Antelope Valley – East Kern Water Agency California ... · PDF fileAntelope Valley...

Antelope Valley – East Kern Water Agency

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)

Initial Study For The

South North Intertie Pipeline (SNIP) Phase II Project

SCH No. 2014051007

June 2014

AVEK South-North Intertie Pipeline Phase II Initial Study – June 2014 1

Table of Contents

1.0 Project Title .................................................................................................................. 2

2.0 Lead Agency Name and Address ............................................................................. 2

3.0 Contact Person and Phone Number ........................................................................ 2

4.0 Project Location ........................................................................................................... 2

5.0 Proposed Sponsor Name and Address ................................................................... 2

6.0 Project Description ...................................................................................................... 2

7.0 Surrounding Land Use and Setting .......................................................................... 3

8.0 Public Agencies Requiring Approval ........................................................................ 3

9.0 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ............................................................ 3

10.0 Determination .............................................................................................................. 4

11.0 Evaluation of Environmental Factors (CEQA Checklist) ....................................... 5

12.0 Summary of Mitigation ............................................................................................. 21

13.0 Exhibits and Supporting Documents

14.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan


1.0 Project Title

South North Intertie Pipeline Phase II Project

2.0 Lead Agency Name and Address

Antelope Valley-East Kern Water Agency 6500 West Avenue N Palmdale, CA 93551

3.0 Contact Person and Phone Number

Michael Flood Agency Engineer Antelope Valley-East Kern Water Agency 661.943.3201

4.0 Project Location

The project is located in an area of north Los Angeles County (south of Avenue H and west of Hwy 14). The pipeline will be constructed along 80th Street West from Avenue H to Avenue L (alternate Avenue K), then from either of these east-west routes south along 70th Street West to a connection with the existing 70th Street West Lateral north of the Agency’s Quartz Hill Water Treatment Plant. Refer to Figure I in Section 13.

5.0 Proposed Sponsor Name and Address

Antelope Valley-East Kern Water Agency 6500 West Avenue N Palmdale, CA 93551

6.0 Project Description

The Antelope Valley – East Kern Water Agency (AVEK or Agency) proposes to construct a new 48-inch diameter, 6.6 mile, Cement Mortar Lined & Coated (CML&C) steel pipeline (SNIP Phase II Pipeline). The SNIP Phase II pipeline will connect AVEK’s existing South North Intertie Pipeline (SNIP Phase I Pipeline) at the Agency’s Los Angeles County Waterworks District (LACWWD) turnout at the intersection of 80th street West and Avenue H to the Agency’s Quartz Hill Water Treatment Plant. This project will improve the reliability of the Agency’s water supply and transmission system in the Antelope Valley region. The project will interconnect four of the Agency’s major transmission systems including the West, Central, North, and South feeders.


This interconnection will help the Agency alleviate some of the issues resulting from the current drought conditions in the area. At project completion, the Agency will be able to utilize water supplies from the Agency’s largest Water Treatment Plant and the newly constructed groundwater recharge bank to serve water to the majority of its existing customers in the Agency’s service area.

The proposed pipeline will be installed along existing and planned dedicated Rights of Way and Utility Easements. The majority of these Rights of Way and Utility Easements traverse along paved roads and graded shoulders. Less than a third traverses along traveled dirt access roads. The limits of construction for These Rights of Way and Utility Easements range between 30 and 100 ft in width.

It is estimated that construction operations will last approximately eight months. Some of the expected construction equipment includes, but is not limited to, contractor’s staff vehicles, material delivery and equipment trucks, cranes, excavators, water trucks, backhoes, etc. Construction operations will consist of trenching, pipeline installation, and backfilling as well as asphalt pavement removal and resurfacing.

7.0 Surrounding Land Use and Setting

The majority of the land surrounding the project alignment is either; vacant, farmed, or developed with isolated residential structures. The land surrounding the southern portion of the project is developed with residential tracks.

8.0 Public Agencies Requiring Approval

The following public agencies require review and or approval of this document - None

9.0 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project. Please see the checklist below for additional information.

Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry Air Quality

Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Hydrology/Water Quality

Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise

Population/Housing Public Services Recreation

Transportation/Traffic

Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance


10.0 Determination

On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and

a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,

there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been

made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

will be prepared.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially

significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been

adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has

been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached

sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the

effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,

because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR

or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided

or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions

or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required

Signature: Date:

Printed Name: Michael Flood For: Lead Agency


11.0 Evaluation of Environmental Factors (CEQA Checklist)

This checklist identifies physical, biological, social and economic factors that might be affected by the proposed project. In many cases, background studies performed in connection with the projects indicate no impacts. A NO IMPACT answer in the last column reflects this determination. Where there is a need for clarifying discussion, the discussion is included either following the applicable section of the checklist or is within the body of the environmental document itself. The words "significant" and "significance" used throughout the following checklist are related to CEQA, not NEPA, impacts. The questions in this form are intended to encourage the thoughtful assessment of impacts and do not represent thresholds of significance.

Potentially Significant Impact

Less Than Significant with Mitigation

Less Than Significant Impact

No Impact

I. AESTHETICS: Would the project:

a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista

b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway

c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?

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

Response Clarification:

a – The project is not located near any scenic vistas.

b – There are no scenic highways in the vicinity of the project area.

c – The proposed water pipeline will be installed underground and surface conditions will be returned to pre construction conditions.

d – The project will not create a new source of substantial light or glare. During construction operations during Daylight Savings Time, there may be times when work has to be performed in early hours of the morning or late evening where construction lighting may be required. These activities will not have an impact due to the projected frequency (emergency situations only), short durations, and the fact that the majority of construction will be taking place around vacant land.





No Impact

II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and the forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:

a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?

c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?

d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

a, b, c, d, & e – The proposed pipelines will be constructed inside traveled existing and planned dedicated Rights of Way and Utility Easements and will not affect agriculture and forest resources.





No Impact

III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control agency may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:

a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?

b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?

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

d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?


a – The proposed project will not conflict nor obstruct the implementation of any air quality plans. The Owner along with the project contractor will work within the rules and regulations of the Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District (AVAQMD)

b, c - The project will not violate air quality standards or substantially contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. The project will result in short-term construction related air pollutant emissions, particularly dust (PM10), reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and carbon monoxide (CO) generated by construction equipment. To minimize impacts, construction crews will implement necessary Best Management Practices (BMPs) as recommended by the AVAQMD as is standard practice for construction projects in the area.

d – The majority of the project is located in a non-urban setting. Any short term pollutants generated as a result of construction activities are not anticipated to substantially affect these areas. Along the southern end of the project, residential tracks are located adjacent to the proposed construction area. Accordingly, the project contractor would prepare and implement a Fugitive Dust Plan per AVAQMD guidelines that would include the following or other measures with the equivalent level of reduction for the entire project. The fugitive dust control plan can be incorporated onto the project’s Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan.

• All materials excavated or graded would be sufficiently watered to prevent excessive dust. • All clearing, grading, earth-moving, or excavation activities would cease during periods of high winds so as to

prevent excessive amounts of dust. • Stockpiles of soil or other fine loose material would be stabilized by watering or other appropriate method such

as non-toxic soil binders to prevent wind-blown fugitive dust. • On-site vehicle speed on unimproved roads would be limited to 15 miles per hour. • Streets adjacent to the project site would be kept clean and project-related accumulated silt shall be removed to

prevent excessive amounts of dust.

In addition to the Fugitive Dust Plan, the construction contractor would implement measures, such as the following, to reduce emission of exhaust from vehicles and diesel generators:

• All equipment shall be maintained as recommended by manufacturer’s manuals. • Idling engines shall be shut down when not in use for over 30 minutes. • Electric equipment shall be used whenever possible in lieu of diesel or gasoline powered equipment. • All construction vehicles shall be equipped with proper emissions control equipment and kept in good and

proper running order to substantially reduce nitrogen oxides (NOX) emissions. • On-road and off-road diesel equipment shall use diesel particulate filters if permitted under manufacturer’s

guidelines. • All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered.

e - The project will not create objectionable odors.





No Impact

IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project:

a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?

c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

a, b, & d – A Biological Assessment (attached) has been prepared to evaluate the impact to biological resources resulting from the subject project. There are a number of species (refer to attached report) that have a potential of being present in the proposed project area. To minimize impacts to these listed species, the Agency will implement Mitigation Measures as outlined in the attached report. The Los Angeles County General Plan does not currently identify the project area as riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community but the attached biological assessment report describes policies that may be implemented in the future.

c – There are no wetlands within the limits of construction of the proposed project.

e & f – A review of the Los Angeles County General Plan does not currently identify the project area as having any policies or ordinances protecting biological resources such as tree preservation nor is it included in any Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community conservation Plan, or any other regional or state habitat conservation plans. The alignment is within existing Rights of Way. The attached biological assessment report does describe future policies that may be in place by the Los Angeles County General Plan. The proposed project will comply with any adopted policies of same at time of implementation.





No Impact

V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project:

a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5?

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?

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

d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?

a, b, c, & d – The project area is within existing dedicated Rights of Way and Utility Easements on which lands have been previously disturbed by farming operations, road construction, and dry and wet utility installations. Based on this information, it is not anticipated that the construction of the proposed pipeline will have an impact to historical, archeological, paleontological, and or human remains. Consultation with the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) found no cultural resources of importance within the project area but recommended that additional information be requested from local tribal groups. This consultation with local tribal groups and the California Historical Resource Information System (CHRIS) concluded that large portions of the project area have not been previously evaluated and found the presence of a number of cultural resources within a ½ mile of the project site but none confirmed within the mentioned Rights of Way and Utility Easements. In consideration of the information presented to us by the NAHC, local tribal groups, and CHRIS, the following mitigation measures are proposed for the project:

• The Agency will be entering into a consultation services agreement with the Fernandeno Tatavian Board of Mission Indians to provide consultation services to the Agency with respect to potential cultural resources of importance that could exist within the project boundaries.

• In the event that any cultural resources are uncovered, all work within the vicinity of the find should stop until a qualified archaeologist can assess the finds and make recommendations.

The following recommendations by CHRIS will not be implemented due to the reasons listed:

If any areas of undisturbed or visible soil remain in the project site boundaries, those areas should be surveyed by a qualified archaeologist prior to the approval of project plans. All of the areas proposed for construction have been previously disturbed by farming operations, road construction, and dry and wet utility installations.

Any historic structures or properties (45 years and older) in the area of potential effect should be identified, recorded, and evaluated for local, state, or national significance prior to the approval of project plans. Construction operations will take place within existing and planned dedicated Rights of Way and Utility Easements that are with the exception of utility (power poles and irrigation stand pipes) are clear from any structures.





No Impact

VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project:

a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42?

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?

iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?

iv) Landslides?

b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?

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

d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial 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 i-iv – The project area is located in the Del Sur Quadrangle of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map. The project limits do not intersect any known or potentially active faults. The project does not intersect any seismic related liquefaction zones. The south end of the project lies close to a local geologic liquefaction zone; however the installation of underground piping is not anticipated to increase the liquefaction potential of the area.

b – The possibility of erosion and loss of top soil as a result of the proposed project is minimal. During construction, the contractor will be required to manage any potential of this issue with the use of erosion and sediment control Best Management Practices (BMPs).

c & d – The proposed construction will take place along dedicated existing and planned Rights of Way adjacent to other wet and dry utilities. The proposed construction will not increase the potential for landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. A geotechnical investigation of the soils along the alignment will be performed during the design of the pipeline as is standard practice for such a design.

e – The project does not involve the installation of septic tanks.





No Impact

VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Would the project

a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?

b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gasses?

a , b – There will be a short term increase in emissions created by construction equipment; including backhoes, loaders, and equipment trucks. Due to project type and construction duration, these emissions will have a less than significant impact to the environment. Emissions will only occur during normal work hours, and upon project completion, will cease. The project itself will not add continuing greenhouse emissions to the environment.

The AVAQMD has established a significance threshold of 100,000 tons of CO2e emissions per year, and a daily significance threshold of 548,000 pounds for a project (AVAQMD 2011). Accordingly, the 548,000-pounds per day CO2e emissions level is established as the significance threshold for the project’s GHG emissions. For construction emissions, the interim guidance recommends that the emissions be amortized over 30 years and added to operational emissions, as appropriate. Construction GHG emissions associated with the project would last approximately 8 months and are estimated to total well below the 548,000-pounds per day significance threshold recommended by the AVAQMD. In addition, if emissions are amortized over a 30-year period, construction GHG emissions would be negligible, and less than significant construction GHG emissions would occur with no operational emissions.

The proposed project would result in negligible amounts of GHG emissions. The proposed project would not result in emissions that would adversely affect state-wide attainment of GHG emission reduction goals as described in AB 32 and Executive Order S-21-09. Construction emissions would therefore have a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to global climate change impacts. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant.





No Impact

VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project:

a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?

b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?

c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?

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

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

g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

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

a, b, c – The project involves the construction of a water pipeline in existing and planned dedicated Right of Way and Utility Easements. Surrounding land along the majority of the alignment length is vacant. Construction operations will not involve the use of hazardous materials. There are no schools within a ¼ mile of the proposed project area. Short term pollutant emissions generated by construction equipment are described in the Air Quality Section of this checklist.

d. - A review of the Department of Toxic Substances Control reveals that the construction alignment is not listed as a hazardous materials or former hazardous waste disposal site. Additionally, the alignment is within existing and planned dedicated Right of Way. Therefore, it is not anticipated that construction will pose as a threat (in terms of the release of hazardous materials) to the surrounding population, human or otherwise.

e, & f – There are no public or private airports in within a ½ mile of the project area. g - The project will not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.

h – A majority of the project alignment is located adjacent to vacant land. An underground pipeline will not increase risk or loss associated with wild land fires.





No Impact

IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project:

a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?

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)?

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 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?

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?

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

i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?

j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow

a, b & f – The project will not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The proposed pipeline is intended to deliver potable water from the agency’s existing sources of water supply.

c, d – The project will not alter existing drainage patterns that will result in substantial erosion, siltation, and flooding on or off site. Surface conditions along the pipeline alignment will be returned to pre existing conditions after pipeline installation. Any erosion and siltation as a result of construction related activities will be addressed by the project contractor by means of implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for erosion and sediment control.

e – The proposed project will not create nor will it contribute additional storm runoff. Surface conditions of the site will be returned to pre existing conditions after installation of the pipeline.

g & h – This project does not include the development and construction of new housing. Ground disturbance along the pipeline alignment will be restored to pre existing conditions after installation of the pipeline.


I & J - There are no bodies of water within the vicinity of the project area that have the potential to create a seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.




No Impact

X. 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 will not physically divide an established community.

b – The project will not conflict with any land use and planning plans, policies, or regulations.

c – A review of the Los Angeles County General plan does not identify the proposed project area as established significant habitat conservation or natural community conservation plans.

XI. 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 – The proposed project takes place within existing and planned dedicated Rights of Way and in which land is not subject to mineral resource extraction.





No Impact

XII. NOISE: Would the project result in:

a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?

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

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

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

a, b, c, & d - There will be a temporary increase in noise levels created by the use of construction equipment during the construction phase of the project. Heavy construction equipment typically generates noise levels up to around 95 dbA at 50 feet. To a large extent, these types of noises are common and associated with any development activities. This noise will be temporary have no impact to the environment. Construction noise will be limited to normal working hours. To mitigate this temporary increase in noise from construction activities along urbanized area, the contractor will be required to comply with the Los Angeles County Municipal Code Section 12.08.440 which limits the noise created by short term construction equipment to 75db.

e, f – There are no public or private airports within a ½ mile of the project area.





No Impact

XIII. 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 – The proposed project only provides for a more efficient and reliable way of delivering the Agency’s treated water from their existing water supply source to the end user (water customer) but does not increase the amount of water supply that would have the potential to induce population growth. The proposed pipeline is classified as a transmission main that would deliver existing water from point A to point B with some the potential for some turnouts in between but is not intended to provide individual services along the way that would induce population growth.

b, c – The pipeline will not displace existing housing or people, and is not intended to have any impact on surrounded housing.

XVI. 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 proposed project will not require the expansion or new construction of the facilities described above.





No Impact

XV. 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 proposed project will not have an adverse effect on any recreational facilities.




No Impact

XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project:

a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?

b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?

c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?

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

e) Result in inadequate emergency access?

f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?


a, b, c – This project does not conflict with any applicable plan, ordinance, or policy. The majority of the project alignment is along rural roads unpopulated in the immediate vicinity. Along route locations that may interfere with normal traffic flow, appropriate traffic control and/or detour measures will be taken to limit impacts to circulation. Construction activities will occur during normal work hours and are not expected to impact adjacent developments. These minimal impacts would only occur during construction, roadways will be returned to their existing conditions.

d - There will be no hazards to safety from project design features.

e – In the event of an emergency, access will not be obstructed by construction activities. Construction operations will be performed with the implementation of traffic control measures that will allow for emergency access.

f - The project will not interfere with any alternative transportation routes currently in use in the area.




