I ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

I AD-A268 467

... ..I

.. ......... ......I.. ....

.........R...ELOCATION OF THE*H 04t TATICAL AIRLIFT WING

OF.......THE CALIFORNIA

* AIR NATIONAL GUARD

* APPENDICES

DECEMBER 1984

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 93 ftft 9

AIR DlRb%...NATIONAL GUARD BUREAUIwibtc WASHINGTON, DC 20310

PRC EAeei Inc.

4, 1S~I

III

NOTICE

This report has been prepared for the Air Directorate, National Guard Bureau by

PRC Engineering, Inc. for the purpose of analyzing the impact of construction and

operation of a new Air National Guard Base at one of three possible locations:

Naval Air Station Point Mugu, CA; Norton Air Force Base, CA; or, Air Force Plant

#42, Palmdale, CA.

"It is not an endorsement of any project. The Contractor

has no financial or other interest in the outcome of the

project. The views expressed herein are those of the

Contractor and do not necessarily reflect the official views

of the National Guard Bureau, the United States Air Force

or the Department of Defense."

IiIiIii

rjI-4 142FROMI HOD LI3S CEUA T0' 9?QC-1 C1 C10

O~ ?~ *Air Force

Environmental Planning Division(HQ USAFICEVP)

Rtom SM691260 Ak PcvM PWfASaft

*I~4~gg ~Wa3gWI1, DC 203301260

/4ev 1

s(A8j: 4*LeJ sr

j~eAW*M 4A4 AT41446

DISCLAIMER NOTICI

THIS DOCUMENT IS BESTQUALITY AVAILABLE. THE COPYFURNISHED TO DTIC CONTAINED

A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OFPAGES WHICH DO NOT

REPRODUCE LEGIBLY.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

APPENDIX I BIOLOGICAL SPECIES LIST

IAPPENDIX 11 CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED DURING PREPARATIONOF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT DOCUMENTS

Section A Comments Received in Response toI Notice of Intent and Notice of Preparation

ISection B Comments Received from the General PutFH.

APPENDIX III 146TH TAW RELOCATION SURVEY F .....

APPENDIX IV CULTURAL RESOURCES REPORT

APPENDIX V NEWS ADVERTISEMENTS AND TJS 4,i

APPENDIX VI CARPOOL EMISSIONS A60i-G

A Ni'

I DTIC QUALDITY TAB~CEf

I ~Unartnriojcad

BY--

Availability flodeaAvail and/orIDist Speolal

............ ...........I.

APPENDIX).

BIOLOGICAL SPECIE LIST

I *j¶.it=I 4-; .

I E i

I APPENDIX I

I BIOLOGICAL SPECIES LIST

PLANT SPECIES IDENTIFIED ATI ~PAL MDALE AF PLANT 042

I KEY

Importance Habitat/Association(

A Abundant Y Yucca brevff,;%1"..C Common A Atriplex ens . e

F Fragment L Larreaj 4!i.~to Occasional D Sheep DW-Urb

I Inf requent

I ~Status

*Non-.native species. . ... .. _._.._....._....

-Y A L DGNETAE

IEphedraceae - Joint Fir Family jý1:Ephedra nevadensis C 0 A

Nevada Morman Tea ~ '

I ~DICOTYLEDONES ..

Aster aceae - SunfloweroVmir..~.AcamDtotparpus IAardtr 0

Goldenhead /Ambrosia d ~n'osalýý*.ý-,,,, F

Burr o4 SN.HymegleA 0

Stephanom-a exigua 0I Small Wire Lettuce

Tetradymia stenolepis 0 0Narrow-scaled Felt-thorn

Brassicaceae - Mustard FamilyBrassica tournefortii 0

Sahara Mustard

Cactaceae - Cactus FamilyIOpuntia echinocarpaISilver Cholla

y A L DChenopodiaceae - Saitbush Family

Atriplex canescens 0 A

Four-winged Saitbush

Eurotia lanata 1 0

Winter Fat

Euphorbiaceae - Euphorbia, FamilyEremocarpus seticjerusI

Dove Weed

Stillingia pancidentataI ~Mojave Stillingia .*Onagraceae - Evening Primros Fail .F...

Camissonia booth!!Woody Bottlewasher

Polemnoniaceae - Phlox FamilyEriastrum densifolium *

Blue Mantle

Polygonaceae - Buckwheat Family iEriop~onum 2lumatella R Nim

Erioponum mohaveflse % nMohave Buckwheat

Olanaceae - Nightshade Family *

Lyciumn andersonji 0Desert -Tomato

Lycium cooperi00Peach Thorn~~

Zygophyllaceae - ILarrea trid C .iCre 4pt1e

MOCOTY JO

Agav-cAe -~ FamilyYuacca brev ifliaF

3oshua Tree

Poaceae - Grass Family*Bromus rubens 0 F C

I*Bromus tectorum 0 C CDowny Brome

Iy A L D

Oryzopsis hymenoidesI Indian Ricegrass

Poa scabrellaI Pine Bluegrass

Schismus barbatusMediterranean Grass C C C

Stipa speciosajDesert NeedlegrassF

.I .... .......I.....

A.Mii Ni

VERTEBRATE SPECIES OBSERVED ON-SITEI AND REPORTED IN THE AREA (a)

IScientific Name (Amphibians & Rep tiles) Common Name

Dipsosaurus dorsalis Desert iguanaCnemidophorous tivis Western whiptail (observed)Cal lisau rus draconoide s Zebra -tailed lizardCrotaphytus collaris Collared lizardUma scoparia Fringe-toed lizardCrotaphytus wislizenii Long-nose leopard lizard.Gerrhonotus multicarina tus Southern alligator li14rdUta stansburiana Side-blotched liz~d,(,observd)Gopherus agassizi Desert tortoise-'Crotalus viridis Western rattled eCrotalus cerastes SidewinderTan tilla plan iceps Black-hea~w snake'-".ýBufo boreas Common toed ~Xantusia vigilis Deserptipid ."clI.k - - gt.iEremophila alspestris (Avifauna) Hcrried li oerved)Corvus corax Comon aven (observed)Cathartes aura 4.rkey vulture (observed)Lan jus ludovicianus Loggerheaud shrike (observed)Falco sparverius ne r Ian ke strelI (ob se rved)I Geococcyx californianus ~ #oadrunner (observed)Lophortyx californicus afornia quailButeo jamaicensis Red4-tailed hawk (observed)Accipter cooperii Coper's hawkHylocichla guttata ' Hrmi thrushDendroica auduboni A Adubon warblerChamaea fasciata WrentitAmphispiza belli Sage sparrowIcterus parlsorum ~ Scott's orioleTyto alba /Barn owl (pellets)I Zenaidura macua N Mourning dove (observed)Taxostoma !etgteii 4 LeConte's thrasher (observed)

G morini yahroceip aa Pinyoni jayCamph1 ~ kh uf-`krunneicapillum Cactus wren (observed)Hesperibona tespertina Evening grosbeak

Bobci gdrorum Cedar waxwingvtur us vuljr Starling (observed)

Columbia livia" Rock dove (observed)Hirundo rustica Barn swallowEuphagus cyanocephalos Brewer's blackbirdElanus leucurus Black shouldered kitePa-sser domesticus House sparrow (observed)Sftumella neglecta Western meadowlark (observed)

I Minu polyglottos Mockingbird (observed)

IScientific Name (Mammals) Common Name

Dil~odomys deserti Desert kangaroo ratNeotoma fusc!Des Dusky -footed woodra teSy lv ilagu s audubanoiji Audubon's cottontail (observed)Perognathus Ik Rimembris Little pocket mouseReithrodo- imys meralotis Western harvest mouseSylvila-Rus bachmani Brush rabbit

Black-tail jackrabbit (observed)Perogna thus californicas California mouseTaxidea taxus Ringtail badgerUrocyon cinereoaritenteus Grey foxCanis latrans Coyote (observed)Felis domesticus Feral cat (observed)..

Canis domesticus Feral dog (observedfEw -'

(a pcisntlisted as observed have been reor e ANomope Valley areaIDepartment of Transportation - Federal Aviation rT*iIration Draft EIS -

PalmaleIntrnaionl Arpot -3anary1974'!

N.-

APPENDIX. H

CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED DVW~NG PREPARATIONOF DRAFT ENVIRONMEtn7A IMPACT, DOCUMENTS

.Sectiob

ICommnents Recefive Id in Response toNotice of Intentul 'Nptice of Preparation

II

OF CALIFORNIA - SUSINESS. TRANSPORTAPlON AND HOUSING AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Govwmof

DbEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONFN2OF AEftONAUMICSC CRA MENTO, CA 95814

(916) 322-3090

II September 19, 1984

I ~OCT1

I Sgt. Riley Black PP pDepartment of Air Force146th Tactical Airlift Wing -

8030 Balboa Boulevard #

Van Nuys, CA 91409

* ~Dear Sergeant Black:( XDepartment of Air ForcM.1s" fo

146th Tactical Airlift Ws ing tin10 Guard5Van Nuys, Base Relocation EI~ES #C~~84080104

Upon review of subject NOP, s~iciiic mments are difficultto provide at this stage untill .ýthe ~Ina location of the AirI ~National Guard Wing is etrnd 1 When this decision ismade, consideration shouj-flli-be iven' to the issues of noiseand safety from increasemi--ýý-ft iraf-t activities resulting fromthe relocation of theWij

Thank you for the tpttuný*..y of reviewing and commenting onthis NOP.

Sincerely,

*JACK D. KEMM Ln c' d';ng Chief

Earl A. T"11or, ChiefAir Transpo :tation

,el 574)

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMIENTAL PROTECTION AGENCYREGION IX

215 Fremont StreetSan Francisco, Ca. 94105

Mr. Don WilliamsI ANGSL/DEVAndrews AFB, MD 20331 AR 1

Dear. M1r. Williams:

The Environmental Protection Agency EPA'Is rveedthe Notice of intent for the project tit ~d~O ION OF THE146 TACTICAL AIRLIFT WING FROM VAN NUYS A" .H AS POINTMUGU, CALIFORNIA.

Our review is based on the Cog--iib Z vironmentalQuality (CEO) Regulations (40 CFR tart., 1.O-0-508). We havethe enclosed comments to offer 19 .hi Vme.

We appreciate the oppor tun tqý'ityo i6 C*-omment on the proposedproject. Please send three,V.j' pies-o h rf niomna

Impact"s; Sttmn (DEIS tQ-isOtice at the same time it isUofficially filed with our ~ton , D.C. office. We alsorequest notification of any pd,__11" hearings to be held onthis project. If you -.tive any -uestions, please contact meI at (415) 974-8188 8r~r. B548.4 / \ Sincerely yours,

/Loretta K/a n Barsamian, Chief3 4t)lv?$EI S Review Section

I Enclosure

Water Quality Comments

For each alternative the DEIS should:

2. Demonstrate the proposed project's consistency withExecutive Order 11988 titled 'Floodplain Management,*dated May 24, 1977.

2. Completely describe current drainage patterns in theproject locale.

3. Assess how altering drainage patterns and c a ....... isticswill affect drainage hydrology, surface runof..z, eoN.potential, soils, vegetation, and therefor -aer qtait y

4. Identify any project impacts on riparian Cw5r~nhabitats or conditions (such as chncis ttrate,direction of stream flow or sediment l~1t.

5. Evaluate the potential for increas-eAitMo bty in thestream due to either discharge to. th 41; B" s or runofffrom surrounding areas.

6. Discuss the project's con foriyw tt and localwater quality management plans0t ardFderal-state waterquality standards. ARia..

7. Identify appropriate mit M:.. n trasures to protect waterquality both during and atrpoject construction.

404(b) Permit Comments

The Los Angeles Dit11 ce of the U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers should be to determine the need for aSectinn 4n)4 disc"*. !:t' rwI t! r f or any portion of tth- pr-oposedproject. If a 9 m::,1w £ equired, EPA will review the projectfor compliance __4ite0 -tA I Gudlie foracification of

Disposft. Sit '-___ rFilMtrial (40 CFR 231)),

promnulgated,,itbrltaK Oto Section M404() (1) of the Clean WAtirJAct. Our a~i on'woul13d focus on the maiintenance of waterquAlity and b.protection of wetland.n, fishery and wildliferesource s, I'pplicable, the results of further study shouldindicate the amount of dredging required, potential. disposallsites, types of fill material to be utilized, and quantities tobe discharged into waters and wetlands that fall under Section404 jurisdiction.

-2-

Air Quality Comments

For each alternate location (Van Nuys, Pt. Mugu NAS, NortonAFB, and Palmdale), the DEIS should:

1, D'pscribe present air quality In terms of all pollutantsaddressed by the National Ambient Air Quaity Standards(N'AAQS): carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfuroxides, ozone, hydrocarbons, total suspended particulates,and lead. Ambient levels should be compared *ith theNAAOS, and the number of violations in recently-earsindicated. It should be noted in the DEISjjmhatý eachlocation is in an area designated as a Nona ttai ~nt Areafor one or more of the pollutants listedimbotve.T

2. De-scribe the aircraft operations that ipted tooccur in the foreseeable future. T~ de~ ion shouldinc~lude the number and type(s) of a e~t~ ell as theexpected frequency of each kind of oriin

3. Describe the air pollutant emksiis tt:bt will resultfrom aircraft operations. P`~s ter to EPA publicationAP-42: Compilation of Air Wltt mission Factors.

4. Describe the impact of thfto alc-aft emissions uponambient air quality inlterztB o Ia pollutants listedabove. Resulting anibieat aIr quality levels should becompared with the NAAS &d he number of expectedviolations seiid

Mi

qlý!/

ip uirGIFS CMNITY FLOOD CONIfROI. DISRIET

o W ACIK'M U1b. . 2-15.311 2-15.313 1.21

Le 7- - I',l .fa

A_- ZA1.1 ASS~giont ND. 220Q

1. i Pat" s is noable tim kwaubvist ofth Plod Oriul District mi se Its ~jwinict~im.I*Flaws Control District hmn No ca~traw for thl is lit~lmiS

Va Pins..dJvialaa/ite to rowmadlly free Oft t1O iMaUM IRu 80jar dinesmi wd stat. burt MAN Object.

to local flood hatad, bleur to tm repot Of tim City~*WW Sqinew awwwinoq local dralf~.

- 4. lewtoe of Itom skadviiona/sitos lyila la wil aijecon to I I ots" billet&@. (I iasturat oat7

as

I3tuidol/ati action. 4 lusi I..I Isaste. I tfe m, tw 1i o1s.ft ft*ho

repat of the City/itinaty weinmer osieral"I MIsa drlaift cawirmets.

S. late project will an ti~ of~te orn swrmltut sta o is we Glzictu I Wiet 111-m ral.

- . piece a "a* of flil boa ism the final NBWaa of Notwo wdst Guqtaeri I'~mtm. IM

time Alimis.- I. Prir to ceodat Upm of tWe f inal upp/rot Of 141wer. Jadnt wgra~qrog dow ýseutaicflow adi m

Ummuqn that lasld~inag altls we avai~lablr an Inas of flood board

6. Prorime a dralnapq Minc prim to appovl of tin to~ttie MD . batIV*w btiftfomU Not to wtato the District oftIno the estaft at tim draiftp "lum wdpgid I M..

9. srmalds lsgrowwwte to ehliiamto i thed flwaased. bw~t 9 1.t Sh I Ag bia. Uj,Ado Is1. I I debris manrl faclilties. I I inhicuar am.t tae. ___________

10. Indicate too tittl/an esumet/Iautumt samest to ONm Ditiett~qS ofit 1 _______

poridaing .adoto rmti*o Sin for______________________________

it. go; 11. .9l the flood Cmrol Dsltrict's right fa r_________________A poma~ -all be r~apird I=or wa wrotiwtion affsterqti Setls ot -ft~orIrtia

32. Mww,. lu to _________________________________________is rewrMo4~d 3*35ct to oWditk tea ed tei"aan or am- ti mid asp.

13. "wa rs..w-at iwa r this sAP willnt ww issetmy #*atgvm ithe the 0§6s aid comlete eusreis M theapnt0 1014 I, the District.

34. lwa ______________________________________ tiasatieftmy.

W40 trpeam t 'saS stated htoasts of 9070 onm ~tutt I",

*lS. VW Ws1vsolva'smVits is I" ~ w" __ fiipp Wat ulb tM maiase flaVild froaas ramste PAS.

M

to.

Tnt crut ion relative to the &-'- inMnts WAY be Obtined bY cuaactings

bqineeriiq Investigator - Il . r~ 5-2

Approved toy a 'Z VY vt ffv

1113dpen MaItso Sectio

ICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH

4mNTO, CA 9"414

DATE: July 30, 1984

TO: Reviewing Agencies

FROM: John B. OhanianChief Deputy Drco

R: Department of Air Force's NOP for Gad aeRlcto

146th Tactical Airlift Wing NationalGurVnRlctoEJR-EIS, SCH #840804

Attached for your comments is the Department of Ujr Fo' S otice of Preparationof a draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for '14th ~tical Airlift Wing, AirNational Guard, Van Nuys, Base Relocation EIRE-1I$1

Responsible agencies must transmit their-*-a1, arndonensnthscope and content of the EIR, focusing.:onsedi information relatedto their own statutory responsibility, 9t~n days of receipt of thisnotice. We encourage coninenting a*'5cet epn o hsntc nexpress their concerns early in t Vipienal review process.

Please direct your cowments to: ...........*:;t.

MSGT Riley Black__Department of Air F filei146th Tactical Air t Aithag E30 Balboa Blvd.Van Nuys, CA 9140

with coplto Planning and Research. Please refer to theSCH number not Cli 11 in 41correspondence concerning this project.

If you have any que bIns about the review process. call Chris Goggin

at 916/445-0613.

Attachments

cc: MSGT Riley Black

D19LV?1T1Q4"L11TPPM_____.5 S. - Se0t by iad Agency .I - Sent by Vmaringboum

LAMe Geraghty311VrbAlr Resourese Board Dept. of Rotsing & Comm! ty De't.3 1102 Q Street 921 -loorSacruameto. CA 98614 9X~wJ21-ln Stre. CA n FlM4Sacr'=ea~, •i Wll4Sa.clramn ,o, CAl 91514916/3=-6161 9l6/323-6170

1 bara Eiertb, lOretta AlleaDept. of Bimtw~li 16 vTa, rway " Iative American eritae Cm.ISM S Street 915 Capitol Hall. R 28Sat-rmto. C•l 9514 0 . sa W, CQ 9581491613=-%U 916/322-7791

Galry Solloway Nick del CiolPrP

Ca~lifornil Coastal Cem. Office of Hfixtoric Preservation3 YowL mrd Street, 4t10 Floor. 0 20tm StreetSan F rancisco.Q 9105 Bcimito. CA M.14415/543-.M t918/40-400S.,

Sheri IVcParland James i. DoývleCaliforna nebrgy Canisioa D ~ Dept. of its &W ha.wU'tuio3 1516 Ninth Street. N. 200 P.O. Un l=96..Sacramento, CA 9884 Sacrgb leO,916/324-3= 91/3642

SSpyridoa Siderim tmeso, bV. SectionCaltraas - Division of Aeromautics ,.%a b ie tLties Cb.aaLuoo3 ~1120 " Stret ItQ *litr Street

0§ Sac~raianto. CA 95814 mmr .iao CA 94102916/3ZZ-9966 -3• Kelly --- zMi.bon

Caltrau - Planning Q! •ic VorsB

Sacramnto. CA OU14 Saciamtnto. CA 9M8143916/323-r-= 916/4465-53=

Dennis 0 Bryant Mel 3ebwmrfDept. of Coservation R.c..•.tio• Bard( )14L16 N4inth Street. *ioli N 1& 1416 Ninth StreetSacramento. CA 9514 0 Saramento. CA %814916/3-w7 9 *10/45/-2458

0 Div. otf1.6p am Oeo1 Robert Bath.S.F. lay Conservatioc L Dw'.t. Ccm.

30 Van Seem Aveaue * Pzm 2011C) ~San Fra~nciso. CA 94lG2'f , Unit 4L15/517-3616

ptW, o f r4a aM cuolid Waute Amalfet 3tL .14*:. .in S-�:U 102 Ninth Street, Roo 30

0snt. CA5 9814 SLeac nto. QA WA149r16 1Z83 916/3=-95Q3

Sram, Lltrla Ted Puklsoi

0 e.t- of Fodrut Agiculture Dtate Lans Cerssic9846 14 StQ• 2.07 - 13t4 S:reet

CAroi 95814 0 SaCMMo. CA 95514

It9132-1992 916/322-713Dean Lucke ten Pei lowsDept. of Forestry Dept. of later Resources1416 Ninth Stret . ft. 1509-7 1416 Ninth StreetSacraneto. CA 958614 \~.'Sacimeto, CA M8114916/=-2996 916/445-7416

1125 Tenth Street

ScrUamnto. CA ON14916/324,-0:9 0

arv~ey Collins _

Dept. of NeIlth714 P Street, Mom 430 D__Sacramnto. CA 98814 0216/322-2300

________Flamb aid Gems Regional Offtice

Dan CinOCk A. Waylor, Rhegioml Wlaageroeprom fwyrmn o a admDstrict 1 627 Cyprees

Muam CA 61001 916/246-W74* 707/442-6761

Michelle Callumhe P. :*own. Reioali Manger

O 107 Riverside Drive (I) Acb* Owros CL 65W70

Soddling. CA 6001 916/356-062016/2464404I .fi Jia.. ftth S. Munter, bgio1 , MangerO Department of of~ratc ,F$4t~~e i and GameDistict 3 ",) t ia~le FWcilf1y, Did$. C

0 vU3t1met 0 Toustrille. CALb~ruvileCA SIMD7k-4I£L 916/64-427 Wave

District 4 1254 bAtja. Avem

Sa" Francisco, CA 9GL19

Jer-~m Jr.. ManageDepuatmat of Utot ihadGO

Q District 5Bsd~0 3Igusra Sties? Lieseg e

BADaAA *AM*.bq~ CA 66401 - 35O0$05/549-31,14

Ver PaUler Rolf a. Um:*Dep~rtwat of Tftnqpwto -:i;:Mainthow1 aDistrict 6 245 loot Bradwfy?zsn, CA 93M........ - 213/591-611%

Wayne Va11enas.. State later PRsourcs ~Ctrol Bard~

Dstrict 7 JamS JurancichSprig Sut tat. Water Porem w tm l Bmto1 ard

Las Awgles, AF 6022(g, DIwIAlas of Water Quallty213620630 P.O. 3an 100.

mcamnwto. CA 6580R obert 0o'-I 16/3=5-3413

(7') 1 st~s?9* -~JTom Johns"LV I7E~~x~ 3ret Sutate Water Rmesowcm Cbtmo1 Dmrd

S CA Delta unit/36.4690 2125 19th St., hacramenta. CA 95618

P.O. 3= 100, Sacimanto, CA 95801

t ofTrasporatiin li Tanstrict 9State water Resoures wm l fct wt h

0 tee ~ Division of Water 11gb 13Bishop, CA 96514 0 901 P Street714/8734411 lacramesto, CA 66814

Jahn Gag llabaDeatmeat 1f T/eowata Regianal Water Quality Costro1 tm

Itochwm, CA =1520

Dearmoent of TramspactatimDstrict 110 rI=JLStreet

San Diemo CA U12LU

jOf CWS'~IA-fUNESS AND IRANSPORIA11ION AG9NCY OR!ru.L&.

C PARTMEN OF TRANSPORTATION c~IAN I52NA)INAN, CALIFORNIA 92407

Ju--ly 31, 19S4 NOP-1 46th Tactical.Airlift Wing Relocation5 ~08-SBd-30-31 .63

MSGT7 Eiley BI ackU PtDioiC Affairs Of"ficei!th Traclical Airlift Wing

A1~30 Balboa Boul~evardI Van ý"uys, CA 911409

D-~ar MSrGT Black:5:

* This is it) response to the Notice of Preparation of a vrf ~vonmentalIvypact Re-port for the 1~46th Tactlical Airlift Wing 1aoca&L11 W" wo~uldappreciate the opportunity to review and cco"r'ert oft-hepopose DIR in order-E to' evaluate possibi e impacts to the transportatajon -itparticularly aloptec-IState Route 30 freeway alignment east of Tbtoifkc 1ase and on InterstateI.Rute 10 which provides primary acc:ess to Norton BavITippecanoe Avenue.

Co.nsideration should be given to the cunutaitive effec6!:ts that the relocationwill have on the transportation system foma "1r4"t case" viewpoint.NID.zvssion o f thn- impacts to the transpbrtation saysten should include trafficgrowth, traffic safety, drainage, a?..dthds-e asociated with the construction,maint-enance, enid operto ofay iUipted" highway improve'ients. MitigationI for traffic impacts should consider the us-e of carpooling/vanpooling, pulhlictransit, arni accor-::uýdations for bcth4\-.edeSrians and bicycles. Mitigation mayinvolve design,:tion of a ridephare co506nator to encourage utilization ofI c~.rivan po-ols and public tran1'flportati* .* Costs related to any transp:ortationimprovements, potential foo*-`fuýr3;141- und sources of funds should be discussed.

Thudany work be reus~~ t..; state highway right of way, Caltrcans wouldbI P responsiAble agery 104u ~ quire that certain nitigation measures beP -ov:K,!zd as a condi nyf Tt issuance.

IQ WeU'ge e~-.rly a -c1~o~lason with Caltrans on proposed p~pns as theyaffect state idfh

If yo)u have ank""istions, please contact Riclhard A. Pennis at (71h 3.3-41l65.

Very truly yourz,,

it. G. POTEOn icr, Transportat~ion PlanningB-r-.nch A (Pl;t,ýnino)

I TAIE OF CALIFOINIA-SUSINESS AND IMANSPO-4ATION AGENCY GEORGE MMEIJM~AN. Gov*~

t PARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONs EICT 7, P.O. DOX 230U. LOS ANGELES 90051Iy (213) 620-5335

August 2, 1984

Msgt Riley BlackU Public Affairs Office146th Tactical Airlift Wing8030 Balboa Blvd.Van Nuys, CA 91409

Notice of Pr~zt~

3Department I orc

Dear Msgt Black:

We have received the Notice of tic 4vt or the 146th Tacticalwillk be .. orths.ro

Airlift Wing's Base Relocation EI/Ihstime we cannotjc.Ayencroachments on to cLAN gt-fayfor signing,

signliztio, rmp/ntechang-M ...ent, ec.,will require apermit from this agency. The~f lrdoposed&environmental document shouldreview and evaluate the base r;; octtibi's impacts upon the operation

of ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r Stt rnprainf iti. s-nd the measures needed to miti-

gate them.--

Thank you for this opportu-nati, *0 comment. For additional inf or--marion contact Kreig ;t.asont (13) 620-2819.

U ~Very truly yours,...*

W. B. BALL TXIE Chiefa WZ~zingEnvironm Branch

IUBLIC WORKS AGENCY

mounfts, of ventura Directora M4Arthur E. Gou let

anager - Administrative Services Deputy DirectorsPut W. Ruff in Ron Brazill

Real Property ServicesAugut 2,1984Al F. KnuthAugus 2, 984 ransoorision

T. M. MorganEngineering ServK-es

G. J. Nowak

M~gt Riey BackFlood ContrellWater Resoiurces

Public Affairs OfficeX146th Tactical Airlift Wing8030 Balboa BoulevardVan Nuys, CA 91409

Subject: VAN NUYS BASE RELOCATION EIR/EIS

Gentlemen:

By letter dated July 23, 1984 you regut#.tedlDformation relatingto the potential relocation of the Van. Nays hse to one of threepotential sites, one of which is l~et~RVnuaCounty forpurposes relating to an EIR/EIS. urcmnt are as follows.

1. The comrnnent submitted be o i ýpesnts the interests of onlythe Ventura County Flood.otrlPstct

2. Hgu rain a hannl idert~ jurisdiction of the FloodControl District, passe riugh the property in a north-south direction. W~, prsiy consider adjacent land assubject to flood do xd. t

.nformtione flood plain of this channel andan ipat 111X1,gr m this activity should be contained

in~~~~~ teER*I.'tgaing measures should be developed for

Conideatifiib dbe given to not only onsite impacts, but alsooffsite in ct~ todjacent land.

if you have :..,,,questions on the above, feel free to contact thisoffice.N

Very truly yours,

Go J. Nowak, Deputy Director of Public Works

Flood Control and Water Resources Department

By _ _ _ _ _ _W. Go Waydont Senior Engineer

WGH/tbcc.* ich use 800 South Victoria Avenue. Ventura. CA 93009

STATE OF CAUPORNIA-441ALT AND WMLARE AGENCY OGOOI DEUKEMJIAN, Ggivwmw

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICESil I S*EXLEY WAY

*KRELV. CA 9470415/S40-2665

Auigust 6, 1984

I ?4MGT Riley BlackPublic Affairs office146th Tactical Airlift WingI 8030 Balboa BoulevardVan Nuys, California 91409

SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation for 146th Tacti i rl ife-4fing,Air National Guard, Van Nuys, Base Rd~a~k .EIR/EIS

The Department has reviewed the subject envient nd ofer5 the following comments.

Enclosed for your information is a documen tpar~ by the Noise ControlProgram entitled, "Guidelines for Noise $tiyRo~..,which indicatesthe type of information the Department. cwse1a ~'ortant in EIRs.

ISpecifically, the EIR should estimat ̀!the 6' u~er of residences likely to beaffected by noise from the addition of 72. ortiosdiy(7dprueand arrivals) at each of the threet relocatiston sites. Single event noiselevels for the operations at tIjca I sidenhtial sites should be estimated.The improvement, if any, at Vai"~is ~1old be described as well.

If you have any questions~or need fither information concerning these com-ments, please contact D. 181" ne makas of the Noise Control Program., Officeof Local Environmenta, al rams at 2151 Berkeley W'ay, Room No. 613,

Berely.California,4#.Q'iqg.4140-26;5.

3 ~ ~i/Stuart E. Richardson, Jr., R.S., Chief

(Office of Local Environmental Health Programs

Senior PsychoacousticianNOISE CONTROL PROGRAM

3 Enclosure

cc: Environmental Health Division

3 State Clearinghouse

I.

Guidelines for Noise Study Reports as Part of Environmental_ • Impact Reports

Calffioni Office of None Conroii California Department of Health Services

2151 Berkeley WayBerkeley, California 94704

May 1982

Because complaints about environmental noise are so fr t, the Office of Noise Controlrecommends that every project with a potential fbrincreaX environmental noise levels orwhich may be affected by existing or future r so7 should have a Noise Study Report.This report assesses how noise levels associate With the project may affect people. The infor-mation contained in the Noise Study Repor sabotld be summarized in the EnvironmentalImpact Report or Environmental ImpactStatement••-end kept on file by the lead agency for3- review by those with a specific interest in'o ,... -

The attached is designed to help tQ e who prepare Noise Study Reports and EnvironmentalImpact Reports and reviewers otinvironý Impact Reports. Because there are so manydifferent combinations of noise sot i s Wre•eivers (people impacted by those sources), it isvirtually impossible to develop guidetrngs thate cover all situations. Nevertheless, the guidelinesshould help to bring some consistency in the way noise information is presented in environ-mental documents. .

