initial study for the proposed wssp-2 groundwater recharge … · 2008. 9. 1. · initial study...

Initial Study

for the proposed

WSSP-2 Groundwater Recharge Project

Prepared for

Antelope Valley-East Kern Water Agency

6500 West Avenue N Palmdale, CA 93551-2865

Prepared by

Hanson Environmental 132 Cottage Lane

Walnut Creek, CA 94595

June 2008

Initial Study AVEK WSSP-2 Groundwater Recharge Project July 2008-1

Initial Study WSSP-2 Groundwater Recharge

Contents SECTION 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................... 5

1.1 LOCATION .................................................................................................................................. 5 1.2 CAPACITY ................................................................................................................................... 9 1.3 FACILITIES ............................................................................................................................... 10 1.3.1 Recharge Facilities ................................................................................................................. 10

1.3.2 Recovery Wells and Monitoring Wells .............................................................................. 11 1.3.3 Pipelines and Water Storage/Treatment Station ................................................................ 12

1.4 OPERATIONS ........................................................................................................................... 15 1.4.1 Recharge ............................................................................................................................ 15 1.4.2 Recovery ............................................................................................................................ 16

1.5 Purpose and Need ....................................................................................................................... 16 1.5.1 Proposed Project Purpose and Need ................................................................................... 16 1.5.2 Proposed Project Relationship to other current and future projects .................................... 18

1.6 Impact avoidance and minimization measures ........................................................................... 19 1.7 Alternatives considered ............................................................................................................... 19 1.8 Permits required .......................................................................................................................... 22 2.1 GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ............................................................................. 23 2.2 AESTHETICS/VISUAL RESOURCES ..................................................................................... 25

2.2.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 25 2.2.2 Potential Impacts ................................................................................................................. 25 2.2.3 Mitigation ............................................................................................................................ 25 2.2.4 CEQA Significance ............................................................................................................. 26

2.3 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................. 26 2.3.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 26 2.3.2 Potential Impacts ................................................................................................................. 27 2.3.3 Mitigation ............................................................................................................................ 27 2.3.4 CEQA Significance ............................................................................................................. 27

2.4 AIR QUALITY ........................................................................................................................... 28 2.4.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 28 2.4.2 Impact Analysis .................................................................................................................. 33 2.4.3 Other Emissions Considerations ......................................................................................... 40 2.4.4 Mitigation ............................................................................................................................ 40 2.4.5 CEQA Significance ............................................................................................................. 42

2.5 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .................................................................................................... 43 2.5.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 43 2.5.2 CNDDB Review ................................................................................................................. 44 2.5.3 Field Observations .............................................................................................................. 45 2.5.4 Potential Impacts ................................................................................................................. 46 2.5.5 Mitigation ............................................................................................................................ 47 2.5.6 CEQA Significance ............................................................................................................. 48

2.6 CULTURAL RESOURCES ....................................................................................................... 49 2.6.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 49


2.6.2 Results of Cultural Field Survey ......................................................................................... 51 2.6.3 Site Significance Evaluations .............................................................................................. 53 2.6.4 Management and Mitigation Recommendations ................................................................ 54 2.6.5 CEQA Significance ............................................................................................................. 55

2.7 Energy Use .................................................................................................................................. 56 2.7.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 56 2.7.2 Construction Energy Use .................................................................................................... 57 2.7.3 Conveyance and Groundwater Pumping Energy Use ......................................................... 59 2.7.4 Mitigation ............................................................................................................................ 60 2.7.5 CEQA Significance ............................................................................................................. 60

2.8 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ............................................................................................................ 60 2.8.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 60 2.8.2 Regulatory Environment ..................................................................................................... 62 2.8.3 Impacts ................................................................................................................................ 63 2.8.4 CEQA Significance ............................................................................................................. 65

2.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ....................................................................... 65 2.9.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 65 2.9.2 Regulatory Framework ....................................................................................................... 67 2.9.3 Impacts ................................................................................................................................ 68 2.9.4 Mitigation ............................................................................................................................ 75 2.9.5 CEQA Significance ............................................................................................................. 77

2.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ............................................................................ 78 2.10.1 General ................................................................................................................................ 78

2.10.2 Groundwater Water Quality ................................................................................................... 79 2.10.3 Safety Concerns ................................................................................................................. 88 2.10.4 Impacts to Adjacent Wells ................................................................................................. 89 2.10.5 Mitigation ........................................................................................................................... 90 2.10.6 CEQA Significance ............................................................................................................ 93

2.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING .................................................................................................. 94 2.11.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 94 2.11.2 Impacts ............................................................................................................................... 95 2.11.3 CEQA Significance ............................................................................................................ 96

2.12 MINERAL RESOURCES .......................................................................................................... 96 2.12.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 96 2.12.3 Impacts and Mitigations ..................................................................................................... 97

2.13 NOISE ......................................................................................................................................... 97 2.13.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 97

2.13.2 Regulation of Noise Impacts .................................................................................................. 98 2.13.3 Impacts ............................................................................................................................... 99 2.13.4 Mitigation .......................................................................................................................... 101 2.13.5 CEQA Significance ........................................................................................................... 101

2.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING ............................................................................................. 102 2.14.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 102 2.14.2 Impacts .............................................................................................................................. 103 2.14.3 CEQA Significance ........................................................................................................... 104

2.15 RECREATION ......................................................................................................................... 104 2.15.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 104 2.15.2 Impacts .............................................................................................................................. 104 2.15.3 CEQA Significance ........................................................................................................... 104

2.16 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC .................................................................................... 105 2.16.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 105


2.16.2 Impacts .............................................................................................................................. 106 2.16.3 Mitigation .......................................................................................................................... 107 2.16.4 CEQA Significance ........................................................................................................... 108

2.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICES .................................................................................................. 109 2.17.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 109 2.17.3 Impacts .............................................................................................................................. 109 2.17.3 CEQA Significance ........................................................................................................... 110

2.18 PUBLIC SERVICES ................................................................................................................ 110 2.18.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 110

2.18.2 Impacts ................................................................................................................................. 110 2.18.3 CEQA Significance ........................................................................................................... 111

2.19 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS .......................................................................................... 111 2.19.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 111 2.19.2 Project Purpose and Growth ............................................................................................. 112 2.19.3 Potential for Growth Inducement and Accommodation ................................................... 114

2.20 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ...................................................................................................... 116 2.20.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 116 2.20.2 Proposed Project Impacts .................................................................................................. 117 2.20.3 Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 129

2.21 MANDATORY CEQA CONSIDERATIONS ......................................................................... 129 2.21.2 Significant Environmental Effects that cannot be avoided ............................................... 129 2.21.3 Irreversible Impacts ........................................................................................................... 129 2.21.4 Significant Cumulative Impacts ........................................................................................ 130 2.21.5 Growth-Inducing Impacts ................................................................................................. 130

3.0 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................... 131 4.0 APPENDIX A: Figures 3-34 .................................................................................................... 133


Initial Study WSSP-2 Groundwater Recharge

SECTION 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

1.1 LOCATION The Antelope Valley-East Kern Water Agency (AVEK) proposes to construct and operate a groundwater recharge and recovery program, with recharge facilities located on approximately 1500 acres of land it owns in Los Angeles County in the area bounded by:

• On the West: 155th Street West • On the East: 130th Street West • On the North: West Gaskell Road • On the South: West Avenue C

Proposed Project lands (Maps 1 and 2 and Figures 1 and 2) are located within Sections 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of Township 8 North, Range 14 West. Historically, these lands have been irrigated for row crops and alfalfa by the farming entity of Ritter-Godde or by lessees. The Proposed Project (Figures 1 and 2) will consist of recharge areas to the east of the Southern California Edison power lines, with internal wells and pipelines to recover water. AVEK's State Water Project supplies will be delivered from the California Aqueduct to the site via gravity flow using AVEK's existing West Feeder pipeline, which runs north-south through the property along 140th Street West. Delivery of the water to the recharge areas will be by permanent below ground pipelines. Delivered supplies will be spread across the surface of the land, will percolate into the soil, and stored. When needed, the stored water will be extracted using pumps, delivered to the West Feeder via internal buried pipelines, and then delivered to AVEK customers north and east of the recharge area via the West Feeder pipeline. The Proposed project also provides for recovered raw water to be delivered to a storage, treatment and pumping facility in the vicinity of the intersection of Gaskell Road and 80th Street West via a buried pipeline. It is anticipated that during the project irrigated agricultural operations would continue on the property that is not in use for recharge. Farming will be irrigated agriculture or fallowed land. Farming anticipated will include row crops and alfalfa or other hay and grain crops. Recharge would generally be accomplished in from November through February, when AVEK has the greatest capacity in the California Aqueduct and its other facilities to convey water to recharge. Farming is anticipated and would continue to be row crops and alfalfa. It will not be the goal to farm and recharge in the same area in the same time period since over irrigation for the purpose of recharge would not be compatible with the farming operation. Also, this would minimize conflicts between any agricultural chemicals and fertilizers that are used being a part of the recharged water supply.


Map 1. General location of the Proposed WSSP-2 Groundwater Recharge Project


Map 2. Location of Proposed Project recharge areas, from Boyle Engineering 2008.


Figure 1. Proposed Project facilities and existing nearby infrastructure. All locations are approximate.


Figure 2. Proposed Project Treatment, Storage, and Pumping Facility along SNIP Pipeline. Siting allows for minimal pipeline construction.

1.2 CAPACITY The feasibility of using the Proposed Project site for recharge was evaluated using data from:

• 10 wells on the site and/or within several miles of the site, • A shallow test pit operated for 75 days, • Boring records from the 1975 West feeder Project for sites WF-7 through WF -10 in the vicinity

of the Proposed Project, • Review of DWR water well data (Bulletin 91-11), and • Review of Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS 1970, formerly the US Soils

Conservation Service) soils data. Well data show depth to groundwater of about 260-300 feet. The shallow test pit had recharge rates of approximately 2 feet per day. Boring records from the West Feeder Project show subsurface soils consisting primarily of fine to coarse sand with some silt, with one boring recording a clay layer. The NRCS soils mapping from their 1970 surveys show the site to include:

• Soil series HkA, HkB, and HnA, which are fine sandy loam or sandy loam; surface layer is loam in places, with permeability of 2.0 to 6.3 inches per hour, available water capacity of 0.13 to 0.15, and moderate soil pressure; and


• Soil series Ro, Rp, and Rr, which are sandy loam to loam and light silty clay loam, with permeability of 0.63 to 2.0 inches per hour, available water capacity of 0.13 to 0.17 and moderate soil pressure.

The permeability data from the NRCS soils analyses are consistent with the test pit data. The storage volume in the groundwater basin in the area of the Proposed Project was estimated by Boyle Engineering (2008) based on:

• Depth to groundwater of 290 feet; • Soil storage coefficient of 0.15; • Storage area of 10 square miles (3.3 miles east-west and 3.0 miles north to south); • Maximum rise in groundwater before recharge would be ceased equal to 75 feet below ground

surface.

Based on these parameters, the calculated storage volume available would be from 155,000 to 165,000 acre-feet. The site therefore has capacity to meet at least a portion of the Proposed Purpose and need (see discussion below). During the evaluation of this alternative project from an environmental standpoint it was noted that there is an area in Section 7, Township 8 North, Range 14 West that contains archeological sites. It is proposed that if it is determined that these are of significance and warrant protection that AVEK, in coordination with a professional archeologist, consider modifying farming operations in this area so as not to create any further harm to the archeological resources in this area. In addition, in this general vicinity, Southern California Edison proposes to expand its main transmission lines along the existing alignment and a new alignment along West 105th Street, as shown on Figure 1. The various parcels to the west of the SCE transmission line alignment are not considered for any activities by the Groundwater Recharge Banking and Recovery Facilities as this area is up-slope and some distance from recovery facilities. This part of the property was anticipated to be continued to be used for agricultural crops.

1.3 FACILITIES 1.3.1 RECHARGE FACILITIES (a) Description The Proposed Project would be located on relatively flat lands, with a west-to-east downslope of approximately 20 feet per mile. Recharge would be accomplished using two methods. First, water may be spread out over the property by flooding, similar to agricultural operations where contour flooding operations are used with shallow low berms that are three feet or less generally following contours, with water being supplied upslope from the berms. These berms would be readily leveled when farming operations resume on the recharge parcels. Figure 3(Appendix A) shows a typical flood irrigation system for agriculture; the recharge areas would function in a similar manner, but would be modified so that the berms would follow the natural contour of the land. Some areas of the farming operation are currently served by center pivot water application facilities (Figure 4, Appendix A) and during recharge these would also be used to apply water for recharge. The typical spray-type irrigation equipment would be modified so that water would be applied without spraying, thus minimizing evaporation losses. During recharge operations a stubble will be established on the ground and water will be applied so that it is recharged beyond the root zone and into the groundwater basin underlying the center pivots. The


preferred method for applying water to the soil for recharge is the "pivot" method, because it does not require small berms to be constructed to contain water. Rather, the application rate can be programmed to ensure that the pivot discharges water at a rate that will maintain wetted area so that the soil remains wet but not wet enough to cause runoff. This method would also allow for a brief period of time when a small area of soils may be wet but not flooded and thus mosquito development will be inhibited. If the pivot method cannot be used for any reason, AVEK would transition to use of the agricultural flooded-irrigation method (Figure 3, Appendix A), which involves construction of small berms. If this method is used, there would be several weeks of berm construction prior to each recharge event, and following recharge the local grower would periodically remove the berms as part of plowing for an annual crop or AVEK would remove berms when planting the post-recharge cover crop. As is typical for groundwater recharge and recovery operations, AVEK would account for various types of losses (such as evaporation during recharge) by recovering not more than 90% of the water that is delivered for recharge. (b) Construction Use of the pivot to deliver supplies to recharge is the preferred methodology because it would minimize construction and associated dust, noise, and emissions from construction equipment. Use of the pivot would not change the nature of the ground disturbance associated with current land uses, except that the recharge area would be wet during recharge (instead of fallow) and have a stubble cover (rather than barren ground). If low berms are constructed for flood irrigation, they would be placed on 100-foot to 300-foot intervals, and thus there would be approximately 5-15 miles of berm construction, depending on recharge rates. The total area disturbed would be at maximum about 30 acres, with work completed in from 1-2 weeks. In addition, there would be some minor soil disturbance as portable pipe to deliver water was hauled in a truck for above ground installation by hand. During construction of low berms, Best Management Practices to minimize impacts would be implemented, including:

• 2 times daily watering of access and haul roads used to move equipment • Use of aqueous diesel fuel • Use of a diesel particulate filter • Use of cooled exhaust gas recirculation • Off-road construction speed limits • Noise monitoring and reduction measures

1.3.2 Recovery Wells and Monitoring Wells (a) Description Currently, the property has five existing irrigation wells. These would continue to be used for irrigation and when not in use for irrigation uses will be used for recovery of banked (stored) water during recovery operations. Additionally, five to eight new wells will be located and will be sited in accordance with the California Department of Public Health requirements and will be connected to recovery pipe systems for recovery of recharged banked water. Phasing may be appropriate for the project. This will be determined by the Agency at the time of detailed project design. Water may be pumped from the wells into the West Feeder for delivery and treatment at the AVEK's Rosamond Treatment Plant and subsequently delivered to AVEK's distribution system for use by the AVEK water users. Alternatively it will be pumped to a pipeline that will deliver the water to the storage and treatment facilities proposed near 80th St. West and Gaskell Rd. and then to AVEK's treated water South North Intertie Pipeline (SNIP). As part of the Proposed Project, AVEK will also site wells for the purposes for monitoring water levels and designed so that water samples can be extracted for quality testing. It is not anticipated that these would be wells with


permanent pumps in them; they would be for purposes of monitoring. As is the case in many projects, the existing and the new production wells could also be used for water level and quality monitoring. When the wells are not operating water level information can be gathered from these wells. (b) Construction Wells will be drilled several hundred feet below the existing depth to groundwater (about 250 to 300 feet at present based on data from 4 wells on the properties). This will be accomplished in about 20 to 30 days. Construction involves grading to level a 40 x 40 foot drilling pad area, a standard drilling rig on site, a sand-bagged area to receive drilling spoil and reduce runoff, and a scraper or loader to re-distribute the wet drilling spoil. A typical well may yield about 20-30 cubic yards of drilling spoil, which may be spread over an area of about 0.05 acres. Wells would be electric and powered from the existing power grid. Typical construction equipment used for large wells includes:

• 1 large drilling rig (500 HP). • 1 small roller compactor (114 hp, 1 hour per day) • 1 loader (165 hp, 1 hour per day) • 1 scraper (313 hp; 1 hour per day) • 1 water truck (200 hp, 1 hour per day)

Best Management Practices used during well drilling would include:

• Apply soil stabilizers to inactive areas • 3 times daily watering of exposed surfaces • Use of aqueous diesel fuel • Use of a diesel particulate filter • Use of cooled exhaust gas recirculation • Cover any long-term (1 week or more) stockpiles with tarps • Water haul roads 2 times daily • Speeds on unpaved roads to limited to 15 mph or less • Noise monitoring and reduction measures

1.3.3 Pipelines and Water Storage/Treatment Station

(a) Description The project will involve three types of pipelines. First, a pipeline system will deliver water from the West Feeder to the recharge areas and, to the extent water is available, these local pipelines may deliver supplies to irrigate agriculture. Water will be delivered to above ground, temporary or below ground permanent pipelines to the areas used for irrigation, effectively recharging the basin as a result of in lieu water deliveries. Historic pumping rights of the lands will be maintained, subject to the groundwater adjudication currently underway for the Antelope Valley. Second, a system of internal pipelines will be constructed to collect water from the well field for delivery to the AVEK West Feeder, which runs north-south along 140th Street West. Third, this system of internal pipelines will be extended to a common collection point near 130th Street West and Avenue “B.” From this common collection point, AVEK would construct a pipeline to a


storage and treatment facility located on AVEK-owned lands near 80th Street West and Gaskell Road (Figure1). At this point any treatment required would be provided. There would be an operational storage reservoir, partially buried, at this site. From there the water would be pumped into the SNIP (South North Intertie Pipeline) for distribution to AVEK users within the Agency’s service area. For this aspect of the project, two pipeline alignments may be considered during final design (Figure 1):

• Route A (Figure 1) would begin at the common collection point and then run northerly along 130th Street to West Avenue “A” (Kern County Los Angeles County Line). From there the pipeline would run along the south side of West Avenue A to 100th Street West, run north in the road easement to Gaskell Road, and then run east along Gaskell Road to the Pump Station, Storage, and Treatment Facility before being delivered to the SNIP for AVEK customer use.

• Route B (Figure 1) would begin at the common collection point and then run east along West Avenue B to approximately 100th Street West then north along 100th Street West to Gaskell Road and then to the Pump Station Storage, and Treatment Facility before being delivered to the SNIP for AVEK customer use.

The general configuration of the treatment and pumping facilities is shown on Figure 5 (Appendix A) in conceptual detail. The detailed alignment of facilities will be determined during final design. Pipelines would run in the existing road easement or future roadway areas. (b) Construction The approximately 8-mile main pipeline will be laid in a trench about 8-10 feet deep at the bottom (4-foot cover), with side slopes of about 1.5 to 1 for safety or properly shored. Given a bottom width of 6 feet, the width of the trench at ground level would not be more than about 30 feet. Excavation would involve removal of about 85-90 cubic feet of soil per linear foot of trench. Pipeline may be installed at a rate of about 500-600 feet per day, with the trench backfilled as it is completed such that not more than about 150-200 feet of trench is open at any given time. A stockpile would be maintained along the pipeline alignment. The daily work area would be approximately 600 feet long by 100 feet wide or about 1.4 acres, although not all of this area would be disturbed constantly. Excess spoil from excavation may be used to provide a low exterior berm along the project site or spread over the construction area and thus will not be hauled off site. The approximately 7-mile pipeline would take about 6+ months to construct, or. Typical construction equipment used in large pipeline construction is:

• 1 crane (190 hp, 6 hours per day • 1 hydraulic excavator (180 hp, 6 hours per day) • 1 grader (174 hp, 6 hours per day) • 1 off-highway truck (479 hp, 4 hours per day) • 1 water truck (200 hp, 4 hours per day) • 1 loader or scraper (313 hp, 4 hours per day) • 1 wheeled loader (165 hp, 8 hours per day) • 1 roller (114 hp, 3 hours per day) • 2 tractors/backhoes (108 hp, 5 hours per day)


Best management practices used during main pipeline construction would include:

• Apply soil stabilizers to inactive areas • Replace existing ground cover quickly; seed with barley or grasses, as approved by owners of

land easements • 2 times daily watering of exposed surfaces in the construction area as it proceeds • Use of aqueous diesel fuel • Use of a diesel particulate filter • Use of cooled exhaust gas recirculation • Cover long-term (1 week) stockpiles with tarps • Water haul roads 2 times daily • Speeds on unpaved roads limited to 15 mph or less • Use shuttle for lunch • Noise monitoring and reduction measures

The system of internal pipelines to deliver water from the West Feeder and return water to the West feeder or the common collection point at 130th Street West would involve construction of 12 to 18 miles of new pipeline. These 12” to 18” diameter pipelines would be constructed in the recharge area and/or along existing roads, placed in a trench about 6-7 feet deep. With 1.5 to 1 side slopes, the trench width at ground level would be 18-20 feet, and excavation would generate about 90 cubic feet of spoil per linear foot of pipe, or about 9,000 cubic feet (350 cubic yards) per 100 feet of pipeline. Similar to the larger pipeline, about 600 feet of trench would be open at any time, requiring stockpiling of about 400 cubic yards along the alignment. The work area would be about 50-60 feet in width, and thus about 0.8 acres would be disturbed on a daily basis. The trench would be backfilled and compacted on an on-going basis. Spoil could be used to construct exterior berms. The maximum of about 18 miles of connecting pipeline could be constructed in about 12 months. Typical construction equipment for small pipeline construction is:

• 1 pipe layer/crane (190 hp 6 hours per day), • 1 excavator (168 hp, 8 hours per day) • 1 grader (174 hp, 4 hours per day) • 2 tractors or loaders (79 hp, 5 hours per day each) • 1 off-highway truck (479 hp, 4 hours per day) • 1 roller compactor (114 hp, 8 hours per day • 2 wheeled loaders (165 hp, 6 hours per day), and • 1 water truck (189 hp, 4 hours per day)

The storage, treatment, and pumping stations would affect an area of about 2.0 acres with gravel parking pads. There would be an initial site grading of 1.1 months and then the building would be constructed using standard construction techniques and materials. Construction would be completed in about 10 months. In-line treatment facilities would be electrically operated and would not emit criteria pollutants. Storage tanks would be partially buried to a depth of 10-12 feet, resulting in a visible height of about 20-22 feet, and trees would be planted to screen the view of the tanks. Burying two 100-foot diameter water storage tanks to a depth of 10 feet would require excavation of about 160,000 cubic feet or 5,600 cubic yards of soil, which would be stockpiled and/or made available to others for fill (such as to Southern California Edison for use in constructing pads for its pending power line expansion project). For purposes of analysis, it was assumed that soil would be used for final site grading and roadway approaches.


Construction equipment will vary by phase (See air quality analysis attached). Typical construction equipment would be used (depending on phase):

• Excavators • Water trucks • Rollers • Scrapers • Wheeled loaders • Backhoes • Forklifts • Welders • Coating equipment •

Best management practices used during in-line facility construction would include:

• Apply soil stabilizers to inactive areas • Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly • 3 x daily watering of exposed surfaces • Use of aqueous diesel fuel • Use of a diesel particulate filter • Use of cooled exhaust gas recirculation • Cover long-term (1 week) stockpiles with tarps • Water haul roads 3 x daily • Speeds on unpaved roads limited to 15 mph or less • Noise monitoring and reduction methods

1.4 OPERATIONS 1.4.1 Recharge AVEK will utilize only untreated SWP supplies for recharge. In a typical above-normal-to-wet year, AVEK may have capacity in the California Aqueduct for about 10 of 12 months. Figure 6 (Appendix A) shows (in the blue area) that AVEK has unused capacity in the California Aqueduct in some years. As Figure 6 illustrates, in the above-normal year of 2000, AVEK did not fully use its dedicated 400 acre-feet per day allotment in the California Aqueduct, except in June-August. However, available capacity in AVEK facilities, combined with high temperatures and low humidity that cause high evaporation and evapotranspiration rates in the spring, summer, and fall, effectively focuses recharge during the period from the beginning of November through February. AVEK operations would concentrate on this time period, although there is potential for minor recharge operations during any month. During the primary recharge period (November through February), AVEK’s projected maximum recharge ability would be about 300 acre-feet per day. At a relatively conservative recharge rate of 0.50 inches per acre per hour or 12 inches per day (one half the rate for the test pit), AVEK could recharge the maximum volume available using about 300 acres. Using four pivots with a radius of 0.25 miles, at least 480 acres would be required to recharge the maximum volume. A larger number of smaller-radius pivots may also be used if needed to ensure adequate delivery rates. Thus, the project allows for the maximum delivery rate to be accomplished within the constraints of using only 35 to 50% of the land in any given year. This assumes, of course, that a steady delivery rate is feasible, and this may not occur. It is more likely that delivery and recharge will vary and more or less area may be required.


The relatively close match between maximum delivery and the availability of land to recharge this volume of water ensures that water depths will be relatively shallow, because recharge rates would often exceed the water supply available. Thus, it will be feasible to dry out portions of the sites for maintenance, mosquito abatement, and bird management if needed, while still meeting recharge needs. Depths of marginally more than 1 foot would likely occur only along the upslope of the shallow berms used to retain and spread water. If some recharge occurred before November or after February, the volume of water available would be lower, and the extent and depth of flooding at the recharge area would be further reduced. Recharge from November through about March would occur when the average daily low temperature is generally below 40º F, at which mosquito development is inhibited. When minimum daily temperatures are higher, and monitoring indicated that there was mosquito development in the recharge area, AVEK could adjust operations to provide for drying of sections of the recharge area on a 7-day cycle, which inhibits mosquito growth. Such a cycle of wet-dry conditions could also be used if AVEK utilizes the recharge areas for recharge outside of the optimal period. 1.4.2 Recovery Banked supplies would be recovered to meet supply deficits in drought and other emergency circumstances, both short and long duration. Supplies would be pumped from the well field, which may be located within or adjacent to the primary recharge area generally down gradient from the recharge sites. Wells would pump water into small pipelines which may discharge to the AVEK West Feeder that runs north-south along 140th Street West (for raw water delivery to the north) or to the pipeline connecting with the new Storage, Treatment, and Pumping facility at Gaskell Avenue and 80th Street West where water would be treated and then discharged to the SNIP treated water line. AVEK will meter the volume of water delivered for recharge would subsequently not recover more than the 90% of the gross recharge. This will account for evapotranspiration and other losses during recharge and conveyance, and for typical metering accuracy. The effect will be that groundwater levels will not, in the aggregate, be reduced, and are likely to rise slightly over the long term. Recharge supplies would be delivered to AVEK customers within the Antelope Valley region; there is no provision for banking supplies for others or for delivery of banked supplies out of the Antelope Valley region. 1.5 PURPOSE AND NEED 1.5.1 Proposed Project Purpose and Need AVEK is a regional water agency supplying State Water Project (SWP) water to portions of northern Los Angeles and southeastern Kern counties. AVEK's function is to supplement local groundwater and surface water supplies with supplies from the State Water project, which are delivered under AVEK's contract with the California Department of Water Resources, via the California Aqueduct. AVEK's State Water project provides for it to receive 141,400 acre-feet in any given year; AVEK may also receive additional supplies, including water that may be made available by other SWP contractors who may not use their full annual allocation in some years. AVEK has a system of pipelines and water treatment facilities that allow it to deliver both raw water and treated water to many areas in the Antelope Valley Region (Figure 7, Appendix A).


Note on Figure 7 that AVEK does not have substantial water storage facilities in the region that it serves. Thus, AVEK's supply to its customers may fluctuate annually. When SWP and other supplies are low, AVEK has minimal reserves to meet customer needs. Water storage is a standard feature of water supply operations throughout the world and is of particular concern in California, where the climate tends to fluctuate between wet and dry years (DWR California Water Plan Update 2005). Because water supplies fluctuate, California relies on an extensive system of dams to store water in above-normal-to-wet years for use in below-normal-to-dry years. The function of storage is to stabilize water supply so that during drought and emergency, rationing is maintained at levels which do not cause substantial economic and social hardship. In recent years, new storage has been focused on groundwater storage, in part because of the difficulty in siting and permitting above ground storage reservoirs and in part because of lower costs and less potential evaporation with groundwater storage of supplies. AVEK has analyzed the need for storage of groundwater within the Antelope Valley in several recent documents, including the 2005 Urban Water Management Plan (AVEK 2007) and two recent technical documents which have evaluated the technical issues related to a broad-based water supply stabilization program (the Water Supply Stabilization Program 2007 and the WSSP – 2 North Buttes Project Description 2008). AVEK prepared a detailed water storage needs analysis in its 2007 Draft EIR for a groundwater recharge project (SCH# 2007051095, AVEK 2007). AVEK has also reviewed recent water supply reliability reports from California Department of Water Resources (DWR Water Supply Reliability Update 2005 and DWR 2005a). Based on these various needs analyses, AVEK notes that there are potential needs for storage of water within the Antelope Valley Region to stabilize water supplies:

• DWR (2005) estimates that only 4% of contract supply may be available during a critical year drought;

• DWR (2005) estimates that only 25% to 34% of contract supply may be available in each year of a 3-year drought;

• DWR is currently evaluating the potential for supply interruptions associated with failure of levees in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Bay Delta, with preliminary indications that levee failure from flooding and earthquake could result in 6-month to 1.5-year periods when water quality would be unsuitable for delivery.

• Recent seismic studies by the US Geologic Survey suggest that there is an increasing potential for earthquakes along major faults. The California Aqueduct crosses these faults many times and earthquakes along the alignment of the California Aqueduct may damage the aqueduct severely, resulting in suspension of supply deliveries; and

• Recent regulatory actions related to operations of DWR's South Delta facilities have resulted in reduced ability to export water, and thus reduced water supply reliability in all years.

Based on these and other considerations, AVEK (2005) concluded that there is a critical and immediate need for groundwater storage in the Antelope Valley Region. This need may be further increased as a result of the pending Adjudication of the Antelope Valley Groundwater Basin. Failure to provide needed storage in a timely manner could result in substantial rationing during a critical drought or during either emergency or regulatory reductions in DWR's ability to deliver supplies to AVEK and other State Water Contractors. AVEK concluded that there is a need for up to 400,000 acre-feet of storage over the next 25 to 30 years. Earthquakes, floods, and power outages may result in inability to import supplies, even if they are available, and thus out-of-basin storage is not a viable option for ensuring reliable water supplies in the AVEK service area during periods of drought-related or regulatory supply interruptions. Given that there are currently no functional groundwater storage facilities in the region (two water banks are in the


process of being developed, but require substantial infrastructure), AVEK has concluded that it is necessary to develop a recharge project that can be implemented immediately. The need for water storage to meet drought and emergency needs takes into account factors such as (a) on-going water conservation programs to reduce per-capita consumption (b) levels of drought and emergency rationing that would not cause substantial economic and social impacts, and (c) the on-going development and recharge of reclaimed water by local agencies. With these measures assumed to be in place, AVEK would still have a critical need for storage to meet supply deficits. The purpose of the Proposed Project is to meet the critical need for in-basin storage while maintaining the existing agricultural use of the property. The Agency’s West Feeder underground pipeline traverses the area along 140th Street West and would be the supply for raw recharge water. The West Feeder would also allow for recovery of water to be delivered to the AVEK system. This would be accomplished by connecting the recovery wells to the West Feeder and then to the RWTP for treatment and subsequent deliver to AVEK’s customers. This will allow delivery during emergencies during drought conditions (when State Water Project delivers are less than Agency water users’ demands). In an emergency, such as the shutdown of the California Aqueduct due to water supply problems in the Delta or failure of the SWP and its pump stations along the Aqueduct. The recharge water could be recovered and delivered to Agency water users; therefore, increasing the reliability of the Agency’s State Water Supply. The proposed project would recover 90% of the water that is delivered for recharge. The recharge mechanism to be used would be either shallow flood type irrigation with the low temporary berms of less than three feet, similar to irrigation methods used in contour flood irrigation in other areas of the state and historically for other crops in Antelope Valley. Recovery would be by the use of the existing five wells on the property plus an additional five to eight wells designed strictly for recovery of stored water. 1.5.2 Proposed Project Relationship to other current and future

projects Like most water agencies facing new and significant changes in water supply reliability as a result of the factors discussed above, AVEK is evaluating overall water supply, water conveyance, and water treatment system requirements and will develop comprehensive plans for its system at a future date. At present, AVEK has concluded that a functional groundwater storage facility dedicated to meeting the needs of its customers is essential, and that such a facility would be needed and would be constructed whether or not future projects are developed. At the same time, AVEK is aware of the need to place the Proposed Project into the context of potential future system development. AVEK is evaluating the potential for numerous sites to provide local and regional groundwater storage, including the existing WDS water bank. Most of these sites are not located where (a) they can be supplied via existing AVEK facilities and (b) they can be readily connected to existing delivery pipelines. The existing WDS water bank also needs additional infrastructure to meet AVEK's regional needs and there are implementation issues associated with multi-party water banking programs that make a single-party (AVEK) banking program a primary need. Multi-party water banks are thus a supplement to the Proposed Project, not a substitute for the Proposed Project. Their ability to meet the regional need for recharge is thus limited, although they may be considered in the future to meet local needs for water management. The Initial Study identifies these potential future projects and addresses their potential cumulative impacts of a larger-scale future water infrastructure development program as part of the discussion of cumulative impacts.



1.6 IMPACT AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION MEASURES AVEK has incorporated a number of impact avoidance and minimization measures into the Proposed project Description. They include mitigation measures addressing the following categories of impact:

• Aesthetics • Biological Resources • Cultural and Paleontological Management • Geology and Soils • Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Hydrology & Water Quality • Noise • Traffic and Transportation • Energy Use • Utilities and Service Systems

1.7 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AVEK considered a range of alternatives to a centrally-located groundwater recharge area in its 2007 Draft EIR (SC# 2007051095), including recharge in the vicinity of the Proposed Project. Based on comments to that EIR, AVEK re-evaluated alternatives based on the revised evaluation criteria (Table 1). Table 1. Criteria for Evaluating Alternatives to the Proposed Project

Criterion Discussion 1.

IMPLEMENTATION FEASIBILITY

(a) The critical need for a functional groundwater recharge area that can be implemented in the near term with minimal facility development and provide for substantial water storage argues for a facility located immediately adjacent to AVEK's existing West Feeder and upslope of a majority of the facilities served by the West Feeder (which is a gravity flow facility that cannot be reversed). New infrastructure design and construction may delay implementation and this could have adverse impacts on AVEK ability to meet demands of its customers. (b) The siting or implementation of an alternative must not be constrained by an earthquake fault near a dam, or a law or regulation prohibiting its implementation, inappropriate soils conditions, or poor indigenous water quality. (c) Implementation must not require extended planning, design, and construction periods (such as would be required for major above ground dams)

2. OPERATION

CONSTRAINTS

Substantial institutional constraints on the operation of the groundwater recharge area could affect AVEK's ability to deliver, store, and recover water supplies.

3. FLIGHT HAZARDS:

Habitat that would attract large birds would pose a substantial potential for creating hazards for aircraft operating from private and military air fields. Steep sloping sites where high levees and deep recharge ponds would be needed may attract larger water birds, and thus would create potential operational limits and affect AVEK's ability to use the recharge area and meet customer needs.

4. THREATENED AND

ENDANGERED SPECIES

The known presence of threatened and/or endangered species would require extended permitting processes, delaying implementation by 3-5 years and compromising AVEK's ability to respond to the critical need.

Table 2. Summary of Evaluation of Alternatives. Shading indicates an alternative meets criterion.

ALTERNATIVE/SITE DOES ALTERNATIVE MEET EVALUATION CRITERIA? 1. IMPLEMENTATION

FEASIBILITY2. OPERATION CONSTRAINTS

3. FLIGHT HAZARDS:

4. THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES

OTHER RECHARGE SITES California City (Cache Creek area)

(a) NO: Too far north, not adjacent to West Feeder

YES: No known constraints YES: Flat terrain NO: In range of Mohave ground squirrel and desert tortoise

Mojave (between SR 14 and SR 58)

(a) NO: Too far north NO: may conflict with planned landfill expansion

YES: Flat terrain NO: In range of Mohave ground squirrel and desert tortoise

Willow Springs (north of Rosamond Boulevard)

(a) NO: Not adjacent to West Feeder

YES: No known constraints NO: Steep terrain and deep basins

NO: On edge of Mohave ground squirrel and desert tortoise range

WDS Bank (2 miles NW of Proposed Project)


NO: Multi-party banking and recharge operations may constrain operations

NO: Steep terrain and deep basins

YES: No known T&E species issues

WSSP-1 Project (Calandri Properties)

(a) YES: No technical constraints

NO. Local controversy over land use may delay implementation

NO: Flat terrain YES: No known T&E Species

WSSP-2 (North Buttes, the Proposed Project)

(a) YES: No technical constraints

YES: No known controversy YES: Flat terrain YES: No known T&E Species

Tejon Bank (9 miles west of Proposed project)

(a) NO: Not adjacent to West Feeder (b) NO: Near known faults

NO: Multi-party banking and recharge operations may constrain operations

YES: Moderate slopes Not evaluated

Westside (7 miles west of Proposed Project)

(a) NO: Not adjacent to West Feeder (b) NO: Near known faults

YES: No known constraints YES: Moderate slopes Not evaluated

East Buttes (NE of California Poppy Reserve)

(a) NO: Not adjacent to West Feeder or other raw water facilities

NO: Recovery facilities not available


Avenue I (Munz and West Ave I)

(a) NO: Not adjacent to raw water supply facilities

NO: Capacity to meet regional needs not available


Power Line (SCE power line at CA Aqueduct)

(a) NO: Not adjacent to West Feeder or other raw water facilities; small capacity

NO: Conflict with SCE operations YES: Flat terrain Not evaluated



ALTERNATIVE/SITE DOES ALTERNATIVE MEET EVALUATION CRITERIA? 1. IMPLEMENTATION

FEASIBILITY2. OPERATION CONSTRAINTS

3. FLIGHT HAZARDS:

4. THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES

Amargosa (East of Quartz Hill Treatment Plant)

(a) NO: Not adjacent to existing facilities for recovery of water for regional use

NO. SWP delivery capacity limited YES: Moderate slopes Not evaluated

Little Rock Creek (10 miles west of Quartz Hill TP)

(a) NO: Not adjacent to existing facilities for recovery of water for regional use

NO: SWP delivery capacity limited YES: Moderate slopes Not evaluated

Anaverde (SW of Quartz Hill TP)



Big Rock (15 miles SW of Quartz Hill TP)



NEW DAMS Mid-Valley Locations (c) NO: Potential

liquefaction effects (d) NO: Extended development period

NO. Supply and recovery more difficult

NO: would create permanent waterfowl habitat

Not evaluated

Buttes Site (a) NO: Not adjacent to West Feeder (d) NO: Extended development period

NO: In a State Reserve NO: would create permanent waterfowl habitat

NO: Potential avian concerns

Mountain Locations (a) NO: Not adjacent to West Feeder (c) NO: Near major faults (d) NO: Extended development period (e) Very limited capacity for groundwater storage

NO: In National Forest NO: would create permanent waterfowl habitat

NO: Potential avian concerns

In order to meet the fundamental requirements of the project, including the critical need for operational recharge to ensure that AVEK can meet some portion of the needed drought and emergency storage in the near future, only the Proposed Project currently has the potential to meet critical evaluation criteria, particularly the need for immediate action. There is a potential that institutional constraints and concerns could delay implementation pending refinement of the project and resolution of various institutional concerns.