No Impact

XVII. 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, b, & e – This pipeline project will have no impact on wastewater facilities. The proposed project will serve to deliver existing water supplies to its customers.

c – The project will not require expansion or new construction of storm drain facilities.

d – The proposed pipeline will not increase the water demands of the area. Water for the pipeline will be from existing supplies.

f & g – The proposed pipeline project will not produce solid waste. Any construction waste created will be minor and the contractor will be required to dispose of it properly.





No Impact

XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?

b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?

c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

a, b, c - The proposed project connects two existing pipelines. Construction for the proposed project has the potential to impacts to wildlife and plant and animal populations as described in the attached Biological Assessment Report. With the proposed Mitigation Measures in place, it is not anticipated that the project will negatively affect these resources. It is also not anticipated that the proposed project will have an impact on historical relevance in the surrounding area but the services of a local tribal group will be retained to evaluate the project during the planning and implementation stage. The proposed water pipeline will be installed underground and surface conditions will be returned to pre construction conditions.


12.0 Summary of Mitigation

This section summarizes the mitigation measures which will be utilized to implement the proposed action. Mitigation Measures

Biological

General

MM-1: A qualified biologist shall conduct a training session for all construction personnel focused on the protection and conservation of sensitive species that may be encountered in the Project area, the laws and codes that regulate these species, and the protection measures that must be followed to minimize impacts.

MM-2: All excavated holes or trenches greater than 2 feet deep shall be covered at the end of each work day, or escape ramps provided.

MM-3: All food-related trash items (such as food scraps, cans, bottles) shall be removed from the Project Area daily.

Avian Species

MM-4: To minimize impacts to nesting and roosting raptors, pre-activity surveys would be conducted immediately prior to construction. All potential nesting trees will be surveyed within 500 feet of the project area.

• Any active raptor nests would be given a 500-foot buffer. This buffer may be reduced to 300 feet if a full time biological monitor is present to observe the birds’ behavior and stop work if they appear disturbed.

• For the known raptor nest on the airport property within Segment 3, a 200-foot distance from the project activities combined with a biological monitor during construction during the nesting period will likely be sufficient to protect the nest.

MM-5: Although burrowing owls are considered raptors, their special ground-nesting habit requires additional protection measures. Pre-activity surveys of the Project Area and a 500-foot buffer would be conducted immediately prior to construction. All potential burrows would be observed for signs of burrowing owl use, such as whitewash, feathers, and owl pellets.

• If an active nest is confirmed the nest will be given a 500-foot buffer until the chicks have fledged and are independent of the nest.

• If a solitary or non-nesting burrowing owl is observed using a burrow, a 200-foot buffer would be established.

MM-6: Tree removal shall be avoided whenever possible to limit the loss of nesting habitat for Swainson’s hawks and other migratory birds. Where tree removal is unavoidable, trees shall be removed outside of the nesting season whenever possible. Trees slated for removal during the nesting bird season (February 1 through August 31) shall be surveyed by a qualified biologist no more than 48 hours prior to removal to ensure no nesting birds are occupying the tree.


MM-7: If an active Swainson’s hawk nest is found during pre-construction surveys, a 0.5 mile buffer restricting construction activities around the nest shall be established until all young have fledged or the nest is no longer in use.

MM-8: To minimize impacts to nesting migratory birds, pre-activity surveys would be conducted immediately prior to vegetation clearance, tree removal or other construction activities during the avian nesting season (February 1 through August 31), to identify potential active nests. If active nests are found, a 300-foot buffer restricting construction activities would be established around the nests until all young have fledged or the nest is no longer active.

MM-9: The results of the pre-construction nesting bird surveys shall be documented in a letter report that is distributed to CDFW. These measures shall ensure compliance with the MBTA, and CFGC 3503.5.

American Badgers

MM-10: Pre-activity surveys would be conducted immediately prior to construction to identify potential dens. Potential dens would be monitored for 3 days using tracking medium at the potential den entrance to detect badger use.

• If the den is inactive, the den would be carefully excavated or dismantled and refilled with soil and the proposed Project would be initiated.

• If tracks are observed on the tracking medium during any of the 3 days, the entrance will be progressively blocked over the next 3 days using soil and other nearby materials (i.e., woody debris) to render the entrance progressively more difficult to access. To assure no loss of badgers, the den will then be hand excavated and backfilled to prevent re-occupation.

• Active natal dens would require establishment of a 300-foot buffer surrounding the active natal den. No work related to the proposed Project would take place within this buffer while the natal den is active. Once abandoned the den would be dismantled or excavated.

Bats

MM-11: Pre-construction surveys for active bat roosting sites shall be conducted in buildings and trees that could support bats and are within 200-feet of the Project Area.

• If no evidence of bats (i.e., direct observation, guano, staining, and strong odors) is observed, no further mitigation shall be required.

• If evidence of roosting bats is observed, a no-disturbance buffer of 250-feet shall be established during the breeding season (April 15 through August 15).

• No removal of trees showing evidence of roosting bats shall occur without prior concurrence from CDFW. Where tree removal is unavoidable, a qualified bat biologist shall determine the bat species in residence, and CDFW will be consulted to determine the appropriate avoidance and minimization measures.

Reptiles

MM-12: A biologist shall survey the Project Area within 48 hours of construction prior to initial ground disturbance, and relocate any individuals encountered to suitable habitat outside the Project footprint.


MM-13: Biological monitors will be present during the top layers of excavation and relocate any individuals encountered during this activity.

Plants

MM-14: Areas within the Project Area that present characteristics to indicate they could support any of the potential special status plants will be restored to pre-project conditions following construction.

Air Quality

MM-15: The project contractor will prepare and implement a Fugitive Dust Plan per AVAQMD guidelines that would include the following or other measures with the equivalent level of reduction for the entire project. The fugitive dust control plan can be incorporated onto the project’s Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan.

• All materials excavated or graded would be sufficiently watered to prevent excessive dust.

• All clearing, grading, earth-moving, or excavation activities would cease during periods of high winds so as to prevent excessive amounts of dust.

• Stockpiles of soil or other fine loose material would be stabilized by watering or other appropriate method such as non-toxic soil binders to prevent wind-blown fugitive dust.

• On-site vehicle speed on unimproved roads would be limited to 15 miles per hour.

• Streets adjacent to the project site would be kept clean and project-related accumulated silt shall be removed to prevent excessive amounts of dust.

In addition to the Fugitive Dust Plan, the construction contractor would implement measures, such as the following, to reduce emission of exhaust from vehicles and diesel generators:

• All equipment shall be maintained as recommended by manufacturer’s manuals.

• Idling engines shall be shut down when not in use for over 30 minutes.

• Electric equipment shall be used whenever possible in lieu of diesel or gasoline powered equipment.

• All construction vehicles shall be equipped with proper emissions control equipment and kept in good and proper running order to substantially reduce nitrogen oxides (NOX) emissions.

• On-road and off-road diesel equipment shall use diesel particulate filters if permitted under manufacturer’s guidelines.

• All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered.

Cultural

MM-16: The Agency will be entering into a consultation services agreement with the Fernandeno Tatavian Board of Mission Indians to provide consultation services to the Agency with respect to potential cultural resources of importance that could exist within the project boundaries.


MM-17: In the event that any cultural resources are uncovered, all work within the vicinity of the find should stop until a qualified archaeologist can assess the finds and make recommendations.

Noise

MM-18: The project Contractor shall to comply with the Los Angeles County Municipal Code Section 12.08.440 related to noise during construction operations.

13.0 Exhibits and Supporting Documents

• Figure 1 –SNIP Phase II Plan and Profile

• Del Sur Quadrangle Seismic Hazards Zone

• Biological Resources Assessment Technical Report

• Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands File Search

• California Historical Resource Information System Consultation

Figure 1 –SNIP Phase II Plan and Profile

AV

EN

UE

H

AVE

NU

E I

AVE

NU

E J

AVE

NU

E K

AVE

NU

E L

AVE

NU

E M

80th STREET WEST

70th STREET WEST

QUARTZ HILL WATERTREATMENT PLANT

EXISTING 70thSTRET WESTLATERAL

CAL

IFO

RN

IA A

QUE

DUC

T

PHASE II SNIP PUMPSTATION AND LACWWDDISINFECTION STATIONAND TURNOUT SITE

2600

2500

2400

2900

2800

2700

2300

2600

2500

2400

2900

2800

2700

2300

3000

AVE

NU

E I

AVE

NU

E J

AVE

NU

E K

INT.

AV

ENU

E L

&70

th S

T. W

EST

CO

NN

EC

T TO

EXI

STIN

G 7

0th

STR

EET

WE

STLA

TER

AL

0+00 50+00 100+00 150+00 200+00 250+00 300+00 350+00

QU

AR

TZ H

ILL

WAT

ERTR

EAT

ME

NT

PLA

NT

70th STREET WESTLATERAL

LOW HEAD PSHGL=2555 FT.

3000

INT.

80

th S

T. W

EST

& A

VEN

UE

L

AVE

NU

E M

SNIP

PH

ASE

II

AN

TELO

PE

VALL

EY-E

AST

KER

N W

ATER

AG

ENC

Y

AN

SI B

11"

x 1

7"La

st s

aved

by:

CA

MP

BE

LLV

(201

4-03

-31)

La

st P

lotte

d: 2

014-

04-2

4P

roje

ct M

anag

emen

t Ini

tials

:D

esig

ner:

Che

cked

:A

ppro

ved:

File

nam

e: S

:\A01

\603

1934

0 -S

NIP

PH

AS

E II

PIP

ELI

NE

\900

WO

RK

ING

DO

CS-

CAD

\02-

SHEE

TS\F

IG-1

.DW

G

SNIP

PH

ASE

II P

LAN

AN

D P

RO

FILE

FIG

-1D

ate:

201

4-04

-24

____

___

___

____

_

SCALE IN FEET

2800 280001400ALTERNATIVE PIPELINE ALIGNMENT

Del Sur Quadrangle Seismic Hazards Zone

Biological Resources Assessment Technical Report

Environment Prepared for: Prepared by: Antelope Valley – East Kern Water Agency AECOM Palmdale, CA Santa Maria, CA Project #60319340 April 2014

Biological Resources Assessment Technical Report South North Intertie Water Pipeline Project Phase II West Lancaster, Los Angeles County, California

April 24, 2014

Environment Prepared for: Prepared by: Antelope Valley – East Kern Water Agency AECOM Palmdale, CA Santa Maria, CA Project #60319340 April 2014

Biological Resources Assessment Technical Report South North Intertie Water Pipeline Project Phase II West Lancaster, Los Angeles County, California

April 24, 2014

Prepared By Amber Nichols

Reviewed By Paloma Nieto

South North Intertie Water Pipeline Project – Phase II Biological Resources Assessment

i

Contents

1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................1

2.0 Project Description ..................................................................................................................................1

3.0 Regulatory Context .................................................................................................................................1 3.1 Federal Regulations and Standards ...............................................................................................1

3.1.1 Federal Endangered Species Act ......................................................................................1 3.1.2 Migratory Bird Treaty Act .................................................................................................2 3.1.3 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act .............................................................................2 3.1.4 Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act) ..................................................2

3.2 State Regulations and Standards ..................................................................................................2 3.2.1 California Environmental Quality Act ...............................................................................2 3.2.2 California Fish and Game Code ........................................................................................3 3.2.3 California Endangered Species Act ...................................................................................3 3.2.4 Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act ......................................................................3 Los Angeles County General Plan ..................................................................................................3

4.0 Methods ..................................................................................................................................................5

5.0 Environmental Setting.............................................................................................................................6 5.1 Vegetation and Plant Communities ..............................................................................................6

5.1.1 Fallow Farmland / Non-Native Grassland ........................................................................6 5.1.2 Alkali Sink .........................................................................................................................6 5.1.3 Rabbitbrush Scrub ............................................................................................................7 5.1.4 Joshua Tree Inclusions ......................................................................................................7 5.1.5 Agricultural .......................................................................................................................7 5.1.6 Ruderal/Disturbed ............................................................................................................7 5.1.7 Residential/Commercial ...................................................................................................7

5.2 Trees ..............................................................................................................................................7 5.3 Soils ...............................................................................................................................................8

6.0 Sensitive Species Potentially Present in the Project Area.......................................................................8 6.1 Barstow Woolly Sunflower ............................................................................................................8 6.2 Slender Mariposa Lily ....................................................................................................................8 6.3 Alkali Mariposa Lily ........................................................................................................................9 6.4 Clokey’s Cryptantha ......................................................................................................................9 6.5 Sagebrush Loeflingia .....................................................................................................................9 6.6 Short-Joint Beavertail ................................................................................................................. 10 6.7 Southern Grasshopper Mouse ................................................................................................... 10 6.8 American Badger ........................................................................................................................ 10 6.9 Golden Eagle ............................................................................................................................... 11 6.10 Short-Eared Owl ......................................................................................................................... 11 6.11 Western Burrowing Owl ............................................................................................................. 12 6.12 Swainson’s Hawk ........................................................................................................................ 12 6.13 California Condor ....................................................................................................................... 13 6.14 Le Conte’s Thrasher .................................................................................................................... 13 6.15 Loggerhead Shrike ...................................................................................................................... 14


ii

6.16 Silvery Legless Lizard .................................................................................................................. 14 6.17 Blainville’s Horned Lizard ........................................................................................................... 15 6.18 Desert Tortoise ........................................................................................................................... 15 6.19 Nesting Birds .............................................................................................................................. 16 6.20 Bats ............................................................................................................................................. 16

7.0 Potential Impacts ................................................................................................................................. 17 7.1 CEQA Thresholds of Significance for Impacts ............................................................................. 17 7.2 Effects on Special Status Species ................................................................................................ 18

7.2.1 Avian Species ................................................................................................................. 18 7.2.2 American Badger ........................................................................................................... 19 7.2.3 Bats ................................................................................................................................ 19 7.2.4 Reptiles .......................................................................................................................... 19 7.2.5 Plants ............................................................................................................................. 20

8.0 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................................................ 20 8.1 General Measures ...................................................................................................................... 20 8.2 Avian Species .............................................................................................................................. 20 8.3 American Badgers ...................................................................................................................... 21 8.4 Bats ............................................................................................................................................. 21 8.5 Reptiles ....................................................................................................................................... 22 8.6 Plants .......................................................................................................................................... 22

9.0 References............................................................................................................................................ 22

List of Tables

Table 1: Bat Species Potentially Occurring within the Project Area .............................................................. 17

List of Figures

Figure 1: Project Vicinity

Figure 2: Project Site

Figure 3a: Vegetation Types: West Avenue H - West Avenue I

Figure 3b: Vegetation Types: West Avenue I – West Avenue K

Figure 3c: Vegetation Types: Avenue K - West Avenue L

Figure 3d: Vegetation Types: Avenue L Southward


iii

List of Appendices

Appendix A: Plants and Wildlife Species of the Project Area

Appendix B: Site Photographs

Appendix C: Potentially Occurring Special Status Species

Appendix D: Potentially Occurring Bat Species


1

1.0 Introduction

The Antelope Valley – East Kern Water Agency (AVEK)

contracted AECOM to conduct a biological resources

assessment for the proposed South North Intertie

Pipeline (SNIP) Project. AVEK proposes to construct a

new approximately 6.6-mile water distribution pipeline

to connect AVEK’s northern and southern water

distribution systems, with the goal of providing

redundancy to the Los Angeles County Water Works

District (LACWWD) and allow for maximum use of

existing treatment facilities. The proposed Project

would be located in western Lancaster, Los Angeles

County, California (Figure 1).

2.0 Project Description

The SNIP Project will involve the underground

installation of a new 48-inch diameter, 35,000-foot

(approximately 6.6-mile) Cement Mortar Lined &

Coated (CML&C) steel water pipeline. The pipeline will

be installed along portions of 80th Street West and

70th Street West, between West Avenue H and West

Avenue M-8 (Figure 2). The new pipeline will originate

at the existing LACWWD Disinfection Station and

Turnout Site on 80th Street West at West Avenue H. The

pipeline alignment will proceed south along 80th Street

West, east along West Avenue L, and south along 70th

Street West. An alternate pipeline alignment under

consideration would proceed east along Avenue K and

south along 70th Street West between West Avenue K

and West Avenue L (Figure 2). The proposed pipeline

would connect to an existing pipeline along 70th Street

West just south of West Avenue M-8.

