Antelope Valley – East Kern Water Agency
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Initial Study For The
South North Intertie Pipeline (SNIP) Phase II Project
SCH No. 2014051007
June 2014
AVEK South-North Intertie Pipeline Phase II Initial Study – June 2014 1
Table of Contents
1.0 Project Title .................................................................................................................. 2
2.0 Lead Agency Name and Address ............................................................................. 2
3.0 Contact Person and Phone Number ........................................................................ 2
4.0 Project Location ........................................................................................................... 2
5.0 Proposed Sponsor Name and Address ................................................................... 2
6.0 Project Description ...................................................................................................... 2
7.0 Surrounding Land Use and Setting .......................................................................... 3
8.0 Public Agencies Requiring Approval ........................................................................ 3
9.0 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ............................................................ 3
10.0 Determination .............................................................................................................. 4
11.0 Evaluation of Environmental Factors (CEQA Checklist) ....................................... 5
12.0 Summary of Mitigation ............................................................................................. 21
13.0 Exhibits and Supporting Documents
14.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
AVEK South-North Intertie Pipeline Phase II Initial Study – June 2014 2
1.0 Project Title
South North Intertie Pipeline Phase II Project
2.0 Lead Agency Name and Address
Antelope Valley-East Kern Water Agency 6500 West Avenue N Palmdale, CA 93551
3.0 Contact Person and Phone Number
Michael Flood Agency Engineer Antelope Valley-East Kern Water Agency 661.943.3201
4.0 Project Location
The project is located in an area of north Los Angeles County (south of Avenue H and west of Hwy 14). The pipeline will be constructed along 80th Street West from Avenue H to Avenue L (alternate Avenue K), then from either of these east-west routes south along 70th Street West to a connection with the existing 70th Street West Lateral north of the Agency’s Quartz Hill Water Treatment Plant. Refer to Figure I in Section 13.
5.0 Proposed Sponsor Name and Address
Antelope Valley-East Kern Water Agency 6500 West Avenue N Palmdale, CA 93551
6.0 Project Description
The Antelope Valley – East Kern Water Agency (AVEK or Agency) proposes to construct a new 48-inch diameter, 6.6 mile, Cement Mortar Lined & Coated (CML&C) steel pipeline (SNIP Phase II Pipeline). The SNIP Phase II pipeline will connect AVEK’s existing South North Intertie Pipeline (SNIP Phase I Pipeline) at the Agency’s Los Angeles County Waterworks District (LACWWD) turnout at the intersection of 80th street West and Avenue H to the Agency’s Quartz Hill Water Treatment Plant. This project will improve the reliability of the Agency’s water supply and transmission system in the Antelope Valley region. The project will interconnect four of the Agency’s major transmission systems including the West, Central, North, and South feeders.
AVEK South-North Intertie Pipeline Phase II Initial Study – June 2014 3
This interconnection will help the Agency alleviate some of the issues resulting from the current drought conditions in the area. At project completion, the Agency will be able to utilize water supplies from the Agency’s largest Water Treatment Plant and the newly constructed groundwater recharge bank to serve water to the majority of its existing customers in the Agency’s service area.
The proposed pipeline will be installed along existing and planned dedicated Rights of Way and Utility Easements. The majority of these Rights of Way and Utility Easements traverse along paved roads and graded shoulders. Less than a third traverses along traveled dirt access roads. The limits of construction for These Rights of Way and Utility Easements range between 30 and 100 ft in width.
It is estimated that construction operations will last approximately eight months. Some of the expected construction equipment includes, but is not limited to, contractor’s staff vehicles, material delivery and equipment trucks, cranes, excavators, water trucks, backhoes, etc. Construction operations will consist of trenching, pipeline installation, and backfilling as well as asphalt pavement removal and resurfacing.
7.0 Surrounding Land Use and Setting
The majority of the land surrounding the project alignment is either; vacant, farmed, or developed with isolated residential structures. The land surrounding the southern portion of the project is developed with residential tracks.
8.0 Public Agencies Requiring Approval
The following public agencies require review and or approval of this document - None
9.0 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project. Please see the checklist below for additional information.
Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology/Water Quality
Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise
Population/Housing Public Services Recreation
Transportation/Traffic
Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance
AVEK South-North Intertie Pipeline Phase II Initial Study – June 2014 4
10.0 Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions
or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required
Signature: Date:
Printed Name: Michael Flood For: Lead Agency
AVEK South-North Intertie Pipeline Phase II Initial Study – June 2014 5
11.0 Evaluation of Environmental Factors (CEQA Checklist)
This checklist identifies physical, biological, social and economic factors that might be affected by the proposed project. In many cases, background studies performed in connection with the projects indicate no impacts. A NO IMPACT answer in the last column reflects this determination. Where there is a need for clarifying discussion, the discussion is included either following the applicable section of the checklist or is within the body of the environmental document itself. The words "significant" and "significance" used throughout the following checklist are related to CEQA, not NEPA, impacts. The questions in this form are intended to encourage the thoughtful assessment of impacts and do not represent thresholds of significance.
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant with Mitigation
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
I. AESTHETICS: Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Response Clarification:
a – The project is not located near any scenic vistas.
b – There are no scenic highways in the vicinity of the project area.
c – The proposed water pipeline will be installed underground and surface conditions will be returned to pre construction conditions.
d – The project will not create a new source of substantial light or glare. During construction operations during Daylight Savings Time, there may be times when work has to be performed in early hours of the morning or late evening where construction lighting may be required. These activities will not have an impact due to the projected frequency (emergency situations only), short durations, and the fact that the majority of construction will be taking place around vacant land.
AVEK South-North Intertie Pipeline Phase II Initial Study – June 2014 6
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant with Mitigation
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and the forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
a, b, c, d, & e – The proposed pipelines will be constructed inside traveled existing and planned dedicated Rights of Way and Utility Easements and will not affect agriculture and forest resources.
AVEK South-North Intertie Pipeline Phase II Initial Study – June 2014 7
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant with Mitigation
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control agency may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
AVEK South-North Intertie Pipeline Phase II Initial Study – June 2014 8
a – The proposed project will not conflict nor obstruct the implementation of any air quality plans. The Owner along with the project contractor will work within the rules and regulations of the Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District (AVAQMD)
b, c - The project will not violate air quality standards or substantially contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. The project will result in short-term construction related air pollutant emissions, particularly dust (PM10), reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and carbon monoxide (CO) generated by construction equipment. To minimize impacts, construction crews will implement necessary Best Management Practices (BMPs) as recommended by the AVAQMD as is standard practice for construction projects in the area.
d – The majority of the project is located in a non-urban setting. Any short term pollutants generated as a result of construction activities are not anticipated to substantially affect these areas. Along the southern end of the project, residential tracks are located adjacent to the proposed construction area. Accordingly, the project contractor would prepare and implement a Fugitive Dust Plan per AVAQMD guidelines that would include the following or other measures with the equivalent level of reduction for the entire project. The fugitive dust control plan can be incorporated onto the project’s Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan.
• All materials excavated or graded would be sufficiently watered to prevent excessive dust. • All clearing, grading, earth-moving, or excavation activities would cease during periods of high winds so as to
prevent excessive amounts of dust. • Stockpiles of soil or other fine loose material would be stabilized by watering or other appropriate method such
as non-toxic soil binders to prevent wind-blown fugitive dust. • On-site vehicle speed on unimproved roads would be limited to 15 miles per hour. • Streets adjacent to the project site would be kept clean and project-related accumulated silt shall be removed to
prevent excessive amounts of dust.
In addition to the Fugitive Dust Plan, the construction contractor would implement measures, such as the following, to reduce emission of exhaust from vehicles and diesel generators:
• All equipment shall be maintained as recommended by manufacturer’s manuals. • Idling engines shall be shut down when not in use for over 30 minutes. • Electric equipment shall be used whenever possible in lieu of diesel or gasoline powered equipment. • All construction vehicles shall be equipped with proper emissions control equipment and kept in good and
proper running order to substantially reduce nitrogen oxides (NOX) emissions. • On-road and off-road diesel equipment shall use diesel particulate filters if permitted under manufacturer’s
guidelines. • All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered.
e - The project will not create objectionable odors.
AVEK South-North Intertie Pipeline Phase II Initial Study – June 2014 9
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant with Mitigation
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
a, b, & d – A Biological Assessment (attached) has been prepared to evaluate the impact to biological resources resulting from the subject project. There are a number of species (refer to attached report) that have a potential of being present in the proposed project area. To minimize impacts to these listed species, the Agency will implement Mitigation Measures as outlined in the attached report. The Los Angeles County General Plan does not currently identify the project area as riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community but the attached biological assessment report describes policies that may be implemented in the future.
c – There are no wetlands within the limits of construction of the proposed project.
e & f – A review of the Los Angeles County General Plan does not currently identify the project area as having any policies or ordinances protecting biological resources such as tree preservation nor is it included in any Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community conservation Plan, or any other regional or state habitat conservation plans. The alignment is within existing Rights of Way. The attached biological assessment report does describe future policies that may be in place by the Los Angeles County General Plan. The proposed project will comply with any adopted policies of same at time of implementation.
AVEK South-North Intertie Pipeline Phase II Initial Study – June 2014 10
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant with Mitigation
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
a, b, c, & d – The project area is within existing dedicated Rights of Way and Utility Easements on which lands have been previously disturbed by farming operations, road construction, and dry and wet utility installations. Based on this information, it is not anticipated that the construction of the proposed pipeline will have an impact to historical, archeological, paleontological, and or human remains. Consultation with the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) found no cultural resources of importance within the project area but recommended that additional information be requested from local tribal groups. This consultation with local tribal groups and the California Historical Resource Information System (CHRIS) concluded that large portions of the project area have not been previously evaluated and found the presence of a number of cultural resources within a ½ mile of the project site but none confirmed within the mentioned Rights of Way and Utility Easements. In consideration of the information presented to us by the NAHC, local tribal groups, and CHRIS, the following mitigation measures are proposed for the project:
• The Agency will be entering into a consultation services agreement with the Fernandeno Tatavian Board of Mission Indians to provide consultation services to the Agency with respect to potential cultural resources of importance that could exist within the project boundaries.
• In the event that any cultural resources are uncovered, all work within the vicinity of the find should stop until a qualified archaeologist can assess the finds and make recommendations.
The following recommendations by CHRIS will not be implemented due to the reasons listed:
If any areas of undisturbed or visible soil remain in the project site boundaries, those areas should be surveyed by a qualified archaeologist prior to the approval of project plans. All of the areas proposed for construction have been previously disturbed by farming operations, road construction, and dry and wet utility installations.
Any historic structures or properties (45 years and older) in the area of potential effect should be identified, recorded, and evaluated for local, state, or national significance prior to the approval of project plans. Construction operations will take place within existing and planned dedicated Rights of Way and Utility Easements that are with the exception of utility (power poles and irrigation stand pipes) are clear from any structures.
AVEK South-North Intertie Pipeline Phase II Initial Study – June 2014 11
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant with Mitigation
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42?
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
a i-iv – The project area is located in the Del Sur Quadrangle of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map. The project limits do not intersect any known or potentially active faults. The project does not intersect any seismic related liquefaction zones. The south end of the project lies close to a local geologic liquefaction zone; however the installation of underground piping is not anticipated to increase the liquefaction potential of the area.
b – The possibility of erosion and loss of top soil as a result of the proposed project is minimal. During construction, the contractor will be required to manage any potential of this issue with the use of erosion and sediment control Best Management Practices (BMPs).
c & d – The proposed construction will take place along dedicated existing and planned Rights of Way adjacent to other wet and dry utilities. The proposed construction will not increase the potential for landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. A geotechnical investigation of the soils along the alignment will be performed during the design of the pipeline as is standard practice for such a design.
e – The project does not involve the installation of septic tanks.
AVEK South-North Intertie Pipeline Phase II Initial Study – June 2014 12
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant with Mitigation
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Would the project
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gasses?
a , b – There will be a short term increase in emissions created by construction equipment; including backhoes, loaders, and equipment trucks. Due to project type and construction duration, these emissions will have a less than significant impact to the environment. Emissions will only occur during normal work hours, and upon project completion, will cease. The project itself will not add continuing greenhouse emissions to the environment.
The AVAQMD has established a significance threshold of 100,000 tons of CO2e emissions per year, and a daily significance threshold of 548,000 pounds for a project (AVAQMD 2011). Accordingly, the 548,000-pounds per day CO2e emissions level is established as the significance threshold for the project’s GHG emissions. For construction emissions, the interim guidance recommends that the emissions be amortized over 30 years and added to operational emissions, as appropriate. Construction GHG emissions associated with the project would last approximately 8 months and are estimated to total well below the 548,000-pounds per day significance threshold recommended by the AVAQMD. In addition, if emissions are amortized over a 30-year period, construction GHG emissions would be negligible, and less than significant construction GHG emissions would occur with no operational emissions.
The proposed project would result in negligible amounts of GHG emissions. The proposed project would not result in emissions that would adversely affect state-wide attainment of GHG emission reduction goals as described in AB 32 and Executive Order S-21-09. Construction emissions would therefore have a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to global climate change impacts. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant.
AVEK South-North Intertie Pipeline Phase II Initial Study – June 2014 13
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant with Mitigation
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
a, b, c – The project involves the construction of a water pipeline in existing and planned dedicated Right of Way and Utility Easements. Surrounding land along the majority of the alignment length is vacant. Construction operations will not involve the use of hazardous materials. There are no schools within a ¼ mile of the proposed project area. Short term pollutant emissions generated by construction equipment are described in the Air Quality Section of this checklist.
d. - A review of the Department of Toxic Substances Control reveals that the construction alignment is not listed as a hazardous materials or former hazardous waste disposal site. Additionally, the alignment is within existing and planned dedicated Right of Way. Therefore, it is not anticipated that construction will pose as a threat (in terms of the release of hazardous materials) to the surrounding population, human or otherwise.
e, & f – There are no public or private airports in within a ½ mile of the project area. g - The project will not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
h – A majority of the project alignment is located adjacent to vacant land. An underground pipeline will not increase risk or loss associated with wild land fires.
AVEK South-North Intertie Pipeline Phase II Initial Study – June 2014 14
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant with Mitigation
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow
a, b & f – The project will not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The proposed pipeline is intended to deliver potable water from the agency’s existing sources of water supply.
c, d – The project will not alter existing drainage patterns that will result in substantial erosion, siltation, and flooding on or off site. Surface conditions along the pipeline alignment will be returned to pre existing conditions after pipeline installation. Any erosion and siltation as a result of construction related activities will be addressed by the project contractor by means of implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for erosion and sediment control.
e – The proposed project will not create nor will it contribute additional storm runoff. Surface conditions of the site will be returned to pre existing conditions after installation of the pipeline.
g & h – This project does not include the development and construction of new housing. Ground disturbance along the pipeline alignment will be restored to pre existing conditions after installation of the pipeline.
AVEK South-North Intertie Pipeline Phase II Initial Study – June 2014 15
I & J - There are no bodies of water within the vicinity of the project area that have the potential to create a seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant with Mitigation
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?
a – The project will not physically divide an established community.
b – The project will not conflict with any land use and planning plans, policies, or regulations.
c – A review of the Los Angeles County General plan does not identify the proposed project area as established significant habitat conservation or natural community conservation plans.
XI. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
a, b – The proposed project takes place within existing and planned dedicated Rights of Way and in which land is not subject to mineral resource extraction.
AVEK South-North Intertie Pipeline Phase II Initial Study – June 2014 16
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant with Mitigation
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
XII. NOISE: Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
a, b, c, & d - There will be a temporary increase in noise levels created by the use of construction equipment during the construction phase of the project. Heavy construction equipment typically generates noise levels up to around 95 dbA at 50 feet. To a large extent, these types of noises are common and associated with any development activities. This noise will be temporary have no impact to the environment. Construction noise will be limited to normal working hours. To mitigate this temporary increase in noise from construction activities along urbanized area, the contractor will be required to comply with the Los Angeles County Municipal Code Section 12.08.440 which limits the noise created by short term construction equipment to 75db.
e, f – There are no public or private airports within a ½ mile of the project area.
AVEK South-North Intertie Pipeline Phase II Initial Study – June 2014 17
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant with Mitigation
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
a – The proposed project only provides for a more efficient and reliable way of delivering the Agency’s treated water from their existing water supply source to the end user (water customer) but does not increase the amount of water supply that would have the potential to induce population growth. The proposed pipeline is classified as a transmission main that would deliver existing water from point A to point B with some the potential for some turnouts in between but is not intended to provide individual services along the way that would induce population growth.
b, c – The pipeline will not displace existing housing or people, and is not intended to have any impact on surrounded housing.
XVI. PUBLIC SERVICES:
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
a – The proposed project will not require the expansion or new construction of the facilities described above.
AVEK South-North Intertie Pipeline Phase II Initial Study – June 2014 18
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant with Mitigation
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
XV. RECREATION:
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
a, b - The proposed project will not have an adverse effect on any recreational facilities.
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant with Mitigation
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?
