows and bunch/thatched grasses, and these habitat elements appear to be present within the Project site. As such, CDFW recommends the following:

Recommended Mitigation Measure 6: CBB Surveys
If potentially suitable habitat is identified, CDFW recommends that a qualified biologist conduct focused surveys for CBB, and their requisite habitat features following the methodology outlined in the Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act Candidate Bumble Bee Species (CDFW 2023).
465
City Of Visalia November 2024
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
Response to Comments
3 Recommended Mitigation Measure 7: CBB Avoidance
If CBB is detected, then CDFW recommends that all small mammal burrows and thatched/bunch grasses be avoided by a minimum of 50 feet to avoid take and potentially significant impacts. If ground-disturbing activities will occur during the overwintering period (October through February), consultation with CDFW is warranted to discuss how to implement Project activities and avoid take.

Any detection of CBB prior to or during Project implementation warrants consultation with CDFW to discuss how to avoid take.

RESPONSE C/3
Some patches of non-native grasses were observed within Cameron Creek, however, suitable habitat to support a population of Crotch’s bumble bees was not observed. This species forages on a variety of herbaceous species including snapdragons, scorpionweeds, primroses, poppies, and buckwheats. No species from these genera were observed within the APE. Additionally, surrounding habitats are highly disturbed by agricultural production and monoculture crops which would also not support forage for this species. At most this species may pass through the APE but would not be expected to remain within the APE due to the lack of suitable habitat features. Additional mitigation is not warranted.

COMMENT C/4
Other Special-Status Animals: The MND notes that the banks along Cameron Creek can provide suitable denning habitat for American badger (AMBA) and possible nesting habitat for loggerhead shrike (LOSH).

CDFW concurs with Mitigation Measures BIO-3 through BIO-5, and BIO-15 through BIO-18, as methods to minimize potential impacts to these species, but also recommends the following:

Recommended Mitigation Measure 10: Avoidance
Avoidance whenever possible is encouraged via delineation and observance of a 50-foot nodisturbance buffer around dens of AMBA. CDFW also recommends a minimum no-disturbance buffer of 250 feet around active LOSH nests.

RESPONSE C/4
Mitigation Measures BIO-1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c, 5a, 5b, 5c, and 5d have been included to reduce potential project impacts to a less than significant level for these species. These measures include surveys for both nesting birds and American badger dens as well as avoidance buffers and best management practices.

Additional mitigation is not warranted.

COMMENT C/5
Special-Status Bat Species: The MND acknowledges that the Project site contains habitat features, such as oak trees and bridges adjacent to the APE, that have the potential to support roosting western mastiff and 466
City Of Visalia November 2024
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
Response to Comments
4 pallid bats. Both species are known to occur in the vicinity of the Project site and historical and recent CNDDB observations for these species have been documented (CNDDB 2024). Project activities have the potential to affect habitat upon which special-status bat species depend on for successful breeding and have the potential to impact individuals and local populations. Mitigation measures BIO-9 through BIO-11 detail measures such as focused surveys, avoidance buffers, and eviction that may be undertaken to reduce the Project’s impact on these species. CDFW concurs with conducting surveys and recommends the addition of the following mitigation measure:

Recommended Mitigation Measure 11: Bat Roost Disturbance Minimization and Avoidance If bats are present, CDFW recommends that a 100-foot no-disturbance buffer be placed around the roost and that a qualified biologist who is experienced with bats monitor them for signs of disturbance to bats from Project activity. If a bat roost is identified and work is planned to occur during the breeding season, CDFW recommends that no disturbance to maternity roosts occurs and that CDFW be consulted to determine measures to prevent breeding disruption or failure.

RESPONSE C/5
Mitigation Measures BIO-1a, 1b, 3a, 3b, and 3c have been included to reduce potential project impacts to a less than significant level for these species. These measures include a focused survey for these species and avoidance buffers. Additional mitigation is not warranted.

COMMENT C/6
California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB): Commenter states that the CNDDB is populated by records through voluntary submissions of species detections. As a result, species may be present in locations not depicted in the CNDDB but where there is suitable habitat and features capable of supporting species. A lack of an occurrence record in the CNDDB does not mean a species is not present. In order to adequately assess any potential Project related impacts to biological resources, surveys conducted by a qualified biologist during the appropriate survey period(s) and using the appropriate protocol survey methodology are warranted in order to determine whether or not any special-status species are present at or near the Project site.

RESPONSE C/6
Comment noted.

COMMENT C/7
Lake and Streambed Alteration: Commenter states The Project activities, as described, have the potential to temporarily and permanently impact water flows of Cameron Creek and are subject to CDFW’s regulatory authority pursuant to Fish and Game Code 1600 et seq. Project activities that substantially change the bed, bank, and channel of any river, stream, or lake are subject to CDFW’s regulatory authority pursuant Fish and Game Code section 1600 et seq. Fish and Game Code section 1602 requires an entity to notify CDFW prior to commencing any activity that may (a) substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of any river, stream, or lake; (b) substantially change or use any material from the bed, bank, or channel of any river, stream, or lake (including the removal of riparian vegetation): (c) deposit debris, waste or other materials that could pass into any river, stream, or lake. “Any river, stream, or lake” includes those that are ephemeral or intermittent as well as those that are perennial and may include those that are highly modified such as canals and retention basins. CDFW is required to comply with CEQA in the issuance of a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSAA); therefore, if the CEQA document approved for the Project does not adequately describe the Project and its impacts to lakes or streams, a subsequent CEQA analysis 467
City Of Visalia November 2024
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
Response to Comments
5 may be necessary for LSAA issuance. For information on notification requirements, please refer to CDFW’s website (https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/LSA) or contact CDFW staff in the Central Region Lake and Streambed Alteration Program at (559) 243-4593.