The new water pipeline will be constructed within

designated right-of-ways and easement boundaries

along the roadways. Right-of-ways vary in width from

approximately 4 feet to 50 feet from the edge of

pavement, and include paved and unpaved roads,

graded shoulders, and native and non-native vegetation

communities.

3.0 Regulatory Context

Several Federal, State, and local regulations have been

established to protect and conserve biological resources.

The descriptions below provide a brief overview of the

regulations applicable to the resources that occur within or

adjacent to the Project Area, and their respective

requirements. Permits or other authorizations that would

be required under these regulations if impacts have

potential to occur are noted where applicable.

3.1 Federal Regulations and Standards

The following sections describe Federal laws,

regulations, and standards applicable to the proposed

Project.

3.1.1 Federal Endangered Species Act

Enacted in 1973, the federal Endangered Species Act

(ESA; U.S. Code [U.S.C.] Title 16, Chapter 35, Sections

1531 1544) provides for the conservation of threatened

and endangered species and their ecosystems. The

federal ESA prohibits the “take” of threatened and

endangered species except under certain circumstances

and only with authorization from the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (USFWS) through a permit under

section 4(d), 7, or 10(a) of the ESA. Under the ESA,

“take” is defined as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt,

shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to

attempt to engage in any such conduct.

Critical habitat is defined in Section 3(5)(A) of the ESA as

“(i) the specific areas within the geographical area

occupied by the species on which are found those

physical or biological features (I) essential to the

conservation of the species, and (I) which may require

special management considerations or protection; and

(i) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied

by the species upon a determination by the Secretary of


2

Commerce or the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary)

that such areas are essential for the conservation of the

species.”

Formal consultation under Section 10 of the ESA would

be required if the Proposed Project had the potential to

affect federally listed species detected within or

adjacent to the proposed Project or destroy or

adversely modify critical habitat.

3.1.2 Migratory Bird Treaty Act

Congress passed the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA;

U.S.C. Title 16, Chapter 7, Subchapter II,

sections 703-712) in 1918 to prohibit the pursuit,

hunting, killing, capture, possession, purchase, barter,

or transport of native migratory birds, or any part, nest, or

egg of any such bird unless allowed by another regulation

adopted in accordance with the MBTA. The USFWS has

jurisdiction over migratory birds. No permit is issued

under the MBTA; however, the Proposed Project would

need to comply with the measures that would avoid or

minimize effects on nesting migratory birds.

3.1.3 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act

When first enacted in 1940, the Bald and Golden Eagle

Protection Act (BGEPA; U.S.C. Title 16, Chapter 5A,

Subchapter II, Sections 668 a-d) prohibited the take,

transport, or sale of bald eagles, their eggs, or any part of

an eagle except where expressly allowed by the Secretary

of Interior. The BGEPA was amended in 1962 to extend

the prohibitions to the golden eagle. No permit is issued

under the BGEPA; however, the proposed Project would

need to comply with the measures that would avoid or

minimize effects on eagles if they were to occur within the

proposed Project site and its vicinity.

3.1.4 Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean

Water Act)

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act was first passed

by Congress in 1948. The Act was later amended and

became known as the Clean Water Act (U.S.C. Title 33,

Chapter 26, Subchapters I-VI). The CWA establishes the

basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into

the waters of the U.S. It gives the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency the authority to implement pollution

control programs, including setting wastewater standards

for industry and water quality standards for contaminants

in surface waters. The CWA makes it unlawful for any

person to discharge any pollutant from a point source into

navigable waters, without a permit under its provisions.

CWA Section 404 permits are issued by the USACE for

dredge/fill activities within wetlands or non-wetland

waters of the U.S. CWA Section 401 certifications are

issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board

(RWQCB) for activities requiring a Federal permit or license

which may result in discharge of pollutants into waters of

the U.S. Any proposed discharge of dredge or fill materials

into Federal jurisdictional waters within or adjacent to the

proposed Project area would require a Section 404 permit

from the USACE and a Section 401 Water Quality

Certification from the RWQCB.

3.2 State Regulations and Standards

The following sections describe California laws,

regulations, and standards applicable to the proposed

Project.

3.2.1 California Environmental Quality Act

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Public

Resources Code §§21000-21177 and the State CEQA

Guidelines, 14 CCR §15000 et seq.) requires that

biological resources be considered when assessing the

environmental impacts resulting from proposed actions.

The CEQA does not specifically define what constitutes

an “adverse effect” on a biological resource. Instead,

lead agencies are charged with determining what

specifically should be considered an impact. Appendix

G of the CEQA Guidelines provides for identifying

whether a Proposed Project has the potential to

adversely affect a plant or animal species identified as


3

having special status by local or regional plans, policies

or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish

and Game (CDFW) or the USFWS. Appendix G also

recognizes the potential for a Project to adversely affect

riparian and other sensitive natural communities

identified by local or regional plans, policies or

regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS, as well as federally

protected wetlands. In addition, impacts to plant and

animal species may be considered significant if the

species are identified as environmentally sensitive

within the State of California and/or Los Angeles

County, regardless of formal recognition by the USFWS

or the CDFW.

3.2.2 California Fish and Game Code

The California Fish and Game Code (CFGC) provides

regulations for the taking or possession of birds,

mammals, fish, amphibians, and reptiles, as well as natural

resources such as wetlands and waters of the State. It

includes the California Endangered Species Act (CESA;

CFGC Sections 2050-2116), as well as provisions for legal

hunting and fishing, and tribal agreements for activities

involving take of native wildlife. Any proposed impact to

State listed species or State jurisdictional waters within or

adjacent to the proposed Project Area would require a

permit under the CESA and a Streambed Alternation

Agreement from the CDFW, respectively.

3.2.3 California Endangered Species Act

The CESA (CFGC Division 3, Chapter 1.5, Sections 2050-

2116) generally parallels the main provisions of the

Federal ESA and is administered by the CDFW. The

CESA prohibits take of any species that the California

Fish and Game Commission determines to be a

threatened or endangered species, and allows for take

incidental to otherwise lawful development Projects

upon approval from the CDFW. Under the CFGC, "take"

is defined as to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or

attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill.

California also has identified wildlife species of special

concern. These species are rare, restricted in

geographic distribution, or declining throughout their

geographic range. Having been so designated, sensitive

species are also considered in resource planning and

management. The rare designation applies to plants

only and includes those plants that are not threatened

or endangered, but that could become eligible due to

decreasing numbers or further restrictions to habitat.

Any proposed impact to State listed species within the

proposed Project Area would require a permit under

the CESA.

3.2.4 Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act

The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act

(California Water Code, Division 7, Sections 13000-

14958.) provides for statewide coordination of water

quality regulations. This act established the California

State Water Resources Control Board as the statewide

authority, and nine separate RWQCBs to oversee water

quality on a day-to-day basis at the regional/local level.

Proposed discharges of waste that would affect State

waters (that are not Federal waters) within or adjacent

to the proposed Project would require a Report of

Waste Discharge from RWQCB. Local Regulations and

Standards

The following sections describe local regulations and

standards applicable to the Proposed Project.

Los Angeles County General Plan

The Conservation and Natural Resources Element of the

current Los Angeles County 1980 General Plan (Los

Angeles County 1980) does not include specific

regulations governing the protection of Biological

Resources. In January 2014 the Los Angeles County

Draft General Plan 2035 (Los Angeles County 2014) was

released for public review. If the Los Angeles County

2035 Draft General Plan is adopted prior to

implementation of the proposed Project, the following

policies and implementation measures related to

biological resources would be considered by the County


4

during the decision-making process for projects that

have the potential to affect biological resources.

Significant Ecological Area & Regional Habitat Linkage

The Los Angeles County 2035 Draft General Plan has

proposed the Antelope Valley and Joshua Tree

Woodlands to be Significant Ecological Areas (SEAs), a

designation given to land that contains irreplaceable

biological resources, as well as a regional habitat linkage

between the San Gabriel Mountains and the Mojave

Desert. The SEA and habitat linkage designations are

intended to conserve biological diversity through

implementation of the Draft General Plan goals and

policies. The SNIP Phase II Water Pipeline Project

location is within the proposed Antelope Valley SEA.

Goals and Policies for Biological Resources

Goals:

C/NR 3. Permanent, sustainable preservation of

genetically and physically diverse biological

resources and ecological systems including:

habitat linkages, forests, coastal zone,

riparian habitats, streambeds, wetlands,

woodlands and SEAs.

C/NR 4. Preserved and restored oak woodlands that

are conserved in perpetuity with no net loss

of existing woodlands.

Policies:

C/NR 3.1. Conserve and enhance the ecological

function of diverse natural habitats and

biological resources.

C/NR 3.2. Create and administer innovative County

programs incentivizing the permanent

dedication of SEAs and other important

biological resources as open space areas.

C/NR 3.3. Restore significant riparian resources, such

as degraded streams, rivers, and wetlands

to maintain ecological function -

acknowledging the importance of

incrementally restoring ecosystem values

when restoration is not feasible.

C/NR 3.4. Conserve and sustainably manage forests

and woodlands.

C/NR 3.5. Ensure compatibility of development in the

national forests in conjunction with the U.S.

Forest Service Land and Resource

Management Plan.

C/NR 3.6. Assist state and federal agencies and other

agencies, as appropriate, with the

preservation of special status species and

their associated habitat and wildlife

movement corridors through the

administration of the SEAs and other

programs.

C/NR 3.7 Participate in inter-jurisdictional

collaborative strategies that protect

biological resources.

C/NR 3.8. Discourage development in areas with

identified significant biological resources,

such as SEAs.

C/NR 3.9. Consider the following in the design of a

Project that is located within an SEA, to the

greatest extent feasible:

Preservation of biologically valuable

habitats, species, wildlife corridors and

linkages;

Protection of sensitive resources on the site

within open space;


5

Protection of water sources from

hydromodification to maintain the

ecological function of riparian habitats; and

Placement of the development in the least

biologically sensitive areas on the site.

Watershed sensitivity by capturing, treating,

retaining, and/or infiltrating storm water

flows on site.

C/NR 3.10. Require that development mitigate ‘in-kind’

for unavoidable impacts on biologically

sensitive areas—onsite or nearby as

feasible, but allow flexible off-site

application to the benefit of other County

SEAs or connectivity among them if onsite is

not feasible, and permanently preserve

mitigation sites.

C/NR 3.11. Discourage new development from

increasing the urban-wildland interface in

undisturbed natural areas through compact

design.

C/NR 3.12. Discourage development to maintain and

support the preservation of riparian

habitats, streambeds, and wetlands in a

natural state, unaltered by grading, fill, or

diversion activities.

C/NR 4.1. Conserve and sustainably manage oak

woodlands.

4.0 Methods

Prior to conducting the field surveys, AECOM reviewed

the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB;

(CDFW 2014), and the Information Planning and

Conservation (IPaC) System (U.S. Fish and Wildlife

[USFWS] 2014) for records of special status species

occurrences within the Lancaster West 7.5 minute USGS

quadrangle and surrounding quadrangles (Rosamond,

Rosamond Lake, Lancaster East, Little Buttes, Del Sur,

Sleepy Valley, Ritter Ridge and Palmdale). Additionally,

information was reviewed from USFWS, and California

Native Plant Society (CNPS) sensitive species occurrence

databases (USFWS 2013a; CNPS 2014). Using these

database sources, a list of special status plants and

wildlife that have the potential to occur within or

adjacent to the proposed alignment was compiled (see

Table C-1 in Appendix C).

AECOM biologist Amber Nichols conducted a

reconnaissance-level biological field survey on

March 27, 2014 to assess biological resources. During

the biological survey, the proposed pipeline alignment

as well as a 100-foot buffer was surveyed for presence

of sensitive habitats and presence or other evidence of

special status species. The biological survey area is

depicted in Figures 3a, 3b, 3c, and 3d.

Based on the findings of the reconnaissance-level

biological survey, floristic and general wildlife surveys

were conducted by AECOM biologists Amber Nichols

and Robin Murray on April 16 and April 17, 2014. The

entire 100-foot buffer biological survey area (Project

Area) was surveyed on foot to document or determine

the potential for presence of special status plants and

wildlife species, as well as nesting birds.

To maximize the likelihood of locating special status

plant species or special status natural communities

within the Project Area, floristic surveys were

performed during the period necessary for the

detection and proper identification of all potentially

occurring special status plant species. The primary

objective was to identify all plant species within the

Project Area to the taxonomic level (i.e., species,

subspecies, or variety) necessary to determine rarity

status. The timing of the survey was appropriate to

detect all target species as evidenced by the blooming


6

of native vegetation throughout the habitats. The

floristic survey followed the guidelines set forth by:

Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts

to Special Status Native Plant Populations and

Natural Communities (CDFG 2009); and

Guidelines for Conducting and Reporting

Botanical Inventories for Federally Listed,

Proposed and Candidate Plants (USFWS 1996).

All plant and wildlife species observed during the

biological surveys were recorded (see Appendix A).

Survey findings specific to each potentially occurring

sensitive species are discussed in Section 5.0 below.

5.0 Environmental Setting

The proposed Project Area is situated in the Antelope

Valley within the western Mojave Desert. The Antelope

Valley is an isolated basin bordered by the San Gabriel

Mountains to the southwest, and the Tehachapi

Mountains to the northwest. The Project Area lies on

gently sloping land with elevations ranging from 725 to

850 meters above sea level.

In the Mojave Desert, evapotranspiration greatly

exceeds precipitation, and salt sinks and alkali playas

are common in low-lying areas. USFWS National

Wetlands Inventory Center database (USFWS 2014b)

shows no wetlands on or adjacent to the Project Area;

this was verified during the field surveys. No riparian or

aquatic habitat was observed on or adjacent to the site.

The California Aqueduct lies approximately 0.3 miles

south of the Project Area.

5.1 Vegetation and Plant Communities

The Project area has experienced a moderate amount of

past agricultural disturbance, and is dominated by

fallow farmlands revegetated with non-native grassland

and rabbitbrush scrub habitats. The Project Area is

comprised of six habitat and land use types: fallow

farmland, alkali sink rabbitbrush scrub, agricultural,

ruderal/disturbed, and residential (Figures 3a, 3b, 3c,

and 3d).

5.1.1 Fallow Farmland / Non-Native Grassland

Fallow farmland revegetated with non-native grasslands

occurs throughout much of the Project Area (Figures 3a,

3b, 3c, and 3d; Photograph 1, Appendix B). The areas of

fallow farmland are dominated with fiddleneck

(Amsinckia tessellata), foxtail brome (Bromus

madritensis), red brome (Bromus rubens), redstem

filaree (Erodium cicutarium), and Russian thistle (Salsola

tragus), as well as occasional pineapple weed

(Matricaria discoidea), heliotrope (Heliotropium

curassavicum), California poppy (Eschscholzia

californica), and anglestem buckwheat (Eriogonum

angulosum). Past farming has resulted in compacted

soils and reduced friability. Only a few scattered small

mammal burrows were observed in the northern and

central portions of the Project Area. Along 70th Avenue

West and southward towards West Avenue M-8, the

soils were observed to be more friable with numerous

large California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus

beecheyi) colonies observed along these southern areas

of the proposed pipeline alignment. The areas of non-

native grassland south of West Avenue L, were

observed to be more disturbed with all-terrain-vehicle

tracks and dirt ramps throughout.

5.1.2 Alkali Sink

Alkali sink communities have a characteristic low “sink”

surface that is relatively impermeable and subject to

ponding. While the alkali sink surface is typically devoid

of perennial vegetation, the sinks are surrounded by

higher often sandy micro-uplands which support

perennial grasses and shrubs. Alkali sink soil layers

commonly exhibit specialized properties such as biotic

crusts, which are complex surficial biological

communities comprised of lichens, bryophytes,

cyanobacteria, soil fungi, and other microbes that

facilitate nutrient retention and seed germination and


7

establishment (Bowker 2007). As a result of these

factors, alkali sink soils are often susceptible to

disturbance that can reduce the capacity to recover

following disturbance.

Alkali sink communities occur within the Project Area

along 80th Street West between West Avenue I and

West Avenue K (Figure 3b; Photograph 2, Appendix B).

5.1.3 Rabbitbrush Scrub

Rabbitbrush scrub occurs within the Project Area in

several locations along 80th Street West, 70th Street

West, West Avenue K and West Avenue L (Figures 3a,

3b, 3c, and 3d). In several locations, the rabbitbrush

scrub habitat has revegetated within fallow farmland

areas. The rabbitbrush scrub community within the

Project Area is dominated by rubber rabbitbrush

(Ericameria nauseosa), a native, perennial shrub in the

Asteraceae family. Sawyer et al. 2009, classify this plant

community as Ericameria nauseosa alliance.