AVEK South-North Intertie Pipeline Phase II Initial Study – June 2014 19
a, b, c – This project does not conflict with any applicable plan, ordinance, or policy. The majority of the project alignment is along rural roads unpopulated in the immediate vicinity. Along route locations that may interfere with normal traffic flow, appropriate traffic control and/or detour measures will be taken to limit impacts to circulation. Construction activities will occur during normal work hours and are not expected to impact adjacent developments. These minimal impacts would only occur during construction, roadways will be returned to their existing conditions.
d - There will be no hazards to safety from project design features.
e – In the event of an emergency, access will not be obstructed by construction activities. Construction operations will be performed with the implementation of traffic control measures that will allow for emergency access.
f - The project will not interfere with any alternative transportation routes currently in use in the area.
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant with Mitigation
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
a, b, & e – This pipeline project will have no impact on wastewater facilities. The proposed project will serve to deliver existing water supplies to its customers.
c – The project will not require expansion or new construction of storm drain facilities.
d – The proposed pipeline will not increase the water demands of the area. Water for the pipeline will be from existing supplies.
f & g – The proposed pipeline project will not produce solid waste. Any construction waste created will be minor and the contractor will be required to dispose of it properly.
AVEK South-North Intertie Pipeline Phase II Initial Study – June 2014 20
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant with Mitigation
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
a, b, c - The proposed project connects two existing pipelines. Construction for the proposed project has the potential to impacts to wildlife and plant and animal populations as described in the attached Biological Assessment Report. With the proposed Mitigation Measures in place, it is not anticipated that the project will negatively affect these resources. It is also not anticipated that the proposed project will have an impact on historical relevance in the surrounding area but the services of a local tribal group will be retained to evaluate the project during the planning and implementation stage. The proposed water pipeline will be installed underground and surface conditions will be returned to pre construction conditions.
AVEK South-North Intertie Pipeline Phase II Initial Study – June 2014 21
12.0 Summary of Mitigation
This section summarizes the mitigation measures which will be utilized to implement the proposed action. Mitigation Measures
Biological
General
MM-1: A qualified biologist shall conduct a training session for all construction personnel focused on the protection and conservation of sensitive species that may be encountered in the Project area, the laws and codes that regulate these species, and the protection measures that must be followed to minimize impacts.
MM-2: All excavated holes or trenches greater than 2 feet deep shall be covered at the end of each work day, or escape ramps provided.
MM-3: All food-related trash items (such as food scraps, cans, bottles) shall be removed from the Project Area daily.
Avian Species
MM-4: To minimize impacts to nesting and roosting raptors, pre-activity surveys would be conducted immediately prior to construction. All potential nesting trees will be surveyed within 500 feet of the project area.
• Any active raptor nests would be given a 500-foot buffer. This buffer may be reduced to 300 feet if a full time biological monitor is present to observe the birds’ behavior and stop work if they appear disturbed.
• For the known raptor nest on the airport property within Segment 3, a 200-foot distance from the project activities combined with a biological monitor during construction during the nesting period will likely be sufficient to protect the nest.
MM-5: Although burrowing owls are considered raptors, their special ground-nesting habit requires additional protection measures. Pre-activity surveys of the Project Area and a 500-foot buffer would be conducted immediately prior to construction. All potential burrows would be observed for signs of burrowing owl use, such as whitewash, feathers, and owl pellets.
• If an active nest is confirmed the nest will be given a 500-foot buffer until the chicks have fledged and are independent of the nest.
• If a solitary or non-nesting burrowing owl is observed using a burrow, a 200-foot buffer would be established.
MM-6: Tree removal shall be avoided whenever possible to limit the loss of nesting habitat for Swainson’s hawks and other migratory birds. Where tree removal is unavoidable, trees shall be removed outside of the nesting season whenever possible. Trees slated for removal during the nesting bird season (February 1 through August 31) shall be surveyed by a qualified biologist no more than 48 hours prior to removal to ensure no nesting birds are occupying the tree.
AVEK South-North Intertie Pipeline Phase II Initial Study – June 2014 22
MM-7: If an active Swainson’s hawk nest is found during pre-construction surveys, a 0.5 mile buffer restricting construction activities around the nest shall be established until all young have fledged or the nest is no longer in use.
MM-8: To minimize impacts to nesting migratory birds, pre-activity surveys would be conducted immediately prior to vegetation clearance, tree removal or other construction activities during the avian nesting season (February 1 through August 31), to identify potential active nests. If active nests are found, a 300-foot buffer restricting construction activities would be established around the nests until all young have fledged or the nest is no longer active.
MM-9: The results of the pre-construction nesting bird surveys shall be documented in a letter report that is distributed to CDFW. These measures shall ensure compliance with the MBTA, and CFGC 3503.5.
American Badgers
MM-10: Pre-activity surveys would be conducted immediately prior to construction to identify potential dens. Potential dens would be monitored for 3 days using tracking medium at the potential den entrance to detect badger use.
• If the den is inactive, the den would be carefully excavated or dismantled and refilled with soil and the proposed Project would be initiated.
• If tracks are observed on the tracking medium during any of the 3 days, the entrance will be progressively blocked over the next 3 days using soil and other nearby materials (i.e., woody debris) to render the entrance progressively more difficult to access. To assure no loss of badgers, the den will then be hand excavated and backfilled to prevent re-occupation.
• Active natal dens would require establishment of a 300-foot buffer surrounding the active natal den. No work related to the proposed Project would take place within this buffer while the natal den is active. Once abandoned the den would be dismantled or excavated.
Bats
MM-11: Pre-construction surveys for active bat roosting sites shall be conducted in buildings and trees that could support bats and are within 200-feet of the Project Area.
• If no evidence of bats (i.e., direct observation, guano, staining, and strong odors) is observed, no further mitigation shall be required.
• If evidence of roosting bats is observed, a no-disturbance buffer of 250-feet shall be established during the breeding season (April 15 through August 15).
• No removal of trees showing evidence of roosting bats shall occur without prior concurrence from CDFW. Where tree removal is unavoidable, a qualified bat biologist shall determine the bat species in residence, and CDFW will be consulted to determine the appropriate avoidance and minimization measures.
Reptiles
MM-12: A biologist shall survey the Project Area within 48 hours of construction prior to initial ground disturbance, and relocate any individuals encountered to suitable habitat outside the Project footprint.
AVEK South-North Intertie Pipeline Phase II Initial Study – June 2014 23
MM-13: Biological monitors will be present during the top layers of excavation and relocate any individuals encountered during this activity.
Plants
MM-14: Areas within the Project Area that present characteristics to indicate they could support any of the potential special status plants will be restored to pre-project conditions following construction.
Air Quality
MM-15: The project contractor will prepare and implement a Fugitive Dust Plan per AVAQMD guidelines that would include the following or other measures with the equivalent level of reduction for the entire project. The fugitive dust control plan can be incorporated onto the project’s Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan.
• All materials excavated or graded would be sufficiently watered to prevent excessive dust.
• All clearing, grading, earth-moving, or excavation activities would cease during periods of high winds so as to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
• Stockpiles of soil or other fine loose material would be stabilized by watering or other appropriate method such as non-toxic soil binders to prevent wind-blown fugitive dust.
• On-site vehicle speed on unimproved roads would be limited to 15 miles per hour.
• Streets adjacent to the project site would be kept clean and project-related accumulated silt shall be removed to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
In addition to the Fugitive Dust Plan, the construction contractor would implement measures, such as the following, to reduce emission of exhaust from vehicles and diesel generators:
• All equipment shall be maintained as recommended by manufacturer’s manuals.
• Idling engines shall be shut down when not in use for over 30 minutes.
• Electric equipment shall be used whenever possible in lieu of diesel or gasoline powered equipment.
• All construction vehicles shall be equipped with proper emissions control equipment and kept in good and proper running order to substantially reduce nitrogen oxides (NOX) emissions.
• On-road and off-road diesel equipment shall use diesel particulate filters if permitted under manufacturer’s guidelines.
• All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered.
Cultural
MM-16: The Agency will be entering into a consultation services agreement with the Fernandeno Tatavian Board of Mission Indians to provide consultation services to the Agency with respect to potential cultural resources of importance that could exist within the project boundaries.
AVEK South-North Intertie Pipeline Phase II Initial Study – June 2014 24
MM-17: In the event that any cultural resources are uncovered, all work within the vicinity of the find should stop until a qualified archaeologist can assess the finds and make recommendations.
Noise
MM-18: The project Contractor shall to comply with the Los Angeles County Municipal Code Section 12.08.440 related to noise during construction operations.
13.0 Exhibits and Supporting Documents
• Figure 1 –SNIP Phase II Plan and Profile
• Del Sur Quadrangle Seismic Hazards Zone
• Biological Resources Assessment Technical Report
• Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands File Search
• California Historical Resource Information System Consultation
Figure 1 –SNIP Phase II Plan and Profile
AV
EN
UE
H
AVE
NU
E I
AVE
NU
E J
AVE
NU
E K
AVE
NU
E L
AVE
NU
E M
80th STREET WEST
70th STREET WEST
QUARTZ HILL WATERTREATMENT PLANT
EXISTING 70thSTRET WESTLATERAL
CAL
IFO
RN
IA A
QUE
DUC
T
PHASE II SNIP PUMPSTATION AND LACWWDDISINFECTION STATIONAND TURNOUT SITE
2600
2500
2400
2900
2800
2700
2300
2600
2500
2400
2900
2800
2700
2300
3000
AVE
NU
E I
AVE
NU
E J
AVE
NU
E K
INT.
AV
ENU
E L
&70
th S
T. W
EST
CO
NN
EC
T TO
EXI
STIN
G 7
0th
STR
EET
WE
STLA
TER
AL
0+00 50+00 100+00 150+00 200+00 250+00 300+00 350+00
QU
AR
TZ H
ILL
WAT
ERTR
EAT
ME
NT
PLA
NT
70th STREET WESTLATERAL
LOW HEAD PSHGL=2555 FT.
3000
INT.
80
th S
T. W
EST
& A
VEN
UE
L
AVE
NU
E M
SNIP
PH
ASE
II
AN
TELO
PE
VALL
EY-E
AST
KER
N W
ATER
AG
ENC
Y
AN
SI B
11"
x 1
7"La
st s
aved
by:
CA
MP
BE
LLV
(201
4-03
-31)
La
st P
lotte
d: 2
014-
04-2
4P
roje
ct M
anag
emen
t Ini
tials
:D
esig
ner:
Che
cked
:A
ppro
ved:
File
nam
e: S
:\A01
\603
1934
0 -S
NIP
PH
AS
E II
PIP
ELI
NE
\900
WO
RK
ING
DO
CS-
CAD
\02-
SHEE
TS\F
IG-1
.DW
G
SNIP
PH
ASE
II P
LAN
AN
D P
RO
FILE
FIG
-1D
ate:
201
4-04
-24
____
___
___
____
_
SCALE IN FEET
2800 280001400ALTERNATIVE PIPELINE ALIGNMENT
Del Sur Quadrangle Seismic Hazards Zone
Biological Resources Assessment Technical Report
Environment Prepared for: Prepared by: Antelope Valley – East Kern Water Agency AECOM Palmdale, CA Santa Maria, CA Project #60319340 April 2014
Biological Resources Assessment Technical Report South North Intertie Water Pipeline Project Phase II West Lancaster, Los Angeles County, California
April 24, 2014
Environment Prepared for: Prepared by: Antelope Valley – East Kern Water Agency AECOM Palmdale, CA Santa Maria, CA Project #60319340 April 2014
Biological Resources Assessment Technical Report South North Intertie Water Pipeline Project Phase II West Lancaster, Los Angeles County, California
April 24, 2014
Prepared By Amber Nichols
Reviewed By Paloma Nieto
South North Intertie Water Pipeline Project – Phase II Biological Resources Assessment
i
Contents
1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................1
2.0 Project Description ..................................................................................................................................1
3.0 Regulatory Context .................................................................................................................................1 3.1 Federal Regulations and Standards ...............................................................................................1
3.1.1 Federal Endangered Species Act ......................................................................................1 3.1.2 Migratory Bird Treaty Act .................................................................................................2 3.1.3 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act .............................................................................2 3.1.4 Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act) ..................................................2
3.2 State Regulations and Standards ..................................................................................................2 3.2.1 California Environmental Quality Act ...............................................................................2 3.2.2 California Fish and Game Code ........................................................................................3 3.2.3 California Endangered Species Act ...................................................................................3 3.2.4 Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act ......................................................................3 Los Angeles County General Plan ..................................................................................................3
4.0 Methods ..................................................................................................................................................5
5.0 Environmental Setting.............................................................................................................................6 5.1 Vegetation and Plant Communities ..............................................................................................6
5.1.1 Fallow Farmland / Non-Native Grassland ........................................................................6 5.1.2 Alkali Sink .........................................................................................................................6 5.1.3 Rabbitbrush Scrub ............................................................................................................7 5.1.4 Joshua Tree Inclusions ......................................................................................................7 5.1.5 Agricultural .......................................................................................................................7 5.1.6 Ruderal/Disturbed ............................................................................................................7 5.1.7 Residential/Commercial ...................................................................................................7
5.2 Trees ..............................................................................................................................................7 5.3 Soils ...............................................................................................................................................8
6.0 Sensitive Species Potentially Present in the Project Area.......................................................................8 6.1 Barstow Woolly Sunflower ............................................................................................................8 6.2 Slender Mariposa Lily ....................................................................................................................8 6.3 Alkali Mariposa Lily ........................................................................................................................9 6.4 Clokey’s Cryptantha ......................................................................................................................9 6.5 Sagebrush Loeflingia .....................................................................................................................9 6.6 Short-Joint Beavertail ................................................................................................................. 10 6.7 Southern Grasshopper Mouse ................................................................................................... 10 6.8 American Badger ........................................................................................................................ 10 6.9 Golden Eagle ............................................................................................................................... 11 6.10 Short-Eared Owl ......................................................................................................................... 11 6.11 Western Burrowing Owl ............................................................................................................. 12 6.12 Swainson’s Hawk ........................................................................................................................ 12 6.13 California Condor ....................................................................................................................... 13 6.14 Le Conte’s Thrasher .................................................................................................................... 13 6.15 Loggerhead Shrike ...................................................................................................................... 14
South North Intertie Water Pipeline Project – Phase II Biological Resources Assessment
ii
6.16 Silvery Legless Lizard .................................................................................................................. 14 6.17 Blainville’s Horned Lizard ........................................................................................................... 15 6.18 Desert Tortoise ........................................................................................................................... 15 6.19 Nesting Birds .............................................................................................................................. 16 6.20 Bats ............................................................................................................................................. 16
7.0 Potential Impacts ................................................................................................................................. 17 7.1 CEQA Thresholds of Significance for Impacts ............................................................................. 17 7.2 Effects on Special Status Species ................................................................................................ 18
7.2.1 Avian Species ................................................................................................................. 18 7.2.2 American Badger ........................................................................................................... 19 7.2.3 Bats ................................................................................................................................ 19 7.2.4 Reptiles .......................................................................................................................... 19 7.2.5 Plants ............................................................................................................................. 20
8.0 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................................................ 20 8.1 General Measures ...................................................................................................................... 20 8.2 Avian Species .............................................................................................................................. 20 8.3 American Badgers ...................................................................................................................... 21 8.4 Bats ............................................................................................................................................. 21 8.5 Reptiles ....................................................................................................................................... 22 8.6 Plants .......................................................................................................................................... 22
9.0 References............................................................................................................................................ 22
List of Tables
Table 1: Bat Species Potentially Occurring within the Project Area .............................................................. 17
List of Figures
Figure 1: Project Vicinity
Figure 2: Project Site
Figure 3a: Vegetation Types: West Avenue H - West Avenue I
Figure 3b: Vegetation Types: West Avenue I – West Avenue K
Figure 3c: Vegetation Types: Avenue K - West Avenue L
Figure 3d: Vegetation Types: Avenue L Southward
South North Intertie Water Pipeline Project – Phase II Biological Resources Assessment
iii
List of Appendices
Appendix A: Plants and Wildlife Species of the Project Area
Appendix B: Site Photographs
Appendix C: Potentially Occurring Special Status Species
Appendix D: Potentially Occurring Bat Species
South North Intertie Water Pipeline Project – Phase II Biological Resources Assessment
1
1.0 Introduction
The Antelope Valley – East Kern Water Agency (AVEK)
contracted AECOM to conduct a biological resources
assessment for the proposed South North Intertie
Pipeline (SNIP) Project. AVEK proposes to construct a
new approximately 6.6-mile water distribution pipeline
to connect AVEK’s northern and southern water
distribution systems, with the goal of providing
redundancy to the Los Angeles County Water Works
District (LACWWD) and allow for maximum use of
existing treatment facilities. The proposed Project
would be located in western Lancaster, Los Angeles
County, California (Figure 1).
2.0 Project Description
The SNIP Project will involve the underground
installation of a new 48-inch diameter, 35,000-foot
(approximately 6.6-mile) Cement Mortar Lined &
Coated (CML&C) steel water pipeline. The pipeline will
be installed along portions of 80th Street West and
70th Street West, between West Avenue H and West
Avenue M-8 (Figure 2). The new pipeline will originate
at the existing LACWWD Disinfection Station and
Turnout Site on 80th Street West at West Avenue H. The
pipeline alignment will proceed south along 80th Street
West, east along West Avenue L, and south along 70th
Street West. An alternate pipeline alignment under
consideration would proceed east along Avenue K and
south along 70th Street West between West Avenue K
and West Avenue L (Figure 2). The proposed pipeline
would connect to an existing pipeline along 70th Street
West just south of West Avenue M-8.