I

I

I Suggested Contents of aNoise Study Report

I I. A brief description of the project in terms of its effect on the noise environment and adescription of the existing noise environment and its impact upon the project (homes neara freeway, for example).

11. Two scale maps -- one showing the existing setting and the proposed project with adjacentland uses, receptors, and noise sources identified, and the second.mIrap showing the futurecondition (use a time span of no less than 10 years, unless the 'ect's life span is less)with the proposed project and proposed land uses, receptors,. s4nbe sources identified.

MI. A detailed survey of the existing noise environment. •.A. The noise survey should encompass the proposeOroje1a**e and must include any

noise sensitive receptors, both near and far. The "" shoWd establish the exist-ing ambient noise level which may then be Wsed to i"luate compliance of the pro-posed project with applicable noise standar~i &hiestanrds should be local (city,county) but in their absence state or federal-..and • •may be used The rationalefor the selection of noise survey sites sb"ud b..liuded in the report.

B. The survey should cover the time peri ýý4bh the noise environment may be

affected by the proposed project. •C. The survey should encompass. rhough .Y.6 to be representative of the existing "nor-

mal" noise environment. D• p.•ioa O? b similarity or dissimilarity of the noiseenvironment during the survuy , 'i0-"wth that during other times of the yearD Fonte iromen puriod~ngteaer ...eotd. os aashudicud h ,should be included. Z '. . ..

iD. For the time periods...A•red4h ii~ireported noise data should include the L,,, L1,

LI0, L0, L9, and idenA iat vf typical noise levels emitted by existing sources. Ifday and night measurenýtIs re made, report the L,,n also. Ldf is approximatelyequal to CNEL'ýeither descftior may be used. It is imperative that the descriptorconform to � �Od.in (k.appropriate standard.

E. Summarid'•- e greset iýi:vironment by providing a noise contour map showing linesof equaboje- 'vel• . dB steps, extending down to Ldn - 60. In quiet areas lowercontguf Aq!id bi ;hown also.

F. Idjitify)i,# Jý0 i measurement equipment used in the survey by manufacturer,t a last calibration.

IV. A f the future noise environment for each project alternative. The scope ofanaP Ois ah the metrics used will depend on the type of project, but as a minimum0 wing information must be provided:3 A. * $cussion of the type of noise sources and their proximity to potentially impacted

areats.B. Operationsf activity data:

1. Average daily level of activity (traffic volume, flights per day. hours on perday, etc.).

2. Distribution of activity over day and nighttime periods, days of the week, andseasonal variations.

3. Composition of noise sources (% trucks, aircraft fleet mix, machinery type,etc.).

ONC 5/82

Summarization of Noise Study Reports in EnvironmentalImpact Reports or Statements

I

I Information included in the Environmental Impact Report or Statement should be a summaryof the noise study. The following information must be included:

A. Maps showing the existing setting and the proposed project w adjacent land usesand noise sources identified. Pertinent distances should 15'

B. A description of the existing noise environment. A3 C. The change in the noise environment for each proj ri .D. A discussion of the impacts for the alternatives. :5i11,E. A discussion of the compatibility of the projectoth the kap. able Noise Element of

the General Plan or the most applicable noise la nces.F. A discussion of mitigation measures, Cleat~ e i g the locations and number of

people affected when mitigation is not feasile •G. Statements of: (1) where to obtai Noise tudy Report from which

the information was taken (or the Nisetituidy R•eport may be included as an appen-dix, and (2) the name of the cogsultaft who-g•nducted the Noise Study if it was notconducted by the author of the lavironiuT" Impact Report.

I.O-•. •/8

II

I ONC 5/82

DEPARTMENT OFREGIONAL PLANNING320 Ifeit Temnple Street

Los Angele-

6, 1984California 90012

August 6194Norman Mujrdoch

Master Sergeant Riley BlackN,; -iV31I Assistant Public Affairs Officer146th Tactical Airlift Wing.Air National Guard8030 Balboa Blvd.Los Angeles, CA 91404

3 Dear Sergeant Black:

Thank you for the opportunity to provide eaiw ipjit thepreparation of the E1R/EIS for the reoajnfyour opera-Itions from the Van Nuys Airport. On e of 11t Vr~t*sites underconsideration--Air Force Plant #42--is Athw th e jur Is d ic t io nof the County of Los Angeles. We are vt*t~preparing anAreawide General Plan for the Antlop :and are certainlyInterested in any proposed p r o ject Qith he area--especiallyone as significant as yours.

Based upon the description of ~rpsd relocation, ascontained, In the July 28, 19184 iZtrfrom The Planning Group,

there are two areas of concerii. ch&a I.v sug t be dscussed i

theenvromenaldocmet- mill; codntolse. Additionaleair

Inloanl4 vpehiuat r s~tr is~j1Y irporat tat "bIldroveets proeciostr bets higwasid -and th . ipacotrasesmns. Adthena reprt

sholdmda scsle~ pon ti.a4 -lurroundng land uses, including thePalmale ntern4io"ý1 ,/rport.

We will be gu iew your draft document--thanks againfor the opp~t to c om me nt .

* ~Very tr RY pu

DEPARTM ER 7D REGIONAL PLANNING3 ~Norman tMur'Uob Planning Director

ILee Stark, Section HeadImpact Analysis Section

3 LS:mhb

cc: Eugene Grigsby, The Planning Group

I Federal Reeister / Vol. 49, No. 130 / Thursday. July S. 1984 / Rules and Regulations 27717

13July i . They result in a limitation of consultation with the Department is directions, including the statement thatthe scope of the rule from the proposed recommended. the Department "will encourage federalversion published earlier. 4. To assist agencies in knowing agencies to protect farmland from

i. The rule now specifies that if there which project sites call for exploration unnecessary and irreversible conversioni is a project proposed to be placed on of alternatives. a point score of 160 has to nonagricultural uses." The Act doesfarmland with federal assistance to a been established in the rule as the not assign the Department such a rolelandowner or other nonfederal party. the threshold for considering additional toward other federal agencies.federal agency may not refuse to grant alternative actions. sites, or designs.such assistance to the project based on 5. Agencies will be provided with a Geeral Issues Raised by the Commentsthe Act or the rule. Section 1547(a) of the Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Z. Can FaromlondProtecvion Polic' ActAct states that the Act "does not Form (AD-10061 on which they will Analysis Be Performed as Part of theauthorize the Federal Government in request determinations from the Soil NF_.4 Process?I any way to regulate the use of private or Conservation Service (SCS) of whethernonfederal land." Nor does the Act proposed sites are subject to the Act. Responses from the U.S. Departmenetprovide authority for the Federal Upon request. SCS will furnish a score of Transportation. Commerce andGovernment to withhold assistance to a for a site's relative value as farmland. Energy. the Washington Legalproject solely because it would convert The agencies will then compute for Foundadoi. National Association offarmland to nonagricultural uses. themselves the site assessment criteria Home Buiders. eight state highway or

S The rule now specifies that if there scores.a ,tion ..... •sen agencies and othersis "prime farmland" that a state or local 6. The rule now encourages a maital Aied t1t existing NationalU overn'ment has designated. through procedure to make farmland protection ..... ..entaP..licy Act (N.PA)=oring or planning. for commercial, evaluations part of an agency's review "/Vocidures are adequate for consideringindustrial or residential use that is not under the National Environmental Policy -tbe •#ecs federal actions onWn:ended at the same time to protect Act (NU.PA). ' gland or-that farmland protectionfarmland. this land will not be covered 7. In the case of linear oi corridor..... sh td be integrated into the individualK by the Act. since it will be deemed to be projects. such as utilities, highways-f• i+ena-ts' procedures for meeting NEPA"committed to urban development" and railroads, the criteria and guidelines ' xh ,vznmental or other studythus outside the Act's definition of using them have been modified to be + tequirements. thus ehiminating any need"prime farmland" subject to the Act. more appropriate. "i i: for additional rules.

* 3. The rule makes it clear that L A number of de.Initions have"bn b ite Prior to the enactment of the AcL t4eactivities of the Federal Government to added in 1 658.2 of the nti;!. 'Thm! • Council on Environmental Qualityissue permits or licenses on private or include definitions foan land aiready n (CEQ) was already requiring federalnonfederal lands or approve public or committed to urban; veiopment'or agenc-es to assess the direct andI u 'tiy rates are not "federal programs" water storage." "contm.Cton oa! indirect effects of their proposed actionswi•hin the de.inilion provided in the improvement projei& beyond,** on prime and uinicue sa:rcuitural lands.Act. and thus netl.er the Act nor the planning stagpe. "'riýte ograms to This requirement was issued in arule w.ll apply to these activities of protect fa;1I. '-site."'* " t of local memorandum d~ied August 1. 1980.federal agercies. ovemuen' "stapeo local

The following are other important governmen."a sttctlc - from the CEQ Chairman to Heads of.anges to the proposed rule. They deal farmland: ""71 -aam n of "federal oeetem.with technical featr'es of the rule itself. pregram" has been xpanded to explain The memorandam cites 11 subsections

1. The number of land evaluation wht•tthe defin'timo" oes not include as of the Regulations for .. piemerning thec•iteria has been reduced from five to 'o,0.'din sez¢hon 1540(c)(4) of the Act. Procedural Provisions of the Nationalone. and the number of site assessment 9. The fhas been modified to Etmnronmental Poiicy Act. 40 CF'R Partcriteria has been reduced from 26 to 12.2 requfte th S complete the land 1500 et seq. where the regulations applySite assessment criteria numbers 5 auatiwithn 45 edar days after to prime and unique agricultural lands.(special siting requirements) and 6 %welvifig !a request for assistance on a The CEQ memorandum states that when(alternatives having less relative ýefie NýM~itnd Conversion Impact Rating an agency begins planning any action, itfor agric-ltural production) in tho, ) Fo AD-1006). should. in the development ofproposed rule have been shifted .ron ".5. In recognition that some state and alternative actions. assess whether thethe criteria to the guidelines .-pvaIv a lo.. opternatives will affect prime or unique

alternative sites. Criteromn iber " ja , land evaluation and site assessment agricultural lands and identifies these(compatibility with comPmhens IS (LESA) systems. the guidelines for using lands as those defined in 7 OCR 657.5.development plans) now'Was lain the criteria recommend more strongly The NEPA regulations leave to the

Sincorporated in criterion nu•' "o 4 of the than in the proposed rule that where individual agencies the determination of.rule. " .... these systems exist locally, federal procedures to be used in assessing these2. The site assessment criterialhave agenc.es use them to make their effects. Agencies are permitted in 40

been rewritten with additional guidance. evaluations. In locations where there is CFR 500.4(p) to establish programI consistent with the comments and no LESA system in place. agencies exclusions that categorically remove

findings in field tests on 27 sites in would always use the criteria in this certain projects or actions fromseven counties, to clarify their meaning rule. consideration under WEPA (categoricaland to make them more specific. 11. The prohibitions contained in the exclusions).I . To respond to criticism by many Act against using the Act for federal 'Tie FPPA. which was enacted oncommenters that all site assessment regulation of land uses or as a basis for December 2., 1981, requires USDA tocriteria did not deserve equal weight. legal action have both been develop, in cooperation with otherthe rule now assigns different weights to Incorporated in I 658.3 of the rule. federal agencies. criteria for identifyingthe various criteria. Agencies are still 12. The technical assistance section, the effects of -ederal programs on :hefree to change the weighting for their 6.58.6. has been shortened to delete conversion of farmland toown use but a rulemaking procedure in two unnecessary subsections and nonagricultural uses. These criteria

I

* Federal Re-jster / Vol. 49. No. 130 / Thursday. July 5. 1984 IRules and Reeulations

Ild e appropriate for use by a. Would an Agency 's Decision to Reject would be an interference with theindividual agencies in carrying out their a Proposed Site for a Project Based on intended use of this land by operation ofIponsibilities under the NEPA FPPA (1) Interfere With Properly Rights the Act.

lations. and agencies are of Site Owners or (2) Regulate !he Use In response to several commentsouraged to apply these criteria as of Private Non 'federal Land? recommending incorporation into the

part of the NZPA process. However. The National Association of Realtors rule of a restatement of section 1547(a).FVA imposes a separate responsibility and the National Association of Home this rule now contains a new I65a83(c).

ite agencies which may not always Builders suggested that if an agency in an attempt to clarify the limits ofWischarged through compliance wi th made an examination under the Act of agency action under th Act. the rule

the NEPA restuiations. since the the consequences of converting adds to that restatement a provision thataunciesc',NE~A. regulations may farmland at a particular site and then once a federal agency has identified and

e de crai categories of projects decided. as a result. to refuse to grant taken into account any adverse effectsW NEPA which may not be asi-net rjetpandfrta on farmland of the assistance requete

excludable under the FPPA. Guidance site, the decision would infringe on that and has developed alternative actions.fq1coipliance has been-added to landowner's property rights and thus and the landowner or rionfereeral agepncy

Ia4of the rule. violate section 1547(a) of the Act. which that has initiate 'd the project has2.ces the Rule Hove For-Reaching guarantees that the Act will not affect considered thaw effects and

Economic or Environmental Impact? private property rights. alternatives. týiz iency may not denyThe landowner in such a situation assistance-to tf*project on lte basis of

helrvine Company. the Department does not have "property rights" affected. the Act aiiii rultwe if the landowner orotransportation. the National Except where Congress has established nonfedezwl agency*qishes to proceedCattlemen's Association, and one a right by entitlement to participate in a thdbC prMoiect on Farmland.private individual stated that the rule federal program and receive such ~ 4.401t Raepon04bility Does the .ic:wMld have far-reaching economic benefits. and individual's access to Ciitd DAe ;jment to Oversee

cis on the economy of a state or assistance under federal prograsis ~ mpke With the Ac: by oilafvuld result in a cost increase of S200 subject to conditions and restrictions 1C Aeersof te Federal Covernme.'u?million or more annually to corsuners, imposed by other federal statutes. Thus.191iin.'adual industries, federal. state or the landowner does not have a property \1fscments. the AmericanloW govermnient agencies. or right either to have his property chd*. i and Trust stated that #.hegelkiaphic regions. Therefore. they by the Federal Government as the sitf Ddgrtent has a rcle of "prim~arymaintained, it should have had a a project or to obtain federal aulii a isosiit"iniperesn tt crebatory impact analysis pursuant to for a project.- - p that the rile should specify

E3'tive Order 22291. Similarly. the However, the Departmenyt ir procedures by which the DepartmentN 6al Resources Defense Council. concluded that while delufa of prje .ct will assume that role. Comments -.-.., 10Consumers Union and others stated that assistance on farmland d."s not a~ect i state departments of agricuiture. sixthjule must be subject to an property right. such denial does - local gaven'. ent agencies. thetriofomental impact analysis under constitute an interitrence w ah the se Association of Plublic justice. tlheprowsions of NEEPA reg'.ilaU0ons because of private or non[ 'wA" laocd. The full National Trust for Histcric Preser'vat'on.it is **a major federal action signiflcantly text of section T.4(albf-tbe At states: as well as other organizations and three94'- :ing the quality of the human "This subtitle does noot Authorize the private individuals expressed similairenj-o.nment.' Federal Government *.aqjy way to thoughts. The comments specifically

WeDepartment's position remains regulate,*@w use of private or nonfederal ciethlako:Ayrqrmnthathiat the rule does not constitute a major land. ox- ii"an way affect the property federal-agencies document theiract2 The rule was extremely narrow rlgh~ta W.. ownii; of such land." con~sideration of the effects of' farmldnd

inUffect in the form in which it was Fuohr *1mQ .-. ohAt contains no conversions: any monitoring orpr~ed on July 12. 1983. The rule a*bonty for ariggency to denyenocmtmcaissadthlek

published here is ever narrower in pif" ý;c to tpoect solely because it of procedures for the Department'ssco.It can affect only the -vp-dIvfthfarmland to overesight of federal agencies'de.orn aaking przcess of federal n- no6,vi calrl uses. compliance activities. Also, some

apes when their own projects or Afu~rmydsr osl ama~ asserted that the Secretary is required totose they assist would convert *' .*resge'lo a developer for construction report anually to the Congress underr

an~nd to nonagricultural uses - ie nw homes, or to a unit of local section 15946 of the Act and --as the -ulewflr or. inthoe caes ijei s týjgdanm for construction of a sewer should requireotefdra enest

~s. the rule. like the Act. ff5lotiy plant. either to occur with federal report dala needed to the Deparmen't.rocedural. It does not mandate !'I, mty assistance. If federal assistance -s However, other respondents. includir;

rgt be changed. It merely require denied to a developer or to the unit of the American Farm Bureau Fedieration.gees to examine impacts on local government. the sale oi land Indicated that the role For the

rn d and consider alternatives, anticipated by the farmer will probably Department identified in the proposedeither the Act nor the rule would bar not take place: the farmer will view the rule is consistent with and suppornve ofa n~cy from proceeding with its loss of the land sale as being a efforts to protect farmland and that any*rot or assisting if it decides. after consequence of the Act's operation. further role would expand upon the

iting the impact on farmland. that Similarly. if an owner purchases authorities of the Act.the fctrsoutweigh the protection of farmland. retains it for years in While one of Congress's findings.

plc Iural land. Nor does the Act or expectation of eventually developing !he stated in the Act in section 1540(alf(i). i.,%ee affect decisions of individuals, land and then cannot obtain federal that the Department is the agency

ta es. local governments or other assistance for development whten such -'primaraily responsible for usetie on projects converting farmland assistance clearly would have been finpiementation of federal ;olicy wit!)no federal assistance is involved. available but for the Act. the result respect to Uni:ed States farmiand."' thee

=MENO

Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 130 / Thursday. July 5. 1984 / Rules and Rezu-i'tions 2-7,9

Act grants no express authority to the 6. Has the Public Been Suitably California Building IndustrySecretary or the Department to devise Informed About the Rule? Association. California Association ofenforcement or oversight procedures In their comments. the Massachusetts Realtors. and the Wisconsin Landover other federal agencies. Nor does it Department of Agriculture and the Conservation Association proposedassign the Department a role of American Farmland Trust suggested different definitions of "'farmland" fromencouraging other federal agencies to that pubiic heanngs on the rule be held that in the proposed rule.protect farmland. The Act is workable before its publication. Section 1540(c)(1) of the Act alreadywithout giving any further role to the This rule has been through an contains a statutory definition ofDepartment to oversee compliance with e.xtensive public review and comment, -farmland" for purposes of the Act andthe Act by all the agencies of the process. It is the Department's thus it must be followed in the rle.Federal Government. Each agency is to .determination that such hearings would 2. The reference to 7 CFR 637.3 hasbe responsible for its own adherence to unduly delay promulgation of the rule been deleted from the definition ofthe mandate of the Act, and each agency and that the final rule accommodates "farmland" because its inclusion wouldcould then be monitored as to its the public comments to the extent imply automatic concurrence by.thecompliance with the Act by an possible. Secretary of Agncuture in anyappropriate request for such information. The Colorado Department of determination made pursuant to thatby Congress, by anothek interested Agriculture and the American Farmland section b a state or local governmentfederal agency. or by members of the Trust requested that the Department identify~.farmland of statewide orI public. The Act does not assign the prepare and distribute a detailed loca.moance. The Act. in sect!onDepartment the role of enforcement. handbook or manual on complying with u154, calls for the Secretaon toSection 1546 of the Act requires the the FPPA rule. The Natural Resource 1 :•uebasi hethe: rthe oa candSecretary to report to the Congress only Defense Ccuncil. the National Farmers . ;ase a ,twone time. That requirement har"been Union and owhe'ssugges:ed that the So t. •tind by the state or localmet. Conservation Service National ".-r e'mekt to be "of statewide or local

Apicuitural Land Evaluation and Us . .... tance" should be considered5. Do Criteria in the Rule Properly Assessment (LESA) System Hand":k fariY• nd for purposes of the Act.

* Assess Effects of Federcl Progr:ms on be cAted as a reference in the final z.'is L .... e Act. in defining "farmland" in

Conversion of Farmland? The Depart'.ent believes t' .the .... .... tion 3540(clf1). states that landitself, including this preambl1.,ll j already in or committed to urban

Responses from the Rhode Island resolve many of the concerns 0iv6arise development or water storage' isnotDepartment of Agriculture and the to these suggestions. "prime farmland" for pu.,'poses of the.California Department of Transportation necessary after the fi-,,li'i has beefrtm Act. This means that an agency need notstated that the rule does not meet the effect for I year, the %palrtnnt will consider the impact of a project onrequirements of the '.PPA for the consider providin the reueste prime farmland which is either "alreadydevelopment of criteria to identify the handbook or manua. The S .. in" urban development or "cemmitted toU effects. of federal "programs" on the Handbook !orahe LISA tpe is now urban developmet.-I"conversion of farmland. Rather. the rule available i :SJ ~o• ces.-q" The Department will treat primeaddresses the worthiness of farmland f l as "alead in" urbani for protecton on a project-by-project deveiopment if the site meets a densitySbasis. . Comments "aMh J 658.1 were standard of at least 30 struc:',res per 40

The reference to federal "programs" received from'UPhu Deartment of acres. Thls is the standard that SCS hasin section 1541 has been interpreted in TAnportation, .fdr state agencies. and used in delineating "urban and built-upi liht of the deiinution contained in e VeIusaruz #.tins. The major concern areas" on its County Base Maps whichsection 1540(c)(4). which states that a ilpresq wiltat the rule and the Act. are kept in SCS field offices andfederal program means "activities or • by•.quirgederal agencies to ensure updated every five veers as part of theresponsibilities" of a department or 1W th thei.j p•rograms are compatible. to National Resource Inventory (N'R).

i agency. Therefore. the Depar,'entlso . e eW practicable. with "private In addition, comments received fromfocused on the program activities, 3 m s and policies to protect the California Cattlemen's Association.actions of federal agencies as •• •Ialand." would invite the obstruction the California Chamber of Commerce.appropriate wa to asnses•s an Jn ::"ýW.federal projects by any smail group of the California Association of Realtorseffects of federal programj-"i"urnit citizens st'ling themselves as such a and other groups advocated that "landsI .,Sect,,on 1542 reqire a .... de,. t • private program." These responses already in. committed. planned or zonedagency. with the assist... .of. & requested clarification of what is meant for other than an agricultural use by theDepartment. to review cu b private programs." Other state or any unit of local government"of... .... law, , respondents requested clarification of be exempt from the Act. TheI provisions of law. aodminisn'8"vye rules W~ *"atk,"-"-" ..and rogusations. adpiacie rule what is meant by state and local Department has conc!uded that if a stateprocedureg os, and t opolces acons t government programs and policies to or local government has. by planning orprocedures and to propose actions to protect farmland. zoning. designated the use of any tractbring its programs. authorities and As a result of these comments, the of prime farmland for commercial ori administrative activities into Department has now defined "private industrial use or residential use that iscompliance with the purpose and policy program" in I 65&2(e) of the rule and not intended at the same time to protectof the FPPA. It is under this Section of "state and local government programs farmland. this action has therebythe Act that the Department expects to and policies" in I 658=.2(d) of the rule. "committed" such land to "urban

i be involved with the agencies in development." even though it may notconsidering their program priorities or Comments on ,8.2. currently be in urban uses. Thus. as thisassessing the effects of their program 1. Several parties commenting, would be prime farmland "committed torules and regulations on farmlard including three state agencies. the urban development." a project on prime

i protection. California Chamber of Commerce. farmland that is so designated by local

I

Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 130 / Thursday. July 5. 1984 / Rules ard Regulations

tate planning or zoning would not Section 1540(c)(4) of the Act defines Projects that convert !ess "han some-e a federal agency's examination federal programs subject to the Act as minimum acreage of farmland, such asproject's impact on farmland. those that undertake. finance or assist 10 acres: andDid use planring and zoning are construction or improvement projects or Construction of farm homes. storage

ogatives of state and local those that acquire. manage or dispose of buildings and livestock facilities.•n"n ent. not the Federal federal land or facilities. The The Act does not authorize the

1ninent. Section 1547(a) of the Act Department has concluded that those Secretary of Agriculture to granttha he Federal Government may. carefully selected words were intended exemptions. but specifies exemptions

,se the Act "in-any way to regulate to exclude from the definition of contained in section 1540(c)(4) andLe of private or nonfederal land. or "federal program." the grant of a permit section 1547(b). However. the Act doesway affect the property rights of or license. The Department also has not apply to construction of farmhouses.

of such land." concluded that this definition does not storage buildings. livestock holdinga federal agency were required by extend to federal regulatory agencies' facilties or any other structuresct to assess the impacts of a actions in setting rates for utility service. applicable to the operations of at on prime farmland not yet in a rtica r fo t oraunits becaSdevelopment but already Cormuments on § 3. particular farm unit or inits because

ideeomn u led omnso 6& such action does not convert farmlandgnated by the state or local Several comments relating to § 658.3 to nonagrdculturoises..,nment for urban development were received. Most of them requested 3. Comments f m the Department ofLh planning or zoning, the only that the rule provide exclusions or Housing ar1U•-iban Development, these of the requirement would be for exemptions for specific kinds of projects National.• o fi f Home Builders.Igency to weigh alternative sites or program actions. Some requested that and otb.lsWaiserted 'ia programs thatwould lessen the impact of the definitions oi some terms be included in mereW provdeftederal guarantees forI t on farmland. If the agency , the rule. Summaries of the com.nments loans*._d4 between private parties

on its assessment pursuant to the and the Department response follow. with pr. lds.such as the mortgageould then decide to refrain from

ding its project on the proposed site. L Comments from three federal m ance OmWams of the Federalid be declining itself" to use te. agencies. nine state agencies, and six uig tstration (FHA) and theEsed site for urban development organizations. objected to the June 22,. S tgae Juarantee program of theFlocal or state planning or zoning 1982 date at which time agencies shood, Vi• a. s Admuinistration (VA). are notalready declared urban uses to be begin complying with the PPA One : ,vd by the Act since they do notI able on the site. This would be an comment asserted that the date Of •.... aiiYundertaking. financing or

aon by the Federal Goverm.uent an compliance should be the date ... .... u..ting construction or improvementction of land use planrung of final rule. Other comments astrted Iia projects." under section 1540(c)(4) of ther and local governments, agencies should not be required to *. Act.I thi'-i reason. the rule now soecifies, comply with the provisioI fthe rule insuring or guaranteeing loans for821a). that prime farmland for projects that were unde.* pro construction of housing or otheritted to urban development." that to its issuance. structures under these programs is a

md exc'uded fro.' the Act's The Act, in sectio6hjs Wstates hat form offinancing or assistance. It thus isIge. includes all such land zoned the provisions of I"Ai1,,ahould become a federal action toat may contribute tontly planned for a nonagricultural effective 6 months fur its date of the unnecessary and L".eversibiea state or unit of local enact'nent. I.e.. June :1 -9. •However. conversion of farniland to

;rnment. that was no,,the actual dbiaihen nonagricultural uses. to the extant thatkhe existence of a !and use plan agencies.iie n a positc to consider such insurance or guarantees are re.iedat. however, automatically be a the im 0 o jKSect#o n farmland in upon for the construction to take place.

*r assigning land for purposes of compace ith W4on 1541(b) of the Where a loan not for constructon butc. and tis rule to the status ActO Tcomply .ihhat obligation for purchase of an existing house or

cribed by such a plan. A large underthe:ct. tM:rtteria which this other structure is guaranteed or insurzd.Er of units of local government . AW ef .•w; Jrea prerequisite to the proposed action would not convert_nd use plans adopted many iaac the effective date !or farmland and therefore is not covercd

go for one or another purpose g comply with section 1541(b) by the Act.:. have not been reviewed or dHoweve, since the Act does notin a comprehensive way Tj, ul i. the Federal Register. promvde any basis for denial of

U, Consequently, for land lbe M' 2eMents from the Rural assistance solely because farm!and .is.d the status provided for¶ a Elect1rificaton Adm•nistration, being conaeried. neither the Ac: nor thisuse plan. the plan must (1) have Department of Transportation, rule could •perate to interfere with :hisrtended to be a ccmprehensive Department of Housing and Urban form of financing or assistance once tm2

e plan for the area in question. Development. Department of Energy. 12 agency had identified and taken intohave been expressly adopted or state departments of highways or account any adverse effects on farmland

!wed in its entirety wi:,hin the 10 transportation. the Pacific Gas and and considered alle-native actions. as-lriod pteceding proposed Electric Company. and the Scil required by the Act.

enlation of the particular federal Conservation Society of.America 4. The Bureau of Land Maner.-2=ntV suggested that exemptions !or certain asserted that the FPPA wouid not ap-I:,

Comments of the Edison Electric kinds of projects should be granted in to actions of the agency related to* e suggested the rule state that the the rule. These include: surface mL'ing on lands conta-r:;n:W.q not apply to federal ileasable coal or phosphate and "ubect

tig andC orica eclusions as referred to in t Surface inine Cntol andagreements recessary for use or NE.PA: Reclamation Act of 1977. Pib. L $5-87.Dncy of federal lands. or to Farm-to-market highways or roads: Since that act preswrmes that .arm!:,ndrI" service ratemaking. Electric transmission lines: used for sur4.ace tru.n; c3n be

F

I. •Federat nevster / VoL. 49. No. 130 / Thu:sday. July 5. 1984 Ruies and Regulations 2,21

rec'aimed and reused for agriculture. Buried utility lines that do not prevent the Nation's farmland where proposedI there is no irreversible conversion to farming operations over them would not conversions are anticipated. Wherenonaoancultural use and USDA concurs be subiect to the Act. Unless farming is these exist. the resoonse should bewith BLM's interpretation. not permitted over the buried lines or in made in less than 45 days. Now the rule

5. Section 1547(b) of the Act states the right-of-way, construction of such states that if SCS fails to complete landthat "'none of the provisions or other lines does not irreversibly convert evaluation within the 45-day period, andrequirements of this subtitle shall apply farmland to nonagricultural uses. if further delay would interfere withto the acquisition or use of farmland for Likewise. projects built entirely within construction activities, the agencynational defense purposes." The U.S. highway rights-of-way do not convert should proceed as though the site were

i Department of Transportation asserted farmland. not farmland. The best assurance thatthat since the entire interstate highway 9. Several conm.ments recommended . the 45-day period will not delay ansystem has been intended for defense Licorporating in the rule a restatement action is for the agency to request apurposes (see 23 U.S.C. 210) and since of section 1548 of the Act which - determination as early as possible in thethe Department of Defense considers- prohibits use of the FPPA as a basis for decsionmaking process.another 12.000 miles of highways legal action challenging a federal project 3. A number of federaL state, andessential for defense purposes. these that may affect farmland. local government agencies.roads are exempt from the Act under A statement reiterating section 154 of orgunizattos. and individuals criticizedsection 1547(b). the Act and applying it to the rule as cniterion nu .*ber 10 in the proposed rule.I The Department believes Congress well as the Act. has been added to They a tue ht if the criterion tookintended acquisition of land for J 658.3 of the rule. into a.munt *4 of an owner's orhighways to be a major focus of the Comments on the Criteria I 65.4 deviepr' .rJect investments in.it A as engineering orFP9A and does not believe Congress The greatest number of comments itguhase'nengoI intended such an extensive number of cee reatest number of ome •it,= sudies. this mighthigways to be exempt from the Acttheunher the "national defense" exemption. proposed rule. which sets forth the e•- ge the-owner or developer toIt is doubtful that the evaluation artena for evaluating the eexects of makp.u man enditures as possible

It~~~ isor douteu thtteeautoa gec made its assessmentrecuired by the FPPA would result in proposed program cions on the te. in order to obtain the lowest

*halting construction of any addition to nonaerion of'.armland to hX pessWere score on this criterion. In viewthe interstate highway system large number of comments receiv'e.., - * this c-t'ticism and of the insertion ofspecifically deemed necessary for tyd seoyfw': 658 .3(c) to insure that federal• naionl deens purose. P~sumbly they addressed only a few C eW " e ns "

* national defense purposes. Presumably These are listed and discu= e below.. assistance to a project cou!d not bete national defense purpose of such a Sa dened based on the Act or this rule.1. Several responses. s. a 3i~e"hi.way would overrde the importance fm eiteon number 10 now has beenof protecting farmland. Administration. Fa•rns o ft %- omitted.