Ericameria nauseosa alliance occurs in semi-arid areas

of California, within well-drained sandy and gravelly

soils, especially in disturbed settings. The shrub canopy

is typically open to continuous, and has a sparse or

grassy herbaceous layer. Associated shrubs found on

site include fourwing saltbush (Atriplex canescens), and

Cooper’s box thorn (Lycium cooperi), while the

herbaceous layer on site is composed of herbs and non-

native grasses including foxtail brome, red brome,

California goldfields (Lasthenia californica), desert

mallow (Sphaeralcea ambigua), and Nevada cryptantha

(Cryptantha nevadensis var. nevadensis) (Photograph 3,

Appendix B).

5.1.4 Joshua Tree Inclusions

A habitat of local concern is Joshua tree (Yucca

brevifolia) woodland, which is designated as a

Significant Ecological Area in the 2014 Los Angeles

County Draft General Plan 2035 (Los Angeles County

2014).

Within the Project Area, stands of rabbitbrush scrub

support scattered Joshua trees (less than 10 percent

cover) in a small area along 80th Street West at the

intersection of West Avenue K (Figure 3c; Photograph 4,

Appendix B). Additionally, two Joshua trees are within

the right-of-way adjacent to a residential parcel along

80th Street West between West Avenue K and West

Avenue L (Figure 3c; Photograph 5, Appendix B).

5.1.5 Agricultural

One active agricultural area occurs in the Project Area

along 80th Street West, across from the LACWWD

Disinfection Station at West Avenue H (Figure 3a). This

agricultural area includes one recently tilled grain field,

and one planted grain field (Photograph 6, Appendix B).

5.1.6 Ruderal/Disturbed

Ruderal/disturbed areas within the Project Area include

paved and unpaved roadways, roadway shoulders and

the proposed LACWWD Disinfection Station Turnout

Site (Figures, 3a, 3b, 3c, and 3d). These disturbed areas

lack vegetation and/or are dominated by non-native

grasses and forbs including foxtail brome, red brome,

hare barley (Hordeum murinum ssp. glaucum), meadow

barley (Hordeum brachyantherum), Russian thistle,

redstem filaree, and Sahara mustard (Brassica

tournefortii), and cheat grass (Photograph 7, Appendix

B).

5.1.7 Residential/Commercial

Residential and commercial areas border the proposed

water distribution pipeline alignment in several

locations including along 80th Street West, 70th Street

West, and West Avenue L (Figures 3a, 3b, 3c, and 3d).

These developed areas include residential houses, a

solar farm, and a cemetery (Photograph 8, Appendix B).

5.2 Trees

Numerous trees occur within the right-of-ways that

would potentially be removed during Project activities.


8

Trees within the right-of-ways include four Joshua trees,

two junipers (Juniperus sp.), five black locust (Robinia

pseudoacacia), two red willow (Salix laevigata), several

saltcedar (Tamarix ramosissima), and numerous

slippery elm (Ulmus rubra).

5.3 Soils

Soils within the Project Area are alluvial soils derived

from granite and primarily consist of Hesperia fine

sandy loam, Sunrise sandy loam, Greenfield sandy loam,

Hanford coarse sandy loam, and Sunrise loam (USDA

2013). Slope within the Project Area ranges from 0 to 9

percent.

Within much of the northern and central portions of the

Project Area, soils are hard (relatively non-friable) and

fine with a shallow hardpan (Photograph 9, Appendix B).

Towards the southern portion of the Project Area, soils

are more loose and friable (Photograph 10, Appendix B).

These southern areas are closer or within residential

areas and exhibit increased levels of vehicle and

pedestrian disturbance.

6.0 Sensitive Species Potentially

Present in the Project Area.

For the purposes of this Biological Resources

Assessment, sensitive and special status species are

defined as species that are included in one or more of

the following lists:

Threatened, endangered, or candidate species

under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA).

Threatened or endangered species under the

California ESA (CESA).

CDFW Species of Special Concern.

CDFW Fully Protected Species.

California Rare Plant Ranks (RPR) 1, 2, and 3.

Table C-1 (Appendix C) lists the special status plant and

wildlife species that are potentially present within the

proposed Project Area. These species are discussed

below. Species in Table C-1 that were not determined

to be potentially present within the proposed Project

Area are not discussed further in this report.

6.1 Barstow Woolly Sunflower

Barstow woolly sunflower (Eriophyllum mohavense) is a

California RPR 1B.2 species in the composite family

(Asteraceae). The current distribution of Barstow

woolly sunflower is limited to Fresno, Kern, Los Angeles,

and San Bernardino Counties in California (CNPS 2014).

This species blooms between March and May, and is

typically found in chenopod scrub, Mojavean desert

scrub, and playas (CNPS 2014). Barstow woolly

sunflower is currently known to occur at elevations

between 500 to 960 meters.

There is one CNDDB record of a Barstow woolly

sunflower occurrence for the nine USGS quadrangle

search. This occurrence is from 1995 and was recorded

approximately 18.4 miles northeast of the Project Area,

within salt scrub habitat on top of a rocky butte (CDFW

2014).

The rabbitbrush scrub areas within the Project Area

represent suitable habitat for Barstow woolly

sunflower. Because this species was not observed on-

site during the rare plant survey, and there are no

known occurrences within the Project Area, it is unlikely

that it would occur.

6.2 Slender Mariposa Lily

Slender mariposa lily (Calochortus clavatus var. gracilis)

is a California RPR 1B.2 species in the lily family

(Liliaceae). The current distribution of slender Mariposa

Lily is limited to Los Angeles and Ventura Counties in

California (CNPS 2014). Slender mariposa lily blooms

between March and July and is typically found in

chaparral, coastal scrub and valley and foothill grassland


9

habitats (CNPS 2014). This species is currently known to

occur at elevations between 320 to 1,000 meters.

There is one CNDDB record of slender mariposa lily

occurrence for the nine USGS quadrangle search. This

occurrence is from 2010, and was recorded

approximately 1.1 miles south of the Project Area, along

a road within the mountainous Portal Ridge on the

western side of the California Aqueduct (CDFW 2014).

The fallow farmland/non-native grassland areas within

the Project Area represent suitable habitat for slender

mariposa lily. Because this species was not observed

on-site during the rare plant survey, and there are no

known occurrences of this species within the Project

Area, it is unlikely that it would occur.

6.3 Alkali Mariposa Lily

Alkali Mariposa lily (Calochortus striatus) is a California

RPR 1B.2 species in the lily family (Liliaceae). The

current distribution of alkali mariposa lily within

California is limited to Kern, Los Angeles, San

Bernardino, Tulare, and Inyo Counties (CNPS 2014).

Alkali mariposa lily blooms between April and June, and

is typically found in chaparral, chenopod scrub,

Mojavean desert scrub, meadows, and seeps (CNPS

2014). This species grows in alkaline and mesic soils at

is currently known to occur at elevations between 70 to

1,595 meters.

There are 34 CNDDB records of Alkali mariposa lily

occurrence for the nine USGS quadrangle search. The

nearest occurrence is from 1988 and was recorded

approximately 1.7 miles northeast of the Project Area,

within shadscale scrub on alkali soils (CDFW 2014).

The areas of alkaline sink within the Project Area

represent suitable habitat for alkali mariposa lily.

Because this species was not observed on-site during

the rare plant survey, and there are no known

occurrences within the Project Area, it is unlikely that it

would occur.

6.4 Clokey’s Cryptantha

Clokey’s cryptantha (Cryptantha clokeyi) is a California

RPR 1B.2 species in the borage family (Boraginaceae).

The current distribution of Clokey’s cryptantha within

California is limited to Inyo, Kern, Los Angeles, and San

Bernardino Counties (CNPS 2014). Clokey’s cryptantha

blooms in April, and is typically found in Mojavean

desert scrub (CNPS 2014). This species is currently

known to occur at elevations between 725 to

1,365 meters.

There is one CNDDB record of Clokey’s cryptantha


occurrence is from 2003 and was recorded

approximately 5.1 miles northwest of the Project Area,

within the Antelope Valley California Poppy Reserve

(CDFW 2014).

The rabbitbrush scrub areas within the Project Area

represent suitable habitat for Clokey’s cryptantha.

Because this species was not observed on-site during

the rare plant survey, and there are no known

occurrences within the Project Area, it is unlikely that it

would occur.

6.5 Sagebrush Loeflingia

Sagebrush loeflingia (Loeflingia squarrosa var.

artemisiarum) is a California RPR 2B.2 species in the

carnation family (Caryophyllaceae). The current

distribution of sagebrush loeflingia within California is

limited to Inyo, Kern, Lassen, Los Angeles, Plumas, and

San Bernardino Counties (CNPS 2014). Sagebrush

loeflingia blooms between April and May, and is

typically found in desert dunes, Great Basin scrub, and

Sonoran desert scrub (CNPS 2014). This species grows

in sandy soils at is currently known to occur at

elevations between 700 to 1,615 meters.

There are four CNDDB records of sagebrush loeflingia


nearest occurrence is from 2005 and was recorded

approximately 8.5 miles east of the Project Area, within


10

an area of Joshua tree upperstory and saltbush scrub

understory on sandy/loamy soil (CDFW 2014).

The areas of rabbitbrush scrub and Joshua tree stands

within the proposed Project Area represent suitable

habitat for sagebrush loeflingia. Because this species

was not observed on-site during the rare plant survey,

and there are no known occurrences within the Project

Area, it is unlikely that it would occur.

6.6 Short-Joint Beavertail

Short-joint beavertail (Opuntia basilaris var.

brachyclada) is a California RPR List 1B.2 species in the

cactus family (Cactaceae). The current distribution of

short-joint beavertail within California is limited to Los

Angeles and San Bernardino Counties (CNPS 2014).

Short-joint beavertail blooms between April and August,

and is typically found in chaparral, Joshua tree

woodland, Mojavean desert scrub, and pinyon and

juniper woodlands (CNPS 2014). This species is

currently known to occur at elevations between 425 to

1,800 meters.

There are twelve CNDDB records of short-joint

beavertail occurrence for the nine USGS quadrangle

search. The nearest occurrence is from 2010 and was

recorded approximately 1.4 miles southeast of the

Project Area, within the mountainous Portal Ridge on

the western side of the California Aqueduct (CDFW

2014).

The areas of rabbitbrush scrub and Joshua tree stands

within the Project Area represent suitable habitat for

short-joint beavertail. Because this species was not

observed on-site during the rare plant survey, and there

are no known occurrences within the Project Area, it is

unlikely that it would occur.

6.7 Southern Grasshopper Mouse

The Southern grasshopper mouse (Onychomys torridus

ramona) is a California Species of Special Concern (SSC).

Southern grasshopper mice occur in relatively low

densities in arid desert habitats of the Mojave Desert

and southern Central Valley of California (Bolster 1998).

Preferred habitats include alkali desert scrub and desert

scrub with low to moderate shrub cover, with

somewhat lower densities expected in other desert

habitats including succulent scrub, wash, and riparian

areas (Ahlborn 1983). The species also occurs in coastal

scrub, sagebrush, bitterbrush, low sage, and chaparral

habitats. Although nests may be constructed in

burrows they excavate, they are typically built in

burrows abandoned by other rodents (Baily and Sperry

1929). This species is primarily nocturnal and active

year-round. Grasshopper mice typically feed on insects,

but may also consume seeds, spiders, scorpions, reptiles

and salamanders (Horner et al. 1964, McCarty 1975).

The specifics of Southern grasshopper mouse

reproduction are unknown.

There is one CNDDB record of southern grasshopper

mouse occurrence for the nine USGS quadrangle search.

This occurrence is from 1930 and was recorded

approximately 10.8 miles southwest of the Project Area,

within the Castaic Mountain Ranges (CDFW 2014). The

nearest more recent occurrence is from 1988 and was

recorded approximately 28 miles southeast of the

Project Area.

The rabbitbrush scrub habitats within the Project Area

represent suitable habitat for the southern grasshopper

mouse. Because there have not been sightings of this

species within the past 26 years in the vicinity of the

Project Area, the potential for their occurrence is low.

6.8 American Badger

The American badger (Taxidea taxus) is a California SSC

that range throughout the state. American badgers

inhabit open grasslands and shrublands in areas that are

generally treeless (Larsen 1987). They burrow in dry,

friable soils. Badgers feed on small mammals including

ground squirrels (Spermophilus spp.), pocket gophers

(Thamnomys spp.), and jackrabbits (Lepus spp.), as well

as reptiles, insects, and amphibians (Laudenslayer and


11

Parisi 2007). Breeding occurs in summer and early fall,

with young born from March to April (Wright 1966).

There is one CNDDB record of an American badger

occurrence for the nine USGS quadrangle search. There

is no date associated with the occurrence, and was

recorded approximately 9.9 miles north of the Project

Area, in the Willow Springs vicinity (CDFW 2014).

The fallow farmland/non-native grassland and

rabbitbrush scrub habitats represent suitable denning,

foraging, and movement habitat for American badgers.

During the biological surveys, no American badgers

were observed. Three burrows of appropriate size for

badger use were observed around the base of fourwing

saltbush and Cooper’s box thorn shrubs; however, no

evidence of badger occupation (digging, burrowing,

runs, resting sites, hairs, or tracks) was observed.

Although there are no known occurrences of this

species within the Project Area, they have the potential

to occur during foraging, denning, and movement

activities.

6.9 Golden Eagle

The golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) is a California fully

protected (FP) species. Within California, the golden

eagle is a year-round resident generally inhabiting

mountainous and hilly terrain throughout much of the

state, frequenting grasslands, savannahs, oak and pine

woodlands, and agricultural fields. During the non-

breeding season (September through December) they

also occur in open habitats in the Central Valley,

including scrublands. Nesting usually occurs in

mountainous areas, but golden eagles will also nest in

wetland and riparian habitats (Kochert et al. 2002).

Nests are constructed on cliffs and in large trees in open

areas (Zeiner et al. 1990). Golden eagles typically feed

on small- to medium-sized mammals including

jackrabbits, cottontails, and California ground squirrels

(Kochert and Steenhoff 2002). Breeding generally

occurs from late January through August (Zeiner et al.

1990).

There is one CNDDB record of a Golden Eagle




in an alfalfa agricultural field adjacent to desert scrub

habitat (CDFW 2014).

The agricultural, fallow farmland/non-native grassland,

and rabbitbrush scrub habitats represent suitable

foraging and movement habitat for golden eagles. No

suitable nesting habitat was observed in the Project

Area. During the biological surveys, no golden eagles

were observed. Although there are no known

occurrences of this species within the Project Area, they

have the potential to occur during foraging and

movement activities.

6.10 Short-Eared Owl

The Short-eared owl (Asio flammeus) is a California SSC.

Short-eared owls are a widespread winter migrant, but

breed in California primarily in the Central Valley, in the

western Sierra Nevada foothills, and in scattered

locations along the California coastline. This species is

usually found in open, treeless areas that support

rodents for foraging, with elevated sites for perching,

and dense vegetation cover for roosting and nesting

(Zeiner et al. 1990; Shuford and Gardali 2008). Suitable

habitats include salt- and freshwater marshes, irrigated

alfalfa and grain fields, and grasslands. This species

requires dense vegetation such as tall grasses, brush,

ditches, and wetlands for nesting and roosting cover

(Zeiner et al. 1990). Short-eared owls nest primarily on

dry ground in areas of dense vegetation, but may also

nest within burrows. Short-eared owls feed primarily

on voles and other small mammals, but will also

consume birds, reptiles, amphibians, and arthropods

(Zeiner et al. 1990).

There is one CNDDB record of a short-eared owl



approximately 14.27 miles northeast of the Project Area


12

(CDFW 2014). There are no other CNDDB records of

short-eared owl occurrences within 180 miles of the

Project Area.

The agricultural fields and fallow farmland/non-native

grasslands, represent suitable habitat for short-eared

owls. During the biological surveys, no short-eared owls

were observed. Because there are no known

occurrences of this species within the Project Area and

given the lack of sightings within 180 miles of the

Project Area since 1932, the potential for their

occurrence is low.

6.11 Western Burrowing Owl

The western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) is a

California SSC. Burrowing owls have been extirpated

from approximately 8 percent of their former range

(Klute et al. 2003). Breeding in Central California, has

been reduced to three isolated populations in the

Central Valley, southern San Francisco Bay Area, and

near Livermore (DeSante et al. 1997). This species

inhabits areas with low vegetation in agricultural fields,

grasslands and desert communities. Burrowing owls

require fossorial mammal burrows, typically those

created by California ground squirrels, for nesting and

escape cover. However, piles of rock, concrete debris,

or other materials may be used instead of burrows.