The new water pipeline will be constructed within
designated right-of-ways and easement boundaries
along the roadways. Right-of-ways vary in width from
approximately 4 feet to 50 feet from the edge of
pavement, and include paved and unpaved roads,
graded shoulders, and native and non-native vegetation
communities.
3.0 Regulatory Context
Several Federal, State, and local regulations have been
established to protect and conserve biological resources.
The descriptions below provide a brief overview of the
regulations applicable to the resources that occur within or
adjacent to the Project Area, and their respective
requirements. Permits or other authorizations that would
be required under these regulations if impacts have
potential to occur are noted where applicable.
3.1 Federal Regulations and Standards
The following sections describe Federal laws,
regulations, and standards applicable to the proposed
Project.
3.1.1 Federal Endangered Species Act
Enacted in 1973, the federal Endangered Species Act
(ESA; U.S. Code [U.S.C.] Title 16, Chapter 35, Sections
1531 1544) provides for the conservation of threatened
and endangered species and their ecosystems. The
federal ESA prohibits the “take” of threatened and
endangered species except under certain circumstances
and only with authorization from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) through a permit under
section 4(d), 7, or 10(a) of the ESA. Under the ESA,
“take” is defined as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt,
shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to
attempt to engage in any such conduct.
Critical habitat is defined in Section 3(5)(A) of the ESA as
“(i) the specific areas within the geographical area
occupied by the species on which are found those
physical or biological features (I) essential to the
conservation of the species, and (I) which may require
special management considerations or protection; and
(i) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied
by the species upon a determination by the Secretary of
South North Intertie Water Pipeline Project – Phase II Biological Resources Assessment
2
Commerce or the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary)
that such areas are essential for the conservation of the
species.”
Formal consultation under Section 10 of the ESA would
be required if the Proposed Project had the potential to
affect federally listed species detected within or
adjacent to the proposed Project or destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat.
3.1.2 Migratory Bird Treaty Act
Congress passed the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA;
U.S.C. Title 16, Chapter 7, Subchapter II,
sections 703-712) in 1918 to prohibit the pursuit,
hunting, killing, capture, possession, purchase, barter,
or transport of native migratory birds, or any part, nest, or
egg of any such bird unless allowed by another regulation
adopted in accordance with the MBTA. The USFWS has
jurisdiction over migratory birds. No permit is issued
under the MBTA; however, the Proposed Project would
need to comply with the measures that would avoid or
minimize effects on nesting migratory birds.
3.1.3 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
When first enacted in 1940, the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act (BGEPA; U.S.C. Title 16, Chapter 5A,
Subchapter II, Sections 668 a-d) prohibited the take,
transport, or sale of bald eagles, their eggs, or any part of
an eagle except where expressly allowed by the Secretary
of Interior. The BGEPA was amended in 1962 to extend
the prohibitions to the golden eagle. No permit is issued
under the BGEPA; however, the proposed Project would
need to comply with the measures that would avoid or
minimize effects on eagles if they were to occur within the
proposed Project site and its vicinity.
3.1.4 Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean
Water Act)
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act was first passed
by Congress in 1948. The Act was later amended and
became known as the Clean Water Act (U.S.C. Title 33,
Chapter 26, Subchapters I-VI). The CWA establishes the
basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into
the waters of the U.S. It gives the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency the authority to implement pollution
control programs, including setting wastewater standards
for industry and water quality standards for contaminants
in surface waters. The CWA makes it unlawful for any
person to discharge any pollutant from a point source into
navigable waters, without a permit under its provisions.
CWA Section 404 permits are issued by the USACE for
dredge/fill activities within wetlands or non-wetland
waters of the U.S. CWA Section 401 certifications are
issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB) for activities requiring a Federal permit or license
which may result in discharge of pollutants into waters of
the U.S. Any proposed discharge of dredge or fill materials
into Federal jurisdictional waters within or adjacent to the
proposed Project area would require a Section 404 permit
from the USACE and a Section 401 Water Quality
Certification from the RWQCB.
3.2 State Regulations and Standards
The following sections describe California laws,
regulations, and standards applicable to the proposed
Project.
3.2.1 California Environmental Quality Act
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Public
Resources Code §§21000-21177 and the State CEQA
Guidelines, 14 CCR §15000 et seq.) requires that
biological resources be considered when assessing the
environmental impacts resulting from proposed actions.
The CEQA does not specifically define what constitutes
an “adverse effect” on a biological resource. Instead,
lead agencies are charged with determining what
specifically should be considered an impact. Appendix
G of the CEQA Guidelines provides for identifying
whether a Proposed Project has the potential to
adversely affect a plant or animal species identified as
South North Intertie Water Pipeline Project – Phase II Biological Resources Assessment
3
having special status by local or regional plans, policies
or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game (CDFW) or the USFWS. Appendix G also
recognizes the potential for a Project to adversely affect
riparian and other sensitive natural communities
identified by local or regional plans, policies or
regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS, as well as federally
protected wetlands. In addition, impacts to plant and
animal species may be considered significant if the
species are identified as environmentally sensitive
within the State of California and/or Los Angeles
County, regardless of formal recognition by the USFWS
or the CDFW.
3.2.2 California Fish and Game Code
The California Fish and Game Code (CFGC) provides
regulations for the taking or possession of birds,
mammals, fish, amphibians, and reptiles, as well as natural
resources such as wetlands and waters of the State. It
includes the California Endangered Species Act (CESA;
CFGC Sections 2050-2116), as well as provisions for legal
hunting and fishing, and tribal agreements for activities
involving take of native wildlife. Any proposed impact to
State listed species or State jurisdictional waters within or
adjacent to the proposed Project Area would require a
permit under the CESA and a Streambed Alternation
Agreement from the CDFW, respectively.
3.2.3 California Endangered Species Act
The CESA (CFGC Division 3, Chapter 1.5, Sections 2050-
2116) generally parallels the main provisions of the
Federal ESA and is administered by the CDFW. The
CESA prohibits take of any species that the California
Fish and Game Commission determines to be a
threatened or endangered species, and allows for take
incidental to otherwise lawful development Projects
upon approval from the CDFW. Under the CFGC, "take"
is defined as to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or
attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill.
California also has identified wildlife species of special
concern. These species are rare, restricted in
geographic distribution, or declining throughout their
geographic range. Having been so designated, sensitive
species are also considered in resource planning and
management. The rare designation applies to plants
only and includes those plants that are not threatened
or endangered, but that could become eligible due to
decreasing numbers or further restrictions to habitat.
Any proposed impact to State listed species within the
proposed Project Area would require a permit under
the CESA.
3.2.4 Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
(California Water Code, Division 7, Sections 13000-
14958.) provides for statewide coordination of water
quality regulations. This act established the California
State Water Resources Control Board as the statewide
authority, and nine separate RWQCBs to oversee water
quality on a day-to-day basis at the regional/local level.
Proposed discharges of waste that would affect State
waters (that are not Federal waters) within or adjacent
to the proposed Project would require a Report of
Waste Discharge from RWQCB. Local Regulations and
Standards
The following sections describe local regulations and
standards applicable to the Proposed Project.
Los Angeles County General Plan
The Conservation and Natural Resources Element of the
current Los Angeles County 1980 General Plan (Los
Angeles County 1980) does not include specific
regulations governing the protection of Biological
Resources. In January 2014 the Los Angeles County
Draft General Plan 2035 (Los Angeles County 2014) was
released for public review. If the Los Angeles County
2035 Draft General Plan is adopted prior to
implementation of the proposed Project, the following
policies and implementation measures related to
biological resources would be considered by the County
South North Intertie Water Pipeline Project – Phase II Biological Resources Assessment
4
during the decision-making process for projects that
have the potential to affect biological resources.
Significant Ecological Area & Regional Habitat Linkage
The Los Angeles County 2035 Draft General Plan has
proposed the Antelope Valley and Joshua Tree
Woodlands to be Significant Ecological Areas (SEAs), a
designation given to land that contains irreplaceable
biological resources, as well as a regional habitat linkage
between the San Gabriel Mountains and the Mojave
Desert. The SEA and habitat linkage designations are
intended to conserve biological diversity through
implementation of the Draft General Plan goals and
policies. The SNIP Phase II Water Pipeline Project
location is within the proposed Antelope Valley SEA.
Goals and Policies for Biological Resources
Goals:
C/NR 3. Permanent, sustainable preservation of
genetically and physically diverse biological
resources and ecological systems including:
habitat linkages, forests, coastal zone,
riparian habitats, streambeds, wetlands,
woodlands and SEAs.
C/NR 4. Preserved and restored oak woodlands that
are conserved in perpetuity with no net loss
of existing woodlands.
Policies:
C/NR 3.1. Conserve and enhance the ecological
function of diverse natural habitats and
biological resources.
C/NR 3.2. Create and administer innovative County
programs incentivizing the permanent
dedication of SEAs and other important
biological resources as open space areas.
C/NR 3.3. Restore significant riparian resources, such
as degraded streams, rivers, and wetlands
to maintain ecological function -
acknowledging the importance of
incrementally restoring ecosystem values
when restoration is not feasible.
C/NR 3.4. Conserve and sustainably manage forests
and woodlands.
C/NR 3.5. Ensure compatibility of development in the
national forests in conjunction with the U.S.
Forest Service Land and Resource
Management Plan.
C/NR 3.6. Assist state and federal agencies and other
agencies, as appropriate, with the
preservation of special status species and
their associated habitat and wildlife
movement corridors through the
administration of the SEAs and other
programs.
C/NR 3.7 Participate in inter-jurisdictional
collaborative strategies that protect
biological resources.
C/NR 3.8. Discourage development in areas with
identified significant biological resources,
such as SEAs.
C/NR 3.9. Consider the following in the design of a
Project that is located within an SEA, to the
greatest extent feasible:
Preservation of biologically valuable
habitats, species, wildlife corridors and
linkages;
Protection of sensitive resources on the site
within open space;
South North Intertie Water Pipeline Project – Phase II Biological Resources Assessment
5
Protection of water sources from
hydromodification to maintain the
ecological function of riparian habitats; and
Placement of the development in the least
biologically sensitive areas on the site.
Watershed sensitivity by capturing, treating,
retaining, and/or infiltrating storm water
flows on site.
C/NR 3.10. Require that development mitigate ‘in-kind’
for unavoidable impacts on biologically
sensitive areas—onsite or nearby as
feasible, but allow flexible off-site
application to the benefit of other County
SEAs or connectivity among them if onsite is
not feasible, and permanently preserve
mitigation sites.
C/NR 3.11. Discourage new development from
increasing the urban-wildland interface in
undisturbed natural areas through compact
design.
C/NR 3.12. Discourage development to maintain and
support the preservation of riparian
habitats, streambeds, and wetlands in a
natural state, unaltered by grading, fill, or
diversion activities.
C/NR 4.1. Conserve and sustainably manage oak
woodlands.
4.0 Methods
Prior to conducting the field surveys, AECOM reviewed
the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB;
(CDFW 2014), and the Information Planning and
Conservation (IPaC) System (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
[USFWS] 2014) for records of special status species
occurrences within the Lancaster West 7.5 minute USGS
quadrangle and surrounding quadrangles (Rosamond,
Rosamond Lake, Lancaster East, Little Buttes, Del Sur,
Sleepy Valley, Ritter Ridge and Palmdale). Additionally,
information was reviewed from USFWS, and California
Native Plant Society (CNPS) sensitive species occurrence
databases (USFWS 2013a; CNPS 2014). Using these
database sources, a list of special status plants and
wildlife that have the potential to occur within or
adjacent to the proposed alignment was compiled (see
Table C-1 in Appendix C).
AECOM biologist Amber Nichols conducted a
reconnaissance-level biological field survey on
March 27, 2014 to assess biological resources. During
the biological survey, the proposed pipeline alignment
as well as a 100-foot buffer was surveyed for presence
of sensitive habitats and presence or other evidence of
special status species. The biological survey area is
depicted in Figures 3a, 3b, 3c, and 3d.
Based on the findings of the reconnaissance-level
biological survey, floristic and general wildlife surveys
were conducted by AECOM biologists Amber Nichols
and Robin Murray on April 16 and April 17, 2014. The
entire 100-foot buffer biological survey area (Project
Area) was surveyed on foot to document or determine
the potential for presence of special status plants and
wildlife species, as well as nesting birds.
To maximize the likelihood of locating special status
plant species or special status natural communities
within the Project Area, floristic surveys were
performed during the period necessary for the
detection and proper identification of all potentially
occurring special status plant species. The primary
objective was to identify all plant species within the
Project Area to the taxonomic level (i.e., species,
subspecies, or variety) necessary to determine rarity
status. The timing of the survey was appropriate to
detect all target species as evidenced by the blooming
South North Intertie Water Pipeline Project – Phase II Biological Resources Assessment
6
of native vegetation throughout the habitats. The
floristic survey followed the guidelines set forth by:
Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts
to Special Status Native Plant Populations and
Natural Communities (CDFG 2009); and
Guidelines for Conducting and Reporting
Botanical Inventories for Federally Listed,
Proposed and Candidate Plants (USFWS 1996).
All plant and wildlife species observed during the
biological surveys were recorded (see Appendix A).
Survey findings specific to each potentially occurring
sensitive species are discussed in Section 5.0 below.
5.0 Environmental Setting
The proposed Project Area is situated in the Antelope
Valley within the western Mojave Desert. The Antelope
Valley is an isolated basin bordered by the San Gabriel
Mountains to the southwest, and the Tehachapi
Mountains to the northwest. The Project Area lies on
gently sloping land with elevations ranging from 725 to
850 meters above sea level.
In the Mojave Desert, evapotranspiration greatly
exceeds precipitation, and salt sinks and alkali playas
are common in low-lying areas. USFWS National
Wetlands Inventory Center database (USFWS 2014b)
shows no wetlands on or adjacent to the Project Area;
this was verified during the field surveys. No riparian or
aquatic habitat was observed on or adjacent to the site.
The California Aqueduct lies approximately 0.3 miles
south of the Project Area.
5.1 Vegetation and Plant Communities
The Project area has experienced a moderate amount of
past agricultural disturbance, and is dominated by
fallow farmlands revegetated with non-native grassland
and rabbitbrush scrub habitats. The Project Area is
comprised of six habitat and land use types: fallow
farmland, alkali sink rabbitbrush scrub, agricultural,
ruderal/disturbed, and residential (Figures 3a, 3b, 3c,
and 3d).
5.1.1 Fallow Farmland / Non-Native Grassland
Fallow farmland revegetated with non-native grasslands
occurs throughout much of the Project Area (Figures 3a,
3b, 3c, and 3d; Photograph 1, Appendix B). The areas of
fallow farmland are dominated with fiddleneck
(Amsinckia tessellata), foxtail brome (Bromus
madritensis), red brome (Bromus rubens), redstem
filaree (Erodium cicutarium), and Russian thistle (Salsola
tragus), as well as occasional pineapple weed
(Matricaria discoidea), heliotrope (Heliotropium
curassavicum), California poppy (Eschscholzia
californica), and anglestem buckwheat (Eriogonum
angulosum). Past farming has resulted in compacted
soils and reduced friability. Only a few scattered small
mammal burrows were observed in the northern and
central portions of the Project Area. Along 70th Avenue
West and southward towards West Avenue M-8, the
soils were observed to be more friable with numerous
large California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus
beecheyi) colonies observed along these southern areas
of the proposed pipeline alignment. The areas of non-
native grassland south of West Avenue L, were
observed to be more disturbed with all-terrain-vehicle
tracks and dirt ramps throughout.
5.1.2 Alkali Sink
Alkali sink communities have a characteristic low “sink”
surface that is relatively impermeable and subject to
ponding. While the alkali sink surface is typically devoid
of perennial vegetation, the sinks are surrounded by
higher often sandy micro-uplands which support
perennial grasses and shrubs. Alkali sink soil layers
commonly exhibit specialized properties such as biotic
crusts, which are complex surficial biological
communities comprised of lichens, bryophytes,
cyanobacteria, soil fungi, and other microbes that
facilitate nutrient retention and seed germination and
South North Intertie Water Pipeline Project – Phase II Biological Resources Assessment
7
establishment (Bowker 2007). As a result of these
factors, alkali sink soils are often susceptible to
disturbance that can reduce the capacity to recover
following disturbance.
Alkali sink communities occur within the Project Area
along 80th Street West between West Avenue I and
West Avenue K (Figure 3b; Photograph 2, Appendix B).
5.1.3 Rabbitbrush Scrub
Rabbitbrush scrub occurs within the Project Area in
several locations along 80th Street West, 70th Street
West, West Avenue K and West Avenue L (Figures 3a,
3b, 3c, and 3d). In several locations, the rabbitbrush
scrub habitat has revegetated within fallow farmland
areas. The rabbitbrush scrub community within the
Project Area is dominated by rubber rabbitbrush
(Ericameria nauseosa), a native, perennial shrub in the
Asteraceae family. Sawyer et al. 2009, classify this plant
community as Ericameria nauseosa alliance.