I 6. The National Park Service (N•S) Administration. tvo stetU6pbpation 4. Several comments were ad,-essedasserted that NPS lands are exempt deparnnents. an• the Pacir ý'as ind to t6e site assessment criteria as afrom the FPPA and that future Electric Compaoy asked 11 dlire be group. Comments from the Depart=entacquisitions under the Land and Water specific guidshisc for ledu agencies in of Energy. the Department ofI Conservation Fund should be exempt. applying the-'itua I torofects such a Tra.nsportation. the Cali.forniaa Realtors

The Department of Agriculture agrees roads. pipelines:•i.: , •e,'eransmission Association and four other Calif."niathat •NPS iands acquired prior to the lines. and water tritaM3 ssion facilities. baied crganizations suggested that theeffective date of the final rule are not These!.` often calted"corrirfor site assessment criteria be droppedi covered by the Act if used for the stated protects." entirely from the rule. A greater number.purpose. since the intent of both the Ai theri ite-ia and guidelines Including comments from federal. stateCongress and the Administration for use .W hbae beitodified to and local agencies and organizations.of such lands is expressed in the S11ok "'iodat tese lineir or corridor- complained that the indicators forlegislation under which such lands were. "typero lj. scoring were -too vague. The Unitedacquired. However. farmlands propossi'd Z-Ise Npartment of Housing and States Postal Service and the LouisianRfor future acquisition under the Land rianbevelopment. the Department of Department of Transportation andand Water Conservation Fund or • 4 ie' the Department of the Army, Development suggested that the criteriaother means of purchase shouldbe and two state agencies felt that SCS be used for general guidance but thstevaluated as required by the A, ic %.Ahoud be given only 30 days or less to there should be no scoring system.

7. Farmers Home AdminigVation '%spond to agency requests for The scoring system included in th.suggested that definitions 'Vneede for assistance rather than 45 days. Others crite.ha is taken from :he Agric, ltura

* the terns "planning stage- and4i five felt "a responsive" answer should be Land Evaluation and Site Assessmentdesign" used in J 658.3(b)(2) of thi given within the 45-day period. (LESA) system developed by the SCq.proposed rule. •' The 45-day period in the proposed State and local officials in about 4nn

The rule in I 558.2(c) now defines • rule did not specify whether the 45 days jurisdictions of 45 states nationwidethose terms, were "working" or "calendar days." In have adopted or are studying LESA

8. The Rural Electrification the Department's view. 45 calendar days systems with assistance from SCS. TheAd.inistration asserted that small is the period reasonably required to Department believes Lhe use ofelectric and telephone projects and determine whether the proposed site is numerical indices for scoring farmlandsburied electric and teiephone cables farmland and. if it is. to complete the has proved to be a useful technique at

- Ushould be exempted from the analysis Land Evaluation; In the rule. I G5N.41a) state and local government levels forrequirements of the Act as should now makes the clarification that SCS is making defensible land use decisions,service extensions to farms and projects to give this response in 45 calendar and so their use is appropriate for thethat take place within road rights-of- days. Cooperative Soil Surveys are criteria provided in this rule. Theway. completed for an estimated 85 percent of Department has tested these criteria on

I

-& Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 130 / Thursdayv. July 5. 190-4 / Ruses and Re~u,"inons

27 sites in seven counties in four states site assessment criteria, and offered objected to SCS or any other federala:on httescrsfo hs eight criteria for inclusion in the rule. agency measuring "the value of a site as

we ,re consistent in all cases with Of the eight criteria suggested. the farmland.- adding "tbis sbould be athl coresfrom existing local LESA proposed rile included four. Now the local decision at the lowest possiblesystems. For certain criteria in the rule includes-six of thenm. The rule still level of government. preferably !0caily.pr~osed rile whose indices were does not accommodate suggestions that governed soil and waler canservationcmized as too VagUe, percentages and the number of farms to be aifected by a districts.- The National Cat:lemens9dil!Unces now have been added to. proposed actionr and the prospective Associaitin's concern appears to be tbaiprovide additional guidance in assigning impacts on farmers' incomes should be the rule will cause federal agency

cW.Soe of the indices for sconang included as criteria. Congress personnel to make unsolicited pricesCi sessmueint criteria call for apparently intended the Act to protect apprai~sals of pnivately-owned farmladria dtinents to be made at the local farmland per se. not farms as economic in the course of their data coLlectionlevel and scores may vary with local1 units. Nor is the number of farms activities.comitions affected a reliable measure of economic To address this concern, the term now

E%4anX comments suggested that iMPact. if econo= c impact were to be used in the final rule: "srelative value.*'language be added to the rule to give considered. The Department believes -Relativ~e value'., is based purely on sails'state and local units of government that data on the prospective impacts on data collected O., SCS. Expressedi on ag~r r participation. in or control of the farmers incomes would be nearly scale of 0 to 106. it indic~te~s thepress for assessing the effects of impossible to collect and in any event. usefulness.,'via pa-rcel of !and aspr oed federal actions on farmland. prbtgcting farmers' incomes is not a farmlandifotsssiained productivity.These ;ncluded comments from several purpose of the Act. compmad to other'1W in dtiest~ and local governmrent agencies the -7. A number of parties recom mended junsilctionjI would be separate anda

Ac-ation of Mlinot Soil and Water that site assesmnent criteria 5 and a of dill* 1"ic froli the price of he land. wb:cbC ervation Districts, the Illinoiis the proposed role not be included as site would. it': a i' event depend on -he eJSouth Project. the Piedmont assessment criteria. Their position was ~satem maikit and zhe oonsud.as well as

Ez-ronental Council and others. The that by calling on the agency to assess ~Se~oL chameteristics of the property.ConaState Crange stated that the special siting requirements of the project i.10 !MEvuMmental P. atection

crrJa miust recognize the ability of (criterion 5) and alternat"v sites eny. among others. bejieved thdt thelocal governments to determine and. (criterion 6). these criteria representil' preposed rule would tend to workco~ol land use within their juncraisdkin. the kind of final judgment that the .a.alinst vrotection of far-m-and nearT Uai~fornia Chamber of Commerce agency would make after assessing the labanized areas. EPA proposed addingstid it is essential that local site according to the other criteria. cttteria to favor protec"ýon oi close-ingovernments be given a primary role Hence the criteria did not ieo~ n the farmland in o-der to counte~rbaianceun~gr the Act within the rule. The same scoring system witbh theother those criteria on which cl!ose-in

N alAssociation o'? Home Builders criteria. Suchi comments wrt received farmldand would receive !oW scores"renrended the rule be rewritten to from the National Asisociaii* of Admittedly. use of the naizionalincrease the importance oi the Realtors, the Califo~tia Buildi112 criteria contained in the rule %v-.lZe urret for compatLibilty of federal Industry Associatlori the !Tivins, discriminate to some devree aeainst theagcy actions with state and local Company. the PaAcit t~iW Foundat~ion protection of farmland close !o u.r'anallultural preservation programs. and the Farmers Haomq ,Admhiistration. areas. It is the Department's position

Xsmentioned in the preceding The Department agreas,.QCiteria 5 and that the purpose of the Act is to pro!ectdiscussion. with assistantce from SCS. 6 Shave beeii opped ais, se assessment the best of :he Nation's farmlands which:oS 400 units of local goverrnment in 45 .. criteria buftdte. a paffl of the guidelines are located where tarming can be aste. as well as some state for usiag the ipaM. practicable econotruc activity. The

goffrnments. are developing and &Lhrmen HomneiAdministration and Department anticipates that populationadopting Land Evaluation and Site . thitltab VeparMimnt of Agriculture both increases for the United States in theAssment (LESA) systems to 41jestine th.4f.validity of criterion 7 of next 50 years wiil require corrversion ofev at the productivity of agricultural 11o1e rl icei peae ob some land from farm to other uses. thatIs ~and its suitability for conversion to aR p Ole onywhere the local land nearest urban built-up areats arenonagricultural use. Therefore. certaiiiinil.., ~dick~ had a comprehensive plan in the most likely candidates for suchstaW and units of local government -. ee. -- cnesoadthtonvein tese

Ma ave already performed an '. ?*:11.;~ Departmen~t has dropped criterion lands is preferable to havingIvEation using criteria simidax-.o ;hos 7 an a eie rtro odevelopment put pressure on morecontained in this rule applicable to., incorporate the definitions of "state or productivt farmlands farther fromn thesefequal agencies.L local government policies or programs to urban built-up areas. The PPPA is not

3ig'iage now has been added to "~protect farmland" and of -private designed for the protection of openi MA of the rule recommending that programs to protect farmland." These space. historic farms. recreationfederal agencies use state and local are to be considered only where they opportunities. or a particular rural8a Multural land evaluation and site exist. lifestyle.

-aset sytem thtaeo h CS 9. The proposdrlstedhabsd5t conservationist's list of systems on the land evaluation criteria set forth Comments on Gwei38JfrUs f

that meet the purposes of the FPPA. in I 658.4. -a11 farmland will beCita 585b~he Natural Resources Defense evaluated and each parcel assigned an 1. A ruyhber of comments asserted

Ctecil. the American Farmland Trust, overall score between 0 and 100 that because the proposed rule allowedthi~ational Farmers Union and others representing its value as farmland agencies to use any relative wei-ghttmi; ofasserted that direct analysis of the relative to other parcels in the area." the criteria that they desired in

~Icts of project alternatives should be The National Cattlemen's Association, determining the pointi totals forin addition to land evaluation and addressing this in its comments. protection of a site a% farmlard. this

* Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 130 / Thursday. July 5. 1984 / Rules and Re~u!ations 27,23.

I would permit an agency to assign Guidelines for the use of the criteria. nonagricultural uses." This now hasweights so as to preselect the results of now found in 658.4 of the rule. indicate been correc:ed in the rule.the analysis. This concern was shared that when a site obtains a threshoid 3. The New Mexico Cattle Grower'sby the Rural Elecvrification score of 160 points, the agency should Association. the California AssociationAdministration. Ohio Department of consider alternative sites, locations and of Realtors. the California Chamber ofTransportation. Wisconsin Department designs. This process should lead the Commerce. the California Cattlemen'sof Agriculture. Whitman County. agency to consideration of alternative Association and others suggestedWashington. Regional Planning Council. actions as well as alternative sites for eliminating the reference in I 658.6(c) ofNational Association of State proposed program actions. the proposed rule to Forest-ServiceSDepartments of Agriculture. Illinois Compliance with the FPPA is but one cooperation in planning for uses of landSouth Project. Association for Public of the requirements that federal adjacent to National Forests andJustice. Wisconsin Land Conservation agencies must meet in approving or consideration. wherever practicable, ofAssociation and others.' disapproving projects. The FPPA rule coordinating the management of

The Department believes each agency does not assume the necessity of the National Forest lands with theIshould ave the flexibility to judge for project. The necessity for the project is -management of adjacent lands. Theyitself whether the weighting pattern in left to be determined by te agency on main.aine&*at this language suggestedthis rule is the appropriate one for that the basis of economic andagency's programs. However. in environmental analyses and its that the FordtService would be in aresponse to these comments. the statutory program responsibilities as osi.t. iapence land use po:cies on

Department now recommends in the rule well as on the basis of the effects of the thnd;. otwii a Foss . anthat an agency desiring to depart from project on farmland. th .dI.iothe weighting pattern of the criteria in Section 1542 of the Act calls on 43e. ..

the rule should comply with two federal agencies to review and revise if ai,,any misunderstanding.safeuards. First. the agency. in necessary. their agencies' administratie th re statement now has beenCo.~~~v h i n the rvsdpooe ue

consultation with the Department. regulations. policies and procedures t' ebrnnate in the revised proposed rule.iL. oud use the rulemaking process to achieve coniormity with the Act. In thii ,Th• National Cattlemens'

esrabiish the change. and second. the process. it is anticipated that the .... cution. the New Mexico Cattle'anation on the basic weighting pattern agencies will identify actions the#i an irowers' Association and others

that the agency adopts should be take to alter project design to reddue i•;pressed concern thaLdevelupment ofmu.iformly applied within the agency so effects on farmland. i iaps designatng farmlands woud,, sn to pr even t y tap e age iny from •-.!ýiý:iit!- ip d sina i g ar la dsw o l

to prevent the agency from Comments on Technical Aula e deftne those to be protectedipreselecting a particular6 Wei.ting. permnanently by the Act as farmland.

pattern that w proe a portents 6y8.6 even though conditions were likely toi core for a project. i. Comments from t ato change over time.

2. The American Farmland Trust. the Association of Realtori .u.thed The comment apparentlyis based onural Electrification Administration and Wisconsin Depa1ment o T the premise that designating or.Agtu lue.ngo

many others raised concern over the Trade and Coni=e ftect0ion' identifying farmlands on maps isassignment of equal weights to all 16 suggested " the C oxisthaWn process comparable to zoning and that such

I ite assessment factors. with elected si iat al officials l l pBased on comments received, the . discussed in § 65 .I ithe proposed lands will be permanebtly protected

teighting has been revised to reflect a rule beqýrequired andt private nrotectnperseony la nd fromdifference in importance ranging from a landh 14ers be givag.Ae opportunity for being converted to nonagricultural use.•igh score of 20 points to a high score of coloixltaliA ...... co vetd ono ariutua ue

jigh~~~~~~~~~~~~ scrif2nonst ig cr f cnutda The Act and the rule simply require thatpoints. The total points for the site -ie consikiaii'n process discussed in agency d t simply consir a

Issesmment criteria remains 160. based 4i58, would be pursuant to Executive federal agency decisionmakers consider,ssesmen crtera rmain 26. bsed 'n ý ,the effects of proposed actions on theon a redistribution of the points among 1023"Tat Executve Order and conversion of farmlano and consider

1e 2 criteria. Even though the number hi.t rou '-.federal agency regulations atnves o uld ln chIf criteria has dropped from 16 to it er toits implementation alternatives that would lessen such

If6e0point total for the site assessmulr 311- and: federal agencies are to effects. Maps would simply indicate

has been retained in order to retain* tht -cony. The I 658.6(e) was therefore puose ln thAtwfa.me balance of weighting bet !tJie,6 deleted as an unnecesary part of this pur'iew of the Act.Eite assessment and land ev .isatiof ee. . American Farmland Trust and

-iteria which, when the scdvare-a. 2. The National Cattlemen's others suggested that te Departmentadded together. provide the pbt score Association observed that language provide information to federal agencies.tra farmland impact rating on used in § 658.6 of the proposed rule state and local jovernmerts and others

ED-1006 (see 1 658.3 of the rule). •i. misquoted the Act. They stated that regarding provsions of the FPA and Ats

1,3. Comments from the Sierra Club. there was nothing in section 1543 of the implementing rule."National Audubon Society. Natural Act which authorized the Secretary to ' The Departmnent will be providingResources Defense Council and others provide technical assistance to "protect information to other federal agencies

Noted that the rule fails to require that farmland" or to "guide urban and state local governments concerningagency consider alternatives to the development." the rule. Upon request. SCS will assist

roposed project itself. They maintain The Department concurs with this federal agencies in training personnel tothat the Act calls for the agency to comment. The language used was an implement the Act. The ExtensionI pnsideralternative actions. including inadvertent misquotation of the Act. The Service is responsible for designing and

e alternative of not doing the project correct wording "encourages" the implementing educatronal programs and"all and not just alternative sites for a Secretary to provide technical matenals in accordance with section

proposed action. They also assert that assistance to an agency "that desires to 1544(a) of the Act. The NationalIe rule assumes the necessity of the develop programs or policies to limit the Agricultural Library has beecroposed action. conversion of productive far"lancIo designated a a farmland inforntation

I.

"IF4 Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 130 / Thursday. July 5. IM8 / Rules and Re2 latior~s

center in accordance with section f SSLI PurPoMs financing. or assistirg cornstruc~ion orS(b) of the Act. This part sets out the criteria improvement projects or acquiring,

atmnts on USDA Assistance i 6W8. developed by the Secretary of managing, or disposing of federal lands-uAgriculture. in cooperation with other and facilities. Th e tern -'federal+T'ebillinois Departmenti of Agriculture federal agencies. pursuant to section program" does not include federal

wanted I 6558.7 of the proposed rule to 1541(a) of the Farmland Protection permitting. licensing, or rate approvalb Wtten more forcefully. The Policy Act (FPPA or the Act) 7 U.S.C. programs for activities an private orDiware State Grange. Inc.. wanted to 4202(a). As required by section 2541(b) nontederal lands. The term -federaleliminate the words "as appropriate" in of the Act. 7 U.S.C. 4Z20tb). federal program" does not include constructionI 658.7(a) of the proposed rule. as well agencies are (1) to use the criteria to'. or improvement projects that werea e words "This assistance is identify and take into account the beyond the planning stage on the datep fided on request. as permitted by adverse effects of their programs on the 30 days after publication of the final ruleSi~ng and budget limitations." preservation of farmland. (2) to consider in the Federal Re-.ister. if

In te proposed rule. I 658.7 simply alternative actions, as appropriate. that (1) Acquisition of land or easement forre ated language contained in the Act could lessen adverse effects. and (3) to the project has occurred. orna~it has not. therefore. been modified ensure that their proigramns. to the extent (2) All requir-ed federal aget!cyin is final rule. practicable. are compatible with state planning documt and steps %vcre

This action has been revised under and units of iocal government and comp~leted andl acctd. endor~d orE;Wutive Order 12291 and Secretary's private programs and Folicie3 to p.-tect approved kytb z-, ppropr:a te agencyINI~oranduni No. 1512-1 and hi~s been farmland. Guidelines to assist agencies.. and.ddilinated "nonmajor." The Assistant in using the criteria are irtcluded in this (3) e'nv ir d hp ~ntal impactSecretary for Natural Resources and part. The Department of Agriculture saten as r !:led~ ivih EPA or anEj~ronment has determined that this (hereinafter USDA) may make available envQoarni atiw--i.ct assessment was

nwill not have economic impact on to states, units of local government. com.p~e d and a-ftitdin2 of no2 conomy of SIOO million or more: individuals. organizations. and other ~Infica ~upact was executed by the

result in a major increase in costs or units of the Federal Governmrent. _`0p0priat4 -ency official(sl. "In thep~*es for consumers. individual information useful in restoring. '~vdsNe state" shall m~ean that !heiriffstries. federal. state. or local maintaining, and improving the quantity ttiae7. orac.tc..l eig aSg~rnment agencies. or geographic and quality of farmland. (r.bp r a encontracte rcnoregions: or result in significant adverse -

eiffects on competition, employment. 1658.2 Definftions. ~ rioI the date 30 ddys afterirastment. productivity, innovation, or (a) "Farmland" means priet 1*p l cation of the final ruic in theolice ability of U.S.-based enterprises farmlands as defined in sect. Feeral Register.to compete with foreign-based '1540(c)(1) of the Act or farmladi a~ (d) "State or local government ;oliciesenerprises in domestic or export determined by the approptit state or'1ýiý or programs to protect farmland"m~kets. This rule does not contain unit of local government agency r include: Zoning to protes~t farniand:

hlranon collection requirements agencies with concurnnce othe agricultural iand proto: 'on;'i'nw .ch require approval by the Office of becretary to be farj~d a afIstswi de orofacmresielduepnwhc

Mangeen an Bdgt nde~ .SC.of local importarqwcb&.ý ~ e feimland" has been adopted or reviewed in its35 et sq. . dos not i clueIii afr; d in4o entirety by the unit of local government

is document has been prepared in cmmitted to urban dewlo ent or *nwoejrsito ta prtvI ffice of the Assistant Secretary for water storage. Prime fariad "already within 1.0 years preceding proposed

Natural Resources and Environment. in" urbant evlopmento ate trg implementation of the particular federalDrtrnent ~ ~ ~ .. "' of Agi.tr.wt h nld~alqhadihadniyo program: completed purchase or

a~iranicee of the Land Use Division of 3 .0`s6a~ies 4~Or area. Prime aqiiino eeomn ihsth oil Conservation Service. farmun " ~imid to urban completed purchase or acquisition of

0de~u~ or-'.:.ater storage" includes conservation easements. prescribedLofSubjects in 7 CYR Part 658 01 Auhln thu fhas been designated procedures for assessing agricultural~rcu~lture. Soil conservation. ,Oti.-; r m ;fltll or industrial use or viability of sites proposed for

FEln.dresi- 'doal""'n that isnot intended at conversion: completed agricultural

Accordingly, Pant 658 is added to 7"I 114 uaiiriime to protect farmland in a dsrcigadcptli~smnst7 ifthe Code of Federal Regulatior 4) zoning code or ordinance adopted by protect farmland.

Teof ~ ~ Ifg- Cotet adtxtora s aWut or unit of local government or (2) (e) "Private programs to protectofw Cotet an textto pre4h nive land use plan which farmland" means programs for the

5.has expressly been either adopted or protection of farml~and which areP 58-FARMLAND PROTECftim4 reviewed in its entirety by the unit of pursuant to and consistent with state

P CY ACTlocal governiment in whose jurisdiction it and local government policies or-"is operative within 10 years preceding programs to protect farmland u.d the

!FC implementation of the particular federal affected state and unit of local658 Peunitose. project. .government, but which are opern ted by

Deiitos (b) "Federal agency" means a a nonprofit corporation. foundation.Applicability and exemptions. department. agency, independent association. conservancy. 6-stnct. orC~neie frueo riteria. commission. or other unit of the Federal -other not-for-profit organization exiisting

8.Tehiatelasssane Government. under state or federal laws. PnvateUSD.6 TehiAlssistance wt eea (c) "Federal program" means those programs to protect farmland mnay

fagenchs' reviews of policies and activities or responsibilities of a include: (1) Acquiring and holding1p~rocedure. department. agency, independent development rights in far-iland and (2)Aaatboritr. See. 1539-1549. Pub. L 07-S. 95 commission. or other unit of the Federal facilitating the transfer of deveiopment

S12341-13M4. (7 u.S.C. 4201 M seq.). Governiment that involve undertaking. rights of farmland.

Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 130 1 Thursday. July 5. 1284 IRules and Regulations 27725E (0) "Site" means the location(s) that program. or other activity that may the aeeney will assign to the site awould be converted by the proposed affect farmland. Neither -the Act nor this combined score of up to 250 points.action(s). rule. therefore, shall afford any basis for composed of up to 100 points for relative

(S) **Unit of local government" means such an action. value and up to 160 points for the sitethe government of a county, assessment. With ',his score the age-icyImunic:pality. town. township. village, or I56S8.4 Guidefin'es for use of cuiteria. will be able to identify the effect of itsother unit of general government below As stated above and as provided ins programs on farmland, and make athe state level, or a combination of units the Act. each federal age.-cy shall use dete-nination as to the suitability of theOf local government acting through an the criteria provided ini 1 658.5 to site for protection as farmland. Onice

*areawide agency under a state law or an identify and take into account the this score is computed. USDA- agreement for the formulatioin of adverse effects Of federal pro-am onl recommends:

regional development policies and the protection of farmland. The agencies (1) Sites with the highest combinedplans. are to consider alternative actions. as ascores be regarded as most suitabie for

* §658.3 Appficabi~ty and exemptions, appropriate, that could lessen such protection under these criteria and sites(a)Secion134(b)of he ct.7 ~ adverse eifects, and assure that such with the lowest scores, as least sutable.(a Scton150()ofth AL US.. federal programs. to the extent (2) Sites. *eceiving a total score of less4.201[b). states that the purpose of the practicable. are compatible with state. ta 6 ewnamnmllvlo,Act is to minimize the extent to which unit of local government and private thsaazin .o pr0rot enoam nimand leelofIfederal programs contribute to the programs and policies to protect aditonasida efict- proeevaluated. n

unnecessary and irreversible conversion farmland. The following are guidelines add ,i , d recl. be soesvoaluated. 0of farmland to nonagricultural uses. to assist the agencies in these tasks: Alsieorech ivenl scores oasingl h 1gh 0

,Conversion of farmland to (a) An agency should first make a orte:.veni oresrl hihrotcinnonagricultural uses does not include request to SCS on Form A.D 1006. the ZT5sciaou de-ation oprtcinIthe construction of on-farm structures Farmland Conversion Impact Rating j4J When 1nisitng decisions onnecessary for farm operations. Federal Form. available at SCS offices. for -F pi'ooaciong f60or sotes agenciiyagencies can obtain assistance from dleterm iiation of whether the sit is 4 cs11aig4s r oe aec

*USDA in determining whether a farmland subject to the Act If neither V..pu110=21 consider.proposed location or site meets the Act's the entire site nor any pat of it~r ~ ~ s fln hti o amado

aer`nition of farmland. The USDA Soil subject to the Act. then th Act w Iint~s of existing struc-ares:Conservation Service (SCS) field office apply and SCS will so notf \iiAteaveselotosan

Wecrying the area will provide the If the site is determined ~sst) deesigns that would serve the proposedssistance. Many state or local subject to the Act. then. .c .... purpose but convert either fewer acresovernment planning offices can also measure the relative vialue of thc't as of farml-and or other. arland that has a

p Nvd hs assistance. frlnonasle. wo lower relative value:' bAccuisition or use of-farmland by according !o the informution some (Hil Special siting requirements of thefederal'agency for national defense listed in J 6ZB.B1a)..SCS 41iu~rtspo'.nd to proposed projec, and the extent toupposes is exempted by section 1547(b) these recuestsa w6ithin 4.6 slendar days which an alternative site ails3 to satisri

o! the Act. 7 U.S.C. 4-208(b). of their recesp.I h se'tta C heseilstn requieet swim(c) The Act and these regulations do fal ocompleeitseusos wihn h as the originally seiected site.*ot authorize the Federal Government in 45-day period, if futer !ay would (d) Federal agencies may eiect to

Iny way to regulate the use of private or interfefe with cons~thog.tion activities, the assign the site assessment criterianonfedieral land. or in any way affect the' agency should promowe as though the relative weight-ings other than those

~rprty rights of owners of such land. sitsilereiftzfarad'lrid. shown in 1658.5(bM and (c). If an agencyEe Actan thes reuain do no 4b1 . P-1z AD 100. returned to the elects to do so. USDA recomnmends that

Urovde uthrityforthewitholdng fIege;b SC&swill also include the the agenicy adopt its alternativefederal assistance to convert farmland "j Wing iiena information: The weighting system (1) through rulemaking'Inonagricultural uses. Inrcases whero... *0t4amocdit of farmable land (the land in consultation with USDA. and (2) as a

ther a private party or a nonfederal! -;: i th tut of local goivernment's system to be used uniformly throughoutiit of government applies for federii )gsaisdicMon that is capable of producing the agency. USDA recommends that the

assistance to convert farmland to te tnronly grown crop); the weightings stated in 16358.5 (b)l and (c)nonagri.cultural use. the federalimpric"I percentage of the jurisdiction that is be used unWi an agency issue5 a finalI uduse the criteria set fort, fntisr ~khmland covered by the Act the rile to change the weightings.lrt tio identify and take irnWiccouai Ilercentage of !armland in the -(e) It is advisable that evaluations and

any adverse effects on farmnl 4 of he jurisdiction that the project would analy-tes of prospective farmlandassistance requested and develeg convert: and the percentage of farmland conversion impac:s be made eariv in theI ternative actions that could avoildl; i n the local 2overnment's jurisdiction planning proc'ess before a site or designEtigate such adverse effects. If. afteri with the same or higher relative value is selected. and that. where possible.consideration of the adverse effects and than the land that the project would agenc-es make the FPPA evaluatlionssggested alternatives, the applicant convert. These statistics will not be part part of the-National EnvironmentalI ts to proceed with the conversion. of the criteria scoring process. but are Policy Act (NEPA) process. Under thefeftedteral agency may not. on the basis intended simply to furnish additional agency's own NEPA regulations. some

Ithe Act or these regulations. refuse to background information to federal categories of projects may be excludedprovide the requested assistance. agencies to aid them in considering the from NEPA which may still be covered

~ d) Section 1548. 7 U.S.C. 4209. states efects of their projects on farmland. under the FPPAL Section 1540(c)[4) of thetthe Act shall not be deemed to (c) After the agency receives from Act exempts projects that were beyond

tovide a basis for any action, either SCS the score of a site's relative value the planning stage and were in either thelegal or eq~iitable. by any state. unit of as described in I 658.4(a) and then active design or construction state ont3al government. or any person or class applies the site assessment criteria the effective date of the Act. Section.

persons challenging a federal projet.L which are set forth in I 658.5 (b) and (c). 1547(b) exempts acquisition or use ot

* p26Federal Regtister / Vol. 49. No. 13.0 / Thursday. July 5. 1984 /Rules and Regulations

farmland for national defense purposes. suggesting top. intermediate and bottom each state. Data are from the latestere are no other exemptions of scores are indicated for each criterion, available Census of Agriculture.inects by category in the Act. Ile agency would make scoring Acreane of Farm Units in Operation

Uf) Numerous states and uirnts of lOWa decisions in the context of each with Si.000 or more in sales.)agoptinmeg Lanedevaluapiong and Sieproposed site or alternative action by As large or larger-ID pointsadpigLn-vlainadSt examining the site. the surrounding area. Below average--deduct I point for eachUsessmnent (LESA) systems. to evaluate and the programs and policies of the 5 percent below the average, down to*productivity of agricul tural land and state or local unit of government in 0 points if 50 percent or more belowIsutability for conversion to which the site is located. Where one average-e to 0 points

noagricultural use. Therefore. state and given location has more than one desg (8) If this site is chosen for the project.*ts of local government may have alternative, each design should be ho much of the remaining land on the

Eayperformed an evaluation using considered as an alternative site. The farm will become non-farmable because1teria sYimilar to thosle contained in this Site assessment criteria are: of initerference with land patterns?rule applicable to federal agencies. (1 How much land is in nonurban useI~ recommends that where sites are within a radius of 2.0 mile frem where Acreage equal to more than :5 percent

ealuated within a jurisdiction the project is intended! of acres dfirectl y converted by the'gastate or local LESA system that Nfore~than 90 percent-115 points project-20 *ozn tshas been approved by the governing ~ o~: ecn--4t on~)Acreage equ ,..o betwoen 25 and 5I dy of such jurisdiction and has been Less than 20 percent-aO poinizts percent of t~acres directly converned

aced on the SCS state Hwmcofteenteofhe by th "1 c't-4 to 1 point(s)aservationist's list as one which Acresj equal blejss than 5 percent of

meets he pupose o the PPA ~site borders on land in nonurban use? gtdrcInctdb hSlance with other public policy More than 90 percent-10 points .oectp,q.Q .ointsjectives. federal agences use that 90 to 20 percent.-G to I point(s) De he avaaibl

ltem to make the evaluatzon. Less than 20 percent-0O points a e qgi ~uppy of farm support* ~~~ ~~~ (3) How much of the site has been ..11-dmakt. ~..fr

E~is secytion states the criteria farmedto timbnedfr actscheduloed thanI~s euipment dealers. processingE'ied by: seto 154(a of th c.7.hreto ibratvt)mr h t ge facilities and !armers3

liscin14() fteAt ive of the last 10 years? ies?FTSC. 22a h rtrawr More than 90 percent-20 points elquired servces are availdole-5

byg the Sco e crn()te ster procfarln r o~developdb h ertr f9 o3 et1 oIpi~-ture in cooperation with other L0ess2 percet 9 toI.n* points

erlaenis They are in two parts, es than 20 percent-0 poin --. Sme required services am~ available--4Rh land evaluation criterion. relative (4) 13 &,e site subject to State orWnit of to I point(s)value, for which SCS will provide the local government policiu~ P topmt No required services are 3aia'lale-O0

mg. orsoe n 2 h ieprtc amado ot hy P~idivete points*sement criteria. for which ecch prgast rtc amut?(10) Does the site have SiibSt3.tial

Ise'ral apency must develop its own Site is protected-,40*point and well-mairntaiuied cn-fa. m~ratings or scores. The criteria are as Site is not proteczt-points inetetssc-sban.o r suirageslw 1 0WS: (5) How closei" tlthei~ii 1-6 in urban . building, fruit trees and vines. fieidE~) nn~vludo Citerion-bltuara ~* terraces. druina^,e. irrnigation.X180tive Value. The land evaluation 11lze sitei s2 miles or *0Iwrfrom an waterw~ays. or other so'. and walercriterion is based on information from urbazijilt-up arew.-IS. points conservation measures?Ferai sources including national The sit. isur thmt! mile but less High amount of on-farm investmrent-20

Eperative soil surveys or other 2mle a bn ubn built-up pointseptable soil surveys. SCS field office a-."t poiini Moderate amount of on-farrn

Itechnicl guides. soil potential ratings or ~5~~ sle ~an 2 mile from. but is invesunent-19 to 2 poart(s)ilproductivity ratings, land capability ~r os~c~t to an urban built-up No on-farmn investment-0C points

*ssfiaton. ad mpr~nt arlad rea. pints (11) Would' the project at this site. byEerminationz. Based on this itisajacent to ain urban built-up Iotedn famadt o~iutrai

information, groups of soils within a<. ae-opitus.rdcthdmn framspotInI government's jurisdiction will-b ha" it s. euetedmndfri upr

ma~luated and assigned a score aat(n How close is the site to water services so as to jeopard;:e thelb 00.repesetin th rea zg vl*. 'Ibe.sewver lines and/or other local connirued exifsence of these support

!or gr~ultraIprodctin. f~.facilities and services whose capacdties servicei and thu~s. the viabiiitv of the~lad t b covetedby fi'~ict and design would promote farms remairirn;:% thle area?

mlprdt te frln ntes nonasiricultural use? Substantial reductieon in demand for~al government jurisdiction. This scorei None of the services exist nearer than .3 support services if the site is

Will be the Relative Value Rating on miles from the site-15 points converted-iD pointsFo M oA10. Some of the services exist more than I Some reduction in demand for supportI (b) Site Assessment Criteria. Federal but less than 3 miles from the site-io services if the site is converted-B9 to I

encies are to use the following criteria points point(s)Ifassess the suitability of each All of the services exist within %a mile of No significant reduction in demand for

proposed site or design alternative for the site--O points support services if the site isnotection as farmland along with the (7) Is the farm unit(s) containing li-d converted--O points*ore from the land evaluation criterion site (before the project) as large as uhe (12) Is the kind and irterisity oi theTescribed in I 65&.5(a). Each criterion average-size farming unit in the county? proposed Use of the site suiilcient!vwill be given a score on a scale of 0 to (Average farm sizes in each county are incompatible with agriculture :hat it isi

a maximum points shown. Conditionsaovailable from the SCS field offices in likely to contribute to the eventual

k414 greater ýII& Vvc xI ize vaxn nuys areavan nugs chamnber o

3~YA$~ Vfl fU~Sof comnmercel

I financial center building14545 victory boulevard

van nuys. california 91411

August.7, 1984 889900

J. Eugene Grigsby IIIThe Planning Group1728 Silverlake Blvd.Loos Angeles, CA 90026

3Re: Air National Guard Relocation ..