Burrowing owls typically feed on insects, small frogs,

lizards, and rodents (John and Romanow 1993). The

breeding season typically occurs between February 1

and August 31 (CDFG 2012).

There are 59 CNDDB records of western burrowing owl

occurrence for the nine USGS quadrangle search. Two

of these occurrences were recorded within the vicinity

of the Project Area. One record is from 2006 and was

recorded approximately 150 feet from the end of the

pavement on the east side of 80th Street West between

West Avenue H and West Avenue I. At this burrow

location, two adults and three juvenile burrowing owls

were observed. The second record, also from 2006, was

recorded approximately 135 feet from the end of the

pavement on the north side of West Avenue K, between

80th Street West and 70th Street West (CDFW 2014).


rabbitbrush scrub habitats represent suitable habitat for

western burrowing owls. However, much of the fallow

farmlands in both the non-native grassland and

rabbitbrush scrub re-vegetated areas were relatively

non-friable. While there is potential for burrowing owls

to occur in these fallow farmlands, the compacted

nature of the soil limits the likelihood. During the

biological surveys, no burrowing owls or potential owl

burrows were observed. Both CNDDB recorded

occurrence locations were thoroughly searched for

evidence of burrowing owl occupation with no evidence

observed (no owls, pellets, feathers, potential burrows

observed). The southern portion of the Project Area

(south of West Avenue K) has more friable soils and is

more suitable for burrowing owls, but is also more

disturbed from vehicle and pedestrian use. Because

western burrowing owls have been known to breed

within the Project Area in recent years, and there are

high numbers of California ground squirrel burrows in

portions of the Project Area (along 70th Avenue West

and southward towards West Avenue M-8), the

potential for their occurrence within the Project Area is

high.

6.12 Swainson’s Hawk

The Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni) is listed as

threatened under the CESA, and is a Federal Bird of

Conservation Concern (BCC). Swainson’s hawks breed

in numerous locations throughout California, including

the Central Valley region. This species generally forages

in open habitats including grasslands, irrigated

meadows, agricultural areas, juniper-sage flats, riparian

areas, and oak savannas (Schlorff and Bloom 1983;

CDFG 1994). Swainson’s hawks are migratory, and

begin arriving in the Central Valley to nest in March.

This species typically nest in large, mature trees that are

located near suitable foraging habitat and often within

riparian corridors (Schlorff and Bloom 1983).


13

Swainson’s hawks also sometimes nest on utility poles

at heights between 4 and 100 feet above the ground.

The young usually leave the nest by July, with

individuals beginning to migrate south between August

and October. Swainson’s hawks typically forage on

small rodents and reptiles during the breeding season

(March to July), and on insects during the non-breeding

period (England et al. 1997).

There are 13 CNDDB records of Swainson’s hawk


nearest occurrence is from 2011, and was recorded

approximately 4.2 miles west of the Project Area. This

nesting location within a cottonwood tree was adjacent

to orchards and alfalfa fields.

Swainson’s hawks are known to nest in the Antelope

Valley within a variety of large tree types including

cottonwood, locust, juniper, cypress, willow, and pine.

Numerous large trees were observed within the Project

Area that represent potential nesting habitat for

Swainson’s hawks. Additionally, the agricultural field

and fallow farmland/non-native grasslands represent

suitable foraging habitat. No Swainson’s hawks or

nesting sites were observed during the biological

surveys, and there are no known occurrences of this

species within the Project Area. However Swainson’s

hawks have the potential to occur during nesting,

foraging and movement activities.

6.13 California Condor

The California condor (Gymnogyps californianus) is

listed as endangered under the Federal ESA and the

CESA. The current distribution of this species is

restricted to six counties in California including Kern,

Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, Monterey, Los Angeles,

and Ventura. California condors forage over very large

areas, but maintain a home nesting location to which

they return (Koford 1953). California condor foraging

generally occurs within foothill grassland and oak

savannah habitats in open terrain. Suitable permanent

roosting sites for this species must have rocky cliffs and

rubble for nesting (USFWS 2013b). California condors

feed on carrion, and primarily feed on large carcasses

like goat, cattle, sheep, deer, horse and coyote

(Mountfort 1988).

There are no CNDDB records of California condor

occurrences for the nine USGS quadrangle search. The

nearest occurrence records of California condors are

from 1976 within the Castaic Mountains, approximately

20 miles southwest of the Project Area, and from 1976

within the Tejon Ranch, approximately 23 miles

northwest of the Project Area (CDFW 2014).

The Project Area lacks suitable nesting habitat for the

California condor, and foraging habitat is marginal due

to a low population of large mammals and livestock in

the vicinity. No California condors were observed

during the biological survey, and condors are not known

to occur at the Project site. While it is possible a condor

may pass over the site, condors are not expected to use

the Project Area due to a lack of breeding and foraging

habitat.

6.14 Le Conte’s Thrasher

The Le Conte’s thrasher (Toxostoma lecontei) is a

California SSC and a Federal BCC. In California, this

species currently occurs in two separate geographic

areas: the southern San Joaquin Valley, and the

Colorado and Mojave deserts, south into Baja California.

Throughout its range, the Le Conte’s thrasher requires

sparse to no ground cover with accumulated leaf litter

under and around shrub vegetation for foraging

(Sheppard 1996). Within the Antelope Valley, the only

suitable plant for nesting is allscale (Atriplex polycarpa).

Le Conte’s thrashers forage predominantly for

arthropods in the leaf litter under saltbush plants, under

the top few inches of soil, or on the ground surface.

The breeding season for this species typically begins in

early February and extends through late June (Shuford

and Gardali 2008).


14

There are three CNDDB records of Le Conte’s thrasher




within creosote scrub with sparsely distributed Joshua

trees (CDFW 2014).

The rabbitbrush scrub, Joshua tree stands, and fallow

farmland/non-native grassland habitats represent

suitable habitat for Le Conte’s thrasher. During the

biological surveys, no Le Conte’s thrashers or nesting

sites were observed, and there are no known

occurrences of this species within the Project Area.

However, Le Conte’s thrashers have the potential to

occur during foraging, nesting, and movement activities.

6.15 Loggerhead Shrike

The loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) is a

California SSC that is distributed throughout much of

California. This species typically occupies open habitats

including grasslands, scrublands, riparian areas, open

woodlands, ruderal habitats, and developed areas

including agricultural fields (Yosef 1996). Loggerhead

shrikes utilize shrubs, trees, posts, fences, and utility

lines for perches. Diet consists mostly of large insects,

but may also include small birds, mammals, amphibians,

reptiles, fish, carrion, and other vertebrates. Breeding

territories are generally established in open habitats

with relatively short vegetation that allows for visibility

of prey, and that contain fairly dense brush for nesting.

This species typically breeds between January and July

(Shuford and Gardali 2008).

There are four CNDDB records of loggerhead shrike




within native and non-native annual grasslands.

The areas of rabbitbrush scrub and fallow farmland

represent suitable habitat for loggerhead shrike. During

the biological surveys, no loggerhead shrikes were

observed, and there are no known occurrences of this

species within the Project Area. However, loggerhead

shrikes have the potential to occur during foraging,

nesting, and movement activities.

6.16 Silvery Legless Lizard

The silvery legless lizard (Anniella pulchra pulchra) is a

California SSC. This species occurs from the southern

edge of California’s San Joaquin River in Contra Costa

County south through the Coast Range, Transverse

Range, and Peninsular Range to Baja California, Mexico.

The silvery legless lizard is found on the San Joaquin

Valley floor (Jennings and Hayes 1994). Silvery legless

lizards are fossorial, and construct burrows in loose soil

with a high sand fraction. This species requires soil

moisture, and occurs primarily in sparsely vegetated

areas with moist, loose, sandy soils, such as washes,

loose soil near the base of slopes, and in the vicinity of

streams. Their preferred habitats include coastal dunes,

oak woodlands, beaches, chaparral, pine-oak woodland,

and streamside growth of sycamores, cottonwoods, and

oaks (Jennings and Hayes 1994; Stebbins 2003). Silvery

legless lizards are insectivorous and consume larval

insects, adult beetles, termites, and spiders. Breeding in

silvery legless lizards begins in early spring, with live

young born between September and November

(Jennings and Hayes 1994).

There are 14 CNDDB records of silvery legless lizard



approximately 1.7 miles southeast of the Project Area,

within the mountainous Portal Ridge on the western

side of the California Aqueduct. In 2005, a silvery

legless lizard was observed 3.2 miles east of the Project

Area, within saltbush scrub and juniper/Joshua tree

habitat with sandy soils


rabbitbrush scrub habitats represent suitable habitat for

silvery legless lizard. During the biological surveys, no

silvery legless lizards were observed, and there are no


15

known occurrences of this species within the Project

Area. However, silvery legless lizards have the

potential to occur.

6.17 Blainville’s Horned Lizard

The Blainville’s (=Coast) horned lizard (Phrynosoma

blainvillii) is a California SSC. The current distribution of

this species includes the coastal areas south of San

Francisco and within the southern areas of the Central

Valley. Within the Central Valley, its range extends

from Butte County south across the lower foothills of

the Sierra Nevada Range to the Tejon Pass/Taft area.

Blainville’s horned lizards generally inhabit scrublands,

grasslands, coniferous and broadleaf forests, and

woodlands. This species prefers sandy loam areas and

alkali flats, but may also inhabit exposed gravelly, sandy

substrates vegetated with scattered shrubs or annual

grassland, or in clearings in riparian woodlands

(Jennings and Hayes 1994). Blainville’s horned lizards

primarily feed on ants, but may also consume other

insects including beetles, wasps, grasshoppers, and

caterpillars (Zeiner et al. 1988). Mating and

reproduction typically occur in spring and early summer.

There are 17 CNDDB records of Blainville’s horned lizard



approximately 0.4 miles southwest of the Project Area,

approximately 500 feet north of the California

Aqueduct.


rabbitbrush scrub habitats within the Project Area

contained numerous harvester ant populations, and

represent suitable habitat for Blainville’s horned lizard.

During the biological surveys, no Blainville’s horned

lizards were observed, and there are no known

occurrences of this species within the Project Area.

However, Blainville’s horned lizards have the potential

to occur.

6.18 Desert Tortoise

The desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) is listed as

threatened under the Federal ESA and the CESA. In

California, the desert tortoise occurs in the Mojave and

Sonoran Deserts. This species typically inhabits desert

scrub, Joshua tree woodlands, and creosote bush scrub

with extensive annual wildflower blooms (Zeiner et al.

1988; USFWS 2011). Desert tortoises often occur on

gently sloping terrain with soils ranging from sandy to

sandy-gravelly, and with scattered shrubs and abundant

inter-shrub space for growth of herbaceous plants

(USFWS 2011). Soils must be friable and firm enough

that burrows do not collapse. Burrows are obligatory as

they provide cover from predators and extreme

temperatures, as well as nesting places. Desert

tortoises forage on perennial grasses, woody perennials,

cacti, and non-native grasses including red brome and

redstem filaree (Germano et al. 1994). In late winter or

early spring, they emerge from over-wintering burrows

and are typically most active April through May and

September through October. During the winter they

may use other types of cover including cracks, crevices,

and overhangs. Mating occurs during spring, summer,

and fall (USFWS 2011).

There is one CNDDB record of desert tortoise


record is from 2004 and was recorded approximately

22.7 miles east of the Project Area. This record is

mapped as an area of approximately 1,700 square miles

representing the Fremont-Kramer desert tortoise

population and recovery unit. There are no CNDDB

desert tortoise occurrences west of Highway 14 and

south of Highway 138 (where the proposed Project is

located).

The Project Area is not within areas known to contain

desert tortoise populations, and is not within any desert

tortoise conservation areas. The Project Area is within

areas categorized as high potential habitat as modeled

by the U.S. Geological Survey using variables such as

precipitation, geology and slope (USFWS 2011).


16

However, The habitat within the Project Area is of poor

quality for desert tortoises. The northern and southern

portions of the Project Area are composed primarily of

fallow farmland and have relatively un-friable soils.

While the southern portion of the Project Area has

more friable soils (as evidenced by the numerous

ground squirrel colonies that only occur in this portion

of the Project Area), these areas are more developed

with residential neighborhoods and all-terrain-vehicle

tracks and dirt ramps within the strips of non-native and

rabbitbrush scrub vegetation. No signs of desert

tortoise presence were observed (scat, tracks, egg shell

fragments, burrows/pallets, shell/bone/scutes, or

courtship rings). Because all habitat within the Project

Area is of poor quality for desert tortoises, it is unlikely

that they would occur within the Project Area or its

vicinity.

6.19 Nesting Birds

The Project Area contains potential nesting habitat for a

number of native birds protected under the Migratory

Bird Treaty Act (MTBA) including, but not limited to

Swainson’s hawk, western burrowing owl, Le Conte’s

thrasher, loggerhead shrike, red-tailed hawk (Buteo

jamaicensis), common raven (Corvus corax), American

crow (Corvus brachyrhynchus), mourning dove (Zenaida

macroura), western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta),

northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), California

quail (Callipepla californica), horned lark (Eremophila

alpestris), golden-crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia

atricapilla), and white-crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia

leucophrys). Nesting raptors are also protected under

Section 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code.

Two active common raven nests were observed during

the biological surveys. A raven nest was observed

within a lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta ssp. murrayana)

(Photographs 9-10, Appendix B) along 70th Street West

between West Avenue K and West Avenue L (Figure 3c).

The nest is located approximately 90 feet from the end

of the pavement, and is outside of the right-of-way for

this section of roadway. A second raven nest was

observed being constructed in a power transmission

line pole (Photograph 11, Appendix B), along unpaved

80th street west between West Avenue H and West

Avenue I (Figure 3a).

The agricultural fields, fallow farmland/non-native

grassland, rabbitbrush scrub, Joshua tree stands,

ruderal/disturbed and residential areas along the

proposed pipeline alignment have the potential to

provide habitat for nesting birds.

6.20 Bats

There are 25 bat species in California, 18 of which are

rare and/or California SSC, (Miner and Stokes 2005).

Bats use a variety of roost sites including crevices,

cavities, and foliage such as caves, large tree hollows,

rock crevices, exfoliating tree bark, as well as man-made

structures such as bridges, buildings, and towers. Bats

are predominantly insectivorous and may forage over

water surfaces, along dry creek channels, around forest

tree canopies, or in areas of oak savannah.

Based on species ranges and habitat requirements, six

bat species have the potential to occur within the

Project Area (Table 1). Two of these species, pallid bat

(Antrozous pallidus), and Townsend’s big-eared bat

(Corynorhinus townsendii), are California SSC. Mexican

free-tailed bat (Tadarida brasiliensis), big brown bat

(Eptesicus fuscus), California myotis (Myotis

californicus), and western pipistrelle (Parastrellus

Hesperus) are non-special status species with the

potential to occur within the Project Area.

There are no CNDDB records of special status bat

species occurrences for the nine USGS quadrangle

search. The non-native grassland, rabbitbrush scrub

and agricultural areas represent suitable roosting and

foraging habitat, however no potential bat roosts were

observed during the biological survey. All trees, snags,

and buildings within the buffer areas were examined for

potential roosting sites or evidence of current use by

bats. Potential bat roosting sites within the buffer areas


17

is limited. No tree cavities, exfoliating tree bark, or

suitable snag cavities were observed. Buildings within

the Project Area are limited to the LACWWD

Disinfection Station Turnout building, at the Intersection

of 80th Street West and West Avenue H, and residential

homes, which are unlikely to provide suitable roosting

sites. The nearest aquatic habitat is the California

Aqueduct, approximately 0.3 miles south of the Project

Area. Roosting bats have the potential to occur within

the Project Area during foraging and movement

activities, but are unlikely to roost due to the lack of

potential roosting sites.

Table 1: Bat Species Potentially Occurring within the Project Area

Species Status*

Federal State

Family Molossidae (free-tailed bats)

Tadarida brasiliensis Mexican free-tailed bat

~ ~

Family Vespertilionidae (mouse-eared bats)

Antrozous pallidus Pallid bat ~ FSS,

SSC

Corynorhinus townsendii

Townsend's big-eared bat

~ SSC, SC

Eptesicus fuscus Big brown bat ~ ~

Myotis californicus California myotis ~ ~

Parastrellus hesperus Western pipistrelle ~ ~

Status:

FSS = USDA Forest Service Sensitive

SSC = Species of Special Concern as identified by CDFW

SC = Former Candidate under FESA; Species of Concern

7.0 Potential Impacts

7.1 CEQA Thresholds of Significance for

Impacts

The criteria for determining significant impacts on

biological resources were developed in accordance with

Section 15065(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states

that a Project may have a significant effect on the

environment if the Project has the potential to (1)

substantially degrade the quality of the environment;

(2) substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife

species; (3) cause a fish or wildlife population to drop

below a self-sustaining level; (4) threaten to eliminate a

plant or animal community; and/or (5) reduce the

number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or

threatened species. An evaluation of whether an

impact on biological resources would be substantial

must consider both the resource itself and how that

resource fits into a regional or local context. A

substantial impact is an impact that diminishes or

results in the loss of a sensitive biological resource, or

that significantly conflicts with local, State, or Federal

resource conservation plans, goals, and/or regulations.