Ericameria nauseosa alliance occurs in semi-arid areas
of California, within well-drained sandy and gravelly
soils, especially in disturbed settings. The shrub canopy
is typically open to continuous, and has a sparse or
grassy herbaceous layer. Associated shrubs found on
site include fourwing saltbush (Atriplex canescens), and
Cooper’s box thorn (Lycium cooperi), while the
herbaceous layer on site is composed of herbs and non-
native grasses including foxtail brome, red brome,
California goldfields (Lasthenia californica), desert
mallow (Sphaeralcea ambigua), and Nevada cryptantha
(Cryptantha nevadensis var. nevadensis) (Photograph 3,
Appendix B).
5.1.4 Joshua Tree Inclusions
A habitat of local concern is Joshua tree (Yucca
brevifolia) woodland, which is designated as a
Significant Ecological Area in the 2014 Los Angeles
County Draft General Plan 2035 (Los Angeles County
2014).
Within the Project Area, stands of rabbitbrush scrub
support scattered Joshua trees (less than 10 percent
cover) in a small area along 80th Street West at the
intersection of West Avenue K (Figure 3c; Photograph 4,
Appendix B). Additionally, two Joshua trees are within
the right-of-way adjacent to a residential parcel along
80th Street West between West Avenue K and West
Avenue L (Figure 3c; Photograph 5, Appendix B).
5.1.5 Agricultural
One active agricultural area occurs in the Project Area
along 80th Street West, across from the LACWWD
Disinfection Station at West Avenue H (Figure 3a). This
agricultural area includes one recently tilled grain field,
and one planted grain field (Photograph 6, Appendix B).
5.1.6 Ruderal/Disturbed
Ruderal/disturbed areas within the Project Area include
paved and unpaved roadways, roadway shoulders and
the proposed LACWWD Disinfection Station Turnout
Site (Figures, 3a, 3b, 3c, and 3d). These disturbed areas
lack vegetation and/or are dominated by non-native
grasses and forbs including foxtail brome, red brome,
hare barley (Hordeum murinum ssp. glaucum), meadow
barley (Hordeum brachyantherum), Russian thistle,
redstem filaree, and Sahara mustard (Brassica
tournefortii), and cheat grass (Photograph 7, Appendix
B).
5.1.7 Residential/Commercial
Residential and commercial areas border the proposed
water distribution pipeline alignment in several
locations including along 80th Street West, 70th Street
West, and West Avenue L (Figures 3a, 3b, 3c, and 3d).
These developed areas include residential houses, a
solar farm, and a cemetery (Photograph 8, Appendix B).
5.2 Trees
Numerous trees occur within the right-of-ways that
would potentially be removed during Project activities.
South North Intertie Water Pipeline Project – Phase II Biological Resources Assessment
8
Trees within the right-of-ways include four Joshua trees,
two junipers (Juniperus sp.), five black locust (Robinia
pseudoacacia), two red willow (Salix laevigata), several
saltcedar (Tamarix ramosissima), and numerous
slippery elm (Ulmus rubra).
5.3 Soils
Soils within the Project Area are alluvial soils derived
from granite and primarily consist of Hesperia fine
sandy loam, Sunrise sandy loam, Greenfield sandy loam,
Hanford coarse sandy loam, and Sunrise loam (USDA
2013). Slope within the Project Area ranges from 0 to 9
percent.
Within much of the northern and central portions of the
Project Area, soils are hard (relatively non-friable) and
fine with a shallow hardpan (Photograph 9, Appendix B).
Towards the southern portion of the Project Area, soils
are more loose and friable (Photograph 10, Appendix B).
These southern areas are closer or within residential
areas and exhibit increased levels of vehicle and
pedestrian disturbance.
6.0 Sensitive Species Potentially
Present in the Project Area.
For the purposes of this Biological Resources
Assessment, sensitive and special status species are
defined as species that are included in one or more of
the following lists:
Threatened, endangered, or candidate species
under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA).
Threatened or endangered species under the
California ESA (CESA).
CDFW Species of Special Concern.
CDFW Fully Protected Species.
California Rare Plant Ranks (RPR) 1, 2, and 3.
Table C-1 (Appendix C) lists the special status plant and
wildlife species that are potentially present within the
proposed Project Area. These species are discussed
below. Species in Table C-1 that were not determined
to be potentially present within the proposed Project
Area are not discussed further in this report.
6.1 Barstow Woolly Sunflower
Barstow woolly sunflower (Eriophyllum mohavense) is a
California RPR 1B.2 species in the composite family
(Asteraceae). The current distribution of Barstow
woolly sunflower is limited to Fresno, Kern, Los Angeles,
and San Bernardino Counties in California (CNPS 2014).
This species blooms between March and May, and is
typically found in chenopod scrub, Mojavean desert
scrub, and playas (CNPS 2014). Barstow woolly
sunflower is currently known to occur at elevations
between 500 to 960 meters.
There is one CNDDB record of a Barstow woolly
sunflower occurrence for the nine USGS quadrangle
search. This occurrence is from 1995 and was recorded
approximately 18.4 miles northeast of the Project Area,
within salt scrub habitat on top of a rocky butte (CDFW
2014).
The rabbitbrush scrub areas within the Project Area
represent suitable habitat for Barstow woolly
sunflower. Because this species was not observed on-
site during the rare plant survey, and there are no
known occurrences within the Project Area, it is unlikely
that it would occur.
6.2 Slender Mariposa Lily
Slender mariposa lily (Calochortus clavatus var. gracilis)
is a California RPR 1B.2 species in the lily family
(Liliaceae). The current distribution of slender Mariposa
Lily is limited to Los Angeles and Ventura Counties in
California (CNPS 2014). Slender mariposa lily blooms
between March and July and is typically found in
chaparral, coastal scrub and valley and foothill grassland
South North Intertie Water Pipeline Project – Phase II Biological Resources Assessment
9
habitats (CNPS 2014). This species is currently known to
occur at elevations between 320 to 1,000 meters.
There is one CNDDB record of slender mariposa lily
occurrence for the nine USGS quadrangle search. This
occurrence is from 2010, and was recorded
approximately 1.1 miles south of the Project Area, along
a road within the mountainous Portal Ridge on the
western side of the California Aqueduct (CDFW 2014).
The fallow farmland/non-native grassland areas within
the Project Area represent suitable habitat for slender
mariposa lily. Because this species was not observed
on-site during the rare plant survey, and there are no
known occurrences of this species within the Project
Area, it is unlikely that it would occur.
6.3 Alkali Mariposa Lily
Alkali Mariposa lily (Calochortus striatus) is a California
RPR 1B.2 species in the lily family (Liliaceae). The
current distribution of alkali mariposa lily within
California is limited to Kern, Los Angeles, San
Bernardino, Tulare, and Inyo Counties (CNPS 2014).
Alkali mariposa lily blooms between April and June, and
is typically found in chaparral, chenopod scrub,
Mojavean desert scrub, meadows, and seeps (CNPS
2014). This species grows in alkaline and mesic soils at
is currently known to occur at elevations between 70 to
1,595 meters.
There are 34 CNDDB records of Alkali mariposa lily
occurrence for the nine USGS quadrangle search. The
nearest occurrence is from 1988 and was recorded
approximately 1.7 miles northeast of the Project Area,
within shadscale scrub on alkali soils (CDFW 2014).
The areas of alkaline sink within the Project Area
represent suitable habitat for alkali mariposa lily.
Because this species was not observed on-site during
the rare plant survey, and there are no known
occurrences within the Project Area, it is unlikely that it
would occur.
6.4 Clokey’s Cryptantha
Clokey’s cryptantha (Cryptantha clokeyi) is a California
RPR 1B.2 species in the borage family (Boraginaceae).
The current distribution of Clokey’s cryptantha within
California is limited to Inyo, Kern, Los Angeles, and San
Bernardino Counties (CNPS 2014). Clokey’s cryptantha
blooms in April, and is typically found in Mojavean
desert scrub (CNPS 2014). This species is currently
known to occur at elevations between 725 to
1,365 meters.
There is one CNDDB record of Clokey’s cryptantha
occurrence for the nine USGS quadrangle search. This
occurrence is from 2003 and was recorded
approximately 5.1 miles northwest of the Project Area,
within the Antelope Valley California Poppy Reserve
(CDFW 2014).
The rabbitbrush scrub areas within the Project Area
represent suitable habitat for Clokey’s cryptantha.
Because this species was not observed on-site during
the rare plant survey, and there are no known
occurrences within the Project Area, it is unlikely that it
would occur.
6.5 Sagebrush Loeflingia
Sagebrush loeflingia (Loeflingia squarrosa var.
artemisiarum) is a California RPR 2B.2 species in the
carnation family (Caryophyllaceae). The current
distribution of sagebrush loeflingia within California is
limited to Inyo, Kern, Lassen, Los Angeles, Plumas, and
San Bernardino Counties (CNPS 2014). Sagebrush
loeflingia blooms between April and May, and is
typically found in desert dunes, Great Basin scrub, and
Sonoran desert scrub (CNPS 2014). This species grows
in sandy soils at is currently known to occur at
elevations between 700 to 1,615 meters.
There are four CNDDB records of sagebrush loeflingia
occurrence for the nine USGS quadrangle search. The
nearest occurrence is from 2005 and was recorded
approximately 8.5 miles east of the Project Area, within
South North Intertie Water Pipeline Project – Phase II Biological Resources Assessment
10
an area of Joshua tree upperstory and saltbush scrub
understory on sandy/loamy soil (CDFW 2014).
The areas of rabbitbrush scrub and Joshua tree stands
within the proposed Project Area represent suitable
habitat for sagebrush loeflingia. Because this species
was not observed on-site during the rare plant survey,
and there are no known occurrences within the Project
Area, it is unlikely that it would occur.
6.6 Short-Joint Beavertail
Short-joint beavertail (Opuntia basilaris var.
brachyclada) is a California RPR List 1B.2 species in the
cactus family (Cactaceae). The current distribution of
short-joint beavertail within California is limited to Los
Angeles and San Bernardino Counties (CNPS 2014).
Short-joint beavertail blooms between April and August,
and is typically found in chaparral, Joshua tree
woodland, Mojavean desert scrub, and pinyon and
juniper woodlands (CNPS 2014). This species is
currently known to occur at elevations between 425 to
1,800 meters.
There are twelve CNDDB records of short-joint
beavertail occurrence for the nine USGS quadrangle
search. The nearest occurrence is from 2010 and was
recorded approximately 1.4 miles southeast of the
Project Area, within the mountainous Portal Ridge on
the western side of the California Aqueduct (CDFW
2014).
The areas of rabbitbrush scrub and Joshua tree stands
within the Project Area represent suitable habitat for
short-joint beavertail. Because this species was not
observed on-site during the rare plant survey, and there
are no known occurrences within the Project Area, it is
unlikely that it would occur.
6.7 Southern Grasshopper Mouse
The Southern grasshopper mouse (Onychomys torridus
ramona) is a California Species of Special Concern (SSC).
Southern grasshopper mice occur in relatively low
densities in arid desert habitats of the Mojave Desert
and southern Central Valley of California (Bolster 1998).
Preferred habitats include alkali desert scrub and desert
scrub with low to moderate shrub cover, with
somewhat lower densities expected in other desert
habitats including succulent scrub, wash, and riparian
areas (Ahlborn 1983). The species also occurs in coastal
scrub, sagebrush, bitterbrush, low sage, and chaparral
habitats. Although nests may be constructed in
burrows they excavate, they are typically built in
burrows abandoned by other rodents (Baily and Sperry
1929). This species is primarily nocturnal and active
year-round. Grasshopper mice typically feed on insects,
but may also consume seeds, spiders, scorpions, reptiles
and salamanders (Horner et al. 1964, McCarty 1975).
The specifics of Southern grasshopper mouse
reproduction are unknown.
There is one CNDDB record of southern grasshopper
mouse occurrence for the nine USGS quadrangle search.
This occurrence is from 1930 and was recorded
approximately 10.8 miles southwest of the Project Area,
within the Castaic Mountain Ranges (CDFW 2014). The
nearest more recent occurrence is from 1988 and was
recorded approximately 28 miles southeast of the
Project Area.
The rabbitbrush scrub habitats within the Project Area
represent suitable habitat for the southern grasshopper
mouse. Because there have not been sightings of this
species within the past 26 years in the vicinity of the
Project Area, the potential for their occurrence is low.
6.8 American Badger
The American badger (Taxidea taxus) is a California SSC
that range throughout the state. American badgers
inhabit open grasslands and shrublands in areas that are
generally treeless (Larsen 1987). They burrow in dry,
friable soils. Badgers feed on small mammals including
ground squirrels (Spermophilus spp.), pocket gophers
(Thamnomys spp.), and jackrabbits (Lepus spp.), as well
as reptiles, insects, and amphibians (Laudenslayer and
South North Intertie Water Pipeline Project – Phase II Biological Resources Assessment
11
Parisi 2007). Breeding occurs in summer and early fall,
with young born from March to April (Wright 1966).
There is one CNDDB record of an American badger
occurrence for the nine USGS quadrangle search. There
is no date associated with the occurrence, and was
recorded approximately 9.9 miles north of the Project
Area, in the Willow Springs vicinity (CDFW 2014).
The fallow farmland/non-native grassland and
rabbitbrush scrub habitats represent suitable denning,
foraging, and movement habitat for American badgers.
During the biological surveys, no American badgers
were observed. Three burrows of appropriate size for
badger use were observed around the base of fourwing
saltbush and Cooper’s box thorn shrubs; however, no
evidence of badger occupation (digging, burrowing,
runs, resting sites, hairs, or tracks) was observed.
Although there are no known occurrences of this
species within the Project Area, they have the potential
to occur during foraging, denning, and movement
activities.
6.9 Golden Eagle
The golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) is a California fully
protected (FP) species. Within California, the golden
eagle is a year-round resident generally inhabiting
mountainous and hilly terrain throughout much of the
state, frequenting grasslands, savannahs, oak and pine
woodlands, and agricultural fields. During the non-
breeding season (September through December) they
also occur in open habitats in the Central Valley,
including scrublands. Nesting usually occurs in
mountainous areas, but golden eagles will also nest in
wetland and riparian habitats (Kochert et al. 2002).
Nests are constructed on cliffs and in large trees in open
areas (Zeiner et al. 1990). Golden eagles typically feed
on small- to medium-sized mammals including
jackrabbits, cottontails, and California ground squirrels
(Kochert and Steenhoff 2002). Breeding generally
occurs from late January through August (Zeiner et al.
1990).
There is one CNDDB record of a Golden Eagle
occurrence for the nine USGS quadrangle search. This
occurrence is from 2010, and was recorded
approximately 8.2 miles northwest of the Project Area,
in an alfalfa agricultural field adjacent to desert scrub
habitat (CDFW 2014).
The agricultural, fallow farmland/non-native grassland,
and rabbitbrush scrub habitats represent suitable
foraging and movement habitat for golden eagles. No
suitable nesting habitat was observed in the Project
Area. During the biological surveys, no golden eagles
were observed. Although there are no known
occurrences of this species within the Project Area, they
have the potential to occur during foraging and
movement activities.
6.10 Short-Eared Owl
The Short-eared owl (Asio flammeus) is a California SSC.
Short-eared owls are a widespread winter migrant, but
breed in California primarily in the Central Valley, in the
western Sierra Nevada foothills, and in scattered
locations along the California coastline. This species is
usually found in open, treeless areas that support
rodents for foraging, with elevated sites for perching,
and dense vegetation cover for roosting and nesting
(Zeiner et al. 1990; Shuford and Gardali 2008). Suitable
habitats include salt- and freshwater marshes, irrigated
alfalfa and grain fields, and grasslands. This species
requires dense vegetation such as tall grasses, brush,
ditches, and wetlands for nesting and roosting cover
(Zeiner et al. 1990). Short-eared owls nest primarily on
dry ground in areas of dense vegetation, but may also
nest within burrows. Short-eared owls feed primarily
on voles and other small mammals, but will also
consume birds, reptiles, amphibians, and arthropods
(Zeiner et al. 1990).
There is one CNDDB record of a short-eared owl
occurrence for the nine USGS quadrangle search. This
occurrence is from 1932, and was recorded
approximately 14.27 miles northeast of the Project Area
South North Intertie Water Pipeline Project – Phase II Biological Resources Assessment
12
(CDFW 2014). There are no other CNDDB records of
short-eared owl occurrences within 180 miles of the
Project Area.
The agricultural fields and fallow farmland/non-native
grasslands, represent suitable habitat for short-eared
owls. During the biological surveys, no short-eared owls
were observed. Because there are no known
occurrences of this species within the Project Area and
given the lack of sightings within 180 miles of the
Project Area since 1932, the potential for their
occurrence is low.
6.11 Western Burrowing Owl
The western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) is a
California SSC. Burrowing owls have been extirpated
from approximately 8 percent of their former range
(Klute et al. 2003). Breeding in Central California, has
been reduced to three isolated populations in the
Central Valley, southern San Francisco Bay Area, and
near Livermore (DeSante et al. 1997). This species
inhabits areas with low vegetation in agricultural fields,
grasslands and desert communities. Burrowing owls
require fossorial mammal burrows, typically those
created by California ground squirrels, for nesting and
escape cover. However, piles of rock, concrete debris,
or other materials may be used instead of burrows.