IDear Mr y

I was glad to see that the Plafkninql GQod:§ is involved in theanalysis of the relocation of the 2,46th Tactical Airlift Wingof the Air National Guardt.,-i

This is certainly an issuelix -n ic we have an interest, par-Iticularly in the considerat]: ft fthe "do nothing" alternatives.We will not be ableo be repreitented at the scoping meeting sche-duled later this D~).H~ewe definately want to be on theImailing list and-A.ko be Vvmed of the issues that are raised andthe timing and-i'i'ir.eC-tio.:-6f the Guard's anticipated move.

..................

We appreci~te-ý;.ý yViou r4 aing us inform~ed.

Sincere~ly..

Marc~i%*atIickI Project Director

5 MMc: Srmaster Sergeant Riley Black/'

ACCREDITED

I ~the administrative center of the san fernand~o valley

2A 6 Federal Regtister IVol. 49. No. 130 / Thursday. July 5. 1984 / Rules and Regulations

DEPAR'TMENT OF AGRICULTURE agency should deny assistance for a conversion of farmland toproject on a certain tract solely on the conagriculzural uses. provides4Cosetivaton Service basis that the site should be preserved guidelines for program aeencies' use of

si lofor agricultural$ use. this denial would these criteria, and identifies technical7 CFR Pant 658 affect the use of private land and may assistance that will be provided by thenot be consistent with local zoning or Department to agencies of federal. state.FUland Protection Policy planning policy. The rule needed and local governments pursuant to the

J er.c Soil Conservation Sevie clarification because Congress expressly Acz..4tue provided that the Act would not For purposes of the Act. -farmland- isAgr iculturue. authorize any federal regulation of either -prime farmland. "uniqueAm t:Fna ul.private land Use. Accordingly. the farmland." or other farmland -,hat is ofSLUNARY: This action promulgates a Department has modified the rule to statewide or local importance.- All threerule for implementation of the Farmland eliminate any possibility that either the of these types of "farmland" are deftnedPrggction Policy Act. Subtitle I of Title Act or this rule will cause any refusal Of by section 41540(c)(1) of the Act.

f the Agricu~lture and Food Act of federal assistance to private parties and BoLS the Act and this rule apply orhy19U Putb. L 97-98. The r-ile will add a nonfederal units of governmzent, to federal agencies or -,heir programsnew Part 638 to Title 7 of the Code of Similarly. th Dear.-n.nt has that might convert farmland. Where noFed*ral Reglaions establishing criteria redrafted the rule to insure--Eitatihons federal activity is invoived. the Act doesfoe3 ifin an-osdr2teb~eec gnisiiopnWrr not apply .Neither the Act nor th~s ruleeg opf fede.a p;aMs on the oclzixiii dec- sions maeo~~nT rq ire ederal agency to modify anycon;verion of f & ~h2 ~ -rb-in de-veiopmeni 0 rne fairland. project solely to avoid or minirnize thenorairimdtu.-aJ uses and idemntifying 1'n-enicting the Farmland Protecub-n effects of coniverso offrlnd toteical assistance to agencies of state. Policy Act. Congress found that the nngiuta ss h c n ~!ea n oa oet.3e~ that wiUi Nation's farmland was "a unique natural ongiltalse.TeAterelbýej~ovided by the D~epartmen-t of resource" and that each year. "a large rqie htbfr aigo prvnAgriculture. .amourit of t.'e Nation's farmland" was any action that would result in

VE DTE hisr-e ecoes ein "irevo-aby covered romconversion of farmland as def-ned !n theEF'TVE ATLThi rue bcoms b~ng"irevoabi covered romAct. the agency examines the e.-fec-.s of

elffU've August 6984. actual or potential agricultural use to the action usifl2 the criferna set forth inFO-UTE NORAINCNAT r~onagnicu.ltural use.- in many cases as a the rule and if there are adverse effec-s.

Howard C. Tankersiey. £-xecu-,ive result of actions taken or assisted by the consider alternatives to lessen :h~em.Se6 ta SA "aid Use Issues Federal Coverriment.I1he-generaL-Teancwudsilhe sr-.oAtLa rcu. USci osevo purpose of the Act is to "minimize the Thagnyoudsilh'eise:nSegce. P.u. Box l Cons.rvastinon. D.C eetf 1h e ro Ie 60*f !id era 1 r-2 -a-1-71 to proceed w'itb a proiec: that would

~ telephoe 202-38-1855. ithe conversion of farmland to - ovr omadt nngiutrluenoa1tcltra useshon a02dto-1that once the examination required by thesS aNARY INFORtAATIoN: A federal praa'sare ad anssured na Act h.s been completed. Cor~gress"'~Uedrue was pub!:shed !cr public ane rgas dmntrdi 8 included in the Ac. a provision. ser*!UnV-U f ane that, to the extent practicabFEicc'nriment on July 12. 1983. in the Federal ;.f b;ic6rfi05ible~with state. unif -61" 1547(a). assuring !ando'vners ihat ti- e

Register. Vol. 48. No. 134. pp. 31863- local gove-rnmiL and private programs Act -does not authorize the Federal310. and 149 responses. containing azr.'ýolicies-to'protect fialfiland.- Government in. any way to regulate :1.eh'u.eds of comments. were received (section 1540(b) of the'Act). The XEF use of private or nonfecerai lard, or indufffg the comment period. which was directs federal agencies to "identify and any way affect the property rights of,aniginaily set so expire September 1Z. take into account the adverse effects of owners of such land." F'riail%. sectvonut as extended througlh October L- federal programs on the preservation of 1-548 states expressiy that the Act -shall

1998ASee Federal Reegrster. September Z farmland. consider alternative actions. not be deemed to provide a basis" for1.9 . -39944). The Department of asaporae htcudlse uh any litigation "chal!encing a federal.'culture has made a number of adverse effects: and assure that such project. program. or other activity that

ams and additions to the rijle as federal programs. to the extent . may affect farmland."ro sed in response to several issues practicable. are compatible with state. -the Department received 149i~ in the comments. Because several unit of local government, and private responses to the publication of the

f these modifications will have the programs and policies to protect * proposed rule on July I:. IS83. Of these.iffe of limiting the scope of the rule, farmland." !n order to guide the federal 18 were from federal agencics. .1: from

th e 3partment considered republishing agencies in this task. section 1541(a) of state agencies. 19 from local uni:s ofue e in proposed form for additional the Act directs the Department of government 60 from nat~onal. saiae and

mmer'ts. However, since the Agriculture, in cooperation with other local public interest organ::a lions. andig~cance of the changes and ' departments. agencies, independent 10 were from i..Jividuals or firms..dtc ns is not so great as to require commissions and other units of the Where posstbie. comments contained in.uc epublication. it has been Federal Government. to "develop the responses were categorizedemer-rnned that any benefit that could criteria for identifying the effects of according to that section o, .he p-oocscde 4'ived from additional public federal programs on the conversion of rule to which they applied. Others wereUv does not warrant hurther delay in farmland to nionagricultural uses" for the caiegorized as general commtntris. All

W~ishing an effective final rule. use of all "departments. agencies, Comments were summarized to identifyThe most important additions clarify independent commissions and other the issues or concerns expressed.dC&arrow the scope of the Act's units of the Federal Government" whose Eachi response was carefully studied%Jpge and effect from the scope that programs may affect farmland. This rule and the rule has been modified whnereaeontemplated in the proposed rule. for implementation of the Act - Possible and where such modificationsmaking thiese additionals to the estabiiskes the criteria required by are consistent with the Act. Foilowinu

gsed rule, the Department has beeni section 2541(s) of the Act for identifyng are the most importart charles which31by the view that if a federal the effects of federal programs on the were made to the rule as published ii

I co

PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES * 305 W. THIRD STREET * OXNARD, CA 93030 * (805) 984-46S7

mACAWa m.,Wo. DIICeo. August 8, 1984

S Master Sergeant Riley Black'Assistant Public Affairs Officer.146th Tactical Airlift-WingAir National Guard8030 Balboa BoulevardLos Angeles, California 91404 Am.. I

Dear Sergeant Black:m Re-. Response to Notice of Preparation for Re lo•t¶Iu 46t TacticalAirlift Wing -

I--- .. In the letter from your consultant (The 11.i'nnn Group) dated July-28, the

U City of Oxnard was invited to participotm i•i the vironental analysisprocess for the proposed relocation of ei ýlactical Airlift Wing fromV Van Nuys Airport to the Naval Air St.*tion at:4int Mugu.

As part of the analysis, we request fhat'consideration be given to severaltopics in the EIR/EIS as follows.:

1. Methods used to minimize praiittice .VFR and IFR approaches by the 146thTactical Airlift Wint,ýo Oxnard :Tirport as a means of mitigating noiseimpacts on surroundji gurban eas within the City of Oxnard.

2. Evaluation of ipcts bf oected aircraft noise on existing and future

urban developmexik.% .Id occur in conformance with provisions of.. -adopted plans and 6 Qi es for the easterly and southerly portions

of Oxnard . ....

3. EvaluatA.r - • .•tumulative impacts of the entire Tactical Airlift Wingf a ciI odý all basic urban and community support services of theCity •bO•x•ard. This evaluation should include quantification ofany add t~onal services that would have to be provided by the Cityof Oxnard'*d measures necessary to mitigate identified impacts.In addition, the relationship of the total cumulative impacts shouldbe evaluated in terms of the applicable adopted plans of the City ofOxnard and adjoining entities. The evaluation of cumulative impactsshould also include any other expansion projects being planned forimplementation at Point Mugu.

S4. Evaluation of impacts of the proposed Tactical Airlift Wing facilitylocation or operation on the flora and fauna associated with and/or3 dependent upon Mugu Lagoon.

I

K/Sgt. Riley Black -2- August*8, 1984

5. Beneficial impacts of the proposed relocation to the City of Oxnardshould be included and quantified.

If you or your consultants have any questions about these requests, pleasecontact Mr. Ralph Steele of the Planning and Building Services Department-At-805.)984-4657. *

-..- Sinc ely yours ....

IRichard J. M; `Nctor

: . -- Plannin( d Bl*ng Services

I . RJ¶: RJS: ch ...

cc: City Manager-Principal PlannerSenior PlannerCounty of Ventura, RHA Dtrectoi*':*City of Camarillo, PlanNig. OttrectorCity of Port Hueneme, IIrng rectorIThe Planning Group, Attn: "Ugne"e Grigsby

I.Via

----- ---- ThursdayJuly 5, 1984I --

I- - -

I •

I -

I - - -

___ _ Part III

"__, __ -Department orI. - Agriculture

-_ Soil Conservation Service

-= 7 CFR Part 658__- __. Farmland Protection Policy; Final Rule

I p- MI _ =

E_ U

I

I t of Los Angeles Department of Airports i world Way, Los Angeles, California 90009* -C213) 646-5252 Telex 6543413Tom Bradley, Mayor

Airport CommlssIomes

L byflJ August 29,j 1984Vice President

Wlfon A. Moorejnral Manager

Eugene GrigsbyThe Planning Group1728 Silverlake Boulevard

Los Angeles, CA 90026

I Dear Mr. Grigsby:

Thank you for the opportun~..t~y to--U 116"im t on the proposed AirNational Guard move from Va'!!-WtY Aluy Aiport. Departmental staffhas no specific conuinents to mbkje at this time. However,continued informatloniiin th1 rys of the environmentalassessment would beiiupaiOi iate -

It is further r :i"estfi! tbit" the Department be kept on thelist to receive-F 6¶ er tnt documents and materials generatedduring th pth''is project.

Sincerely,

M brceZ.LahaniZAirport Environol Planner

MZL/EFG:Jr

I ~cc: W. 14. Schoenfeld

A United Slates Department of the Interior

~*JI flc IWW&ýERVICE3 24000 Avila Road FR K'Laguna Niguel, California 92677 P4

3September 26, 1984

3Mr, Michael Benner?RC &gineerIng972 Town and Country RoadP.O. Box 53674Orange, California 92667

IRe: Comments on Proposed EIS/R for Proposed Relocati ol'ýf Aitt Tac~ticalAirlift Wing to Point Muagu Naval Air Station

Dear Mir. Benner: (IýIn response to your letter of September 11, 1 ý4 and tor recent telephoneconservations with staff biologists at the S~unYU~giyok Field Office, we

provide the following remarks.

1. Proposed Relocation Site ....Although this mite Is located in exist .b agft-ltuftUal land, It is adjacent

and contiguous with wetlands of Mugu aQo, ont Muigu Duick Club, and thechannel associated with the Ormoiad`.!3each Restlands. Mitigation for unavoidablehabitat losses during constructifm, u"perat-tons, and subsequent maintenanceactivities at this site will need"10i 4bgrvddpir to and/or concurrentwith this development. Ae

2. Biological Resources,.t

-The uplands at the end if1 tho. wuiS runway are used by resident and migratoryraptors and water-assN*,aAt::bIpds, Including shorebirds and waterfowl. Smallmammals (e.g. mice,,AbAh :7v;Kes) found in this upland area provide prey forsuch raptor speci~ ajj!eiipd Iled hawk, northern harrier, and prairie falcon.

In the vicinit,' pr ct site, associated with the duck ponds, theFederal list".*Nn koan .0~ salt marsh bird's beak (Cordylanthus maritimusvar. sa)i hfsbenobserved. It may be necessary to survey the project

stsfor th1 ýýplant. If any plants are located, consultation under Section 7of "he Endange~t1 s Species Act should be considered and ueasures should beIdescribed which vbtzd avoid adverse Impacts to this endangered plant.3& Mitigation SuggestionsIn o~ur review of mitigatin measures, we would like to see proposals to:

1) prevent deterioration of water quality, 2) restore wetland habitats,3) discourage bird usage by attracting the birds away from the facilities,3and 4) divert waterfowl flight patterns especially during the bunting season.

i.

I All these items are general suggestions, as we are unsure of the full scopeof the proposed activities in your brief letter. We suggest that you providea preliminary draft of the proposed DEIS/R for our early input. It is sug-gested that you have the applicant request a List of Candidate and ListedEndangered Species from Fish and Wildlife Service's Endnagered Species Officein Sacramento at 2800 Cottage Way, Room E-1823, Sacramento, California 95825(Telephone (916) 484-4935).

We hope that this Information has assisted you in your preparation of theI DEIS/R. If you should need additional information, contact John Wolfeor me at (714) 831-4270.

Sincerely yours,

Nancy M. KaufmanField Supervisot ..ý

24it

I! 'ii•. • iiIi iii''i.i ! ii

I: ! • -•i.I...•:i~ii i!' !

| • 'Li::•"•ii~• ....

I • !:: •i•'•.es. : A:~i

IIII

RESORCEMANAGEMENT AGENCY

({<L.,. ~Victor R. Husbantds~ !A'~ ~Agency Director

(805) 654-2661

3 September 25, 1984

Master Sergeant Riley Black146th Tactical Airlift Wing

Los Angeles, CA 91404

3' Dear Sergeant Black:Ventura County Comments on Notice o?~Axfte io EIR for

Relocation of Air National Guard A§UwI -;--T-.cic Airlift Wing

The above referenced environment-ul docwaen has been reviewed byappropriate Ventura County ageiies; Secific reviewing agencycomments are attached. Please, respon tote comments as required bythe California Env ironnenta 1.4 i,Ity )kt. All responses should beaddressed to the comment ing ieec rSt cpyt the Residential LandUse Section, Resource Managemn Aecy.

Drector

3 ~VRHi:1 ?Atta chmenfti

3~8W0 South Victoria Avenue, Ventura. CA 93009

I.

3 County of Ventura

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AGENCY

I MEMORANDUM

UTo: Nancy Settle September 14, 1984

iFrom: Scott Johnson

Subject: Relocation of the Air National Guard, 146th1!acticalAirlift Wing, to Point Mugu -Notice ofjakzw.ration

APCD staff has reviewed the subject document and re -nd an airquality impact analysis be prepared to addres e impa of the

*project on air quality and consistency with thE" A ity ManagementPlan (AQMP). :A:

* The proposed transfer of the Air National • W:ft•ts 6th TacticalAirlift Wing to the Point Mugu NavalA amay result in anincrease in the number of flight op iu co.ducte by the AirNational Guard in Ventura County. • oi.1,i14-enerated by an increasein the number of military flight opraU:toi in Ventura County have notbeen included in 1982 AQMP emuison goiatests. Moreover, the AQMP hasnot identified measures to m-..tate ̀*wcraft emissions. Therefore, anyadditional emissions associiRed : h-yi• increase in the number offlight operations conducted by"4%hb " AMr National Guard at the Point MuguNaval Air Station would&ibe inconSgtent with the 1982 AQMP.

Depending on the a., ,ons associated with the increase inI personnel, the nu er 9lan ""gs and take-offs and other additionalemission sources eucte-ith the 146th Tactical Airlift Wing, theproposed proje. y e a significant adverse impact on air quality.

l198 County Board of Supervisors adopted the

"Guidelines "p�' " aration of Air Quality Impact Analyses".Accordin .-ie Widelines, any project emitting 13.7 tons per year ofreactiv rg c pounds (ROC) or oxides of nitrogen (NOx) willindivid l and cumulatively have a significant adverse impact on air

APCD staff recommends the air quality impact analysis be prepared in

accordance with the Guidelines referenced above. The air quality* 3analysis should consider ROC and NOx emissions generated by:

1. The increase in vehicular traffic associated with Air National Guardpersonnel commuting to the Point Mugu Naval Air Station.

2. The increase in the number of flight operations conducted by the AirNational Guard from the Point Mugu Naval Air Station.U

I

I3. Stationary emission sources associated with the Air National Guardfacility at the Point Mugu Naval Air Station such as fuel depots andfuel burning equipment of at least one-million BTU's or one-hundredhorsepower.

Emissions associated with the Air National Guard personnel commuting tothe Point Mugu Naval Air Station should be calculated using theprocedure outlined in Appendix B to the Guidelines. Emissionsgenerated by the projected increase in the number of fligh,,perationsconducted by the Air National Guard at the Point Mugu NWval ."ir Stationshould be determined using emission factors contained L

(pages 224-225) to the 1982 Ventura County Air Quali Iageýt Plan.Emissions generated by any stationary emission sourn s d becalculated using emission factors contained in EPA'!P`i-c; ion AP-42,"Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors"i •ddi ';! inlly, A

I CALINE 3 model should be used to determine carbW d 1*4de (CO) emissionlevels associated with the increase in vehiaular- t on majorstreets and intersections surrounding the 5t ,, Naval Air Stationdue to the additional personnel..'" J .

If the air quality analysis indicate 4the r11 ject will have asignificant adverse impact on air I W1ty••v 3,1-gation measures shouldbe identified and emission reduction -!calculated for each measure basedon the project completion date.

If you have any questions, ple..: 11nta t Chuck Thomas of my staff at654-2799.

S• !•i• • iiii• .... i•

CTANG *

I

I

I

IinRN i

County of Ventura

5 PLANNING DIVISION

MEMORANDUM

To: Nancy Settle .jLA_- Date: September 7. 1984

U From: Jeff Walker Reference No.:

Subject: NOP for Air National Guard Relocation

! The following provides a summary of my comments and those provided by Todd. Theexact location of the 200 - 250 acres required for the relocation is unknown atthis time, so the comments are somewhat general.

I 1. Loss of agricultural land (see Federal Reg. 7 CFR Part 658, July 5,1984, Part 3, Dept. of Agriculture).

2. Impacts (noise, dust, increase population, etc.) on surroundingagricultural land.

3. Impacts on game preserve adjacent to Navy base.

4. Increased flooding potential and impacts on Mugu Lagoon due toadditional run-off from facility.

1 5. Impacts, such as noise, on surrounding residences and Hugu State Park.

6. Traffic impacts.

7. Potential need for approval from Coastal Commission because of impactsin Coastal Zone. % - " A

I 8. Possible growth inducing impacts depending on the growth of the AirliftWing.

3 9. Offsite demands and impacts from the possible 1500 people coming in forweekend duty.

10. What kinds of impacts could be expected from a full-scale practice"alert", and how many such practices could be expected each year?

3 11. Visual impacts.

12. Will there be any explosive materials stored on the site like there isi at the Hugu Navy Base?

13. Air Quality impacts to the Oxnard Plain Airshed. Does the AQMP providefor such a facility?

I NS:l1:161

I PAOF-4A

United States Soil -Department of Conservation 2628 Chiles RoadAgriculture Service Davis, CA 95616

(916) 449-2848

.- ---

Subject: LEG AFF - Farmland Protection Policy Act Date: July 13, 1984

UTo: Persons Interested in Farr-land Protection File Code: 320I

U Attached is the Final Rule for implementing the "Farmland Protection PolicyAct", Subtitle 1, PL 97-98.

The USDA erployees in field locations will receive training in theirI responsibilities relative to the implementation of the provisions of the Actlater this summer.

I In the interim, please direct your questions concerning the Final Rule to:

Darwyn Briggs2828 Chiles RoadDavis, CA 95616

Phone: (916) 449-2849

I DARIYN B. BRIGGS, ChairimanUSDA's California Land Use Co-ittee

"i A"t achrent

UIII

ITh. oil consevation Soevegis af &genty 01 theUn•l+id ssles Ospantmen4l of AgyCulluvg * UW Sb t la-m41 64u@• f IOf $ ,-41S1'sS0%7

. 3 *Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 130 / Thursday. July 5. !984 / Rules and Resulations 2,7727

conversion of surroundini farmland to Secretary. that desires to develop Office of the Sec:etary. Department ofE nonagricultual use? proprams or policies to limit the Agriculture. Washington. D.C. 20250.Proposed project is incompatible with conversion of productive farmland to

existing agricultural use of nonagricultural uses." In J 2.62. of 7 CFR I 6U.7 USDA a,atstnce with federal

surrounding farmland-to points Part 2. Subtitle A. SCS is delegated . s ct revoewe of poices andI Proposed project is tolerable to existing leadership responsibility within USDA proceures

agricultural use of surrounding for the activities treated in this part. (a) Section 1542(a) of the Act. 7 U.S.C.farmland-.- to I point(s) (b) In providing assistance to states. 4203. states. "Each department, agency.

Proposed project is fully compatible local units of government. and nonprofit independent ccmminssion or other unit ofwith existing agricultural use of organizations. USDA will make the Federal Government. with thesurrounding farmland-. points available maps and other soils assistance of the Department of(c) Corrido-mtpe Site Assessment information from the national Agriculture. shall review current

Criteria. The foliowing criteria are to be cooperative soil survey through SCS provisions of law. admizistralve rulesused for projects that have a linear or field offices. and regulations. and poiicies andcorridor-type site configuration (c) Additional assistance. within procedures applicable to it to deter.nineconnecting two distant points, and available resources. may be obtained whether any provision thereof willcrossing several different tac:s of land. from local offices of other USDA prevent sc, unit of the FederalThese include utility lines, highways. agencies. The Agricultural Stabilization Governrni from taking appropriate

Srailroads. st'eam improvements, and and Conservation Service and the Forest actign to wmply fully with theflood control systems. Federal agencies Service can provide aerial photographs. proivi. Of this subtitle."are to assess the suitability of each crop history data. and related-- " •) USDA-* provide certaincorridor-type site or design alternative information. A reasonable fee may be 4Dssince to other federal agencies for

for protection as farmland along with chareed. In many states. the Abepisr-ssus specified in sec'on 1542 ofthe land evaluation information Cooperative Extension Service can N Act. 7?U.S.C. 4203. If a federaldescribed in I 658.4(a). All criteria for provide help in understanding and ag... cy identifies or suggests changes incorridor-type sites will be scored as identifying farmland protection ,ssus, laws.dnfminisstrative rules and

I shown in I 658.5(b) for other sites. and problems. resolving conflicts. ...i,0sations. policies, or procedures thatexcept as noted-below- developing alternatives. decding on 1,1 may affect the agency's compliance with

(1) Criteria 5 and a will not be appropriate actions, and impI enting•: the'Act. USDA can advise the agency ofconsidered. those decisions. the probable effects of the changes on

(2) Criterion 8 will be scored on a (d) Officals of state ajit•de $0041 the protection of farmland. To requestscale of'O to 25 points, and criterion 11 units of government.-•nrt this assistance, officials oi iederalwill be scored on a scale of 0 to 25 organizations. or reýon .l, ara. state- atencies should correspond with .he

points. level or field offices of fedeiral'a#ences Chief. Soil Conservation Service. P.O.I may obtain assistftce by contactng the Box 8990. Washington. D.C. -:0013.3 , 4ch fTnn the.A# 7 office of the SCS stte coe". ationist.

(a) Section 1543 of the Act. 7 U.SC. A list of Soul Conserv-aton Service state Dated: luce L. 2984.4204 states. '"he Secretary is office locatio s appes in Appendix A. John B. Cowell. Jr.

i encouraged to provide technical Section 6A1 ofthx Title. If further AwstsontSecrtoryf'rNatwrolesourcesassistance to any state or unit of local assistance is4'de requests should be andE.•TJrionmen,government. or any nonprofit made to the As5idn.t Secretary for IM D= .1 " .3-0: 64 galorganization. as determined by the Naaural Resouxeg. and Environment. mU.Ma eCOe s,•o..1-

II , Kt

STEPS IN THE PROCESSINý ' iE FARMLAND AND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING FORM

Step 1 - Federal agencies involved in proposed projects that may convert farmland, as defined in the Farmland Protectizfn

K icy Act (FPPA) to nonagricultuaral uses, will initially complete Parts I and III of the form.

P2 Originator will send copies A. B and C, together with maps ineicating Iocations of site(s). to the Soul ConservationService (SCS) locaLl field office and retain copy D for their fiues. (Note: SCS has a field office in most counties in the U.S. TheI!d office is usually located in the county seat. A list of field office locations are available from the SCS State Conservationist

each state).Step 3 - SCS wil, within 45 calendar days after receipt of form. make a determination as to whether the site(s) of the pro-I ed project contains prime. unique, statewide or local important farmland.

p 4 - In cases where farmland covered by the FPPA will be converted by the proposed project, SCS field offices will com-plete Parts H. IV and V of the form.

5 - SCS wMl retuzrn copy A and B of the form to the Federal agency involved in the project- (Copy C will be retained forIS records).

Ip 6 - The Federal agency involved in the proposed project will complete Parts VI and VI$ýth#form.

11p6 7 - The Federal agency involved in the proposed project will make a determinatiqp.,67 ýto whethar the proposed conver-sion is consistent with the FPPA and the agency's intenial polices.

* INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE FARMNLAND CON VE 1014- MPACT RATING FOR.N1

t I: In completing the "County And State" questions lis~.1tht Ioa governments that are responsible3local land use controls where site(s) are to be evaluated.