1.8 PERMITS REQUIRED

• Kern County encroachment permit for any work in the public right of way

• Los Angeles County encroachment permit for any work in the public right of way

• California Department of Public Health Public Water System Permit for wells and water treatment facilities

• Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board approval of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention

Plan

• California Department of Fish and Game Streambed Alteration Permit


SECTION 2. EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

2.1 GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The Proposed Project would involve the construction and operations of facilities in both Los Angeles and Kern Counties, with recharge basins sited in Los Angeles County and the storage, treatment, and pumping station located in Kern County. There would be pipeline construction in both counties. The Antelope Valley is high desert, with elevations on the valley floor ranging from about 3500 feet along the mountains to the south, west, and north to about 2200 feet at the Edwards AFB west boundary. The surrounding mountains range from 9000 to 6000 feet in elevation and function to reduce coastal influences on the desert region. The climate reflects this topography. In mid-summer, daily highs exceed 90º F, mean temperatures are about 80º F, and low temperatures are above 60º F. Winter temperatures, from December through Mid March, are cold, with average highs below 65º F and average lows below 40º. Temperatures are colder at the base of the mountains. Rainfall averages 5 to 10 inches (DWR 2004), with average monthly precipitation of from 1 to 2 inches from December through March and below 1 inch for the remainder of the year. There is seldom snowfall on the valley floor, although the mountains may receive significant snow at higher elevations. Average monthly winds are moderate when compared to US averages (City-data.com 2007), but winds below the passes in the mountains support a substantial wind power generation complex and there can be periods of steady west to east winds exceeding 20 mph across the valley floor. Dust storms occur. Winds are highest in the spring and summer, but daily wind speeds of more than 5 mph occur on an almost constant basis at Lancaster. The soils of the central valley area consist of fine sands and sandy loams, which are subject to dispersal by winds, and there is wind erosion of exposed soils during periods of higher winds. In this dry desert climate, there are no perennial streams across the valley floor and wildlife habitat is dominated by desert-adapted plants. The valley floor is dominated by rabbitbrush scrub and creosote bush scrub, generally highly disturbed by historic and on-going disturbance. The Proposed Project is located near (but not within) two areas designated by the County of Los Angeles as significant ecological areas, including the Antelope Valley California Poppy Reserve, located about 1.5 miles south of the project (Figure 10, Appendix A). The Antelope Valley is a “V-shaped” valley surrounded by the Tehachapi Mountains on the northwest and the San Gabriel Mountains on the southwest. The valley begins where these two ranges meet at an elevation of about 3500 feet and widens and flattens from west to east, reaching an elevation of about 2300 feet at Edwards AFB. The valley does not drain to the sea, and runoff from the mountains flows down a number of ephemeral washes and then spreads out across the valley floor. In the mid-valley (from approximately Avenue D West on the south to Rosamond Boulevard in the north, the valley is flat (Figure 8, Appendix A), with north-south land slope of approximately 1-2 meters per mile. In flood, runoff across the valley floor is characterized by shallow sheet flow. Flows terminate in the large dry lake beds on Edwards AFB (Lake Rosamond and Rogers Lake), which are remnants of Lake Thompson. The Proposed Project recharge is in the 500-year floodplain of local creeks draining the nearby hills. Note on Figure 8 that drainages may cease to have defined channels after they reach the flat alluvial plain below the hills. The Proposed Project is located on alluvial soils, outside of the historic boundary of Lake Thompson, which is now a dry lake bed except at Rosamond Lake and Rogers Lake on Edwards AFB. Soils in the


alluvial plain are characterized by mixed sands, silts, and clays, deposited in patches as a result of the meandering channels that drain the surrounding mountains (DWR 2004). The patchy distribution of such soils occurs below ground, and thus the upper groundwater basin has intermittent lenses of clay and silt, known as aquatards because they block the flow of groundwater. When water percolating into the ground encounters these intermittent aquatards, it flows horizontally until reaching the edge of the aquatard, where it resumes percolation into the groundwater. Layers of clay become thicker and more extensive towards the east end of the basin, in the area that was once Lake Thompson. In addition, there is a deeper "confined" aquifer which is isolated from the upper aquifer by a contiguous layer of clay (DWR 2004). The Proposed Project would recharge and recover supplies from only the upper aquifer. Natural groundwater recharge occurs at the base of the mountains and groundwater then tends to flow north and east to the valley low point at Edwards AFB. Existing groundwater levels in the Antelope Valley vary, and the USGS (2003 and 2005) notes that groundwater levels in the vicinity of the proposed project were historically about 150 to 200 feet below ground surface. Groundwater extraction has lowered groundwater levels across a wide portion of the Antelope Valley, and recent well data from the Proposed Project area indicate that groundwater is now found from about 250 to 300 feet below ground surface (Boyle Engineering 2008). DWR (2004) notes that as a result of groundwater extraction, large areas of the Antelope Valley have subsided by more than 1 foot. DWR (2004) estimates the available groundwater storage capacity of the overall upper basin between 20 feet and 220 feet below ground surface at about 5.4 million acre-feet. The Antelope Valley is in a highly active geologic area, with the San Andreas Fault zone running along the base of the San Gabriel Mountains, and the Garlock fault zone running along the base of the Tehachapi Mountains. A number of smaller faults cross the valley floor (Figure 9, Appendix A). The Proposed Project area is located west of the cities of Palmdale and Lancaster and southwest of Rosamond and Edwards Air Force Base on the flat alluvial center of the Antelope Valley. Located 40 to 55 miles from the City of Los Angeles and closer to the developing high technology industry of the San Fernando and Santa Clarita valleys, Palmdale and Lancaster have experienced rapid recent growth as available land for development in the coastal basin has become less available and higher in price. From 2000 to 2005 population in these two cities grew by (City-data.com 2007):

• Palmdale: 17,900 (15.3%) • Lancaster: 15,314 (12.9%)

The Rosamond population growth rate was lower. Median incomes increased in all three cities and from 2000 to 2005 housing prices soared:

• Palmdale: up 162% • Lancaster: up 162.5% • Rosamond: up 126%

From 2000 to 2005, annual new housing and commercial construction increased substantially:

• Palmdale: 661 buildings to 1534 buildings (up 232%) • Lancaster: 279 buildings to 2799 buildings (up 1000%)

In all Palmdale and Rosamond, more workers commute out of the city than work within the city of their residence. In Lancaster workers working within the city outnumber commuter substantially. There are several state desert wildlife preserves, including the California Poppy Preserve (about 15 miles west of Lancaster) and the Arthur B. Ripley Desert Woodland State Park (about 7 miles west of the Poppy


Reserve), but the only recreation facility in the vicinity of the proposed project is the Willow Springs Race Track, located north of Rosamond Boulevard in the hills bordering the valley. Proposed Project recharge facilities are located in a portion of Los Angeles County designated as N1 (Non-urban) and generally zoned A-2-5 (agriculture with minimum lots sizes of 2 to 5 acres. Current land use is almost exclusively agricultural (Figure 10, Appendix A). Typical views of lands adjacent to the recharge area are shown on Figures 11 through 16 (Appendix A), including aerial photos of a large farm complex at 145th Street West and views of adjacent non-farmed parcels. There is virtually no development in the Proposed Project area near the recharge basin area, except for one farm complex and several houses. There is more development in the vicinity of the Proposed Project Treatment and Storage area (Figure 2 and Figure 16).

2.2 AESTHETICS/VISUAL RESOURCES 2.2.1 Introduction Only above- ground facilities such as the treatment plant, storage, and pumping station to be located near the intersection of Gaskell Road and 80th Street West would have potential to affect community aesthetics. The recharge areas and buried pipelines will not (a) alter the viewshed when compared to the on-going agricultural operations and (b) be readily visible from major paved roads and highways. The use of existing pivot-type equipment to spread water for recharge and/or the use of low agricultural-type berms would make it difficult to distinguish farmed parcels from parcels in use for agriculture. 2.2.2 Potential Impacts Proposed Project above-ground facilities proposed would be located in Kern County, in the Willow Springs Specific Plan (WSSP) area, near the intersection of 80th Street West and Gaskell Road. The WSSP designates lands in the vicinity of this above-ground facility (Figure 17, Appendix A) as public or private recreation (Map Code 3.1) residential (Map Code 5.6) general commercial (Map Code 6.2) and other public facilities (Map Code 3.3). In addition to sparse existing housing, it is thus possible for there to be future residential development within the area adjacent to the Proposed Project at this intersection. The most prominent feature of these facilities would be several large water storage tanks, which would be partially buried so that they would extend approximately 20 to 22 feet above ground level. The approximate effect of the storage tanks on local views is shown on Figure 18 (Appendix A). The Proposed Project storage, treatment, and pumping facility would be partly screened from view by a treatment building and pumping station, which would be constructed to resemble nearby agricultural facilities, but the view of several nearby residents would be affected. Existing SCE power lines may also need to be re-wired to provide power to the site, and local lines may need to be extended to provide power to well pumps. These changes would not alter the visual character of the area, where above ground power lines are a feature of the landscape. 2.2.3 Mitigation A-1: Design for above ground facilities compatibility. As part of the development of this facility, AVEK will develop a design and coloration for the facility which would be consistent with the community character. For example, AVEK would consider painting the water storage tank to further reduce its visual impact by making its coloration blend in with the surrounding vegetation.


A-2: Partial Tank Burial. AVEK will minimize impacts by partially burying water storage tanks to reduce their visual impact. A-3: Screening. AVEK will plant and maintain trees and other vegetation, as illustrated conceptually on Figure 19 (Appendix A) to screen the view of water storage tanks from nearby residences and roads. Colored fencing will be used. A-4: Lighting. AVEK will provide for any lighting to be directed away from nearby residences. Outside lighting will on during operation and maintenance during recovery operations. When personnel are not on site, outdoor lighting will be turned off. 2.2.4 CEQA Significance As mitigated, the Proposed Project facilities at 80th Street West and Gaskell Road would not be inconsistent with, and would be less intrusive than, the facilities such as the existing poultry complex located about 0.40 miles east of the scattered housing shown on Figure 18. This Facility (Figure 20, Appendix A) is over 750 feet long and 500 feet wide, unscreened. In addition, the WSSP provides for commercial and public service facilities in the immediate vicinity of the Proposed Project facilities. Based on this analysis of the potential effects of the Proposed Project facilities, the Initial Study concludes:

• With mitigation proposed, no features of the project would have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. Temporary berms, if any are needed at the recharge are, will be not higher than about 18-36 inches. Above ground facilities will not be inconsistent with facilities existing in the area.

• No features of the project would substantially damage scenic resources. No damage to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings will occur. The site is not near a state scenic highway. This impact would be less than significant.

• With mitigation proposed, no features of the project would substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. Buildings will be screened with vegetation in a manner common in the neighborhood and designed to be consistent with the existing visual character.

• With mitigation proposed, no features of the project would create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views of the area. Buildings will not need substantial lighting at night. The proposed project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Any lighting installed will be directed away from existing residences.

2.3 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES 2.3.1 Introduction The Proposed Project is located in the Antelope Valley, a semiarid region averaging less than 10 inches of precipitation per year, but which has been extensively used for irrigated agriculture. Agriculture in the Antelope Valley consists of a variety of field, vine, and row crops, including wheat, carrots, and onions. The project site alternative sites are all currently in agricultural use and/or fallowed. None have been subdivided for dense urban development and all are anticipated to remain in agricultural production in the near future. Infrastructure to many of the sites consists of unpaved roads, although there is paved road


access at the storage, treatment, and pumping station at Gaskell Road and 80th Street West in Kern County and the recharge area is accessible via West Avenue D (Highway 138) and several paved north-south roads. There are discontinuities in some roads transitions from paved to unpaved status). 2.3.2 Potential Impacts The Proposed Project includes a provision for continuation of current agricultural practices. The current crop rotation practice at the recharge site is to farm only a portion of the property each year and this pattern may be maintained. Recharge will also generally occur outside of the growing season and thus would not preclude the grower from planting a crop shortly after recharge operations are ended; this would be consistent with AVEK's desire to plant a cover crop to minimize post-recharge wind erosion of the land. The storage, treatment, and pumping station, which would occupy an area of several acres (including the area fenced and the vegetative screen) would not reduce the net area available in any year for the existing farm operations, again, because in any given year only a portion of the land is farmed. In short, there is no mechanism by which the Proposed Project could adversely affect the area of land farmed or the current crop rotation practices. No net loss of production would occur. One effect of AVEK's ownership of the subject lands in both Los Angeles and Kern County will also be to minimize the potential for future conversion of these lands to non-agricultural purposes; this would be a benefit, not an adverse impact, to agriculture and would be consistent with the policies for preservation of agriculture in both the Willow Springs Specific Plan (Kern County) and the Antelope Valley Areawide Plan (Los Angeles County). 2.3.3 Mitigation Given that on-going farming is a part of the Proposed Project, there is no impact on agriculture and no mitigation is proposed. 2.3.4 CEQA Significance The Proposed Project would not cause effects to agriculture which are identified in the CEQA Guidelines as potentially significant. Specifically, the Proposed Project would not:

• Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use;

• Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or Williamson Act contracts; • Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could

result in conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural use; or • Result in the cancellation of an open space contract made pursuant to the California Land

Conservation Act of 1965 or Farmland Security Zone Contract for any parcel of 100 or more acres (Public Resources Code Section 15206[b][3].


2.4 AIR QUALITY 2.4.1 Introduction Within the Mojave Desert Air Basin (MDAB) and Antelope Valley, the air pollutants of primary concern are ozone, particulate matter 10 microns in diameter or less (PM10), and particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less (PM2.5). Ozone results from the reaction of two other pollutants—reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOx)—in the presence of sunlight. Both PM10 and PM2.5 can be emitted directly from combustion processes or as fugitive dust. They also can form in the atmosphere from the reaction of precursors. Both classes of particulates can be harmful to human health because they can be inhaled deeply into the lungs. The State of California has classified the MDAB as being in moderate nonattainment for ozone and in nonattainment for PM10. The Kern County Air Pollution Control District (KCAPCD) and Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District (AVAQMD) have adopted air quality improvement plans that address these issues and include specific rules for the control of emission. The AVAQMD adopted an Ozone Attainment Plan in 2004 and has established local air quality rules and regulations that address the requirements of federal and state air quality laws. Local rules that would apply to the project would include:

• Rule 401 (Visible Emissions): This rule prohibits emissions of visible air contaminants to the atmosphere and applies to any source operation that emits or may emit air contaminants.

• Rule 402 (Nuisance): This rule applies to any source operation that emits or may emit air contaminants or other materials.

• Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust): The purpose of this rule is to reduce the amount of dust/dirt generated by human activity, including construction, road construction, bulk materials storage, landfill operations, etc.

The Kern County Air Pollution Control District (KCAPCD) has also established local air quality rules and regulations that address the requirements of federal and state air quality laws. The Proposed Project be subject to the following KCAPCD rules.

• Rule 423 (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants): This rule applies to any portion of an existing building that will be renovated, partially demolished, or removed. Prior to any demolition activity, an asbestos survey of existing structures on the project site may be required to identify the presence of any asbestos-containing building material. Any identified ACBM having the potential for disturbance must be removed by a certified asbestos contractor in accordance with California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (commonly referred to as CAL-OSHA) requirements.

• Rule 401 (Visible Emissions): This rule prohibits emissions of visible air contaminants to the atmosphere and applies to any source operation that emits or may emit air contaminants.

• Rule 419 (Nuisance): This rule applies to any source operation that emits or may emit air contaminants or other materials.

• Rule 402 (Fugitive Dust): This rule is designed to reduce PM10 emissions (predominantly dust/dirt) generated by human activity, including construction, road construction, bulk materials storage, landfill operations, etc.

Ambient air quality is affected by the climate, topography, and the type and amount of pollutants emitted. The Antelope Valley experiences extreme variations in daily temperature and an average annual precipitation of less than 10 inches. Almost all the precipitation arrives in winter. Freezing temperatures


occur in winter, while summers are hot, dry, and windy. The Antelope Valley is characterized by flat valleys and mountains, ranging in elevation from 2,000 to 5,000 feet above sea level. It is bordered on the north and west by the Tehachapi and San Gabriel mountains. The federal and state governments have established ambient air quality standards for seven criteria pollutants: ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), PM10, PM2.5, and lead. Ozone, PM10, and PM2.5 are generally considered regional pollutants because they or their precursors affect air quality on a regional scale. Pollutants such as CO, NO2, SO2, and lead are considered local pollutants that tend to accumulate in the air locally. Particulate matter pollution consists of very small liquid and solid particles floating in the air. PM10 (particles less than 10 microns in diameter) and PM2.5 (particles less than 2.5 microns in diameter) are considered both localized and regional pollutants. In the area where the proposed Project is located, PM10, PM2.5, and ozone are of particular concern. Table 3. Federal and State air quality standards POLLUTANT

AVERAGING TIME

CONCENTRATIONS California Standards1,3

Federal Standards2 Primary3,5 Secondary3,6

Ozone (O3) 1 hour 0.09 ppm (180 µg/m3

----- Same as primary Standard

8-hour 0.07 ppm (137 µg/m3)7

0.08 ppm (157 µg/m3)

Respirable Particulate Matter (PM 10)

24-hour 50 µg/m3 150 µg/m3 Same as primary standard Annual arithmetic mean 20 µg/m3 Revoked

12/17/06 Fine Particulate Matter PM2.5

24-hour No standard 65 µg/m3 Same as primary standard Annual arithmetic mean 12 mg/m3 15 µg/m3

Carbon monoxide CO

1-hour 7 mg/m3 ----- None 8-hour 10 mg/m3 10 µg/m3

Nitrogen dioxide NO2

1-hour 470 µg/m3 ---- Same as primary standard Annual arithmetic mean ---- 100 µg/m3

Sulfur dioxide (SO2)

1-hour 655µg/m3 --- --- 3 hour --- --- 1300µg/m3

24-hour 105µg/m3 365µg/m3 --- Annual arithmetic mean --- 80µg/m3 ---

Lead 30-day average 1.5µg/m3 --- --- Calendar quarter --- 1.5µg/m3 Same as primary standard

Visibility reducing particles

8-hour: Extinction coefficient = 0.23 per kilometer when relative humidity < 70%

No Federal Standard Sulfates 24-hour 25µg/m3 Hydrogen sulfide 1-hour 42µg/m3 Vinyl chloride4 24-hour 26µg/m3 1. CA standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (except Lake Tahoe), sulfur dioxide (1 and 24 hour), nitrogen dioxide, suspended particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5 and visibility reducing particles) are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. 2. National Standards (other than ozone, particulate matter, and those based on annual averages or annual arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The ozone standard is attained when the fourth highest eight hour concentration in a year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than the standard For PM10, the 24 hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentrations above 150 µg/m3 is equal to or less than one. For PM2.5, the 24 hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over three years, are equal to less than the standard. 3. Concentrations expressed first in units in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given in parentheses are based upon


a reference temperature of 25ºC and a reference pressure of 760 torr; ppm in this table refers to ppm by volume, or micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas. 4. The ARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as ‘toxic air contaminants’ with no threshold level of exposure for adverse health effects determined. These actions allow for the implementation of control measures at levels below the ambient concentrations specified for these pollutants. 5. National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety to protect the public health. 6. National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant. 7. This concentration was approved by the Air Resources Board on April 28, 2005 and is expected to become effective in early 2006. Source: California Air Resources Board, November 29, 2005 Table 4. State and federal values for designations of non-attainment.

AIR QUALITY STANDARD

CATEGORY RANGE OF POLLUTANT CONCENTRATION

State Designation

Federal Design Value

8-hour ozone Marginal NA 0.085 to 0.092 ppm Moderate NA 0.092 to 0.107 ppm Serious NA 0.107 to 0.120 ppm

Severe-15 NA 0.120 to 0.127 ppm Severe -17 NA 0.127 to 0.187 ppm Extreme NA > 0.187 ppm

1-hour ozone Moderate 0.09 to 0.12 ppm NA Serious 0.13 to 0.15 ppm NA Severe 0.16 to 0.20 ppm NA

Extreme > 0.20 ppm NA 1-hour CO Transitional < 9.0 ppm 3 times in a year NA

Moderate 9.0 to 12.7 ppm NA Serious > 12.7 ppm NA

PM10 Moderate NA In violation of standard, 6 years to correct

Serious NA In violation of standard longer than 6 years and/or stationary sources produce

70 tons per year The Antelope Valley is infrequently out of compliance with both State and Federal standards for ozone and particulates. The following pollutants are unlikely to be emitted by the project in quantifiable quantities:

• Sulfates • Lead • Hydrogen Sulfide. • Visibility-Reducing Particles. • Vinyl Chloride. • Toxic Air Contaminants.

The potential adverse effects of the various regulated pollutants that may be emitted by the Proposed Project are discussed below.


Ozone Ozone is a regional air pollutant. It is generated over a large area and is transported and spread by wind. It is the most complex, difficult to control, and pervasive of the criteria pollutants. Unlike other pollutants, ozone is not emitted directly into the air by specific sources. Ozone is created by sunlight acting on precursor pollutants, specifically NOx and ROGs. Sources of precursor gases that contribute to the photochemical reaction that forms ozone number in the thousands. Common sources include consumer products, gasoline vapors, chemical solvents, and combustion products of various fuels. Ozone is a respiratory irritant and an oxidant that increases susceptibility to respiratory infections and can cause substantial damage to vegetation and other materials. It is a severe eye, nose, and throat irritant and many respiratory ailments, as well as cardiovascular disease, are aggravated by exposure to high ozone levels. Ozone also damages natural ecosystems such as forests and foothill communities. Ozone also attacks synthetic rubber, textiles, plants, and other materials and can cause extensive cell damage and leaf discoloration in plants. Particulates Health concerns associated with suspended particulate matter focus on those particles small enough to reach the lungs when inhaled, which are designated as PM10 and PM2.5 (particulates less than 10 microns in diameter and particulates less than 2.5 microns in diameter). PM2.5 particulates generally constitute about 22% of total PM10 particulates. Particulates are generated by a wide variety of sources, including agricultural activities, industrial emissions, dust suspended by vehicle traffic and construction equipment, and secondary aerosols formed by reactions in the atmosphere. Health problems associated with inhaling PM10 and PM2.5 particles include:

• Acute and chronic respiratory diseases, • Heart and lung disease, and coughing, bronchitis, • Respiratory illnesses in children.

Population-based studies in hundreds of cities in the U.S. and around the world have demonstrated a strong link between elevated particulate levels and premature deaths, hospital admissions, emergency room visits, and asthma attacks. Long-term studies of children’s health conducted in California have demonstrated that particulate pollution may Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) and Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) Hydrocarbons are gases that are formed of hydrogen and carbon. ROGs include all such hydrocarbons except those exempted by the California Air Resources Board. Therefore, ROGs are a set of organic gases based on state rules and regulations. VOCs are similar to ROGs in that they include all organic gases except those exempted by federal law. Both VOCs and ROGs are emitted from incomplete combustion of hydrocarbons or other carbon-based fuels. Combustion engine exhaust, oil refineries, and oil-fueled power plants are the primary sources of hydrocarbons. Another source of hydrocarbons is evaporation from petroleum fuels, solvents, dry cleaning solutions, and paint. The primary health effects of hydrocarbons result from the formation of ozone and its related health effects (see ozone health effects discussion above). High levels of hydrocarbons in the atmosphere can interfere with oxygen intake by reducing the amount of available oxygen through displacement. There are no separate federal or California ambient air quality standards for ROG. Carcinogenic forms of ROG are considered toxic air contaminants (TACs). An example is benzene, which is a carcinogen. The health effects of individual ROGs are described below under the toxic air contaminants heading below.


Carbon Monoxide (CO) CO is a result of incomplete combustion of carbon-based fuels. CO is an odorless, colorless, poisonous gas that is highly reactive. CO enters the bloodstream and binds more readily to hemoglobin than oxygen, reducing the oxygen-carrying capacity of blood and thus reducing oxygen delivery to organs and tissues. The health threat from CO is most serious for those who suffer from cardiovascular disease. Healthy individuals are also affected, but only at higher levels of exposure. Exposure to CO can cause chest pain in heart patients, headaches, and reduced mental alertness. At high concentrations, CO can cause heart difficulties in people with chronic diseases and can impair mental abilities. Exposure to elevated CO levels is associated with visual impairment, reduced work capacity, reduced manual dexterity, poor learning ability, difficulty performing complex tasks, and in prolonged, enclosed exposure, death. Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) Various oxides of nitrogen (NOx) both combine with ROG to form ozone and react in the atmosphere to form acid rain. NOx is emitted from the use of solvents and the burning of fuel at high temperatures, principally from motor vehicle exhaust and stationary sources such as electric utilities and industrial boilers. A brownish gas, nitrogen dioxide (NO2) is a strong oxidizing agent that reacts in the air to form corrosive nitric acid and toxic organic nitrates. Direct inhalation of NOx can also cause a wide range of health effects:

• Lung irritation and damage • Lower resistance to respiratory infections such as influenza, • Respiratory illnesses in children and • Increase in the incidence of chronic bronchitis and lung irritation, • Eye and mucus membrane aggravation,

Epidemiological studies have shown associations between NO2 concentrations and daily mortality from respiratory and cardiovascular causes and hospital admissions for respiratory conditions. Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) SO2 is a colorless, irritating gas with a “rotten egg” smell formed primarily by the combustion of sulfur-containing fossil fuels. High concentrations of SO2 can result in:

• Temporary breathing impairment for asthmatic children and adults who are active outdoors; • Aggravation of existing cardiovascular disease, respiratory illness, and alterations in the lungs’

defenses; • Lung and throat irritation at concentrations greater than 6 ppm in many people; • Reduction in the respiratory system’s defenses against foreign particles, bacteria (when exposed

to concentrations less than 6 ppm for longer time) and enhancement of the harmful effects of ozone.

SO2 tends to have more toxic effects when acidic pollutants, liquid or solid aerosols, and particulates are also present. (In the 1950s and 1960s, thousands of excess deaths occurred in areas where SO2 concentrations exceeded 1 ppm for a few days and other pollutants were also high.)


Diesel Particulate Matter Diesel particulate matter is emitted from both mobile and stationary sources. Diesel exhaust and many individual substances contained in it (including arsenic, benzene, formaldehyde, and nickel) have the potential to contribute to mutations in cells that can lead to cancer. Long-term exposure to diesel exhaust particles poses the highest cancer risk of any TAC evaluated by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). CARB estimates that about 70 percent of the cancer risk that the average Californian faces from breathing toxic air pollutants stems from diesel exhaust particles. In its comprehensive assessment of diesel exhaust, OEHHA analyzed more than 30 studies of people who worked around diesel equipment, including truck drivers, railroad workers, and equipment operators. The studies showed these workers were more likely to develop lung cancer than workers who were not exposed to diesel emissions. Diesel exhaust can also irritate the eyes, nose, throat, and lungs, and it can cause coughs, headaches lightheadedness, and nausea. 2.4.2 Impact Analysis To evaluate the potential air quality impacts of the Proposed Project, we examined:

• Emissions from construction and operation, including greenhouse gas emissions • Emissions from on-going agricultural operations • Reductions in emissions associated with farming as a result of the proposed project • Reductions in emissions of greenhouse gasses associated with changed in the schedule of water

delivery We used the CARB Urban Emissions Model (URBEMIS) Version 9.2.2, which incorporates the latest EPA Emissions Factors for construction equipment. The newest version, URBEMIS 9.2.4-2 was not used due to current problems with this Microsoft Vista-based software; for the purposes of evaluation of the Proposed Project, there are no substantial differences between the 9.2.2 version and the 9.2.4-2 version. A copy of the model runs is available for review at AVEK headquarters. 2.4.2.1 Potential emissions from construction and operations (a) Construction emissions Construction of the Proposed Project would generate emissions of ROG, NOx, CO, oxides of sulfur (SOx), and PM10. Construction-related emissions also would include fugitive PM10 dust from site grading and e exhaust emissions resulting from worker commute trips and off-road construction equipment. URBEMIS mitigation measures were specified for each aspect of construction; AVEK would implement AVAQMD Table 1 Best Available Control Measures from the SCAQMD (2005), which are somewhat more extensive than the measures used in the Urban Emissions Model. Results of model runs are included in Appendix B and summarized on Table 5 and 6. Table 5 includes two estimates, first for a project in which all facilities are constructed in a single year and second for a project in which 4 wells and the main pipeline are deferred to a second construction phase. The preferred method for applying water to the soil for recharge is the "pivot" method, which would have no substantial construction-related emissions. The "agricultural flood irrigation" method for recharge would involve a short period of berm construction. The worst case, the agricultural flood irrigation method, was used.


Construction emissions are low (well below official thresholds of significance) for the Proposed Project when compared to those of a typical groundwater recharge project because: (a) The recharge site has a flat slope (about 20 feet per mile from east to west and generally less than 3 feet per mile along north-south alignments; the project thus does not require the construction of large, engineered berms, which involve extensive and repetitive movement and compaction of soils; and (b) the project preferred approach to spreading water for recharge is a pivot, which requires virtually no construction.

In addition, pipelines have a relatively small active construction footprint and soil used to re-fill trenches is compacted and wetted as the pipeline progresses across an area. At any given time, the footprint of the main pipeline is substantially less than an acre, and disturbance is focused on a narrow trench and the immediate vicinity. Wells also have a small footprint and soil from drilling is wet, reducing the potential for fugitive dust. The Proposed Project construction would generate about 1050 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) and total emissions of greenhouse gasses (GHG, which include CO2 CO, ROG, and NOx) are approximately 1100 tons. Table 5. Estimated construction emissions for the Proposed Project (tons of annual emissions).

PROJECT ELEMENT

Estimated Emissions in tons per year (KCAPCD or AVAQMD threshold of CEQA significance, lowest value used)

PM = Pre mitigation. M = Mitigated Emissions Type ROG NOx CO Total PM10 Total PM2.5 CO2 Significance Level 25 25 100 15 NA NA

NO CONSTRUCTION PHASING: FACILITIES CONSTRUCTED IN A SINGLE YEAR. Mitigation Level PM M PM M PM M PM M PM M PM=M Main Pipeline 0.45 0.45 3.65 2.65 1.99 1.99 0.79 0.06 0.30 0.02 331 Internal Pipelines 0.54 0.54 4.04 2.93 2.44 2.44 1.28 0.09 0.44 0.03 391 8 wells 0.16 0.16 1.84 1.36 0.88 0.88 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 272 Storage -Treatment Plant

0.49 0.47 1.49 1.17 2.30 2.30 0.76 0.15 0.21 0.04 213

1-year of berm construction

0.01 0.01 0.05 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.25 0.09 0.05 0.02 5

TOTAL 1.65 1.63 11.1 8.15 7.63 7.63 3.1 0.39 1.01 0.11 1212 CONSTRUCTION PHASING, TWO YEARS

YEAR 1: Main pipeline, 4 wells, storage-treatment station, 1 year f berm construction Main Pipeline 0.45 0.45 3.65 2.65 1.99 1.99 0.79 0.06 0.30 0.02 331 4 wells 0.08 0.08 0.92 0.68 0.44 0.44 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 136 Storage -Treatment Plant

0.49 0.47 1.49 1.17 2.30 2.30 0.76 0.15 0.21 0.04 213

1-year of berm construction

0.01 0.01 0.05 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.25 0.09 0.05 0.02 5

TOTAL 1.03 1.01 6.11 4.54 4.75 4.75 1.81 0.3 0.57 0.08 685 YEAR 2: internal pipelines and 4 wells

Internal Pipelines 0.54 0.54 4.04 2.93 2.44 2.44 1.28 0.09 0.44 0.03 391 4 wells 0.08 0.08 0.92 0.68 0.44 0.44 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 136 TOTAL 0.62 0.62 4.96 3.61 2.88 2.88 1.29 0.09 0.45 0.03 527


Table 6. Comparison of project construction emissions to Kern County 2020 emissions and Mojave Desert Air Basin 2005 projections. Highest annual post-mitigation estimate (no construction phasing).

CATEGORY TYPE OF EMISSION in tons per year ROG NOx PM10

Project Emissions: Initial Construction 1.63 8.15 0.11 Kern County (2020 projection) 32,952.2 38,609.75 35,613.05 Project emissions % of Kern County emissions 0.005% 0.02% 0.0003% Mojave Desert Air Basin (2005 projection) 40,150 83,330 64,058 Project emissions % MDAB 0.004% 0.01% 0.0002%

At present, as noted in a draft California Energy Commission report on the Role of Land Use in Meeting California’s Energy and Climate Change Goal, CEQA guidelines do not currently state if and how emissions of CO2 and other are to be evaluated. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has not issued any guidance to counties or other agencies on how GHG emissions and AB 32 should be evaluated in CEQA documents. While the URBEMIS model calculates greenhouse gas emissions, it does not provide a means to place these emissions in the context of either national or global emissions, or provide a means to estimate the effect of a given increase on climate change/global warming. Available models of global warming are evolving, and precise estimates of the effects of an individual source of emissions on the global climate are not feasible at this time. However, a relatively simple but accurate evaluation of the impacts of the proposed project can be made by comparing total project emissions to total global emissions. The USEPA provides data on estimated total global emissions of all greenhouse gasses, by source category:

• Land use change and forestry: 19% • Nitrous Oxide: 9% • Methane: 16% • High GWP Gases: 1% • Fuel, cement manufacture, and gas flaring: 55%

EPA notes that in 2002 the combination of the last category (fuel, cement manufacture, and gas flaring) resulted in production of approximately 25,000,000,000 metric tons of greenhouse gasses. Total greenhouse gas production from all sources would be: 25,000,000,000 metric tons/0.55 = 45,455,000,000 metric tons. EPA data suggest that world greenhouse gas emissions increased by about 1% per year from 1982 to 2002. Applying this rate of growth to the period 2002 through 2009, annual global emissions in 2007 would be approximately 48,750,000,000 metric tons. This is approximately equivalent to: 48,750,000,000 metric tons/0.907 tons/metric tons = 53,730,000,000 US tons The annual emissions from the proposed project therefore equal: 1212/53,730,000,000 = 0.00000002 of total global greenhouse emissions This translates to a contribution of about 2 one-hundred millionths of total annual greenhouse gas.


(b) Operational Emissions Annual operations emissions from the Proposed Project storage, treatment, and pumping station are estimated at:

• ROG: 0.08 tons/year • NOx: 0.11 tons/year • CO: 1.16 tons/year • PM10: 0.09 tons/year • PM 2.5: 0.02 tons/year • CO2: 50.2 tons/year

A majority of these emissions are associated with worker trips, which were set for modeling purposes at 20 per day, using 90% light trucks and 10% heavy trucks. In addition, if the preferred "pivot" method for delivering water to the recharge area is used, there will be energy use and potential for related emissions. A typical pivot is fitted with a high torque, low revolutions per minute electric or diesel engine of about 1 horsepower. The pivot moves slowly, making a complete circuit in from 8 to 12 hours (2 to 3 circles per day), moving continuously. The Proposed Project may use 4-8 pivots, resulting in a maximum use of eight 1 hp engines, 24 hours per day for about 120 days. This converts to about: 1 hp x 24 hours = 24 horsepower hours x 8 units x 120 days = 23040 horsepower hours 23040 horsepower hours x 0.05 gallons of diesel/horsepower hour = 1152 gallons of diesel fuel Based on the analysis of fuel consumption in the discussion of energy effects (below), using the pivot results in diesel emission equal to about 50% of the emissions associated with construction of the low agricultural flood irrigation berms (see Table 10). Use of the pivot would thus reduce emissions from those shown on Table 5, although by a very small fraction. There would be only incidental fugitive dust emissions associated with the pivot as well, because once operating, the pivot would be working on wetted ground. (c) On-going emissions from continued agricultural use of the land The Proposed Project does not change the on-going farming practices on the land. Thus there is a baseline of emissions from operations of farm machinery and from fugitive dust associated with planting and harvest. Although on-going emissions do not represent a change from the baseline condition, we estimated baseline fugitive dust emissions from farmed and fallowed lands under current conditions and compared them to fugitive dust emissions under future conditions, because the Proposed Project includes measures that would reduce this category of emissions. Baseline fugitive dust emissions from on-going farming were calculated based on the current crop mix (alfalfa, barley, and wheat) and the calculated emission factors per acre from the California Air Resources Board (CARB 2003) of 5.8 pounds per acre per year. Per the project description, it was assumed that 500 acres would be actively farmed per year. Pre-mitigation annual PM10 emissions from farming would be: Planting Preparation: 5.8 pounds/year/acre x 500 acres ÷ 2000 lbs/ton = 1.45 tons/year Harvest: 1.68 pounds/year/acre x 500 acres ÷ 2000 lbs/ton = 0.42 tons/year TOTAL: 1.87 tons/year


Fugitive dust from unvegetated land is also a problem when winds exceed about 11 mph. Although average wind speed in the Antelope Valley is substantially lower than the national average wind speed, the Antelope Valley has periods of high sustained winds capable of substantial erosion. Bare land erosion is a component of the California Air Resources Board Wind Erosion Equation, but not a separable element and there is currently very limited regulation of wind erosion from fallowed fields. Thus, wind erosion estimates for bare land are not commonly made. The Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) Fugitive Dust Handbook for wind erosion analysis in a desert environment provides a surrogate analysis of typical wind erosion of barren desert-type soils in a high wind situation (WRAP 2006, Chapters 7-9): wind erosion from an unpaved parking lot. The WRAP wind erosion analysis uses field data from portable wind tunnel studies, and focuses on high wind events that may generate substantial erosion and fugitive dust. In the Mojave Desert, significant wind storms (wind speeds equal to 25 mph) occur about 15 to 18 times per year, with major dust storms triggered by winds 35 mph to more than 40 mph occur about 1 to 1.5 times per year (Bach et al 1996; Bach 1998). Bach 1998 notes that major dust storms are rare in the Antelope Valley but dust storms in 1990 and 1991 did millions of dollars in damages. Using the unit calculations from (WRAP 2006, Chapter 8), the potential daily erosion in a 25 mph event is about 18.8 pounds/acre, and for winds of about 40 mph would be about 150 pounds/acre. Assuming an average number of wind storms per year, the soil erosion potential for the 1000 acres of fallowed land that would be used for recharge would be: Erosion (25 mph) = 18.8 x 15days x 1000 acres = 282,000 pounds Erosion (40 mph) = 150 x 1.25 days x 1000 acres = 187,500 pounds Total = 469,500 pounds Or = 234.75 tons/year The CARB Emission Inventory Methodology Section 7.12 (1997) notes that PM10 wou1d make up about 0.025 of the total soil erosion and PM2.5 would be equal to about 22% of the PM10 emissions or 0.0055 of total soil erosion (EPA 2006). Using these default values, the annual PM10 and PM2.5 windblown emissions from a 1000 acre parcel would be approximately: PM10 = 234.75 tons/year x 0.025 = 5.87 tons/year PM2.5 = 234.75 tons/year x 0.0055 = 1.29 tons/year Given current agricultural practices, these are the baseline (or No Project Alternative) PM10 and PM2.5 emissions from 1000 acres of land fallowed under current conditions. The practice of leaving agricultural lands barren following harvest is evident in the aerial photos of the recharge area (Figure 21 below). 2.4.2.3 Reductions in agricultural emissions There are two ways in which these on-going emissions of fugitive dust may be reduced by the Proposed Project.