Burrowing owls typically feed on insects, small frogs,
lizards, and rodents (John and Romanow 1993). The
breeding season typically occurs between February 1
and August 31 (CDFG 2012).
There are 59 CNDDB records of western burrowing owl
occurrence for the nine USGS quadrangle search. Two
of these occurrences were recorded within the vicinity
of the Project Area. One record is from 2006 and was
recorded approximately 150 feet from the end of the
pavement on the east side of 80th Street West between
West Avenue H and West Avenue I. At this burrow
location, two adults and three juvenile burrowing owls
were observed. The second record, also from 2006, was
recorded approximately 135 feet from the end of the
pavement on the north side of West Avenue K, between
80th Street West and 70th Street West (CDFW 2014).
The fallow farmland/non-native grassland and
rabbitbrush scrub habitats represent suitable habitat for
western burrowing owls. However, much of the fallow
farmlands in both the non-native grassland and
rabbitbrush scrub re-vegetated areas were relatively
non-friable. While there is potential for burrowing owls
to occur in these fallow farmlands, the compacted
nature of the soil limits the likelihood. During the
biological surveys, no burrowing owls or potential owl
burrows were observed. Both CNDDB recorded
occurrence locations were thoroughly searched for
evidence of burrowing owl occupation with no evidence
observed (no owls, pellets, feathers, potential burrows
observed). The southern portion of the Project Area
(south of West Avenue K) has more friable soils and is
more suitable for burrowing owls, but is also more
disturbed from vehicle and pedestrian use. Because
western burrowing owls have been known to breed
within the Project Area in recent years, and there are
high numbers of California ground squirrel burrows in
portions of the Project Area (along 70th Avenue West
and southward towards West Avenue M-8), the
potential for their occurrence within the Project Area is
high.
6.12 Swainson’s Hawk
The Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni) is listed as
threatened under the CESA, and is a Federal Bird of
Conservation Concern (BCC). Swainson’s hawks breed
in numerous locations throughout California, including
the Central Valley region. This species generally forages
in open habitats including grasslands, irrigated
meadows, agricultural areas, juniper-sage flats, riparian
areas, and oak savannas (Schlorff and Bloom 1983;
CDFG 1994). Swainson’s hawks are migratory, and
begin arriving in the Central Valley to nest in March.
This species typically nest in large, mature trees that are
located near suitable foraging habitat and often within
riparian corridors (Schlorff and Bloom 1983).
South North Intertie Water Pipeline Project – Phase II Biological Resources Assessment
13
Swainson’s hawks also sometimes nest on utility poles
at heights between 4 and 100 feet above the ground.
The young usually leave the nest by July, with
individuals beginning to migrate south between August
and October. Swainson’s hawks typically forage on
small rodents and reptiles during the breeding season
(March to July), and on insects during the non-breeding
period (England et al. 1997).
There are 13 CNDDB records of Swainson’s hawk
occurrence for the nine USGS quadrangle search. The
nearest occurrence is from 2011, and was recorded
approximately 4.2 miles west of the Project Area. This
nesting location within a cottonwood tree was adjacent
to orchards and alfalfa fields.
Swainson’s hawks are known to nest in the Antelope
Valley within a variety of large tree types including
cottonwood, locust, juniper, cypress, willow, and pine.
Numerous large trees were observed within the Project
Area that represent potential nesting habitat for
Swainson’s hawks. Additionally, the agricultural field
and fallow farmland/non-native grasslands represent
suitable foraging habitat. No Swainson’s hawks or
nesting sites were observed during the biological
surveys, and there are no known occurrences of this
species within the Project Area. However Swainson’s
hawks have the potential to occur during nesting,
foraging and movement activities.
6.13 California Condor
The California condor (Gymnogyps californianus) is
listed as endangered under the Federal ESA and the
CESA. The current distribution of this species is
restricted to six counties in California including Kern,
Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, Monterey, Los Angeles,
and Ventura. California condors forage over very large
areas, but maintain a home nesting location to which
they return (Koford 1953). California condor foraging
generally occurs within foothill grassland and oak
savannah habitats in open terrain. Suitable permanent
roosting sites for this species must have rocky cliffs and
rubble for nesting (USFWS 2013b). California condors
feed on carrion, and primarily feed on large carcasses
like goat, cattle, sheep, deer, horse and coyote
(Mountfort 1988).
There are no CNDDB records of California condor
occurrences for the nine USGS quadrangle search. The
nearest occurrence records of California condors are
from 1976 within the Castaic Mountains, approximately
20 miles southwest of the Project Area, and from 1976
within the Tejon Ranch, approximately 23 miles
northwest of the Project Area (CDFW 2014).
The Project Area lacks suitable nesting habitat for the
California condor, and foraging habitat is marginal due
to a low population of large mammals and livestock in
the vicinity. No California condors were observed
during the biological survey, and condors are not known
to occur at the Project site. While it is possible a condor
may pass over the site, condors are not expected to use
the Project Area due to a lack of breeding and foraging
habitat.
6.14 Le Conte’s Thrasher
The Le Conte’s thrasher (Toxostoma lecontei) is a
California SSC and a Federal BCC. In California, this
species currently occurs in two separate geographic
areas: the southern San Joaquin Valley, and the
Colorado and Mojave deserts, south into Baja California.
Throughout its range, the Le Conte’s thrasher requires
sparse to no ground cover with accumulated leaf litter
under and around shrub vegetation for foraging
(Sheppard 1996). Within the Antelope Valley, the only
suitable plant for nesting is allscale (Atriplex polycarpa).
Le Conte’s thrashers forage predominantly for
arthropods in the leaf litter under saltbush plants, under
the top few inches of soil, or on the ground surface.
The breeding season for this species typically begins in
early February and extends through late June (Shuford
and Gardali 2008).
South North Intertie Water Pipeline Project – Phase II Biological Resources Assessment
14
There are three CNDDB records of Le Conte’s thrasher
occurrences for the nine USGS quadrangle search. The
nearest occurrence is from 2005, and was recorded
approximately 11.2 miles northwest of the Project Area,
within creosote scrub with sparsely distributed Joshua
trees (CDFW 2014).
The rabbitbrush scrub, Joshua tree stands, and fallow
farmland/non-native grassland habitats represent
suitable habitat for Le Conte’s thrasher. During the
biological surveys, no Le Conte’s thrashers or nesting
sites were observed, and there are no known
occurrences of this species within the Project Area.
However, Le Conte’s thrashers have the potential to
occur during foraging, nesting, and movement activities.
6.15 Loggerhead Shrike
The loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) is a
California SSC that is distributed throughout much of
California. This species typically occupies open habitats
including grasslands, scrublands, riparian areas, open
woodlands, ruderal habitats, and developed areas
including agricultural fields (Yosef 1996). Loggerhead
shrikes utilize shrubs, trees, posts, fences, and utility
lines for perches. Diet consists mostly of large insects,
but may also include small birds, mammals, amphibians,
reptiles, fish, carrion, and other vertebrates. Breeding
territories are generally established in open habitats
with relatively short vegetation that allows for visibility
of prey, and that contain fairly dense brush for nesting.
This species typically breeds between January and July
(Shuford and Gardali 2008).
There are four CNDDB records of loggerhead shrike
occurrences for the nine USGS quadrangle search. The
nearest occurrence is from 2009, and was recorded
approximately 6.8 miles northwest of the Project Area,
within native and non-native annual grasslands.
The areas of rabbitbrush scrub and fallow farmland
represent suitable habitat for loggerhead shrike. During
the biological surveys, no loggerhead shrikes were
observed, and there are no known occurrences of this
species within the Project Area. However, loggerhead
shrikes have the potential to occur during foraging,
nesting, and movement activities.
6.16 Silvery Legless Lizard
The silvery legless lizard (Anniella pulchra pulchra) is a
California SSC. This species occurs from the southern
edge of California’s San Joaquin River in Contra Costa
County south through the Coast Range, Transverse
Range, and Peninsular Range to Baja California, Mexico.
The silvery legless lizard is found on the San Joaquin
Valley floor (Jennings and Hayes 1994). Silvery legless
lizards are fossorial, and construct burrows in loose soil
with a high sand fraction. This species requires soil
moisture, and occurs primarily in sparsely vegetated
areas with moist, loose, sandy soils, such as washes,
loose soil near the base of slopes, and in the vicinity of
streams. Their preferred habitats include coastal dunes,
oak woodlands, beaches, chaparral, pine-oak woodland,
and streamside growth of sycamores, cottonwoods, and
oaks (Jennings and Hayes 1994; Stebbins 2003). Silvery
legless lizards are insectivorous and consume larval
insects, adult beetles, termites, and spiders. Breeding in
silvery legless lizards begins in early spring, with live
young born between September and November
(Jennings and Hayes 1994).
There are 14 CNDDB records of silvery legless lizard
occurrences for the nine USGS quadrangle search. The
nearest occurrence is from 2009, and was recorded
approximately 1.7 miles southeast of the Project Area,
within the mountainous Portal Ridge on the western
side of the California Aqueduct. In 2005, a silvery
legless lizard was observed 3.2 miles east of the Project
Area, within saltbush scrub and juniper/Joshua tree
habitat with sandy soils
The fallow farmland/non-native grassland and
rabbitbrush scrub habitats represent suitable habitat for
silvery legless lizard. During the biological surveys, no
silvery legless lizards were observed, and there are no
South North Intertie Water Pipeline Project – Phase II Biological Resources Assessment
15
known occurrences of this species within the Project
Area. However, silvery legless lizards have the
potential to occur.
6.17 Blainville’s Horned Lizard
The Blainville’s (=Coast) horned lizard (Phrynosoma
blainvillii) is a California SSC. The current distribution of
this species includes the coastal areas south of San
Francisco and within the southern areas of the Central
Valley. Within the Central Valley, its range extends
from Butte County south across the lower foothills of
the Sierra Nevada Range to the Tejon Pass/Taft area.
Blainville’s horned lizards generally inhabit scrublands,
grasslands, coniferous and broadleaf forests, and
woodlands. This species prefers sandy loam areas and
alkali flats, but may also inhabit exposed gravelly, sandy
substrates vegetated with scattered shrubs or annual
grassland, or in clearings in riparian woodlands
(Jennings and Hayes 1994). Blainville’s horned lizards
primarily feed on ants, but may also consume other
insects including beetles, wasps, grasshoppers, and
caterpillars (Zeiner et al. 1988). Mating and
reproduction typically occur in spring and early summer.
There are 17 CNDDB records of Blainville’s horned lizard
occurrences for the nine USGS quadrangle search. The
nearest occurrence is from 2007, and was recorded
approximately 0.4 miles southwest of the Project Area,
approximately 500 feet north of the California
Aqueduct.
The fallow farmland/non-native grassland and
rabbitbrush scrub habitats within the Project Area
contained numerous harvester ant populations, and
represent suitable habitat for Blainville’s horned lizard.
During the biological surveys, no Blainville’s horned
lizards were observed, and there are no known
occurrences of this species within the Project Area.
However, Blainville’s horned lizards have the potential
to occur.
6.18 Desert Tortoise
The desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) is listed as
threatened under the Federal ESA and the CESA. In
California, the desert tortoise occurs in the Mojave and
Sonoran Deserts. This species typically inhabits desert
scrub, Joshua tree woodlands, and creosote bush scrub
with extensive annual wildflower blooms (Zeiner et al.
1988; USFWS 2011). Desert tortoises often occur on
gently sloping terrain with soils ranging from sandy to
sandy-gravelly, and with scattered shrubs and abundant
inter-shrub space for growth of herbaceous plants
(USFWS 2011). Soils must be friable and firm enough
that burrows do not collapse. Burrows are obligatory as
they provide cover from predators and extreme
temperatures, as well as nesting places. Desert
tortoises forage on perennial grasses, woody perennials,
cacti, and non-native grasses including red brome and
redstem filaree (Germano et al. 1994). In late winter or
early spring, they emerge from over-wintering burrows
and are typically most active April through May and
September through October. During the winter they
may use other types of cover including cracks, crevices,
and overhangs. Mating occurs during spring, summer,
and fall (USFWS 2011).
There is one CNDDB record of desert tortoise
occurrence for the nine USGS quadrangle search. This
record is from 2004 and was recorded approximately
22.7 miles east of the Project Area. This record is
mapped as an area of approximately 1,700 square miles
representing the Fremont-Kramer desert tortoise
population and recovery unit. There are no CNDDB
desert tortoise occurrences west of Highway 14 and
south of Highway 138 (where the proposed Project is
located).
The Project Area is not within areas known to contain
desert tortoise populations, and is not within any desert
tortoise conservation areas. The Project Area is within
areas categorized as high potential habitat as modeled
by the U.S. Geological Survey using variables such as
precipitation, geology and slope (USFWS 2011).
South North Intertie Water Pipeline Project – Phase II Biological Resources Assessment
16
However, The habitat within the Project Area is of poor
quality for desert tortoises. The northern and southern
portions of the Project Area are composed primarily of
fallow farmland and have relatively un-friable soils.
While the southern portion of the Project Area has
more friable soils (as evidenced by the numerous
ground squirrel colonies that only occur in this portion
of the Project Area), these areas are more developed
with residential neighborhoods and all-terrain-vehicle
tracks and dirt ramps within the strips of non-native and
rabbitbrush scrub vegetation. No signs of desert
tortoise presence were observed (scat, tracks, egg shell
fragments, burrows/pallets, shell/bone/scutes, or
courtship rings). Because all habitat within the Project
Area is of poor quality for desert tortoises, it is unlikely
that they would occur within the Project Area or its
vicinity.
6.19 Nesting Birds
The Project Area contains potential nesting habitat for a
number of native birds protected under the Migratory
Bird Treaty Act (MTBA) including, but not limited to
Swainson’s hawk, western burrowing owl, Le Conte’s
thrasher, loggerhead shrike, red-tailed hawk (Buteo
jamaicensis), common raven (Corvus corax), American
crow (Corvus brachyrhynchus), mourning dove (Zenaida
macroura), western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta),
northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), California
quail (Callipepla californica), horned lark (Eremophila
alpestris), golden-crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia
atricapilla), and white-crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia
leucophrys). Nesting raptors are also protected under
Section 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code.
Two active common raven nests were observed during
the biological surveys. A raven nest was observed
within a lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta ssp. murrayana)
(Photographs 9-10, Appendix B) along 70th Street West
between West Avenue K and West Avenue L (Figure 3c).
The nest is located approximately 90 feet from the end
of the pavement, and is outside of the right-of-way for
this section of roadway. A second raven nest was
observed being constructed in a power transmission
line pole (Photograph 11, Appendix B), along unpaved
80th street west between West Avenue H and West
Avenue I (Figure 3a).
The agricultural fields, fallow farmland/non-native
grassland, rabbitbrush scrub, Joshua tree stands,
ruderal/disturbed and residential areas along the
proposed pipeline alignment have the potential to
provide habitat for nesting birds.
6.20 Bats
There are 25 bat species in California, 18 of which are
rare and/or California SSC, (Miner and Stokes 2005).
Bats use a variety of roost sites including crevices,
cavities, and foliage such as caves, large tree hollows,
rock crevices, exfoliating tree bark, as well as man-made
structures such as bridges, buildings, and towers. Bats
are predominantly insectivorous and may forage over
water surfaces, along dry creek channels, around forest
tree canopies, or in areas of oak savannah.
Based on species ranges and habitat requirements, six
bat species have the potential to occur within the
Project Area (Table 1). Two of these species, pallid bat
(Antrozous pallidus), and Townsend’s big-eared bat
(Corynorhinus townsendii), are California SSC. Mexican
free-tailed bat (Tadarida brasiliensis), big brown bat
(Eptesicus fuscus), California myotis (Myotis
californicus), and western pipistrelle (Parastrellus
Hesperus) are non-special status species with the
potential to occur within the Project Area.
There are no CNDDB records of special status bat
species occurrences for the nine USGS quadrangle
search. The non-native grassland, rabbitbrush scrub
and agricultural areas represent suitable roosting and
foraging habitat, however no potential bat roosts were
observed during the biological survey. All trees, snags,
and buildings within the buffer areas were examined for
potential roosting sites or evidence of current use by
bats. Potential bat roosting sites within the buffer areas
South North Intertie Water Pipeline Project – Phase II Biological Resources Assessment
17
is limited. No tree cavities, exfoliating tree bark, or
suitable snag cavities were observed. Buildings within
the Project Area are limited to the LACWWD
Disinfection Station Turnout building, at the Intersection
of 80th Street West and West Avenue H, and residential
homes, which are unlikely to provide suitable roosting
sites. The nearest aquatic habitat is the California
Aqueduct, approximately 0.3 miles south of the Project
Area. Roosting bats have the potential to occur within
the Project Area during foraging and movement
activities, but are unlikely to roost due to the lack of
potential roosting sites.