~rt Mf: In completing item B (Total Acres To Be Converid Indirectly.), include the followin~g:

Acres not being directly converted but that wodid n~o lIwiger`1be capable of being farmed after the conver-n, because the conversion would restrict access f,,to hsn

N Acres planned to re-ceive services from an infrastriietre project as indicated in the project justification(e.g. highways, utilities) that will cause a dire46 _--nversion.'

it: VI: Do not complete Part VI if a 19 as;t sssmnt is Wsed.

Jign the maximum points for e_~ fiteasesent criterion as shown in §658.5(b) of CFR. In cases ofc~rior-ype rojcts uchas tam~rZ~an~pwerline and flood control, criteria #5 and #6 will not apply

and will be weighted zero, how~vr Attrcn# will be weighted a maximrum of 25 points, and criterionamaximum of 25 pit,

ilividual Federal agencie?ýet U1#11 national level, may assign relative weights among the 13 site assessmentC~Jera other than those shown -.Jn the FPPA rule. In all cases where other weights are assigned, relative adjust-Ignts must be made to maintain hcmaximum total weight points at 160.

In rating alternative sites, Federal agencies shall consider each of the criteria and assig-n points within theI its established in the FPPA rule. Sites most suitable for protection under these criteria will receive thelhest total scores, and sites least suitable, the lowest scores.

PW VII: in computing the "Total Site Assessment Points", where a State or local site assessment is usedthe total maximum number of points is other than 160, adjust the site assessment points to a base of 1 60.

x1arple: if the Site Assessment maximum is 200 points. and alternative Site "A" is rated 180 points:Tatl Pins asieedSite A -180 x 160 -a 144 points for Site "A."

aximurn points possible 200

5.~U.S. Departm~ent of Agriculture

* FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATINGII be completed by Federal AgencY) 1.1O adIalut@lR@jg

Of Plrotec Federal Agency Involved

Land LisCut And State

Utc be complete .xCL................. ~~::::..*::;.. . .

sil Contains prime. sj~iique, Satcwide, or local importantfamnd oCtopW ~ . .. . .. .. ... . ...........nG vt B~O~~O 1Y~i? A ~ -

Acres:.:..:.::...::j A re:.::%. ...... :...................... m :...::....: ei an ~ ~ o R tu~~S1 Land £a~~t4O £~rttt4Js..................~.....

........................... ......................... ........... .....

11M~ be completed by Federal Agency) Altrnaiv So A ________

___ ___ ___ ___ __ ___ ___ ___ ___ __ ___ __Site__ A__ _ _ SiteS 1site C I Site 0

T I Acres To Be Converted Directly Of ____________

Total Acres To Be Converted Indirecrti ______Iy

I Acres In Sitej

0 i ~ T P 0 dyS S a d E u u~ i~ o Mgt ........ ....... . .~ ...... . . ...... __..

To~a Aces rime An r s Jn ue frmat .......... x 3 ________

.g I ce tteieA di= [m~rn wbtFan r m ~a and--.:..

.Pe ta eOf Fa~rmlandIn County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Convue ttd . .........___ __3 __ __ _

..ieV lc fF r f4 dT B ~ rv i~ S u t r r ............. <.............. -.......... ............... .

V I obe completed by Federal Agency) :T Cnter a rrhari entmner amw explained' in 7 CPR 6553~ (hIif

PeietrI Nonurban Us . _____ ______ ______

AeietrI Nonturban Use ______ ______ ______ ______

P ant Of Site Being Farmed____________I______IP aection Provided By State And Local Government _____ _____ _____

Distance From Urban Builtup Area ______

IDWance To Urban Support Services ______ _____ ____________

SiEOf Present Farm Unit Compared To AveraW_____ __________ _____

Creation Of Nontarrnable Farmland_________________A dlabilit Of Farm Suoporl Services _____ _____ ______ _____ ______

o O arm Investments Attt________ ______ ______

LEffacts of Conversion On Farm Suvoofl SerQu _______

I Cmiatibility With Existing Acriculttna UI 4 _____ _____ ______ ____

jrjITE ASSESSMENT POIN7-1, 160 ____________________

Fill (To be completed by Feddo(Agefty)

latilValue Of Farmland (From P;r4411 100 __________I__________

Ial Site Assesment (From Part VI above- or a local161

[jO I NTS(rotal of above 2linals 260 ____

Was A Local Site Aunsmililt Used?Zect: DTate Of Selection * Yes 0 No 03

iE ce.

:11 ---.- I'D"E8 q~ -- E 1g8!. Ir -or- 51, o-

c c 06

c 5 0 CA - Z

(ni c s'S E G b g ,c

S~- -3 -, -E_ C

8 CU ~ E c 5 -

-S JS6*C C

C. 40 -

- c 'c- ag

wu- V9 03c E

;C al q El2 r.'' C

~ ~c

**

c c8. CS 0 E 0t

f ýi - 12 9.I a C4 IC, 4 h. 51<r ocom

- -- --- - - - -

_ 41

Valc

*ZErE

.9 U ...E...3 Wco

Es:~..... t..~~.. ii l s

Eg A., tLAB ale 9 L I

CC

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCEHRAOQUARTCRS 220 COMBAT SUPPORT GROUP ISAC)

MARCH AIR FORCE BSAE. CA 925100 ~RECEi VEDftOVaeIN419PRC.-P

PRC Engineering

92Town & Country RoadOrange CA 92667

UDear Mr BennerThe information you requested in your 13 Nov 84 ttr teVnNuys AirNational Guard follows:

I 1983

Jan 5,879-Feb 6,808

- ar 7,000

Apr 7,000 tMay 7,000

Jul 5,987 :!

Aug 6,208Sep 6,290

Nov 56

5TotalFThese figuresIibud outbound, touch and go, and approaches3 during cale 3V.o nd

Sincerel

NARY1.SI Chief. Docum n~ation BranchBase Admi ni strati on

.I

I~ComnsIci 4 b'eelPbi

U

Iss

j.~~4 z!j~ C. qy.

L i . .~i 4. .4.. .. 4Lc

U~~~~C 7 1A-' 1 L

W2/ e

C/7/4

4e

-~ef.L.

Mim e I

UmI&RI

CITY OF CAMARILLOu -. (1~3~Oft* CARNZN XVV. 0 003L0za

CAMUZZ.OCALIM"1LA 00010(605) 4"8-6621

* • a TR- MATOa

August10, 1984

-MHr. Eugene GrigsbyThe Planning GroupI1728 Silverlake BoulevardLos Angeles, CA 90026

UDear Mr. Grigsby:The following is a list of issues ndiconcerns of the City ofCamarillo relating to the relocat•i. of.the 146th TacticalAirlift Wing from Van Nuys with faint..1ugu NAS as one of thealternates. The City Council fc :,i that a thorough examinationof these issues would assist ,$he eiunity and decisionmakersin understanding the impacts Sociated with such a proposal.

1. Noise Impacts

a. What is pre#ent ion over Camarillo?

b. What wou• •4ei, vels over Camarillo be under theproposal.'

C. What oUlAoi.pose levels over Camarillo be for alternateassi~edleiftxaft (i.e., C-141B or F-16)?

2. opera Ifn

a. Anylimit on flying hours as well as maintenance run-ups ?Nýow-Euch approach, touch and go training willoccur at Point Mugu versus present activity?

b. Would flight paths be over residences, schools orlarge crowd areas?

c. What will be the normal flight patterns?

II

M r. Eugene GrigsbyAugust 10. 1984Page 2

II , d. What is the number and mix of flight operations now?What will be the nmnber and mix of flight operations

after transfer?

e. Will there be an increase in transient military air-"-craft due to unit's relocation and maintenance support* capability?

3. Will an EIS be required if unit converts to M: F-16, orother aircraft?

4. Any low level training, missed approach, penilocal areatraining requirements that would be over N ,denial areas?

S 5. What is the possibility of an increas ±:__i %.ers of aircraftassigned to the 146 TAW?

6. Compatibility/conflict of airspace

Is there a need to update air-dtraffi•-c control in the area atCamarillo Airport? at Oxna( At-4pti

7. Are utilities adequate tp.seye•-, xansion?

S. Will Mugu Lagoon be

9. What effect will the tranf 'r have on air quality?

IAI 10. Any danger from zt urcgoboth in the air and groundtransportation _4

11. Are roads a tq'nl expected traffic?

12. Will fire pe on missions be continued and Point Muguused as ase operation?

13. What 4'a s a. e expected on housing?

14. What imp ts are expected on schools, both enrollment and-noise-on sehool sites?

15. Will land be removed from agriculture and if so what is thesignificance?

16. What are the on-base construction and facility requirements?

S 17. What are the benefits of the relocation?

II

M r. Egene GrigsbyAugusut 10, 1984I Page 3

I 18. What are the cost comparisons of relocation to each of theproposed sites?

* 19.. Who -:iill be the hearing body?

20. What agency will make the decision on relocati±4?

21. What is the schedule for EIR preawJot earings,and decision? peaain~

-We appreciate your invitation to participate ir4is' rocess anddesire to be kept Informed of future hear a.:&eports.

Sincerely,

F. . EstyMaoFEE: S

Mi.*t

3 PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING

13 August. 1984

146th Tactical Airlift Wing Proposed Relocation to Pt. Mugu

WOULD YOU PLEASE PAVIE ANSWERS TO UIE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS?

I ) Who is the * lead agency' responsible for preparation of this documient?Are they sufficiently detached from this proposal to provide objectiveguidance to the LIS contractor?

12)*Whow"ill make the relocation decision? Are they sufficiently detachedfrom the proposal to make an objective decision?

3 3) Why was PRC selected -as the contractor to proepre the 26`1 Adby whom were they selected?

4) Do they have a demonstrated expertise in socioecon~i~ e air safetIand real estate valuation impact assessment? If so, ~ it

I 5) Mow will PRC assess noise impacts?

6) Now will PRC assess air safety impacts? zi on probabilityfunctions be developed based on past versu~p: o itdtr traffic?

* 7) Now will PRC assess property value iot-L

I ) The number of takeoffs/landings Xr~onuo oiiain rnot particularly relevant to theo res~i-tent o .f eastern Cam~arillo. Theprecise number of flights, types4 of flights and times of flights overeastern Camnarillo is criticall.,t.3 ;-na training flights and some otherflights (e.gq. ,* touch and go") 64ie "Vue ated *Passes" over easternCamnarillo, the EIS should precisely ýiquantify those numbers. Are those

I 9) When the C-130s are. p4 lde ... the near future, what will replacethem and how loud d sotUIf &noes?

3 10) Now seriously1 A .re quŽW sidering the "no-action alternative"?Will the E qabL' its of its selection be clearly indicated

I 11) Why is a. I h pposing to move? Maintenance problems at Van Nuys?Security isafety? Threat of deactivation when new, larger transportsieplace the"-kl3Os and Van Nuys facilities are inadequate to accomodate

them)

12) What are the other Air National Guard units in the LA area and whereare they located? What services are provided by the 146th thatare not, or cannot be provided by other Guard units? Will this bedisc;ussed in -the LI-S?

submitted by L7/Eugene R. Mancini

Camarillo, California

PUBLIC SCOPING, MEETING13 August, 1984

Camarillo, California

On the PROPOSED RELCATION4 OF VII 146th TACTICAL AIRLIFT WING .ITXVAN NUYS 70 PT. MUGU, CXANAALLo, CALIFOIRNIA--

COMMnts submitted by:Eugene R. Man cinCamarillo. California

The following cements on the proposed Pt. Mugu relocation ternativeare submitted pursuant to the requirements of both the NEPA and QAtofully assess all impacts potentially affecting the quality umanenvironment. These comments will focus on impacts associatqd with Pt.Mugu glide path and all associated flight activity over e plyrsidentialU areas of eastern Camarillo. Issues presented here refle co re! forI - incremental increases in military air traffic over eait`p* Camikirillo,2- increased risk of collisions between militar anl,. vatj'iowercialI aircraft over eastern Camxarillo, 3- noise impacts' as~ca 4 ith increasedair traffic, and 4- the effects of these various 'pahpn eintaproperty values.

INCREME~NTAL INCREASES IN MILITARY AIR TRAFFI( : rThe Environmental Impact Statement ýETEJ badientify theI incremental increase in the numbers adtesA figstypes of

aircraft (e.g., jets, helicopter, cargo, cit.~ W~ recise flight pathsassociated with the Pt. Mugu relocatfi..... A).r tca consideration forthese analyses is establishment ofg-e'turate ajid representative baselineI conditions for comparative purposefk- -The _r4 tial increased flightfrequency since approximately May, 1 aksuse of .1984 summary datainaccurate since it is not raepzsentati~ of true baseline conditions.

- Documentation of genuinely pepi~enta!teflgt rquny n type dt* must be the first priorit,4 sssmn andsol be sbetdt

Additionally, the num.po of A_,sidents/households potentially affectedI should be determined led on'ihe maxim-m niztber of residences allowedunder existing grow)ft,:cczo01'rdinances in Camiarillo. Baseline conditionsare not the numberW.'4 , roi. p~ in 1984. but, rather, the numnber ofI residence s projep4 -;.the year(s) of the relocation. Such"*affected po i 9 ~4" should be easily projected and documentedbased upon co1r c~on applications, permits, and/or the CamarilloGeneral Plan.I .1 would also ~wse that the flight path "corridor of impact" bedefined as all properties within at least 1/4 mile of the centerof the flight path when approach el1evations are projected to be 6000 ftIor less.Alk SAFETY

As military air traffic has increased over the Mission Oaks area*during the past several months, so too has civilian/commercial air

traffic increased. The prevailing flight path of the private aircraft

inI directly across the glide path for Pt. Nugu sir traffic. The extentto which this condition constitutes a threat of aid-air collisions, 'and theIpotential increase in risk associated with increased military air traffic(including utraining" flights) must be assessed thoroughly, accurately andquantitatively.

I NOISE flUACIS

Attached to these commnts is a copy of a letter dated 2 July, 1984* which Is addressed to Camarillo Mayor Esty. The letter documents noise-levels associated with military air traf fic measured on my prope~rty in

Mission Oaks. ror the purposes of this scoping meeting I will bl@EeflyIreview the data which I submitted to the Mayor.1, and my wife, recorded peak sound levels associated 4ih t ug

overflights over a 5-day period from 19-23 June, 1984. 1%Woreinento wererecorded with a claibrated noise dosimeter according to e da!cati' Ong inI Camarillo Ordinance Section 10.34.070.

Ambient noise levels in my back yard during the day N, ranged fromI 48-52 dBA which is consistent with Camarillo's Extef Nwoiae evestandard of 55 dBA for residential property. AveragJ J soun levelsfor military aircraft were recorded as follows:

J ETS 92.6 dBA* HELI COPTERS 90.3 dBA-

TRAMSPORTS 88.4 dBA (corrected fb* Owe ýJuly letter)

I Subsequent to my letter to the Mayor I ane al,~zed the recorded data usinga one-way analysis of variance and fbund "Ibat-there is no statisticallysignificant difference between thes~e..types of aircraft noise (P4 0.01).I Clearly,* any suggestion that car"riik esa "relatively quiet" shouldbe viewed with a certain degree of 11i ticism, at least when applied torealistic exposure conditionsi.

* INoise impacts associatCY-1 with thterelocation proposal must be*clearly indicated and asselved.Nddif onal data regarding noise level

effects (e.g., speech 4rft en cC, etc.) are attached to the 2 July letter.

IPROPERTY VALUE IMP AC79(In light of 4 1~ei~ for noise and safety impacts associated withI the Pt. Hgu re)ctil-i proposal, it is both logical and pertinent to ask what

effect t~he re ~ o ft have on affected property values. The cityof Camarillo %iq it the preparation and distribution of "ResidentialE Reports (Muni~c- 1 Code Section 10.52) to prospective home buyers. A sectionof that report (Lse") requires the disclosure of information regardingsources of noise affecting the property (e.g.,* existing and potentialsources of noise as well as a "noise element classification").

I Detailed, quantitative analyses of the potential effects of therelocation on property values should be conducted. Once again, It shouldIbe stressed that the waffected population" not only includes property/residencesin existence in 1984. but also includes all residences projected to be

built before and during the year(s) of relocation.

I -3-

In s81nary, WEPA and CEQA require a thorough, quantitative assess-mient of impacts associated with the Pt. Mugu relocation proposal. In orderSfor affected individuals to accept the impacts associated with such a plan,the EIS must clearly demonstrate that the relocation is necessary,i 0cst-effective, and that all-attendant impacts on noise, safety, andproperty values are less signiticant and extensive than impacts at otheralternative locations.

IRespectfully submitted,

.I,-

I4(.-Il

*s :: ii ii :i"•

I :>

I 0 > II i i I

I

1 5439 Summerfield St.Comarillo, California 93010

14 August, 1984

No. Sylvia Salet.PRC Engineering972 Town G Countr•y Ro~ad-.

P.O. Box 5467I Orange, California 92667

De~ar Ms. Salenius;

I appreciated the PRC/ANG presentation and the effort Ais asrequired to conduct the 13 August Scoping Meeting in Cam&allo rierdingthe 146th TAC proposed Pt. Mugu relocation plan. ( •

I submitted some detailed comments to you and other V repre-sentatives regarding important issues to be consid4d in pieparationof the MIS. On the second page of my submittal I 0•.d )ta"-st ticallyinsignificant difference between average peak spund dX -s of theaircraft types I considered. The cited probabil1 n submittal:

I (P4 0. 01)u

i is clearly incorrect. In my rush to typt and v0y.phe document I incorrectlycited both the probability level and sigp. The vorrected citation isattached and highlighted in green (P0.6).

In order to allow the stativ.cl Anal.sis to be reproduced forverification I am providing the raw' dsnlevel data (BA) which wereused in the analysis: N

CAPG/TP).SPORT BELICPER*82.8 .115

93.88.3 78.383.8 117.9 82.593.1 < 76.0 75.893.1 80.4 82.383.5 93. 94.5

82.4 85.5• iii : 93.7 105.9g

102.494.3,

g3 .4

I I apologize for any inconvenience or misunderstanding which may haveresulted from my error. Please call if there are any questions regarding

i these data (805-987-7652).

Sincerely,"

I Zugene R. Mancini

cc: M. Sargeant Riley black, 146th TACCity of Camarillo

PUBLIC SCOPING 3E.TING13 August, 1984

Camarillo, California'

a -n the PWPOSED LOCATIoN OF 17= 246th TACTICAL AIRLIFT WING FWHVAN N•YS TO PT. MUGU, CAMARILLO, CALIFORNIA--

eosments submitted by:Iugene R. ManciniCamarillo, California

The following comments an the proposed Pt. Mugu reiocatio~aiternativeare submitted pursuant to the requirements of both the NEPA d PQA tofully a"se* all impacts potentially affecting the quali ty ••lbenvironment. Those comments will focus on impacts associLaf w.ithk Pt.I Nugu glide path and all associated flight activity ove e ly/residentialareas of eastern Camarillo. Issues presented here refel;-•1e: " for1- incremental increases in military air traffic o eas n Camarillo,

I 2- increased risk of collisions between military rivat Nercialaircraft over eastern Camarillo, 3- noise impacts a"c with increasedair traffic, and 4- the effects of these variouA,& im on residentialproperty values.

INCREMENTAL INCREASES IN MILITARY AIR TRA4TI

The Environmental Impact StatemenA-j!$)S abpyld identify theincremental increase in the numbers and tyoos tof flights, types of* aircraft (e.g., jets, helicopter. cjwgoptc.I, and precise flight pathsassociated with the Pt. Mugu relo;h*t i,, I crftical consideration forthese analyses is establishment • acurteand representative baselineconditions for comparative purposetr. Thed~ramatically increased flightfrequency since approximately, May, 14 akes use of 1984 summary datainaccurate since it is not .R-rsentt.ive of true baseline conditions.

Documentation of genuine . epTOP son"tve flight frequency and type datamust be the first prior 1$,.4 tii- assessment and should be subjected tothemst rigorous��s r 1 'be fore any other analyses are performed.

Additionally,& 1 r "qresidents/households potentially affectedshould be detein b n the maximum num:ber of residences allowedunder existing . t91 ordinances in Camarillo. Baseline conditions

n e.rt not the nue 021 oesiiences in 1984, but, rather, the number of.sidz.nces p ',1: the year(s) of the relocation. Such

Oaffected Waen" dita should be easily projected and documentedbased upon otuction applications, permits, and/. r the Camarillo

I General Plan.I vould also lropose that tne flight path 'corridor of impact" be

defined as all properties within at least 1/4 mile of the centerI of the flight path when approach elevations are projected to be 6000 ft

or less.

UkSAFETY

I As military air traffic has increased over the Mission Oaks areaduring the past several months, so too has civilian/comercial air

i traffic increased. The prevailing flight path of the private aircraft

I

I1e directly across the glide path for Pt. Mugu air traffic. The extentto which this cndition constitutes a threat of mid-air collisions, end thepotential increase in risk associated with increased military air traffic(including =training" flights) must be assessed thoroughly, accurately andi quantitatively.

NOISE IMPACTS

I Attached to these comments is a copy of a letter dated 2 July, 1984which is addressed to Camazillo Mayor Esty. The letter docments noiselevels associated with military air traffic measured on my property in

i Mission Oaks. For the purposes of this scoping meting I wii l •1rie flyreview the data which I submitted to the Mayor.

X, and my wife, recorded peak sound levels associated. i1fth t. Muguoverflights over a 5-day period from 19-23 June, 1984. pssuremergx wereIrecorded with a claibrated noise dosimeter according t,,gfspep Liat3.ons inCamarillo Ordinance Section 10.34.070.

Ambient noise levels in my back yard during the dajtme ranged fromi 48-52 dBA which is consistent with Camarillo's Exailor NAot level

standard of SS dBA for residential property. ras ._ Aound levelsfor military aircraft were recorded as follwRA ..

JETS 92.6 dBA XTRANSPORTS 88.4 dBA (corrected., M Julyletter

Subsequent to my letter to the Mayor I •.Av analyzed the recorded data usinga one-way analysis of variance and .,tun d -hst• there is no statistically €• •isignificant difference between tbe" e.. typsof ai.rcraft noise (Plo 0.05),* - pit 'W

Clearly, any suggestion that cargo, planes jre "relatively quiet" shouldbe viewed with a certain degree of: ticism, at least when applied torealistic exposure conditions.

Noise impacts associatid.with !be relocation proposal must beclearly indicated and as Ised ddltional data regarding noise leveleffects (e.g., speech #ter,.renUe, etc.) are attached to the 2 July letter.

PROPERTY! VALUE IMP /Zn light of 4ie i ms for noise and safety impacts associated with

S the Pt. Mugu rplocatW proposal, it is both logical and pertinent to ask whateffect the r 16caiton *fgt have on affected property values. The cityOf Camnarilldl"equtes the preparation and distribution of "ResidentialNaports (Muni Uwl Code Section 10.S2) to prospective home buyers. A sectionof that report se") requires the disclosure of information regardingsources of noise a fecting the property (e.g., existing and potentialsources of noise as well as a noise element classification").

Detailed, quantitative analyses of the potential effects of the"relocation on property values should be conducted. Once again, it shouldbe stressed that the "affected population" not only includes property/residencesin existence in 1984, but also includes all residences projected to bebuilt before and during the year(s) of relocation.I

I

.3-

3In summary, IMPA and CZQA require a thorough, quantitative assess-sent of impacts associated with the Pt. )~qu relocation proposal. In orderIfor affected individuals to accept the impacts associated with such a plan.the ZIS must clearly demonstrate that the relocation is necessary,Cost-effective,* and that all attendant impacts on noise,* safety, andproperty values are less signiticant and extensive than impacts at otherI alternative locations.

Respectfully submitted,

.I ......

3it.... ...

IA

2 July. 1984

Imayor To a. IstyCity of Camarillo601 Carmen DriveP.O. box 248Canarillo. California 93010

Dear Hr. Mayor:X appreciate your timely and thorough response to my letter regardingIthe noise associated with Pt. Mugu air traffic. I widerstand that Pt. Mugu

operations are in no way regulated by Camarillo ordinances. Nevertheless,I vrould assume that ft. Mugu command would be willing to min~aiize theI noise izipacts'associated with their activities in the interoi*,of fosteringgood c omm unity relations.

the 1 July Camarillo Daily news article regardingIrelocation of an Air National Guard unit to ft. Mugu ea~ .-. contentof this letter particularly relevant. I indicated in r.4i r letterthat I intended to measure sound levels associate with trfficIIn my back yard according to sampling specificat 2 dtnCaailoordinance Section 10.34.070. 1, and my wife, rec sound levelmeasurements for approximately 30 Pt. Mugu mitrflights over aES -day period from 19-23 June,1984. All data we~x d in d5A with aNUTROSONICS db 307 noise dosimeter (Clas 10; e ibrated accordingto the manufacturer's specifications.

Fo pross fthsemasureme swied that all military* ~aircraft on a Pt. Mugu glide path wr i fa`ýt. aircraft associated with

that base. All private and Nom~a f *ue ing/helicopter overflightswere not recorded. For discussigr upoeth various aircraft have beenconveniently grouped as jets, t precargo planes), or helicopters.A data summary is presented below nLaular form.

Aircraft type S lePeak Sound Levels (dIA)

JETS .2 76.0-117.9 9.

IMLICOP '.975.8-117.5 90.3

Taa1SPOM l 7 82.8-93.8 86.5(cargo)

the considerable variation in the range of jet and helicopter peak sound- levels reflects the greater flight path variability which we noted during

our measurements. What Is L~ortant to note, however, is the similaritybetween average peak sound levels, ranging from 86.5 to 92.6 for the threetypes of aircraft.

I.I

In order to put these sound levels in perspective I have attached twoTables and two Figures demonstrating sound level effects with the rangeand average peak sound levels from our measurements indicated in color.

While this data base in not extensive or overly sophisticated, it isI sufficient to indicate the significant increase in noise associated with

Pt. tugu traffic when compared to average daytime ambient levels of 48-52ABA; 55 dBA is specified as an Exterior Noise Level standard for residential

I • property in Camarillo.

The permanent relocation of an Air National Guard unit to Pt. Muguwould be expected to increase air traffic and concomitant noWe levels.Ihe noise impacts which Mission Oaks residents have experiendA in the lastfew months may be good indicators of impacts which we wi3Wspziience inthe future if the Air National Gurad unit is relocated Pt. 1" U.I would be happy to assist you, the City Council, and*y zer responsibleorganization in assessing the impacts associated wit •c air traffic.

Before Camarillo residents accept the impacVp.essoc A.ted with thisrelocation proposal, it should be clearly demonst8itd to o1ir satisfactionthat there is no legitimate, reasonable alte ati• J1 that noise impactsin Camarillo will be less extensive and less ~ if ib-nt than noise impactsat other alternative sites. AR4

I look forward to working with you. al er-city authorities an thisimportant issue. Please feel free to taLrci.l~te .t.hisa letter and attachmentsas appropriate.I,I. R. Macini

i \ i5439 Sumerfield St.Ii Camarillo, CaliforniA 93010

~(905) 987-7652(4 N (213)486-7290

cc: Lt. Cad: ,Wm

I ;:.Lewi:•.

IIIU

I I

OIMSE 5S1t

COMM1NICATIMt WO~SSInslu

63 9U _I44

a 0 Co I C_ INDFFICULT

5 NEARLYT VO****:**-*.ICE LVE*SPEECH coMMN I CATIO:-:.:-..

5 10 15 20 25 30IF TALKER TO LISTENER DISTANCE IN FEET

'. Fipae $4. Speech interference kv*t (Com~eu. 1972).*aTal S san wmm o ethods used to p ct noise impact U

etvilo nitaI analysis.,O e Kd~ecib.Is is the st commonly rstoods o easutement.- er methodol~igies appropriate for tam envuron-

nta asmusae Fo eamIple, h health and e effects aremesrdin tdynij loe r Souid Lavel W ted PopulationI(LW?). J$ ctural damag tion is based q ak pressure and weightred

Im los

S14 DMAOrdNKNAL WACT DATAM=0

I S Kaicessivoly Noisy

* i ll............. . .......

....... o .......

400

Act e ............Nosy l~cesie~a l e ........ ..............N o..i.y

N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~... ... ILAwpmsaWbsis si s ttas .iraak.. ...........1972

rsdicted ~ ~ ~ ~ .... .e... .hne.E ees oe h ~e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ...... ...........Had.n..l.e or 0 flly g e

WWRVOI4MfI4TAL IMPACT DATA W=K

TaM. Si1. Typha Nebo taqL 411A SOft W97)

.350

140 Hand ted (71 ft)

Pain Thredwi d no0 IWO HNwrA

Owen Saw

Y~k ubmyAi Compraw* §~.~tn..I~nkDaai" Ttwok 125 ft)

NastyNW Cit f PI

Sewin ModulmII Vasuam asewr

N ally thk.. Window Air CodltionItewdan"a wokn w#

Residanald W

530 PEYWONUMEAL DIFAM DATA DO0K

TAbk 64. Eltmca stdgime as M

MA Lord hU t

3540_43

70 Smooth musea/%R& taect

MAO.. -toke evatysa~

Tabe Uatlisfm enos wn acvimblwietyf t~onafladey el(L 4 )(SS is

accpt heim~l opa . is ~ U~kD

isp di acmptbI~tyf A levk at ina W Geffortlyb

I~~aaeesmshLmmi bymoipeo wofteSd

r ARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION/I COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO

X00QCOTOLAIPOT PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY

*Ent Thb4r~lt r4A 8crnardino. CA 92415406= ( 714) 383-. 2679 a

August 15, 1984

3File: 109.43

M/Sgt. Riley BlackPublic Affairs Office146th Tactical Airlift Wing8030 Balboa BoulevardVan Nuys... CA 91409

I ~ ~~Re: 146th TacA~4a Alit WingReloc-at E15

3 Dear Sgt. Black:

This letter is a follow-up to our comments mad tat t ~uut14, 1984public scoping meeting held at the San Gorgon )I.4bSc'h ol in SanBernardino, California. -

We appreciated the opportunity to provide ii1~t ..use in the environ-mental assessment associated with the "DI .'.dtelocation of your AirR~ational Guard facility.

As mentioned at the meeting, the & ty. 'bpartment of Transportation/FloodControl/Airports feels that ad~qquatAcbniidration should be provided forboth potential flood hazards a4d trafficirculation/access items. Inyour evaluation of the Nort '!AIT F~orte Base site, It should be noted thatIprovisions for expansion of t tr1.afic" signals at the Third Street-VictoriaAvenue-intersection we incorpo ...ed into the design for a future southerlyextension to provie a st ase. If access Is proposed at this

locaionit ill e c proidea structure to extend VictoriaAvenue across City te ( :parallels the north boundary of the site).

Since this channe -. bjec gto being overtaxed, it will be necessary toadequately size,& he rjc4 so as to preclude damage to both the streetsection andat ea 11tMself. To this end, the Department will be glad

to frnih p ins .Crrmation adt siti n a ern

In concl pl.xrpos of this letter is to provide information whichyou may cu aware of, and Is not Intended to cover all aspects

m relting lood hazards and circulation; however, we will be happy toreview the- ;.Ofic/circulation and draft environmental 'reports when available.

M/Sgt. Riley BlackU August 15, 1984Page Two

U Please feel free to refer any questions and/or transmittals directlyto Michael G. Walker, Director. attention of the undersigned.

* Very truly yours,

IJWK:LCG:gs Planning Divison

cc: C. L. LairdMs. Sylvia M. Salenius/

(PRC Engineering)

.........I i

.....I

I!