• Reduced emissions from wetted conditions during recharge • Reduced Emissions from fallowed Lands when Recharge is not on-going

First, in periods when the recharge areas were wet wind erosion would be eliminated. Recharge is likely to occur in about 5 years out of 10, and, per the analysis in Section 2, would likely involve all of the recharge area, particularly if recharge was cycled to minimize potential for mosquito development.


Given this operations scenario and assuming wetted conditions for a period of 4 months (0.33 year), emissions from fugitive dust due to wetted conditions during recharge would be reduced by: PM10 reduction = 5.87 tons x 0.5 x 0.33 = 0.97 tons PM2.5reduction = 1.29 tons/year x 0.5 x 0.33 = 0.21 tons/year Second, AVEK will consider planting a post-recharge cover crop mowed to provide a stable dry stubble. Such crops have been shown to reduce wind erosion by as much as 90% (WRAP 2006) and to improve percolation (Dana Munn, North Kern Water District personal communication 2004). A wheat/barley cover crop would not be as effective as typical cover crops such as alfalfa and it would not be maintained beyond the initial growing period (to conserve water). Nevertheless, a grass cover crop with an erosion reduction of 40% (Mansell et al 2005 in WRAP 2006) would result in substantial declines in PM10 and PM2.5 during the period that the recharge basin was not being used for recharge. This period would be 50% of years of operation times 8 months per year (0.67) plus 50% of the years of operation times 12 months per year (1.0). The average annual estimated reduction in fugitive dust would be: PM10 = 5.87 tons/year x 0.5 x 0.67 + 0.5 years = 0.98 tons x 0.4 effectiveness 0.39 tons per year PM2.5 = 1.29 tons/year x 0.5 x 0.67 + 0.5 years = 0.21 x 0.4 effectiveness = 0.08 tons per year Considering the period when the recharge basin will be wet and applying a typical dust control measure for barren land to management of the recharge basins would thus result in reductions of PM10 and PM2.5 emissions compared to the No Project Alternative (Table 7). Table 7. Reductions in fugitive dust emissions associated with wetted conditions during recharge and planting a cover crop following recharge.

Pollutant Baseline (No Project) Emissions

In tons per year

Reductions (tons per year)

Wet Conditions during recharge

Barley or Grass crop

Potential Net Emissions (Reduction from Baseline)

PM10 From farming and wind erosion

7.74 -0.97 -0.39 6.38 (-1.36)

PM2.5 From Wind erosion

1.29 -0.21 -0.08 1(-0.29)

In addition, AVEK will plant a vegetative screen around its Proposed Project storage, treatment, and pumping station near Gaskell Road and 80th Street West. This will help reduce local fugitive dust down-wind of this facility. 2.4.2.4 Reductions in emission of greenhouse gasses The Proposed Project has capacity to receive and store about 200,000 acre-feet of water. This water would be delivered during above-normal to wet years. Even given implementation of conservation measures, rationing, and the use of reclaimed water for recharge and landscaping, without this stored water, AVEK and/or its customers would need to either import supplies during drought (if such supplies could be purchased) or pump groundwater. In the statistically predictable case of drought, purchased alternative supplies (such as supplies purchased from Central Valley farmers who would be paid to fallow their land) would require energy for delivery. The delivery of 200,000 acre-feet of water is estimated to require 333,200 MWh or 333,200,000 kWh (based on California Energy Commission unit energy costs). This energy may be produced by "clean"


sources such as solar, wind, and hydroelectric, or by use of fossil fuels. Supplies delivered during drought, with highest demand in the summer, would be delivered at a time when hydroelectric power would be less available than in wet years when California's reservoirs would be full. Thus, all things being equal, there is an energy/emissions benefit to delivering water to AVEK in the winter of wet years for subsequent storage and use during dry years. It is not feasible to predict this benefit precisely, but relatively minor shifts in the source of power may result in substantial reductions in fossil fuel energy use. The EPA conversion factor for kWh to diesel fuel consumption is: 1 kWh = 1.34 horsepower hours 1 horsepower hour = 0.05 gallons of diesel fuel Thus 1kWh = 0.067 gallons of diesel fuel. Using this conversion, the potential for fuel savings associated with increased use of hydropower to pre-deliver water for storage during periods of high hydropower availability can be estimated based on a range of conditions (Table 8). Table 8. Potential effects on energy use from reductions in fossil fuel use associated with changing the water delivery schedule under the Proposed Project SWP Power required to pump 200,000 acre feet of water to AVEK

Percentage shift to hydroelectric

KWh saved Gallons of diesel saved

333,200,000 kWh 1% 3,332,000kWh 223,244 333,200,000 kWh 5% 16,660,000 kWh 1,116,220 333,200,000 kWh 10% 33,320,000 kWh 2,232,440

The EPA has a standard conversion rate for calculating the emissions of CO2 from the burning of diesel fuel: 1 gallon of diesel fuel = 2.778 kilograms grams of CO2 = 6.112 pounds = 0.003 tons Using this conversion factor, the potential reductions in greenhouse gas emissions associated with changing the delivery schedule for water under the Proposed Project are:

• 223,244 gallons = 670 tons • 1,116,200 gallons = 3350 tons • 2,232,440 gallons = 6700 tons

If it is assumed that AVEK could purchase and deliver drought year supplies to meet demands, such deliveries could result in substantially more fossil fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions that would be likely under the Proposed Project. If, on the other hand, it is assumed that AVEK and its customers would meet dry year needs by pumping groundwater, it may also be assumed that AVEK would need to import water to "make up" the overdrafting of groundwater. This would be particularly necessary if the groundwater basin adjudication currently underway imposes limits on groundwater extraction and requires compensation for overdrafting. Under this case, AVEK (and/or others) would need to import supplies in any normal to wet years following the drought, with energy use and emissions similar to those of the Proposed Project. A result of


this scenario, however, would be that during the drought, groundwater would be pumped and groundwater levels would decline, thus increasing energy use and fossil fuel emissions. Using the standard conversion rate of 1.55 kWh to pump 1 acre-foot one foot vertically (from University of Kansas Extension and UC Extension), an increase in groundwater depth to pump 200,000 acre-feet of groundwater would require:

• 10-foot increase = 3,100,000 kWh of power or 207,700 gallons of diesel fuel. This converts to about 625 tons of CO2 emissions.

• 25-foot increase = 7,750,000 kWh of power or 519,250 gallons of diesel fuel. This converts to 1562.5 tons of CO2 emissions

Regardless of the scenario, when compared to operations without the Proposed Project, energy/fuel savings thus substantially offset the on-going energy/fuel use of the Proposed Project. 2.4.3 Other Emissions Considerations (a) Visibility-Reducing Particulate Analysis In addition to dust, visibility may be affected by smoke and aerosols. Both KCAPCD and AVAQMD have fugitive dust regulations, visibility regulations, and recommended construction mitigation measures to reduce fugitive dust off site. The proposed Project is not immediately adjacent to a Wilderness Area, and compliance with these regulations would minimize off-site emissions. Visibility-reducing particulate matter would not occur off site. No visibility analysis was warranted for this project based on the distance to the closest wilderness and the requirement for compliance with the applicable regulations. The Edwards Air Force Base (EAFB) low-flight zone encompasses part of the project area. This area is not a Class I area, and a visibility analysis is not required. The project would not reasonably be expected to cause a reduction in visibility for EAFB or the EAFB low flight zone, particularly because recommended mitigations may reduce windblown dust when compared to No Project conditions. (b) Odor Analysis The Project does not include any known sources of objectionable odors. Recharge basins are not standing water because there is a constant flow through of water as it percolates into the ground. In addition, there are few sensitive receptors in proximity to proposed project features. Because of the lack of odor sources and the distance to the nearest receptor, a detailed odor analysis was not warranted for this project. 2.4.4 Mitigation AVEK will comply with all applicable AVAQMD and KCAPCD rules and incorporates these rules by reference into this Draft EIR and will implement Best Available Control Measures from AVAQMD (2005 and any appropriate updates) that are appropriate and applicable to the Proposed Project. AVEK will prepare a Fugitive Dust Management Plan for the project. Pending adoptions of agricultural dust control measures by the AVAQMD, AVEK and the grower will also develop an appropriate plan for reducing fugitive dust emissions during agricultural use, considering a suite of potential agricultural emissions measures shown on Table 9.


Table 9. Best Available Control Measures (BACMs) to be considered to minimize emissions from farming (San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District and Imperial County APCD). Best Available Control Measure Description

COMBINED OPERATION

Combine equipment, to perform several operations during one pass.

CONSERVATION TILLAGE Types of tillage that reduce loss of soil and water in comparison to Conventional Tillage

COVER CROPS

Use seeding of plants to cover soil surface. It reduces soil disturbance due to wind erosion and entrainment.

EQUIPMENT CHANGES/TECHNOLOGICAL IMPROVEMENTS

Modify the equipment such as tilling; increase equipment size; modify land planning and land leveling; matching the equipment to row spacing; granting to new varieties or other technological improvements.

PRE-HARVEST SOIL PREPARATION

Apply a light amount of water or stabilizing material to soil prior to harvest (when possible).

RESTRICTED ACCESS Restrict public access to private roads. SPEED LIMITS Enforcement of speeds that reduce visible dust emissions. Although AVEK will apply the BMP's approved by AVAQMD (2005 and subsequent) as appropriate, AVEK commits to the following specific Air Quality Mitigation measures. Measure AIR-1: Fugitive Dust Control BMP’s AVEK will prepare and implement a Fugitive Dust Control Plan, and as applicable to the Proposed Project will adopt the following AVAQMD and KCAPCD recommended control measures for construction emissions of PM10:

1. All material excavated or graded will be sufficiently watered to prevent excessive dust. Watering will occur as needed with complete coverage of disturbed areas. Watering will occur a minimum of twice daily on unpaved/untreated roads and on disturbed areas with active operations.

2. All clearing, grading, earth moving and excavation activities will cease during periods when either wind speeds exceed 25 mph or dust plumes of 20 percent or greater opacity affect public roads or occupied structures.

3. All material transported off site will be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive dust.

4. If more than 5,000 cubic yards of fill material will be imported or exported from the site, then all haul trucks will be required to exit the site via an access point where a gravel pad or grizzly has been installed.

5. Areas disturbed by clearing, earth moving or excavation activities will be minimized at all times. 6. Stockpiles of dirt or other fine loose material will be stabilized by watering or other appropriate

method to prevent wind-blown fugitive dust and covered with tarps as needed. 7. Where acceptable to the fire department, weed control will be accomplished by mowing instead

of discing, thereby leaving the ground undisturbed and with a mulch covering. 8. When material are transported off-site, all material shall be covered, effectively wetted to limit

visible dust emission, or at least six inches of freeboard space from the top of the container shall be maintained.

9. All operations shall limit or expeditiously remove the accumulation of mud or dirt from adjacent public streets at least once every 24 hours when operations are occurring. (the use of dry rotary brushes is expressly prohibited except where preceded or accompanied by sufficient wetting to limit the visible dust emissions. Use of blower devices is expressly forbidden.)


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

11. Traffic and speeds on unpaved roads will be limited to 15 mph. 12. Sandbags or other erosion control measures are installed to prevent silt runoff to public roadways

from sites with a slope greater than one percent. Measure AIR-2: Vehicle Emissions Control BMPs 1. During project construction, on-site mobile equipment shall be equipped with NOx reduction

equipment and/or newer NOx limited engines will be required. 2. On-site mobile equipment will be equipped with PM10 pollution control devices and/or newer,

less polluting equipment will be required (either lower emissions diesel or alternative fuels engines).

3. On-site equipment will utilize aqueous diesel fuel. 4. AVEK will comply with all current and future Regulation VIII rules. 5. AVEK will require that all diesel engines be shut off when not in use to reduce emissions from

idling. Measure AIR 3: Coating BMPs AVEK will adopt architectural coatings measures consistent with ARB’s Suggested Control Measure (SCM) which limits the content of VOC in architectural coatings to between 100-730 g/l. ARB’s SCM was adopted in June 22, 2000. 2.4.5 CEQA Significance The CEQA Guidelines state that a project would have a significant impact on air quality, if it would:

• Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan; • Violate any air quality standard as adopted in (c)i, (c)ii, or as established by EPA or air district or

contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation; or • Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project

region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors).

Specifically, the project would be considered to have significant impacts if implementation of the project would exceed any of the following adopted thresholds of the Kern County Air Pollution Control District and/or Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District:

• Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) 25 tons per year (KCAPCD), • Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) 25 tons per year (KCAPCD and AVAQMD), • Particulate Matter (PM10) 15 tons per year (KCAPCD and AVAQMD), • CO 100 tons per year (AVAQMD); • VOCs 25 tons per year(AVAQMD); • SOx 25 tons per year(AVAQMD); and/or • Generates a violation of any ambient air quality standard when added to the local background;

and/or, • Does not conform with the applicable attainment or maintenance plan(s); and/or exposes sensitive

receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, including those resulting in a cancer risk greater


than or equal to 1 in a million and/or a Hazard Index (HI) (non-cancerous) greater than or equal to 0.1.

There are presently no CEQA guidelines related to the significance of greenhouse gas emissions. The Proposed Project would generate greenhouse gas emissions during construction, but operations advantages associated with the import and/or pumping of supplies could result in a cumulative reduction in such gasses when compared to baseline conditions. Based on the impact analysis, the Proposed Project would not emit pollutants in excess of KCAPCD and/or AVAQMD thresholds of significance. The Proposed Project would not cumulatively emit substantial pollutants, with on-going operations using a pivot-type method for applying water for recharge; emissions associated with annual berm construction would be 0.1 to 0.6 percent of KCAPCD and AVAQMD thresholds of significance and would not be considered cumulatively significant. Proposed Project management of fugitive dust during and following recharge would result in net declines in fugitive dust levels when compared to the existing condition. The storage, treatment, and pumping station would have on-going operational emissions of about 0.1% to 0.5% of KCAPCD and AVAQMD thresholds of significance and would not be considered cumulatively significant.

2.5 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 2.5.1 Introduction The Project is located in the western Antelope Valley, with recharge facilities located in northern Los Angeles County and some pipelines and the storage, treatment, and pumping station located in eastern Kern County. The Proposed Project lies on the floor of the Antelope Valley, a semi-arid region with gently sloping land. Much of the Antelope Valley is currently under cultivation with various agricultural plant species with limited natural open space. There is a local ephemeral drainage on the south-east of the recharge area, but this drainage swale shows no evidence of a channel and there is no riparian or wetland vegetation on this area of farmed land. Several ephemeral streams flow into the Antelope Valley from the San Gabriel Mountains to the south and in flood there is shallow sheet flooding across the flat areas where the Proposed Project is located.. Agricultural areas and existing roads are the only habitat types present in the area proposed for the recharge, recovery, and conveyance facilities. Crops present within the agricultural areas (2006) were wheat, barley, and alfalfa. Wildlife species commonly associated with agricultural lands include mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), Brewer’s blackbird (Euphagus cyanocephalus), and many species of rodents. Some species such as mountain plovers (Charadrius mongolus) and long-billed curlews (Numenius americanus) can depend on unharvested grains left in fields after harvest and on insects. Raptor species occurring in the Antelope Valley (e.g., Swainson’s hawk [Buteo swainsoni], white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), and western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) use agricultural habitats for nesting or foraging. Many bat species forage for insects that congregate over agricultural fields. Annual grassland habitats are present on parcels near the proposed project fields, but do not occur on the proposed project sites. This habitat type supports a large percentage of nonnative grass and forb species. In addition to the nonnative species composition, areas near roadsides exhibit low levels of diversity and are dominated by a few grasses and invasive weeds. Dominant grasses include soft chess (Bromus hordeaceus), red brome (Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens), cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), wild oats (Avena barbata), Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum), and tall fescue (Festuca arundinaceae). Common nonnative forbs include black


mustard (Brassica nigra), Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), yellow star-thistle (Centaurea solstitialis), Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), redstem filaree (Erodium cicutarium), and crane’s bill geranium (Geranium dissectum). These species tend to colonize quickly and are typical indicators of previous disturbance. Annual grasslands are used by a large variety of wildlife species. Reptiles that commonly occur in annual grassland habitats include western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis), California horned lizard (Phrynosoma coronatum frontale), western rattlesnake (Crotalus atrox), and gopher snake (Pituophis melanoleucus). Mammals typically found in this habitat include California vole (Microtus californicus), western harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys megalotis), California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi), black-tailed hare (Lepus californicus), coyote (Canis latrans), and American badger. Burrowing owls, western meadowlarks (Sturnella neglecta), and horned larks (Eremophila alpestris) are birds that commonly breed in annual grasslands. Annual grasslands provide foraging habitat for a number of bird species such as red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis) and turkey vultures (Cathartes aura), and loggerhead shrikes (Lanius ludovicianus). Rabbitbrush scrub is the dominant native habitat in the general vicinity of the Proposed Project areas. This community is dominated by rabbit brush (Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus) with a small percentage of annual grassland associates. Wildlife species commonly associated with annual grassland habitat also would utilize rabbitbrush scrub habitat. There are some areas of desert scrub mixed with Joshua Tree woodland adjacent to but not on the areas proposed for recharge. The County of Los Angeles has designated two nearby areas as Significant Ecological Areas, the Antelope Valley California Poppy Reserve, located about 3 miles south of the recharge area, and an area of low hills to the west of the Proposed Project. Biological resources were evaluated based on (a) a review of the California Natural Diversity Data Base and (b) a field visit to the proposed project parcels in April 2008. Protocol surveys for special-status species were not performed because there is no native wildlife habitat on the Proposed Project sites, which have been under active cultivation for over 50 years and had either been recently harvested or were fallowed as part of the normal 3-year crop rotation. 2.5.2 CNDDB Review The Proposed Project area is within an area that has been actively farmed for many years and thus lacks recent recorded occurrences of special-status species. There is 1 tree on the recharge areas and there are trees in the road alignments for the pipeline to the storage, treatment, and pumping station and at nearby housing. There are CNDDB records of other special-status species within the general region (Figures 22 and 23) as noted below (approximate distance to the project sites in parentheses):

1. Burrowing owls have been recorded along Avenue B and 110th Street West (1 mile), along Avenue B at about 95th Street West (1.5 miles to storage, treatment, and pumping station);

2. Swainson's hawks have been observed along 90th Street and Birch (within about 0.33 miles of the storage, treatment, and pumping station);

3. Burrowing owls have been found within about 1 mile of the recharge area (to the north west near 180th Street West, to the east about 1 mile from the recharge site, and to the east-southeast about 2.5 miles from the recharge area;

4. Mountain plover has been observed to the southeast about 1 mile from the recharge area;


5. There is extensive valley needlegrass at the poppy reserve about 3 miles south of the recharge area, and this area supports American Badger and San Diego horned lizard.

Records near the alignments of the Alternative B Main Pipeline (West Avenue B, 100th Street, and Gaskell Road) include observations of Swainson's hawks and burrowing owls within approximately 0.25 miles of pipeline alignments. There are no CNDDB records of desert tortoise in the area and the sites are not within in the range of desert tortoise under the West Mojave Plan. The nearest location for Mohave ground squirrel is5 miles away and the West Mojave Plan does not map the area as within the range of the species. 2.5.3 Field Observations (a) Recharge areas Field observations were made during the early spring as crops of alfalfa and grains were in the initial stages of growth. Much of the land was recently plowed and planted and thus there were no active burrows visible and no evidence of any wildlife habitat. Conditions at the recharge site are typical of Antelope Valley farmed fields that are allowed to go fallow. While crops like alfalfa, wheat, and barley are in production (Figures 24 to 25, Appendix A), these fields probably provide some foraging habitat for wildlife residing in adjacent unfarmed areas. Foraging by raptors is probable, although was not observed during the field visit. Following harvest, the land is not irrigated and any plants rapidly die off. Following harvest, there is some seed remaining, and this may attract some birds and rodents to forage. There is suitable and probably occupied wildlife habitat adjacent to the recharge areas (b) Pipeline alignments Internal pipelines will be constructed within the confines of the recharge areas. The pipeline to the storage, treatment, and pumping station will be constructed within existing road rights-of-way. Figure 26 (Appendix A) shows a typical unpaved internal road where such pipelines may be buried. Figure 27 (Appendix A) shows a typical paved road, with power and telephone lines, where the pipeline to the storage, treatment, and pumping facility may be constructed. In almost all cases, the local growers utilize all land up to the edge of the existing roadways for crops. Thus, wildlife habitat does not develop along these linear features. (c) Storage, treatment, and pumping facility The storage, treatment, and pumping facility will be constructed at the intersection of several paved roads, and there is ranchette development to the east. Figure 28 (Appendix A) shows conditions of fallowed fields at the probable site of the storage, treatment, and pumping station, although the grower plans to plant alfalfa on this site in 2008. As Figures 23 through 28 indicate, there is only a small potential for wildlife to occupy Proposed Project lands, and no evidence of such occupation was observed in the April field visit, primarily because the sites had been recently plowed and planted. There is wildlife habitat adjacent to some portions of the recharge area (Figure 29, Appendix A, is an example), and burrowing animals may at times establish burrows on patches of unfarmed land along the edge of fields, although no evidence of this was found in an April field visit. Such incidental occupation would be most likely in fallowed areas, although in most years there would not be adequate precipitation in these areas to provide substantial growth of native vegetation. In addition, when vegetation does develop on fallowed fields, it is frequently a monotypic field of Russian thistle.


There are potential nesting sites/perches for raptors in several locations (Figure 30, Appendix A):

• Several trees at West 85th Street, about 0.25 miles south of the Gaskell Road pipeline alignment; • At West 90th Street, about 0.6 miles south of the Gaskell Road pipeline alignment; • Two isolated trees at the intersection of Gaskell Road and West 100th Street about 100 feet west

of the pipeline alignment; • A line of trees (windbreak) along 100th Street West extending north of Avenue A about 1200 feet; • A cluster of trees near a house at 100th Street West and Avenue A-6; • A line of trees (windbreak) along West Avenue B at West 105th Street; and • A small cluster of trees within the recharge area at 140th Street West and Avenue B.

The suitability of the trees in the vicinity of Proposed Project facilities for raptor nesting depends to a large extent on the sensitivity of the raptor species to noise and human disturbance. All of the trees which may be large enough to support large raptors such as Swainson's hawks are immediately adjacent to houses, farm complexes, or roads, and thus their use by this disturbance-sensitive species is not likely. Other, less sensitive birds may readily use these trees despite the relatively high levels of human activity around them. 2.5.4 Potential Impacts Although there is currently no evidence that the proposed recharge sites, pipeline alignments, and the storage, treatment, and pumping station are occupied by wildlife, there is a potential for:

• Wildlife use of fields and recharge areas for foraging and movement; • Burrowing owls to occupy any ground squirrel burrows, although sandy soils limit the suitability

of the habitat to some extent; • Raptors and other birds to use existing trees for nesting and perching.

The Proposed Project would not affect current or future foraging use of the recharge areas by wildlife. Farming will continue generally consistent with current crop patterns. Fallowed lands will be managed in a similar manner to current practices, except that fallowed fields temporarily converted to recharge will be planted with a crop and mowed to create a dry stubble cover to minimize fugitive dust. The stubble cover may somewhat enhance foraging because there may be some seed bank. Recharge will create a shallow wet condition; regardless of the method of applying water to the property for recharge, the wetted area may somewhat enhance potential for wildlife use, albeit only intermittently and only in the periods when the soil is wetted. The Proposed Project could have temporary construction-related impacts to patches of non-native habitat along road alignments, and the margins of roads are known to be used by burrowing owls if conditions are suitable. No evidence of ground squirrel burrows was noted during the site visit, but it is not improbable that burrowing owls may used the area as they have historically been sighted west, east, and southeast of the recharge site and along roads in the vicinity of pipeline alignments. There is thus potential for burrowing owls to be encountered during construction, although this potential is limited to road alignments. The trees that many people have planted as windbreaks and landscaping may support raptors (see Figure 28 for a typical wind break). Construction in the road alignments could temporarily disturb nesting birds.


There are no wetlands on the Proposed Project sites; decades of farming have leveled fields and drainages that form during heavy rains are leveled during the subsequent planting. 2.5.5 Mitigation 2.5.5.1 Potential Loss or Disturbance of Burrowing Owl Nests and Burrows during

Construction A review of the CNDDB (2008) indicated five recent and historic burrowing owl records within 5 miles of the Project area, with two records were from 1999. The number of nesting burrowing owls in the Antelope Valley is low (CNDDB 2008). The shoulders of roads, larger dirt mounds and berms, and other open areas provide suitable habitat for burrowing owls, especially where ground squirrel burrows and open culverts occur. Construction activities, such as excavation and driving off road could result in the removal of active nests, if construction occurs during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31) and occupied burrows during the non-breeding season (September 1 through January 31). Because the numbers of burrowing owls nesting in the Antelope Valley is low, the loss of one nest or one occupied burrow could be a significant impact because it could have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat removal, on a species identified as a special-status species by the DFG or the USFWS. Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Preconstruction surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within the work area and a 250-foot buffer to locate active burrowing owl burrows. The Project will provide a qualified biologist to conduct these preconstruction surveys for active burrows according to DFG guidelines. The preconstruction surveys will include a nesting season survey and a wintering season survey the season immediately preceding construction. If no burrowing owls are detected, no further mitigation is required. If burrowing owls are detected within 250 feet of proposed construction within the Project area, the following measures will be implemented:

• Occupied burrows will not be disturbed during the nesting season (February 1–August 31). • When destruction of occupied burrows is unavoidable during the non-nesting season (September

1–January 31), unsuitable burrows will be enhanced (enlarged or cleared of debris). • If owls must be moved away from the Project area, passive relocation techniques (e.g., installing

one-way doors at burrow entrances) will be used instead of trapping. At least 1 week will be necessary to accomplish passive relocation and allow owls to acclimate to alternate burrows.

• If avoidance is the preferred method of dealing with potential impacts, no disturbance should occur within 160 feet of occupied burrows during the non-breeding season (September 1–January 31) or within 250 feet during the breeding season.

2.5.5.2 Potential impacts to nesting birds (Swainson’s hawk) A review of the CNDDB records (2008) indicated two Swainson’s hawk nest occurrences approximately 2 miles of the recharge alternative sites. The Swainson’s hawk nesting population in the Antelope Valley is small. Only a couple of pairs of Swainson’s hawks have been known to nest in the Antelope Valley (CNDDB 2008). There are only a few trees located in the vicinity of the recharge sites, and there is a remote potential for Swainson’s hawks to nest in these trees, because they are associated with developed areas. Construction activities, such as earthmoving with heavy construction equipment occurring within the area for the proposed recharge basins could cause the failure of a Swainson’s hawk nest, if a pair were nesting in the vicinity. The loss of an active Swainson’s hawk nest could contribute to continuing local and statewide declines of Swainson’s hawks. Because the number of Swainson’s hawks that nest in the Antelope Valley is very small, the loss of even one nest could be significant because it could have a


substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat removal, on a species identified as a special-status species by the DFG or the USFWS. Mitigation Measure BIO-2: If construction activities occur during the Swainson’s hawk nesting season (March 1–September 15), the Project will provide a qualified biologist to conduct preconstruction surveys to locate all active nest sites within 0.5 mile of the construction area. If occupied Swainson’s hawk nests are found, the Project, in consultation with DFG, shall establish a buffer zone around active Swainson’s hawk nests in the vicinity of the Project area. The buffer zone shall be marked with specific identifiable flagging or fencing. Construction activities shall be restricted from the buffer around the active nests until after chicks have fledged. Whenever construction occurs within 0.25 mile of an active nest, a biological monitor shall observe the nesting hawks for stressed/detrimental behavior that threatens nest success. If there appears to be a threat to nesting success resulting from construction activity within the 0.25-mile buffer, work shall be halted until the hawk’s behavior normalizes. The most obvious and dangerous “detrimental behavior” occurs when the hawk is scared off the nest. If that occurs (even momentarily), construction shall stop immediately within 0.25 mile of the nest for at least 1 hour after the hawk returns to the nest and her behavior appears to normalize. When construction resumes, if the hawk is scared off the nest a second time, construction will be prohibited within that 0.25-mile zone until having consulted with DFG to discuss further options. Other stressors/detrimental behaviors that the monitor shall look for include the hawk being off the eggs while still on the nest (e.g., circling/walking around the nest and calling). The biological monitor shall also watch for signs that the hawks are paying attention to construction instead of behaving normally (e.g., sitting calmly on the nest, watching out for or scaring away potential predators). 2.5.5.3 Animal Movement American badger, kit fox, coyote, several common rabbit species, and other animals, may use the open fields along the alignment and the road right-of-way as a movement corridor during the night. The open trench excavated for pipelines and the excavated area for the storage tanks could pose a hazard for these nocturnal animals. Mitigation Measure BIO-3. AVEK would preclude impacts to wildlife using the pipeline alignment or the area near the storage tanks as a movement corridor by isolating the area of open excavation with a mesh construction fencing. This will generally prevent animals from accessing the trench and becoming trapped. In addition, the contractor will also cover the pipeline opening before leaving the site to prevent animals from entering the pipeline and will place ramps at either end of the open trench so that any animals getting through the fence may easily escape the trench. When the new construction day begins, the crews will open the exclusion fence at each end to allow animals to escape. In addition, if construction equipment is to be stored on site overnight, AVEK will also contract with a qualified biologist to provide construction crews with training on how to recognize and avoid impacts to animals that may use the shelter of construction equipment. The training will stress that if animals are found beneath equipment, the biologist should be contacted and animals should be allowed to move away from the site before equipment is moved. 2.5.6 CEQA Significance With the proposed mitigation, the Proposed Project will not have significant CEQA impacts related to the following categories of impact:

• Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or


regulations by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. No wildlife habitat will be impacted. Avoidance and minimization protocols approved by CDFG will be implemented during construction to lower potential indirect impacts to any special status species to a level of less-than-significance.

• Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. No riparian habitats will be affected.

• Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. No wetlands will be affected.

• Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, or with the established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. With mitigation proposed, no impacts to movement of animals will occur.

• Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. No local policies will be affected.

• Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. The project occurs in the general area of the West Mojave Plan but does not affect any wildlife habitat or species addressed by this plan. No conflict will occur.

2.6 CULTURAL RESOURCES NOTE: References in the following discussion are from the May 2008 Cultural Resources Survey, available for Public Review (without site maps) at AVEK's headquarters office. 2.6.1 Introduction The prehistoric cultural chronology for the Mojave Desert has been divided into seven cultural periods: Fluted Point Period, Lake Mojave Period, Pinto Period, Gypsum Period, Saratoga Springs Period, Post-Saratoga Springs/Late Period, and Contact/Ethnographic Period. Earle and others (1997) present this chronology in calendar ages. Here, the prehistoric cultural chronology is presented in years B.P. in order to compare cultural periods with paleoclimatic events. 2.6.1.1 Fluted Point Period (12,000-10,000 B.P.) Fluted artifacts such as Clovis projectile points, crescents, gravers, scrapers, choppers, and perforators compose the Fluted Point Period toolkit (Davis 1978). These assemblages are often observed near lakeshores, along mountain passes, and in grassland areas. It is thought that these early inhabitants of the Mojave Desert and Great Basin were foragers rather than big game hunters (Davis 1978; Earle et al. 1997; Moratto 1984). 2.6.1.2 Lake Mojave Period (10,000-7000 B.P.) Most prehistoric sites of this period have been found within the southwestern Great Basin and the northern Mojave Desert. These sites are associated with early Holocene lakeshores and are representative of generalized hunting and foraging and exploitation of lacustrine resources. Artifacts characteristic of this period include Lake Mojave and Silver Lake projectile points, stone crescents, percussion-flaked


foliate points and knives, and other examples of scrapers, gravers, and perforating tools (Earle et al. 1997). 2.6.1.3 Pinto Period (7000-4000 B.P.) Pinto points constructed from obsidian and fine-grained basalts to poorer-quality rhyolites, cherts, and quartz materials characterize the Pinto Period. Most of the prehistoric sites dating to the Pinto Period identified at EAFB have been recorded in the northern portion of the Base (Earle et al. 1997). The Pinto Period coincides with Antevs’ (1953) Altithermal (i.e., hot drought). However, recent studies suggest that the middle Holocene in Antelope Valley was hot and dry punctuated by wet episodes (Grayson 1993; Mehringer 1986). During this period, it is believed that populations diminished and dispersed due to the decrease in permanent wetland habitats. The Pinto Period reflects a settlement pattern in which the population relocated from the ancient lakeshores to seasonal water sources. 2.6.1.4 Gypsum Period (4000-1500 B.P.) Several Gypsum Period sites have been identified on EAFB; diagnostic artifacts identified at these sites include Humboldt, Elko, and Gypsum projectile points (Warren 1984). Settlement patterns of the Gypsum Period are similar to those of the Pinto Period. During the Gypsum Period, however, milling equipment such as the mortar and pestle was introduced to process mesquite pods (Prosopis glandulosa) and acorns, pine nuts, yuccas, and agaves. Large villages or village complexes appear in the archaeological record during the Gypsum Period, reflecting a transition from seasonal migration (i.e., seasonal round) to year-round sedentary occupation of the Antelope Valley (Sutton 1988). The identification of marine shell artifacts at Gypsum Period sites on EAFB suggests the interaction between cultural groups in the Antelope Valley area with coastal peoples of southern California (Warren 1984). 2.6.1.5 Saratoga Springs Period (1500-800 B.P.) By 1500 B.P., the atlatl, or spear thrower, had been replaced by the bow and arrow. This technological change represents the transition from the Gypsum to the Saratoga Springs Period (Warren 1984). Projectile points associated with the Saratoga Springs Period that have been identified on EAFB include the Cottonwood and Rose Spring types. Anasazi ceramic ware was introduced to the southern Mojave Desert between Anno Domini (A.D.) 500 and A.D. 800 (Shutler et al. 1961; Warren and Crabtree 1987). The Anasazi influences were later replaced by a diffusion of introduced to the southern Mojave Desert between Anno Domini (A.D.) 500 and A.D. 800 (Shutler et al. 1961; Warren and Crabtree 1987). The Anasazi influences were later replaced by a diffusion of Colorado River cultural traits (Hakataya) into the eastern fringes of the southern Mojave Desert, while the rest of the southern Mojave Desert was more influenced by cultural traits from the California coast; this cultural continuity is visible from 1999 B.P. (Warren 1984; Warren and Crabtree 1987). During this time, populations were forced into a more intensive use of subsistence resources due to severe changes in the climate (from favorable conditions to prolonged drought) and an increase in the populations during the Saratoga Springs Period (Stine 1993). 2.6.1.6 Post-Saratoga Springs or Late Period (800-300 B.P.) The Post-Saratoga Springs/Late Period reflects an adaptive modification of the cultural developments that were established during the Saratoga Springs Period. Trade continued along the Mojave River, affecting the people of the eastern Antelope Valley by allowing them to participate in the exchange of a variety of valuables. It appears that the people of the Antelope Valley developed stronger ties with the coastal populations of southern California rather than with those in the deserts and Great Basin. Cultural groups exploited a variety of both large and small mammals and some fish during the Post-Saratoga Springs/Late