Table 1: Bat Species Potentially Occurring within the Project Area
Species Status*
Federal State
Family Molossidae (free-tailed bats)
Tadarida brasiliensis Mexican free-tailed bat
~ ~
Family Vespertilionidae (mouse-eared bats)
Antrozous pallidus Pallid bat ~ FSS,
SSC
Corynorhinus townsendii
Townsend's big-eared bat
~ SSC, SC
Eptesicus fuscus Big brown bat ~ ~
Myotis californicus California myotis ~ ~
Parastrellus hesperus Western pipistrelle ~ ~
Status:
FSS = USDA Forest Service Sensitive
SSC = Species of Special Concern as identified by CDFW
SC = Former Candidate under FESA; Species of Concern
7.0 Potential Impacts
7.1 CEQA Thresholds of Significance for
Impacts
The criteria for determining significant impacts on
biological resources were developed in accordance with
Section 15065(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states
that a Project may have a significant effect on the
environment if the Project has the potential to (1)
substantially degrade the quality of the environment;
(2) substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species; (3) cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below a self-sustaining level; (4) threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community; and/or (5) reduce the
number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or
threatened species. An evaluation of whether an
impact on biological resources would be substantial
must consider both the resource itself and how that
resource fits into a regional or local context. A
substantial impact is an impact that diminishes or
results in the loss of a sensitive biological resource, or
that significantly conflicts with local, State, or Federal
resource conservation plans, goals, and/or regulations.
Sometimes impacts can be locally adverse, but not
significant. In such a case, the impacts may result in an
adverse alteration of a local biological resource, but
they may not substantially diminish or result in the
permanent loss of an important resource on a
population- or region-wide basis.
The following thresholds of significance are based on
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Implementation of
the Proposed Project may have potentially significant
adverse impacts on biological resources if it would
result in any of the following:
Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations or by the CDFW or the USFWS;
Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations or by the CDFW or the USFWS;
Have a substantial adverse effect on State or
federally protected wetlands as defined by USACE,
CDFW, RWQCB, or California Coastal Commission,
including but not limited to marsh, coastal, etc.,
South North Intertie Water Pipeline Project – Phase II Biological Resources Assessment
18
through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means;
Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites;
Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance; and/or
Conflict with the provisions of any adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan (HCP), Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or State HCP.
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15605,
Mandatory Findings of Significance, a lead agency shall
find that a project may have a significant effect on the
environment in regard to biological resources if the
project has the potential to:
Substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species,
Cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels,
Threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
and/or
Reduce the number or restrict the range of an
endangered, rare or threatened species.
7.2 Effects on Special Status Species
The proposed Project has the potential to adversely
affect several special status species. The potential
impacts are discussed in detail in the following sections.
7.2.1 Avian Species
The proposed Project Area supports suitable breeding
and foraging habitat for western burrowing owls,
Swainson’s hawks, Le Conte’s thrashers, loggerhead
shrikes, and other raptors and migratory birds. Habitats
would be subject to disturbance or loss during
construction activities including, but not limited, to
trenching, ground surface blading, equipment and
materials staging, and pipeline installation.
Disturbances to habitats could result in their
degradation and suitability for nesting and foraging, or
their total loss.
Disturbances to foraging habitat would be short-term
and temporary during construction, and the habitats
would be expected to return to pre-existing conditions
through natural recruitment from the surrounding
communities. Additionally, there is ample additional
habitat in the vicinity available for avian foraging during
construction. Thus, the temporary and limited loss of
foraging habitat would be a less-than significant impact.
If burrows were present within the construction
footprint, they would be subject to loss and any western
burrowing owls occupying the burrows could be subject
to injury or be killed during ground-disturbance
activities. Indirectly, burrowing owls may avoid nesting
in areas with a large amount of disturbance. To reduce
project impacts to this sensitive species, pre-activity
surveys would be conducted to detect active nests. If
an active nest is identified, a 500-foot buffer would be
established to avoid impacting the nesting behavior
until the chicks have fledged from the nest. If only a
solitary burrowing owl is observed and no nesting
behavior is observed a 200-foot buffer will be
established from the non-nest burrow. With the
incorporation of protection measures, impacts to the
burrowing owl would be less than significant.
Removal of trees would be limited to minimize the loss
of nesting habitat for migratory birds. Construction
activities could result in the abandonment of nests
present in the vicinity of the Project due to noise and
human disturbance. Nests, and any eggs, young or
adults within the nests, could also be lost during
vegetation clearance if they occur in shrubs, trees, or
grasses within the construction footprint.
South North Intertie Water Pipeline Project – Phase II Biological Resources Assessment
19
As a result, construction of the proposed Project has the
potential to result in significant impacts to avian
species. Pursuant to the requirements of the MBTA,
which provides legal protection for nearly all breeding
migratory bird species (common and sensitive)
occurring in the U.S., and Section 3503.5 of the
California Fish and Game Code, which specifically
protects raptor nests, the proposed Project will be
required to avoid impacts to nesting birds. Impacts to
nesting birds can be avoided through avoidance of
clearing and grubbing of vegetation communities within
the Project Area during the nesting season (February 1
and August 31), and/or implementation of pre-
construction surveys to demonstrate absence of nesting
birds within the Project Area. If nesting birds are
observed the nest would be given a 300-foot buffer, if a
common bird, a 500-foot buffer if a raptor, and a
0.5 mile if a Swainson’s hawk. With the implementation
of these protection measures impacts to nesting birds
would be less than significant.
7.2.2 American Badger
The proposed Project Area supports suitable denning
and foraging habitat for American badgers. This habitat
would be subject to disturbance or loss during
construction activities including, but not limited, to
trenching, ground surface blading, equipment and
materials staging, and pipeline installation.
Disturbances to habitat could result in its degradation
and suitability for denning and foraging, or its total loss.
Disturbances to foraging habitat would be short-term
and temporary during construction, and the habitats
would be expected to return to pre-existing conditions
through natural recruitment from the surrounding
communities. Additionally, there is ample additional
habitat in the vicinity available for foraging during
construction. Thus, the temporary and limited loss of
foraging habitat would be a less-than significant impact.
Trenching activities and equipment moving through the
Project Area could potentially injure or kill badgers that
remain in dens. Indirectly, denning badgers may be
impacted by increased noise and equipment activity. To
reduce impacts to badgers within the construction
footprint and a 300-foot buffer area, pre-activity
surveys would be conducted immediately prior to
construction to identify potential dens. With this
protection measure, impacts to American badgers
would be less than significant
7.2.3 Bats
The proposed Project Area supports marginal roosting
and suitable foraging habitat for bats. This habitat
could be subject to disturbance or loss during
construction activities including, but not limited, to
trenching, ground surface blading, equipment and
materials staging, and pipeline installation.
Disturbances to habitat could result in its degradation
and suitability for roosting and foraging, or its total loss.
Disturbances to foraging habitat would be short-term
and temporary during construction, and the habitats
would be expected to return to pre-existing conditions
through natural recruitment from the surrounding
communities. Additionally, removal of trees would be
limited minimizing the loss of potential roosting habitat
for bats.
Noise and increased equipment activities within the
immediate vicinity of roosts could indirectly impact
roosting bats. If active bat roosts occurred within trees
slated for removal, individuals could be subject to injury
or be killed during tree removal activities. As a result,
construction of the proposed Project has the potential
to result in significant impacts to roosting bats.
Conducting pre-construction surveys and implementing
exclusion techniques for roosting bats in trees slated for
removal would reduce impacts to a less than significant
level.
7.2.4 Reptiles
The proposed Project Area supports suitable habitat for
silvery legless lizards and Blainville’s horned lizards.
South North Intertie Water Pipeline Project – Phase II Biological Resources Assessment
20
This habitat would be subject to disturbance during
construction activities including, but not limited, to
trenching, ground surface blading, equipment and
materials staging, and pipeline installation.
Disturbances to habitat would be short-term and
temporary during construction, and the habitats would
be expected to return to pre-existing conditions through
natural recruitment from the surrounding communities.
Impacts to coast horned lizards could be significant
during trenching activities, when they may be injured or
killed. These impacts can be reduced by pre-activity
surveys prior to ground disturbing activities and
relocation of any observed individuals to adjacent
suitable habitat. Residual impacts to this species would
be less than significant
Silvery legless lizards rely on loose sandy soils and may
be impacted indirectly by compacting soils within the
project footprint or during excavation. Biological
monitors present to observe the top layers of
excavation would reduce the likelihood of direct
mortality to the silvery legless lizards in addition to
keeping the project footprint within pre-determined
boundaries and conducting pre-activity surveys prior to
construction activities. With the addition of protection
measures the impacts to silvery legless lizards would be
less than significant.
7.2.5 Plants
Suitable habitat is present within the Project Area for
Barstow woolly sunflower, slender mariposa lily, alkali
mariposa lily, Clokey’s cryptantha, sagebrush loeflingia,
and short-joint beavertail. These plant species were not
observed during the rare plant survey and are not
expected to occur. Suitable habitat could be removed
or disturbed during construction activities including
clearance and grubbing of vegetation, trenching, ground
surface blading, equipment and materials staging, and
pipeline installation. These Project activities could
result in indirect impacts to special status plant species
through soil compaction, dust generation, and/or
mowing. Removal of individual plants or suitable
habitat could reduce local populations and has the
potential to result in significant impacts to these
species. Restoring the disturbed areas of suitable
habitat to their pre-project condition would reduce
impacts to less than significant.
8.0 Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures are necessary to
reduce potentially significant biological impacts to a less
than significant level.
8.1 General Measures
MM-1: A qualified biologist shall conduct a training
session for all construction personnel focused on the
protection and conservation of sensitive species that
may be encountered in the Project area, the laws and
codes that regulate these species, and the protection
measures that must be followed to minimize impacts.
MM-2: All excavated holes or trenches greater than
2 feet deep shall be covered at the end of each work
day, or escape ramps provided.
MM-3: All food-related trash items (such as food
scraps, cans, bottles) shall be removed from the Project
Area daily.
8.2 Avian Species
MM-4: To minimize impacts to nesting and roosting
raptors, pre-activity surveys would be conducted
immediately prior to construction. All potential nesting
trees will be surveyed within 500 feet of the project
area.
Any active raptor nests would be given a 500-foot
buffer. This buffer may be reduced to 300 feet if a
full time biological monitor is present to observe
the birds’ behavior and stop work if they appear
disturbed.
South North Intertie Water Pipeline Project – Phase II Biological Resources Assessment
21
For the known raptor nest on the airport property
within Segment 3, a 200-foot distance from the
project activities combined with a biological
monitor during construction during the nesting
period will likely be sufficient to protect the nest.
MM-5: Although burrowing owls are considered
raptors, their special ground-nesting habit requires
additional protection measures. Pre-activity surveys of
the Project Area and a 500-foot buffer would be
conducted immediately prior to construction. All
potential burrows would be observed for signs of
burrowing owl use, such as whitewash, feathers, and
owl pellets.
If an active nest is confirmed the nest will be given a
500-foot buffer until the chicks have fledged and
are independent of the nest.
If a solitary or non-nesting burrowing owl is
observed using a burrow, a 200-foot buffer would
be established.
MM-6: Tree removal shall be avoided whenever
possible to limit the loss of nesting habitat for
Swainson’s hawks and other migratory birds. Where
tree removal is unavoidable, trees shall be removed
outside of the nesting season whenever possible. Trees
slated for removal during the nesting bird season
(February 1 through August 31) shall be surveyed by a
qualified biologist no more than 48 hours prior to
removal to ensure no nesting birds are occupying the
tree.
MM-7: If an active Swainson’s hawk nest is found
during pre-construction surveys, a 0.5-mile buffer
restricting construction activities around the nest shall
be established until all young have fledged or the nest is
no longer in use.
MM-8: To minimize impacts to nesting migratory birds,
pre-activity surveys would be conducted immediately
prior to vegetation clearance, tree removal or other
construction activities during the avian nesting season
(February 1 through August 31), to identify potential
active nests. If active nests are found, a 300-foot buffer
restricting construction activities would be established
around the nests until all young have fledged or the
nest is no longer active.
MM-9: The results of the pre-construction nesting bird
surveys shall be documented in a letter report that is
distributed to CDFW. These measures shall ensure
compliance with the MBTA, and CFGC 3503.5.
8.3 American Badgers
MM-10: Pre-activity surveys would be conducted
immediately prior to construction to identify potential
dens. Potential dens would be monitored for 3 days
using tracking medium at the potential den entrance to
detect badger use.
If the den is inactive, the den would be carefully
excavated or dismantled and refilled with soil and
the proposed Project would be initiated.
If tracks are observed on the tracking medium
during any of the 3 days, the entrance will be
progressively blocked over the next 3 days using soil
and other nearby materials (i.e., woody debris) to
render the entrance progressively more difficult to
access. To assure no loss of badgers, the den will
then be hand excavated and backfilled to prevent
re-occupation.
Active natal dens would require establishment of a
300-foot buffer surrounding the active natal den.
No work related to the proposed Project would take
place within this buffer while the natal den is active.
Once abandoned the den would be dismantled or
excavated.
8.4 Bats
MM-11: Pre-construction surveys for active bat
roosting sites shall be conducted in buildings and trees
that could support bats and are within 200-feet of the
Project Area.
South North Intertie Water Pipeline Project – Phase II Biological Resources Assessment
22
If no evidence of bats (i.e., direct observation,
guano, staining, and strong odors) is observed, no
further mitigation shall be required.
If evidence of roosting bats is observed, a no-
disturbance buffer of 250-feet shall be established
during the breeding season (April 15 through August
15).
No removal of trees showing evidence of roosting
bats shall occur without prior concurrence from
CDFW. Where tree removal is unavoidable, a
qualified bat biologist shall determine the bat
species in residence, and CDFW will be consulted to
determine the appropriate avoidance and
minimization measures.
8.5 Reptiles
MM-12: A biologist shall survey the Project Area within
48 hours of construction prior to initial ground
disturbance, and relocate any individuals encountered
to suitable habitat outside the Project footprint.
MM-13: Biological monitors will be present during the
top layers of excavation and relocate any individuals
encountered during this activity.
8.6 Plants
MM-14: Areas within the Project Area that present
characteristics to indicate they could support any of the
potential special status plants will be restored to pre-
project conditions following construction.
9.0 References
Ahlborn, G. 1983. California Department of Fish and
Game, Interagency Wildlife Task Group: California
Wildlife Habitat Relationships System.
Baily, V., and C. C. Sperry. 1929. Life history and habits
of grasshopper mice, genus Onychomys. U.S.
Department of Agriculture Technical Bulletin. 145:1-
19.
Bolster, B.C., editor. 1998. Terrestrial mammal species
of special concern in California. Draft Final Report
prepared by P.V. Brylski, P.W. Collins, E.D. Pierson,
W.E. Rainey and T.E. Kucera. Report submitted to
California Department of Fish and Game Wildlife
Management Division, Nongame Bird and Mammals
Conservation Program for Contract No. FG3146WM.
Bowker, M.A. 2007. Biological soil crust rehabilitation in
theory and practice: an underexploited opportunity.
Restoration Ecology 15(1):13-23.
CDFG. 2012. Staff report on burrowing owl mitigation.
Natural Resources Agency, Department of Fish and
Game. Sacramento, CA. March 7, 2012.
CDFG. 2009. Protocols for surveying and evaluating
impacts to special status native plant populations
and natural communities. November 24, 2009.
CDFG. 2000. Guidelines for assessing the effects of
proposed Projects on rare, threatened, and
endangered plants and natural communities.
(Revision of 1983 guidelines). Sacramento, CA.
CDFG. 1994. Staff report regarding mitigation for
impacts on Swainson’s hawks (Buteo Swainsoni) in
the Central Valley of California. Sacramento, CA.
November 8, 1994.
CDFW. 2014. California Natural Diversity Database. Rare
Find 5. Habitat Planning and Conservation Branch.
Electronic Database.
CNPS. 2014. Inventory of rare, threatened, and
endangered plants (online edition, v8-02). California
Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA (Accessed
online March 24, 2014 at:
http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/
Cypher, E.A. General rare plant survey guidelines.
Endangered Species Recovery Program. California
State University, Stanislaus. Bakersfield, CA.
South North Intertie Water Pipeline Project – Phase II Biological Resources Assessment
23
DeSante, S.F., E.D. Ruhlen, S.L. Adamany, K.M. Burton,
and S. Amin. 1997. A census of burrowing owls in
central California in 1991. Pages 38-48 In: Lincer, J.L.
and K. Steenhof (editors). The burrowing owl; it’s
biology and management: including the Proceedings
of the First International Burrowing Owl Symposium.
Raptor Research Report Number 9.
England, A.S., M.J. Bechard, and C.S. Houston. 1997.
Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni) In: Poole, A and
F. Gill (eds.), The birds of North America, Birds of
North America, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Germano, D.J, R.B. Bury, T.C. Esque, T.H. Fritts, and P.A.
Medica. 1994. Range and habitats of the desert
tortoise. In: Biology of North American Tortoises.
Fish and Wildlife Research. 13. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of the Interior, National Biological
Survey. 73-84 p.
Horner, B.E., J.M. Taylor, and H.A. Padykula. 1964. Food
habitats and gastric morphology of the grasshopper
mouse. Journal of Mammology. 45:513-535.
Jennings, M.R., and M.P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and
reptile species of special concern in California. Final
Report submitted to the California Department of
Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division, Rancho
Cordova, California.