I °

240 ralud TerraceCamarillo Calif. 93010August 15, 1984

PRC Engineering,972 To•.n and Country RoadOrange, Calif. 92667

Ref: Safety & airspace considerations

Dear MS. Salenius: 4I I attended the "Scoping" meeting at the Aajnarillo air-

port last Monday night, and would like to a4J( One _ additionalnegative factor regarding the possible re; fition & the AirNational Guard at Point MUgu. To my knoq4edg.`1 no onementioned a study of weather conditions, .... l affects fly-ing, at the three locations under cons era ton. The yearsI have spent as an airline meteorolocus umy attentionon this factor. Ht

feel a comparative study Of d s per year andhours per day of ceilings and voibtt tJes belov., VFR minimums(or some other designated minjai4mI)should be included inyour E.I.R. study. VFR minias usid to be 1000 feet and3 miles visibility, and prob ble.'t changedcent years. Most private pL, i-o. Itying out of Camarilloairport are supposed to -UwVaminimums.

I live about 1000 ram r the Camarillo High School,and am directly under the NIa. approach pattern for the PointMugu air strip. This nois has to be experienced to really

be youriaed s aliztth noise factor is already in-| €~~luded in your Sa,.•.,• ye

Military h. final approach are frequently abovethe cloud base m sible) as they pass over my house.Ofh clourse fas:,• * : s -b se hoseOf course, ~ sOl i problem for them with the instrumentlanding syatomsi-ise. However, at some point on their finalapproach --tyil break out into the clear and, at thispoint, j ,fit become visible to private aircraft from theCamari "4 rpot.

Thesti private aircraft, often flying at right angles toI ~the Point ?&ugu final approach, create a hazard, particularlyon days and nights with reduced ceilings and visibilities..Additional flights of the Air National Guard could only in-crease this hazard.

There is another item pertaining to weather w'hich reallydoesn't qualify as a factor in your E.I.R. study; however,I feel I should mention it.

IU

U

I -2-

From the standpoint of the number of days of good flyingweather, Point Mugu can't compare with your other twoalternative locations. Not knowing the intent of the AirNational Guard's training exercises, I can only guess thatthe more training time available, the better.

I'Very truly yours,

I •~Roertl M.u 1o1r h~lrt O •ii

II

-: d .;t

I / II

Iý. Ei

I4

I . . .........

IAgust 16, 198421405 Chatsworth St.Chatsworth, Ca. 91311

I RESDA WOMEn' S CILUB7901 Lindley AvenueReseda, CaliforniaI.Dear Lidies and Guests:

I This meeting is the first of many regarding le reloca-tion of the California Air National Guard from 4t'ilpresentlocation at the Van Nuys Airport.

M ~y first reaction upon hearing of this~ lilt: V was thatthis was but another protest by some select .-.up fb speak inI my behalf, just like the group who fail- the •,QPle of the SanFernando Valley by rejecting vast materi n, ffered by the1984 Olympic's Committee. But that no t iicase at all.

* In our twenty three years of lif e renthe Valley,my family and I merely accepted a- t 64*1ii or granted the pre-sence of the Air National Guard.4 ,Iý*i|•eftded their air showsand marveled at. the hugh ugly " 3O transports.

Protests by homeoý-mers.,ft&nd~nyi else for that matterare far dovrn on the list of .......iojities. The basis fact oflife is that progress has•if%.pd dinto the arena. If therewas even a remote possibility Xretaining the Air Guard atit's present facility I woui •l he first one to shout outthat: .

The G-.... has 1 ngionly the people of the San Fer-nando Valley, but e pN'14,ý State of California since 1949.

It' s aircra. Si*e re fighiting capabilities and can alsoserve as hospi .

it's pe srve us in the community by their assist-ance in a ~oai scool for crippled children and transportingS material regrowth operations.

And o~ocal businesses this may come as newvs. The annualmilita .1 is 6.4 million dollars and the civilian payrolltotals mi.'lion dollars:

Add that to the air show:is, tours and band parade colorguards, they surely will be missed.

The real fight is yet to come. I propose that the landanW facilities not be abandoned to our politicians whose eye-sight is not 20-20 but $-$ and leave the location intact, re-taining a standby base for emergency use.

a nr r 3 . 9 1IAhur J Drezv SI- 998-1894

3 II.L CLa~mnmrs Graliaua EES. A.37216 NTIa~ge 37

Camaefllo. Uairorzia 93010

I ~August 29, 1984j

I last. Public Affairs Officer146th Tactical Airlift WingAir National GuardI..týI8030 Balboa Blvd. A AiLos Angeles, Ca. 9140~4

- Dear Sergeant Blacks

IIam voicing another protest against th --rel~o no the146 Tactical Airlift Wing to Point Kuh"-. unable toattend the August 13th meeting in Coma....a vi protest isthe same as those brought up at thr,,.ee ngg that werereported in the newspaper artical The 0 oi~ng morning.Ihope these protests will be giyo a itr~t deal of thought

and consideration. i

~~Sincerely

j N~~rs R. C. Gaa

Ip

I ~ NORTH COUNTY ALLIANCE of COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIONSP. 0. BOX 3580

Quart3 HhI CAk 9353413 Mum mass avvgessum am 40 wmvm"

AIR uITIOI1AL SUA20 Public Mearing * Special ReportI b Aug. IS. the 144th Tactical Airlift 111ng of thit Air National luard (Van lays) held an is~otmtianal meeting andfic hearing to Antelope Valley [AV) regarding a possible site adjacent to 35S Pleant 42 tPalmdale Airport oales.Ithe other t sites being cansidered art at Poitlag. Sosad Nortem MI8. the meeting began late doe te a six-op of the

flace tie fault of the 146th] and ~ udi p Is Palmdale.

The 146th had a gorset Tin they wed their civi'lle" roeseach representative (Sylvia lanus of V11C [0g1n.seigOange sow. Ier temt formed pepeI'v nmne so far A V s tat stit byrefreshing.I Col. Jeffries Chaired the meting; Capt. Crooine was the MO* 146th Speaker; INS Little,#be.- the Lancaster

* Council; ft Foote asked several questions on behalf of Mike Antgenvicin's office. and P ,. Crosby, _,e an behalfof 11SAF Plant 42. (We were rather surprised that the Palmdale City rep. left dwiri,1s, beforr.lme public

"I8hati4 portion of the meeting began.) 3 local retidents (including the LC11/NCAC ?e.AlardConcerns.Dais. were also present fron Edwards ASF3 the AT Press and the 11SAF uesteo" %eit r officet fromSon Francisco.

Isfermetional gentie"

Reasons for moving: the Von Neys (VII] bese Is en 63 aeres 6 they really ned 4gtyto Park ther 14 C-130'smena they're all on base). VII Is the 4th `i1 liprt Is too US. Security is

mot good, as 111 has crowed right is on thou. A flood control Channel fr i etc.

* W rations: they would conduct appre . 3S flights a day Wlm TeIi`pbei 4 1"). practicing traffic pat-tert's; 'touch 6 go's% instrument training. etc. dTbet already do a lot of flights aut of P1.41. nan.)

The 146th Is capable of rapid deployment to anywhere In the. ~rdftr.4 tops &s nterials transport; disasterrelieof (food, medicines. etc. - I.e. made GOO flights to df feed .*-Xtrihdd cattle lon Now Mexico ese winter);search 6 rescue; civil protection (evacuations, etc.);. fire* RIbTInA (a : ?-120 can dro 30.000 lbs of fire retardantin $si Seconds!). aet. /\

!~s~~itis~ herewoud beasprs. 30.00 s .ft 40 ~stroctgo%,. Including the usual bidp. connected with air-craft Operations (I.e. training 6ops. s. 0ho; 4egin test stand, jet fuel Storae,. "age

treatmet plant, etc.).

Site: The Possible Palmdale Site would be "he MW idof ild" (about 113l mile S. of Ave. If 6 W/I mile E.of Sierra Ily). They want to "1e n so Not ad downtma L.A. (S141 of their regular a support per.I asoel currently live In San fernando Yao loy)~ tepefer to be so or adjacent to an existing Aft. (Later AV

"Pres article hinted at point mogu-- I~wentc~ '6t9 ting to AV (Ifr ao s Frntando VIyl amuld be sore direct.)

911 points: The Envirownmntalopat e is~m done according to the Nat'l tnvIreunmetal Policy Act (and theI . ~ ~corresponding Stato ) ) ah ~wre are* flaise, giological Resources. Agriculture. Geology.Clydrolgy, Trof ficICircw lotioq.4 i jie fety. vtlitios, HaNzardous Materials. Cultural Rnesources. Aesthetics[plus Archaeology and Social c0114ic Iolects]. All 3 Possible sites are subject to earthquake prolems. Palm-dale sit Is subject to son A1lbt flodngbut Is not In a 100-year flood plain. Auto traffic would iacrease esp.son A"e. M (as they'"e Aig)'yts ever AV for ama tiqg, there wouldn't be ouch incrtgse in air traffic).ISafety - in over 130 *0 0 1 t.I on s rIng 30# Years, there's only been one major actidenti The Impact of heokolpito local utilitiles "a 01 eIasim. louic waste -they prouc about 24.0m0 gals. cenItsminated liquid annually.voieh Is remnoved by a h~e~to a legal Msite 6 about 4 drams of solid material Is taken to ft. "ag for disposal.

9111 Tile Schedule: & daft CIN Should be ready by late Co/W134 Pulic hearings in Jan/35, & probablyfil I I I in Nor/$S. If a 0no Significant Iopacte Is *foand* (after Oraft Is released)

It could be filed earlier. Final decision Is mede by o~he 01partmnt in Washington'.

I frommej the 146th, bastcally a reserve Gott. is the lergest TA an any won base with 30full-tim Persennel 6op to 1400 on 'actione weekends (one wind a Mathi). tViugh most of the 14Gth's personnel lite dawn

lelo' raw. same would relocate to AV (a few already live so here 6 Commute). lane would live an bose. lts 144th*sopports'6 similar groups in Aleasa 6 "yaIng, to bectop 30 personnel.

bwards: Seth In 1967 6 1161 the 146th received the VWOuADtstanding Wait bward lma of the few geoms toreceive it more than sweet).

Sofn'l Info.: About Mof all defense flights are film by reserves.

CIVIC Activities? Civic gslows ar voes*m to nso TAM facilities, the 14110 sponsos guy Scout ves"s. etc.$ weo-*1 vigles color parn for Various evets; provides fatilitis" I bacigremmi personel, etc. for novies(I.*. tat"".e Firefes. call to We"r. etc.) Ithy also asslited In lsanting over 40.910 seedflng tree la the iS.n011r#a1100ne Ct'l forest. Ityheybld an Aviation fair 8 Air $%a every 3 pears& 1W.000 attended the M01 ovnS.40moeds from theamSows aon deonted Weto l calinheritable OrgaIsa~tians

WORTH COUNTY AWIANCE of COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIONS

I P 0. Box 3580Quartz H10. CA 93&34

1xv Sq&. Ms*S WWOMuAM11 w 40 cowuwoosM

&War Wabhake MbOiMe wpmagma

mACA lii ft. 1. Vol. I ---PL ASE WRE... Seupst 0. 1914

I4 l iVIONAL BARD Nearing 114ort Continuedpublic Hearing portion

I slesdnti: I local sitdS~ts voiced tonce rs Over existing Noise 6 potential accident probblem with low Overflights

o ccasional straying from regular flight patterns . oe said. eve dble-inswlated windows didn't kelp.

Lancaster- Mayor Little said the Council mould welcome this type of operation io AV. but tetthey mpge concerned

uwith 8degradationg of air guality. The gmo to out Nigh Seosert basin Is Aajrvid by the saw *favor-

S ion* Characteristics LA has. Other Concerns were soise I auto traffic patterns S Volb~ns Abe personele would

be welcome howver. The Council will Omtch* the final [tit statements. tit Niii

I Caunt,:111s root* asked several questions., stabl~shlIn that. the 146th has ut aaaeSi otn

- ~it accordance with their General Plan land-91e reqirenents. As us full*4met 9erSOime would live on base.

then approx. 30cars would be added daily to traffic on Ave. N. 146th l~ aid tiWiwere ware of the *bsh'c'r-to--ýI bner traffic twice dally there few. MiIS problem Is being worked an ug etweenAantclmdlelUSAF-f1ed5I LA

County.) as a personal Comnt, Ni Foote said she mould feel safer in a b 6 tqb with the 14th here. as

there's no entity In AV new capable or the resewe ups. the 146th Mha .. ....

Palmdalea: Sep. absent. 6 4 ls

Plant 42: ftj. Crosby said the IMA! is very proud of the 14, Ihet 42 av felt benefits from the

"oprations they are already condcingO. No said~k thyfev ood ogveenets; are good neighbors 6 friends

RLOeW Ilkn Plant 42 ca tn. IN the 140s. 14V porr~mae %and ondlor aovigatian rights" to land t"o high

structures. or crowded housing adjacent) wit tie an0i of the ruways. biat housing nearby cow in

*In the '701%. Plant 42 has always cooperated wfthA'WStiISa fti. .5 lo.

Nos:____ tatl. os ca nabe me e ~ylq 0 ;ýj loud cover tS high huidity). the freaunc' of

fihswould ntbe Increasedmf6thC13 Nercules Is a -quiet' craft. There are me flights

between 10 9; 6 6 an. (The noisiest. theoo 1 usell~ juskjfles once a week.) (Tower Is not nenned on weekends.)

tast Vind: ~he revrsinig wsa~IVflight patr.Plant 42 always checks with civic authorities A diverts

If sOOcialeans. foi~*%M # Waing taken In the schools.

Air Waslity: pleant 42 Is v about air quality. The C-lI0 has low emissions; the bigger

Impact Nw;u be f Incde auto traffic.

Aubto Traffict The 0a ~irt "11.4 , Act causes fands to be used on Interstate 6 other essential high-

* ua~~~wys/A a y y epnil for the AV Freeway being Comleted at all. Mj. Crosby

b opes they can obtain fwndgror th Xi, -again to help Costs of Improving Ave. M. INapfully to 4 Ivane from

' Sierra *01 (or froewsy ?,(of 4th. 3t. z

* ICUO/MCACA: 1ep. %ab s~ questions a comnts. ft future flight Conflicts with pr sopsd Palodalf Inter-

- eti 1Airi#'t - 'tbnebulous to say; my never be built% tast wind blows were often than Is somr-

Otine recognized. WAeS are very concerned Over environmental Issues. Speaking Personally, she said previous

contacts with the U fhdall beon very pleasant 6 they'd been very Cooperative in helping ste the coal-buraing,

electric plant (Propose' *14. years ago for M AV). 6 the were recent sugeted Prison site. Rhe thought the 146th

personnl would be welccinibere by local residents, but that accompnying lopact$ (i.*. increased traffic. otc.)

S onclusion: The meeting was well..wrth attending; too bad so few there. flwever. those, f were there learned a

* g~reat deal aod so*e san new Friends. whiich Is always nice.

.I... .

Pourb of *uperixisaoraloundv of XQs Angeles

MICHAEL D. ANTONOVICH5 ~SUJPERVISOR F~rlN DISTRICT

I August 30, 1984

UNSGT Riley Black146th Tactical Airlift WingAir National Guard, Van Nuys6030 Balboa Boulevard5 Van Nuys, California 91409Dear IbSGT Black:

I It is my understanding that the Air N trio ) rd146th TacticalAirlift Wing will be moving their ape ttio , ,fror the Van NuysIAirport to another site in the nea~r...futb.'( il. ... .. ..:I have been informed that there aZe'tbree ie which the AirNational Guard is considering, )inht :"zU, Norton Air ForceI Base, and Air Force Plant 42.I am requesting that Air Fq ~ Pln 2 be given every consid-I eration for your operations xe1c on, as I feel the Air NationalGuard could be an asset to tt 4izens of the Antelope Valley.

As you are aware, the r ~oosed alindale International AirportI could very soon bec *a I "Uty; I hope you have taken intoconsideration the pwti ty of both operations with referenceto air space use.r

U If you should ye an L,%*mrnents or questions regarding thisletter,, pleas co y deputy in the Antelope Valley, SherryI Foote, at (- '1

ICH L .Ak4TO VICHI upervisor, Fifth District

NDA:JmhRECEIVED

SEP 13 95 PRC -P & D

+M 509. HALL OF ADMINISTRATION. 500 WEST TEMPLE STREET. LOS-ANGELES. CA 90012 TELEPHONE 112113) 974-35555

3lr5 ,.J. -Ph1j E

low~~~~ imY4W eae

CIT L.n OF'PA L M A.yfaI4da&T= ~ . bb

-SG Riley-Blacky

Win. Nuys CPeif. KnightI~Da M SGT RlyBlack:

AIr Naticonal tod Vyattnin tNuys Ar aioaGuardSwbff 146th Tcia Airlift Wingwilso

iseAir Force Black: kldae

It has comeht my attentio Air Plantio 42Guard hsntr oeo h 146th Airlift Wigtn~~y ilsobemoing. itsdal oranot e nr neoeVle rvd

ancluedt pamon fturv and porkibilities Air uNderonandisuaird Force. Plantl be an baenei.oteepeo

tee hosenreas. h uehm f h 4t ilf

'If yoIjA4ouI.dbto discuss this subject or if youhave qu~in.please don't hesitate to contact

me af at City Hall, (805) 273-3162.37

3 )'unis C. Bales, MayorCity of Palmdale

01 RA CODIE 305/273.3 162 o 706 1. PALMDALE 9LVD.. PALMODALE. CALIF. 93550

1 RECEIVED

I SEP 14 U4

September 12, 1984 PRC -P & D

Lt. Col. Walter Clabuesch146th Tactical Airlift WingAir National Guard8030 Balboa Blvd.-Van Nduys, CA 91409

IDear Colonel Clabuesch: Ae

'Thank you for pr6viding our Board of Di1~~oiW ,!,.th he neededinformation and background that enable tI .;poitiveatofavoring the proposed relocati on of he 1 j,,h Tartical Ai rliftWing to Pt. Mugu Naval Air Station. ;-i-'

I ~As you and Captain Crumrine may*..cal ~evote of the Board of___Directors of the Oxnard' Area Chalfber o Cormerce favoring this

action was unanimous. We lgak for~iird toassisting you and yourstaff in any way we can ttiro"bighout the Public Hearings on theEIR and EIS, and finally.,idfaclttn your relocation to

Lý4f 4NAS Pt. Mugu. We beliel. 3 st ~qY .that you and your unit willhave a very beneficial e' et -ph the economy of this area with-out undo impacts.........asg and other resources of Ventura

wj~e'~ECounty.

Enclosed is a copy ~ews Release that has been distributed toall media in his area- Please feel free to use it to your bestadvantage.~ -

Iif we be., apfurther assistance, do not hesitate to callon us

I (~~sdent.Psy1

3 T ~bkf

Enclosure

cc: MSGT Riley BlackMs. Sylvia M. Salenius$Or. Jack Stewart

3 CHAMBER OF COMMERCE / P.O. BOX 367 /OXNARD. CALIFORNIA 33032 '(105) 487-930S

Chamber of Commerce

-R85. "A"St. Oxnard, Calif. For more information phone: (805) 4R7-6305

I .September 11, 1984

CHAMBER ENDORSES AIR GUARD MOVE TO PT. MUGU

ICiting the positive impact on the local economy and the e. to maintain

the Air National Guard in a "ready" position, the as -dArea :ta-mber of

Commerce by action of its Board of Directors last M •r10)

has come out in support of the relocation of th 4ftTi ical Airlift

Wing, Air National Guard from Van Nuys Airp i 'gu Naval Air

Station near Oxnard.

The action was taken following (.rettrtation by Lt Col. Walter Clabuescti

S and Capt. Boyd Crumrine of t:h Air.N ational Guard unit.

30During the presentat'.h an p ning that followed it was brought out

that of the 340 fu _' sonnel and 1100 part-time, primarily weekend

personnel, ov _-*51 perc 4; t currently reside within a fifty mile radius of

Pt. Mugu. a move to Pt. Mugu would not have a strongly adverse

effect ocl ho using but would prevent undo hardship on the personnel

3 that would q...equired by either personnel relocation or long commuting

distances should an alternate location be selected. In fact, both Clabuesch

and Crumrine are residents of Ventura County.

I The pending expiration of the current Air National Guard lease at Van Nuys

In 1985, coupled with high volume of light general aviation traffic and

the inability of physically separating the Air National Guard operationsi

3 ~NEWS RELEASEI~

September 1.18

Ifrom the rest of that airport has resulted in the 146th Tactical Airlift Wing,I which currently flys C-130 turbo-prop transport aircraft, seriously con-

sidering a relocation to either Pt. Mugu, Air Force Plant #42 in Palmdale

3or Norton Air Force Base in San Bernadino.I ~Both a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) as requir, ~ Ey'h~Clifr

3 ~Environmental Quality Act (CSQA) and an Environmental a~4tnt

required by the National Environmental Policy Act& c nly being

I prepared and public hearings will be conducted;\.oai y final decision

being made, Col. Clabuesch said.

*. Sý!ne.

iniItFlI /n

IwIM

-RECEIVE

Homeowners SEP 1784

4 3m of Encino PC -P &

IServing the humeowners of Encino" GERALD A. SILVERSk. President

P.O. box 453

W.I.7red Clabuesch, Lt. Colonel, CA Ang Ecino, CA 91426AIi-National Guard " Phone (213) 990-2757Htaiquarters 146th Tactical Airlift WingVan"Nuys, Ca. 91409I RE: RELOCATION OF ANG andDear Col. Clabunsch: SCOPING MEETINGS*.JOur organization would like to take an active role inpajticipating in Scoping meetings regarding the ANG. Ourposition is that we would like to see the guard relocatefrom its present Van Nuys airport location. Your presentfleet of aircraft generates noise and we believe safety3 problems.

We would not, however want to see the LADOA replace youroperation with other fixed base operators who would alsogenerate noise. Our recommendation is that the space beconverted to a golf course, tennis courts, or a publicpark. Since the Van Nuys Airport will be out of complianceU with the 1985 - 65 CNEL contour, the removal of the guard,and the substitution of non-aircraft related usage of thefacilities, such as a park, etc. would be in the public'sbest interest.

lie are also dismayed to discover that you held a Scoping meetingon Aug. 16, 1984, where we and other homeowners organizationswere not invited, not given adequate notice. Be advised thatFAA Order 1050.1C concerning Environment Impacts states that"I"Citizen involvement,where appropriate, should be initiatedat the earliest practical time and continue throughout thedev9lopment of the proposed project in order to obtain mean-Iinaf'l input.0 In our opinion, your Scoping meeting was inade-quately noticed.

We must therefore ask that another Scoping meeting be held onthis matter and that adequate notice be given to homeownersgroups. The absence of persons at your last meeting effectively

S invalidates the previous Scoping gession. You may wish to con-tact Jim Norville, airport manager, for a list of concernedcommunity organizations.

I "rald o.uilvrs

I CC: LADOA

I KDESCRIPTION OF THE SCOPING PROCESS

FAA Order 1050-IC "Policies and Procedures for Considering £nvironmentaltmaca states that "i..ata1z-n a-nvoTVeiftnt# wh~ere appropria-te, should be initiated&% the 'earliest practical time and continued throughout the development of thes

proposed project In order to obtain measaingf ul input.'* tt also provides that OAsinmmary of citize Involvement and the environmental issues raised "Ifl bedocumented where practicable In the EIS.0 In compliance wf!% these requirements,

th-e it!!owirhg Wnorma!ilfl Is pr.ovided:

PG ox 453Enc-no. CA 146 #

IT

Ban Airport Noise '3

Dear Mr.Black:

As an organization concerned with the reduction and control of airportrelated noise we were disturbed when an article that appeared In thevalley section of the LA Tiues dated August 191h stated that the Air

SNational Guard based at Van Nuys Airport was seeking public Input regardingthe proposed move froM that aiport to alternate sites. One of these sitesPoint Mugu Naval Base near CaMarillo brought protests toM the ciy ofI CaMarillo at a hearing held at that city. The article asl ptated that ahearing would be held in the Van Nuys Airport area. A4ft#ver the proposedmeeting had already held in Reseda on August 16th. 00s..1ing was attendedaccording to a reliable source, by only two priv -400i t~zens( part of a groupfrom Camarillo) and a member of the press.This meeting was considered Important enough to nv militarypersonnel from out of state. In a call to yo *fic~of the National Guard a Colonel Clevesch sta t ..... three announcementswere run In the local newspapers ( one forac . f' e proposed sites)and that the notice of the Reseda hearing pea,, d 7 days prior to themeeting. Also It was verified that onlyt-j remb W's of the lay publicattended. Theses wscoping" hearings we 4 con-i:esiid-red a formality by theGuard spokesman and considered one ad45Ic•*_notice adequate.

Our problem with these events are'* :nI1 No notices were run in the local •reh Wuwspapers and no TV or radio

coverage was given.2. Although considered importan.fik. n o Ug t1o fly in military personnel, theIara citizens were given scan -and no homeowner s groupswere given advance notice.

In our opinion this Matty Mus given wider publicity.The valley residents who ind.ed the operations of the Guard for

Smany years should be tVlh g:J;1forned through open public hearingswith advance notice gi ":'iarea homeowners groups of the intentof the Guard so as to ai-1 ae opinion of those who are most directlyimpacted. Although 4iS distood that most of the area governmentalIagencys were notif d.LJ i~t"Le emphasis was given to -the public at large.

BAN strongly su .*,s 4 T tthe National Guard make a more positive anddirect approach# 1%#citizens in the area of the airport and hold3 additional mee ýingi a tiMe and place that would Insure a representiveresponse.

The removal o e 1461h Tactical Airlift Wing from Van Nuys airportI would be a blessi~k• o the area residents as well as a means for the Dept-Ment of Airports to be compliant with the future requirements of CEQA.We further suggest that the vacated property be utilized for quieterI nlerprizes such as light industrial or commercial excluding those thatwould add more hangars or aircraft.

Respectfully,,cc: Anthony C. Beilenson* Howard Berman Michael L. Mack

Bobbie FiedlerAlan RobbinsTom Bane Vice Pres, Pan Airport NoiseErnani BernardiJoy Picus

I. List of Van Nuys Airport area Homseowner's Associations.

I . Ban Airport NoiseP.O. Box 3184IVan Nuys, California, 91407

2. Homesowner's of encinoP.O. Box 2008I Encino, California, 91426

3. Encino Property Owner's, AssociationP.O. Box 425I Encino, California ,91316

4.~ Sherman Oaks HomeownersP.O. Box 5223Sherm~an Oaks, California p91413

35.. Sun Valley Hoeeowner'sSun Valley, California,91352

I6. Canyon and HIllside Federation16611 Park Lane CircleLos Angeles, Colifornia,90049

17. North Hollywood Homeowner'sP.O. Box 4052I North Hollywood, California,91601j-

S. Tarzana Property OwnersP.O. Box 112I Tarzana, California,91356

9. Studio City Residents Awnn* P.O. Box 1374* Studio City, Cal 0Ifo

I10. 'Jan Nuys Homeownr s %ationP.O. Box .3528 -Van NUYS.. Cal 0r( 9107

I I. Reseda Co p~$N~ ociationP0.O. Box41Resoda, Ca.: 44 rnia,91355

3 12. Sepulveda H ewnor's AssociationP.O. Box 2008ISepulveda, California, 91343

Gene C. Kjellberg

NOV 1 . '484 169 Appletree AvenueU Camarillo, California 93010

FC -P & D November 13, 1984

Mr. Ray LucaseyPublic Affairs OfficePacific Missile Test Center, Naval Air Station Pt. MuguCode 0050Pt. Mugu, California 93042

Dear Hr. Lucasey: A5,

SUBJECT: POTENTIAL RELOCATION OF THE AIR NATIONAL UAR I6tI TICAL

U AIRLIFT WING

This letter is in response to several recent newv0per.r lee describing thepotential relocation of the Air National Guar4,'s 16.tb Aitical Airlift Wing(Van Nuy's Airport) to the Pt. Mugu Naval Ai ati Although this relocation,based on my understanding, is only a proposal .- hibhtime, I am concerned thatsuch a move to Ft. Mugu is even being conAd. Giu.7 .wish to state my reasonsf or opposing the relocation proposal.

SI am a resident of the City of Camarir • a ede in the Woodside Greens neigh-borhood located near the Ventura FeewY . atnt Valley Road interchange. Cur-U rently our neighborhood is ,ignif4.7ftt~ miicted by jet and propeller aircraftnoise originating from Pt. Mugu i o ur recent home purchase, I vas awareof some potential aircraft noise:.-tn.g this portion of the County. Thisinformation was outlined in the 19-7Xad:fic Missile Test Center Pt. Mugu AirInstallation Compatible Use !one (At) study and in the City of Camarillo'sreal estate disclosure st*Ledt :was not prepared, however, for the excessivenumber of flights, the *Uji' Tfjet fighter noise, nor your pilots apparentSdisregard for followl pb : e• flight paths and respecting minimum prescribedltitudes during ap opakbi ti Fwere noted in the AICUZ study. In addition,

I was not informed f change in the level of operations at your air*age prior to oui aom ise. I consider the addition of the Air Nationaluard unit a maJoit*ealalon in flight operations and based on my understanding,as nothing t 046.Vt&Pt. Mugu carrying out its primary mission (i.e., support

facility fo~be1 nd" i erg Air Force Base and Pacific Missile Test Center).

am a profess land use planner with the County of Ventura and my primaryresponsibilities clude the preparation of major updates to the County's GeneralIan (including the Land Use Element and the Noise Element). During the last

irteen years, I have had sufficient experience in planning for and thus attempt-g to minimize land use conflicts between incompatible land uses (e.g., military

air bases with their attendant noise and safety problems and noise sensitives such as residential neighborhood). I raise this point not because mynions necessarily reflect the County of Ventura's official position on this

issue but because my concerns with this relocation goes beyond that of a concernedU arillo resident.

Page two

During a six year tenure with the County of Orange Planning Department, I workedon numerous general plan amendments involving the El Toro Marine Corp Air Station(ETMAS) and its relationship to the urbanizing South Orange County area. I seemany similarities involving land use/environmental conflicts experienced by ElToro and problems associated with your air base and its flight operations. Atnumerous public hearings before the Orange County Board of Supervisors involvingexisting and potential land use/noise conflicts, the ETMAS personnel argued thattheir facility was in existence before the south Orange County urbanization andthat a prohibition of residential and other noise sensitive uses under theirflight paths was necessary in order to minimize future problems and litigation.The Board of Supervisors eventually amended the County's Land Use Element andNoise Element which mandated that all new residential constr tion be excludedfrom lands affected by 65 Community Noise Equivalent Level (CE) impacts emana-ting from the ETMAS, Orange County Airport, freeways, etc lthough this 1979decision alleviated some problems between El Toro's operAtions a43d the populationgrowth in south Orange County, it by no means eliminatd •thft safeti/noise/resi-dential land use conflicts. Although ETMAS personnel tu oubtedly disputethe following position, I am convinced that it is only matter of time untilthe El Toro air base is forced to relocate to a U44 rem0A`4i:location (e.g., CampPendleton). I base my opinion on the increasing citae; wit urban uses encroach-Ing on El Toro and the resultant political prp= thkat-vi11 eventually forcethe relocation.