Period. Desert side-notched projectile points and fragments have been recovered from sites dating to this period on EAFB. 2.6.1.7 Contact/Ethnographic Period (A.D. 1700 or 300 B.P. -present) The Contact/Ethnographic Period is defined as the period of contact between Native American cultural groups and European explorers/settlers. Most of the archaeological sites identified on EAFB date to the Post-Saratoga Springs/ Late Period and Contact/Ethnographic Periods, although some sites date to as early as the Pinto Period. It is possible, however, that earlier sites may be identified. Ethnographic evidence indicates that the Kawaiisu, the Kitanemuk, the Tataviam, and the Vanyume cultural groups seasonally used this area of the Mojave Desert at the time of European contact. Additionally, it is possible that members of the Mohave, Serrano, and Chemehuevi groups may have also visited the area (Earle 1990; Harrington 1986; Kroeber 1925; Steward 1938; Warren 1984). Apavuchiveat, probably situated at Buckhorn Springs, is one of the named Native American sites identified on EAFB; it is most likely of Desert (Vanyume) Serrano affiliation. Kitanemuk Serrano consultants named Rosamond Dry Lake, and it is possible that a site to the west of the lake, at Willow Springs, is also affiliated with this cultural group. Based on this evidence, it is believed that the floor of the Antelope Valley beyond the Tehachapi foothills was used only seasonally by the Kitanemuk (Earle et al. 1997). Until the mid-nineteenth century, European land use of the Antelope Valley had been limited to exploration. By the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, railroads, ranches, homesteads, and mines had been developed in the area. The earliest military activity in the area occurred in 1928. In 1935, 128 square miles of the Muroc Dry Lake property (now Rogers Dry Lake) were dedicated to military use, which led to the establishment of the Muroc Army Air Field in 1943. 2.6.2 Results of Cultural Field Survey The cultural resources survey of the Project APE resulted in the initial identification and documentation of five prehistoric archaeological sites designated temporally as Æ-AVEK-1 through Æ-AVEK-5, and two isolated prehistoric artifacts (Æ-AVEK-1SO-2 and Æ-AVEK-1SO-3; after further examination, Æ-AVEK-1SO-1 was deemed to be non-cultural). These resources are described in detail below. The cultural resources report (Applied Earth Works May 2008) is available for review at the AVEK Headquarters). 2.6.2.1 Æ-AVEK-1 Situated within a plowed agricultural field and adjacent dirt road cuts or other areas of disturbance (i.e., sediment borrow areas), Æ-AVEK-1 measures approximately 600 by 245 m (E-W/N-S), and consists of a large prehistoric residential site; most likely a seasonal or temporary camp that was intensively and/or repeatedly utilized. It is of particular interest to note that the prehistoric cultural materials observed on site appear to originate from a buried cultural stratum contained within a layer of light gray calcified silt capped by more recent sediments of light brown silty sand, and cultural materials are only evident within those areas where deep plowing, sediment borrow activities, or road cuts have intruded into and/or exposed this buried cultural stratum. No cultural materials were observed outside of the disturbed agricultural fields, sediment borrow areas, or road cuts on the surface of the undisturbed desert floor immediately adjacent to the site area to the south. This undisturbed desert floor, the surface of which consists of recent blow sands, is also 1-3 ft higher in elevation than the disturbed areas where the site’s deposits have been exposed, and intact buried cultural deposits lacking surface expression are


undoubtedly present within these undisturbed areas to the immediate south of the site area as currently defined. It remains undetermined whether intact cultural deposits are still present below the level of plow zone disturbance within the agricultural fields. Concentrations and scatters of highly-burned, fire-altered rock associated with a sparse scatter of flaked and ground stone tools, and lithic debitage (25-30 items) are present throughout the site area. The assemblage of flaked stone artifacts is composed primarily of rhyolitic materials most likely derived from the numerous prehistoric rhyolite quarries located at Fairmont Butte approximately 2.0 miles (3.3 km) south of the western Project area (D. Earle, personnel communication 2008); debitage of chert, chalcedony, and quartzite is also present in limited quantities. Formed tools observed include: a large unifacial scraper of rhyolite; a large early-stage rhyolite biface fragment; one patterned flake tool of rhyolite; two metate fragments of metavolcanic rock; one expediently used, unifacial milling slab formed from a large, water-rounded cobble, and found within a dense concentration of fire-altered rock; one unifacial milling slab/metate fragment of schist; one large, highly-shaped steatite pendant fragment with two biconically drilled holes on the proximal end; one piece of highly-calcined large mammal bone (cremation remains?); and one unmodified piece of abalone shell. Preliminary interpretation of these cultural materials provides insight into the function and significance of this site. The concentrations and scatters of fire-altered rock are probable remnants of numerous hearths and/or roasting platforms, suggestive of long-term or repeated occupation of the area. These concentrations and scatters of fire-altered rock and are most obvious within the south-central portion of the site, suggesting a locality probably focused on cooking activities. Both flaked and ground stone artifacts suggest that both floral and faunal resources were being procured and processed at the site. The large steatite pendant constitutes evidence of symbolic material cultural often associated with aboriginal burials, and although no definitive human remains were observed, one cannot overlook the potential for Native American human remains at this site. Although no intact cultural features per se were observed, the concentrations and scatters of fire-altered rock found throughout the site area suggest that intact hearth and/or roasting platform features containing charcoal suitable for radiocarbon dating may still be present in undisturbed, subsurface contexts. Within the Project APE, site integrity appears to be moderately impaired. Primary disturbances include the grading and maintenance of dirt roads, deep plowing and disking, borrow pits/trenches, off-road vehicular traffic, and probable unauthorized collection of surface artifacts. It remains undetermined whether intact cultural deposits are still present below the level of the plow zone disturbance within the agricultural fields. However, intact buried cultural deposits lacking surface expression are undoubtedly present within those undisturbed areas to the immediate south of the Project APE and site area as currently defined. 2.6.2.2 Æ-AVEK-2 Situated within an agricultural field and measuring approximately 65 by 18 m (N-S/E-W), Æ-AVEK-2 consists of an extremely sparse, discrete lithic scatter containing four artifacts of fine-grained, reddish-brown to tan banded rhyolite. Artifacts observed include two flakes, one spent core, and one edge-modified flake tool. Site integrity appears to be impaired due to agricultural-related disturbances, and possibly road grading and maintenance. However, the site is situated within a depositional environment, and there appears to be some potential for additional, intact cultural deposits in subsurface contexts. 2.6.2.3 Æ-AVEK-3 Located within an agricultural field and measuring 134 by 29 m (E-W/N-S), Æ-AVEK-3 consists of a sparse, low-density scatter of lithic artifacts (rhyolite and chalcedony), and an associated scatter (more


than 25 fragments) of fire-altered rock (FAR). Artifacts observed include six flakes (five tertiary and one secondary), and two bifacially modified flake tools. Artifact density ranges from two artifacts per m² to one artifact per 20 m². FAR densities range from four pieces per m² to one per m². Based on the presence of fire-altered rock, the site appears to have functioned as a temporary camp or similar activity area. Site integrity appears to be moderately impaired. Cultural constituents on and near the ground surface have been repeatedly disturbed by ongoing agricultural activities (plowing, disking, planting, etc.). Additionally, the site may have been subject to unauthorized surface collection. However, the site is located within a depositional environment, and there appears to be some potential for additional, intact cultural deposits in subsurface contexts. 2.6.2.4 Æ-AVEK-4 Measuring 30 by 10 m (NE-SW/NW-SE), Æ-AVEK-4 is also located within an agricultural field, and consists of a small, discrete, extremely sparse scatter of rhyolitic debitage. Only three discernible rhyolite flakes were found in highly disturbed context within a recently plowed carrot field. No other artifacts were observed in the immediate vicinity; however, gravels and cobbles of rhyolite and other potential toolstone-quality materials occur naturally throughout the area. Site integrity is impaired. Long-term agricultural activities (plowing, disking, planting, etc.) have disturbed the context and distribution of cultural materials. However, the site is located within a depositional environment, and there appears to be some potential (albeit slight) for additional, intact cultural deposits in subsurface contexts. 2.6.4.5 Æ-AVEK-5 Measuring approximately 202 by 40 m (NW-SE/NE-SW) within an agricultural field, Æ-AVEK-5 is a relatively discrete, roughly crescent-shaped scatter of flaked stone artifacts consisting primarily of rhyolite debitage (33 items); three pieces of chalcedony debitage are also present. Additionally, one rhyolite core, one rhyolite burin/drill, and at least two fragments of fire-altered rock (FAR) were observed. The scatter ranges in density from approximately 3 items per m² to one item per 20 m². The presence of fire-altered rock suggests that the site may have functioned as a temporary camp or similar activity area. Site integrity appears to be moderately impaired. Long-term agricultural activities (plowing, disking, planting, etc.) have disturbed the context and distribution of cultural materials in surficial or near surficial contexts. Additionally, the site may have been subject to unauthorized artifact collection. However, the site is located within a depositional environment, and there appears to be a moderate-to-high potential for intact cultural deposits in subsurface contexts. 2.6.2.6 Æ-AVEK-ISO-2 Æ-AVEK-ISO-2 consists of a schist metate fragment measuring 25 by 13 by 3 cm (L x W x T). No other artifacts were observed within a 50 m radius of the artifact. 2.6.2.7 Æ-AVEK-ISO-3 Æ-AVEK-ISO-3 consists of a unifacial scraper of rhyolite measuring 7 by 5 by 2 cm (L x W x T) that exhibits use wear along multiple edges. No other artifacts were found within a 50 m radius of the artifact. 2.6.3 Site Significance Evaluations Æ-AVEK-1 is the largest, most complex site identified within the Project area. The concentrations and scatters of fire-altered rock (probable remnants of numerous hearths and/or roasting platforms) are


suggestive of long-term or repeated occupation of the area, and are most obvious within the south-central portion of the site, suggesting a locality probably focused on cooking activities. Both flaked and ground stone artifacts suggest that both floral and faunal resources were being procured and processed at the site. The assemblage of flaked stone artifacts is composed primarily of rhyolitic materials most likely derived from the numerous prehistoric rhyolite quarries located at Fairmont Butte approximately 2.0 miles (3.3 km) south of the site. The presence of a steatite ornament constitutes evidence of symbolic material cultural often associated with aboriginal burials, and although no definitive human remains were observed, one cannot overlook the potential for Native American human remains at this site. Although the integrity of Æ-AVEK-1 appears to be moderately impaired within the Project APE, it remains undetermined whether intact cultural deposits are still present below the level of the plow zone disturbance. Although no intact cultural features per se were observed, the concentrations and scatters of fire-altered rock found throughout the site area suggest that intact hearth and/or roasting platform features containing charcoal suitable for radiocarbon dating may still be present in undisturbed, subsurface contexts. Furthermore, intact buried cultural deposits lacking surface expression are undoubtedly present within those undisturbed areas to the immediate south of the Project APE and site area as currently defined. Therefore, despite the disturbances noted, Æ-AVEK-1 appears to retain considerable data potential, and is likely to yield information important is prehistory relating to chronology, settlement-subsistence strategies, lithic procurement strategies, lithic technology, site formation processes, inter- and intra-site variability, and possibly mortuary practices. Therefore, Æ-AVEK-1 should be considered a “historically significant” cultural resource eligible for CRHR inclusion pursuant to criterion (d). Sites eligible for the CRHR are “historical resources” that must be considered in the context of any project subject to CEQA. The significance of sites Æ-AVEK-2 through Æ-AVEK-5 is unknown at present. All are located within agricultural fields that have undergone repeated plowing and disking for decades, and the integrity of these resources is questionable. Additionally, the surficial cultural deposits are sparse, and appear to have little data potential. However, as noted previously, all are located within depositional environments, and if these sites are contemporaneous with the buried cultural components identified at Æ-AVEK-1, much of the cultural constituents at Æ-AVEK-2 through Æ-AVEK-5 may also be buried, and intact cultural deposits may exist below the zone of agricultural disturbance. If intact cultural deposits do indeed exist at these sites in buried contexts, these deposits may hold considerable data potential, and may be likely to yield information important is prehistory per criterion (d) of the CRHR. The two isolated artifacts identified as Æ-AVEK-1SO-2 and Æ-AVEK-1SO-3 in and of themselves are not likely to yield information important is prehistory, and therefore, do not represent “historically significant” cultural resources. 2.6.4 Management and Mitigation Recommendations Avoidance of Æ-AVEK-1 through Æ-AVEK-5 is recommended during Proposed Project construction and implementation. Much of this land has not been considered for any activities by the Groundwater Recharge Banking and Recovery Facilities as it is up-slope and some distance from the facilities. It was anticipated that much of this property would be continued to be used for agricultural crops. AVEK will implement the following mitigations: CR-1 Avoidance of impacts: AVEK will consult with the grower and a professional archeologist regarding the appropriate continued use of lands at Æ -AVEK 1and may allow continued farming consistent with implementation of practices that avoid impact to this site.


CR-2 Cultural Resources Testing and Evaluation: If avoidance of Æ-AVEK-1 through Æ-AVEK-5 is not a feasible management option, then Phase-II testing efforts will be conducted at each of these sites to determine the presence/absence of buried cultural deposits, the content, integrity, and data potential of these buried cultural deposits if present, and the site’s eligibility for inclusion in the CRHR. CR-3: Cultural Resources Management During Construction: Considering that the extensive cultural deposits identified at Æ-AVEK-1 appear to be emanating from a buried cultural stratum lacking surface manifestations, and these deposits are only evident within areas where ground disturbance has intruded into and/or exposed this cultural stratum, potentially significant archaeological resources lacking surface manifestations may also be encountered in buried contexts during Project construction in areas other than those already identified. If potentially significant archaeological resources are discovered during construction and implementation of the proposed Project, these resources must be inventoried and evaluated to ascertain whether the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources. Therefore, in the event of an accidental discovery of cultural resources during Project construction and implementation, all work being conducted within the vicinity of the discovery will be halted or diverted away from the site of discovery until a qualified archaeologist can assess the potential significance of the find. CR-4: Compliance with all applicable Regulations: AVEK will comply with Health and Safety Code 7050.5, CEQA 15064.5(e), and Public Resources Code 5097.98, which mandate the process to be followed in the unlikely event of an accidental discovery of any human remains in a location other than a dedicated cemetery. As noted previously, the two isolated artifacts identified as Æ-AVEK-1SO-2 and Æ-AVEK-1SO-3 do not represent historically significant cultural resources. Further, site recordation efforts have fully exhausted the limited data potential of these resources. Therefore, no further archaeological management of Æ-AVEK-1SO-2 and Æ-AVEK-1SO-3 is required. 2.6.5 CEQA Significance With the mitigations proposed: The Proposed Project will not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5 because, although the proposed project may affect buried cultural resources, incorporated monitoring and management provisions will reduce the potential effect to less than significant. The Proposed Project will not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 because, although he proposed project may affect buried cultural resources, incorporated monitoring and management provisions will reduce the potential effect to less than significant. The Proposed Project will not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature because, although the proposed project may affect buried paleontological resources, incorporated monitoring and management provisions will reduce the potential effect to less than significant. The proposed project may affect buried human remains, but in the event of an accidental discovery of any human remains in a location other than a dedicated cemetery, the steps and procedures specified in Health


and Safety Code 7050.5, State CEQA Guidelines 15064.5(e), and Public Resources Code 5097.98 shall be implemented. This provision would reduce the potential effect to less than significant.

2.7 ENERGY USE 2.7.1 Introduction The proposed project would take place within the context of increasing energy use in California at a time when the cost of energy is rising and there are national concerns about dependence on imported energy supplies. Water transport and storage have significant energy use implications. The State Water Project both supplies and uses substantial power in its operations. Power is generated in the hydroelectric facilities at the SWP source reservoir (Oroville Reservoir) and where deliveries to SWP contractors allow recovery of power, such as deliveries from Silverwood Lake. Appendix F of CEQA provides guidance related to the evaluation of proposed project energy use and its mitigation. This guidance specifies that the “goal of conserving energy implies the wise and efficient use of energy. The means of achieving this goal include: (1) Decreasing overall per capita energy consumption, (2) Decreasing reliance on natural gas and oil, and (3) Increasing reliance on renewable energy resources. In order to assure that energy implications are considered in project decisions, the California Environmental Quality Act requires that EIRs include a discussion of the potential energy impacts of proposed projects, with particular emphasis on avoiding or reducing inefficient, wasteful and unnecessary consumption of energy. Energy conservation implies that a project’s cost effectiveness be reviewed not only in dollars, but also in terms of energy requirements. For many projects, lifetime costs may be determined more by energy efficiency than by initial dollar costs. CEQA Appendix F therefore suggests the following elements for an energy analysis:

• Energy consuming equipment and processes which will be used during construction, operation and/or removal of the project. If appropriate, this discussion should consider the energy intensiveness of materials and equipment required for the project.

• Total energy requirements of the project by fuel type and end use. • Energy conservation equipment and design features. • Initial and life-cycle energy costs or supplies. • Total estimated daily trips to be generated by the project and the additional energy consumed per

trip by mode.

The discussion of energy use may consider, as appropriate:

• The project’s energy requirements and its energy use efficiencies by amount and fuel type for each stage of the project’s life cycle including construction, operation, maintenance and/or removal.

• If appropriate, the energy intensiveness of materials may be discussed. • The effects of the project on local and regional energy supplies and on requirements for

additional capacity.


• The effects of the project on peak and base period demands for electricity and other forms of energy. The degree to which the project complies with existing energy standards.

• The effects of the project on energy resources. • The project’s projected transportation energy use requirements and its overall use of efficient

transportation alternatives. CEQA Appendix F notes that a number of mitigation measures may be proposed:

• Potential measures to reduce wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary consumption of energy during construction, operation, maintenance and/or removal. The discussion should explain why certain measures were incorporated in the project and why other measures were dismissed.

• The potential siting, orientation, and design to minimize energy consumption, including transportation energy.

• The potential for reducing peak energy demand. • Alternate fuels (particularly renewable ones) or energy systems. • Energy conservation which could result from recycling efforts.

CEQA Appendix F also provides guidance for comparing alternatives in terms of their energy use.

• Alternatives should be compared in terms of overall energy consumption and in terms of reducing wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary consumption of energy.

• Unavoidable Adverse Effects may include wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary consumption of energy during the project construction, operation, maintenance and/or removal that cannot be feasibly mitigated.

• Irreversible Commitment of Resources may include a discussion of how the project preempts future energy development or future energy conservation.

• Short-Term Gains versus Long-Term Impacts can be compared by calculating the energy costs over the lifetime of the project.

• Growth Inducing Effects may include the estimated energy consumption of growth induced by the project.

Water banking requires construction of facilities, the conveyance of supplies to these facilities, and the extraction of supplies from groundwater. Energy use associated with these activities is described below. 2.7.2 Construction Energy Use The Proposed Project incorporates features that substantially reduce the potential for construction-related energy use. A typical recharge basin involves construction of engineered berms to pond water during recharge; AVEK is proposing to deliver water for recharge via typical agricultural pivot irrigation or via typical agricultural flood irrigation. These innovations reduce the need for extensive earthmoving activities, and reduce construction energy use. The Proposed project will nonetheless use some energy during construction and operation. In typical construction operations fuel use in a heavy duty diesel engine of about 200+ horsepower is about 0.35 pounds/hp-hour times 7.2 pounds of fuel per gallon, or about 20 horsepower hours per gallon (pioneerpower.com). Other sources also note that diesel efficiency ranges from 18 to 20+ horsepower hours per gallon, with more modern equipment being the more efficient. A general rule of thumb for estimating diesel fuel consumption is therefore that fuel consumption is about 0.05 gallons per horsepower hour. Using this rule of thumb, and the probable equipment use for each element of the proposed project, it is possible to calculate approximate total energy use (Table 10.


Table10. Estimated diesel fuel use for the AVEK Groundwater Recharge Project: Construction Equipment # Horsepower Gallons/hp hour Daily Hours Days/month Months Gallons

BERMS (1 YEAR) Water truck 2 200 0.05 8 22 0.5 1760 Tractors/loaders 2 79 0.05 8 22 0.5 696 SUBTOTAL 2456 25 YEAR TOTAL 61,400

WELLS (1) Drill rig 1 500 0.05 6 22 1 3300 Water truck 1 200 0.05 1 22 1 220 Roller 1 114 0.05 1 22 1 125 Loader 1 165 0.05 1 22 1 182 Scraper 1 313 0.05 2 22 1 689 SUBTOTAL 4516 TOTAL, 8 Wells 36128

MAIN PIPELINE (1) Crane 1 190 0.05 6 22 10 12540 Excavator 1 168 0.05 8 22 10 14784 Grader 1 174 0.05 6 22 10 11484 Water truck 1 200 0.05 4 22 10 8800 Roller 1 114 0.05 3 22 10 3762 Tractors 2 108 0.05 5 22 10 11880 Loader 1 108 0.05 8 22 10 5940 Off-HWY truck 1 479 0.05 4 22 10 21076 Scraper 1 313 0.05 4 22 10 13772 TOTAL

104038

SMALL CONNECTING PIPELINES (1 INCREMENT OF ABOUT 3.0 MILES) Crane 1 190 0.05 6 22 8 10032 Excavator 1 168 0.05 4 22 8 5914 Grader 1 174 0.05 4 22 8 6125 Off-HWY truck 1 479 0.05 4 22 8 16860 Roller 1 95 0.05 6 22 8 5016 Loader 1 165 0.05 6 22 8 8712 Tractor/backhoes 2 79 0.05 5 22 8 6952 Water truck 1 200 0.05 4 22 8 8800 SUBTOTAL 68411 TOTAL, 6 increments 410446

WATER TREATMENT FACILITIES (1) (Construction) Excavator 1 168 0.05 2 22 3 1109 Roller 1 95 0.05 4 22 3 1254 Scraper 1 313 0.05 4 22 3 4132 Tractor 1 108 0.05 7 22 3 2495 Water truck 1 189 0.05 4 22 3 2495 Crane 1 190 0.05 4 22 6 5015 Forklift 2 145 0.05 6 22 6 11484 Off-HWY truck 1 300 0.05 2 22 6 3960 Tractor 1 108 0.05 2 22 6 1426 Welder 1 45 0.05 4 22 6 1188 Water truck 1 189 0.05 1 22 6 1250 SUBTOTAL 35808 TOTAL 647820


AVEK has sited its facilities in an area where construction energy use is minimized because it is not necessary to construct large berms. Calculated construction energy use including energy use for 25 years of potential flood irrigation berms, totals about 700,000 gallons of diesel fuel. For comparison purposes, this total construction fuel use can be compared to fuel use on a major highway, such as average daily truck traffic on Highway 99 in Bakersfield. If it is assumed that the average truck has an approximately 300 hp engine (a typical long haul engine in a cab-over), and that the average length of a truck trip on Highway 99 is 2 hours, and using 2004 Average Daily Truck Traffic from CALTRAN), then truck fuel use on this highway would be:

29,150 trucks x 300 hp x 2 hours x 0.05 = 874,500 gallons The energy use to construct the project is therefore about 80% the daily energy use for truck traffic in the 100-120 mile corridor between the grapevine and the northern Kern County line. 2.7.3 Conveyance and Groundwater Pumping Energy Use There are also operational energy costs associated with conveying water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to AVEK and extracting the stored water from the recharge basins. The has calculated the unit costs associated with these energy uses:

• Delivery of SWP water to and AVEK = 1,666 kWh/acre-foot (California Energy Commission 2004)

• Pumping of water from groundwater at 200 feet = 310 kWh/acre-foot (1.55 kWh/foot/af; UC Davis Extension, see air quality discussion)

The proposed project would provide for import of about 200,000 acre-feet of SWP supply during wet years, resulting in net energy consumption of: 1666 kWh/acre-foot x 200,000 acre-feet = 333,200 MWh 310 kWh/acre-foot x 200,000 acre-feet = 62,000 MWh Total: = 395,200 MWh To place these energy uses in context, because groundwater cannot be extracted in perpetuity without recharge, the only alternative source of water supply to meet dry year and/or emergency needs in the AVEK Service area would be desalination of wastewater or sea water. The California Energy Commission (2004) estimates that obtaining the same amount of water from desalination would require about 7.5 times the energy use necessary to deliver water via the SWP. In addition, without the added water, groundwater levels are anticipated to decline by as much as 100 feet in the urban areas of the Antelope Valley as local agencies pump water to make up for lost SWP supplies during drought and/or emergency (Pang et al 2005). Under these circumstances, the energy used to extract groundwater would be about 62,000 MWh more than would be used if the recharge project is implemented. This reduction in power usage to pump groundwater is equivalent to: (1) 200,000 acre-feet x 100 feet of lift = 20,000,000 acre-feet of lift (2) 20,000,000 acre-feet of lift x 1.55 kWh = 310,000,000 kWh (3) 310,000,000 kWh/0.746 horsepower hours/kWh = 45,000.000 horsepower hours (4) 45,000,000 horsepower hours x 0.05 gallons of diesel fuel per hp-hour = 2,250,000 gallons The savings in pumping energy use more than offsets the energy use in construction of needed facilities.


In addition, desalinated water would have to be pumped to AVEK, at a substantial energy cost. See also the discussion of energy use savings associated with changes in the timing of delivery of SWP supplies in the Air Quality analysis. 2.7.4 Mitigation AVEK is committed to energy conservation. In addition to the innovative approach to recharge basin design and operation, to minimize energy use associated with the project, AVEK will:

• Install electric pumps on extraction wells to take advantage of the wind-driven power generators in the AVEK area;

• Install energy efficient machinery and lighting at its in-line treatment facilities; and • Require construction contractors to utilize efficient construction equipment and manage this use

to minimize waste by turning off equipment when it has been idling for longer than 5 minutes.

2.7.5 CEQA Significance CEQA does not specify criteria for determining the significance of energy use. Given the above considerations, it is apparent that the proposed project is the most energy-efficient approach to meeting the critical need for dry-year and emergency needs in its service area. Given this, and with AVEK’s commitment to energy conservation as discussed above, AVEK believes that the project’s energy impacts will be less than significant.

2.8 GEOLOGY AND SOILS 2.8.1 Introduction 2.8.1.1 Soils The proposed project recharge facilities would be located in the Lancaster Subunit of the Antelope Valley, the largest groundwater subunit of the valley. The facilities would be sited on a broad, flat alluvial plain several miles west of the historic shoreline of Lake Thompson. Within the general area of the Proposed Project, soils (NRCS 1970) are predominantly:

• Soil series HkA, HkB, and HnA, which are fine sandy loam or sandy loam; surface layer is loam in places, with permeability of 2.0 to 6.3 inches per hour, available water capacity of 0.13 to 0.15, and moderate soil pressure; and

• Soil series Ro, Rp, and Rr, which are sandy loam to loam and light silty clay loam, with permeability of 0.63 to 2.0 inches per hour, available water capacity of 0.13 to 0.17 and moderate soil pressure.

In addition to soils data and data from historic well borings and other tests, recent tests of recharge rates (See Boyle Engineering 2008) indicate that recharge cold occur at a rate of about 2 feet per day. It is likely that recharged water will encounter intermittent aquatards, and will "stairstep" around these before reaching indigenous groundwater layers.


2.8.1.2 Seismic Hazards The Proposed Project is in an area of relatively high seismic activity. Distance of the recharge area, pipelines, and storage, treatment, and pumping station from known faults is estimated on Table 11. None of the fault zones crosses any of the pipelines or is in the probable well field. Table 11. Approximate Distance of Proposed Project facilities from known active earthquake faults

POTENTIAL ACTIVE FAULT

APPROXIMATE DISTANCE TO FAULT RECHARGE AND INTERNAL PIPELINES

MAIN PIPELINE

STORAGE, TREATMENT, AND PUMPING FACILITY

Rosamond-Cottonwood 4-5 2-3 2-3 Randsburg Mojave Faults 4-5 5-10 10 Garlock Fault 10 10-15 15 San Andreas Fault 10 11-12 13

The Garlock and San Andreas faults are designated as Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones under the Alquist-Priolo Fault Zoning Act. The Project facilities would not be within any currently designated Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones. The general project area has been subject to intense groundshaking from nearby fault ruptures, particularly on the San Andreas Fault and on faults near the juncture of the San Andreas and Garlock faults. On the San Andreas Fault, the Wrightwood earthquake of 1812 had an estimated magnitude of 7.5 and was about 50 to 60 miles southeast of the Project area. The Fort Tejon earthquake of 1857 has an estimated magnitude of 8 and there was ground movement in the Antelope Valley. The Palmdale earthquake of 1857 had an estimated magnitude of 6.3 and was within 15 -20 miles of the project area. Based on the history of these and other earthquakes, development of slip-rate data, and theoretical considerations, the Southern California Earthquake Center has developed a map of the major seismic zones that projects the potential frequency of an earthquake generating acceleration equal to or greater than 20% the force of gravity (Figure 31, Appendix A). Earthquakes generate groundshaking and, in areas with wet soils, this movement may cause soils to become suspended in water or “liquefied.” When soil liquefies, it loses strength and behaves as a viscous liquid (like quicksand) rather than as a solid. This can cause structures to sink into the ground, tilt, or rupture. Sloping areas slump and even level ground may move sideways. Liquefaction effects are difficult to estimate precisely because they depend on the interaction of soil type, soil age, soil saturation level, depth to groundwater, earthquake source, earthquake path, and specific site processes (Silva et al 2003). Nevertheless, basic approaches to evaluating liquefaction susceptibility are well established, and reasonable judgments about relative impacts can be made based on soils characteristics and depth of groundwater. For example, Knudsen et al (Cited in ABAG 2001) evaluated liquefaction potential on a qualitative scale (Very High to Very Low) for soil types versus depth to groundwater in the San Francisco Bay area. In general, this analysis notes that potential liquefaction effects are low to very low when depth to groundwater is greater than 30 feet, and consistently very low for depths to groundwater of greater than 50 feet. Key findings related to soil/depth relationships were:

• For recent stream channel deposits, liquefaction potential is Very High at < 10 feet, High for depths of 10 to 30 feet, and Moderate for depths of 30 to 50 feet;

• For alluvial fan deposits, liquefaction potential is Moderate at < 10 feet, Moderate for depths of 10 to 30 feet, and Low for depths of 30 to 50 feet; and


• For alluvial terrace deposits, liquefaction potential is High for depths from 0 to 30 feet and Moderate to Low for depths of 30 to 50 feet.

Based on these considerations, it is reasonable to conclude that liquefaction potential is a concern when depth to groundwater is about 30 feet. At 50 feet, potential liquefaction effects are very low, even for unconsolidated sandy soils. The potential for liquefaction to adversely affect human safety is related to liquefaction potential and the proximity of development to areas of high groundwater. Groundwater depth in the Proposed Project recharge area varies, but based on recent measurements at wells on and adjacent to the Proposed Project sites (Boyle 2008) groundwater levels in the project area are from 250 to 300 feet below ground surface. In part as a result of groundwater mining, there has been land subsidence throughout the Antelope Valley. USGS (2000) described this subsidence:

“Long-term ground-water-level declines in Antelope Valley have resulted in the compaction of aquitards interspersed throughout the alluvial aquifer systems causing a vast, one-time release of “water of compaction” and land subsidence. Accompanying this release of water is a largely nonrecoverable reduction in the pore volume of the compacted aquitards and an overall reduction in the storage capacity of the aquifer system. This water of compaction is, in effect, a nonrenewable resource that can be mined only at the expense of incurring land subsidence and reducing groundwater storage capacity. Aquifer-system compaction and resultant land subsidence in Antelope Valley, which includes EAFB, is attributed to ground-water-level declines (Blodgett and Williams, 1992; Londquist and others, 1993; Ikehara and Phillips, 1994; Galloway and others, 1998a). A historical relation (1926–92) between ground-water level declines and regional land subsidence in the valley was established using water-level measurements and elevation data from spirit leveling and Global Positioning System (GPS) surveys (Ikehara and Phillips, 1994). By 1992, more than 6.6 ft of subsidence attributable to ground-water withdrawals had occurred in parts of Antelope Valley, with 290 mi2 affected by more than 1 ft of land subsidence.”

2.8.2 Regulatory Environment Impacts to soils and geology are subject to a number of regulatory requirements. Soils are considered an important natural resource and wind and water erosion are considered both a loss of this resource and a potential public health and safety issue. Erosion by wind is subject to local and regional controls, primarily under the guidance of the AVAQMD, which regulate fugitive dust emissions (see Section 5.4). Erosion due to water is under the regulation of the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board (see Section 5.10). Loss of soils due to erosion is thus addressed in the project mitigations for air quality and water quality protection (the Fugitive Dust Control Plan and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan required for the project). Seismic hazards are addressed in local, county, and State of California building codes and regulations. The CEQA Appendix G Environmental Checklist states that a project would have a significant impact on geology and soils if it would:

1. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: (a) rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo

Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other


substantial evidence of a known fault (refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42);

(b) strong seismic groundshaking; (c) seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; or landslides;

2. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil; 3. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of

the Project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse;

4. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property;

5. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater.

2.8.3 Impacts 2.8.3.1 Soil erosion during construction and operation Soils of the alluvial plain of the Antelope Valley are highly susceptible to water and/or wind erosion. Grading in periods of winds in excess of about 10 mph could therefore cause erosion (See estimates in the Air Quality Analysis). The minimalist approach to berm construction for the proposed Project, if recharge berms are constructed at all, will not result in removal of topsoils and will minimize the area of soils affected by this aspect of construction when compared to traditional recharge basin construction. Pipeline construction will result in excavation, temporary sidecasting of soils, and then backfilling of the trench. Excess spoil from pipeline construction and excavation for storage tanks may be stockpiled, made available to others, and/or spread on recharge areas where sheet flow from precipitation has, occasionally resulted in minor erosion (Figure 25, Appendix A). During this earth movement, there is potential for wind erosion. Over the longer term, some loss of soil could occur during annual re-construction of berms, if they are constructed. The recharge basins would be used for agriculture when not subject to recharge use; therefore, about 33% of soils would have crop cover annually and would be wet much of the time, as they are now. During periods of recharge, soils would be covered by water. In addition, AVEK will implement wind erosion control measures that will reduce long-term wind erosion (see the discussion under Air Quality. Substantial erosion by water is likely to be limited due to the flat slope of the recharge areas. Therefore, over the long term, no net change to existing soil loss from the recharge-basin parcels would be anticipated. To ensure this, AVEK will prepare and implement Mitigation Measure GEO-4. Mitigation Measure GEO-1. To control water erosion during construction and operation of the Project, AVEK will prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in compliance with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Permit. 2.8.3.2 Potential effects related to earthquakes Although the site is over 10 miles from the nearest major fault zone, there is some potential for strong groundshaking in the area. The SCEC map (Figure 31. Appendix A) suggests that there is a 1 to 2% chance of seismic acceleration exceeding 20% of the force of gravity in the general area in the central Antelope Valley. Such displacement could affect buried pipelines and the above-ground in-line water treatment units. If a rupture were to occur when the pipeline is conveying water, flow in the pipeline would be shut down and released water would tend to infiltrate the nearby soils (most soils in the area are


relatively permeable). Minor and short-term local flooding of local roads could occur. There is also a potential for minor damage to the in-line treatment units. The low recharge basin berms (if constructed) will not be substantially different in construction from similar berms used for flood irrigation of alfalfa and other crops. Water depths within them will be low and if a berm were to slump during an earthquake, the result would be a release of shallow sheet flow, which would rapidly percolate into the ground. No erosive flows are anticipated. As noted above, liquefaction effects occur when groundwater levels are within 50 feet of the surface of the ground and current groundwater levels are between 250 and 300 feet below ground. The Proposed Project provides for monitoring of groundwater levels during recharge and for recharge to cease when levels in monitoring wells reach about 75 feet below ground level. Saturated soil conditions may occur at the recharge sites, but groundwater recharge tends to have little lateral movement. In addition groundwater recharge will occur in only about 5 years out of ten, and generally in only 4 months out of 12. Saturated soil conditions at the recharge areas will therefore also be intermittent. Local increases in groundwater levels are thus highly unlikely. The proposed recharge areas are in an area where there has been historic subsidence, and as USGS (2003 and 2005) indicates, this area has experienced compression of clay-silt aquitards as a result. This is an irreversible effect and thus the addition of water to the aquifer will not result in soil expansion followed by subsidence when water is withdrawn. Additional subsidence may occur in the Lancaster subunit from continued overdrafting, but the effects of the project will be to reduce, offset, and/or remediate overdraft conditions, and the project recharge will therefore not contribute to on-going subsidence. To avoid and minimize the potential for impacts related to seismic activity, AVEK will implement the following mitigation measures: Mitigation Measure GEO-2. Although the proposed project has little inherent potential for causing seismic safety effects, AVEK will ensure that all facilities are designed to withstand the anticipated seismic forces, consistent with local and state building codes and relevant regulations. Mitigation Measure GEO-3. AVEK will install shut off valves on major pipelines and at the in-line water treatment units and monitor them (in the same manner that it presently monitors water supply operations) to minimize the potential for leakage during seismic events. Mitigation Measures GEO-4. AVEK will store water treatment chemicals in secondary containment units to minimize the potential for leakage during seismic events. Mitigation Measure GEO-5. Although the potential for the project to raise groundwater levels to within 30-50 feet of the ground surface is very small, to address potential impacts to local groundwater levels, AVEK, in cooperation with USGS, CDPH, and other regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over groundwater recharge recovery, will develop a monitoring program to monitor changes in water levels in the area affected by groundwater recharge operations. If monitoring identifies groundwater level rise to 75 feet below ground surface, AVEK would alter management of recharge to prevent water levels from rising to levels where liquefaction effects could occur. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1. Consistent with AVEK's existing practices and recognizing that AVEK employs personnel with hazardous materials handling training, AVEK will develop and implement a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Plan (SPCCP) to minimize the potential for, and effects from, spills of hazardous, toxic, or petroleum substances during construction activities and operations. The plan and methods shall be in conformance with all state and federal water quality regulations. The SPCCP will


be reviewed by agencies with jurisdiction over this aspect of the Proposed Project before the onset of construction activities. AVEK shall provide for routine inspection of the construction and operations areas to verify that the measures specified in the SPCCP are properly implemented and maintained and further ensure that contractors are notified immediately if there is a noncompliance issue and will require compliance. 2.8.3.3 Potential structural damage caused by expansive soils Per NRCS (1970), the soils of the project alternative areas have low or low-to-moderate shrink/swell potential. None of the soils would be classified as expansive according to Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code. 2.8.3.4 Septic system effects The proposed project does not contemplate siting septic facilities on soils not suitable for such facilities. Project area soils are designated as having slight to moderate septic constraints. No effects are anticipated. No mitigation is needed. 2.8.4 CEQA Significance Given design of the Proposed Project and proposed mitigations, the Proposed Project would not have potential to cause significant impacts associated with seismic-related conditions. The inherent potential for impacts related to seismic events is low; implementation of proposed mitigation measures will reduce this potential to less than significant. There is no potential for landslide on the alluvial plain of the Antelope Valley. The Proposed Project will also not be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. The Proposed Project will not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. The operation of recharge and the planting of a dust-reducing cover crop following recharge will reduce, rather than increase potential for wind erosion. Impacts will be less than significant. The Proposed Project is not located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property. The Proposed Project will not involve the installation of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater. No significant impacts are anticipated. No mitigation is proposed.