John, R.D., and J. Romanow. 1993. Feeding behavior of a
burrowing owl, Athene cunicularia, in Ontario.
Canadian Field Naturalist. 107:231-232.
Klute, D. S., L. W. Ayers, M. T. Green, W. H. Howe, S. L.
Jones, J. A. Shaffer, S. R. Sheffield, and T. S.
Zimmerman. 2003. Status Assessment and
Conservation Plan for the Western Burrowing Owl in
the United States. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish
and Wildlife Service, Biological Technical Publication
FWS/BTP-R6001-2003, Washington, D.C.
Kochert, M.N., and K. Steenhoff. 2002. Golden eagles in
the United States and Canada: trends, and
conservation challenges. USGS Forest and Rangeland
Ecosystems Science Center. Boise, Idaho.
Kochert, M., K. Steenhof, C. McIntyre, and E. Craig.
2002. Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) In: Poole, A
and F. Gill (eds.), The birds of North America, Birds of
North America, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Koford, C.B. 1953. The California condor. Dover
Publications Inc, New York.
Larsen, Caryla. 1987. Badger distribution study.
California Department of Fish and Game, Nongame
Wildlife Investigations Report. Project: W-65-R-4,
Job: I-11. 8pp.
Laudenslayer, W.F., and M.D. Parisi. 2007. Species notes
for American badger, Taxidea taxus. California
Department of Fish and Game, California Interagency
Wildlife Task Group.
Los Angeles County. 2014. Los Angeles County 2014
Draft General Plan 2035. Published for Public
Review January 2014.
McCarty, R. 1975. Onychomys torridus. Mammalian
Species. 59:1-5.
Miner, K.L. and D.C. Stokes. 2005. Bats in the South
Coast Ecoregion: Status, Conservation Issues, and
Research Needs. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech.
Rep. PSW-GTR-195.
Mountfort, G. 1988. Rare birds of the world. Stephen
Green Press Inc, New York.
Sawyer, J. and T. Keeler-Wolf. 2009. A Manual of
California Vegetation. California Native Plant Society.
Sacramento, CA.
Schlorff, R.W., and P.H. Bloom. 1983. Importance of
riparian systems to nesting Swainson’s hawks in the
Central Valley of California. Pp. 612-618 In: California
Riparian Systems (R.E. Warner and K.M. Hendrix,
eds.). Univ. of California Press, Berkeley. 1035 pp.
South North Intertie Water Pipeline Project – Phase II Biological Resources Assessment
24
Shuford, W.D., and T. Gardali, editors. 2008. California
bird species of special concern: a ranked assessment
of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of
birds of immediate conservation concern in
California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field
Ornithologists, Camarillo, California, and California
Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento.
Sheppard, J.M. 1996. Le Conte’s thrasher (Toxostoma
lecontei) In: Poole, A and F. Gill (eds.), The birds of
North America, Birds of North America, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania.
Stebbins, R.C. 2003. Western reptiles and amphibians.
3rd ed. Peterson Field Guides. Boston: Houghton
Miffin Company. 533 pp.
USDA. Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2013.
Web Soil Survey, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
(Accessed online April 18 2014 at:
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/)
USFWS. 2014a. Information, Planning, and Conservation
System (online edition). Carlsbad, CA: USFWS.
(Accessed on March 24, 2014 at:
http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/)
USFWS. 2014b. National Wetlands Inventory Center
Wetlands Mapper (Accessed on April 18, 2014 at:
http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html)
USFWS. 2013a. USFWS Species List Generators
(Accessed online on March 24, 2014 at:
http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es_species/Lists/es
_species_lists-overview.htm)
USFWS. 2013b. California condor (Gymnogyps
californianus) 5-year review: summary and
evaluation. Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office,
Sacramento, California.
USFWS. 2011. Revised recovery plan for the Mojave
population of the desert tortoise. Pacific Southwest
Region. May 2011.
USFWS. 1996. Guidelines for conducting and reporting
botanical inventories for Federally listed, proposed,
and candidate plants. Sacramento, CA.
Wright, P.L. 1966. Observations on the reproductive
cycle of the American badger (Taxidea taxus). Symp.
Zool. Soc. London. 15:27-45.
Yosef, R. 1996. Loggerhead shrike. In: Poole, A and F.
Gill (eds.), The birds of North America, Birds of North
America, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., and K.E. Mayer
(eds.). 1988. California’s Wildlife. Volume I
Amphibians and Reptiles. California Department of
Fish and Wildlife. Sacramento, CA.
Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K.E. Mayer, and M.
White (eds.). 1990. California’s Wildlife. Volume II
Birds. California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Sacramento, CA.
South North Intertie Water Pipeline Project – Phase II Biological Resources Assessment
Figures
SNIP Phase IIWater Pipeline Project
FIGURE 1DATE: 4-4-2014
¬«138
Site VicinityDRWN: Amber Nichols Revision: 0
0 3 6Miles°
¬«14
¬«14
Project LocationLancaster
SNIP Phase IIWater Pipeline Project
FIGURE 2DATE: 4-4-2014
LegendDistribution Pipeline (Approx. Alignment)
Alternate Distribution Pipeline (Approx. Alignment)
Project LocationDRWN: Amber Nichols Revision: 0
0 1 2Miles°
West Avenue H
West Avenue I
West Avenue J
West Avenue K
West Avenue L
West Avenue M-8
80th Street West
70th Street West
k
k
SNIP Phase IIWater Pipeline Project
FIGURE 3ADATE: 4-19-2014
Vegetation Types and Other AreasFallow Farmland / Non-Native Grassland
Rabbitbrush Scrub
Agricultural
Ruderal / Disturbed
Residential / Commercial
Distribution Piping (Approx. Alignment)
Biological Study Area (100 Foot Buffer)
k Raven Nest
Vegetation TypesWest Avenue H - West Avenue I
DRWN: Amber Nichols Revision: 0
0 0.2 0.4Miles°
80th Street West
West Avenue H
West Avenue I
SNIP Phase IIWater Pipeline Project
FIGURE 3bDATE: 4-19-2014
Vegetation Types and Other AreasFallow Farmland / Non-Native Grassland
Rabbitbrush Scrub
Alkali Sink
Ruderal / Disturbed
Residential / Commercial
Distribution Piping (Approx. Alignment)
Alternate Distribution Piping (Approx. Alignment)
Biological Study Area (100 Foot Buffer)
Vegetation TypesWest Avenue I - West Avenue K
DRWN: Amber Nichols Revision: 0
0 0.3 0.6Miles°
80th Street West
West Avenue I
West Avenue J
West Avenue K
k
SNIP Phase IIWater Pipeline Project
FIGURE 3cDATE: 4-19-2014
Vegetation Types and Other AreasFallow Farmland / Non-Native Grassland
Rabbitbrush Scrub
Alkali Sink
Joshua Tree Sparse Stand
Ruderal / Disturbed
Residential / Commercial
Distribution Piping (Approx. Alignment)
Alternate Distribution Piping (Approx. Alignment)
Biological Study Area (100 Foot Buffer)
k Raven Nest
Vegetation TypesWest Avenue K - West Avenue L
DRWN: Amber Nichols Revision: 0
0 0.3 0.6Miles°
80th Street West
West Avenue K
West Avenue L
70th Street West
SNIP Phase IIWater Pipeline Project
FIGURE 3dDATE: 4-19-2014
Vegetation Types and Other AreasFallow Farmland / Non-Native Grassland
Rabbitbrush Scrub
Ruderal / Disturbed
Residential / Commercial
Distribution Piping (Approx. Alignment)
Alternate Distribution Piping (Approx. Alignment)
Biological Study Area (100 Foot Buffer)
Vegetation TypesAvenue L Southward
DRWN: Amber Nichols Revision: 0
0 0.3 0.6Miles°
70th Street West
Columbia Way
West Avenue L
West Avenue M-8
South North Intertie Water Pipeline Project – Phase II Biological Resources Assessment
Figures
South North Intertie Water Pipeline Project – Phase II Biological Resources Assessment
Appendix A: Plants and Wildlife Species of the Project Area
South North Intertie Water Pipeline Project – Phase II Biological Resources Assessment
TABLE A-1: Plant species documented within the Project Area.
Scientific Name Common Name
Ambrosia dumosa Burrobush
Amsinckia tessellata Fiddleneck
Atriplex canescens Fourwing saltbush
Baccharis salicifolia Mulefat
Brassica tournefortii * Sahara mustard
Bromus carinatus California brome
Bromus rubens* Red brome
Bromus tectorum* Cheatgrass
Camissonia campestris Mojave suncup
Cryptantha nevadensis var. nevadensis Nevada cryptantha
Datura stramonium* Jimsonweed
Descurainia pinnata Western tansymustard
Descurainia sophia* Herb sophia
Dichelostemma capitata Blue Dicks
Distichlis spicata Saltgrass
Ephedra sp. Ephedra
Ericameria nauseosa Rubber rabbitbrush
Eriogonum angulosum Anglestem buckwheat
Eriogonum fasciculatum California buckwheat
Erodium cicutarium* Redstem filaree
Eschscholzia californica California poppy
Gilia latiflora ssp. latiflora Broad-flowered gilia
Heliotropium curassavicum Heliotrope
Hirschfeldia incana* Shortpod mustard
Hordeum brachyantherum Meadow barley
Hordeum murinum ssp. glaucum* Hare barley
Juniperus spp. Juniper
Lasthenia californica California goldfields
Lycium cooperi Cooper's box thorn
Matricaria discoidea* Common pineapple weed
Pectocarya penicillata Winged comb seed
Pinus contorta ssp. murrayana Lodgepole pine
Plagiobothrys canescens var. catalinensis Catalina popcornflower
Polygonum arenastrum* Common knotweed
Robinia pseudoacacia Black locust
Salix laevigata Red willow
Salsola tragus* Russian thistle
Schismus barbatus* Mediterranean grass
South North Intertie Water Pipeline Project – Phase II Biological Resources Assessment
Sisymbrium irio* London rocket
Sphaeralcea ambigua Desert mallow
Tamarix ramosissima * Saltcedar
Ulmus rubra* Slippery elm
Uropappus lindleyi Lindley's silverpuffs
Yucca brevifolia Joshua tree
* Non-native species
TABLE A-2: Wildlife species observed or detected within the Project Area.
Scientific Name Common Name
Mammals
Lepus californicus Black-tailed jackrabbit
Otospermophilus beecheyi California ground squirrel
Birds
Ardea alba Great egret
Buteo jamaicensis Red-tailed hawk (dark morph)
Callipepla californica California quail
Corvus corax Common raven
Eremophila alpestris Horned lark
Icterus bullockii Bullock's oriole
Mimus polyglottos Northern mockingbird
Sturnella neglecta Western meadowlark
Sturnus vulgaris European starling
Zenaida macroura Mourning dove
Zonotrichia atricapilla Golden-crowned sparrow
Zonotrichia leucophrys White-crowned sparrow
Reptiles
Uta stansburiana Side-blotched lizard
Invertebrates
Messor spp. Harvester ant
South North Intertie Water Pipeline Project – Phase II Biological Resources Assessment
Appendix B: Site Photographs
South North Intertie Water Pipeline Project – Phase II Biological Resources Assessment
Photograph 1: (View looking northwest) Fallow farmland / non-native grassland habitat along 80th Street West
between West Avenue H and West Avenue I, showing the native and non-native forbs and shrubs.
Photograph 2: (View looking east) Alkali sink area within the right-of-way along 80th Street West between West
Avenue I and West Avenue J.
South North Intertie Water Pipeline Project – Phase II Biological Resources Assessment
Photograph 3: (View looking southwest) Rabbitbrush scrub habitat along 80th Street West between West Avenue J
and West Avenue K, showing the native forbs and shrubs.
Photograph 4: (View looking south) Area of sparse Joshua tree stands along 80th Street West at the intersection of
West Avenue K.
South North Intertie Water Pipeline Project – Phase II Biological Resources Assessment
Photograph 5: (View looking south) Joshua trees within the right-of-way along 80th Street West between West
Avenue K and West Avenue L.
Photograph 6: (View looking southwest) Agricultural fields along unpaved 80th Street West at the intersection of
West Avenue H.
South North Intertie Water Pipeline Project – Phase II Biological Resources Assessment
Photograph 7: (View looking northeast) Los Angeles County Water Works District Disinfection Station and Turnout
Site on 80th Street West at West Avenue H, showing ruderal/disturbed area of non-native grasses and forbs.
Photograph 8: (View looking south) Residential area along 70th Street West between West Avenue L and Columbia
Way.
South North Intertie Water Pipeline Project – Phase II Biological Resources Assessment
Photograph 9: Ground squirrel burrow within non-native grassland along 80th Street West between Columbia
Avenue and West Avenue M-8.
Photograph 10: Ground squirrel burrow within non-native grassland along 80th Street West between Columbia
Avenue and West Avenue M-8.
South North Intertie Water Pipeline Project – Phase II Biological Resources Assessment
Photographs 11 & 12: (View looking southwest) Active raven nest within lodgepole pine tree along 70th Street West
between West Avenue K and West Avenue L.
Photograph 13: Raven nest observed being constructed on power transmission line along 80th Street West between
West Avenue H and West Avenue I.
South North Intertie Water Pipeline Project – Phase II Biological Resources Assessment
Appendix C: Potentially Occurring Special Status Species
South North Intertie Pipeline Project – Phase II Biological Resources Constraints Analysis
TABLE C-1: Special status plant and wildlife species that have potential to occur within the proposed Project Area (species with CNDDB records within the 9 USGS quadrangles surrounding the Project site).
South North Intertie Pipeline Project – Phase II Biological Resources Constraints Analysis
Status* Potential for Occurrence
Species Federal State CRPR Habitat Characteristics On the Project Site
Plant Communities
Southern Coast Live Oak Riparian Forest ~ SSNC ~
Riparian woodland dominated by coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia). Occurs in valley bottoms and outer floodplains along larger streams, in sandy soils or alluvium.
Limited potential. No coast live oak trees or riparian areas were observed within the Project Area.
Southern Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest
~ SSNC ~
Riparian forests characterized by a tall, multilayered, open canopy and dominated by Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii), and willows (Salix spp.). Distributed along rivers and streams.
Limited potential. No cottonwood trees or riparian areas were observed within the Project Area.
Southern Riparian Scrub ~ SSNC ~
Riparian scrub habitat dominated by various shrub species such as California broomsage (Lepidospartum squamatum), and California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum). Distributed along rivers and streams.
Limited potential. No riparian areas or aquatic habitats were observed within the Project Area.
Southern Willow Scrub ~ SSNC ~ Riparian scrub habitat dominated by willow trees and shrubs (Salix spp.). Distributed along rivers and streams.
Limited potential. No willow trees and shrubs or riparian areas were observed within the Project Area.
Valley Needlegrass Grassland ~ SSNC ~ Characterized by perennial tussock-forming grasses dominated by purple needlegrass (Nassella pulchra).
Limited potential. No purple needlegrass was observed within the Project Area.
Plants
Horn's milk vetch (Astragalus hornii var. hornii)
~ ~ 1B.1
Occurs along lake margins, meadows and seeps, and playas in alkaline soils. Elevation range is 60 to 850 meters. Blooms May-October.
Limited potential. No suitable habitat observed within the Project Area.
Lancaster milk vetch (Astragalus preussii var. laxiflorus)
~ ~ 1B.1
Found in chenopod scrub. Currently known in California only from near Lancaster and Edwards Air Force Base. Blooms March-May.
Limited potential. No suitable habitat observed within the Project Area.
South North Intertie Pipeline Project – Phase II Biological Resources Constraints Analysis
Status* Potential for Occurrence
Species Federal State CRPR Habitat Characteristics On the Project Site
Barstow woolly sunflower (Eriophyllum mohavense)
~ ~ 1B.2 Occurs in chenopod scrub, Mojavean desert scrub, and playas. Elevation range is 500 to 960 meters. Blooms March-May.
Limited potential. Suitable habitat observed within the Project Area, however this species was not observed during the floristic survey.
Slender mariposa lily (Calochortus clavatus var. gracilis)
~ ~ 1B.2
Occurs in chaparral, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grasslands. Elevation range is 320 to 1000 meters. Blooms March-June.
Limited potential. Suitable habitat observed within the Project Area, however this species was not observed during the floristic survey.
Alkali mariposa lily (Calochortus striatus)
~ ~ 1B.2
A perennial bulb found in alkaline and mesic areas within chaparral, chenopod scrub, Mojavean desert scrub, meadows, and seeps. Elevation range is 70 to 1,595 meters. Blooms April-June.
Limited potential. Suitable habitat observed within the Project Area, however this species was not observed during the floristic survey.
Clokey's cryptantha (Cryptantha clokeyi)
~ ~ 1B.2 Occurs in Mojavean desert scrub. Elevation range is 725 to 1,365 meters. Blooms in April.
Limited potential. Suitable habitat observed within the Project Area, however this species was not observed during the floristic survey.
Sagebrush loeflingia (Loeflingia squarrosa var. artemisiarum)
~ ~ 2B.2
Found in desert dunes, Great Basin scrub, and Sonoran desert scrub. Elevation range is 700 to 1,615 meters. Soil type is sandy. Blooms April-May.