Sometimes impacts can be locally adverse, but not

significant. In such a case, the impacts may result in an

adverse alteration of a local biological resource, but

they may not substantially diminish or result in the

permanent loss of an important resource on a

population- or region-wide basis.

The following thresholds of significance are based on

Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Implementation of

the Proposed Project may have potentially significant

adverse impacts on biological resources if it would

result in any of the following:

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 CDFW or the USFWS;

Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian

habitat or other sensitive natural community

identified in local or regional plans, policies, or

regulations or by the CDFW or the USFWS;

Have a substantial adverse effect on State or

federally protected wetlands as defined by USACE,

CDFW, RWQCB, or California Coastal Commission,

including but not limited to marsh, coastal, etc.,


18

through direct removal, filling, hydrological

interruption, or other means;

Interfere substantially with the movement of any

native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species

or with established native resident or migratory

wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native

wildlife nursery sites;

Conflict with any local policies or ordinances

protecting biological resources such as a tree

preservation policy or ordinance; and/or

Conflict with the provisions of any adopted Habitat

Conservation Plan (HCP), Natural Community

Conservation Plan, or other approved local,

regional, or State HCP.

In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15605,

Mandatory Findings of Significance, a lead agency shall

find that a project may have a significant effect on the

environment in regard to biological resources if the

project has the potential to:

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,

and/or

Reduce the number or restrict the range of an

endangered, rare or threatened species.

7.2 Effects on Special Status Species

The proposed Project has the potential to adversely

affect several special status species. The potential

impacts are discussed in detail in the following sections.

7.2.1 Avian Species

The proposed Project Area supports suitable breeding

and foraging habitat for western burrowing owls,

Swainson’s hawks, Le Conte’s thrashers, loggerhead

shrikes, and other raptors and migratory birds. Habitats

would be subject to disturbance or loss during

construction activities including, but not limited, to

trenching, ground surface blading, equipment and

materials staging, and pipeline installation.

Disturbances to habitats could result in their

degradation and suitability for nesting and foraging, or

their total loss.

Disturbances to foraging habitat would be short-term

and temporary during construction, and the habitats

would be expected to return to pre-existing conditions

through natural recruitment from the surrounding

communities. Additionally, there is ample additional

habitat in the vicinity available for avian foraging during

construction. Thus, the temporary and limited loss of

foraging habitat would be a less-than significant impact.

If burrows were present within the construction

footprint, they would be subject to loss and any western

burrowing owls occupying the burrows could be subject

to injury or be killed during ground-disturbance

activities. Indirectly, burrowing owls may avoid nesting

in areas with a large amount of disturbance. To reduce

project impacts to this sensitive species, pre-activity

surveys would be conducted to detect active nests. If

an active nest is identified, a 500-foot buffer would be

established to avoid impacting the nesting behavior

until the chicks have fledged from the nest. If only a

solitary burrowing owl is observed and no nesting

behavior is observed a 200-foot buffer will be

established from the non-nest burrow. With the

incorporation of protection measures, impacts to the

burrowing owl would be less than significant.

Removal of trees would be limited to minimize the loss

of nesting habitat for migratory birds. Construction

activities could result in the abandonment of nests

present in the vicinity of the Project due to noise and

human disturbance. Nests, and any eggs, young or

adults within the nests, could also be lost during

vegetation clearance if they occur in shrubs, trees, or

grasses within the construction footprint.


19

As a result, construction of the proposed Project has the

potential to result in significant impacts to avian

species. Pursuant to the requirements of the MBTA,

which provides legal protection for nearly all breeding

migratory bird species (common and sensitive)

occurring in the U.S., and Section 3503.5 of the

California Fish and Game Code, which specifically

protects raptor nests, the proposed Project will be

required to avoid impacts to nesting birds. Impacts to

nesting birds can be avoided through avoidance of

clearing and grubbing of vegetation communities within

the Project Area during the nesting season (February 1

and August 31), and/or implementation of pre-

construction surveys to demonstrate absence of nesting

birds within the Project Area. If nesting birds are

observed the nest would be given a 300-foot buffer, if a

common bird, a 500-foot buffer if a raptor, and a

0.5 mile if a Swainson’s hawk. With the implementation

of these protection measures impacts to nesting birds

would be less than significant.

7.2.2 American Badger

The proposed Project Area supports suitable denning

and foraging habitat for American badgers. This habitat

would be subject to disturbance or loss during




Disturbances to habitat could result in its degradation

and suitability for denning and foraging, or its total loss.





communities. Additionally, there is ample additional

habitat in the vicinity available for foraging during

construction. Thus, the temporary and limited loss of

foraging habitat would be a less-than significant impact.

Trenching activities and equipment moving through the

Project Area could potentially injure or kill badgers that

remain in dens. Indirectly, denning badgers may be

impacted by increased noise and equipment activity. To

reduce impacts to badgers within the construction

footprint and a 300-foot buffer area, pre-activity

surveys would be conducted immediately prior to

construction to identify potential dens. With this

protection measure, impacts to American badgers

would be less than significant

7.2.3 Bats

The proposed Project Area supports marginal roosting

and suitable foraging habitat for bats. This habitat

could be subject to disturbance or loss during




Disturbances to habitat could result in its degradation

and suitability for roosting and foraging, or its total loss.





communities. Additionally, removal of trees would be

limited minimizing the loss of potential roosting habitat

for bats.

Noise and increased equipment activities within the

immediate vicinity of roosts could indirectly impact

roosting bats. If active bat roosts occurred within trees

slated for removal, individuals could be subject to injury

or be killed during tree removal activities. As a result,

construction of the proposed Project has the potential

to result in significant impacts to roosting bats.

Conducting pre-construction surveys and implementing

exclusion techniques for roosting bats in trees slated for

removal would reduce impacts to a less than significant

level.

7.2.4 Reptiles

The proposed Project Area supports suitable habitat for

silvery legless lizards and Blainville’s horned lizards.


20

This habitat would be subject to disturbance during




Disturbances to habitat would be short-term and

temporary during construction, and the habitats would

be expected to return to pre-existing conditions through

natural recruitment from the surrounding communities.

Impacts to coast horned lizards could be significant

during trenching activities, when they may be injured or

killed. These impacts can be reduced by pre-activity

surveys prior to ground disturbing activities and

relocation of any observed individuals to adjacent

suitable habitat. Residual impacts to this species would

be less than significant

Silvery legless lizards rely on loose sandy soils and may

be impacted indirectly by compacting soils within the

project footprint or during excavation. Biological

monitors present to observe the top layers of

excavation would reduce the likelihood of direct

mortality to the silvery legless lizards in addition to

keeping the project footprint within pre-determined

boundaries and conducting pre-activity surveys prior to

construction activities. With the addition of protection

measures the impacts to silvery legless lizards would be

less than significant.

7.2.5 Plants

Suitable habitat is present within the Project Area for

Barstow woolly sunflower, slender mariposa lily, alkali

mariposa lily, Clokey’s cryptantha, sagebrush loeflingia,

and short-joint beavertail. These plant species were not

observed during the rare plant survey and are not

expected to occur. Suitable habitat could be removed

or disturbed during construction activities including

clearance and grubbing of vegetation, trenching, ground

surface blading, equipment and materials staging, and

pipeline installation. These Project activities could

result in indirect impacts to special status plant species

through soil compaction, dust generation, and/or

mowing. Removal of individual plants or suitable

habitat could reduce local populations and has the

potential to result in significant impacts to these

species. Restoring the disturbed areas of suitable

habitat to their pre-project condition would reduce

impacts to less than significant.

8.0 Mitigation Measures

The following mitigation measures are necessary to

reduce potentially significant biological impacts to a less

than significant level.

8.1 General Measures

MM-1: A qualified biologist shall conduct a training

session for all construction personnel focused on the

protection and conservation of sensitive species that

may be encountered in the Project area, the laws and

codes that regulate these species, and the protection

measures that must be followed to minimize impacts.

MM-2: All excavated holes or trenches greater than

2 feet deep shall be covered at the end of each work

day, or escape ramps provided.

MM-3: All food-related trash items (such as food

scraps, cans, bottles) shall be removed from the Project

Area daily.

8.2 Avian Species

MM-4: To minimize impacts to nesting and roosting

raptors, pre-activity surveys would be conducted

immediately prior to construction. All potential nesting

trees will be surveyed within 500 feet of the project

area.

Any active raptor nests would be given a 500-foot

buffer. This buffer may be reduced to 300 feet if a

full time biological monitor is present to observe

the birds’ behavior and stop work if they appear

disturbed.


21

For the known raptor nest on the airport property

within Segment 3, a 200-foot distance from the

project activities combined with a biological

monitor during construction during the nesting

period will likely be sufficient to protect the nest.

MM-5: Although burrowing owls are considered

raptors, their special ground-nesting habit requires

additional protection measures. Pre-activity surveys of

the Project Area and a 500-foot buffer would be

conducted immediately prior to construction. All

potential burrows would be observed for signs of

burrowing owl use, such as whitewash, feathers, and

owl pellets.

If an active nest is confirmed the nest will be given a

500-foot buffer until the chicks have fledged and

are independent of the nest.

If a solitary or non-nesting burrowing owl is

observed using a burrow, a 200-foot buffer would

be established.

MM-6: Tree removal shall be avoided whenever

possible to limit the loss of nesting habitat for

Swainson’s hawks and other migratory birds. Where

tree removal is unavoidable, trees shall be removed

outside of the nesting season whenever possible. Trees

slated for removal during the nesting bird season

(February 1 through August 31) shall be surveyed by a

qualified biologist no more than 48 hours prior to

removal to ensure no nesting birds are occupying the

tree.

MM-7: If an active Swainson’s hawk nest is found

during pre-construction surveys, a 0.5-mile buffer

restricting construction activities around the nest shall

be established until all young have fledged or the nest is

no longer in use.

MM-8: To minimize impacts to nesting migratory birds,

pre-activity surveys would be conducted immediately

prior to vegetation clearance, tree removal or other

construction activities during the avian nesting season

(February 1 through August 31), to identify potential

active nests. If active nests are found, a 300-foot buffer

restricting construction activities would be established

around the nests until all young have fledged or the

nest is no longer active.

MM-9: The results of the pre-construction nesting bird

surveys shall be documented in a letter report that is

distributed to CDFW. These measures shall ensure

compliance with the MBTA, and CFGC 3503.5.

8.3 American Badgers

MM-10: Pre-activity surveys would be conducted

immediately prior to construction to identify potential

dens. Potential dens would be monitored for 3 days

using tracking medium at the potential den entrance to

detect badger use.

If the den is inactive, the den would be carefully

excavated or dismantled and refilled with soil and

the proposed Project would be initiated.

If tracks are observed on the tracking medium

during any of the 3 days, the entrance will be

progressively blocked over the next 3 days using soil

and other nearby materials (i.e., woody debris) to

render the entrance progressively more difficult to

access. To assure no loss of badgers, the den will

then be hand excavated and backfilled to prevent

re-occupation.

Active natal dens would require establishment of a

300-foot buffer surrounding the active natal den.

No work related to the proposed Project would take

place within this buffer while the natal den is active.

Once abandoned the den would be dismantled or

excavated.

8.4 Bats

MM-11: Pre-construction surveys for active bat

roosting sites shall be conducted in buildings and trees

that could support bats and are within 200-feet of the

Project Area.


22

If no evidence of bats (i.e., direct observation,

guano, staining, and strong odors) is observed, no

further mitigation shall be required.

If evidence of roosting bats is observed, a no-

disturbance buffer of 250-feet shall be established

during the breeding season (April 15 through August

15).

No removal of trees showing evidence of roosting

bats shall occur without prior concurrence from

CDFW. Where tree removal is unavoidable, a

qualified bat biologist shall determine the bat

species in residence, and CDFW will be consulted to

determine the appropriate avoidance and

minimization measures.

8.5 Reptiles

MM-12: A biologist shall survey the Project Area within

48 hours of construction prior to initial ground

disturbance, and relocate any individuals encountered

to suitable habitat outside the Project footprint.

MM-13: Biological monitors will be present during the

top layers of excavation and relocate any individuals

encountered during this activity.

8.6 Plants

MM-14: Areas within the Project Area that present

characteristics to indicate they could support any of the

potential special status plants will be restored to pre-

project conditions following construction.

9.0 References

Ahlborn, G. 1983. California Department of Fish and

Game, Interagency Wildlife Task Group: California

Wildlife Habitat Relationships System.

Baily, V., and C. C. Sperry. 1929. Life history and habits

of grasshopper mice, genus Onychomys. U.S.

Department of Agriculture Technical Bulletin. 145:1-

19.

Bolster, B.C., editor. 1998. Terrestrial mammal species

of special concern in California. Draft Final Report

prepared by P.V. Brylski, P.W. Collins, E.D. Pierson,

W.E. Rainey and T.E. Kucera. Report submitted to

California Department of Fish and Game Wildlife

Management Division, Nongame Bird and Mammals

Conservation Program for Contract No. FG3146WM.

Bowker, M.A. 2007. Biological soil crust rehabilitation in

theory and practice: an underexploited opportunity.

Restoration Ecology 15(1):13-23.

CDFG. 2012. Staff report on burrowing owl mitigation.

Natural Resources Agency, Department of Fish and

Game. Sacramento, CA. March 7, 2012.

CDFG. 2009. Protocols for surveying and evaluating

impacts to special status native plant populations

and natural communities. November 24, 2009.

CDFG. 2000. Guidelines for assessing the effects of

proposed Projects on rare, threatened, and

endangered plants and natural communities.

(Revision of 1983 guidelines). Sacramento, CA.

CDFG. 1994. Staff report regarding mitigation for

impacts on Swainson’s hawks (Buteo Swainsoni) in

the Central Valley of California. Sacramento, CA.

November 8, 1994.

CDFW. 2014. California Natural Diversity Database. Rare

Find 5. Habitat Planning and Conservation Branch.

Electronic Database.

CNPS. 2014. Inventory of rare, threatened, and

endangered plants (online edition, v8-02). California

Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA (Accessed

online March 24, 2014 at:

http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/

Cypher, E.A. General rare plant survey guidelines.

Endangered Species Recovery Program. California

State University, Stanislaus. Bakersfield, CA.


23

DeSante, S.F., E.D. Ruhlen, S.L. Adamany, K.M. Burton,

and S. Amin. 1997. A census of burrowing owls in

central California in 1991. Pages 38-48 In: Lincer, J.L.

and K. Steenhof (editors). The burrowing owl; it’s

biology and management: including the Proceedings

of the First International Burrowing Owl Symposium.

Raptor Research Report Number 9.

England, A.S., M.J. Bechard, and C.S. Houston. 1997.

Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni) In: Poole, A and

F. Gill (eds.), The birds of North America, Birds of

North America, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Germano, D.J, R.B. Bury, T.C. Esque, T.H. Fritts, and P.A.

Medica. 1994. Range and habitats of the desert

tortoise. In: Biology of North American Tortoises.

Fish and Wildlife Research. 13. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of the Interior, National Biological

Survey. 73-84 p.

Horner, B.E., J.M. Taylor, and H.A. Padykula. 1964. Food

habitats and gastric morphology of the grasshopper

mouse. Journal of Mammology. 45:513-535.

Jennings, M.R., and M.P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and

reptile species of special concern in California. Final

Report submitted to the California Department of

Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division, Rancho

Cordova, California.

John, R.D., and J. Romanow. 1993. Feeding behavior of a

burrowing owl, Athene cunicularia, in Ontario.

Canadian Field Naturalist. 107:231-232.

Klute, D. S., L. W. Ayers, M. T. Green, W. H. Howe, S. L.

Jones, J. A. Shaffer, S. R. Sheffield, and T. S.

Zimmerman. 2003. Status Assessment and

Conservation Plan for the Western Burrowing Owl in

the United States. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish

and Wildlife Service, Biological Technical Publication

FWS/BTP-R6001-2003, Washington, D.C.

Kochert, M.N., and K. Steenhoff. 2002. Golden eagles in

the United States and Canada: trends, and

conservation challenges. USGS Forest and Rangeland

Ecosystems Science Center. Boise, Idaho.

Kochert, M., K. Steenhof, C. McIntyre, and E. Craig.