2.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 2.9.1 Introduction 2.9.1.1 General conditions at the Proposed Project sites The proposed project recharge alternative areas and other facilities would be located on or adjacent to existing agricultural lands on the alluvial plain of the Antelope Valley about 9-10 miles west of Edwards


Air Force Base. The recharge alternative sites are agricultural lands farmed continuously on a crop rotation cycle, with the dominant crops being wheat, barley, and alfalfa. The recommended pesticides and herbicides used for these crops do not include any of the 8 pesticides known to contaminate groundwater (California Department of Pesticide Regulation 2004). In all of Los Angeles County, application rates for all of the approved pesticides for these crops in 2006 were (from California Department of Pesticide Regulation data base for Los Angeles County):

Alfalfa: 6,190 pounds Barley: 390 pounds Wheat: 0.125 pounds

There are typical agricultural buildings on the sites and a Phase I investigation of the recharge area stained soils in the vicinity of above-ground fuel storage tanks in the farm storage yard and around a tractor, indicating potential for fuel spills in this area. In addition, fuel stains were found near a 55-gallon drum and pump house and in the vicinity of another pump and 55-gallon drum. Several areas along roads have been used for illegal dumping. There are no records of toxic waste sites at the Proposed Project sites. Currently, the majority of the Proposed Project area is used for agricultural production or is undeveloped. It is likely that pesticides, herbicides, and other agricultural chemicals have been applied throughout the Project area. There are no schools located within the Project vicinity and the private/public airports in the general vicinity are more than 2 miles away from recharge areas. The area is within the flight path of Edwards Air Force Base Air Force Flight training Center (Range 2508). 2.9.1.2 Airport and Military Aviation Operations Edwards Air Force Base lies 8-10 miles to the east of the most easterly recharge alternative site. A private airstrip is located about 3 to 4 miles north of the area proposed for the recharge basins. Fox airport is about 6 miles southeast of the recharge site. The Kern County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) indicates that the proposed Project is located in an area associated with low-level military flight paths that are used to train personnel and test weapons systems associated with Edwards Air Force Base (Edwards AFB). There is a small private airstrip along 80th Street West, south of the Proposed Project area storage, treatment, and pumping station. The proposed project area is not within the AFFTC training areas of the R-2508 Complex, but is in a military low-level flight path (California Military Land Use Compatibility Analysis) and discussions with a representative from Edwards AFB confirmed that the proposed project is located in an area associated with the U.S. Air Force operations under Visual Recognition-1206 rules. Military aircraft operating in the area would avoid Rosamond Airpark, but would likely use the proposed project area for flights at an altitude of 200 feet above ground level and speeds of 250 knots (Deakin pers. comm., June 27, 2007). 2.9.1.3 Mosquito-Borne Diseases Mosquitoes are disease carrying vectors. All species of mosquitoes require standing water to complete their growth cycle; therefore, any standing body of water represents a potential mosquito breeding habitat. Although mosquitoes will typically stay close to suitable breeding habitat and blood-meal hosts, they are known to travel up to 10 miles under breezy conditions. The breeding period for mosquitoes depends on temperature but generally occurs March through October. Water quality also affects mosquito reproduction. Poor-quality water with limited circulation, high temperature, and high organic content produces greater numbers of mosquitoes. In addition, irrigation and flooding practices may influence the level of mosquito production associated with a water body. Typically, water bodies with water levels that


slowly increase or recede produce greater numbers of mosquitoes than water bodies with water levels that are stable or that rapidly fluctuate. Many species of mosquitoes exist in Kern County that can cause a substantial nuisance in surrounding communities, but Culex species mosquito is the primary vector species of concern. Although the West Nile Virus can be transmitted by a number of mosquito species, Culex is the most common carrier. This disease is thought to be a seasonal epidemic that flares up in the summer and fall. The encephalitis mosquito (Culex tarsalis) breeds in almost any freshwater pond. 2.9.1.4 Valley Fever Coccidioidomycosis, commonly known as Valley Fever, is caused by the fungus Coccidioides immitis, which grows in soils in areas of low rainfall, high summer temperatures, and moderate winter temperatures. These fungal spores become airborne when the soil is disturbed by winds, construction, farming, and other activities. In susceptible people and animals, infection occurs when a spore is inhaled. Valley Fever symptoms generally occur within 3 weeks of exposure. Valley Fever is not a contagious disease. Secondary infections are rare. It is estimated that more than 4 million people live in areas where Valley Fever fungus is prevalent in the soils. Residents of Bakersfield and Phoenix, Arizona, have shown positive skin-test reaction rates of 30–40 percent, meaning that about one-third of residents tested have had Valley Fever sometime in the past. Among those who have never had Valley Fever, the chance of infection is about 3 percent per year, but the longer one resides in an endemic area, the greater the risk. In the southwestern U.S., there are approximately 100,000 new infections each year. People working in construction, agriculture, and archaeology have an increased risk of exposure and disease because these jobs result in the disturbance of soils where fungal spores are found. Valley Fever infection is highest in California from June to November. Most Valley Fever cases are mild. It is estimated that 60 percent or more of infected people either have no symptoms or experience flu-like symptoms and never seek medical attention. 2.9.2 Regulatory Framework The principal federal regulatory agency responsible for the safe use and handling of hazardous materials is the EPA. Two key federal regulations pertaining to hazardous wastes are described below. Other applicable federal regulations are contained primarily in CFR Titles 29, 40, and 49. The federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act enables the EPA to administer a regulatory program that extends from the manufacture of hazardous materials to their disposal, thus regulating the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste at all facilities and sites in the nation. California regulations are equal to or more stringent than federal regulations. The EPA has granted the State of California primary oversight responsibility to administer and enforce hazardous waste management programs. State regulations require planning and management to ensure that hazardous wastes are handled, stored, and disposed of properly to reduce risks to human and environmental health. State law requires:

• Businesses using hazardous materials to prepare a plan that describes their facilities, inventories, emergency response plans, and training programs;

• Generators of hazardous waste must complete a manifest that accompanies the waste from generator to transporter to the ultimate disposal location. Copies of the manifest must be filed with the California Department of Toxic Substances and Control;

• Development and implementation of Spill Prevention and Control Plans for facilities using hazardous materials


On a local or regional scale, the Los Angeles and Kern county environmental health departments manage many local hazardous materials concerns. Many of the programs mentioned previously are delegated to local authorities such as the county Environmental Health Departments; emergency response is often delegated to local fire districts. 2.9.3 Impacts 2.9.3.1 Hazardous Materials There are small patches of soil on Proposed Project recharge sites that, given the nature of the above-ground storage facilities adjacent to them, have probably resulted from localized fuels spills. Unless remediated, these would pose a hazard to water quality during recharge, although no recharge is anticipated on these portions of the Proposed Project area. The existence of soils with potential hydrocarbons on some areas proposed for recharge requires AVEK to remove these soils and dispose of them at a certified landfill. AVEK has personnel trained and certified to conduct the required investigations and remediation and/or may contract with an independent expert to accomplish any needed remediation. In addition, AVEK will transport, store, and use water treatment chemicals at the storage, treatment, and pumping station. Chemicals will be delivered via local roads and stored on site. There is thus a potential for chemical spills during normal operations of these facilities. It is probable that the chemicals used in water disinfection may change over the 30-50 year project life in response to advances in water treatment methods. Finally, during construction of the Proposed Project facilities, hazardous materials such as fuels and lubricants would be used to operate construction equipment and vehicles such as excavators, compactors, haul trucks, and loaders. In addition, operating and maintaining the pumps may include the use of fuels, lubricants, and other hazardous materials. Fuels and lubricants have the potential to be released into the environment at the Proposed Project site and along the haul routes, causing environmental and/or human exposure to these hazards. Grading operations are of short duration and impacts on grading operators and surrounding scattered residences will be limited. 2.9.3.2 Airport and Military Airport Operations Analysis of the Bird Strike Problem in the Antelope Valley Bird and other wildlife strikes to aircraft can cause risks to the lives of aircraft crew members, passengers, and those on the ground, and also damage aircraft. Birds can penetrate aircraft windshields and fuselages and can be ingested into engines to cause fires and malfunctions (Edwards AFB 2002). The incidence of bird strikes is species and location specific, and the FAA maintains the National Wildlife Strike Data Base (FAA 2007) which is a complete record of reported strikes, by species and locale, from January 1, 1990 to March 31, 2007. In addition, the Air Force maintains a Bird Avoidance Model (BAM 2007) that provides general guidance on the severity of potential bird strike hazards (by location, month, and time of day) as well as real-time estimates for hazards. The risk associated with bird strikes is measured in ounces per square kilometer, which accounts for the higher damage potential of larger, heavier, birds:

• Low: 0 to 169 ounces/km2 • Moderate: 170 to 7272 ounces/km2 • Severe: 7273-409,796 ounces/km2


The Frequently Asked Questions section of the BAM website notes that pilots are advised to avoid “severe” hazard areas. A review of the BAM for the period from November through February indicates that air strike risk is considered moderate throughout this period in the vicinity of Edwards AFB. The U.S. Air Force and Navy were consulted regarding bird aircraft strike hazard concerns (Deakin pers. Comm., multiple consultations, 2007). In addition various documents prepared by Edwards AFB were reviewed related to the nature and extent of existing bird strike hazards. The Edwards AFB Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (2002) discusses the issue of bird air strike hazards (BASH), noting:

• Page 6-2. “A Base BASH report that includes recommendations for its control has been prepared by AFFTC (1995). The use of falcons (falconry), revegetation, and other means of controlling bird populations were included in the report. Revegetation of recently disturbed areas near the runway infields is the preferred control method and has the greatest implications to wildlife because it will modify available habitat. The intent of this revegetation is primarily to decrease horned larks, a bird species identified by the BASH Team (Kirtland AFB, New Mexico) and Edwards AFB Flight Safety Office (AFFTC/SEF) as having the highest BASH occurrence on Base. While BASH issues are always a concern, by comparison with other Air Force bases, there are relatively few BASH events at Edwards AFB. Revegetation of disturbed areas is expected to minimize the long-term availability of open foraging habitat for the species between runways and taxiways resulting in a decrease in their numbers in these areas.

• Page 9-4. “Bird Pests. Flight Safety manages the bird/aircraft strike hazard (BASH) program.

The control tower monitors the movements of flocks of birds on Base and alerts aircraft when there are large numbers of birds near the runway. Flight Safety maintains records of the types and numbers of birds struck by aircraft. The most common bird species involved is the horned lark, which forages in open areas. Flight Safety has coordinated with the Environmental Management Directorate to conduct inventories and behavioral studies of the birds on Base to develop measures using habitat management to discourage the birds from using the areas around the runways. Flight Safety, in conjunction with the Environmental Management Directorate, has investigated other methods of reducing numbers of birds near runways and taxiways, including controlling open water near these areas and using lighting that does not attract insects and insectivorous birds. The BASH incidents may be controlled and reduced through a variety of methods. These include:

a. revegetation of portions of the runways and adjacent areas using native plants that do

not attract bird populations; b. preventing accumulations of standing water near the runway; c. continued use of the bird avoidance model (BAM) to predict times of day, year, and

locations when birds are more likely to be active; d. mechanically securing buildings to deny access to nuisance bird populations; and e. depredation.

Revegetation efforts are primarily targeted at reducing numbers of horned larks. Revegetation is expected to minimize the long-term availability of open foraging habitat for the species between runways and taxiways, resulting in a decrease in their numbers in these areas. The Environmental Management Directorate manages revegetation projects.”

The Environmental Assessment for the Natural Resources Management Plan (August 2001) further notes:

• “Edwards AFB records bird airstrikes that occur along the flightline as well as other areas involving aircraft operations. Over a 10-year period from 1985 to 1995, approximately 128 bird


airstrikes were recorded at Edwards AFB. Most of the birds involved in aircraft strikes along the main runways were identified as horned larks (Eremophila alpestris) (AFFTC 1995a). Horned larks commonly occur in open habitat with sparse vegetation or areas of low shrubs (i.e., open field, agricultural areas, desert habitat, prairies, and grassland communities). The main runways on Base are surrounded by arid phase saltbush scrub. This plant community, combined with the open areas along the flightline, provides suitable habitat for horned larks. The vegetation adjacent to the runways is periodically graded, creating a buffer area devoid of vegetation, which also provides additional foraging habitat for horned larks. Methods that have been used at Edwards AFB to control the Bird Aircraft Strike Hazard (BASH) problem include revegetation with native plants and the use of a falconer.”

The R-2508 Handbook (guidance for Edwards AFB pilots on the use of training ranges) notes one particular concern for pilots related to BASH events outside of the vicinity of landing strips:

• Page 7-12. “The official duck hunting season runs between October and January during the birds’ southern migration. A hunting club on Little Lake (35°57’N/117°54’W), a migratory stop, private hunting activity. Aircrews should be alert for dangers of bird strikes transiting low-level through this area during hunting season. In addition, beware of increased bird activity within ±1 hour of sunrise and sunset from October to March.”

This site is about 70 miles from the proposed project and outside of the flight path of concern. Finally, the Global Hawk Main Operating Base Beddown Environmental Assessment (2000) evaluated BASH events as a feature of the analysis of impacts associated with use of the base and compared BASH event frequency at Edwards AFB to frequency at other bases in terms of the number of bird strikes per airfield operation:

• Beale AFB: 1 strike for 3,775 operations • Edwards AFB: 1 strike for 3,095 operations • Elsworth AFB: 1 strike for 3,413 operations • Tinker AFB: 1 strike for 2,267 operations • Wright-Patterson AFB: 1 strike for 1,258 operations

The Global Hawk EA also notes that:

“Over 75 percent of bird strikes occur in the airfield and airspace environment below 3,000 feet AGL, although birds can be encountered at higher altitudes. Any gain in altitude represents a reduced threat of bird strike. The potential for bird-aircraft strikes is greatest in areas used as migration corridors (flyways) or where birds congregate for foraging or resting (e.g., open water bodies, rivers, and wetlands). Because of these potential adverse effects, the Air Force devotes considerable attention to avoiding the possibility of bird-aircraft strikes. It has conducted a worldwide program for decades to track bird migrations, bird flight patterns, and past strikes to develop predictions of when and where bird-aircraft strikes might occur. This program, which consistently updates the data, also defines avoidance procedures through a bird avoidance model. In addition to this model, each military installation develops and implements a BASH plan focusing on its local area. These plans detail a coordinated program that minimizes the bird strike hazard to aircraft in each base area. A BASH plan includes maps and charts of bird flight pattern and use areas, specific procedures for avoiding bird-aircraft hits, and procedures for reporting strikes.”


It is also clear that the nature and severity of BASH problems varies by locale, species, and altitude of operation. The Federal Aviation Administration’s National Wildlife Strike Database shows highly variable incidence of bird strikes during the period from Jan 1, 1990 to March 31, 2007 (all continental US locations):

• American avocet: 3 (two coastal California; one on Great Lakes) • Black-necked stilt: 1 (site not specified) • Larks: 891 (including Palmdale and Edwards AFB sites) • Ducks, Geese, and swans: 3,330

In the Lancaster-Palmdale-Edwards AFB area, there were no bird strikes recorded in the National Wildlife Strike Database for ducks, geese, swans, hawks, eagles, vultures, falcons, ravens, or gulls, although these birds were relatively common in the 2006 Audubon Lancaster Christmas bird count (about 35% of the total bird count). There were no bird strikes associated with shorebirds. The FAA database does, however, record strikes associated with Palmdale Airport and Edwards AFB operations on pigeons, doves, swifts, larks, and sparrows. This is consistent with Edwards AFB BASH data suggesting most bird strikes are of small birds, and occur near the runways and during low-altitude flight, and not at higher altitudes. There are migrations of large birds through the Antelope Valley, including American white pelicans. Bird Use of the Proposed Project's Recharge areas The Proposed Project could attract birds by creating shallow wet surfaces. The potential for such effects is a function of (a) the potential for birds to be in the Antelope Valley during recharge periods and (b) the attractiveness of the shallow-water areas that will be created during recharge. Birds in the Antelope Valley during the recharge Period: First, many of the larger birds that would be of particular concern to flight operations do not occur in the Antelope Valley during the period when recharge is likely to be feasible (November through February). The 2006 EIR for the Western Development and Storage project about 2.5 miles to the northwest of the Proposed Project Recharge areas reviewed available data to identify existing bird species that pose threats to military aircraft. Data for Edwards Air Force Base were reviewed because the site is the military facility nearest to the proposed Project. Ravens, starlings, sparrows, and blackbirds were identified as posing hazards to aircraft generally at altitudes of less than 500 feet. Species such as hawks and eagles were identified as posing hazards generally at altitudes to 1,000 feet, and vultures were identified as posing hazards generally to altitudes of 2,000 feet, though they are capable of flying at much greater altitudes. USGS (2006) notes that, worldwide, larger migratory birds have been recorded at elevations of over 25,000 feet (geese), 14,000 feet (storks), vultures (25,000 feet), ducks (21,000 feet). Nevertheless, the USGS (2006) notes that 95% of migratory flight occurs below 3,000 feet and for most small birds, the preferred elevation is between 500 and 1,000 feet above ground level. Migrations of large birds tend to occur in the early fall and early spring and some migrating birds such as ducks, geese, and swans overwinter locally in the Antelope Valley. There are some small duck ponds and sewage treatment ponds to the east of the proposed project. Geese are known to forage at local golf courses. There are ponds on Edwards AFB (the Puite Ponds). Given the results of recent Lancaster Christmas Bird Counts, ducks, geese, swans, hawks, eagles, vultures, falcons, ravens, and gulls do occur in the Antelope Valley during period when recharge may occur Audubon (2006 and 2007). Over the last 7 years of Lancaster Christmas Bird Counts, American pelicans have been sighted only twice (1 bird per sighting). American white pelicans migrate from the coast to the Great Basin in the fall and return to the


coast in the spring; AVEK recharge operations will be in the late fall through mid winter, when the pelican is generally not found in the area. Finally, there is adequate open water habitat at Puite Ponds and various sewage ponds to attract American white pelicans if they are inclined to utilize these areas in the winter. But while American white pelicans have been observed at Piute Ponds in the summer (Sea and Sage Audubon field trip notes, 8/04/07), they are not routinely observed during the major Christmas Bird Counts. Attraction of Birds to the Recharge Areas: There are several factors that affect the attractiveness of the Proposed Project recharge areas: (a) the type of "habitat" created by recharge and (b) the level of routine disturbance during recharge.

• First, will large birds that are of critical concern to flight operations likely to be attracted to the habitat created during recharge? There are data from long-term experiments in management of water birds in both deep and shallow ponds in the Tulare Lake Drainage District (TLDD). These data show that water depth is critical to the types of birds likely to use an area (Douglas Davis, TLDD personal communication, and Davis et al 2005). Specifically, shorebirds such as avocets and stilts have been found to use to use the shallow-water habitat created by TLDD in managing its system of drainage ponds. Over a period of 10 years of monitoring, this experimental program has shown that shorebirds have a preference for shallow habitat (0 to 12 inches in depth) with gently sloping upland habitat and that birds such as ducks and geese do not use this habitat except incidentally. In the 10-year monitoring period, an annual average of about 2500 to 3000 shorebirds used TLDD's 307-acre site’s shallow-water habitat and fewer than 100 ducks and geese were observed on the habitat area. In addition, the shallow-water area did not attract small birds such as doves and larks (with only 20 small birds annually observed using the area for nesting or foraging in 10 years of monitoring). At the same time, deeper ponds were found to be used by a variety of ducks. It should be noted that the purpose of the TLDD experiments was to attract shorebirds to an engineered nesting habitat during the spring and early summer months, and the TLDD site was maintained to accomplish this goal with extensive efforts to encourage development of foraging habitat and protect shorebirds from predators such as coyotes and foxes.

Given these results of the TLDD experiments, we can conclude that the Proposed Project recharge areas will not likely attract larger birds such as ducks, geese, and swans but that there is some potential to attract smaller shorebirds. Based on the December 29, 2006 Lancaster Audubon Christmas bird count, shorebirds (rails, plovers, killdeer, avocets, sandpipers, dowitchers, and stilts), collectively make up about 2.5% of the total bird population in the winter. Species in the Antelope Valley that exceed the number of shorebirds include:

• Northern shoveler • Ruddy duck • American coot • California gull • Common raven • Horned lark • European starling • White-crowned sparrow • Red-winged blackbird • Brewer’s blackbird • House finch


In short, the nature of the recharge facilities proposed will tend to limit use of the area to shorebirds, which may be attracted by the shallow water, but these shorebirds are not common in the Antelope Valley in the winter. Review of the life history of the potential shorebirds passing through the Antelope Valley suggests that, during recharge periods many of the shorebirds are overwintering to the south and east of the area. Their migration to summer habitats along the coast also tends to occur outside of the recharge period. However, three shorebirds are known to occur in the Antelope Valley year-round, in relatively low numbers:

• Killdeer • Long-billed dowitcher • Black-necked stilt

These small shorebirds may be attracted to shallow water typical of agricultural flood irrigation. These three species utilize mud flats, pond edges and the edges of shallow water habitats for foraging. All three species utilize aquatic macroinvertebrates and insects as forage. Use of the area by larger shorebirds (avocets and stilts) is limited by season. Avocets winter in Mexico, along the coast of the southeastern United States, and in Cuba and nearby islands. Black-necked stilts generally winter to the south of the Antelope Valley in the Colorado River Basin and along the Gulf of Mexico, but may occur in small numbers throughout the year. Avocets and stilts are likely to migrate through the area in late March through May. For example, TLDD begins to notice migrating avocets and stilts at its nesting area north of Bakersfield in late March and the peak abundance is in late May.

• Second, given that shorebirds might be attracted to the recharge areas, what is the level of routine

disturbance? Level of disturbance at the recharge areas will vary, depending on the method used to deliver water to recharge. If the preferred "pivot" method is used, the recharge operations will be characterized by a continuous disturbance of the surface of the recharge area. As the pivot rotates, water will be discharged a few inches to a few feet from the ground under pressure via hoses or pipes. The falling water will continuously disturb the soil, on a 6 to 12 hour interval. There will be a short period in each rotation of the pivot when the soil is not flooded. Under this type of operation, then, any birds using the area would be subject to routine physical disturbance. No nesting could occur and resting at night would not be possible. It is thus likely that this type of operation would preclude anything but intermittent use of the recharge area and would not result in concentrations of shorebirds. The type and level of disturbance associated with operation using agricultural flood irrigation practices would be different. Flood irrigation methods would involve continuous daylight activities to monitor flow rates and depths (to ensure that water did not pond locally and overtop cells). Field personnel would be on site daily during recharge. This would (a) allow for on-going monitoring of shorebird use (if any) and (b) allow active disturbance of birds to discourage use.

Conclusions Edwards AFB has a relatively low level of bird strike problems, and a majority of the bird strikes are of relatively small birds at low altitudes, typically on-base and involving horned larks and other songbirds. It is also clear that BASH events involving larger birds are considered more dangerous, and Edwards AFB would view a project to be a concern if it:

• Resulted in more small birds in the air space used by the base, and/or


• Resulted in larger birds in the air space used by Edwards AFB pilots; heavier birds like ducks and geese would be a particular concern because of their potential to do significant damage to aircraft.

Given the shallow water of the proposed recharge areas and assuming no efforts to discourage shorebird use, migrating shorebirds and a few other birds may utilize the recharge areas as a place to obtain water and could use them as temporary resting or foraging sites. There will be no suitable nesting habitat (flat open areas) and the area will not be protected from predators. Nesting is not likely to occur. If flooding of the recharge areas were to result in production of aquatic macroinvertebrates, based on TLDD studies, shorebirds would be attracted and would forage in the shallow water. Based on TLDD’s experience, it is not likely that other small birds would be attracted to these areas. The desert populations of small birds like horned larks are not generally open-water habitat species. As noted in Edwards AFB (2002), the horned lark, which accounted for about 20% of the birds identified in the 2006 Lancaster Christmas bird count, prefers open terrain with grassy-shrubby cover and is not likely to be attracted to the recharge areas. Thus, depending on maintenance of the recharge areas and the potential for them to develop foraging habitat, the primary impact of the proposed project would be related to the potential to attract shorebirds to the shallow the ponds: avocets, stilts, snowy plovers, western and least sandpipers, and killdeer. To the extent that this may occur, this would introduce a new source of BASH problems. The suitability and attractiveness of the recharge areas for shorebirds may be substantially reduced by use of a pivot to deliver water to the recharge area. The moving pivot, modified to discharge water at ground level from a system of hanging hoses, would continuously disturb the recharge area and foraging would be interrupted. If flood irrigation practices are used for recharge instead of the pivot, it would be appropriate to (a) periodically dry out cells to reduce food production, and (b) monitor use by shorebirds, and (c) discourage recharge area use in a humane manner However, the project habitat not likely to attract or support the birds most often struck in the Antelope Valley – pigeons, doves, swifts, larks, and sparrows. In addition, the project would not create permanent water bodies and thus would probably not influence overall wintering distribution of shorebirds. Based on these conclusions, appropriate mitigation would first include efforts to reduce the “attractiveness” of the recharge basins for small shorebirds primarily and all birds generally. In addition, mitigation should also address issues of monitoring and management. 2.9.3.3 Mosquitoes Open-water areas are potential breeding areas for mosquitoes. For the proposed recharge project, up to about 500 acres of recharge area would be flooded using either the pivot or routine flood irrigation methods. Months of operation would vary, but to avoid high evaporation and take advantage of water when it is available, AVEK would concentrate operations in the November-February period to the extent possible. In any given year, 50% of the recharge area would be newly constructed following harvest of a crop and the other 50% of recharge area would be covered with grass stubble following planting for dust control and to enhance water penetration. The remaining 500 acres would be harvested and stabilized, but would remain dry. Tests of recharge rates suggest that the Proposed Project recharge area is likely to recharge at a rate of 1 to 2 feet per day. At this rate, the maximum delivery capacity of the West Feeder (200 cfs or 400 acre-feet per day) would require use of 200 to 400 acres of recharge area. Thus, it would be feasible to maintain a continuous flow of water through the basins and to periodically dry them out for short periods of time during which other areas are in use. Use of pivots to deliver water to recharge would allow for the rotation of the pivots to be slowed so that a small area of the recharge would always remain unflooded. For flooded irrigation cells, it would be feasible to simply cut off flow to cells on a periodic basis to allow


any standing water to percolate into the ground. With such operations, mosquito life cycles may be disrupted and potential mosquito problems avoided. 2.9.3.4 Valley Fever The potential for Valley Fever to affect local residents is a function of (a) wind erosion, and (b) the presence of the fungi spores in the soil. The proposed project incorporates a number of wind erosion mitigation measures that will, in the aggregate, reduce wind erosion when compared to current conditions. Recharge operations themselves will reduce wind erosion when the area is wet. In addition, the soil have been continuously tilled for decades, resulting in exposure of soils to a depth of 2 feet to aeration and to agricultural chemicals. No impacts are anticipated. 2.9.4 Mitigation 2.9.4.1 Hazardous Materials Management Mitigation Measure HAZ-1. Consistent with AVEK's existing practices and recognizing that AVEK employs personnel with hazardous materials handling training, AVEK will develop and implement a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Plan (SPCCP) to minimize the potential for, and effects from, spills of hazardous, toxic, or petroleum substances during construction activities and operations. The plan and methods shall be in conformance with all state and federal water quality regulations. The SPCCP will be reviewed by agencies with jurisdiction over this aspect of the Proposed Project before the onset of construction activities. AVEK shall provide for routine inspection of the construction and operations areas to verify that the measures specified in the SPCCP are properly implemented and maintained and further ensure that contractors are notified immediately if there is a noncompliance issue and will require compliance. The federal reportable spill quantity for petroleum products, as defined in EPA’s CFR (40 CFR 110), is any oil spill that 1) violates applicable water quality standards, 2) causes a film or sheen upon or discoloration of the water surface or adjoining shoreline, or 3) causes a sludge or emulsion to be deposited beneath the surface of the water or adjoining shorelines. If a spill is reportable, the contractor’s superintendent shall notify the applicant who shall inform the applicable County agency and arrange for the appropriate safety and cleanup crews to ensure the spill prevention plan is followed. A written description of reportable releases must be submitted to the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the applicable County agencies. This submittal must include a description of the release, including the type of material and an estimate of the amount spilled, the date of the release, an explanation of why the spill occurred, and a description of the steps taken to prevent and control future releases. The releases would be documented on a spill report form. If a spill has occurred, the applicant shall coordinate with responsible regulatory agencies to implement measures to control and abate contamination. This mitigation measure shall be applied to the 5 existing sites on the recharge alternative areas where preliminary studies indicate that there may have been spills of petroleum products or agricultural chemicals. These sites shall be remediated per the SPCCP prior to introduction of recharge waters to the affected areas. Chemical handling for the in-line treatment units would be in accordance with best management practices. Chemicals of concern would be stored separately, with secondary containment vessels able to contain 1.5 times the volume held by the storage tanks (Figure 32). Chemicals transported, stored, and used in chloramination are sodium hypochlorate and ammonia. These and any other chemicals of concern would be transported in a manner consistent with all safety regulations.


2.9.4.2 Aircraft Bird Strike Management Mitigation Measure HAZ-2. Several factors are incorporated into the design of the Project will discourage bird attraction, including:

• Use of a pivot to deliver water to recharge, resulting in a continuous disturbance regime at the recharge sites.

• The project involves recharge with shallow water depths which will be generally unsuitable for the larger migratory birds such as ducks, geese, and swans; and

• The project will not generally provide a crop cover in the winter that would provide for foraging habitat for other birds.

Mitigation Measure HAZ-3. For recharge using flood irrigation methods, AVEK will monitor recharge area water and if aquatic macroinvertebrates are found to be developing in large numbers and/or foraging by shorebirds is observed, AVEK will temporarily dry out recharge areas, thereby reducing the insect and aquatic macroinvertebrate forage that would attract and hold shorebirds. Forage support for wintering populations will be minimal.

Mitigation Measure HAZ-4: Prior to application of water to the recharge basins, the Project operator will notify the Flight Safety Office for the R-2508 Air Complex and all local airports of anticipated recharge operations. Mitigation Measure HAZ-5: Whenever water is present in the recharge basins, the project operator will monitor the basins daily for bird activity. If large birds (e.g., geese, gulls, ducks, stilts, avocets, etc.) or large concentrations of small birds (e.g., horned larks, starlings, blackbirds, etc.) are observed in or near the recharge areas, the Flight Safety Office for the R-2508 Air Complex and all local airports will be notified of the potential hazard immediately. Mitigation Measure HAZ-6: If flocks of large birds (e.g., geese, gulls, ducks, stilts, avocets, etc.) or large flocks of small birds (e.g., horned larks, starlings, blackbirds, etc.) are observed, the applicant or the Project operator will harass the birds to discourage use of the recharge basins using methods approved by the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG). 2.9.4.3 Mosquito Management Mitigation Measure HAZ-7: AVEK will consult with Antelope Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District to develop a mosquito management plan and may contract with the District to assist in its implementation. The agreement will consist of a Project-specific mosquito abatement program that would include quantitative abatement thresholds. AVEK and/or the Mosquito Abatement District would monitor mosquito larvae production in the recharge basins, drainages, and distribution. Larvae populations would be tracked using methods and thresholds approved by the Mosquito Abatement District, and suppression measures would be employed when thresholds are exceeded. The primary mode of suppression would be (a) monitor for mosquito presence and (b) if mosquito larvae are found, to cycle recharge temporarily so that units of recharge would be dried at least once weekly, as recommended by the Antelope Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District in their June 18, 2007 letter to AVEK. The AVMVCD notes in its letter that “The best way to disrupt mosquito lifecycle and thereby reducing the need for pesticides is to let the field completely dry out once per week.”


2.9.4.4 Valley Fever Management As Valley Fever transmission is primarily a function of windblown dust, the mitigation measures AVEK has adopted to reduce fugitive dust (Air Quality) will contribute to management of the potential for Valley Fever. 2.9.5 CEQA Significance The CEQA Environmental Checklist states that a project would have a significant impact on hazards and hazardous materials, if it would:

• Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. The proposed project has potential to create such a hazard, but with proposed Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 this potential is reduced to a level of less than significant.

• Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. The proposed project has potential to create such a hazard, but with proposed Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 this potential is reduced to a level of less than significant.

• Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 1/4 mile of an existing or proposed school. The proposed project facilities are not located within 1/4th mile of a school. No impact will occur.

• Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. The proposed project area is not a listed hazardous materials site. It has several sites which show evidence of historic contamination. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 will reduce impacts to a level of less than significant.

• For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. In addition to design and operation measures that will inherently reduce impacts associated with bird use or aircraft flight areas, mitigation measures HAZ-2 through HAZ-6 will further reduce potential impacts and their safety implications to a level of less than significant.

• For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. In addition to design and operation measures that will inherently reduce impacts associated with bird use or aircraft flight areas, mitigation measures HAZ-2 through HAZ-6 will further reduce potential impacts and their safety implications to a level of less than significant.

• Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or

emergency evacuation plan. There is no mechanism by which the proposed project could affect the implementation of an adopted management plan. No impacts are anticipated.

• Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed


with wildlands. The proposed project is not located in an area subject to wildfires. Its operation will maintain open space with a low potential for wildland fire. No impacts are anticipated.

• Generate vectors (flies, mosquitoes, rodents, etc.) or have a component that includes agricultural waste. Specifically, exceed the following qualitative threshold: (a) occur as immature stages and adults in numbers considerably in excess of those found in the surrounding environment; (b) are associated with design, layout, and management of project operations; (c) disseminate widely from the property; and (d) cause detrimental effects on the public health or well being of the majority of the surrounding population. The proposed project could, particularly during operations in fall and early spring, result in increases in mosquito populations. Proposed Mitigation Measure HAZ-7 will reduce potential impacts to a level of less than significant. Dust control measures (Mitigation AIR-1) implemented under Air Quality will minimize fugitive dust and potential for spread of Valley Fever to less than significant.

2.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 2.10.1 General The Proposed Project would store imported State Water Project (SWP) supplies from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, delivered to AVEK at its West Feeder turnout from the California Aqueduct. At this turnout, the California Aqueduct has a capacity of 2,010 cfs. Water from the California Aqueduct would be conveyed to the recharge sites through distribution lines from the AVEK West Feeder, which passes through the recharge area. The pipeline has a conveyance capacity of 225 cfs (450 acre-feet per day). The pipelines provided for return of banked water would be integrated into AVEK’s drinking water system, thereby not affecting flow through the West Feeder. The SWP supplies delivered would be recharged, would percolate into local groundwater, and would, to some extent, blend with that water. Stored water would generally mound below the recharge area and migrate from the recharge area in an easterly direction, and recovery wells would be sited at and to the east of the recharge areas. The USGS estimates that the horizontal (downslope) movement of water in this area is approximately 1-2 feet per day (USGS 2003 Water Investigations Report 03-4016). Thus the mound of recharged water would migrate to the east at about 365 to 730 feet per year. Following design-level studies on groundwater movement and depth, wells would be placed appropriately to intercept this water. The Proposed Project involves the recharge of State Water Project supplies that may be available to AVEK primarily during above-normal, and wet years, when supplies may exceed demand in AVEK’s service area. AVEK would take delivery of these supplies in periods when there was excess capacity in the California Aqueduct and the West Feeder, primarily from November through February when water demand is lower than in the hotter months. AVEK would take raw water supplies and deliver them to recharge areas via its existing raw water delivery system, connecting the groundwater recharge areas to that system through a system of wells and pipelines. Antelope Valley is semiarid, averaging less than 10 inches of rain per year. There are no perennial streams in the area proposed for the recharge and recovery facilities, and recharge areas are generally dry. The recharge areas are located in the 500-year floodplain of local drainages to the south of the Proposed Project Creek drainage, and are subject to shallow surface flow during floods. As noted in Section 2.1, there are two groundwater basins, an upper Basin that is generally unconfined with patchy aquitard


distribution and a lower basin which is confined (DWR 2004). Like many areas in the Mojave Desert, the lower basin may have high levels of arsenic. In the vicinity of the recharge alternative sites, Los Angeles County has designated the area as "Antelope Valley West." The zoning for the area is A-2-5 and A-1-2 (which indicates that low-density residential is allowed) and the Land Use Policy from the Antelope Valley Areawide Plan (AVAP) is "open space" and non-urban. The AVAP describes these areas a ". . lands under public or private ownership that are essentially free of structures and roads, and are projected to be maintained in an open or natural state on a long-term basis." Accordingly, the area is sparsely inhabited, with only 4-5 houses within the Proposed Project area. The storage, treatment, and pumping station would be located on lands in the Willow Springs Specific Plan area in a matrix of lands designated for future low-density residential development. There are three hydrologic concerns related to the Proposed Project:

• The potential for recharge operations to affect groundwater quality • The potential for the Proposed Project to affect runoff and flooding • Potential for the Proposed Project to affect adjacent wells

2.10.2 Groundwater Water Quality The effects of the Proposed Project on groundwater quality water quality depend on:

• The quality of the State Water Project supplies delivered for recharge compared to indigenous groundwater quality;

• The net effects of recharge and recovery on groundwater quality; • The potential for recharge to leach chemicals from the soils during percolation; • The potential for recharge to interact with discharge from septic systems; and • The potential for net accumulation of minerals in groundwater.

Each of these effects is discussed below. 2.10.2.1 SWP water and indigenous groundwater The quality of SWP water supplies is monitored by the California Department of Water Resources on a routine basis at 15 SWP to determine levels of dissolved solids and concentrations of nutrients, chloride, sulfate, sodium, trace metals, and other constituents. SWP water quality data are available electronically through the DWR Internet home page (www.water.ca.gov) and reported monthly in the State Water Project Operations Data Report (http://wwwomwq.water.ca.gov/MonthlyReportsPage/index.cfm). Yearly summaries of water quality are also available in Bulletin 132 (DWR 2004). SWP supplies are considered Class A supplies, suitable for drinking water and all other urban and agricultural applications. Water Quality analyses at Check 41, about 25 miles upstream in the Aqueduct from AVEK’s Quartz Hill facilities, indicate that water quality in the aqueduct consistently meets primary drinking water quality standards (Table 12). Raw data from DWR from 1988 to present at Check 41 do not indicate any detectable levels of pesticides or herbicides.


http://wwwomwq.water.ca.gov/MonthlyReportsPage/index.cfm

Table 12. California Department of Health Services drinking water standards compared to the concentrations of mineral constituents in SWP supplies (1998-2004).

CONSTITUENT

CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATION AT CHECK 41 OF THE CALIFORNIA AQUEDUCT (IN MG/L)

DHS Maximum Level

(DHS 2003)

SWP Concentration 1998-2004

Average concentration in SWP water as a % of DHS Maximum Concentration Average Maximum

Aluminum 1.0 0.01(a) 0.01 1% Antimony 0.006 Not Measured Not Measured NA Arsenic 0.010 0.0022 (b) 0.004 22% Asbestos 7 MFL Not Measured Not Measured NA Barium 1.0 0.05(a) 0.05 5% Berylliumc 0.004 <0.001 <0.001 <25% Cadmium 0.005 0.001(a) 0.001 20% Chromium 0.05 0.004(a&b) 0.007 8% Cyanide 0.15 Not Measured Not Measured NA Chloride 250 64(b) 134 26% Copper (CAL) 1.0 0.002(a) 0.003 <1% Fluoride 2.0 0.1 (a&b) 0.2 5% Iron (CAL) 0.3 0.09 0.27 30% Lead 0.15 <0.001(a&b) <0.001 <1% Manganese 0.05 0.005(a) _0.005 10% Mercury 0.002 0.0002(a) 0.0002 10% Nitrate + Nitrite 10 0.85 (a&b) 1.9 9% Nitrates 10 0.74 NA 7% pH 8.5 7.8 (b) NA Percent comparison not

appropriate Selenium 0.05 <0.002(a&b) 0.002 4% Silver (CAL) 0.1 0.001(a) 0.001 1% Sulfate 250 36 (a&b) 60 14% TDS 500 242 (a&b) 384 48% Notes: CAL = Refers to Consumer Acceptance Limits, which are secondary levels of drinking water standards a. = Data from 1998-1999 in DWR Annual Report (2001) b. = Data from 1998-2004, from DWR SWP Analysis Office c. Beryllium measured from April 2000 through December 2004 Only raw water SWP supplies are specified for use in recharge in the proposed project. No provision is made for introduction of treated water supplies or reclaimed water to the groundwater basins. SWP supplies vary in water quality, primarily in response to conditions in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, where low inflows in dry-to-normal years allow seawater to intrude into the Delta. In above-normal-to-wet years, SWP supplies are of better quality because high river flows repel seawater. This is particularly the case in the winter months when there is less demand on the SWP combined with storm-related high flows. The Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board Basin Plan water quality objectives include provisions that are intended to protect groundwater. In general, their basin plan stresses non-degradation of groundwater. The difference in SWP water quality and indigenous water quality is thus a basis for comparing the effects of the proposed project, because the mixing of SWP and indigenous water may affect the overall quality of water available for use. For this comparison (Table 13), the average SWP water quality for


November – March of the three wet years of 1998, 1999, and 2000 was compared to average 2007 groundwater quality from 4 wells at the Proposed Project recharge sites. The projected water quality of SWP supplies is better than that of the indigenous groundwater for arsenic, boron, chromium, fluoride, pH, nitrates, and Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) and of lesser quality for bromides (not generally a constituent of local groundwater), chlorides, iron, sulfate, and Total Organic Carbon (TOC). Average SWP water quality for the 1998-2004 period, which (a) includes dry and below-normal years and (b) reflects the most recent SWRCB Bay-Delta water quality regulations for salinity (X2) management, was also generally of better quality than indigenous groundwater in the proposed project area. Finally, Table 14 shows that SWP supplies meet drinking water standards and thus do not impair any of the beneficial uses of groundwater in the AVEK service area. Table 13. Comparison of SWP water quality to water quality from wells in the proposed project area.