RESPONSE C/7
Comment noted. An LSA is currently being prepared and will be submitted to CDFW.

COMMENT C/8
Nesting Birds: Commenter states that CDFW encourages that Project ground-disturbing activities occur during the bird non-nesting season; however, if ground-disturbing or vegetation-disturbing activities must occur during the nesting season (February 1st through September 15th), the Project applicant is responsible for ensuring that implementation of the Project does not result in violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act or relevant Fish and Game Code sections as referenced above.

If continuous monitoring of identified nests by a qualified biologist is not feasible, CDFW recommends a minimum no-disturbance buffer of 250 feet around active nests of non-listed bird species and a 500-foot no-disturbance buffer around active nests of non-listed raptors. These buffers are advised to remain in place until the breeding season has ended or until a qualified biologist has determined the birds have fledged and are no longer reliant upon the nest or on-site parental care for survival. Variance from these no-disturbance buffers is possible when there is a compelling biological or ecological reason to do so, such as when the Project site would be concealed from a nest site by topography. CDFW recommends that a qualified biologist advise and support any variance from these buffers and notify CDFW in advance of implementing a variance.

RESPONSE C/8
Comment noted.

COMMENT C/9
Water Rights: Commenter states the MND notes that approvals may be required from several agencies for Project activities within Cameron Creek including the TID, Central Valley Water Quality Control Board (CVWQCB), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and CDFW. The Project will divert surface flow from Cameron Creek for groundwater storage within the vicinity of the City of Visalia. As stated previously, the capture of unallocated stream flows to artificially recharge groundwater aquifers is subject to appropriation and approval by the SWRCB pursuant to Water Code section 1200 et seq. CDFW recommends that the MND include a detailed description of the water rights and water entitlements that would pertain specifically to the Project and address any applications or change petitions that may be filed. CDFW, as 468
City Of Visalia November 2024
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
Response to Comments
6 Trustee Agency, is consulted by the SWRCB during the water rights process to provide terms and conditions designed to protect fish and wildlife prior to appropriation of the State’s water resources. Project-related diversion for groundwater recharge will impact riparian, wetland, fisheries and terrestrial (upland) wildlife species and their habitats. Given the potential for impacts to special-status species and their habitats it is advised that any required consultation with CDFW occur well in advance of the SWRCB water right application process
RESPONSE C/9
Comment noted. The Project proponent would comply with any applicable permitting required by the CDFW, USACE, and CVWQCB.

COMMENT C/10
Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) and Commenter states Groundwater Sustainability Plans were prepared for the Kaweah Subbasin. The Kaweah Subbasin (Subbasin No. 5-22.11 of the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin) is designated a high priority Subbasin by the Department of Water Resources. SGMA defines sustainable groundwater management as, “management and use of groundwater in a manner that can be maintained during the planning and implementation horizon without causing undesirable results (Water Code, § 10721 (v)).” CDFW recommends that the MND include an analysis of Project-related activities in relation to the Greater Kaweah Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan, including analysis of potential undesirable results and adverse impacts to groundwater dependent ecosystems including the biological resources listed above.

RESPONSE C/10
Comment noted.

COMMENT C/11
CEQA requires that information developed in environmental impact reports and negative declarations be incorporated into a database that may be used to make subsequent or supplemental environmental determinations [Pub. Resources Code, § 21003, subd. (e)]. Accordingly, please report any special status species and natural communities detected during Project surveys to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). The CNDDB field survey form can be obtained at the following link:
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Submitting-Data. The completed form can be mailed electronically to CNDDB at the following email address: [email protected]. The types of information reported to CNDDB can be found at the following link: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Plantsand-Animals.

RESPONSE C/11
Comment noted.

COMMENT C/12
The commenter states the Project, as proposed, could have an impact on biological resources, an assessment of filing fees is necessary. Fees are payable upon filing of the Notice of Determination by the Lead Agency and serve to help defray the cost of environmental review by CDFW. Payment of the fee is required in order for the underlying Project approval to be operative, vested, and final (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 14, § 753.5; Fish & G. Code, § 711.4; Pub. Resources Code, § 21089). 469
City Of Visalia November 2024
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
Response to Comments
7 RESPONSE C/12
Comment noted. The NOD will be filed at the Tulare County Clerk’s office with the CDFW Filing Fee. 470
8 Comment Letter C – California Department of Fish and Wildlife (November 13, 2024, Received after the Cclose of the Comment Period on November 13, 2024
471
State of California – Natural Resources Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director Central Region
1234 East Shaw Avenue
Fresno, CA 93710
(559) 243 - 4005
www.wildlife.ca.gov
Conserving California’s Wildlife Since 1870

While the comment period may have ended, CDFW respectfully requests that City of Visalia still consider our comments.

Docusign Envelope ID: C00118A8-CA0E-4C07-987C-7BB5B1B6D735 472
Briza Sholars, Senior Planner
Provost & Pritchard
November 13, 2024

Page 2 ends

Visalia City CouncilNovember 18, 2024

Visalia City Council
November 18, 2024