2002. Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) In: Poole, A

and F. Gill (eds.), The birds of North America, Birds of

North America, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Koford, C.B. 1953. The California condor. Dover

Publications Inc, New York.

Larsen, Caryla. 1987. Badger distribution study.

California Department of Fish and Game, Nongame

Wildlife Investigations Report. Project: W-65-R-4,

Job: I-11. 8pp.

Laudenslayer, W.F., and M.D. Parisi. 2007. Species notes

for American badger, Taxidea taxus. California

Department of Fish and Game, California Interagency

Wildlife Task Group.

Los Angeles County. 2014. Los Angeles County 2014

Draft General Plan 2035. Published for Public

Review January 2014.

McCarty, R. 1975. Onychomys torridus. Mammalian

Species. 59:1-5.

Miner, K.L. and D.C. Stokes. 2005. Bats in the South

Coast Ecoregion: Status, Conservation Issues, and

Research Needs. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech.

Rep. PSW-GTR-195.

Mountfort, G. 1988. Rare birds of the world. Stephen

Green Press Inc, New York.

Sawyer, J. and T. Keeler-Wolf. 2009. A Manual of

California Vegetation. California Native Plant Society.

Sacramento, CA.

Schlorff, R.W., and P.H. Bloom. 1983. Importance of

riparian systems to nesting Swainson’s hawks in the

Central Valley of California. Pp. 612-618 In: California

Riparian Systems (R.E. Warner and K.M. Hendrix,

eds.). Univ. of California Press, Berkeley. 1035 pp.


24

Shuford, W.D., and T. Gardali, editors. 2008. California

bird species of special concern: a ranked assessment

of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of

birds of immediate conservation concern in

California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field

Ornithologists, Camarillo, California, and California

Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento.

Sheppard, J.M. 1996. Le Conte’s thrasher (Toxostoma

lecontei) In: Poole, A and F. Gill (eds.), The birds of

North America, Birds of North America, Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania.

Stebbins, R.C. 2003. Western reptiles and amphibians.

3rd ed. Peterson Field Guides. Boston: Houghton

Miffin Company. 533 pp.

USDA. Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2013.

Web Soil Survey, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

(Accessed online April 18 2014 at:

http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/)

USFWS. 2014a. Information, Planning, and Conservation

System (online edition). Carlsbad, CA: USFWS.

(Accessed on March 24, 2014 at:

http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/)

USFWS. 2014b. National Wetlands Inventory Center

Wetlands Mapper (Accessed on April 18, 2014 at:

http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html)

USFWS. 2013a. USFWS Species List Generators

(Accessed online on March 24, 2014 at:

http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es_species/Lists/es

_species_lists-overview.htm)

USFWS. 2013b. California condor (Gymnogyps

californianus) 5-year review: summary and

evaluation. Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office,

Sacramento, California.

USFWS. 2011. Revised recovery plan for the Mojave

population of the desert tortoise. Pacific Southwest

Region. May 2011.

USFWS. 1996. Guidelines for conducting and reporting

botanical inventories for Federally listed, proposed,

and candidate plants. Sacramento, CA.

Wright, P.L. 1966. Observations on the reproductive

cycle of the American badger (Taxidea taxus). Symp.

Zool. Soc. London. 15:27-45.

Yosef, R. 1996. Loggerhead shrike. In: Poole, A and F.

Gill (eds.), The birds of North America, Birds of North

America, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., and K.E. Mayer

(eds.). 1988. California’s Wildlife. Volume I

Amphibians and Reptiles. California Department of

Fish and Wildlife. Sacramento, CA.

Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K.E. Mayer, and M.

White (eds.). 1990. California’s Wildlife. Volume II

Birds. California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Sacramento, CA.


Figures

SNIP Phase IIWater Pipeline Project

FIGURE 1DATE: 4-4-2014

¬«138

Site VicinityDRWN: Amber Nichols Revision: 0

0 3 6Miles°

¬«14

¬«14

Project LocationLancaster


FIGURE 2DATE: 4-4-2014

LegendDistribution Pipeline (Approx. Alignment)

Alternate Distribution Pipeline (Approx. Alignment)

Project LocationDRWN: Amber Nichols Revision: 0

0 1 2Miles°

West Avenue H

West Avenue I

West Avenue J

West Avenue K

West Avenue L

West Avenue M-8

80th Street West

70th Street West

k

k


FIGURE 3ADATE: 4-19-2014

Vegetation Types and Other AreasFallow Farmland / Non-Native Grassland

Rabbitbrush Scrub

Agricultural

Ruderal / Disturbed

Residential / Commercial

Distribution Piping (Approx. Alignment)

Biological Study Area (100 Foot Buffer)

k Raven Nest

Vegetation TypesWest Avenue H - West Avenue I

DRWN: Amber Nichols Revision: 0

0 0.2 0.4Miles°

80th Street West

West Avenue H

West Avenue I


FIGURE 3bDATE: 4-19-2014


Rabbitbrush Scrub

Alkali Sink

Ruderal / Disturbed



Alternate Distribution Piping (Approx. Alignment)


Vegetation TypesWest Avenue I - West Avenue K


0 0.3 0.6Miles°

80th Street West

West Avenue I

West Avenue J

West Avenue K

k


FIGURE 3cDATE: 4-19-2014


Rabbitbrush Scrub

Alkali Sink

Joshua Tree Sparse Stand

Ruderal / Disturbed





k Raven Nest

Vegetation TypesWest Avenue K - West Avenue L


0 0.3 0.6Miles°

80th Street West

West Avenue K

West Avenue L

70th Street West


FIGURE 3dDATE: 4-19-2014


Rabbitbrush Scrub

Ruderal / Disturbed





Vegetation TypesAvenue L Southward


0 0.3 0.6Miles°

70th Street West

Columbia Way

West Avenue L

West Avenue M-8


Figures


Appendix A: Plants and Wildlife Species of the Project Area


TABLE A-1: Plant species documented within the Project Area.

Scientific Name Common Name

Ambrosia dumosa Burrobush

Amsinckia tessellata Fiddleneck

Atriplex canescens Fourwing saltbush

Baccharis salicifolia Mulefat

Brassica tournefortii * Sahara mustard

Bromus carinatus California brome

Bromus rubens* Red brome

Bromus tectorum* Cheatgrass

Camissonia campestris Mojave suncup

Cryptantha nevadensis var. nevadensis Nevada cryptantha

Datura stramonium* Jimsonweed

Descurainia pinnata Western tansymustard

Descurainia sophia* Herb sophia

Dichelostemma capitata Blue Dicks

Distichlis spicata Saltgrass

Ephedra sp. Ephedra

Ericameria nauseosa Rubber rabbitbrush

Eriogonum angulosum Anglestem buckwheat

Eriogonum fasciculatum California buckwheat

Erodium cicutarium* Redstem filaree

Eschscholzia californica California poppy

Gilia latiflora ssp. latiflora Broad-flowered gilia

Heliotropium curassavicum Heliotrope

Hirschfeldia incana* Shortpod mustard

Hordeum brachyantherum Meadow barley

Hordeum murinum ssp. glaucum* Hare barley

Juniperus spp. Juniper

Lasthenia californica California goldfields

Lycium cooperi Cooper's box thorn

Matricaria discoidea* Common pineapple weed

Pectocarya penicillata Winged comb seed

Pinus contorta ssp. murrayana Lodgepole pine

Plagiobothrys canescens var. catalinensis Catalina popcornflower

Polygonum arenastrum* Common knotweed

Robinia pseudoacacia Black locust

Salix laevigata Red willow

Salsola tragus* Russian thistle

Schismus barbatus* Mediterranean grass


Sisymbrium irio* London rocket

Sphaeralcea ambigua Desert mallow

Tamarix ramosissima * Saltcedar

Ulmus rubra* Slippery elm

Uropappus lindleyi Lindley's silverpuffs

Yucca brevifolia Joshua tree

* Non-native species

TABLE A-2: Wildlife species observed or detected within the Project Area.

Scientific Name Common Name

Mammals

Lepus californicus Black-tailed jackrabbit

Otospermophilus beecheyi California ground squirrel

Birds

Ardea alba Great egret

Buteo jamaicensis Red-tailed hawk (dark morph)

Callipepla californica California quail

Corvus corax Common raven

Eremophila alpestris Horned lark

Icterus bullockii Bullock's oriole

Mimus polyglottos Northern mockingbird

Sturnella neglecta Western meadowlark

Sturnus vulgaris European starling

Zenaida macroura Mourning dove

Zonotrichia atricapilla Golden-crowned sparrow

Zonotrichia leucophrys White-crowned sparrow

Reptiles

Uta stansburiana Side-blotched lizard

Invertebrates

Messor spp. Harvester ant


Appendix B: Site Photographs


Photograph 1: (View looking northwest) Fallow farmland / non-native grassland habitat along 80th Street West

between West Avenue H and West Avenue I, showing the native and non-native forbs and shrubs.

Photograph 2: (View looking east) Alkali sink area within the right-of-way along 80th Street West between West

Avenue I and West Avenue J.


Photograph 3: (View looking southwest) Rabbitbrush scrub habitat along 80th Street West between West Avenue J

and West Avenue K, showing the native forbs and shrubs.

Photograph 4: (View looking south) Area of sparse Joshua tree stands along 80th Street West at the intersection of

West Avenue K.


Photograph 5: (View looking south) Joshua trees within the right-of-way along 80th Street West between West

Avenue K and West Avenue L.

Photograph 6: (View looking southwest) Agricultural fields along unpaved 80th Street West at the intersection of

West Avenue H.


Photograph 7: (View looking northeast) Los Angeles County Water Works District Disinfection Station and Turnout

Site on 80th Street West at West Avenue H, showing ruderal/disturbed area of non-native grasses and forbs.

Photograph 8: (View looking south) Residential area along 70th Street West between West Avenue L and Columbia

Way.


Photograph 9: Ground squirrel burrow within non-native grassland along 80th Street West between Columbia

Avenue and West Avenue M-8.

Photograph 10: Ground squirrel burrow within non-native grassland along 80th Street West between Columbia

Avenue and West Avenue M-8.


Photographs 11 & 12: (View looking southwest) Active raven nest within lodgepole pine tree along 70th Street West

between West Avenue K and West Avenue L.

Photograph 13: Raven nest observed being constructed on power transmission line along 80th Street West between

West Avenue H and West Avenue I.


Appendix C: Potentially Occurring Special Status Species

South North Intertie Pipeline Project – Phase II Biological Resources Constraints Analysis

TABLE C-1: Special status plant and wildlife species that have potential to occur within the proposed Project Area (species with CNDDB records within the 9 USGS quadrangles surrounding the Project site).


Status* Potential for Occurrence

Species Federal State CRPR Habitat Characteristics On the Project Site

Plant Communities

Southern Coast Live Oak Riparian Forest ~ SSNC ~

Riparian woodland dominated by coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia). Occurs in valley bottoms and outer floodplains along larger streams, in sandy soils or alluvium.

Limited potential. No coast live oak trees or riparian areas were observed within the Project Area.

Southern Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest

~ SSNC ~

Riparian forests characterized by a tall, multilayered, open canopy and dominated by Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii), and willows (Salix spp.). Distributed along rivers and streams.

Limited potential. No cottonwood trees or riparian areas were observed within the Project Area.

Southern Riparian Scrub ~ SSNC ~

Riparian scrub habitat dominated by various shrub species such as California broomsage (Lepidospartum squamatum), and California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum). Distributed along rivers and streams.

Limited potential. No riparian areas or aquatic habitats were observed within the Project Area.

Southern Willow Scrub ~ SSNC ~ Riparian scrub habitat dominated by willow trees and shrubs (Salix spp.). Distributed along rivers and streams.

Limited potential. No willow trees and shrubs or riparian areas were observed within the Project Area.

Valley Needlegrass Grassland ~ SSNC ~ Characterized by perennial tussock-forming grasses dominated by purple needlegrass (Nassella pulchra).

Limited potential. No purple needlegrass was observed within the Project Area.

Plants

Horn's milk vetch (Astragalus hornii var. hornii)

~ ~ 1B.1

Occurs along lake margins, meadows and seeps, and playas in alkaline soils. Elevation range is 60 to 850 meters. Blooms May-October.

Limited potential. No suitable habitat observed within the Project Area.

Lancaster milk vetch (Astragalus preussii var. laxiflorus)

~ ~ 1B.1

Found in chenopod scrub. Currently known in California only from near Lancaster and Edwards Air Force Base. Blooms March-May.

Limited potential. No suitable habitat observed within the Project Area.




Barstow woolly sunflower (Eriophyllum mohavense)

~ ~ 1B.2 Occurs in chenopod scrub, Mojavean desert scrub, and playas. Elevation range is 500 to 960 meters. Blooms March-May.

Limited potential. Suitable habitat observed within the Project Area, however this species was not observed during the floristic survey.

Slender mariposa lily (Calochortus clavatus var. gracilis)

~ ~ 1B.2

Occurs in chaparral, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grasslands. Elevation range is 320 to 1000 meters. Blooms March-June.


Alkali mariposa lily (Calochortus striatus)

~ ~ 1B.2

A perennial bulb found in alkaline and mesic areas within chaparral, chenopod scrub, Mojavean desert scrub, meadows, and seeps. Elevation range is 70 to 1,595 meters. Blooms April-June.


Clokey's cryptantha (Cryptantha clokeyi)

~ ~ 1B.2 Occurs in Mojavean desert scrub. Elevation range is 725 to 1,365 meters. Blooms in April.


Sagebrush loeflingia (Loeflingia squarrosa var. artemisiarum)

~ ~ 2B.2

Found in desert dunes, Great Basin scrub, and Sonoran desert scrub. Elevation range is 700 to 1,615 meters. Soil type is sandy. Blooms April-May.


Short-joint beavertail (Opuntia basilaris var. brachyclada)

~ ~ 1B.2

Occurs in chaparral, Joshua tree woodland, Mojavean desert scrub, and pinyon and juniper woodland habitats. Elevation range is 425 to 1,800 meters. Blooms April-August.





Mammals

Southern grasshopper mouse (Onychomys torridus ramona)

~ CSC

Arid desert habitats of the Mojave Desert and southern Central Valley. Alkali desert scrub and desert scrub habitats. Uses abandoned rodent burrows in low to moderate shrub cover.

Potentially present. Suitable low shrub cover desert scrub with rodent burrow habitats observed within the Project Area, however this species has not been observed within the nine USGS quad search area since 1930. Low likelihood of occurrence.

American badger (Taxidea taxus)

~ CSC

Occurs in open, dry grassland and scrubland habitats. Requires sufficient food (mostly burrowing rodents), friable soils and open, uncultivated ground.

Potentially present. Suitable habitat exists on-site, and one potential badger den observed during survey.

Mohave ground squirrel (Xerospermophilus mohavensis)

FT ~

Inhabits desert scrub communities and Joshua tree woodlands in the Mojave Desert in portions of Inyo, Kern, Los Angeles, and San Bernardino counties. This species spends much of the year underground.

Limited potential. Project Area is outside of the current known range for this species. The closest known populations occur east of Hwy 14 in Lancaster, approximately 6.7 miles east of the Project Area.

Birds

Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos)

BGEPA FP

Inhabits grasslands, savannahs, oak and pine woodlands, and agricultural fields. Nesting usually occurs in mountainous areas, but may also occur in wetland and riparian habitats. Nests are constructed on cliffs and in large trees in open areas.

Potentially present during foraging. Suitable grassland and agricultural field foraging habitats observed within the Project Area.

Short-eared owl (Asio flammeus)

~ CSC

Found in open, treeless areas that support rodents for foraging, with elevated sites for perching, and dense vegetation for roosting and nesting. Suitable habitats include salt- and freshwater marshes, irrigated agricultural alfalfa and grain fields, and grasslands.

Potentially present. Suitable grassland and agricultural field foraging and nesting habitats observed within the Project Area, however this species has not been observed within the nine USGS quad search since 1932. Low likelihood of occurrence.




Western Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia)

~ CSC Inhabits open annual or perennial grasslands, desserts and scrublands characterized by low-growing vegetation.

Potentially present. Suitable grassland and desert scrub foraging and nesting habitats observed within the Project Area.

Swainson's hawk (Buteo swainsoni)

BCC ST

Within Antelope Valley this species is known to nest in Joshua tree woodlands, ornamental roadside trees. Foraging habitat includes grasslands, Joshua tree woodlands, and other desert scrub habitats that support a suitable prey base.

Potentially present. Suitable grassland, desert scrub, and Joshua tree nesting and foraging habitats observed within the Project Area.

Western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus)

~ CSC

Interior California population breeds on barren to sparsely vegetated flats and along shores of alkaline and saline lakes, reservoirs, ponds, and river channels. Requires water within 3 km for nesting. Forage near shallow water.