WATER QUALITY ELEMENT

WATER QUALITY Average SWP, 1998-2004, all

months

Above-normal-and wet year SWP supplies, 1998-2000,

for November-March

2007 Indigenous Water Quality in 8 wells in the vicinity of the proposed

project recharge area. Arsenic (ppb) 2.24 2.1 7.69 Boron (mg/l) 0.155 0.144 0.27

Bromides (mg/l) 0.198 0.2 Not measured, SWP probably higher Chlorides (mg/l) 64 65.5 26.6 Chromium (ppb) 0.004 0.0055 3.52 Fluoride (mg/l) 0.10 0.12 0.25

Iron (mg/l) 0.0086 0.013 Non Detect Lead (mg/l) <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Nitrates (mg/l) 0.74 1.0 14.5 pH 7.86 7.7 8.2

Selenium (mg/l) 0.0011 0.001 Non Detect Sulfate (mg/l) 36.2 40.6 31.25 TDS (mg/l) 242 250.2 293.25 TOC (mg/l 3.57 4.1 Not measured, SWP probably higher

TOC and DOC levels are not specified in the Basin Plan Objectives for either the LRWQCB or the CRWQCB, but SWP supplies will introduce dissolved organic carbon compounds to receiving groundwaters. Bacterial interactions with carbon compounds rapidly remove as much as 50% of TOC from recharged water. In addition, organics introduced to the upper layers of the recharge area may be utilized as nutrients for crops. A simple comparison of recharged water quality and indigenous water quality therefore suggests that there is a potential for recharge to be both beneficial and detrimental, but that there is no potential for recharge to change water quality in a manner that would affect its suitability for any beneficial use. Both recharged water and indigenous water are generally suitable for drinking water purposes, although both may require some form of treatment.. 2.10.2.2 Net effects of recharge, blending, and recovery of stored water The Antelope Valley is a closed basin; that is, neither surface water nor groundwater drain to the ocean. Thus all minerals imported into the basin accumulate, either in groundwater or in the soils. For example, the dry lake beds of Edwards AFB represent the deposits of such minerals from thousands of years of drainage into the Lake Thompson area. Minerals in both surface water and groundwater tend to accumulate in the eastern portion of the basin, reflecting the general drainage from west to east (DWR


2004). The accumulation of minerals may ultimately result in concentrations of such minerals such they groundwater will require treatment to meet drinking water standards. In numerous evaluations of the effects of projects in the Antelope Valley, the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board has noted:

"The Water Board is aware of various projects being considered in the Antelope Valley for groundwater recharge or banking that will use imported water. These projects would supplement municipal drinking water supplies benefiting both the residents of the Antelope Valley and potentially a larger number of Californians. The groundwater basin in the Antelope Valley is a closed basin. Salts are a conservative constituent. Therefore, salts that are added to the groundwater basin will likely contribute to increases in groundwater TDS concentrations. The California Water Code section 13263(b) indicates that the Water Board “need not authorize the utilization of the full waste assimilation capacities of the receiving waters” when prescribing waste discharge requirements. The Water Board believes that it is appropriate to limit the additional salt loading to this groundwater basin by controllable sources to maintain as much assimilative capacity for groundwater recharge or banking projects with [which] have a higher public benefit than wastewater discharges." (Los Angeles County Sanitation District No. 14, Lancaster: Board Order No. R6V-2006-0051 WDID No. 6B190605007)

In such statements, the RWQCB clearly contemplates and allows the use of imported supplies for groundwater recharge and recognizes the potential for such supplies to use some of the "assimilative capacity" of the basin. An analysis of what happens to the minerals recharged is therefore appropriate for defining the extent to which imported supplies may use this assimilative capacity. When recharged water reaches the indigenous groundwater, it tends to mound and, because flow rates are quite low, there is minimal mixing. Mixing may occur at the boundary of the two water sources and when wells extract water from both the indigenous water and the recharged water. Below-ground mixing effects cannot be predicted with certainty, but the net effects of recharge can be evaluated in terms of a mass balance analysis, with varying percentages of mixing assumed and assuming that 2% of recharged water is lost to evaporation during recharge and 8% is left in the ground to account for other "losses" such as migration of the mound of water downslope of the recovery wells. In this type of analysis, the net input of mineral components from recharge is estimated in terms of the amount of each mineral remaining in the ground following recovery of an amount of water equal to 90% of the gross amount delivered to recharge. Water that is recovered for use is then assumed to be distributed throughout the Antelope Valley Area. In the desert, evaporation rates are high and normal precipitation/irrigation contributes little to maintaining groundwater; most water applied during irrigation is used by plants and/or evaporated. Thus, recovered water used for agricultural irrigation, domestic irrigation, and domestic use in areas with septic systems does not fully return to groundwater because application rates are low and in relatively loamy/silty soils the applied water does not percolate rapidly. Thus, recovered water used for these purposes will generally stay in the upper soil layers and minerals in this water will be extracted by plant life and/or accumulate in these soils. Domestic use of water which is disposed of at urban water treatment plants may be recharged or disposed of in evaporation ponds. Recharged reclaimed water is generally extracted before it reaches the depth at which it would comingle with indigenous groundwater. Minerals in the recovered water are therefore assumed to accumulate in the upper layers of soils. Given this recharge, blending, recovery, and use scenario, the net effect of recharge on groundwater quality can be estimated by

• Calculating the amount of each mineral constituent in the recharged water


• Calculating the amount of each mineral constituent in the blend of recovered water (at various blending levels)

From these mass-balance analyses, it is then feasible to estimate the net effect of the Proposed Project on groundwater quality (Table 14). This process involves converting the concentrations of minerals on Table 13 to tons per acre-foot of water based on: 1 mg/l = 3.78mg/gallon = 28.4 mg/cubic foot = 1,237,104 mg/acre-foot 1,237,104 mg/acre-foot = 1237 g/acre-foot = 1.23 kilograms/acre-foot

1.23 kilograms/acre-foot = 2.7 pounds/acre foot/2000 = 0.00135 tons/acre-foot The mass of minerals in a given volume of water is then calculated: Concentration in mg/l x 0.00135 tons/acre-foot x acre-feet For example, for SWP supplies with a concentration of 64 mg/l of chlorides, the gross volume of water recharged would contain 17,280 tons of chloride: 64 x 0.00135 tons/acre-foot x 200,000 acre-feet of recharge = 17,280 The net effect of recharge on the mass of minerals in the groundwater is then calculated:

Tons in recharged water -tons in recovered water net change in minerals in groundwater

The analysis summarized on Table 14 suggests that, depending on the blending ratio, there is a potential for the recharge project to have positive net effects on the mass load of:

• Arsenic • Boron (at a blending ratio of about 85:15 SWP:Groundwater) • Chromium • Fluoride • Nitrates

However, as the percentage of indigenous groundwater extracted in the blend of well water increases, the net load of chlorides and sulfates also increases. At the same time, the net loading of TDS begins to approach neutral at about 55% SWP and 45% groundwater in the blend of water extracted from storage. The mass-balance analysis on Table 14 does not take into account the fact that AVEK will leave about 16,000 acre-feet of "blended-quality" water in the ground (part of the "loss factor" in operations). For arsenic, boron, chromium, fluoride, nitrates, and TDS, this blended water will improve indigenous water quality. In summary, the Proposed Project (a) does not affect the beneficial use of the stored supplies, at any blend of SWP and indigenous groundwater and (b) has somewhat greater benefits than adverse impacts associated with mass loading of minerals. Recharge and recovery reduce groundwater levels of arsenic, boron, chromium, fluoride, and nitrates, but increase levels of boron, chlorides, sulfates, and at some blending ratios, total dissolved solids.


Table 14. Potential net effects of the Proposed Project on indigenous groundwater. With recharge of 200,000 af and recovery of 180,000 af. Shading indicates the Proposed Project extracts more of a mineral in the blended water than was recharged. SWP and GW supplies were equal for lead.

BLENDING 90% SWP TO 10% INDIGENOUS GROUNDWATER Mineral

(measurement units)

Concentration Mineral Content (in tons) Net change in GW minerals Tons in SWP

recharge minus tons in recovered

supplies

SWP GW Blend at 9:1

SWP (200,000

af)

Blend (200,000

af)

Recovered supplies

(180,000 af)

Arsenic (ppb) 2.24 7.69 2.785 0.60 0.752 0.676 -0.076 Boron (mg/l) 0.155 0.27 0.167 41.84 45.8 41.22 +0.62

Chlorides (mg/l) 64 26.6 60.26 17280 16270 14643 +2637 Chromium (ppb) 0.004 3.52 0.3556 0.0011 0.096 0.086 -0.853 Fluoride (mg/l) 0.10 0.25 0.115 27 31.04 27.93 -0.93 Nitrates (mg/l) 0.74 14.5 2.12 199.8 572.4 515.2 -315.4 Sulfate (mg/l) 36.2 31.25 35.73 9774 9647 8682.4 +1092 TDS (mg/l) 242 293.25 247.13 65340 66717 60045 +5295

BLENDING 80% SWP TO 20% INDIGENOUS GROUNDWATER Mineral Concentration Blend

8:2 Mineral Content (in tons) Net change in

GW minerals Tons in SWP


supplies

SWP GW SWP (200,000

af)

Blend (200,000

af)

Recovered supplies

(180,000 af)

Arsenic (ppb) 2.24 7.69 3.22 0.60 0.859 0.774 -0.174 Boron (mg/l) 0.155 0.27 0.178 41.84 48.06 43.25 -1.774

Chlorides (mg/l) 64 26.6 56.52 17280 15260 13,734 +3545.6 Chromium (ppb) 0.004 3.52 0.707 0.0011 0.190 0.172 -0.171 Fluoride (mg/l) 0.10 0.25 0.13 27 35.1 31.6 -4.59 Nitrates (mg/l) 0.74 14.5 3.44 199.8 928.8 835.9 -636.1 Sulfate (mg/l) 36.2 31.25 35.21 9774 9506 8556 +1218 TDS (mg/l) 242 293.25 251.3 65340 67851 61066 +4274

Blending 60% SWP to 40% indigenous groundwater Mineral Concentration Blend

6:4 Mineral Content (in tons) Net change in

GW minerals Tons in SWP


supplies

SWP GW SWP (200,000

af)

Blend (200,000

af)

Recovered supplies

(180,000 af)

Arsenic (ppb) 2.24 7.69 4.42 0.60 1.19 1.07 -0.57 Boron (mg/l) 0.155 0.27 0.21 41.84 56.7 51.0 -9.2

Chlorides (mg/l) 64 26.6 49.0 17280 13230 11907 +5373 Chromium (ppb) 0.004 3.52 1.41 0.0011 0.38 0.34 -0.34 Fluoride (mg/l) 0.10 0.25 0.16 27 43.2 38.9 -11.9 Nitrates (mg/l) 0.74 14.5 6.25 199.8 1618 1519 -1319 Sulfate (mg/l) 36.2 31.25 34.32 9774 9266 8339 +1434 TDS (mg/l) 242 293.25 262.5 65340 70875 63788 +1552


2.10.2.3 Potential Effects -- Pesticide contamination and leaching The use of herbicides and pesticides in urban and agricultural settings has potential to contaminate groundwater and the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) prohibits the use of eight such pesticides that have been found in groundwater in California (CDPR 2004):

• Atrazine • Simazine • Bromacil • Diuron • Prometon • Bentazon • Norflurazon • Aldicarb

Only these pesticides have actually been found in groundwater in California. Most pesticides break down rapidly in soil and do not reach deep groundwater (CDPR 2004). The CDPR also establishes groundwater protection areas in any area where depth to groundwater is less than 70 feet. The potential for these pesticides to be found in groundwater under the alternative recharge sites is low because (a) the growers in the Proposed Project area have not historically used any of these chemicals on their crops, (b) these contaminant pesticides are prohibited inside recharge basins, canals, and other conditions that favor movement to groundwater, including in the vicinity of well heads, and (c) they were not found in well water from the area near alternative recharge sites. No residues of any pesticides or herbicides were found in the 8 wells tested in 2007, although farming has been on-going at these sites for decades. Because pesticides were not found in existing wells, because pesticides known to contaminate groundwater have not been used and will not be used within the recharge area, and because soils and water depth do not favor leaching, the potential for pesticide contamination as a result of leaching during recharge operations is small. General rules for pesticide management (CDPR 2004) stress that pesticide leaching is most of concern when soils are highly permeable, the water table is shallow, and soils have a low organic/clay composition. These conditions do not exist at the recharge alternative sites. 2.10.2.4 Potential Effect: Chemical Interactions and Arsenic Mobilization Potential. Arsenic is not as great a problem in the AVEK service area as it is in the more easterly Mojave Desert, although there is arsenic in the deep aquifer. In the eight wells sampled in 2007, average arsenic levels were marginally above levels for drinking water, but this result was primarily a function of two readings at wells on the southwestern portion of the recharge area. One of the wells is located outside of the area proposed for recharge (west of the SCE power-line alignment) and one is on the southwest corner of the most-westerly recharge area. Wells within in the area where stored water would be recovered had lower levels of arsenic. Given these findings, and the soils in the area, arsenic in western wells would be anticipated to migrate easterly at a relatively rapid rate and we would expect to see progressively lower arsenic levels from west to east. Instead, the two wells with high arsenic levels are surrounded by wells to the north, east, and southeast with quite uniform and low levels of arsenic. These wells are closest to the bedrock areas of the Antelope Valley Buttes area (Poppy Reserve) and may reflect (a) wells reaching the lower aquifer and/or (b) localized conditions such as a clay layer which has high arsenic levels. In either case, mounding water in the recharged area and siting of recovery wells in the mound and/or downgradient from the mound will preclude arsenic from migrating into the recharge.


To the extent that there is arsenic in surface soils, recharge with SWP supplies may help minimize arsenic leaching from the soil. SWP supplies have higher iron concentrations and dissolved oxygen than indigenous groundwater. Based on Oremland (2002), this suggests that recharge of these supplies will reduce rather than increase arsenic mobilization. The mass loading analysis (above) also shows that recharge/recovery operations will result in a net export of arsenic from the groundwater basin. SWP supplies are marginally lower in arsenic than even the 6 wells without elevated arsenic levels and will dilute arsenic concentrations in receiving groundwater. The effect of the Proposed Project on leaching of minerals from soils, particularly arsenic, is likely to be minor. 2.10.2.5 Interactions with septic systems Under some circumstances, recharge may raise groundwater levels enough so that there is an interaction between rising groundwater and water from septic systems percolating into the soil. Two conditions must be met before such problems occur:

• Recharge must raise groundwater levels • Septic systems must be located on soils that are highly permeable so that the leacheate escapes

the surface zone

Proposed Project effects on groundwater levels Rising groundwater levels are an objective of recharge, and groundwater levels in the vicinity of recharge sites will rise. Long-term groundwater levels in existing recharge basins will probably be raised significantly beyond levels projected for the No Project Alternative, because drought-related groundwater overdraft may be reduced substantially. This amelioration of groundwater overdrafting is a feature of many municipal groundwater recharge programs, such as Santa Clara Valley Water District’s 70-year program of enhancing storage, which has virtually eliminated subsidence in the Santa Clara Valley. The USGS (1994) notes that groundwater pumping has exceeded the annual 40,000 to 81,000 acre-feet of recharge in the Antelope Valley in every year since the 1920’s. This has resulted in declines in groundwater levels of 100 feet or more in some areas, and has caused land subsidence:

• Subsidence of up to 2 feet over a 200 square mile area; • Subsidence of up to 4 feet in the City of Lancaster; and • Subsidence > 3 feet near the southern end of Rogers Lake.

California DWR (2004) notes that “ the parts of the basin with declining water levels are along the Highway 14 corridor from Palmdale through Lancaster to Rosamond and surrounding Rogers Lake on Edwards Air Force Base.” In this area, decreases of up to 66 feet have occurred from 1975 through 1998. USGS groundwater contour maps suggest that groundwater in the vicinity of the project alternative sites is from 200 to 300 feet in depth. Groundwater in the basin generally flows from west to east, although some of the groundwater recharged may enter the Neenach Basin and flow south. Finally, USGS modeling of groundwater flow and land subsidence in the Antelope Valley (USGS 2003) showed that there would continue to be pumping in excess of natural recharge if public-supply pumping continued at 1995 levels. Under this scenario, groundwater levels were projected to decline by more than 100 feet in the south-central part of the groundwater basin. As part of the Proposed Project, AVEK has committed to monitor groundwater levels and to suspend recharge if they reach 75 feet below ground surface. The issue for potential septic interactions is


therefore whether raising groundwater levels to within 75 feet of ground surface will bring groundwater into contact with septic system lecheate. Septic system percolation The Proposed Project area is very sparsely developed and is designated as an area of non-ruban, open space. The number of existing septic systems is low. The potential for development to the west (and thus for septic leacheate to flow towards the recharge area) is minimal because of the significant ecological zone to the west. Septic systems are not intended to allow for percolation to groundwater. The design of the leach field is intended to spread out the flow from the septic tank enough so that water does not escape the top layer of soils. Ideally, the leach field is large enough so that the rate of flow is approximately equal to (a) the ability of soil to absorb the leacheate and (b) the ability of plants to take up the leacheate from the wetted soil. This prevents discharge to the leach field from leaching into groundwater and from welling up to the surface. Nevertheless, recharge operations have been known to raise groundwater levels with unintended consequences related to septic systems. For example, recharge at the Yucca Valley recharge basins raised groundwater levels by 240 feet, and has been associated with high nitrate concentrations and turbidity in water extracted. Although nitrate concentrations in the recharged water were low, high nitrate concentrations in the groundwater were an indirect effect of rising groundwater encountering high-nitrate water from nearby septic systems. High turbidity was an indirect result of recharged water becoming saturated with air during recharge, resulting in high levels of dissolved gas in the water pumped from the rising aquifer. Such indirect effects may occur under a wide variety of conditions. In this case, coarse sandy soils allowed rapid percolation of leacheate into the soils. In a USGS review of nitrate contamination of groundwater (Nolan et al 1998), factors affecting contamination from fertilizers and septic systems identified included:

• Soil-drainage conditions (well-drained soils present the highest risk because they allow fertilizers and septic discharge to leach into groundwater);

• Population density (dense areas tend to produce more nitrate contamination); and • Depth to groundwater (shallow water is most at risk).

Loamy soils, soils with a balance of sand, silt, and clay, allow only moderately rapid drainage into the groundwater basin and have more chemical/biological activity. In these soils, recharge rates are low to moderate; the same holds true for leaching from septic systems (Engle et al 1991, cited in Washington University Extension 1993). To prevent contamination of soils by septic systems, Engle et al (1991) recommends that “it is best to avoid wet soils and very coarse-textured soils altogether.” Loamy soils, however are able to slow down leaching and remove pathogens from water as it leaches through them. Work by others, such as Pang et al (2006) suggest that, to avoid problems associated with clusters of septic tanks, wells downslope of septic systems, groundwater levels should be deep, to take advantage of the removal of bacteria in the unsaturated zone. There are a number of factors that thus suggest that interactions between the recharge and septic systems will be avoided:

• First, AVEK has sited the recharge alternatives in an area with loamy soils with a component of silts and clays. In the dry soil conditions of the Antelope Valley, septic tank leaching will thus be moderately restrained.


• Second, AVEK will not allow groundwater levels to rise above 75 feet below ground surface. There is adequate storage below this elevation to meet Proposed Project objectives.

• Third, the significant ecological areas to the south and west and the drainage to the south will inhibit development in these areas to some extent, reducing the potential for septic systems to be installed upgradient of the recharge area.

• Fourth, existing groundwater levels are deep and the mound of recharged water will migrate to the east, spreading out as it moves. The potential for the mounded recharge water to rise to 100 feet below ground surface is low (this is the level considered by Nolan et al 1998 to be subject to nitrate contamination).

Therefore, interactions of recharge and septic systems are highly unlikely and no impacts to groundwater quality are anticipated. 2.10.3 Safety Concerns Safety concerns that are generally raised in association with groundwater recharge projects are:

• Potential for recharge to cause liquefaction effects • Potential for the recharge basins to adversely affect flood flows and drainage

2.10.3.1 Potential for Liquefaction Effects If groundwater levels rise to within about 50 feet of ground surface, this may result in soil liquefaction effects during an earthquake. Liquefaction effects are difficult to estimate precisely because they depend on the interaction of soil type, soil age, soil saturation level, depth to groundwater, earthquake source, earthquake path, and specific site processes (Silva et al 2003). Nevertheless, basic approaches to evaluating liquefaction susceptibility are well established, and reasonable judgments about relative impacts can be made based on soils characteristics and depth of groundwater. For example, Knudsen et al (ABAG 2000) evaluated liquefaction potential on a qualitative scale (Very High to Very Low) for soil types versus depth to groundwater in the San Francisco Bay area. In general, they note that potential liquefaction effects are low to very low when depth to groundwater is greater than 30 feet, and consistently very low for depths to groundwater of greater than 50 feet. Key findings related to soil/depth relationships were:

• For recent stream channel deposits, liquefaction potential is Very High at < 10 feet, High for depths of 10 to 30 feet, and Moderate for depths of 30 to 50 feet;

• For alluvial fan deposits, liquefaction potential is Moderate at < 10 feet, Moderate for depths of 10 to 30 feet, and Low for depths of 30 to 50 feet; and

• For alluvial terrace deposits, liquefaction potential is High for depths from 0 to 30 feet and Moderate to Low for depths of 30 to 50 feet.

Based on these considerations, it is reasonable to conclude that liquefaction potential is a concern when depth to groundwater is about 30 feet. At 50 feet, potential liquefaction effects are very low, even for unconsolidated sandy soils. The potential for liquefaction to adversely affect human safety is related to liquefaction potential and the proximity of development to areas of high groundwater. AVEK will monitor groundwater levels and will not allow groundwater levels to rise above 75 feet below ground surface. There is adequate storage below this elevation to meet Proposed Project objectives. The proposed project recharge operations would thus have virtually no potential for generalized liquefaction effects in the area.


2.10.3.2 Drainage, Runoff, and Flooding The recharge alternative sites are located in the 500-year floodplain of several localized drainages. Within this area, flood depths are not defined by FEMA and flooding is characterized as “shallow flooding.” The floodplain in the area is over 8 miles in width and floods would spread out and drain from southwest to east. The sites considered for recharge are miles away from the ephemeral drainages that would create more focused flow. The proposed project is in an area with relatively flat slopes, generally in the range of 20 to 25 feet per mile. Flood velocities would be correspondingly low. A typical recharge program, involving the construction of large, permanent berms to retain flow would result in a significant change in the drainage patterns in an area and in particular would preclude flood flows from passing through the recharge area, thus diverting flows to adjacent properties. However, AVEK is not proposing to isolate the site from flood flows, and intends (a) to use pivot technology to deliver water for recharge to the extent possible and, if flood irrigation methods are used, to install only temporary berms of not greater than about 18 inches in height. Perimeter berms will also be small and low. If pivots are used to deliver water for recharge, then there will be no substantial alteration of the land associated with recharge operations. If agricultural flood irrigation techniques are used for recharge, AVEK has committed to plant a grass-type crop following recharge (if the grower does not plant a crop). In either case, AVEK or the grower would remove the flood irrigation berms during the planting of the dust control cover crop. Thus, the only time during which recharge operations could have an effect on flood flows would be during recharge. Since recharge will generally occur in above-normal to wet years, there is some potential for flood flows to occur during the recharge. Land in the vicinity of recharge alternative sites tends to drain from southwest to east. Flows would enter the recharge area, temporarily be constrained by the low berms, would then wash out these small berms, and flow to the next set of berms, where this process would be repeated. The net effect of the berms is to temporarily detain flood flows, allow for some percolation of these flows into the ground, and then allow flows to pass downslope. As shown on Figure 25 (Appendix A), high runoff tends to collect at the low points in the basin and to cause shallow erosion. The berms would thus tend to breach in the low points. Released water would then collect behind the next berm before again breaching and moving downslope. For this scenario to occur, AVEK would not construct exterior berms along the west and south boundaries of the recharge area, thereby allowing water to flow into the recharge area. Finally, the project will involve construction of several water storage tanks on lands at the intersection of Gaskell Road and 80th Street West. Assuming two 100-foot diameter tanks, these tanks would have a footprint of up to 16,000 square feet (or about 0.37 acres). Flow from the north and west would be diverted around these tanks, and could thus be concentrated when it crosses 80th Street West, potentially affecting several residences. Eightieth Street West is paved and flow across the street would tend to spread out after exiting AVEK's property. Nonetheless, some increase in flood depth and/or flood concentration could occur at this facility. 2.10.4 Impacts to Adjacent Wells 2.10.5.1 General Groundwater recharge will generally raise groundwater levels when compared to baseline and no project alternative conditions, and will benefit adjacent domestic and municipal well owners by reducing the cost of pumping supplies. In addition, AVEK has incorporated best management practices into its proposed


project description that ensure that net extractions of groundwater by AVEK and/or its customers will not exceed 90% of the volume of water recharged. This accounts for evapotranspiration during recharge and provides a margin of error to address difficulties in measuring volumes of water recharged and extracted. There is a potential, however, that the operation of large wells to extract water during drought may result in lower water levels in nearby domestic and agricultural wells. Given the general improvement in water levels as a result of recharge, there is little potential for loss of supply, but localized declines in water levels may reduce well production somewhat and raise well pumping costs. 2.10.5.2 Recharge Operations at the WDS Water Bank north of Avenue A The proposed Phase 1 operation of the Western Development and Storage water bank at 150th Street West and West Avenue A will be used to bank and recover water for non-local agencies and for customers in the Antelope Valley. Specific management protocols are under development. At their nearest, the WDS bank facilities are about 1.0 miles from the northwestern corner of the Proposed Project recharge area, on the north side of the discontinuity associated with the Neenach Fault. The WDS project EIR indicates that it plans to extract stored groundwater within a polygon entirely north of Avenue A, trending northeast from the recharge area. Thus, wells for recovery of recharged water for the Proposed Project facility would be located at least 2 miles from the recovery area for the WDS project. It is unlikely that there would be localized well-to-well conflicts. No significant impacts to WDS Project wells are anticipated. 2.10.5 Mitigation Measure HWQ-1. Design to manage runoff. If pivots are used, then there will essentially be no change in ground contours and no change in the management of flood flows. As noted in the project description, if agricultural flood irrigation methods are used, recharge areas would be constructed so that they would not divert sheet flooding and other runoff away from the recharge areas. This would allow floods water to flow into the recharge areas where flows would be somewhat retarded by the recharge berms. Downslope perimeter berms would also be designed to retard flood flows, but, if breached, flow would be collected in a low drainage swale outside of the perimeter berms to distribute flows laterally so that they would become sheet flow on existing the site. Measure HWQ-2. Remove berms following recharge if needed. If concerns are raised regarding the effects of berms on flooding, AVEK will remove them after each recharge cycle when planting the required post-recharge cover crop. Measure HWQ-3. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). To reduce or eliminate construction-related water quality effects, before onset of any construction activities, AVEK or its contractor will prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. The SWPPP will include temporary erosion control measures (such as silt fences, staked straw bales/wattles, silt/sediment basins and traps, check dams, geofabric, sandbag dikes, and temporary revegetation or other ground cover) will be employed to control erosion from disturbed areas. Measures for the control of pollutants during construction include:

• Use existing access points to minimize dust and tracking materials onto Public Streets; • Designated Parking, Storage, and Service Area protected by silt fence and oil absorbents and

sloped to control drainage; • Minimize diesel storage; • Stockpile spill cleanup materials; • Regular vehicle inspection for leaks; • Fuel off-channel with a secondary containment system for spills;


• Use quick connects when-ever possible; • Fueling by Authorized Personnel only; and • Spill cleanup materials readily available

Note also that a Fugitive Dust Control Plan (FDCP) will be prepared and implemented and will include extensive measures to control and manage soil erosion. The FDCP will provide for management of open soils that will contribute to management of runoff. Consistent with the SWPPP and AVEK's current construction management practices, AVEK or its agent will perform routine inspections of the construction area to verify that the BMPs specified in the SWPPP are properly implemented and maintained. AVEK will notify its contractors immediately if there is a noncompliance issue and will require compliance. Measure HWQ-4. Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Plan. Prior to any construction activities and during operation of all facilities, AVEK shall develop and implement a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Plan (SPCCP) to minimize the potential for, and effects from, spills of hazardous, toxic, or petroleum substances during construction activities and operations. The plan and methods shall be in conformance with all state and federal water quality regulations. Los Angeles and Kern county environmental health services departments shall review the SPCCP before the onset of construction activities. Consistent with its current construction management practices, AVEK shall provide for routine inspection of the construction and operations areas to verify that the measures specified in the SPCCP are properly implemented and maintained and further ensure that contractors are notified immediately if there is a noncompliance issue and will require compliance. The federal reportable spill quantity for petroleum products, as defined in EPA’s CFR (40 CFR 110), is any oil spill that 1) violates applicable water quality standards, 2) causes a film or sheen upon or discoloration of the water surface or adjoining shoreline, or 3) causes a sludge or emulsion to be deposited beneath the surface of the water or adjoining shorelines. If a spill is reportable, the contractor’s superintendent shall notify the applicant who shall inform the applicable County agency and arrange for the appropriate safety and cleanup crews to ensure the spill prevention plan is followed. A written description of reportable releases must be submitted to the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the applicable County agencies. This submittal must include a description of the release, including the type of material and an estimate of the amount spilled, the date of the release, an explanation of why the spill occurred, and a description of the steps taken to prevent and control future releases. The releases would be documented on a spill report form. If a spill has occurred, the applicant shall coordinate with responsible regulatory agencies to implement measures to control and abate contamination. To prevent spills:

• All fuels and lubricants for construction equipment will be stored out of the channel within containment structures with a capacity of at least 1.5 times the capacity of storage tanks. Fueling operations will be conducted outside of the channel on impervious surfaces in dedicated areas at least 15 m from the interior slope of levees, sloped away from the levee; if at any time this is not feasible, drip pans will be used for all fueling. Equipment maintenance will be conducted outside of the channel if feasible in dedicated areas at least 15 m from the interior slope of the channel, sloped away from the levee; if equipment must be repaired within the channel, drip pans will be used. Fueling and equipment maintenance areas will be protected from run-on and runoff.


• Material storage areas will be cleaned routinely and appropriate cleaning materials will be stock piled to ensure their availability when needed. Construction materials will be stored on pallets and covered prior to closing the construction site each day. Concrete and equipment washout areas will be adequate in size to contain washout water, lined with PVC, and inspected daily to ensure that liners are free of punctures. On-road equipment will be washed in appropriate containment areas prior to entering the roadway. Haul loads will be covered. Trash receptacles will be provided, emptied at the end of each day, and trash hauled to a certified disposal site. Used (empty) containers for fuel, lubricant, and other construction chemicals will be collected and removed from the site at the end of each construction day.

Chemical spills will be reported and cleaned up immediately by appropriately trained hazardous materials personnel. Any contaminated soils will be hauled from the site and disposed of at a facility authorized to take contaminated materials. Following spill clean-up, soils will be tested to ensure that contaminants have been effectively removed from the site. Measure HWQ-5. Retention of flow on site at the storage, treatment, and pumping facility. The partial burying of storage tanks will involve removal of about 150,000 cubic feet of soil. This will be used in landscaping and/or spread over the adjacent 80 acres. Spreading the soil over 80 acres would result in a net change in land surface elevation of 0.045 feet, or about 0.5 inches, and no significant change in land elevation is therefore anticipated. To further mitigate this minor effect, AVEK will make the spoil from excavation available to others for purposes such as landscaping and road construction. Measure HWQ-6. Protection of off-site wells. To address potential impacts to groundwater and adjacent well owners, AVEK will develop a monitoring program to monitor changes in water levels and well production in the area affected by groundwater recharge operations. The program will specify that:

• To alleviate overdraft, extractions of groundwater shall not exceed 90% of the amount of water recharged.

• Water quality in recovered water and in groundwater flowing away from the Project will be monitored to ensure that water quality remains appropriate for designated beneficial uses;

• During recharge operations, water levels in perimeter wells will be monitored and recharge operations will be suspended in the event that offsite water levels rise to within 20 feet of the ground surface; and

• During recovery operations, water levels in offsite wells will be monitored and operations will be adjusted if offsite wells are found to be adversely affected by project operations,

• If project operations are substantially affecting offsite wells, then AVEK will provide compensation, or an alternate source of water. Alternative water may be provided by allowing agricultural users to use existing AVEK facilities associated with the West Feeder and domestic users may be provided with domestic supply connections from AVEK's treated water system.

AVEK will invite the input of the local community in developing and implementing its monitoring program. Technical advice will be provided from USGS, California Department of Public Health and/or other agencies with regulatory authority over these aspects of the Proposed Project. In addition, AVEK will coordinate with the operators of the WDS Bank during recovery operations, including sharing monitoring data. Mitigation Measure HWQ-7. Management of herbicides and pesticides. AVEK will comply with all regulations of the California Department of Pesticide Regulation regarding the use of herbicides and pesticides in areas designated for groundwater recharge.


2.10.6 CEQA Significance A project would be considered to have a significant impact on hydrology or water quality, if it would:

• Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements The water quality analysis indicates that SWP supplies will not degrade indigenous water quality to the extent that a net degradation will occur or that any beneficial use of water would be affected. Water recharged and recovered will meet drinking water standards.

• Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, resulting in a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. The Proposed Project would increase groundwater supplies and local groundwater levels. Implementation of monitoring and best management practices will ensure that local wells owners are not adversely affected. With these mitigations in place, no significant impacts are anticipated.

• Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the

alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site. The atypical design of the recharge areas will preclude substantial alteration of drainage patterns. Mitigation measures HWQ 1 through HWQ 3, and HWQ-5 will further ensure this. With mitigation, no significant impacts to drainage are anticipated.

• Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the

alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on or off site. The atypical design of the recharge areas will preclude substantial alteration of drainage patterns. Mitigation measures HWQ 1 through HWQ 3, and HWQ-5 will further ensure this. With mitigation, no significant impacts to drainage are anticipated.

• Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned

stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Provisions of the SWPPP and Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Plan (mitigation measure HWQ-4) will reduce the potential for construction related waste discharge. With these mitigations in place, no significant impacts are anticipated.

• Otherwise substantially degrade water quality. Per mitigation measure HWQ-7, AVEK will

comply with all regulations of the California Department of Pesticide Regulation regarding the use of herbicides and pesticides in areas designated for groundwater recharge. On-going project operations will be conducted under California Department of Pesticide regulation, which precludes use of pesticides known to contaminate water. Groundwater levels are deep and soils are “moderately” constrained for septic systems, requiring extended leach lines in many instances. Potential for conflict between recharge and septic tank discharge is low. No significant impacts are anticipated.

• Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on the federal Flood Hazard

Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map. The project will not place housing in the 100-year floodplain.


• Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows. With mitigationHWQ-5, the effects of placing several water tanks in an area where there may be shallow sheet flood flows will not result in impeding or re-directing flood flows.

• Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding,

including flooding as a result of the failure or a levee or dam. With mitigation measures HWQ 1, HWQ 2, and HWQ 5, the project will not cause or exacerbate flooding.