I I brought up the situation in Orange County -becausei-X.t typifies the inherentproblems of a large military air installition located in a rapidly urbanizingcounty. It should be noted that El TOr'•s" lanAiq. e/noise/safety problems becamemore acute even though their level of brations did not escalate significantly

and their pilots generally followed thefTrpci eýrbed AICUZ flight paths. Itseems to me that Pt. Mugu, while .a46tteay lo`6cated in a somewhat more remotesection of Southern California, 14 sbject .t•o equally significant urbanizationpressures. Ventura County's 19827p ,u Ietion was 552,000 persons which isexpected to increase by 260,000 persoA# or to a projected population of 812,000I persons, by the year 2000. 4 isgnifcant portion of the County's growth willoccur in the Camarillo/Oxnirdýsogrophic areas (i.e., their existing 1982 pop-ulations of 38,214 and 4 0.1 Kapectively) is projected to grow to approximately87,000 persons and 193,,O0, rsobs (respectively) by the year 2000). Althoughmuch of this growth y!:ke Chi heled into existing City "spheres of influence"(i.e., those areas 4Xrd b-*!xisting and funded urban services), developmentpressures will fuher e 4 i xisting agricultural/open space lands in the Oxnardplain. I am cijinteSe 'towth figures because I feel it is important fordecision make '.ifthe partment of Defense and the California Air NationalGuard to realize tit Vý tura County, while still dependent on an agriculturaleconomic base,-ý 4i rapidly urbanizing County and will continue to experiencethese growth pre pres into the next century. Inevitably these growth trendswill increasingly '1pact upon your air base's operations and the resultant poli-

tical pressures may eventually force a relocation of Pt. Mugu to a more remotelocation. I believe this scenario is inevitable even though I personally andprofessionally would prefer to see agricultural operations in the Oxnard plainremain as an economically viable and permanent use of the land.I

II

Page three

Given these facts, I find it difficult to understand why the Department of Defensewould even consider expanding flight operations with the relocation of theAir National Guard unit. It seems to me that you already have a public relationsproblem with adjoining cities and communities such as Camarillo. This probleminvolves resident complaints concerning noise impacts and safety considerationsrelated to your base's current level of operations and is further amplified byyour pilots ignorance of or disregard for following prescribed flight paths andmaintaining accepted minimum altitude during their approach to the Pt. Mugufacility. Why compound your public relations problems and add fuel to detractor'sarguments that Pt. Mugu should move to another location due to increasing landuse/noise/safety conflicts in this urbanizing area?

For the reasons cited above, I urge you to reconsider the relo6tion of the 146thTactical Airlift Wing to Pt. Mugu. In my opinion, such a ve .would seriouslyerode the public's image of Pt. Mugu as a necessary milit•y fal-.Lty in thesouth coast region and the additional noise and safety. Apa-ts would adverselyaffect existing and future residents of south central witi&a. tpnty.• I requestthat you provide a written response to the points raisel 4ithis letter. Iprimarily am interested in, 1) the status of the Ati Natiof1 Guard's potentialrelocation, 2) why your pilots continue to disregaitthA..ICUZ approach paths,3) why do your pilots frequently fly at lower e.titu4t*-than those noted in theAICUZ study, and 4) when will the draft envirormntal *ppact statement being pre-pared for the Air National Guard's potenti reloeatilo iS be available for review?

S cerely,

Gene C. Kjellberg

cc: Captain Michael Ritz, Pj.jic Aff.ais Office, 146th Tactical Airlift WingColonel Claybues, Base fty.i! E&4neer, 146th Tactical Airlift WingCongresswoman Bobbij edlit± 2ist Congressional DistrictSupervisor Ed JonoJ;#,- 2ndsu"e,1visorial DistrictSupervisor MaggieITid ser3rd Supervisorial DistrictMayor Bill Estet, .- $toil ý-af:.CamarilloCouncilman M i Moysan,"iCity of CamarilloCity Manager �.�Sgleuby, City of Camarillo

PRC Engi ., Attn: Sylvia Salinas

I

I.. ...IA

14TIA RVYFRI .. h

146TH TAU RELOCATION SURVEY 000741

1. Introduction

The Air Wational Guard Is currently conducting &an nvironsental- Impact Assessment of the potential relocation of the 146th TAU

Eros Van Nuys to one of three possible locations: MAs Point Mugu,Air Force Plant #42 at Palmdale, or Norton Air force bass. As aPart of that effort, this questionnaire Is being administered toIassist the Air Guard In determinina what effect such a move mighthave on current personnel located at the Van Nuys base. Thesurvey should take approximately five minutes to BIPl*te. AllI responses will be held In strict confidence. Your p~operation Isappreciated.

Please circle the appropriate response. M

11 .5ackaround Information

11. Current RankCol. 1U Lt. Col. 24

-Major 3Capt. 4 %%Lt. S2nd Lt.______CH Set. 7 /SH Set.6H set.____T Sat. 1O03 ~ ~~ Bat..L~2Sr AnA1C. 4n; ýA

2 nn -AM 5~I

2.Are

e d1Gilia~rdsman AH1

3. ghlettegory best describes your age?

18-24 -125-34 23 5-44 345-14 -455 or more S

1 4. Are you?

saleIfemale2

1 S. Now leng, have you served with the 146th TAU?

I year or loes 11-3 years 24-6 years 3

6. Nov many children under the age of eighteen are currentlyI living In your household?

none

Itwo 3three 5four 6five or more 7IP37. Do you currently own your own ho?

Yen 1 4NNo2

Iif Tom, answer question 'iI n~ nower question 9.

IS. Uhat category best. dA-4 be your monthly mortegagpayment? (.............

$300-4100....$400-S0

S70Qw~S ~ ME

ibOPor ore 10

9. t t~ao,'1ry beot describes your monthly rent or lease?

$300-400 3$400-500 4SS00-600 5$ 600-700 6

$800-900a

81000 or more__10

2

10. low many bedroom& are In your current home?

on* 1two 2three ______________3__

four 4I ~five or more__s

11. Do you patronize the laoe Exchange (BI)?

Tee 1

If yes. answer question 12 also. If sqo, V& toquestion 13.li

12. On the average, how such do you spefl eh'W ach month?

13. Other than the B1, do you Qbuy meals, orpuchsean godso servicepinl.h. Vain Nuys area?

(ANSUER QUESTIONS 14 AND:no 2 . ~

(GO TO QUESTION 16) Vt*...*;sssss-ýý;:ý14. Mhich of the fox -9-W U A a iens do you regularly spend

I ~~money on In Van M&? Ctce l that apply)

groceries .

hotel /m1ta lgas/au oe~t 6cloth~l ....

ott~zweiL'

1s. 0. t avti -ge how much do you spend on the followingI th in a given month while In Van Nuys? Pleaseent* Q Al dollar mount In the appropriate space.

meals S___groceries S___entertainment S____recreation S_____hotels/motels S____gas/auto S_____clothing S____drug/sundries S____j ~~~other(opeci fy)_______________

14. It the 146th TO "located to of' rolllct o RtS . nd ito #

which Of the f oll owin Would y o t lI el o

a. s ut frS5U eg5 xisting geSideflCo 1-

b. r *1OCatC. retire4. quit

*.seek a tgrfl.fot

17. t t O 1 6th T VU reloc at ed to hM r l s ome f orml 94f

?7 . I f t e . 1 ~ y o u w e re e li gi b l e f o r wo e o u l d o f

toplocationl borkefits. Which Of the tiod&~ol o

soot likely do?

b. relocateC. retire4. quilt

Booack a tM~~

. t the 146th TAU relocated Ao ofr elc ation

aihd ou Vte eIgile fag **5 -ots of

beefSwhere of &tefplV'~1 u soot likely

b. reoatie

*.seek A t~~~

i9. batis Tour ALP codt_________

20. what is te'vt0 time ifas Tour h055 o Vat' IgysM

weekdaY'I*itC

21. bichc~It1 bet dscrbeS ourhousehold's total

21.~ Welko (betOV %&%*alL)?

tt. o999 ,2

*45,000-44.".,000 o ore_____

?3AN1K you ~OR TOUR COOPIlRKItON

4

APPENDIXZV-W

CULTURAL RES~URCES ft RT

I All,.MiL

Ms:

VAN NUYS AIR NATIONAL GUARD RELOCATION STUDY

AIR FORCE PLANT 942,

PALMD)ALE NAVAL AIR STATION, POINT MUGU

NORTON AIR FORCE BASE

Prepared For: .......

PRC ENGINEERINGX972 Town & Country Rad

I Orange, Cali fo 1 2 667(7 14) B8-4447

Attention: yVia ..s'senius

ziNrepared By:VI RESOURCE SURVEYS, INC.

5 S2 olsa Avenue. Suite 5W n5lngton Beach, CA 92647

I (714) 897-7877

Principal Author: Paige Talley

SRS Job #688EIS PRC Job #214-500-00

II

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I PageABSTRACT I

INTRODUCTION 2

PROJECT LOCATIONS AND DESCRIPTIONS 2

PALMDALE AIR FORCE PLANT #42 2

NAVAL AIR STATION POINT MUGU 2

NORTON AIR FORCE BASE 7

SURVEY METHODS 7

PALMDALE AIR FORCE PLANT #42 7

NAVAL AIR STATION POINT MUGU 7

SURVEY RESULTS N7RECORD SEARCHES 10

HISTORICAL RESEARCH - 11

INTRODUCTION 11

PALMDALE .1

VENTURA -16

I ~SAN BERNARDINO 1

RESOURCES ELIGIBLE FOR THE N A ISTER 21

OF HISTORIC PLACES

MITIGATION MEASURES N 21

1 BI BL I OGRAPHY 22

II

I I

I

II

LIST OF FIGURES

1. General Location of Project Area, Near Palmdale 3

I Air Force Plant If 42.

2. Specific Location of Projert Area, Near Palmdale 4

Air Force Plant 1/42.

I - 3. General Location of Project Area. Near NAS Point Mugu. S

4. Specific Location of Project Area, Near NAS Point Mut. 6

S5. General Location of Project Area. on Norton Air F•tcekse. 8

I 8. Project Area Plotted on an Histotic Map. ' .. 13

9. Project Area Plotted on an Historic Ma!• 14

•. i

I...

ABSTRACT

Archaeological reconnaissances were conducted on two of three proposed land

additions for military bases in consideration for the relocation of the Van

Nuys Air National Guard Base. The third military air base, Norton Air Force

Base, required only a literature search. The archaeological records searches

"and on-foot surveys of 9Tr-posed additions to the Naval Air Station Point Mugu

and Palmdale Air Eorce Plant #42 showed that there are no'ultural resources

on these properties. The records search for the parceliiiat"orton Air Force

Base demonstrates that there are no recorded archae 1gcaT* es within or

adjacent to the subject property. A review of thphistorlcmaps for theproject locations reveals that there are no hit r uctures located with-

in the property boundaries. However, the h that for

the Norton Air Force Base property and the Nkavay-Aq1: Station Point Mugu prop-

erty historic structures existed adjacent to the 'property boundaries. These

structures are not Indi cated on the ..oft-emporary:maps.

AL.

F-.... i t•• .•••

< C.. h!i~i . ..i•

1 2I

INTRODUCTION

The following report is submitted at the request of Sylvia Salenius of

PRC Engineering. The scope of work included an archaeological records search

and historical overview for three parcels of land being considered as sites

for the proposed relocation of the Air National Guard unit currently located

-at Van Nuys, California. The three parcels of land are in or adjacent to

Naval Air'Station, Point Mugu; Norton Air Force Base; antdtir Force Plant #42,

Palmdale. All of these sites are located in Southern #litornia. In addition

to the records search and historic overview, a fieldauirvey i:i.tvas carried out

"at the Point Mugu and Palmdale properties. The N 4on•ir. Foi e Base property

was not surveyed since it has been extensively de Ip"d ahd paved over. Since

federal funds are involved, the records, lite te a !ffield surveys were

carried out in order to identify sites or oroap -:potentially eligible for

the National Register of Historic Places.

PROJECT LOCATIONS AND DESCRIPTIONS..•:iiiý,,Ilý,.

PALMDALE AIR FORCE PLANT #42 .t -,..

I This proposed addition of 280o1.u crsIs located adjacent to the west side of

the Palmdale Air Force f.ant #42 Ist Los Angeles County (Figures I and 2.)

The subject propert A tk i . flat, reaching an elevation of 2500 feet

above sea level. ..e nnt unity is Joshua Tree Woodland with Mormon

Tea (Ephedra sp*Ji * tuntia sp.?), Creosote-bush (Larrea Divaricata),

Red Brome (k M 1 Desert Stipa (Stipa speciosa), and Turkey Mullein

.[!2caus, .i as an understory.

" NAVAL Al I• ION POINT MUGU

This proposed addition of approximately 240 acres is located south of Hueneme

Road, north of the Pacific Missile Range, and west of Highway I in Ventura

County (Figures 3 and 4). The project area is nearly flat as a result of crop

harvesting. The entire subject property has been disturbed as a result of

crop cultivation and swamp drainage. While no native vegetation exists, there

are cultivated fields of lima beans and tomatoes. The elevation of the project

area averages ten feet above sea level.

3

4~7~FLI&T TESI Cf fThil

I CDWA SC AIrac.1 C

1 7,t 2~~ -.§ .)-.

AAIVOCLCS COUNETY -- -

-Y-

- - IA i *~ *~ *~ ~10 - *

- _ __Opp

%I i itjf~ 4

slo WI

Del.-

r7 4..

F~ur 1 GnealLcai n f roec re, ea PlidaeAi Frc Pan f2From~~~~~~~~~~~W USAS KC nee 17) n a enr~n 16)Qa

SMl :5.0

*35~~ Ij3

ILL

II

IFigure 2. Specific Location of Project Area. Near Palmdale Air Force Plant #42.from USGS Palmdale (1974), Ritter Ridge (1974), Lancaster West

I (1974) Quads.Scale 1:24,000

tot"~d

oft. Abl

,%We -¾do ~7 -W*

0; ur 3.Jnr!Lcto o rjc r.Ra WSPitNg.FoI ~ ' USkSLsAgls(95 udScal 1:5000

IA

I7I

NORTON AIR FORCE BASE

This subject property approximates 160 acres and is located north of the

I Norton Air Force Base runway and taxi ways and south of City Creek in San

Bernardino County (Figures 5 and 6). The average elevation is 1140 feet

above sea level. The entire area is impacted with structures, roads, and

concrete aprons for the aircraft taxi ways.

SURVEY METHODS

PALMDALE AIR FORCE PLANT *42

On July 11, 1984, Thomas J. Banks and Jackie aute Ys•cnducted an archaeo-

logical reconnaissance of the subject propert• t transects were spaced

30 meters apart. The ground visibility wk c ent because of the sparse

vegetation.

3 NAVAL AIR STATION POINT MUGU

On July 12, 1984. Thomas 3. B sanks vd Jackie Desautels conducted an archaeo-

logical reconnaissance of t e ~ ct property. The majority of the project

area is under cultivation: limai I ans and tomatoes with wind breaks of euca-

lyptus and cyprus. Oe avhe extreme southern end of the property was

not under cultivat .. :,t "i,`Jibeing disced during the reconnaissance. This

area is reclaimed , ?i#1 d. One strip of the subject property, near Hueneme

Road, is itdr.

* Ground vb t obscured among the tomatoes and more mature lima bean

plants. #'4 wVier. this amounted to a strip that Is only 30 to 40 cm wide.

The major :1..on of the subject property was surveyed, on foot, in transects

spaced 30 to 40 meters apart. There were. however, areas where trees, pipes,

and irrigation ditches obstructed survey.

SURVEY RESULTS

No cultural resources were found as a result of the archaeological survey of

both properties considered as alternatives for the relocation of the Van Nuys

--Iia nmmm m mmm m m mmn m mmm

00

onS

* -u-

WeICID

CA RODRA

-- 7 01

"mowl

I s

-* -- .. /3 r7

Figure .r SpeiiLoaino r cAraNerNSPitMg.F m

* S. Caail (197) Oxad(97sadPitMg-16)

Scale 1:24o00

.Is

I T_

Scal l:1eis0

J I

9

4AS Cy .I it- k ~

H lem SP

st .Y

'A do."

*sQ-T / 'I-=

*l 7, VSMIIAR 0 CC~AUCEdDH

loo. 3

PACJ

im* %P -

Iro RS Redad (167 QuAd

Scal 1:51D

1 10

mNational Guard Base. However, a large modern trash scatter that covers a

Nesmall portion of the proposed addition for the Palmdale Air Force Plant #42.

The trash is dated between 1940 and 1950 and consists mostly of tin cans,

glass, 50 gallon drums, roofing tar, and bed springs.

RECORD SEARCHES

Archaeological record searches were requested and received from the Institute

of Archaeology, University of California at Los Angelt, 60d the San Bernardino

County Museum Association. The record searches for eiubjuect properties and

the area within a mile of the Palmdale Air Force the Norton Air

Force Base were negative. Although there are recor.d.archaeological sites

located in close proximity to the Naval Air S•tIcm,,Pofm Mugu property, thereP•h :; it is are described blw

are none within the property boundaries. ese r ddbelow:

1. Yen-t1: This site consists of a t ih l ,iddn located approximately

three miles southeast of the sub•je' erty. The site was recorded

by B. Frost in 1954. .

2. Ven-10: This site cons. istst afý shell midden with associated burials,

bowls, and pestles. It is *"ated approximately two miles southeast of

the subject property'... The 54,t was recorded by McKusick in 1959.

3. en-187: This. . o.....p.ists of a cemetery and habitation area. The

exact locat(oits"'ideiermned because no maps were included when this

site was 4st rded by Toney and Huston in 1968. It is believed

I that tbi•- ý1xists either two miles southeast or two miles southwest

of 'u6-Ject property.

4. Yen-256: 1his site consists of a cemetery and associated artifacts.

It is located approximately one mile south of the subject property.

The site was recorded by Barber in 1971.

III

11

HISTORICAL RESEARCH

INTRODUCTION

Historical research was conducted in the libraries of the cities of Palmdale

and San Bernardino for the Palmdale Air Force Plant #42 and the Norton Air

Force Base, respectively. Neither the Palmdale nor the San Bernardino histor-

ical societies have documents available to the public at this time. Historical

research for the Naval Air Station Point Mugu was conduct& at the Oxnard CitySveo°,...............library and the Ventura County Historical Society.-

Nineteenth century and turn of the twentieth centr4, SiAre inspected for

evidence of historic structures located withi••v•A.he ptles proposed for therelocation of the Van Nuys National Guard Basei i•Thi no evidence of his-

toric structures within the subject prope %v of Palmdale Air Force Plant

042 (Figure 7), the Naval Air Station PoAnt,4u Fgure 8), and the NortonAir Force Base (Figure 9). However.. 9 oes show two structures

adjacent to what is now the northw t br vida'7 of the Norton Air Force Base.

Similarly, a 1904 map illustrates tht Hstoric structures are within

400 feet of the proposed land- Wiit'iniA tohe Naval Air Station Point Mugu.

Another structure is indicate":ýti:ately 1000 feet east of the northernmost

boundary. The historic #tructure nar both of these air bases no longer exist;

however, there may be :ub~t'facVidence of historic occupation (such as

trash dumps). ( , N

PALMDALE

As early -Butterfield stage coach carrying passengers, bullion,

and frel •ifrm San Bernardino to Bakersfield. stopped In Palmdale (Antelope

Valley n.d.) ,,et, it was when the railroad was built through the Antelope

Valley, in 1876, that people decided to settle in the area to become known

as Palmdale (Progress Association n.d.).

Palmdale was settled by German Lutheran colonists sometime between 1884 and

1886 (Cunningham 1964). The, mistaken identity of the Joshua trees for palms

prompted the settlers to name their new town Palmenthal, later changed to

11

I ~ _2Ž _____ _______0

I Scae 1:15,00

IA

V VA L

-0q

%/

___0e N_ __ Ii1A J111

4; t

Figure 8. Project Area Plotted on an Historic Hap. From USGS Pt. Hueneme(1904, 1911) Quad. Scale 1:62,500

I __14

I4

I4I1

F~gure 9. Project Areapltdo*nHsoi ap SSSnBradn

Scale, 1:2,0

FI

15

Palmdale (Palmdale Chamber of Commerce 1979). The name of Palmenthal became

official when the post office was established on June 17, 1888, in the

general store owned by a Mr. Munz. The name was changed to Palmdale in 1890

(Valley Life n.d.).

The German colonists, after surveying the land, constructed the first canal

from Littlerock Creek to the "village," using wooden flumes and ditches.

Large cisterns were also used to store water. For domestic use of water,

wells were dug and windmills were constructed (Valley Life# n.d.)

Because of a drought in 1893, a problem with waterj-torage resulted (Palmdale

Chamber of Commerce 1979). Consequently, many of tAe settlers left Palmdale,while the few who remained moved their homes,-llece blyiece, to the present

location of Palmdale, which is approximately tw:t0 three miles west of what

is now called Old Palmdale. All that remai¶s of-ld Palmdale is the cemetery,

with German inscriptions on the headsto'esi(Villey Life n.d.).

By 1911 and 1912 Palmdale, along 0th Lancaster, was actively pursuing grain

farming. Between the two towns :sevein hundred and fifty carloads of grainwere shipped out in one year .i(PMogress.Association n.d.).

Until the stock market c:rash of 1929 the small community of Palmdale remained

fairly undisturbed. Alth dipression, however, the Works Progress Adminis-

tration (WPA) initipte4;.1rhe buIlding of the Palmdale-Littlerock dam and the

Palmdale airport-(Akt ,operiValley n.d.). (This county airport is now the

location of tA* Palida•le Air Force Plant #42.)

During W.Rid V-r I-I in 1941, the Palmdale county airport was leased to the

United St*t:_s government for $1.00 per year for the training of -:adets

(Antelope Val'Tay n.d.). In 1947 the airport was purchased by the county for

$30,000 and an additional four acres were added sometime later. The federal

government finally bought the county airport in 1951, at which time aircraft

companies such as Lockheed and Northrop located at Plant #42 (Progress Asso-

ciation n.d.).

3 16

IVENTURA

The name Mugu is the modified word for the Ventureno Chumash village of

lMuwu, located approximately three to four miles southeast of the Naval Air

Station Point Mugu. In fact, many of the names for the cities in Ventura.

County are taken from the original Chumash village appellatlons (Grant 1978a).I.Chumash aboriginal territory extended from San Luis Obispo In the north to

Malibu Canyon on the coast and in the interior to the San' paquln valley.IYIn addition, the islands of San Miguel, Santa Rosa, Saitia. Ctz, and Anacapa

were occupied by the Chumash (Grant 2978b; Kroeber 25.

The Point Mugu environs along with Point Hwereý cupied by the Chumash

until the Spaniards established the Mission San. ýuemgtntura. located within

the present city of Ventura, in 1771 (Gra 97) Spanish colonization of

"the Chumash promulgated disease among j.h misio tb&eophytes, so that by thetime mission secularization occurre&d-'-.'Jn!:iý i :*

tiron '834, nearly four-fifths of the popu-

lation had died.

Historically, the proposed .,dd4t1Don vNaval Air Station Point Mugu was located

within the Rancho El Rio de Sa& Clara o La Colonia. The rancho was granted

in 1837, by Governor Ju(!n B. Alv rado, to eight men and their families. In

m 1872, the rancho was VatoId wlthese original grantees (Robinson 1956).

3 Although transpart•:on tAan Buenaventura was often accomplished by men on

horseback an4ti)O ulck Abe most coimmon mode of travel was by sea. In 1868,

however, *6-s4.ecoa•• supplanted the sailing vessels and steamers (Robinson

1956). wai:o ~ni 1913 that the state highway was constructed over the

old route' heridan 1926).

When the first postal service was established in San Buenaventura in 1861.

3 delivery of the mail was free. The first postmaster for the city of San

Buenaventura used to place the mail in his hat and "begin a round of friendly

3 calls upon those for whom he had letters" (Hobson and Francis 1912:7).

17

Until 1873, San Buenaventura was included within the boundaries of Santa

Barbara County. In celebration of the separation from Santa Barbara, San

Buenaventura held "the last great bull fight and dance...a remnant of an

ancient custom inherited from Spain" (Hobson and Francis 1912:7).

Comm ensurate with the founding of Ventura County came the construction of

-a courthouse, completion of the first wharf, a bank and public library,

and the Introduction of ice cream (Murphy 1979). In 18874 the Southern

Pacific Railroad line was established in San Buenaventura`And for conven-

ience the name was shortened to Ventura. When the also used

the abbreviated form, the county soon became knowni--.Asý 1*tyira '(Murphy 1979).

•.• ..........

Probably the most remembered citizen of Venturi Bard who during

his fifty year (1865-1915) residency in the. counjtzhased a major portion

of the old rancho lands (including La Colon•a)•!. \ financially supported

many of the businesses in the county aWbe ei ..State Senator. Thomas Bard

was remembered as a generous man whQ,.ý -Oeyvýe •oreclosed a mortgage" (Fairbanks

1960:7). -

When the La Colonla rancho wasi aqutie u as one of the larger Bard holdings

there were minor problems with ,4uatrs. Although records indicate that

nothing serious ever happened between the renters and the squatters, one man

was lynched for the id er ta ther renter with whom he had a boundary

dispute (Sheridan 1 )

Between 1914 a.'d 119 *ie•al petroleum companies attempted to drill for oil

and gas, but-oithe .rlllg bits were successively ruined by the gas pressure.

Finally, g.0 Atocted Oil Company succeeded in recovering approximately

2,000 barri•ii per day, thus establishing that oil and gas could be obtained

with the rotarydrill bit and use of hematite and birite with mud fluid

(Sheridan 1926).

Perhaps the greatest contribution to the growth and economy of Ventura was

the U.S. Naval Construction Battalion, located at the harbor, and the U.S.

Naval Air Missile Test Center, established at Point Mugu in 1946 (Robinson

1956; Sheridan 1926).

18

SAN BERNARDINO

Prehistorically, portions of the San Bernardino area were Inhabited by the

Serrano Indians who spoke a Takic language that belonged to the greater

Uto-Aztecan family (Bean and Smith 1978). Gerald Smith of the San Bernardino

County Museum Association said that Jesusa Manuel, a Serrano, was interviewed

,in the 1930s, and she related that many of her relatives moved to HarlemSprings (located one mile north of the Norton Air Force B.se) during the mid-

nineteenth century. The move was prompted by the Mormon ,gcupation of San

Bernardino which occurred In 1851. There Is no reco oigichaeloical site.

however, in the Harlem Springs area.

Similarly, Victory Village, established durin(`Ird :.. I and located near

the north entrance to the Norton Air Force • Bas Iill- orted to have been an

archaeological site because surface hands s agimilllingstones were observed

during the 1940s (personal communicat-.4Q.ner-Allimith). This site, however,

has not been officially recorded, no i~teartifacts been relocated.

Spanish influence on the Serrq iio. wa! ht until an asistencia to the SanGabriel Mission was c ru���ea dlands in 1819 (Bean and Smith 1978).

The site for the asistencia h b'ii' " selected in 1910 by the Franciscan mis-

sionary, Father Dumetzt... i wt wa this time that San Bernardino received its

name (Stoebe 1974).• A establishment of the mission San Gabriel was

abandoned in 18344 n~l7-lit of Indians raided the asistencia (Bancroft

1886-1890 Vol )13 ....

The San Gble N~son's asistencia was part of the Agua Callente Rancho,

granted,' A• 0nl go and his sons in 1842 (Bancroft 1886-1890 Vol. IV).

The Har ...ings area was included in the Agua Callente Rancho, so named

because of t?• many hot springs within the rancho's boundaries. Nine years

after the Lugo family was granted the Rancho they sold it to Mormon settlers

(Bancroft 1886-1890 Vol. IV).

In 1851, and upon the suggestion of Brigham Young, a colony of Mormons from

Utah came to the Cajon Cat~on, now known as City Creek, for the purposes of

cultivating San Bernardino's rich soil and establishing a satellite settlement

19

(Ingersoll 1904). By 1853, the townsite for the future city of San Bernardino

was laid out in "Babylonian style--a miniature of Salt Lake City" (Ingersoll

1904:142). The town was one square mile with eight acre blocks, and streets

that ran at right angles, each bordered by an irrigation ditch. All of the

streets were given Mormon appellations (Ingersoll 1904).

.By April 13, 1854, a special act was passed by the legislature incorporating

the city of San Bernardino. Shortly after the city's incorporation another

act was passed authorizing appropriation of the water of 1* Twin Creeks

for the city's municipal and domestic use. Several yers la••i`s**i|ter. the Twin

Creeks irrigation ditches were abandoned because t!W• wre inefficient

(Ingersoll 1904).

The Mormons' control over the city of San Bern:iilasted only four years.

Conflict between the U.S. Military and Mor ,• po•t•on in Utah forced Brigham

Young to recall all of the settlers toft:a Vaun nhad heard that U.S. troops

were on their way to Salt Lake City (ingersol 1 904; Stoebe 1974). Even though

a few of the colonists remained In 'tn -jl: eW;:'I founded city, with the majority

of the population absent, the finan2ial.- ,u-den was too great; and the city

was soon disincorporated (El1iot 1965;•IStoebe 1974). San Bernardino reincor-

porated, however, in 1868, and:!i'-.t charter was approved in 1904 (Anonymousn.d.). Following the Mqpon exodii from San Bernardino, the city became

known as a drinking and g ArAiti;town "and a period of unrest in city govern-

ment followed" (St :4e 1....4-151.

When gold was Bear and Holcomb valleys, in 1860, thousands of

miners trave.1a ••"hrOu the city of San Bernardino in search of their fortune.

The gold sh2*O"ttd the population of the town of Belleville in Holcomb

Valley to 0IO00. Because of the competition from Belleville, the city of

San Bernardinbiarrowly won the County Seat--a one vote decision (Stoebe 1974).

In 1875, the Southern Pacific Railroad was established in Colton, approximately

six miles southwest of San Bernardino, and ten years later the Santa Fe Rail-

road line arrived in San Bernardino (Elliott 1965; Ingersoll 1904; Stoebe 1974).

Consequently, between 1885 and 1890 the city's growth was especially notice-

able because of what Charles Lummis called the Pullman Conquest (Ingersoll 1904).

20ISince one of the major reasons for establishing the railroad line through

San Bernardino was the orange crop industry, the Southern Pacific and theSanta Fe lines vied for the business. Hence, rates were drastically lowered.

j Many of the people who took advantage of the lowered fares came to San Bernardino

and decided to stay, for they viewed California as the land of opportunity

(Ingersoll 1904).

The first'attempt at developing electricity came in 1888, #ut failed because

the power was insufficient. By the late 1890s. however, ,.i Bernardinomaintained a working electrical plant (Elliott 2965; e Along with

electricity, San Bernardino supported a 400 room t4.7il J.1 had a Ladies Onlyentrance and an elevator, a stone courthouse, and a' 0ge Seth Thomas clock5 located in the tower of the courthouse (StoebeI3 7 W >*......is same clock is

now striking the hours at the entrance to e ' tyall.)