Limited potential. No aquatic habitats within 3 km of the Project Area.

Mountain plover (Charadrius montanus)

~ CSC

Winter visitor to California, typically from December to mid-March. Species uses grassland and agricultural land, all with short vegetation.

Limited potential. Species not associated with desert scrub habitat in Project Area. Non-native grassland within Project Area without suitable short vegetation.

California condor (Gymnogyps californianus)

FE SE

Is found in semi-arid, rugged mountain ranges surrounding southern San Joaquin Valley. Forages primarily on large carcasses such as cattle, sheep, deer, and horse in large, open rangelands. Nests in caves, crevices, and on large ledges on high sandstone cliffs.

Limited potential. Project Area not within current known range for this species (USFWS 2013a). No suitable nesting habitat observed, and Project Area provides only marginal foraging habitat due to low density of large carcasses in the vicinity.

Le Conte's thrasher (Toxostoma lecontei)

~ CSC

Desert flats, washes, alluvial with sandy alkali soils. In Antelope Valley, species known only to nest in allscale (Atriplex polycarpa).

Potentially present. Suitable foraging and nesting habitat observed within the Project Area.




Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus)

~ CSC

Found in a variety of habitats including desert scrub and washes. Prefers open habitat for hunting, with perches for scanning, and fairly dense shrubs and brush for nesting.

Potentially present. Suitable foraging and nesting habitat observed within the Project Area.

Tri-colored blackbird ~ CSC

Is found in wetland areas throughout the Central Valley and foothills. Nests in dense blackberry, cattail tules, willow, or wild rose within emergent wetlands.

Limited potential. No aquatic habitats suitable for nesting within the Project Area. The California Aqueduct is approximately 0.3 miles south of the Project Area but lacks emergent vegetation.

Amphibians

California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii)

FT CSC

Inhabits quiet pools within streams, marshes, ponds, and artificial stock ponds. May be found in upland and riparian areas during periods of wet weather. Found at elevations below 1,200 meters.

Limited potential. No aquatic or riparian areas within the Project Area. The California Aqueduct is approximately 0.3 miles south of the Project Area but lacks suitable habitat for this species.

Reptiles

Silvery legless lizard (Anniella pulchra pulchra)

~ CSC

Occurs in grasslands and open shrublands with moist, warm sandy or loose loamy soils with plant cover. Typically occurs in areas with leaf litter under trees and bushes in sunny locations.

Potentially present. Suitable habitat observed within the Project Area. CNDDB record from 2005 approximately 3.6 miles east of the Project Area in similar habitat (saltbush scrub, Joshua tree woodland in sandy soils) (CDFW 2014).

Western pond turtle (Emmys marmorata)

~ CSC

Inhabits ponds, lakes, rivers, streams, creeks, marshes, and irrigation ditches where abundant vegetation and either a rocky or muddy bottom is present.

Limited potential. No aquatic or riparian areas within the Project Area. The California Aqueduct is approximately 0.3 miles south of the Project Area but lacks suitable habitat for this species (CDFW 2014).




Desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii)

FT ST

Inhabits river washes, rocky hillsides, and flat desert areas with sandy or gravelly soil. Creosote bush, burrobush, saltbush, Joshua tree, Mojave yucca and cacti are often present along with other shrubs, grasses and wildflowers.

Potentially present. Suitable desert scrub, and Joshua tree habitats observed, however no known occurrences of this species west of Highway 14, and marginal soil friability and habitat structure typical of this species. Low likelihood of occurrence.

Blainville's horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii)

~ CSC Inhabits grassland, scrub, chaparral, and woodland, with ant populations.

Potentially present. Suitable grassland and desert scrub habitat observed within the Project Area. CNDDB record from 2007 approximately 0.3 mile southwest of the Project Area in non-native grassland habitat (CDFW 2014).

Two-striped garter snake (Thamnophis hammondii)

~ CSC

Inhabits perennial and intermittent streams, stock ponds or other artificial aquatic habitats where a dense riparian vegetation border and amphibian and fish prey are present.

Limited potential. No aquatic or riparian areas within the Project Area. The California Aqueduct is approximately 0.3 miles south of the Project Area but lacks suitable habitat for this species.

Federal Status: USFWS Listing CRPR: California Rare Plant Rank

FE = Listed as endangered under ESA 1B = Plant species that are rare, threatened, or FT = Listed as threatened under ESA endangered in California and elsewhere BCC = Bird of Conservation Concern 2B = Plant species that are rare, threatened, or BGEPA = Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act endangered in California but more common elsewhere

State Status: CDFW Listing Threat Ranks

SE = Listed as endangered under CESA 0.1 - Seriously threatened in California ST = Listed as threatened under CESA 0.2 - Fairly threatened in California FP = Fully Protected under the BGEPA CSC = Species of concern as identified by the CDFW SSNC = Special Status Natural Community as identified by the CDFW

Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands File Search

California Historical Resource Information System Consultation

14.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan

ANTELOPE VALLEY – EAST KERN WATER AGENCY

SOUTH NORTH INTERTIE PIPELINE (SNIP) PHASE II PROJECT

Mitigated Negative Declaration SCH No. 2014051007

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan

June 2014

Antelope Valley – East Kern Water Agency – South North Intertie Pipeline SNIP Phase II Project Mitigated Negative Declaration - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan Page 2

1. General The Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Antelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency (Agency) South North Intertie Pipeline SNIP Phase II Project specified a number of mitigation measures to be undertaken during implementation of the proposed project. During implementation it is essential that all of these be complied with and that compliance be documented in a timely manner. Failure to comply with and or document compliance could result in a challenge to the project that could result in project delays. This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) has been prepared for the project and has been adopted concurrently with the findings of the final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration. This plan is intended to track compliance of all of the mitigation measures adopted with the Mitigated Negative Declaration.

2. Responsibility for Compliance and Documentation Implementation of the MMRP will be the responsibility of the Agency. The Agency will assign a project manager to oversee all aspects of implementation of the proposed project and ensure that the mitigation and monitoring commitments made in the MND are carried out in a timely and effective manner. In implementing the MMRP, the Agency will often rely on the expertise of outside consultants and contractors. To ensure the effectiveness of this mitigation and monitoring, the Agency will:

• Make the MMRP an element of all project-related requests for proposals and contract specifications, specifying that construction contractors will be responsible for appropriate acquisition of permits for construction and implementation of relevant mitigation and monitoring elements, as specified in this MMRP;

• Independently review contractor compliance on a regular basis and require corrective actions in a timely manner when the Agency determines that such actions are required;

• Maintain files, open to the public for inspection, documenting compliance with the MMRP;

• Designate an Agency staff member to receive and respond to all public and agency comments, complaints, and/or questions regarding compliance with the MMRP; and

• Provide regulatory agencies with appropriate and timely documentation of compliance as specified in regulatory permits issued for the proposed project.

Additionally, the Agency will require that construction contractors designate a principal mitigation and monitoring manager (Principal) and back-up mitigation and monitoring manager (Alternate) and shall ensure that at least one of these is on-site during all phases of construction. These persons may perform other tasks, but shall have adequate time, training, and expertise to perform the required monitoring and documentation. The Principal shall be the contractor's construction field supervisor or assistant field supervisor. The Principal or Alternate shall independently verify compliance with required mitigation measures and shall indicate verification by filling out and signing the appropriate compliance checklist, thereby certifying compliance with all measures.

3. Incidents and Compliance Reporting Timely reporting of compliance and of any incidents which may result in non-compliance is essential. Contracts for construction and for independent compliance contractors shall therefore specify that, if the designated construction contractor for an activity determines that


any aspect of construction is not in substantive compliance with the mitigation requirements for the activity, the contractor shall immediately take action to remedy the problem. The designated Principal or Alternate shall notify the Agency within not more than 24 hours following determination that any aspect of construction activity is not in compliance with mitigation requirements, shall explain how the incident has been addressed, and shall provide any other information requested by the Agency. Following action to address the out-of-compliance incident, the designated Principal or Alternate must complete an "incident report" and submit a copy of the report to the Agency’s project manager within one week of the incident.

4. Mitigation and Monitoring Plan Update The Agency recognizes that laws, regulations, and policies related to construction activities may change during construction. The Agency’s project manager is responsible for periodically reviewing the status of laws, regulations, and guidelines applicable to their construction activity. The Agency will implement any new rules in effect at the time of approval.

5. Staff Awareness Staff must be informed of mitigation and monitoring requirements prior to construction. New staff must be oriented when they come on site. The Principal/Alternate therefore needs to review compliance requirements and monitoring requirements for the job with all personnel on site to ensure that they know the requirements, know the importance of compliance, know that violations must be reported, and know that compliance is a condition of employment on this job. Similarly, a summary list of mitigation and monitoring requirements shall be posted in a conspicuous location at the job site so that they may be referred to at any time.

6. Training If specialized expertise are necessary for mitigation or monitoring, Agency staff or the delegated construction contractor shall provide such training to the persons responsible for compliance and/or monitoring. For example, if biological pre construction surveys identify the presence of a special status species, the Agency shall retain the services of a qualified biologist familiar with this species to provide environmental training for the identification and protection of same.

7. On Going Documentation Compliance will be monitored on a timely basis, depending on the nature of the activity and the Mitigation requirement. Where appropriate. photo documentation of pre-construction conditions, of activities during construction, of any incidents that may constitute a violation of mitigation requirements, and of post construction conditions are encouraged. However, if photo documentation is adopted as a monitoring tool, it must be used consistently to ensure that there are records of all activities for which compliance must be documented. Labels must be explanatory and contain adequate information about the photographer, date, time, and conditions when the photo was taken. Photo documentation shall be backed up with paper copies and/or records on CD/DVD. Agency staff may audit records of compliance with mitigation and monitoring requirements at any time and compliance records must be readily available and in good order. Logs of mitigation and monitoring compliance should be maintained and supporting documentation should be provided in parallel to the log. The Agency and its project manager and other contractors will maintain such records in a form suitable for the required monitoring and reporting. It is anticipated that contractors will generally have appropriate monitoring templates for typical construction activities. In other cases, the format of compliance monitoring records may be available from the regulatory agency approving the monitoring (if any).


8. Mitigation and Monitoring Requirements The following identifies all of the mitigation measures identified in the MND.

Biological General MM-1: A qualified biologist shall conduct a training session for all construction personnel focused on the protection and conservation of sensitive species that may be encountered in the Project area, the laws and codes that regulate these species, and the protection measures that must be followed to minimize impacts. MM-2: All excavated holes or trenches greater than 2 feet deep shall be covered at the end of each work day, or escape ramps provided. MM-3: All food-related trash items (such as food scraps, cans, bottles) shall be removed from the Project Area daily. Avian Species MM-4: To minimize impacts to nesting and roosting raptors, pre-activity surveys would be conducted immediately prior to construction. All potential nesting trees will be surveyed within 500 feet of the project area. • Any active raptor nests would be given a 500-foot buffer. This buffer may be reduced to

300 feet if a full time biological monitor is present to observe the birds’ behavior and stop work if they appear disturbed.

• For the known raptor nest on the airport property within Segment 3, a 200-foot distance from the project activities combined with a biological monitor during construction during the nesting period will likely be sufficient to protect the nest.

MM-5: Although burrowing owls are considered raptors, their special ground-nesting habit requires additional protection measures. Pre-activity surveys of the Project Area and a 500-foot buffer would be conducted immediately prior to construction. All potential burrows would be observed for signs of burrowing owl use, such as whitewash, feathers, and owl pellets. • If an active nest is confirmed the nest will be given a 500-foot buffer until the chicks have fledged and are independent of the nest. • If a solitary or non-nesting burrowing owl is observed using a burrow, a 200-foot buffer

would be established. MM-6: Tree removal shall be avoided whenever possible to limit the loss of nesting habitat for Swainson’s hawks and other migratory birds. Where tree removal is unavoidable, trees shall be removed outside of the nesting season whenever possible. Trees slated for removal during the nesting bird season (February 1 through August 31) shall be surveyed by a qualified biologist no more than 48 hours prior to removal to ensure no nesting birds are occupying the tree.


MM-7: If an active Swainson’s hawk nest is found during pre-construction surveys, a 0.5 mile buffer restricting construction activities around the nest shall be established until all young have fledged or the nest is no longer in use. MM-8: To minimize impacts to nesting migratory birds, pre-activity surveys would be conducted immediately prior to vegetation clearance, tree removal or other construction activities during the avian nesting season (February 1 through August 31), to identify potential active nests. If active nests are found, a 300-foot buffer restricting construction activities would be established around the nests until all young have fledged or the nest is no longer active. MM-9: The results of the pre-construction nesting bird surveys shall be documented in a letter report that is distributed to CDFW. These measures shall ensure compliance with the MBTA, and CFGC 3503.5. American Badgers MM-10: Pre-activity surveys would be conducted immediately prior to construction to identify potential dens. Potential dens would be monitored for 3 days using tracking medium at the potential den entrance to detect badger use. • If the den is inactive, the den would be carefully excavated or dismantled and refilled with

soil and the proposed Project would be initiated. • If tracks are observed on the tracking medium during any of the 3 days, the entrance will

be progressively blocked over the next 3 days using soil and other nearby materials (i.e., woody debris) to render the entrance progressively more difficult to access. To assure no loss of badgers, the den will then be hand excavated and backfilled to prevent re-occupation.

• Active natal dens would require establishment of a 300-foot buffer surrounding the active natal den. No work related to the proposed Project would take place within this buffer while the natal den is active. Once abandoned the den would be dismantled or excavated.

Bats MM-11: Pre-construction surveys for active bat roosting sites shall be conducted in buildings and trees that could support bats and are within 200-feet of the Project Area. • If no evidence of bats (i.e., direct observation, guano, staining, and strong odors) is

observed, no further mitigation shall be required. • If evidence of roosting bats is observed, a no-disturbance buffer of 250-feet shall be

established during the breeding season (April 15 through August 15). • No removal of trees showing evidence of roosting bats shall occur without prior

concurrence from CDFW. Where tree removal is unavoidable, a qualified bat biologist shall determine the bat species in residence, and CDFW will be consulted to determine the appropriate avoidance and minimization measures.


Reptiles MM-12: A biologist shall survey the Project Area within 48 hours of construction prior to initial ground disturbance, and relocate any individuals encountered to suitable habitat outside the Project footprint. MM-13: Biological monitors will be present during the top layers of excavation and relocate any individuals encountered during this activity. Plants MM-14: Areas within the Project Area that present characteristics to indicate they could support any of the potential special status plants will be restored to pre-project conditions following construction. Air Quality MM-15: The project contractor will prepare and implement a Fugitive Dust Plan per AVAQMD guidelines that would include the following or other measures with the equivalent level of reduction for the entire project. The fugitive dust control plan can be incorporated onto the project’s Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. • All materials excavated or graded would be sufficiently watered to prevent excessive

dust. • All clearing, grading, earth-moving, or excavation activities would cease during periods of

high winds so as to prevent excessive amounts of dust. • Stockpiles of soil or other fine loose material would be stabilized by watering or other

appropriate method such as non-toxic soil binders to prevent wind-blown fugitive dust. • On-site vehicle speed on unimproved roads would be limited to 15 miles per hour. • Streets adjacent to the project site would be kept clean and project-related accumulated

silt shall be removed to prevent excessive amounts of dust. In addition to the Fugitive Dust Plan, the construction contractor would implement measures, such as the following, to reduce emission of exhaust from vehicles and diesel generators: • All equipment shall be maintained as recommended by manufacturer’s manuals. • Idling engines shall be shut down when not in use for over 30 minutes. • Electric equipment shall be used whenever possible in lieu of diesel or gasoline powered

equipment. • All construction vehicles shall be equipped with proper emissions control equipment and

kept in good and proper running order to substantially reduce nitrogen oxides (NOX) emissions.

• On-road and off-road diesel equipment shall use diesel particulate filters if permitted under manufacturer’s guidelines.

• All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered. Cultural MM-16: The Agency will be entering into a consultation services agreement with the Fernandeno Tatavian Board of Mission Indians to provide consultation services to the Agency


with respect to potential cultural resources of importance that could exist within the project boundaries. MM-17: In the event that any cultural resources are uncovered, all work within the vicinity of the find should stop until a qualified archaeologist can assess the finds and make recommendations. Noise MM-18: The project Contractor shall to comply with the Los Angeles County Municipal Code Section 12.08.440 related to noise during construction operations.

Antelope Valley – East Kern Water Agency California ... · PDF fileAntelope Valley...

Documents

Transcript of Antelope Valley – East Kern Water Agency California ... · PDF fileAntelope Valley...