• Cause inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. The project will not cause seiche, tsunami,

or mudflow effects. 2.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING 2.11.1 Introduction The Proposed Project facilities are located in unincorporated areas of eastern Kern County and northern Los Angeles County, about 7-10 miles west State Highway 14. The Kern County/and Los Angeles county line bisects Antelope Valley. Most of the Proposed Project facilities would be located in Los Angeles County, but the storage, treatment, and pumping station for return of treated water would be in Kern County. Wells would be constructed in Los Angeles County. The recharge areas are designated non-urban in the Antelope Valley Areawide Plan. Within Los Angeles County, the lands proposed for recharge are designated for "non-urban" uses, with zoning for minimum parcels of from 1 to 5 acres (Figure 10, Appendix A). Within Kern County, the storage, treatment, and pumping station would occupy approximately 2-5 acres of currently farmed land owned by AVEK (Figure 33, Appendix A). This property is within the Willow Springs Specific Plan on land designated for residential (Map Code 5.6) and near several areas designated for commercial development. Edwards Air Force Base (AFB) lies 6-7 miles to the east of the storage, treatment, and pumping station. Rosamond Skypark, a privately operated airport that is open for public use and provides aircraft parking and fueling facilities, lies approximately east of the potential recharge alternative areas. The Proposed Project is located in a low-level flight path leading to and from the overall Range 2508 Complex, an area of flight training operations governed by the Range 2508 Complex Handbook. The proposed project area is about 2-3 miles outside of the operations range, but may be used by military aircraft. Low-level flight over the project area is likely. The State of California recognizes the military’s needs for low-level flight paths special use airspace to train personnel and test weapon systems effectively. The State also recognizes that the development of certain land uses may impair the military’s ability to train personnel and test weapon systems. As such, Senate Bill 1462 requires state agencies to consider the effects of civilian land uses that may be incompatible with the military’s use of its assets. The Bill authorizes any branch of the U.S. Armed Forces to consult with a public agency and a project applicant to discuss the potential alternatives, mitigation measures, and the effects of the Project on its military installations. The California Military Land Use Compatibility Analyst (CMLUCA) was developed by the Governor’s Office and Planning and Research to help Project sponsors determine whether a proposed project has the potential to affect military readiness and requires local planning agencies to notify the military whenever of proposed development is located within 1,000 feet of a military installation, within special use


airspace, or beneath a low- level flight plan. The Joint Service Restricted Air Space was created by the Department of Defense and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in recognition that aircraft associated with these military installations extends well beyond their boundaries The proposed project area is not within the AFFTC training areas of the R-2508 Complex, but is in a military low-level flight path (CMLUCA 2007) and discussions with a representative from Edwards AFB confirmed that the proposed project is located in an area in which military aircraft associated with the U.S. Air Force operations under Visual Recognition-1206 rules. Military aircraft operating in the area would use the proposed project area for flights at an altitude of 200 feet above ground level and speeds of 250 knots (Deakin pers. comm., June 27, 2007). The Kern County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, which was originally adopted by the County Board of Supervisors in 1996 and amended in 2003, is a guidance document for the regulation of land uses around the public use airports found in the County. The plan addresses 14 public airports, two private airports that are open to the public, the Joint Service R-2508 Military Airspace Complex and two military installations—Edwards AFB and the China Lake NWC. The purpose of the ALUCP is to establish procedures and criteria by which the County and any affected cities can address compatibility issues when making decisions regarding airports and the land uses around them. The Proposed Project recharge areas are not inconsistent with the non-urban open-space designations that apply to the recharge area. The project does not convert agricultural lands to other purposes, except for the storage, treatment, and pumping facility. Bird aircraft strike hazards are addressed under Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Therefore the Proposed Project's potential to conflict with existing land uses is limited to:

• Potential to constrain future development • Potential to be incompatible with existing development • Potential to affect low-level flight operations

2.11.2 Impacts 2.11.2.1 Constraints on future development Given that the recharge areas are designated for non-urban development and that there are Los Angeles County designated significant ecological areas in the vicinity of the recharge areas, the maintenance of agricultural activities on the site and the provision for on-going groundwater recharge do not pose a substantial constraint on planned development. In addition, there is no evidence that recharge facilities are inherently incompatible with development of either residential or commercial development. This is evident from Figure 34 (Appendix A), which shows the development of commercial and residential areas immediately adjacent to recharge basins in Los Gatos which the Santa Clara Valley Water District has operated for decades while the greater San Jose Metropolitan Area has developed around them. In short, recharge does not constrain development. No impacts are anticipated. 2.11.2.2 Compatibility with existing development The storage, treatment, and pumping station would not be inconsistent with development in the area. There is commercial and industrial development proposed for areas within 0.5 miles of this element of the Proposed Project, and with landscaping, the Proposed Project facilities would not have substantially different characteristics from those of an office building, a warehouse, or a commercial center. Note, for example, the typical mix of residential and commercial development designated in the Willow Springs


Specific Plan area on Figure 33 (Appendix A), which reflects planning for mixed development. No impacts are anticipated. Landscaping proposed is also consistent with the landscaping of many of the farms and homes in the area, where rows of trees are planted to prevent/reduce exposure to wind-blown dust. 2.11.2.3 Compatibility with aircraft operations The tallest building to be constructed for the Proposed Project is a 20 to 22 foot high storage tank. This is approximately the same height as a typical power pole and large agricultural storage areas in the vicinity. The Proposed Project would thus not place tall structures in the flight path for local or Edwards AFB air traffic. No impacts are anticipated. 2.11.3 CEQA Significance The CEQA Environmental Checklist states that a project would have a significant impact on land use and planning resources, if it would: Physically divide an established community. The Project would be located in a rural area, surrounded by active agricultural lands and undeveloped lands, and would not physically divide an established community. Even if a community were to develop in the vicinity of the proposed project in the future, the discontinuous nature of the parcels in use would preclude physical division of the resulting community. Project construction and operation would not restrict movement through or around the area because the Project does not include construction of new roads, bridges, or other common physical barriers to movement through the area. No significant impacts are anticipated. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, a general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The Proposed Project is not in substantial conflict with planning in either Los Angeles or Kern counties. The siting of a needed public facility within the Willow Springs Specific Plan area would reduce the area available for low-density housing by 2 to 5 acres, which would not substantially affect the implementation of the General Plan. The Proposed Project would also not affect Edwards AFB low-level flight operations. Impacts would be less than significant. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. The project occurs in the general area of the West Mojave Plan but does not affect any wildlife habitat or species addressed by this plan. No conflict will occur.

2.12 MINERAL RESOURCES 2.12.1 Introduction The proposed recharge areas are classified as having Rosamond and Hesperia soils series by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS, See Geology and Soils). The potential for these soils to be used for mining of sand is evaluated in the 1970 Soil Conservation Service (now NRCS) “Soil Survey of the Antelope Valley:’


• Hesperia Series: Fair for sand in the upper 8-10 inches and poor below because of excessive fines; unsuitable for gravel; less than 25% is gravel.

• Rosamond Series: Unsuitable for sand, excessive fines; unsuitable for gravel; less than 25% is gravel.

The Project area is thus unsuitable for sand and gravel mining. The Project area is not included in any state designated production-consumption region for sand and gravel resources, and no mineral resource zones for aggregate resources have been assigned to it. The Project area is within an area evaluated for limestone, borates, dimension stone, silica, and gold resources, but none of the mineral resource zones established for these resources involves the Project area. An area classified as a mineral resource zone for gold lies to the northeast of the Project area, but does not extend to the project area. There is no petroleum or natural gas extraction in the area. There is thus no mechanism by which the Proposed Project may affect mineral resources. 2.12.3 Impacts and Mitigations The CEQA Environmental Checklist states that a project would have a significant impact on mineral resources if it would:

• Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state; or

• Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan.

The project area does not contain mineral resources of commercial value. Thus it would not result in impacts that would be considered significant under CEQA.

2.13 NOISE 2.13.1 Introduction Noise is an environmental variable that may affect both people and wildlife. Environmental noise for mobile sources such as construction equipment is regulated by state and federal agencies, which establish noise standards and technology for such equipment. Noise from stationary sources is generally regulated by local agencies. Noise from both sources is a potential CEQA issue for the Proposed Project. There are various methods for describing noise:

• A-weighted decibels (dBA): A direct measure of sound energy intensity, adjusted for the variation in frequency response of the human ear;

• Maximum noise level (Lmax): The highest noise level measured in a given period; • Energy-equivalent noise level (Lmin): The average noise level over a given period; • Day-Night noise level (DNL): A weighted noise level for a 24-hour period; and • Community noise equivalent level (CNEL): Equal to Ldn except that a 5 dBA adjustment is

added to the night noise level. Noise energy levels (dBA) decrease with distance from the source. For "line" sources such as traffic, noise levels decrease by 3 to 4.5 dBA for every doubling of the reference distance from the source. For


stationary sources, noise reduction is 6.0 to 7.5 dBA for every doubling of the reference distance from the source. Thus, for example, if traffic noise is measured at 65 dBA at 50 feet, it will be reduced to 62 to 60.5 dBA at 100 feet. Noise levels are also affected by topography, structures, wind direction, and humidity. There have been a number of studies of construction noise levels. EPA data from 1971 notes that typical construction activities generate noise of from 78 to 89 (Lmin) at 50 feet. A majority of these studies have been based on tests in the 1970's and 1980's, and there have been improvements in construction equipment noise management since then. A conservative estimate of potential for construction to exceed noise standards can be made using these worst-case 1971 EPA estimates, and projecting these estimated noise levels at 50, 100, 200, 400, and 800, 1600, and 3200 feet:

• 50 feet: 78 dBA to 89 dBA • 100 feet: 72 dBA to 83 dBA • 200 feet: 66 dBA to 77 dBA • 400 feet: 60 dBA to 71 dBA • 800 feet 54 dBA to 65 dBA • 1600 feet 48 dBA to 59 dBA • 3200 feet 42dBA to 53 dBA

Construction equipment will thus generate noise levels of from 78 dBA to 89 dBA at 50 feet from the construction site, with lower noise levels at greater distances. Typical agricultural equipment, such as a typical tractor, would generate about 85 - 88 dBA at 50 feet. Tractors fitted with mufflers may generate noise levels in the 69 to 75 dBA range at 50 to 100 feet. Noise levels from construction vary somewhat from the above estimates based on the number of pieces of equipment used at a single site. Where multiple pieces of heavy equipment may be used, the upper level of noise generated is raised to about 90 dBA. Noise associated with machinery such as pile drivers, and with blasting, would be substantially higher. Potential sources of noise associated with the Project include:

• activities associated with construction of the wells, pipelines, ditches, and • recharge basins; • drilling of the recovery wells; and • operation of the well pumps and inline storage, pumping, and water treatment stations.

In a sparsely-developed area, a more realistic measure of actual noise experienced by people can be made by examining the actual noise levels to which individuals may be exposed and the duration of such exposure.

2.13.2 Regulation of Noise Impacts Kern County and Los Angeles County have adopted noise standards in their General Plans (Noise Element). Kern County's standards are: Day L50 dBA Night L50 dBA Ldn/CNEL Insensitive Uses 65 60 75 Moderately Sensitive Uses 60 55 70 Sensitive Land Uses 55 45 65 Highly Sensitive Land Uses 50 40 60


The above Kern County standards, like most noise standards, are expressed in average daily noise levels (DayL50dBA). Average noise levels may be the result of highly variable noise levels. An hour of relative silence may be interrupted by the noise of a truck passing, or a vehicle backfire. Because it would be impossible to address such random and unpredictable changes in noise levels from a regulatory point of view, community noise standards are generally defined in terms of such average daily noise levels. Compliance with these average noise level standards is calculated by adding up all of the noise events in a day, calculating their duration, and then averaging them over a 12 hour or a 24-hour period, depending on the standard. A few minutes or even hours of high noise thus can have little effect on the average noise level. For example, if a residence is exposed to 5 minutes of noise at a level of 70 dBA, and ambient noise levels for the rest of the day are 55 dBA, the average result of the noise increase would be to raise the average noise level: (55 dBA x 1435 minutes per day) + (70 dBA x 5 minutes per day) = (78925 + 350)/1440 = 55.05 Ldn The effect of temporary noise on compliance with general noise standards is thus potentially quite small. Thus it is important to estimate the duration of the proposed project’s temporary noise impacts (for example noting the time during which berm construction would involve construction equipment passing within several hundred feet of a residence). Los Angeles Count has adopted standards specifically for construction activities not exceeding 21 days, specifying maximum daily noise levels for weekdays during working hours of:

• Daytime: 75 dBA (Single family homes) • Daytime: 80 dBA (multi-family residences)

For longer-term activities, Los Angeles County is proposing a residential exterior noise standard of 50 dBA for areas designated as residential. 2.13.3 Impacts 2.13.3.1 People in the Area of Potential Noise Impacts (Receptors) There are no concentrations of dense urban development and the Proposed Project recharge area is surrounded by undeveloped land. There are a few residences located along pipeline alignments and a small cluster of houses within about 400 feet of the storage, treatment, and pumping station on the east side of 80th Street West. There are no existing sources of excessive noise in the area. Highway traffic is sparse, and many of the local roads are unpaved. Traffic noise is not a current problem. Except for seasonal exposure to noise of agricultural operations, ambient noise levels in the area are typical of rural areas. The number of residences in the Proposed Project area is limited:

• There are residences along 80th Street West, all on the east side of the road. The nearest residence to the storage, treatment, and pumping station is set back about 120 feet from the road and would be about 400 feet from the Proposed Project facilities (the entrance would be off Gaskell Road).

• There are residences along 100th Street West and they would be at least 80-100 feet from the pipeline construction on the south side of Gaskell Road.

• There are residences along West Avenue B, both more than 500 feet from the pipeline. • There are residences along West Avenue A, set back from the pipeline alignment by

approximately 150 feet. • There is a farm complex in the center of the recharge area.


2.13.3.2 Pivots/Annual Berm Construction The preferred delivery of water supplies for recharge via pivots would involve 24-hour per day operation of the pivot, which uses a 1 hp engine operating at low revolutions per minute. Pivots would not affect corner properties and would thus avoid close contact with most of the residences. Their operation could also be timed so that they were passing residences during daylight rather than nighttime hours. If pivots are not used and flood irrigation methods are employed, annual berm construction, lasting 1-4 weeks, would involve use of a typical agricultural tractor and/or a small scraper and a water truck. Noise associated with berm construction would not differ from the noise associated with existing agricultural operations. Berms can be constructed to be more than 200-400 feet of residences and their construction would be brief periods of time as the equipment moved across fields to construct the low berms for recharge. The resulting noise levels would be from 66 dBA to 77 dBA. Given berm intervals of 100 to 300 feet, the period of noise at any of the residences would last a few moments as the tractor approached the edge of a recharge area and then turned to move to the next berm alignment and cross the site. At 1 mile per hour, the tractor would move 88 feet per minute. Assuming noise of the water-truck and tractor would be about 77 dBA at 200 feet, exposure to noise in excess of 65 dBA would thus last approximately:

• 2-3 minutes during approach from the field towards the residence • 4-5 minutes while passing parallel to the residence to reach the next berm location

For comparison purposes, this is about the duration of a curbside solid waste pick-up in a residential neighborhood. This level of noise would be experienced at most twice per residence per year (berm construction and subsequent planting of normal crops. 2.13.3.2 Well construction Well construction, which involves use of heavy equipment including a large drill rig, may create noise at the upper ends of the construction noise scenarios, and may generate 65 dBA at a distance of up to 800 feet. This would be a relatively continuous noise for about one month for each of the 15 production wells. Wells may be sited to avoid proximity to residences, but for practical purposes it is appropriate to assume that they will be sited based on a desire to minimize the length of pipelines constructed to connect them to the inline storage, pumping, and water treatment stations and/or the main delivery pipeline. Impact avoidance, while to be preferred, is therefore not a realistic assumption. Thus it is likely that some residents would experience a month of daytime noise levels in excess of 65 dBA. Daytime noise in excess of the Los Angeles County threshold of 75 dBA is not anticipated. This would occur only once per well. 2.13.3.3 Pipeline Construction Pipeline construction would have potential to impact residents living along the roads where pipelines will be constructed in public right of way and/or adjacent to this right-of-way. The construction of these pipelines would proceed at about 200-400 feet per day. Given setbacks from the road, pipeline construction noise levels would not be in excess of 77 dBA and would be lower for some residents along the main pipeline route. At the projected construction rate, this level of noise would last 2-3 days. 2.13.3.4 Inline Storage, Pumping, and Water Treatment Station Construction Inline storage, pumping, and water treatment station will involve some preliminary grading and some on-going machinery use during construction. This station would be about 400 feet from the nearest residences and maximum initial grading noise would thus be about 71 dBA at the nearest residence.


Construction noise levels would be lower for other residents. This would not likely create noise levels in excess of those associated with a typical house construction. 2.13.3.5 Operation of wells and inline storage, pumping, and water treatment stations The Proposed Project description provides for all permanent above-ground facilities to be within enclosures (such as block walls around well heads and buildings to house inline storage, pumping, and water treatment stations). No long-term increase in ambient noise levels is therefore anticipated from the operation of these facilities. Consistent with Kern County policies, these enclosures would be designed and maintained to meet noise standards. 2.13.4 Mitigation Measure NOISE-1. General noise reduction strategies. If residences are present within the threshold distances determined above, the construction contractor will employ noise reducing construction practices so that noise from construction does not exceed noise-level standards at adjacent residences. Measures to be implemented may include the following:

• Providing construction equipment with sound-control devices no less effective than those provided on the original equipment (no equipment will have an unmuffled exhaust);

• Restricting construction to beyond 2,800 feet from residences during nighttime hours (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) and beyond 1,200 feet at all other times; and

• In the event that construction activities occur close to sensitive noise receptors, implementing appropriate additional noise mitigation measures, including but not limited to:

(a) changing the location of stationary construction equipment, (b) shutting off idling equipment, (c) rescheduling construction activity, (d) notifying adjacent residents in advance of construction work, and (e) installing acoustic barriers around stationary construction noise sources.

Measure NOISE-2. Noise containment and blocking. When construction of facilities is within 200 feet of a residence, construction noise levels will be monitored at the structure. If noise levels are found to exceed 65 dBA at the structure and the property owner requests noise reduction, AVEK will provide and install temporary noise screening panels to block construction noise. These panels will be removed when construction activity is 200 feet or more from the residence. In addition, well pumps will be enclosed in a noise-reducing structure, such as block walls. 2.13.5 CEQA Significance CEQA defines the following as potentially significant noise effects: Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. Based on the Initial Study, the project may cause temporary significant adverse noise impacts to residents living in the vicinity of construction activities. Proposed mitigation measure Noise-1 would reduce impacts to less than significant. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. The Proposed Project will not involve the use of equipment that generated substantial

roundborne vibration or noise. No significant impacts are anticipated. g


A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Mitigation measure Noise-2 will eliminate any permanent increase in ambient noise by enclosing any facility with potential to generate substantial noise (such as wells and pumps) in noise reducing structures. Impacts will be less than significant. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Mitigation measures Noise-1 will minimize any increase in ambient noise by providing for noise management to be implemented. Impacts will be less than significant. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? The project is not within 2 miles of a public airport. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? The project is not within 2 miles of a public airport.

2.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING 2.14.1 Introduction Located 40 to 55 miles from the City of Los Angeles and closer to the developing high technology industry of the San Fernando and Santa Clarita valleys, the Antelope Valley, and in particular Palmdale and Lancaster, have experienced rapid recent growth as available land for development in the coastal basin has become less available and higher in price. From 2000 to 2005 population in these two cities grew by (City-data.com 2007):

• Palmdale: 17,900 (15.3%) • Lancaster: 15,314 (12.9%)

The Rosamond population growth rate was lower. Median incomes increased in all three cities and from 2000 to 2005 housing prices soared:

• Palmdale: up 162% • Lancaster: up 162.5% • Rosamond: up 126%

From 2000 to 2005, annual new housing and commercial construction increased substantially:

• Palmdale: 661 buildings to 1534 buildings (up 232%) • Lancaster: 279 buildings to 2799 buildings (up 1000%)

The project takes place in the context of a 2006-2007 housing slowdown throughout California, and home sales in Lancaster-Palmdale were essentially flat in June 2007 and in decline in 2008 (see www.dqnews.com 2008).


2.14.2 Impacts The Proposed Project does not locate substantial facilities in developing areas, not does it preclude housing on adjacent properties. The mechanisms by which the Proposed Project could affect housing are:

• Creation of jobs and thus of demand for housing • Environmental Justice

2.14.2.1 Housing Impacts Approximately 60 to 90 workers would be employed in all aspects of the construction of Proposed Project facilities, over a period of several years during which time the intensity of construction would decline slowly as facilities were completed. There could be an on-going annual berm construction effort. The construction and operation of the Proposed Project would probably not generate a need for new housing because (a) unemployment in the Antelope Valley is 8% to 10% (City-data.com, 2007) and thus employees would generally come from the existing work force and (b) construction jobs would generally be temporary. In addition, the slowdown in housing that is occurring in 2007-2008 would potentially mean that construction firms would use existing employees. Long-term operations would be expected to involve several new AVEK employees, but it is likely that existing employees of local farms would be involved in construction of recharge berms, given that typical agricultural equipment will be used for this purpose. Thus fewer than about 10 new, permanent, jobs would be generated by the project. With over 3,000 housing units constructed in 2005 (City-data.com 2007-2008), the increase in demand for housing attributable to the Project construction, if any, would be insignificant. In addition, the project would neither result in new construction of housing nor remove housing in the area. 2.14.2.2 Environmental Justice The project is located in the mid-west of the valley, in a broad area of reasonably homogenous non-urban land uses. In the area north of the City of Lancaster and west of the City of Rosamond, the valley is dominated by agriculture and small clusters of low-density housing, which are distributed in a random patchy manner along the often discontinuous road systems. Within this area, there are no clear demographic distinctions among the small communities and the project. The project does not, therefore, differentially affect a defined socio-economic or demographic group. In addition, the project, which is based on the premise that existing land uses will be maintained and typical agricultural operations will be continued, would not result in substantial socio-economic or other environmental impacts. There may be minor improvements in employment opportunities, affecting agricultural workers who may be employed in the off-season to assist in setting up recharge operations, and there will be several new jobs created. None of this would have a substantial effect, either positive or negative, on local demographics or socio-economic conditions. Finally, the project’s impacts to the physical environment of the community will be minor. There would be some reduction in wind-blown dust as a result of adoption of agricultural best management practices for fallowed land and for the recharge areas following operations. Adverse changes to the physical environment will be minor and mitigation will reduce them to a level of less than significant. In short, the project will not result in an unequal distribution of adverse impacts.


2.14.3 CEQA Significance The CEQA Environmental Checklist states that a project would have a significant impact on population or housing resources (and environmental justice), if it would: Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure). Based on consideration of the nature of the project and the historic and present relationship between such projects and growth, the proposed project would not induce growth. No growth-related impacts are anticipated. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. The project does not displace existing housing or require new housing. No impact. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. The project does not displace substantial numbers of people. No impact. Result in a substantial unbalanced or disproportional distribution of impacts of any type on a disadvantaged demographic, such as concentration of toxic emissions in an area of low income families versus high income families. The project does not result in distribution of impacts to a disadvantaged demographic.

2.15 RECREATION 2.15.1 Introduction The Proposed Project is sited in a rural area west of Rosamond and north of Lancaster-Palmdale. The nearest recreational area to the project site is Rosamond Park. In addition, there are numerous parks and recreation areas in the nearby Lancaster-Palmdale area and a major raceway at Willow Springs, about 2 miles north of the project area. 2.15.2 Impacts The project does not directly affect existing recreational resources. It would not result in increased use of a nearby park, loss of access to a nearby park, or minimized quality of the nearby recreational resources. Because the project does not affect local population or existing land uses, the project would not result in increased demand for recreation. 2.15.3 CEQA Significance The thresholds for determining the significance of impacts for this analysis are based on the environmental checklist in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. An alternative would result in a significant effect on recreational resources if it would: Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. There is no mechanism by which the project alternatives would increase recreational use of existing facilities. No impact.


Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. The project does not include new recreation facilities. No impact. Substantially reduce recreational opportunities or substantially degrade recreational experiences. There is no mechanism by which the project alternatives would reduce recreational opportunities or degrade recreation. No impact.

2.16 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC 2.16.1 Introduction The Proposed Project area generally lies between 160th Street West and 80th Street West, between Gaskell Road and West Avenue C. Regional access to the Proposed Project area is primarily via State Route 14 and State Highway 138 (West Avenue D). Access to the recharge area would be via 140th Street West. The Proposed Project area is located in a rural agricultural setting. There are no established public transportation routes, commercial airports, transit hubs, sidewalks, or bikeways in the Project area. Avenue A, Gaskell Road, 100th Street, 140th Street, and Highway 138 are paved, two-lane roadways. Each has a 110-foot-wide right-of-way. Locally, the Proposed Project could be accessed via any combination of the above roads. Traffic conditions are expressed in terms of Level of Service (LOS), ranked A through F, reflecting the level of congestion and delay on the road. For 2-lane arterial roads these categories can be defined quantitatively based on an assumed traffic capacity” of 15,000 vehicles per day (VPD), with each LOS being represented as a percentage of 15,000:

• A: Free flow; insignificant delays (0 to 60%; 0 to 9,000 VPD, both directions) • B: Stable operations; minimal delays (61 to 70%; 9001 to 10,500 VPD, both directions) • C: Stable operations; acceptable delays (71 to 80%; 10,501 to 12,000 VPD, both directions) • D: Approaching unstable; queues develop rapidly but no excessive delays (81 to 90%; 12,001 to

13,500 VPD, both directions) • E: Unstable flow; significant delays (91 to 100%; 13,501 to 15,000 VPD, both directions) • F: Forced flow; low operating speeds. (> 100%; >15,001 VPD, both directions)

Kern County and Los Angeles County compiles data on traffic along selected roads in the vicinity of the Proposed Project (Table 15). Based on Volume-to-Capacity ratios from the Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209 (1994), current levels of service are rated “A.” Table 15. Existing traffic LOS on selected roads in the project area: 2004, (Kern County 2004 Traffic Counts) and 2006 (California Department of Transportation)

Roadway Average Daily Traffic (VPD)

Level of Service

Level of Service Range

2004 2006 100th Street West, S. of Rosamond Blvd. 130 na A 0-9000 VPD Avenue A, E of 90th Street West 330 na A 0-9000 VPD Gaskell Avenue, E of 90th Street West 59 na A 0-9000 VPD Rosamond Blvd, E of 90th Street West 1300 na A 0-9000 VPD State Route 138 at 110th Street West NA 4000 A 0-15,000 VPD


2.16.2 Impacts The discussion focuses on the roads most likely to be affected by construction and operation traffic:

• Gaskell Avenue, • Avenue A, • 100th Street West, and • Avenue D (State Route 138

Vehicle-trip generation from construction was analyzed using an estimate of the required construction-related workforce. In general, the minimal construction effort to construct recharge berms would require perhaps 2-4 crews. The core crew would consist of one water truck and one tractor/scraper operator per crew. Crews for recharge area construction would probably be from local farms, which would have the appropriate farm machinery to construct low berms. In addition, some supplemental grading may occur to construct perimeter drainage swales and to level portions of the area (see High Impact Scenario in the Air Quality Discussion, Section 5.4). Initial recharge area construction would therefore involve:

• 4 crews at 2 core personnel/crew and 2 part-time crew members (for leveling &drainage) = 16 • Construction of the pipelines (worst case) a crew of up to 40-50.

Wells require a crew of up to 10 per well, plus a crew of 6-8 to install the pipelines connecting the wells to the main conveyance pipeline. Assuming that wells would be drilled sequentially and that berm construction and pipeline construction would occur at the same time, there would be up to 84 workers on the various sites during initial construction. During annual re-construction of the berms, a crew of 16 is assumed. Assuming all elements of the project under construction at once, construction would generate about 84 daily round trips to the construction site or 168 vehicle trips per day. Given the remoteness of the site, crews would probably bring lunch to the site. Vehicle trips per day would thus be during each of the peak morning and afternoon traffic periods. The transportation and traffic analysis generally assumes a worst-case scenario in which each of the workers would drive a separate vehicle to the Project site, making two trips per day, or one round-trip from home to the site and back. In addition, it is estimated that construction-related activities would include the use of several types of equipment, including backhoes, scrapers, water trucks, pickup trucks, and front loaders. It is assumed that equipment would be stored onsite while in use and would not result in a substantial increase in the overall daily Project trip generation. Thus, for pipeline and well construction, there would be an initial period of hauling of equipment to and from the site. Water trucks would also collect water from nearby wells and deliver it to the construction sites. Construction equipment is described in Section 4. Hauling of construction equipment to the sites could involve 30 pieces of heavy equipment. During operation, there would be routine maintenance, monitoring, and work at the inline storage, pumping, and water treatment stations. This could involve a peak of perhaps 20 workers, generating 20 round trips per day. All construction crews and equipment would originate in the Antelope Valley area. Under the absolute worst case -- simultaneous construction of all facilities (recharge areas, wells, and pipelines) – total trips generation would be approximately: Worker vehicle trips 168 Construction equipment deliveries 30 Water truck trips 100 TOTAL 298


Adding this level of traffic to the current traffic levels shown on Table 15 would not change level of service designations. During construction, there would, however, be temporary impacts during pipeline construction. Although the pipelines would be constructed outside of the roadway, some traffic management would be required and traffic would need to be detoured around construction when pipelines were crossing intersections. This could result in short-term delays at various intersections and along pipeline alignments (Avenue A, Avenue B, 130th Street West, 100th Street West, and Gaskell Road). Finally, as pipelines are constructed, they will pass residences along the route and this may temporarily block driveway access. This would occur for not more than 1-2 days per residence and would affect fewer than 20 residences. 2.16.3 Mitigation To address temporary impacts associated with traffic and transportation, AVEK has incorporated the following mitigation measures into the project description: Measure TR-1. Traffic Safety Plan. AVEK will require the construction contractor to prepare/implement a traffic safety plan before the onset of the construction phase of the Project. The traffic safety plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Kern County Roads Department for affected roads in Kern County and the Los Angeles County Public Works Department for affected roads in Los Angeles County. The plan shall address:

• Appropriate vehicle size and speed, • Travel routes, • Detour or lane-closure plans, • Flagperson requirements, • Locations of turnouts to be constructed, • Coordination with law enforcement and fire control agencies, • Coordination with California Department of Transportation personnel (for work affecting state

road rights-of-way), • Emergency access to ensure public safety, and • Traffic and speed limit signs.

Measure TR-2. Coordination with emergency response agencies. Before beginning construction activities, the applicant or the construction contractor shall contact local emergency-response agencies (Kern County and Los Angeles County Sheriff and Fire Departments) to provide information on the timing and location of any traffic control measures required to complete the Project. Emergency-response agencies would be notified of any change to traffic control measures as the construction phases proceed so that emergency-response providers can modify their response routes to ensure that response time would not be affected. Measure TR-3. Parking. To address parking issues, any buildings associated with the Proposed Project that will be used by operational staff shall be designed to comply with Chapter 19.82 (Off-Street Parking) of the Kern County Zoning Ordinance. Measure TR-4. Driveway access. AVEK will notify residents along the pipeline alignments where construction may block driveway access at least 2 weeks in advance. To the extent possible, AVEK will schedule construction so that driveways will not be blocked for more than 1 day and will coordinate with residents to provide alternative access.


2.16.4 CEQA Significance The CEQA Environmental Checklist states that a project would have a significant impact on transportation resources or traffic, if it would: Cause an Increase in Traffic That is Substantial in Relation to the Existing Traffic Load and Street System Capacity. Under the worst-case scenario involving simultaneous of all wells, pipelines, and other facilities, the project would not add traffic volumes to local roads that would exceed result in a change in level of service. Because construction will likely be phased over several years, traffic volumes are likely to be lower than this worst case and no impact to traffic is anticipated. Exceed a Level of Service Standard Established by the County. Under the worst-case scenario involving simultaneous of all wells, pipelines, and other facilities, the project would not add traffic volumes to local roads that would exceed result in a change in level of service. Because construction will likely be phased over several years, traffic volumes are likely to be lower than this worst case and no impact to traffic is anticipated. Result in a Change in Air Traffic Patterns, Including an Increase in Traffic Volume or Change in Location that Results in Substantial Safety Risks. The Project does not propose the alteration of any air traffic patterns, nor does it include the construction of any structures or design features that are considered a direct hazard to air navigation. There would be no impact. Potential bird air strike hazards are addressed in Hazard and Hazardous Materials. Substantially Increase Hazards Attributable to a Design Feature or Incompatible Use. The Project does not propose any changes to existing roads that would constitute a traffic hazard. Heavy equipment traffic, however, could create conditions that would be incompatible with general purpose traffic in the area. With proposed mitigation measures TR-1and TR-2, this potential impact would be less than significant. Result in Inadequate Emergency Access. During the construction phase of the Project, slow-moving traffic in the area could affect emergency response times on roads in the Project vicinity. Additionally, temporary road closures or detours would be required where proposed pipeline alignments cross roadways. This potential impact would be significant. Mitigation Measure TR-2 and TR-4 address this issue, and no significant impacts to emergency access would occur. Result in Inadequate Parking Capacity. The Project would require parking for less than 10 to 15 employees during operations. Per measure TR-3, parking would be provided at inline storage, pumping, and water treatment stations. During construction, existing off-road parking areas would be adequate; equipment staging areas and commuter parking areas would be located on private property and would not encroach on roadways. Impacts would be less than significant. Conflict with Adopted Policies, Plans, or Programs Supporting Alternative Transportation (e.g., Bus Turnouts, Bicycle Racks). The Project may increase local employment by 5-10 workers, primarily associated with operation and maintenance of wells and inline storage, pumping, and water treatment stations. There are no pedestrian walkways, bikeways, or roads designated as bike routes that could be potentially affected by project construction or on-going operation. Additionally, while plans for the area support the expansion of alternative transportation, the area is sparsely populated, and alternative means of transportation have not developed in the Project vicinity. The Project would also not preclude the expansion of alternative transportation in the area at some future date. No impact is anticipated.


2.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICES 2.17.1 Introduction The Proposed Project site is not currently served by public wastewater or stormwater facilities, and no schools are located within the immediate vicinity of the Project area. Therefore, these services and facilities are not discussed further here. Private groundwater wells provide drinking water in the area. The AVEK West Feeder pipeline, which runs along 140th Street West and Gaskell Road, provides imported SWP surface water for irrigation. The low availability of water for both agricultural and domestic purposes has historically been a primary factor in keeping the area undeveloped (Kern County Planning Department, Willow Springs Specific Plan EIR, 1992). Currently, no sewer lines serve the proposed Project area; local residents rely on septic systems. The Mojave-Rosamond Landfill is the closest major landfill, located about 12 to 20 northeast of the Project. There are no oil and gas facilities known to occur in the Proposed Project, but Southern California Edison operates a major north-south power line running through the general recharge area as shown on Figure 1; facilities in this alignment will be expanded. SCE also plans a substantial expansion of transmission facilities along the Antelope Transmission Project alignment, which would cross Proposed Project pipeline alignments at 105th Street West, but not the recharge areas. 2.17.3 Impacts The Proposed Project description provides a basis for examining the potential for the project to have adverse impacts on utilities and service systems. The analysis of impacts on utilities and service systems is qualitative. The Proposed Project would not increase demand for utilities and service systems such as wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage. Solid waste is not discussed below because construction and operation of the Project would not increase the disposal requirements above those associated with current land uses. The project will utilize the existing power grid for power to wells and other facilities. As proposed, imported surface water from the California Aqueduct would be delivered to and from the Project via the AVEK West Feeder pipeline and recovered water would also be distributed through an additional pipeline linking to existing and planned treated water systems. The project would provide supplies via the West Feeder, but would be within the existing capacity of the system. Thus no impacts to this utility are anticipated. In addition, if incidental disruptions occur during construction, they would be a less-than significant impact because AVEK would ensure that required levels of service are maintained. Finally, all operations would entail conveyance of existing SWP entitlements through the California Aqueduct. These operations would be performed in accordance with the rights and restrictions placed on project participants that hold SWP entitlements as implemented and constrained by existing DWR policies and operational procedures. In part to avoid any impact to SCE's facilities, the Proposed Project description includes a provision to exclude recharge to the west of the SCE transmission line alignment. Thus, no changes in the operation of this existing transmission line would be needed. Recharge to the east of the area would not result in high water levels upslope of the recharge area and foundation conditions would not be affected. Finally, the Proposed Project would utilize electric well pumps, and power would be delivered to these pumps from existing transmission facilities. No major new transmission lines would be required, but some segments of power lines may be required to connect to existing trunk lines.


2.17.3 CEQA Significance The CEQA Environmental Checklist states that a project would have a significant impact on utilities and services systems, if the project would:

• Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board,

• Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects,

• Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects,

• Not have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed,

• Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments,

• Not be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs;

• Not comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. The Proposed Project does not generate wastewater or require services, require new wastewater facilities, or require new stormwater drainage facilities. The project will enhance emergency and drought year water supplies, and will thus not adversely affect existing water entitlements. The project will not generate significant solid waste and is served by the Mojave-Rosamond Landfill. The project will comply with all statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Therefore no significant impacts will occur to utilities and service systems.

2.18 PUBLIC SERVICES 2.18.1 Introduction The Proposed Project is sited in a rural area west of Lancaster, with some facilities located in Kern County West of Rosamond. Essential public services are provided by the County of Los Angeles and County of Kern (sheriff and fire). The Proposed Project will not require school-related services. In addition, there are numerous parks and recreation areas in the nearby Lancaster-Palmdale area and a major raceway at Willow Springs, about 3 miles north of the site for the storage, treatment, and pumping station. The Antelope Valley Poppy Reserve is about 2.5 miles south of the Proposed Project recharge areas.

2.18.2 Impacts The Proposed Project will not change the need for public services because it will not increase population in the area substantially, or create hazards requiring an on-going public service response. During construction, there will be on-going coordination with emergency services regarding traffic conditions, but this is not anticipated to increase workloads such that additional personnel or facilities would be required. Operations may involve new employment of up to 10 people, but the local unemployment rate


is over 9%, and the existing work force will be used. No changes in levels of school or park use are anticipated. There is a potential for construction-related accidents to require public emergency service personnel but these are not likely to be frequent and hospital service levels would not be affected. 2.18.3 CEQA Significance The CEQA Environmental Checklist states that a project could be considered to have a significant impact on public services if the project would: “. . . result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

• Fire protection • Police protection • Schools • Parks • Other public facilities.”

As noted above, no significant impacts are anticipated because the project has no mechanism by which demand for public services would be altered substantially.

2.19 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS 2.19.1 Introduction Section 15126.2(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines provides the following direction regarding analysis of growth-inducing impacts: Discuss the ways in which the Proposed Project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Included in this are projects that would remove obstacles to population growth (a major expansion of a waste water treatment plant might, for example, allow for more construction in service areas). Increases in the population may further tax existing community service facilities so consideration must be given to this impact. Also discuss the characteristic of some projects that may encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively. It must not be assumed that growth in any area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment. This evaluation of potential growth-inducing impacts addresses whether the Project would directly or indirectly:

• Foster economic, population, or housing growth; • Remove obstacles to growth; • Increase population growth that would tax community service facilities; or • Encourage or facilitate other activities that cause significant environmental impacts.


City and county land use decisions are based on a number of different factors, including economics, population dynamics, state law, and local policy. Water supply is often a secondary concern. At the same time, according to California law, water suppliers are required to serve the needs of users within their service areas (e.g., Swanson v. Marin Municipal Water Dist. (1976) 56 Cal.App.3d 512, 524 [water district has a “continuing obligation to exert every reasonable effort to augment its available water supply in order to meet increasing demands”]). The recently enacted SB 610 and SB 221 impose upon cities and counties the ultimate responsibility for determining the sufficiency and availability of water as part of their environmental review and approval processes. SB 610 and SB 221 require that water supply agencies inform land use jurisdictions regarding the availability of water supplies, type of infrastructure necessary to deliver the water, and impact of new development on supply reliability. SB 610 allows local land use agencies to approve development, despite a water agency’s conclusion that the supplier’s reliability levels would be compromised. Specifically, a water supplier could report to the local land use agency that water supplies are insufficient, and development could still proceed regardless, should the land use authority decide to procure alternate supplies or, in the case of SB 610, adopt a statement of overriding considerations with respect to significant water supply impacts. Neither of these statutes applies to the current project which does not propose development. But they are discussed here to note that water agencies have no control over growth, and growth may occur even if a water agency determines that it does not have the ability to provide service. Finally, neither CEQA itself, nor the cases that have interpreted it, require a lead agency to anticipate and mitigate the effects of a particular project on growth in other areas. Regional planning documents (SCAG 2001) and AVEK’s Urban Water Management Plan were consulted for information related to current and future land use, population statistics, and planned growth rates. Southern California is rapidly growing and the Lancaster/Palmdale area has grown rapidly since 1980. From 1980 to 2000, Lancaster population grew from 48,103 to 118,718 (145%) and Palmdale Population grew from 12,287 to 116,670 (875%). Growth in the Rosamond area was at a lower rate. The Proposed Project will take place within the context of the 2005 AVEK Regional Water Management Plan which describes AVEK’s legally-mandated role in regional planning and its coordination with local and regional governments to address issues related to water supply and growth. Legally, AVEK has no effective control over these decisions. AVEK’s mandate is to provide supplies for use by local producers throughout the Antelope Valley region. Given the continuing increase in the cost of imported supplies, AVEK and the local agencies it delivers water to, have a substantial economic incentive to conserve and to manage water supply intelligently. As the largest SWP agency in the region, AVEK is working with local governments, water purveyors, educational institutions, and local community groups to address water conservation. For example, AVEK has on-going cooperative programs to promote urban and agricultural water conservation and also lends assistance to, and participates in, local programs to enhance water supply through source protection and blending. AVEK provides educational materials and economic incentives for water conservation programs. These activities are described in detail in the Regional Water Management Plan. 2.19.2 Project Purpose and Growth The relationship between overall water supply and growth is an issue being addressed at broad, statewide levels, with the primary issue being whether water policy may be appropriately used to constrain growth. California law requires retail water agencies to evaluate their ability to meet the projected water need of proposed new development and inform local agencies with authority over growth and development of their ability to meet the water demands of proposed new development. For practical purposes, this generally means that water agencies evaluate average year demand and supply. In California this demand/supply analysis is undertaken with an understanding that there may be supply fluctuations and


that supply in excess of demand will exist in wet years and supply below demand will exist in dry years. For wholesale agencies such as AVEK that supply supplemental water to a suite of local retail agencies, water supply is a function of a "nominal" contract supply that fluctuates around a mean value. The function of agencies such as AVEK is to acquire and make available the mean supply on a reliable basis. The function of water storage projects, such as the Proposed Project, is to reduce the fluctuations in supply, that is, to provide supply conditions that approximate average-year conditions on a reliable basis. Water storage and exchange programs thus reduce the potential adverse impacts associated with drought, such as:

• They reduce the frequency and severity of rationing; • They reduce loss of landscape planting and agricultural production; • They reduce the potential for groundwater overdraft and subsequent land subsidence; and • They reduce potential for loss of riparian habitat.