Although the city of San Bernardino was the late 1890s, it remaineda town "where it was customary to shoot first nd ask questions later" (Stoebe1974:48). The city also experiencesIs e of prostitution: according

to the old timers the red ligh _!strct f•s notorious throughout the state

of California (Stoebe 1974). • ..... pro. tution continued until the beginningof World War 11 when the War Depitu: t threatened that no military Installa-

tion would be constructid:tn a cty- that allowed prostitution (Stoebe 1974).I.. Nj

With the abandonmet&#fhe tod light district, the United States Army selected

San Bernardino , ,t ga tion for maintenance and supply depots. Hence, twodepots were Wtkbh within the city limits: San Bernardino Air Depot

Iand Campo ý TýIormer is now the Norton Air Force Base and the latterwaspab.ni•.e..d, 196 (Hixson 1982) The San Bernardino Air Depot was changed

to the Norti Air Force Base in honor of a San Bernardino youth, Leland Francis

Norton, who wash'killed in the war (Stoebe 1974).

Today, San Bernardino has become a major commercial center, partly because of

the establishment of the San Bernardino Air Depot which created many new jobs

(Hixson 1982).

1 21

RESOURCES ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES

I There are no known archaeological and historical resources within the subject

properties of Palmdale Air Force Plant #42, Naval Air Station Point Mugu, and

Norton Air Force Base. No resources were located which would be eligible for

the National Register of Historic Places.

MITIGATION .IASURES L

Since no cultural remains are known to be located withifthe•i" bject properties

of the Palmdale Air Force Plant #42, the Naval AirJta1•.n,,.Pofit Mugu, and the

Norton Air Force Base (Figures 2, 4, and 6), no ar ;og'al testing or

excavation is required at this time. However e the historic struc-

tures once located in close proximity to t1- Na!At" Station Point Mugu and

the Norton Air Force Base, and the extent d 1.s.. 0 c activity in the Palmdale

Air Force Plant #42 area, an archaeologif' required to monitor grad-

ing in the event that an historic tr ft dut*,-:por other associated historic

materials are located.

Furthermore, there is a potei-:ii!;i.4b i:`surface prehistoric cultural remains

at the Naval Air Station Point ... operty because of the extent of Chumash

activity in the surroundt.ing area) ence, an archaeologist should monitorgrading for prehist 01'4s historic resources.

1. A qualifiedf 't should be present at the pre-grade meeting

--and shoul on-" V:i grading activites.

2. The . would be empowered to temporarily divert, redirect,

or hal4iiading in order to adequately recover cultural materials

whichimay encountered during the grading process.

Ii

22

1 ~BIBDLIOGRAPHY

Anonymousn.d. Short History of San Bernardino. San Bernardino City Library,

Vertical File: History of San Bernardino.

Antelope Valleyn~d. Hstory of Palmdale. Palmdale Library, Vertical File:Ioa Hitoy

Bancroft, H. H.1886-1890 The History of California (7 Vols.). Tp~ftry

Company, SnFrancisco.

Bean, L. J. and Charles Smith

1978 Serrano. In Handbook of North American I~ias(Vl8)Edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 570-574. tiwý,ths ,.n Institution,I Washington, D.C.

Cunningham, G. (ed.)1964 Day Tours Geo 9raehical Journeys intJý -W.Angeles Area.

Pacific Books, Palo Alto, Califora. - -

Elliott, W. W.1965 Reproduction of Wallace ~ itory of San Bernardino

and San Diego Counties, -Cali foft.`ma, Riverside Museum Press, Riverside.

Fairbanks, F. L. 4*1960 Thomas R. Bard. (V11i~.I). Ventura County HistoricalSociety, pp. 2-8.

Grant, C.1978a Ea ster ostal 11 sh.'61 In Handbook of Northern American

Indians (V0.- I- rb Robert F. Heizer, pp. 509-519.

ISmithsonian nfviA "Washington, D.C.

2978b Chuma . .... Ct on. In Handbook of North AmericanIndians_.At4Yoi: t) dited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 500-504.ISmi thi ýý: iý1nLgtution, Washington, D.C.

Hixson,'~I1982 Sa ..Ernardino and the San Bernardino Air Depot. Cityof San Bern.tardino Historical Society. pp. 1-28.

Hobson. E. H. and M4. S. Francis1912 The History and Reminiscences of San Buenaventura. (No

publis-h-e-r isted.)

Ingersoll. L. A.1904 Ingersoll's Century Annals of San Bernardino County 1769-1904,I Los Angeles.

23

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

Murphy, A. (ed.)1979 A Comprehensive Story of Ventura County, California.M & N4 Printing, Oxnard, California.

Palmdale*Chamber of Commierce1979 Palmndale California. Windsor Publications,In.Woodland Hil S.

n.d. Palmdale, Its Disappearing Roots. ~Valley Life (newspaper).

Progress Associationn.d. Antelope Valley Board of Trade. Pa

vertical file, Local History.

Robinson, W4. W4. Cut..i n rs1956 The Story of Ventura Cut. 1t4"1 iWsuanceanTrsCompany. -

Sheridan, S. N. ri(Vl1)1926 History of Ventura Coun~ty. lfbi (Vl.t)5.3. larkePublishing ConyC1ao

Stoebe, M. G.1974 San Bernardino County Museii Commnemorative Edition.

Al len-Greendae Pyib~Tfihers,. ,Aedlands, California.

(,2......

.. ..

OF CALW@SNIA-IHI USOUCES A@S4CY GEORGE OEUKMEJIAN, 60arn"W

:ICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATIONRTMINT OF PARKS AND RECREATION0

kWMIT. CALIFORNI MI51I)4464006 REPLY TO: September 28, 1094

r~ancy A. Whitney-Desautels, PresidentScientific Resource Surveys, Inc.5232 Bolsa Avenue, Suite 5Huntington Beach, CA 92647

Dear Ms. Whitney-Desautels:

On September 20 we received your letter a nd r)1 -or.o~nnthe results of cultural resources surveys cofJcA6-nconnectionwith the Van Nuys Air National Guard Base relo 64".4n project.

We have reviewed the material submitted-an cýiiij,.% m in yourfindings and conclusions.

Ifyo hvean qetions, please cg 45-8006 and ask tospeak to Hans Kreutzberg o f o ur s t p

Sincerely. -

Marion Mitchell-WilsonDeputy State Historic Preser8iROfficer

( .........

I... ... .....

MilTalIiT I!

I ~ ~~APPDI~

NESADVER'E MS AN OTICESI NEWS.. ...

.tt iAt::t

.............I-l

H Fri.. Aug. 3, 194 The Venture County (Calif.) Ster*Ptie P-wle

* NO-nCE OF PUBUC $COPING MEETINGVME KMJ AM ATIONAL GUAM. NUNN=I MOCATM

Due o pysial WA operational constraintsa at thes Van SM~ Afrowa ".Tactics? Airlift Vfaq. Air National &eaM itr prasssiaq to relocate Its f'11.ties and Gorswtl~atemsto0 of tmo r 1es li ative sites. Sitesl ower dataiancluide Navel Air Statisn. Point Nugu (feauture County). Norton All, 4,(Sonea Srnerims) ad Air fents Plant 42 (Palmialo).

0 Ar PLNT 40 A

VAN* $a

fnroCesiasa at .ttserpmot vilkNoisiom Aaof h atoa ILrn

ALL INTINESTO Cm~jws ARE INVITO IWUs AN PROIDE "JauC INPUT TO ASSISTTN! STUDYr TEAM l41 ýIENTXFYIU3 CIO$CIN TO SE ADDRESSED IN TUE DRAFTENVIRONMENTAL GaCAMuUL PrnablT. i." aNs Motiae will bs aeld at Ie followmnag

M7s00 TO S:00 P.M.

. ...... . i' ICaftera bIgfltt Of COIaaW 9011(l aft'Vvilel bag 729 W. Aes00e N

t~bril~ IWmatev. CA.

. 00h 100 PN. a00TO 9too P.M.Gavgsai High Suchool. ON [.5 %*ods Wow's CI.b

Pacitfic Street 1101 Liftisy Avoemme

I~ A no AI'sr nette 8tcmse eren le ak sitn "1

IIr fie.16 atclAritklml i luin]Ga% =81aIA n11 O 1KPW (il -M011116 6

0o4 Wed., Aug. 6, 1664 The Ventura COUnty (Cal"f.) WONr Fme Pfees

I - NOTICE OF PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING0hots Physical seatie09n0404 ma0-traitat "th VoaYn Moys Airyen. WmtihTimetical Airlift W9vq, Air Notttgsl Guard. Is proposing to releate Its 95hties aOd uoprationus toaems .f thoe alternative mims Silasner saw ou~I ~ ~ ~ e loclde NaveaI Air Station. Point Oulu (Venture County). Mertes AtA~ e

CSam hramrdime) and Air Force Plant 42 (P ld l)-

3pI pPAr4

prsare Thig 41uetw1 mjIjV~pew mo a NaRtWea APBre

etalPlcAt NP)5 feaIfis Environmental Owe lity Act (C[QA).The Air National Guard 'tat?7 s I Wý)"osluer the de-nething alternative ofraomialq at .5hael prossent.114 'All~a Van "op Airpert.AI. lwflhESI C~mu of 1 TNT 1 ATTUSD ANO PRWYO flUUC *.WUfTO 10SSIST13 Tits "4. 4*Vw4n-eaavne-wua W 7WommN

ENVIUONNE.NTAI.j o0151, u1 ein Imtingtl"s will be hold at the followiol3 ~ ~locations.~EMYRUAMAL-LOCASM DARK

~ 7:00 TO9:00 P.A.

7:010 1:0 Cafeteria rbight of Cstmms NaIl

140 06 1111JNSDAY,NISOUST A WS".1ý11Lho TO too ~m.7:00 TO 9:00 P.11.>~ ~ t " Gwn Ig Sefe. bt .g Abeeds Womn's Club

Tit: Sornerdiume. CA. asgo$a. CA.

for mort Information csntagt:Nastoe Sergeant Waly 1leet. Assistant Public-0ffairs Officer. 145th Tactical Airlift WIp$ Air Natienal Swa's. I=3 Utlbes

Lv. so Al*gaes & 91404. Phmnas (313) 71-MIL0 extaienso 36L

C- T.0u Friday. Aug. 3. 08Sd

-NOTICE OF PULCSCOPING MEETING .&W toO"s)Icel mo sporstional Costraints it th I mr iwi 04 loksTactical Airlift via%, Air National beard is seesasing to rIeloate Its facft- U-ties o- esomatient to one of treatraieMt i"~cmfajtf

quel~g Naval Air station. pls ns(etr aey.Nre i oc3(uan hln,'dill) 4" Air rev" Plan a 101614

.- sq-AR

I"mu

A: sort of this relocation staily lu~~e~ o g~to*%t Statement will3 ormaPWU. This wo~ast *ItI-iewy w4*-tqq.v fim Iwsn of the National 1Vmental Policy Act (UIPA) eod t~b~tallfi am E-forernmentat Quality Act (C10KA)*The Air National Cmaud pe 4lee ..etde de-methile altternative of 3

reminngat hep reuant Asiutm iý,. lea Us Ovs Airpot.

ALL IUtWS CTIZEcNzrS a AliIji04 #4 £VVS M IK M* 1C twvr Ye ASSIST *I VINW"0(g1TA OMPEUT. 041vl b oda th following

juak.- 1Tj~udyj T: EWaISOAT. maw 116 1117I1 9,Otl Siw;. 7.00 TO gif0O P.M.I

1a 179 W. AveanuegCA. ~Lawmakter. CM

VAN NAMl ANIAv 100. 14.104SIAY. AUGUST to. INS

0.a " "anrIt%. SCA. NoI hS o"e'd s CA. b%cfcStreet 7901 00u0417 AnmAeIftr Offier. 46 a ctca Ailf Wig AirNtional Gw C jIM 3ebs

19L nhwlotea CA. 914OB Phana (013) 78-918L extensive 36L

* NOTICE OF PUBUC SCOPING MEETINGJVN MSWY MF *iT00. UWA PRPO XACAYIM

ose tg 0h"ica1 am oPstlenal motolmat "mWat "O50 5, Alfto% vq 144sTacictal Airli1ft WIN& Air mstim"I Board is prpossq a fsimote Ivo-fi.Allties a" swartiess 1A of wuss alternative sites. sites in~o .moidsrs'Include Naval Air Station. Poin atmew (easters County). Bertem Airgp ls"(Sua lormesailm) WAi All, Pim Plea (Pisol

*~~~ T tW.I I LAN4

ME'

IA: sort of 1.1iis relouation %taft er tlv ithbaftsl Stasooorea wil Tbepromerse This document will asp". t IF agvs t ft Na Itional baw's-eta tal PeI I y Act (NE PA) bad -ik . ietea" 60ofmwmeae al Ovaithy Act (CIGA).The A4 r national Guard osut ..11iop Coe$M"wo the ie..eatiflg .ttervatito of9*es,.t.4 at Uteimi press eat boats WW'tAh *iaUns. Afirerl

4HtHUhVO-MAY NaW 116-LIT 1?sOOUuag '~m.7100 TO 9200 P.M.

Fwi. .~Cfeteme faighta of Celamem Wall.1h .I . -7U U. Avene IoLamemater. QA.

v ei. ..... ClAG. "~INo (315) 1-1901A. eAUGe 14. 115I 20P&IO O%0PlIs#l col e1- re omscuIlq tie 90 iav ~t

lowI;we1fralncnaups egatolpBok

TO lm ya saw NINthDe SERT MAILER Aslgut 1, 194 LW pp 15 LE Ip 15 F pop 1

NOTICE OFPUBLIC M~PING MFl

Due to all iaiiu otw affa, aIOt teI aNu 6M ~tK AMW".Air %MIWOn

aw~p= o put "sfac a opstau,too o m iutsoa. smunr n

odra ~n M vut Air Staton, Point MupiICmnty), m~rtmit Air Font fl n 91100 1mOrdlo Air

IIAS PIll Of tMI io, i lImd folwflti knpsuement uS 0- pmosWd 1WM doipilMn us lcl'91wnt thl p ovshn jj Ift' ationa tmnwhnmel pmvAdt NEPAI JIM tPe~~nWftuInmta ' G1111111 Ualt ACtICIOA1INfl Air Natina Wrd muto ams cons" tilw domtWn% jtwnitlm of 'mIi"Wq at Utb pimm

I *1101ii~5't auzi An mmnTo uawmo ANDSR&LCWW 10 AMYSfTHE STMD RUAN 0

NOICIUWS To K MOIESS U IN1 DWI

me ug S lUM Ummii. Ang 1%lUm- 1 TOto910P.M. 7.0 to 200

Jirouffe M.S Calltifli Elagls of coNYme" Nis

tuia. Aug. 1K, "84 lura. Amg IMU

Sm~pj ft.5.fis R3ESwom'awiwnSome odhobAemuCAI * " -wIm" Am NM mawkt am -. sI mom~

on. UK~ OWN CA"W pwo m mw "Nw "6m

NOTICE OFPUBLIC SCOPING MEETINGI muu nanuali"ALft 11masmN Wsgin A.mii i

is wuomin to romm is facsmu

to ofam bmm an wg.d.Inf eoS l tNOIW) MAtF~ N6 WW

MePNI2 P1Owl ,ti quWXs l~a~p awfumn.a ol

Wti ll~am ~ fuu5wrnult ult c

i~1 heAr at~~ ua~m us olldrUq

Ad (Wid Ww f WN" uAdhu~m~Ww oNwu s w

HmafAlt VikyE TOl 3 A TM AM

9~0t :00 pmm. IS to05:00pm

Sumrw*. wCA EiIaCeus "Mommgmn AMw bmint n"Afmill. All.0 ItI "81 Wftq nia A".UC n

nONme w ia'm CAtls w ii . t i i uAn

WIrnm umpoosIl .imToN N. m w 00"

MIAIR W W"O

- S'(ATS wedmisseamp AUgust 6. Igs'ioMY 14W6

NOTICE OF PUBUC SCOPING MEETING.VAN NUYS AIR NATIONAL GUARD, PROPOSED RELJ~oCAWoue to pnys~aca anm opeation constraints at tne van "uy Airport uw ts rriygAmorlt Wing. Air National Gu~ard. is proposin to refoocate its. facitesakostmn #41.1o 1one oftnae alternative sites; Setes; ~ne contaderatioft owsid Navam~ Sm c-".Romn

MuguVenuraCountyl. Norton Air force Inct jSan fermirwof a' 'ar fthik.42

I~~~ idsmaet. .. .

VA84 NUYS

As Part of tries relOK.6lion study a 'tionetlImctStatermenit wol. Deprepared This dotu*.n .wra Wll con~y witi tme provisions of tne National

.Evaronmental~ou y CgEP444 ad tne California Environmental Quality ActJCEOAI The. , so#4rtrwws a"s consider trie do-nothing alternativ of

INPUT TO"ASfll'TWiE S Jl Y TEAM IN IDENTIFYING CONCERNS TO BEAU40 *S4%:. WE 'AFT ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT. ftaKe ScopongI ~ ~~me~ssWl ~e tw* h fnollowINg locations

NTMA U:ý AEA PALMDALE -LANCASTER AREAAtiG.lA 13, 1"'S WEDNESDAY. AUG. IL15.394

tt:qto 9 00PM"l 700 to 900 PMI lon'S flarii School Cafe itnigrits of ColuoDus 0laa1RdtIt Camrarillo 729 W Ave M. Lancaster

NBERNARDINO - VAN NUYS AREA- tESDAY. AUG. 14. 1964 THIURSDAY. AUG. 1I. 1964I 7=Oto 900 PM . -.. 7.00to900 P M

Gorgnio.m S. Rm.I-S. Reseial WoNmens ClubE. Facibc St.. Sarr3.rnarUnI 70Lw4*ly Ave. Reseda

For more infiormation contact MstergSfeat Riley back. Assistant Piulic AffairsOfficer. I 46tn Tactial Airlift Wing. Air National Guard. 8030 Saiflo. Ova.. LOS -Ange"esCA 91404 Phone 301817UI-59IO. extension 36

5 ~LA. Ut., Deity News-August3, 1W4 21

INOTICE OF PUBUC SCOPING MVEETINQriýVAN NUYS AIR NATIONAL GUARD, PROPOSED RELOCA.."ON1Die to physial V4d operatiwwa coerwma Ma r Van ""my A ftl.U I4$t~ Ni

I Mupa(Vevma CowwyI Norton Air Force ame (SarlnweIadA J 42

I"Is

As Part of Uf.s refocamýstigudy an Enirodui Imp~ac Steen WIN beprepaed. This documert wp comp.lcy the51 provisions of tre NatinaErmvirominnwt Paky Ac l~PA4 anUe CalIfomi Erwirornwer OuAlftyAc

remw ata."prtim ocaikhs Mt OWe VSM Nuys Airpol

ON"U TO ASSWIrWE STU fYIAM IN IDENTIFYINIG CONCERNS TOBESADD.WEbitIN WD~TNIOMNADOCUMENT. AjokcScopo

= 1O1N " ,~d MEA PALMDALE-LANCASTER AREAM~AY AU.13.I$" WEDNESDAY. AUG. 15, 19647. oOP.M. 700D to 9.-O P.M.

$001 cft iogus at Cow"mww NoV~y.*d..Cani~s 29 W. Avc A& Lammer

SNBERNARDIN VAN NUYS AREAPOAT. AUG.14 on$1 THURSDAY. AUG. 146 1960

t900PM. ?~to 9-wP.M.

EmGrom. P MtSL. U Ubh. f M-I Lkitas W vo- luesFUjw bwrica otmMs eat ~ K nimfikAtI)" r T~i i a" od D0Ab M.LIiem 910.Pio.o

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

I . WEADGUARTARS 148TH TACTICAL AIRLIFT WING IANG)F' IVAN NUYR. CALIFORNIA $140

L ' DPC (MSgt Black) 23 3uly 1984

Notice of Preparation

California State Clearinghouse k1400 Tenth Street -

Sacramento, CA 93814 ... .....1I. Project Title

146th Tactical Airlift Wing, Air National Guard, os Base Relocation

2. Summar

IThe Military Department at the State.I fCal`iforna will be the lead Agency andwill prepare a combined Environmentol Impact Report (EIR) and EnvironmentalImpact Statement for the project descfe &bel6W. The EIRIEIS will be preparedI in compliance with both the CalifoqrNia. nvrwdrotrental Quality Act (CEQA) and theNational Environmental Policy Ag*4lEPAM1

- ~.....Please list applicable permit and rvicmental review requirements of yourIagency and the scope and. ýcontent ofte environmental information which isgermane to your agency's tttf responsibilities in connection with theproposed project.

3. Description of tthe Pr t

The 146th Tactic WnAir National Guard is currently based at the Van

Nuys Airport. `urre. cnitions at this general aviation airport, Includingconsiderations Suit safty, security, and limited Air National guard expansionpotential, d# .te that the Air National Guard relocate to an alternative sitewithin its 'te Cal'Ifornia recruiting area.

The Air Natio"'l. JGuard is thus proposing relocation of its facilities and operationsto one of thre kernative sites. These sites include, Naval Air Station, PointMugu (Ventura County), Norton Air Force Base (San Bernardino), and Air ForcePlant 42 (Palmdale). In addition, under environmental regulations, the AirNational Guard must also consider the do-nothing alternative of remaining at its

existing locaiton at the Van Nuys Airport.

I .

S Notice Of Preparation PAGE 220 3uly 19894

3 To relocate, the Air National Guard will require 200-250 acres of land. Thisrequirement must be met either within or directly adjacent to the alternativesites identified above. On this acreage, the Air National Guard would constructvarious maintenance, storage, training and other support facilities totalingapproximately 330,000 square feet, as well as construction of associated taxiways,and aircraft parking aprons. The 146th Tactical Airlift Wing is currently assignedsixteen (16) C-130E turbo-prop aircraft . These aircraft would be based at thenew site. No replacement aircraft are currently programmed for ,the 146 TacticalAirlif t Wing. •i

With respect to operations, the Air National Guard projec-a4 maximum worstbase frequency of 74 daily aircraft operations (37 complete circuits-) At two ofthe site locations under consideration for base relocatio6 (Air Force Plant #42,Palmdale, and the Naval Air Station at Point Mugu) te146th T-.actical AirliftWing already conducts flight training activities, and base o elocation would notsignificantly increased present flight operations. Furs of operation would befrom 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Aside from a staff of ;1 day--day employees, thebulk of the 146 Tactical Airlift Wing personnel (aipro|mately 1,500 persons)would be active at the new site one weekend ea& ;rnonthi

34. Probable Enivironmental Effects

Environmental effects will vary with each alternOtive site location. In general,environmental effects of the proposied protect may include the following:I perceived noise and visual intrusion, impact•Ito growth and development underflight patterns, impacts on adjacent land uses, pre-emption of planned andproposed land use, impacts on piterierl aviation aircraft, motor vehicle

traffic impacts each month, imoat on-,biological resources, and impacts onagriculture (Air Force Plant #42, Pairdale•,-and Point Mugu only). In addition thesecondary affects of the Air.,! National Giaid relocation from the Van Nuys Airportin terms of the re-use an itedevet pment of the vacated base may also beconsidered.

5. Scoping Proces:s KThis Notice of Prep.rati invites comments regarding study issues andalternatives from afeCtedagencies. In addition to its function under State law,this notice is it d to intiate the scoping process with cooperating federalagencies. Sca-n e•e s to receive public comment are scheduled as follows:

Point Mugu AeMonday, August"ti-*1984, 7:00 - 9:00 p.m.Frontier High SchoolPleasant Valley RoadCamarillo, California

Norton Air Force Base AreaTuesday, August 14, 1984, 7:00 - 9:00 p.m.San Gorgonio High School2299 E. Pacific StreetSan Bernardino, California

I

I

I DISTRIBUTION LIST

NOTICE OF PREPARATION

STATE AGENCIES

IGary Agid South Coast Air Quality ManagementChief, Air Resource Board DistrictP.O. Box 2815 3.A. Stuart, Execa.ve OfficerI Sacramento, CA 95814 9150 Flair Drive •

El Monte, CAA-1231-XCalifornia State Clearinghouse1400 Tenth Street Los Ange~ Cowt Flo:d ControlI Sacramento, CA 95814 3ames L.•-• Ir'• thef Engineer

P.O. ~ox 2iRick Aguayo Terrijn *nneSoll Conservation Service Los A ..lei, 90051805 West Avenue "3" 1 .

Lancaster, CA 93534 i a Jnty Flood Control

Robert P. Ghirelli *Otti Victoria AvenueExecutive Officer . : CA 93009California Regional Water Quality Control ntrdI 107 South Broadway, #4027 'hBernardino County Flood ControlLos Angeles, CA 90012-4396 L *4. Ingram, Deputy Administrator of

.er�o.....L..s Public Works3erome S. Lukas, Ph.D $25 East Third StreetCoordinator, Noise Control Program "- San Bernardino, CA 92415-0835Department of Health ServicesBerkeley, CA 94704 Southern California Association of

GovernmentsMark Mispagel Mark ArpersChief, Department of Tr 600 S. Commonwealth Ave., Suite 1000Division of Aeronautics • Los Angeles, CA 900051120 "N" Street ..Sacramento, CA 958 1: State Department of Fish and Game

1416 Ninth StreetDave Nelson .Sacramento, CA 9'814Environmental Rie ctr o A 1Department of f ptation State Health DepartmentDivision of Aerona 1600 Ninth Street, Room 460Sacramento, CA 9591k.. Sacramento, CA 95814

Bill Wasser Director, CALTRANS, District 8SCALTRANS, District 7 247 West Third Street120 South Spring Street San Bernardino, CA 92403Los Angeles, CA 90012I

IAttachment I3 Page 2

I

I THE BELOW LISTED FEDERAL AGENCIES RECEIVED

I NOTICE OF INTENT

(Federal Register, Vol., 49, No. 14, page 2506)

I Friday, January 20th, 1984

Naval Air Station at Point MuguPublic Affairs OfficeMr. LucaseyPoint Mugu, CA 93402

IPublic Affairs OfficeJackie Bunn63 MAW/PA,Norton AFB, CA 92409

U.S. Air Force Plant #42 at PalmdaleFlight Operations OfficerIMajor James West .....Palmdale, CA 93550

1 Herman Bliss__ Manager, Airports Division

Federal Aviation AdministrationWestern Pacific RegionP.O. Box 92007 WillWorldway Postal CenterLos Angeles, CA 90009-2007

U] Rick HoffmanActing Chief, EIS RevieU.S. Environmental Prote 'I x ei11215 Fremont Avenue A"San Francisco, CA

Arnold Kohnheim " .Chief, Environmental ana energyPrograms DivisionOffice of Economic AnalysisCivil Aeronautics Board,Washington D.C.

U.S. Soil and Conservation Services-- 318 Cayuga Street, Suite 206

Salinas, CA 93901

Attachment IPage I

I Notice of Preparation PAGE 320 3uly 1984

Air Force Plan #42 (Palmdale) AreaWednesday, August 15, 1984, 7:00 - 9:00 p.m.Knights of Columbus Hall729 W. Avenue M.Lancaster, California

3 Van Nuys AreaThursday, August 16, 1984, 7:00 - 9:00 p.m.Reseda Women's Club7901 Lindley AvenueReseda, California

To participate in the public scoping process, you may mak ~rb and/o writtenstatements at the above-listed public scoping meetings, or *0 *t commentsto:

MSGT Riley Black,_rPublic Affairs Off icT,146th Tactical Airlift$ng •.8030 Balboa Blv4 .....Van Nuys, 19

We will need the name and telephone nu propriate contact person inyour agency. • •... • "i '

Due to the time limit established At Ste Jaw, your response must be sent at theearliest possible date, but not later t'ih .:Oays after the receipt of this notice.

FOR THE COMMANDER /

S RONALD A. D"M• • • AtchMajor, CA ANG Location Maps (4)Environmental C•obrdl r

IIII

0

I 302

I~ zo

W* a

IlIz

II

IL'1

41

I~m 10 S

I rwI.....*

A7

ee ........ .........% Nt

..... ....... . ..... . ......... 4 ......... ..-*........ ..........

-- -- - - Mid',4w

W6

rwof*

BY

. ...... .......

AS

2AW 41

IN

cde I a aJAW

-V!ErSt

Azn.

like?4ry

own

'or ',roe amlk i i

z

spitOlt

4kr

IL (

IItI

'OIL

10 ioto Ike

on

AGAMEW

o

..... 030

an.

wr *4ý-,,, Ir.,w u edav @ere@ ým

msM.A

1 ;01;b ArVAN NLJYS AIRPORT (EXISrING)

air to,"IF

"s v it 0 1 1ly I I RFF*Tfla!,! So a s I

jr,4-7a po

so- @ Vol711

orr-o*

4w At v

lk ...... ?go-

AC,

dLL, -7 A,

MOAN AT

16

26 AT

I lip . ..... AT t

kdý- Arflay 7 j ft 711; fie

rI

r-

IF. vlo I

ZoI:;"

CI ....*,-,-,--..ý=AI......IAP0-tI O *'IG

APPENDIX VI

I CARPOOL EMISSIONS SAVINGS

ROC: Carpooil

5 miles @ 35 mph = .61 gram/mile x 3 mi = 3.05 gramsI1I miles @ 50 mph = .49 gram/mile x 5 mi = 5.39 gramsI 3.05 + 5.39 = R = 8.44 gramsCold Start =.7.93 grams (morning) + 7.36 grams (evening)Crankcase = 0.004 gram/mi x 16 n, i =.064 grams

I ~Soak = 2.523 grams 1* T = R + Cold + Soak + Crankcase

T (morning) =8.44 + 7.93 + .064 + 2.523 =18.957 gramsT (even ng) 8.44 + 7.36 + .064 + 2.523 =18.387 grams ... .....Total =18.957 + 18.387 =37.344 gr/day/carpool =0.0823 o

Driving Alone 1 i=

4 4miles @35 mph .61 gram/mi x 4mi 2. 44 gIImiles @ 50 mph =.49 gram/mi x IIm

2.4+5.39 =7.83 grams =RCold Start =7.93 grams (morning) + 7.36 vnn

Soak = 253gramsC mrnkcnge = 0.004 grmml 7.93 ml.6 ?.

T (evening) 7.83 + 7.36 + 0.06 +ramsTotal: 18.343 +17.773 36.116

=0.0796 lb/day/car alone

2.4 x .0796 - .0823 =.1087 /..day/c oI (saved)

.10874 x 260 days x 8 ar o "'tion +2000 I/ton =12.44 tons/yr/position

5 mls@3/mile x 5 ml =7.75 grams11 miles @ e1.72 ram/mile x I1I mi = 18.92 grams

1Cold Sta ',.,2. ,,,ngra (morning or evening)T = 2 (+ x28.79 =57.58 grams = 0.12694 Ib/day/carpool

Driving Alone

4 miles @ 35 mph:= 1.53 gram/mile x 4 ml = 6.20 gramsI1I miles @ 50 mph = 1.72 gram/mile x I11 ml = 18.92 gramsI Cold Start =2.12 grams (morning or evening)

Ta2(R+S) z2 x 27.24 =54.48 grams z 0.12011 lb/day/car alone

2.4 x 0.12011 - 0.12694 :0.161324 lb/daylcarpool0.161324 x 260 days/yr x 880 carpools/position+2000 0/ton = 18.46 tons/yr/positionfunded