In short, the function of water storage in California is to minimize short-term drought and emergency-level declines in water availability, not to provide supply in normal years. The system of major reservoirs that supplies water throughout most of California is therefore managed to meet average annual demands in a reliable manner. As California has grown, the ability of this system to meet current and projected demands in normal to wet years has continued, but the ability to meet demand in dry and/or emergency years has declined. As a result water managers have altered their management of stored supplies. First, they have focused the use of existing storage on enhancing reliability. Second, they have increased local reservoir and groundwater storage so that available wet year water supplies can be stored to provide for supply during drought and emergency. Under current conditions, the management of supply is therefore increasingly constrained by a desire not to compromise drought or emergency storage. For example, from 1993 to 2003, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan) made deliveries to its cooperative water banks in the San Joaquin Valley during all years except those officially classified as dry years by the Department of Water Resources (Table 16). Deliveries were even made during the below-normal year of 2003, when Metropolitan was also filling its emergency-storage reservoir at Diamond Valley Lake. Other groundwater recharge programs have a similar pattern of use. The essence of projects like the Proposed Project is that stored supplies intended for use during severe drought and/or emergency conditions are not actually used to increase normal-year supply and are even conserved during periods of low supply, because their critical function is to prevent significant adverse impacts during severe drought and emergency. For example, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California maintained its system of surface supply reservoirs at normal levels through the 1987-1992 drought so that it could maintain storage in the event that the drought was extended. In mid-drought, reductions in supply (rationing) were implemented before stored supplies were exploited.


Table 16. Monthly Metropolitan Water District of Southern California deliveries to water banking programs, 1993-2004 in acre-feet. (Department of Water Resources, SWPAO Branch, 2005. Year Type: W = Wet; AN = Above Normal, N = Normal, BN = Below Normal, D = Dry (Shaded)

YEAR JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 1993 AN 0 7,458 29,039 13,503 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01994 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01995 W 0 0 0 0 18,500 31,500 0 0 0 0 0 01996 W 7,004 17,442 19,295 22,700 13,559 0 0 0 2,094 11,000 1,906 01997 W 0 7,162 25,522 24,392 20,821 0 5,000 5,000 19,650 12,673 4,780 14,9601998 W 12,806 1,103 12,750 10,000 14,000 0 150 1,759 12,519 4,147 0 01999 AN 850 7,950 18,161 33,956 51,184 14,155 0 0 2,958 137 4,292 4,3692000 AN 12,049 4,475 0 10,801 0 21,130 24,803 16,675 17,166 21,119 15,752 5,7612001 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02002 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02003 BN 0 0 0 0 32,415 30,827 28,230 59,706 1,400 1,520 675 170

A more recent example of the unwillingness of current water managers to use storage to meet normal demand is the on-going drought of 2007-2008. In these on-going dry years, water managers throughout California have implemented voluntary and mandatory water use reductions, even though there is adequate storage in regional and local reservoirs to meet full current year demands. For example, in early April 2008, the East Bay Municipal Utility District announced pending rationing even though its reservoirs were full. In short, drought or emergency water storage is not used to support normal-year demand and is conserved even in the first years of multi-year droughts to ensure against severe economic and social impacts in the event of severe drought and emergencies. 2.19.3 Potential for Growth Inducement and Accommodation Given the way in which stored water is, in fact, used in California, the "growth inducement" issue is whether or not increasing the reliability of supply in times of drought or emergency actually affects growth given that projects for drought/emergency storage neither create new supply nor allocate the stored supply to use during normal conditions. In practical terms, the relevant impact question is:

"Does an unreliable water supply during drought or emergency act to restrict subsequent growth?

If drought is a constraint on growth, then we would expect growth rates to decline during and following a drought, particularly a severe drought that imposes significant rationing and hardship on people or an extended drought that imposes restrictions on water use for many years. In recent years, there have been several extended periods of substantial drought and rationing in California. In the 1976-1977 drought, for example, rationing of more than 50% was implemented in many areas. The growth rate for California from 1976 through 1981 was (California Department of Finance, 2008):

• 1976: 1.85% • 1977: 1.90% • 1978: 2.17% • 1979: 1.84% • 1980: 2.26% • 1981: 2.09%


Although there had been the most severe 2-year drought in the 108 year record analyzed by the California Department of Finance, California's population grew during the 1976-1977 drought and grew faster after the drought. In short, there was no post-drought response that suggested that drought constrained population growth. The growth rates during and following 1987-1993 drought provide additional insight into the actual response of people to drought and emergency:

• 1987: 2.46% • 1988: 2.44% • 1989: 2.64% • 1990: 2.35% • 1991: 2.12 % • 1992: 1.73% • 1993: 1.06% • 1994: 0.67% • 1995: 0.60% • 1996: 0.79% • 1997: 1.53% • 1998: 1.26%

In the period from 1987 through 1998, there was a sustained high level of population growth during the drought until the 1991-1995 recession, which was triggered by a decline in aerospace and military spending following the end of the cold war. Note also that the rate of population growth during the recession continued to decline, even though 1995 and 1996 were wet years. In short, drought did not constrain growth in 1987-1992 and the end of drought in 1995-1996 did not induce growth. Drought and emergency simply do not have a measurable effect on current or subsequent growth rates. The availability of a more stable water supply during such periods therefore would not remove a "constraint" to growth, because no such constraint exists. The recent passage of legislation requiring water agencies to inform agencies of potential growth-related constraints so that agencies can consider this data in decisions regarding development is the most convincing evidence that water supply in drought has not, in fact, constrained growth in California. Because water had not constrained growth, those interested in growth control were required to pass legislation forcing consideration of water supply. In summary, given that AVEK has normal-to-wet-year supplies adequate to meet projected demands in the foreseeable future, one would not expect that normal, projected growth patterns would change, or that the availability of drought/emergency supply would alter the decision making process related to growth. Finally, AVEK has no authority to manage and/or mitigate for planned growth. This authority rests with:

• Southern California Association of Governments • Caltrans • US EPA • US Army Corps of Engineers • County of Kern • County of Los Angeles • Local cities in AVEK’s service area • The Local Agency Formation Commission • The Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board • The State Department of Health


• Kern County Flood Control District • California Air Resources Control Board • Kern County Air Pollution Prevention District

AVEK notes that there are significant and unavoidable impacts associated with growth, and that growth is planned and mitigated through the above agencies. The Proposed Project is part of AVEK’s mandate to mitigate for past, present, and future growth and its indirect effects on groundwater resources by providing water and by operating to optimize the quality of water that is imported. The Proposed Project enhances pre-delivery of SWP supplies to groundwater storage and thus helps to remediate long-term overdraft and prevent overdraft during drought conditions in the future. It also enhances AVEK’s ability to import SWP supplies in times when they are highest quality. Both of these effects are considered to contribute to mitigation of the adverse direct and indirect of growth planned and approved by other entities.

2.20 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 2.20.1 Introduction A cumulative impact consists of an impact that is created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated together with other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future probable projects causing related impacts. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time. Cumulative impacts are thus "additive." The question addressed in a cumulative impacts analysis is: Does the Proposed Project contribute to an adverse trend in impacts that, when the Proposed Project's impacts are added to the probable impacts of other past, present, and future actions, could cause significant adverse impacts? Section 15130(b) (1) of the CEQA Guidelines describes elements necessary for an adequate discussion of cumulative impacts: "(1) Either (A) A list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside of the control of the agency, or (B) A summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document, or in a prior environmental document which has been adopted or certified, which described or evaluated regional or area wide conditions contributing to the cumulative impact. Any such planning document shall be referenced and made available to the public at a location specified by the lead agency." The operative terms in both potential approaches to cumulative impacts analysis are "projects causing related impacts" and "conditions contributing to the cumulative impact." The purpose of CEQA consideration of cumulative impacts is thus to:

• Identify past, present, and future projects that have similar impacts and/or • Identify the extent to which the Proposed Project may contribute to categories of cumulative

impacts that have already been identified in a General Plan, and


• Determine whether the Proposed Project would make a significant contribution to the trend in cumulative impacts.

Taking the approach of Section 15130(b)(1)(A) therefore involves:

• Identifying the potential for the Proposed Project to cause impacts • Identifying other projects or types of projects that have had, have, or will have similar types of

impacts. The Proposed Project impacts are then added to the cumulative impacts of the past, present, and future projects that have similar impacts to determine whether (a) there is a cumulative impact, (b) the impact is adverse, and (c) the impact is significant. CEQA Guidelines Section 15382 makes it clear that only adverse impacts constitute a "significant effect on the environment." The CEQA Checklist defines conditions which are considered "adverse," thus providing a baseline for analysis. For example, land "subsidence" is considered an adverse impact; a project that contributes to land subsidence therefore has an adverse impact. If there is a cumulative trend in land subsidence in the project area, regardless of the causes or projects contributing to it, then the project could have a cumulative impact. Similarly, if a project does not contribute to land subsidence or acts to reduce land subsidence, then the project cannot have a cumulative impact. For those impact categories where a project may have an adverse impact and other past, present, and future project may have a related impacts, the next consideration is whether the project's adverse impact is, in the terms used by CEQA Guidelines Section 15382, "a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change." This is essentially a matter of degree and judgment. But it is first axiomatic that the adverse change would have to be detectable to be significant. For example, adding one car to traffic on a road with very low levels of traffic would probably not have a "detectable" effect on key traffic variables like average speed, accident rates, time delays at intersections, and so forth. The first question is thus whether the effects of an adverse impact would be detectable statistically. For example, adding 50 cars a day to a traffic volume that varied from 6,000 to 10,000 cars a day, would probably not be statistically detectable because the impact (a) would represent a small percentage of total traffic and (b) would fall within the range of normal daily variation. At the same time, 20 projects that each add 50 cars a day (total 1000 cars per day) could alter the traffic volume by a detectable amount, with both minimum and maximum traffic volumes affected on at least some days. Similarly, a development of 3 houses in an area growing by 10,000 houses a year would not likely have an impact that could be detected by people in the area. In short, cumulative analysis is a function of:

• Projects that have similar adverse impacts • Projects that have impacts that can reasonably be expected to be detectable within the overall

context of the conditions in the project area 2.20.2 Proposed Project Impacts 2.20.2.1 No impact or Beneficial Impact Categories Given the nature of cumulative impacts, we first eliminated categories of impact (from the CEQA Checklist) because the Proposed Project either has no impact or a beneficial impact (Table 17).


Table 17. Proposed Project "No impact" categories Category of impact (from the CEQA Checklist, Appendix G) Basis for "No Impact" Finding Aesthetics – Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?

The Proposed project will not damage scenic resources

Agriculture a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?

a-c. The Proposed Project explicitly protects agricultural uses of the project lands.

Air Quality – Would the project: e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? The project will not create a source

of objectionable odors. Biological Resources b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

b-c. The Proposed Project does not affect riparian or wetlands habitats. Impacts will occur on farmed lands and along maintained roads. e. No locally-protected resources will be affected. f. The proposed project is consistent with the West Mojave Plan.

Cultural Resources c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

There are no unique paleontological or geological resources in the Proposed Project Area

Geology and soils Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?

(a) The project is on flat ground. Landslide effects are not possible. d) The project is not located on expansive soils e) Project soils are capable of supporting use of septic tanks.

Hazards and hazardous materials Would the Project: c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?

c. No project facilities are within 0.25 miles of a school d. No project facilities are located on a hazardous materials site


Category of impact (from the CEQA Checklist, Appendix G) Basis for "No Impact" Finding g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?

g. Project facilities have no mechanism by which they would affect emergency response or evacuation h. Project facilities are not located in an area where wildlands are adjacent to urban areas

Hydrology and water quality Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?

a. The project does not involve waste discharges g. The project does not involve housing j. There is no mechanism by which the project would affect seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.

Land Use and Planning - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?

a. The project has no facilities that would divide communities b. The project does not conflict with any plan adopted for te purposes of avoiding or mitigating an environment effect c. The project does not conflict with the West Mojave Plan

Mineral Resources -- Would the Project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?

a-b. There are no known mineral resources affected by the project.

Noise. Would the project result in: b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

b. Project construction methods and soils condition preclude substantial groundborne vibration e-f. The project will not affect airport operations in a manner that would increase noise levels

Population and Housing -- Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

a-c. The project does not affect existing or planned housing

d) Result in a substantial unbalanced or disproportional distribution of impacts of any type on a disadvantaged demographic, such as concentration of toxic emissions in an area of low income families versus high income

d. The project does not result in distribution of impacts to a disadvantaged demographic.



Category of impact (from the CEQA Checklist, Appendix G) Basis for "No Impact" Finding families. Public Services a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities?

a. The project does not require new public services.

Recreation a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

a-b. The project neither requires nor affects recreation facilities.

Transportation and Traffic Would the Project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?

a-b. The project will not result in a substantial increase in traffic g. The project will not conflict with adopted transportation plans

Utilities and Service Systems -- Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

a-g. The project dies not discharge waste, require drainage facilities, require water supplies, or affect landfill or solid waste operations.

Given that the Proposed Project will not have impacts in a number of CEQA impact categories, the potential for the Proposed Project to have cumulative impacts is described on Table 18.

Table 18. Proposed Project impacts and potential for cumulative impacts. Impact Category Proposed Project Impacts Related-Project Cumulative

Impacts Potential for Project-Related Significant Cumulative Impacts

Aesthetics: Given that the project will not directly impact scenic resources, the impacts of the project are local and consist of a potential to alter local views from several residences. Projects with similar local aesthetics effects would be development projects associated with build out of the Willow Springs Specific Plan. Would the project: c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?

With mitigation proposed, the project above-ground facilities will be compatible with existing neighborhood aesthetics.

Future residential and commercial development in the Willow Springs Specific Plan area would involve construction which could alter local views. Full build out of the WSSP area would alter views from existing housing from a rural to an urban view.

The effects of the project's above-ground facilities will represent less than 1% of the altered view associated with future build out of the WSSP area. Mature landscaping of project facilities at the time of WSSP build out would somewhat ameliorate the cumulative effects of development. No cumulative impact is anticipated.

d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

With mitigation proposed, the project would not create adverse lighting effects.

Future residential and commercial development in the Willow Springs Specific Plan area would permanently alter the lighting regime in this currently rural area.

Cumulative development in the WSSP area would overwhelm the minor security lighting that will be associated with the proposed project. The lighting effects of the project would be insignificant in this context and no cumulative effect is anticipated.

Air Quality: The project's effects on air quality are limited to emissions during construction and operation. Projects with similar effects include all past, present, and future residential and commercial development in the region, where rates of such development have been increasing in recent years (City-data.com). Would the Project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?

With mitigation proposed, the project would reduce fugitive dust emissions and alter the timing of water imports, and may thus reduce regional use of fossil fuels. This will enhance implementation of air quality plans. Project emissions are below the established levels of significance for the AVAQMD and KCAPCD.

Implementation of air quality management plans has been hampered by past, present, and future residential and commercial development, which has increased local and regional emissions associated with development and transportation. .

a. Implementation of the project will not contribute to the cumulative trend in development/emissions that may adversely affect implementation of air quality plans because (a) on-going operational impacts will be a miniscule component of regional emissions, (b) the net effect of the project on fugitive dust will be to reduce emissions, and (c) changing the timing of water delivery may allow increased use of hydroelectric power versus fossil fuels. No cumulative impacts are anticipated.


Impact Category Proposed Project Impacts Related-Project Cumulative Impacts

Potential for Project-Related Significant Cumulative Impacts

b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?

b-c. Even without mitigation proposed, the project has less-than-significant impacts on air quality. On-going emissions have been minimized by siting and design of the project.

The cumulative effects of past, present, and future development will be to increase emissions of fugitive dust and the byproducts of fossil fuel burning.

b-c Taking into account (a) the very low emissions during on-going project operations and (b) the potential effects of the project on use of fossil fuels to power the delivery of SWP supplies and provide power for well use, the project will not contribute substantially to the cumulative increase in emissions associated with past, present, and future development.

d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

With mitigation proposed, the project construction and operation will not create substantial concentrations of pollutants. The project impacts are both temporary and less than significant.

In approving and regulating development, it is anticipated that Kern and Los Angeles counties will prevent development that would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. No cumulative effects are anticipated

d. No cumulative effects are anticipated.

Biological resources: Cumulative impacts to biological resources are related to (a) the conversion of wildlife habitats to residential & commercial development and (b) fragmentation of habitats by such development and by associated roads & traffic. Projects contributing to this impact include 1996-2007 construction of about 20,000 residential units in Lancaster and Palmdale, resulting (with associated infrastructure) in loss of about 7,000 to 8,000 acres of farmland and wildlife habitat. Future development included Tejon Ranch (23,000 acres) and local projects such as the Centennial Project. Would the project:a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

The project does not affect wildlife habitat. There is a small potential for special status species to be impacted during construction of pipelines, but this is mitigated to a level of less-than-significant.

The cumulative effects of residential, commercial, and associated infrastructure development will be to continue to convert wildlife habitats and fragment populations.

Because effects related to wildlife are minor and transitory, as mitigated, the project has no potential to contribute to the cumulative loss and fragmentation of wildlife habitat occurring as a result of past, present, and future development.

d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or

The project would affect wildlife movement only during construction. No facilities would block an identified

The cumulative effects of residential, commercial, and associated infrastructure

Because effects related to wildlife are minor and transitory, as mitigated, the project has no potential to contribute to




with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

wildlife linkage. development will be to continue to convert wildlife habitats and fragment populations.

the cumulative loss and fragmentation of wildlife habitat occurring as a result of past, present, and future development.

Cultural Resources: The project potential for impacts to historic and pre-historic resources is a function of construction disturbance associated with (a) pipeline construction, (b) any deep excavation for recharge areas, and (c) excavations to partially bury the water storage tank(s) at the Storage, Treatment, and Pumping facility. Related projects include all projects involving excavation below ground surface, including utility lines and residential/commercial/utility development. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?

As mitigated, the project avoids impacts to known sites and the potential for the project to cause significant impacts to cultural resources is mitigated to a level of less than significant.

Projects with related impacts, that is projects which involve excavation, are likely to encounter and disturb buried cultural resources. Cumulatively, unless related projects include appropriate monitoring and mitigation, the effects of this will be (a) loss of currently unidentified sites and (b) recovery of artifacts and information regarding historic and pre-historic human occupation of the Antelope valley area.

The project may encounter buried resources, but mitigation precludes loss of the artifacts and information that such resources may provide. No cumulative impacts are anticipated.

Geology and soils: Projects with related impacts include other groundwater recharge projects such as the WDS water bank, the Tejon water bank, and a number of potential future water banking projects that may be pursued by AVEK or its customers. To the extent that water recharge and banking efforts are expanded, and depending on design and operation protocols, the effects of such projects could be (a) to raise groundwater levels and (b) to increase the conveyance infrastructure (pipelines) for water management. If not appropriately mitigated, these related projects could pose a liquefaction threat. Recharge projects maintain open soils and may also result in wind and water erosion. Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?

The project facilities would not directly affect exposure to groundshaking, and as mitigated will not allow groundwater to rise to within liquefaction depths. As mitigated, damage to pipelines during seismic events will minimize the potential for adverse impacts associated with pipeline damage during seismic shaking.

All existing and potential recharge facilities are anticipated to include appropriate avoidance and minimization measures and no cumulative effects related to earthquake/seismic shaking/liquefaction are anticipated.

No cumulative impacts are anticipated.




iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?

As designed and with mitigation proposed, the proposed project will reduce topsoil losses due to wind erosion and will not affect erosion as a result of surface water flow.

All existing and potential recharge facilities are anticipated to include appropriate avoidance and minimization measures and no cumulative effects related to erosion of topsoil are anticipated.

No cumulative impacts are anticipated.

c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?

The project is not located on unstable land and with mitigation measure GEO-5 there is no mechanism for the project to cause a soil to become unstable.

Groundwater levels in the project area have been stable or declining and the project, with mitigation proposed to minimize potential for groundwater to rise to within the liquefaction zone rather runs counter to the trend.

No cumulative effect is anticipated.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Projects with related impacts include (a) any industrial or commercial project that uses water treatment chemicals, including sewage treatment plants and (b) any project that increases potential habitat for avian species within the flight path of local airports and Edwards AFB. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?

With mitigation, the project as less-than-significant potential for impacts associated with handling of hazardous materials.

If anything, there is a trend towards tighter regulation and more stringent best management practices when addressing the use of hazardous materials. In addition, water treatment options are likely to continue to reflect less use of overtly hazardous materials, such as free chlorine. Ozonation, for example, may in time replace the use of chlorine-based treatments.

No adverse trend is evident and the proposed project would not result in cumulative impacts associated with the handling and use of hazardous materials.

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project

The project has been designed explicitly to minimize the potential to attract birds to recharge and thus to avoid and minimize potential projects to impact flight operations and safety.

There is a potential for local and regional wastewater treatment facilities, recreation areas, and water recharge areas to attract and/or concentrate birds. Depending on design and mitigation, this could cumulatively affect flight operations

The project does not contribute to the potential trend towards conditions that attract and concentrate birds. Particularly, the use of a pivot to deliver supplies to recharge may create an on-going disturbance that will discourage attraction and concentration of birds at




area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

and safety. the site. No cumulative impacts are anticipated.

i) Generate vectors (flies, mosquitoes, rodents, etc.) or have a component that includes agricultural waste. Specifically, exceed the following qualitative threshold: (a) occur as immature stages and adults in numbers considerably in excess of those found in the surrounding environment; (b) are associated with design, layout, and management of project operations; (c) disseminate widely from the property; and (d) cause detrimental effects on the public health or well being of the majority of the surrounding population.

The proposed project could, particularly during operations in fall and early spring, result in increases in mosquito populations. Proposed Mitigation Measure HAZ-6 will reduce potential impacts to a level of less than significant. Dust control measures implemented under Air Quality will minimize fugitive dust and potential for spread of Valley Fever to less than significant.

Development projects and associated water infrastructure may tend to increase the total area of standing water in a region and, during construction, may increase fugitive dust and thus potential for Valley Fever.

The proposed project mitigation will effectively control mosquito development and thus no significant cumulative effect is anticipated. The net effect of recharge and post-recharge cover crops will be to reduce fugitive dust, and thus no cumulative impact related to Valley fever is anticipated.

Hydrology and Water Quality: Related projects include (a) residential and commercial development which places facilities in the floodplain and (b) water supply and treatment projects that may introduce minerals to the closed groundwater basin affecting groundwater quality. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a

With mitigation, the project does not substantially affect existing drainage patterns. Above ground facilities include provisions for drainage management that reduces potential for such adverse impacts to less than significant.

There has been a general trend in the region of placing housing is areas with the undefined 100-year floodplain of local drainages, where flooding is characterized as shallow sheet flow. This creates potential for concentration of flows.

Project mitigation measures effectively eliminate potential for drainage-related impacts. No cumulative impacts are anticipated.




manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?

The project will improve indigenous groundwater quality for a number of constituents, including arsenic, boron, chromium, fluorides, and nitrates. The project will result in an increase in minerals including chlorides and sulfates, with potential to increase total dissolved solids.

There has been a general trend associated with projects affecting use, treatment, and drainage of water in the Antelope Valley towards groundwater degradation. Regional Water Quality Control Board actions have more recently established a trend towards managing discharges of treated water (with its high mineral content) to groundwater, including projects to line treated water ponds.

In recent decisions, the RWQCB has indicated that its actions towards managing discharges of treated water will allow groundwater recharge to utilize more of the mineral assimilation capacity of the groundwater basin, thus providing beneficial groundwater recharge. Given this approach, the relatively small impacts associated with recharge introduction of minerals may be considered less-than-significant.

b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?

The Proposed Project would increase groundwater supplies and local groundwater levels. Implementation of monitoring and best management practices (mitigation measure HWQ-6) will ensure that local wells owners are not adversely affected. With these mitigations in place, no significant impacts are anticipated.

Groundwater management projects may cumulatively affect local wells, requiring mitigative actions to be taken to protect such facilities.

The project mitigation will fully offset any contribution to the cumulative trend towards large groundwater impacts that affect local wells.

h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?

The project storage, treatment, and pumping facility will place structures in a flood zone characterized by shallow sheet flow.

Past, present, and future development within the Willow Springs Specific Plan has and could result in substantially more structures in the floodplain.

With mitigation (on-site containment of flood flow equal to the volume of flow displaced) will reduce impacts to a level of less than significant.

i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or

The project does not involve creation or operation of dams or levees.

There is no clear trend towards projects which would increase the

No cumulative adverse effects are anticipated.




death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?

Temporary recharge berms will not contain substantial quantities of water. With mitigation measures HWQ 1, HWQ 2, and HWQ 5, the project will not cause or exacerbate flooding.

risks associated with flooding. No cumulative adverse effects are anticipated.

Noise: Related projects causing temporary construction noise impacts include on-going residential and commercial development in the Willow Springs Specific Plan area (if any occurs. Would the project"a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

With mitigation, the project will not generate significant noise levels or violate applicable laws, standards, or plans.

Current regulations and standards preclude the generation of noise levels in excess of CEQA significance levels. There is no clear trend towards cumulative increases in noise.

With mitigation, no significant cumulative impacts are anticipated.

c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

With mitigation involving placement of equipment that generates substantial noise in noise reducing enclosures, the project has no potential for creating substantial permanent increases in ambient noise levels.



d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

With mitigation, the project will not generate significant noise levels or violate applicable laws, standards, or plans.



Traffic: Projects with related impacts are projects with potential to increase habitat for birds that may affect air traffic. These include additional recharge basins (depending on design) and water treatment plants that may attract waterbirds. c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?

As designed and operated, the project will have only a small potential to attract birds to the site. With mitigation this potential is reduced to less than significant levels.

There is a trend towards groundwater recharge projects and water treatment projects that may increase the total area of wetted habitat suitable for birds, and thus cumulatively affect air traffic safety. Impacts depend on siting and design of the projects.

The project's innovative design and operation precludes impacts associated with attraction of large numbers of "heavy" birds of most concern to air traffic. No cumulative impact on this aspect of the problem is anticipated. The project has a small potential to attract local shorebirds, but the timing of operation, the design, and the




Potential for Project-Related Significant Cumulative Impacts disturbance during operation and during mitigation should preclude significant cumulative effects.

d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

The Project does not propose any changes to existing roads that would constitute a traffic hazard. Heavy equipment traffic, however, could create conditions that would be incompatible with general purpose traffic in the area. With proposed mitigation measures TR-1and TR-2, this potential impact would be less than significant.

There is no clear trend towards road design that creates hazards and/or incompatible uses. No cumulative effects related to this issue are anticipated.

No cumulative effects related to this issue are anticipated.

e) Result in inadequate emergency access?

During the construction phase of the Project, slow-moving traffic in the area could affect emergency response times on roads in the Project vicinity. Additionally, temporary road closures or detours would be required where proposed pipeline alignments cross roadways. This potential impact would be significant. Mitigation Measure TR-2 and TR-4 address this issue, and no significant impacts to emergency access would occur.

There is no clear trend in emergency access impacts. No cumulative effects are anticipated.

No cumulative effects are anticipated.

f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?

The Project would require parking for 10 to 15 employees during operations. Per measure TR-3, parking would be provided. During construction, existing off-road parking areas would be adequate; equipment staging areas and commuter parking areas would be located on private property and would not encroach on roadways. Impacts would be less than significant.

As development in the Antelope Valley increase, there will likely be a trend towards inadequate parking.

The proposed project, with mitigation, will not affect parking capacity and no cumulative impacts are anticipated.

2.20.3 Conclusions In summary, based on the analysis of project impacts, mitigation measures, and the discussion on Table 18, the Proposed Project is not likely to have significant cumulative impacts.

2.21 MANDATORY CEQA CONSIDERATIONS a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? The project will not contribute to the cumulative loss of habitat or its fragmentation. The project will avoid and minimize impacts to know cultural sites that may be considered significant by avoiding project activities on these areas. The proposed project will fully comply with all laws, regulations, and policies regarding treatment of buried cultural resources. No significant cumulative impacts are anticipated. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? See the discussion of cumulative impacts above. No "cumulatively considerable" impacts are anticipated, primarily as a result of the project's provisions for avoidance of impacts and its innovative design that substantially reduces impacts to agriculture, air quality, energy use, and land use. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? The project incorporates measures to avoid and minimize potential impacts in categories directly or indirectly affecting human beings. Mitigations for air quality, land use, hydrology and water quality, mosquito management, hazard management, and traffic-related management will effectively reduce any impacts to a level of less than significant. 2.21.2 Significant Environmental Effects that cannot be avoided Section 15126.2 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR describe any significant impacts, including those that can be mitigated but not reduced to less than significant. No unavoidable impacts were identified that were not mitigated to a level of less than significant. 2.21.3 Irreversible Impacts Section 15126(f) of the State CEQA Guidelines provides the following direction for the discussion of irreversible changes: “Uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project may be irreversible since a large commitment of such resources makes removal or nonuse thereafter unlikely. Primary impacts and, particularly, secondary impacts (such as highway improvements which provides


access to a previously inaccessible area) generally commit future generations to similar uses. Also, irreversible damage can result from environmental accidents associated with the project. Irreversible commitments of resources should be evaluated to ensure that current consumption is justified. Determining whether the Project would result in significant irreversible impacts requires a determination of whether key resources would be degraded or destroyed with little possibility of restoration. The Project would result in an irreversible commitment of energy resources, primarily in the form of fossil fuels (e.g., fuel, oil, natural gas, and gasoline) for construction equipment. However, this amount is small and relatively insignificant. In addition, the project as a whole changes the schedule of delivery for SWP supplies and would therefore probably reduce the use of fossil fuels over the long term, offsetting the use of fossil fuels in construction and operation. In short, the impact of the project on fossil fuel use is reversible; a net savings is possible. The Project would include the installation of up to new groundwater wells that will use electricity. The entire Project lies within the service area of Southern California Edison Electric Company, and the Southern California Gas Company (California Energy Commission 2005). Electrical utility lines cross the area proposed for the recharge basins. Gas utilities are adjacent to the recharge basin area. Propane would be purchased directly from local providers. Therefore, the Project would not require the construction of new utilities infrastructure. 2.21.4 Significant Cumulative Impacts Section 15130(b) (1) of the CEQA Guidelines describes elements necessary for an adequate discussion of cumulative impacts: (1) Either (A) A list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside of the control of the agency, or (B) A summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document, or in a prior environmental document which has been adopted or certified, which described or evaluated regional or area wide conditions contributing to the cumulative impact. Any such planning document shall be referenced and made available to the public at a location specified by the lead agency. No cumulative impacts of a significant level were identified. See section 2.20. 2.21.5 Growth-Inducing Impacts Section 21100(b)(5) of CEQA requires an EIR to discuss how a Proposed Project, if implemented, could induce growth and the impacts of that induced growth (see also State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126). CEQA requires the EIR to specifically discuss (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2[d]): the ways in which the Proposed Project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Evaluation of the growth-inducing impacts of the project (Section 5.19) is based on a quantitative and qualitative analysis of the mechanisms by which growth may be induced and the direct and indirect impacts of constructing and operating the Project. This evaluation of potential growth-inducing impacts addresses whether the project would directly or indirectly:

• Foster economic, population, or housing growth;


• Remove obstacles to growth; • Increase population growth that would tax community service facilities; or • Encourage or facilitate other activities that cause significant environmental impacts.

Section 15126.2(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines states specifically, “It must not be assumed that growth in any area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment.” In other words, growth inducement is not to be considered adverse per se; impacts on resources resulting from growth may be too far removed from the actions of the agency to require mitigation by the agency. The goal of the EIR in this regard, therefore, is one of disclosure. The detailed analysis in Section 2.19 notes that California's growth rate is not constrained by drought or emergency conditions and thus removing some of the onerous aspects of drought and emergency does not remove a constraint to development. Project impacts on growth are thus considered less than significant.

3.0 REFERENCES ABAG. 2001. A guide to liquefaction hazard in future earthquakes affecting the San Francisco Bay

Area. Association of Bay Area Governments, San Francisco, CA.

American Audubon Society. 2007. Christmas Bird County, Lancaster, CA 2006.

AVAQMD. 2005. List and Implementation Schedule for District Measures to Reduce PM Pursuant to Health and Safety Code 39614(d). Lancaster, CA.

AVEK . 2005. Urban Water Management Plan. Quartz Hill, CA.

Boyle Engineering. 2008. WSSP – 2 North Buttes project Description. Report prepared for Antelope Valley-East Kern Water Agency. Bakersfield, CA 93309.

California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR). 2004. A better way to protect groundwater. Sacramento, CA.

California Energy Commission. 2004. Water Energy Use in California. Sacramento, CA.

CARB. 2003. Agricultural Land Preparation; Section 7.4 Emission Inventory Methodologies, California Air Resources Board. Sacramento, CA.

City-data.com. 2007. Rosamond, California; Palmdale, California; and Lancaster, California. available at http://www.city-data.com.

CRWQCB-Lahontan. 2006. Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements Board Order No. R6V-2006-0052. WDID No 6B150609001 for Boron Community Services District Well 15 Pilot Aquifer Storage Recovery Project.

Davis, D, CH Hanson, and RB Hansen. 2005. Constructed wetland habitat for American Avocet and Black-necked Stilt Nesting: Performance Monitoring, 1995-2004. In press.

DOF. 2008. California population estimates, with components of change and crude rates, July 1, 1990-2007. California Department of Finance, Sacramento, CA.

DWR. 2005. SWP Delivery Reliability Report. Sacramento, CA.

DWR. 2005a. California Water Plan Update 2005. California Department of Water Resources. Sacramento, CA.

DWR. 2004. California’s Groundwater, Bulletin 118, Antelope Valley Groundwater Basin. Sacramento, CA.


http://www.city-data.com/

DWR. 1965. Bulletin 91-11. Water wells in the western part of the Antelope Valley Area. Sacramento, CA.

Edwards AFB. 2000. Chapter 3, Section 3.2. Airspace management and air safety. Global Hawk Main Operating Base Beddown Environmental Assessment.

Edwards AFB. 2002. Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan for Edwards Air Force Base, California.

Edwards AFB. 2007. Bird Avoidance Model. Edwards AFB, Ca.

EPA. 2006. Background document for revisions to fine fraction ratios used for AP-42 Fugitive Dust Emissions Factors. MRI Project No. 110397. Report prepared for the Western Regional Air Partnership, Denver, Colorado.

FAA. 2007. National Wildlife Strike Data Base, Version 8.6 dated 5-24-2007. Prepared by Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University,. Prescott, AZ.

Nolan, BT, BC Ruddy, KJ Hitt, and DR Helsel. 1998. A National Look at Nitrate Contamination of Ground Water. Water Conditioning and Purification 39:12, pages 76-79.

Nolan, BT, KJ Hitt, and BC Ruddy. 2002. Probability of nitrate contamination of recently recharged groundwaters in the conterminous United States. Environmental Science and Technology 36:10, pages 2138-2145.

NRCS. 1970. Soil Survey Antelope Valley Area, California. USDA Soil Conservation Service (now NRCS) in cooperation with University of California Agricultural Experiment Station.

Oremland, RS. 2002. Microbial redox cycling of arsenic oxyanions in anoxic environments. In: Aiken, GR and EL Kuniansky, editors. U.S. Geological Survey Artificial Recharge Workshop Proceedings, April 2-4, 2002, Sacramento, California. Available at http://water.usgu.gov/ogw/pubs.html

Pang, L, C Nokes, J Sumunek, H. Kikkert, and R Hector. 2006. Modeling the impact of clustered septic tank systems on groundwater quality. Vadose Zone J. May 26, 2006 5(2): pages 697-705.

Silva, W, N Gregor, Robert Darragh. 2003. Development of self consistent regional soil attenuation relations for ground motions and liquefaction parameters; and example basin and range. Pacific Engineering and Analysis. El Cerrito, CA 94530.

Transportation Research Board. 1994. Circular 212: Highway Capacity Manual (1994) Washington, DC.

USGS . 2006. Migration of Birds. Migratory Flight Altitude. Analysis from the Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center.

USGS. 2003. Simulation of groundwater flow and land subsidence, Antelope Valley Ground-water Basin, California. Water-Resources Investigations report 03-4016. Sacramento, CA 2003.

USGS. 2005. Generalized Water-Level Contours, September-October and March-April 2001, and Long-Term Water-Level Changes, at the U.S. Air Force Plant 42 and Vicinity, Palmdale, CA. Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5074. USGS, Reston, VA.

USGS. 1994. Hydrogeology and land subsidence, Antelope Valley California. USGS Subsidence Interest Group Conference, Edwards AFB, Antelope Valley, CA November 18-19, 1992.

Washington State University Extension Service. 1993. Role of Soil in Groundwater Protection. Pullman, WA.

WRAP. 2006. Western Regional Air Partnership Fugitive Dust Handbook, Chapters 2006. Report prepared for the Western Regional Air Partnership, Denver, Colorado.



4.0 APPENDIX A: FIGURES 3-34

initial study for the proposed wssp-2 groundwater recharge … · 2008. 9. 1. · initial study...

Documents