Limited potential. Suitable habitat observed within the Project Area, however this species was not observed during the floristic survey.
Short-joint beavertail (Opuntia basilaris var. brachyclada)
~ ~ 1B.2
Occurs in chaparral, Joshua tree woodland, Mojavean desert scrub, and pinyon and juniper woodland habitats. Elevation range is 425 to 1,800 meters. Blooms April-August.
Limited potential. Suitable habitat observed within the Project Area, however this species was not observed during the floristic survey.
South North Intertie Pipeline Project – Phase II Biological Resources Constraints Analysis
Status* Potential for Occurrence
Species Federal State CRPR Habitat Characteristics On the Project Site
Mammals
Southern grasshopper mouse (Onychomys torridus ramona)
~ CSC
Arid desert habitats of the Mojave Desert and southern Central Valley. Alkali desert scrub and desert scrub habitats. Uses abandoned rodent burrows in low to moderate shrub cover.
Potentially present. Suitable low shrub cover desert scrub with rodent burrow habitats observed within the Project Area, however this species has not been observed within the nine USGS quad search area since 1930. Low likelihood of occurrence.
American badger (Taxidea taxus)
~ CSC
Occurs in open, dry grassland and scrubland habitats. Requires sufficient food (mostly burrowing rodents), friable soils and open, uncultivated ground.
Potentially present. Suitable habitat exists on-site, and one potential badger den observed during survey.
Mohave ground squirrel (Xerospermophilus mohavensis)
FT ~
Inhabits desert scrub communities and Joshua tree woodlands in the Mojave Desert in portions of Inyo, Kern, Los Angeles, and San Bernardino counties. This species spends much of the year underground.
Limited potential. Project Area is outside of the current known range for this species. The closest known populations occur east of Hwy 14 in Lancaster, approximately 6.7 miles east of the Project Area.
Birds
Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos)
BGEPA FP
Inhabits grasslands, savannahs, oak and pine woodlands, and agricultural fields. Nesting usually occurs in mountainous areas, but may also occur in wetland and riparian habitats. Nests are constructed on cliffs and in large trees in open areas.
Potentially present during foraging. Suitable grassland and agricultural field foraging habitats observed within the Project Area.
Short-eared owl (Asio flammeus)
~ CSC
Found in open, treeless areas that support rodents for foraging, with elevated sites for perching, and dense vegetation for roosting and nesting. Suitable habitats include salt- and freshwater marshes, irrigated agricultural alfalfa and grain fields, and grasslands.
Potentially present. Suitable grassland and agricultural field foraging and nesting habitats observed within the Project Area, however this species has not been observed within the nine USGS quad search since 1932. Low likelihood of occurrence.
South North Intertie Pipeline Project – Phase II Biological Resources Constraints Analysis
Status* Potential for Occurrence
Species Federal State CRPR Habitat Characteristics On the Project Site
Western Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia)
~ CSC Inhabits open annual or perennial grasslands, desserts and scrublands characterized by low-growing vegetation.
Potentially present. Suitable grassland and desert scrub foraging and nesting habitats observed within the Project Area.
Swainson's hawk (Buteo swainsoni)
BCC ST
Within Antelope Valley this species is known to nest in Joshua tree woodlands, ornamental roadside trees. Foraging habitat includes grasslands, Joshua tree woodlands, and other desert scrub habitats that support a suitable prey base.
Potentially present. Suitable grassland, desert scrub, and Joshua tree nesting and foraging habitats observed within the Project Area.
Western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus)
~ CSC
Interior California population breeds on barren to sparsely vegetated flats and along shores of alkaline and saline lakes, reservoirs, ponds, and river channels. Requires water within 3 km for nesting. Forage near shallow water.
Limited potential. No aquatic habitats within 3 km of the Project Area.
Mountain plover (Charadrius montanus)
~ CSC
Winter visitor to California, typically from December to mid-March. Species uses grassland and agricultural land, all with short vegetation.
Limited potential. Species not associated with desert scrub habitat in Project Area. Non-native grassland within Project Area without suitable short vegetation.
California condor (Gymnogyps californianus)
FE SE
Is found in semi-arid, rugged mountain ranges surrounding southern San Joaquin Valley. Forages primarily on large carcasses such as cattle, sheep, deer, and horse in large, open rangelands. Nests in caves, crevices, and on large ledges on high sandstone cliffs.
Limited potential. Project Area not within current known range for this species (USFWS 2013a). No suitable nesting habitat observed, and Project Area provides only marginal foraging habitat due to low density of large carcasses in the vicinity.
Le Conte's thrasher (Toxostoma lecontei)
~ CSC
Desert flats, washes, alluvial with sandy alkali soils. In Antelope Valley, species known only to nest in allscale (Atriplex polycarpa).
Potentially present. Suitable foraging and nesting habitat observed within the Project Area.
South North Intertie Pipeline Project – Phase II Biological Resources Constraints Analysis
Status* Potential for Occurrence
Species Federal State CRPR Habitat Characteristics On the Project Site
Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus)
~ CSC
Found in a variety of habitats including desert scrub and washes. Prefers open habitat for hunting, with perches for scanning, and fairly dense shrubs and brush for nesting.
Potentially present. Suitable foraging and nesting habitat observed within the Project Area.
Tri-colored blackbird ~ CSC
Is found in wetland areas throughout the Central Valley and foothills. Nests in dense blackberry, cattail tules, willow, or wild rose within emergent wetlands.
Limited potential. No aquatic habitats suitable for nesting within the Project Area. The California Aqueduct is approximately 0.3 miles south of the Project Area but lacks emergent vegetation.
Amphibians
California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii)
FT CSC
Inhabits quiet pools within streams, marshes, ponds, and artificial stock ponds. May be found in upland and riparian areas during periods of wet weather. Found at elevations below 1,200 meters.
Limited potential. No aquatic or riparian areas within the Project Area. The California Aqueduct is approximately 0.3 miles south of the Project Area but lacks suitable habitat for this species.
Reptiles
Silvery legless lizard (Anniella pulchra pulchra)
~ CSC
Occurs in grasslands and open shrublands with moist, warm sandy or loose loamy soils with plant cover. Typically occurs in areas with leaf litter under trees and bushes in sunny locations.
Potentially present. Suitable habitat observed within the Project Area. CNDDB record from 2005 approximately 3.6 miles east of the Project Area in similar habitat (saltbush scrub, Joshua tree woodland in sandy soils) (CDFW 2014).
Western pond turtle (Emmys marmorata)
~ CSC
Inhabits ponds, lakes, rivers, streams, creeks, marshes, and irrigation ditches where abundant vegetation and either a rocky or muddy bottom is present.
Limited potential. No aquatic or riparian areas within the Project Area. The California Aqueduct is approximately 0.3 miles south of the Project Area but lacks suitable habitat for this species (CDFW 2014).
South North Intertie Pipeline Project – Phase II Biological Resources Constraints Analysis
Status* Potential for Occurrence
Species Federal State CRPR Habitat Characteristics On the Project Site
Desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii)
FT ST
Inhabits river washes, rocky hillsides, and flat desert areas with sandy or gravelly soil. Creosote bush, burrobush, saltbush, Joshua tree, Mojave yucca and cacti are often present along with other shrubs, grasses and wildflowers.
Potentially present. Suitable desert scrub, and Joshua tree habitats observed, however no known occurrences of this species west of Highway 14, and marginal soil friability and habitat structure typical of this species. Low likelihood of occurrence.
Blainville's horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii)
~ CSC Inhabits grassland, scrub, chaparral, and woodland, with ant populations.
Potentially present. Suitable grassland and desert scrub habitat observed within the Project Area. CNDDB record from 2007 approximately 0.3 mile southwest of the Project Area in non-native grassland habitat (CDFW 2014).
Two-striped garter snake (Thamnophis hammondii)
~ CSC
Inhabits perennial and intermittent streams, stock ponds or other artificial aquatic habitats where a dense riparian vegetation border and amphibian and fish prey are present.
Limited potential. No aquatic or riparian areas within the Project Area. The California Aqueduct is approximately 0.3 miles south of the Project Area but lacks suitable habitat for this species.
Federal Status: USFWS Listing CRPR: California Rare Plant Rank
FE = Listed as endangered under ESA 1B = Plant species that are rare, threatened, or FT = Listed as threatened under ESA endangered in California and elsewhere BCC = Bird of Conservation Concern 2B = Plant species that are rare, threatened, or BGEPA = Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act endangered in California but more common elsewhere
State Status: CDFW Listing Threat Ranks
SE = Listed as endangered under CESA 0.1 - Seriously threatened in California ST = Listed as threatened under CESA 0.2 - Fairly threatened in California FP = Fully Protected under the BGEPA CSC = Species of concern as identified by the CDFW SSNC = Special Status Natural Community as identified by the CDFW
Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands File Search
California Historical Resource Information System Consultation
14.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
ANTELOPE VALLEY – EAST KERN WATER AGENCY
SOUTH NORTH INTERTIE PIPELINE (SNIP) PHASE II PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration SCH No. 2014051007
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
June 2014
Antelope Valley – East Kern Water Agency – South North Intertie Pipeline SNIP Phase II Project Mitigated Negative Declaration - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan Page 2
1. General The Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Antelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency (Agency) South North Intertie Pipeline SNIP Phase II Project specified a number of mitigation measures to be undertaken during implementation of the proposed project. During implementation it is essential that all of these be complied with and that compliance be documented in a timely manner. Failure to comply with and or document compliance could result in a challenge to the project that could result in project delays. This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) has been prepared for the project and has been adopted concurrently with the findings of the final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration. This plan is intended to track compliance of all of the mitigation measures adopted with the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
2. Responsibility for Compliance and Documentation Implementation of the MMRP will be the responsibility of the Agency. The Agency will assign a project manager to oversee all aspects of implementation of the proposed project and ensure that the mitigation and monitoring commitments made in the MND are carried out in a timely and effective manner. In implementing the MMRP, the Agency will often rely on the expertise of outside consultants and contractors. To ensure the effectiveness of this mitigation and monitoring, the Agency will:
• Make the MMRP an element of all project-related requests for proposals and contract specifications, specifying that construction contractors will be responsible for appropriate acquisition of permits for construction and implementation of relevant mitigation and monitoring elements, as specified in this MMRP;
• Independently review contractor compliance on a regular basis and require corrective actions in a timely manner when the Agency determines that such actions are required;
• Maintain files, open to the public for inspection, documenting compliance with the MMRP;
• Designate an Agency staff member to receive and respond to all public and agency comments, complaints, and/or questions regarding compliance with the MMRP; and
• Provide regulatory agencies with appropriate and timely documentation of compliance as specified in regulatory permits issued for the proposed project.
Additionally, the Agency will require that construction contractors designate a principal mitigation and monitoring manager (Principal) and back-up mitigation and monitoring manager (Alternate) and shall ensure that at least one of these is on-site during all phases of construction. These persons may perform other tasks, but shall have adequate time, training, and expertise to perform the required monitoring and documentation. The Principal shall be the contractor's construction field supervisor or assistant field supervisor. The Principal or Alternate shall independently verify compliance with required mitigation measures and shall indicate verification by filling out and signing the appropriate compliance checklist, thereby certifying compliance with all measures.
3. Incidents and Compliance Reporting Timely reporting of compliance and of any incidents which may result in non-compliance is essential. Contracts for construction and for independent compliance contractors shall therefore specify that, if the designated construction contractor for an activity determines that
Antelope Valley – East Kern Water Agency – South North Intertie Pipeline SNIP Phase II Project Mitigated Negative Declaration - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan Page 3
any aspect of construction is not in substantive compliance with the mitigation requirements for the activity, the contractor shall immediately take action to remedy the problem. The designated Principal or Alternate shall notify the Agency within not more than 24 hours following determination that any aspect of construction activity is not in compliance with mitigation requirements, shall explain how the incident has been addressed, and shall provide any other information requested by the Agency. Following action to address the out-of-compliance incident, the designated Principal or Alternate must complete an "incident report" and submit a copy of the report to the Agency’s project manager within one week of the incident.
4. Mitigation and Monitoring Plan Update The Agency recognizes that laws, regulations, and policies related to construction activities may change during construction. The Agency’s project manager is responsible for periodically reviewing the status of laws, regulations, and guidelines applicable to their construction activity. The Agency will implement any new rules in effect at the time of approval.
5. Staff Awareness Staff must be informed of mitigation and monitoring requirements prior to construction. New staff must be oriented when they come on site. The Principal/Alternate therefore needs to review compliance requirements and monitoring requirements for the job with all personnel on site to ensure that they know the requirements, know the importance of compliance, know that violations must be reported, and know that compliance is a condition of employment on this job. Similarly, a summary list of mitigation and monitoring requirements shall be posted in a conspicuous location at the job site so that they may be referred to at any time.
6. Training If specialized expertise are necessary for mitigation or monitoring, Agency staff or the delegated construction contractor shall provide such training to the persons responsible for compliance and/or monitoring. For example, if biological pre construction surveys identify the presence of a special status species, the Agency shall retain the services of a qualified biologist familiar with this species to provide environmental training for the identification and protection of same.
7. On Going Documentation Compliance will be monitored on a timely basis, depending on the nature of the activity and the Mitigation requirement. Where appropriate. photo documentation of pre-construction conditions, of activities during construction, of any incidents that may constitute a violation of mitigation requirements, and of post construction conditions are encouraged. However, if photo documentation is adopted as a monitoring tool, it must be used consistently to ensure that there are records of all activities for which compliance must be documented. Labels must be explanatory and contain adequate information about the photographer, date, time, and conditions when the photo was taken. Photo documentation shall be backed up with paper copies and/or records on CD/DVD. Agency staff may audit records of compliance with mitigation and monitoring requirements at any time and compliance records must be readily available and in good order. Logs of mitigation and monitoring compliance should be maintained and supporting documentation should be provided in parallel to the log. The Agency and its project manager and other contractors will maintain such records in a form suitable for the required monitoring and reporting. It is anticipated that contractors will generally have appropriate monitoring templates for typical construction activities. In other cases, the format of compliance monitoring records may be available from the regulatory agency approving the monitoring (if any).
Antelope Valley – East Kern Water Agency – South North Intertie Pipeline SNIP Phase II Project Mitigated Negative Declaration - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan Page 4
8. Mitigation and Monitoring Requirements The following identifies all of the mitigation measures identified in the MND.
Biological General MM-1: A qualified biologist shall conduct a training session for all construction personnel focused on the protection and conservation of sensitive species that may be encountered in the Project area, the laws and codes that regulate these species, and the protection measures that must be followed to minimize impacts. MM-2: All excavated holes or trenches greater than 2 feet deep shall be covered at the end of each work day, or escape ramps provided. MM-3: All food-related trash items (such as food scraps, cans, bottles) shall be removed from the Project Area daily. Avian Species MM-4: To minimize impacts to nesting and roosting raptors, pre-activity surveys would be conducted immediately prior to construction. All potential nesting trees will be surveyed within 500 feet of the project area. • Any active raptor nests would be given a 500-foot buffer. This buffer may be reduced to
300 feet if a full time biological monitor is present to observe the birds’ behavior and stop work if they appear disturbed.
• For the known raptor nest on the airport property within Segment 3, a 200-foot distance from the project activities combined with a biological monitor during construction during the nesting period will likely be sufficient to protect the nest.
MM-5: Although burrowing owls are considered raptors, their special ground-nesting habit requires additional protection measures. Pre-activity surveys of the Project Area and a 500-foot buffer would be conducted immediately prior to construction. All potential burrows would be observed for signs of burrowing owl use, such as whitewash, feathers, and owl pellets. • If an active nest is confirmed the nest will be given a 500-foot buffer until the chicks have fledged and are independent of the nest. • If a solitary or non-nesting burrowing owl is observed using a burrow, a 200-foot buffer
would be established. MM-6: Tree removal shall be avoided whenever possible to limit the loss of nesting habitat for Swainson’s hawks and other migratory birds. Where tree removal is unavoidable, trees shall be removed outside of the nesting season whenever possible. Trees slated for removal during the nesting bird season (February 1 through August 31) shall be surveyed by a qualified biologist no more than 48 hours prior to removal to ensure no nesting birds are occupying the tree.
Antelope Valley – East Kern Water Agency – South North Intertie Pipeline SNIP Phase II Project Mitigated Negative Declaration - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan Page 5
MM-7: If an active Swainson’s hawk nest is found during pre-construction surveys, a 0.5 mile buffer restricting construction activities around the nest shall be established until all young have fledged or the nest is no longer in use. MM-8: To minimize impacts to nesting migratory birds, pre-activity surveys would be conducted immediately prior to vegetation clearance, tree removal or other construction activities during the avian nesting season (February 1 through August 31), to identify potential active nests. If active nests are found, a 300-foot buffer restricting construction activities would be established around the nests until all young have fledged or the nest is no longer active. MM-9: The results of the pre-construction nesting bird surveys shall be documented in a letter report that is distributed to CDFW. These measures shall ensure compliance with the MBTA, and CFGC 3503.5. American Badgers MM-10: Pre-activity surveys would be conducted immediately prior to construction to identify potential dens. Potential dens would be monitored for 3 days using tracking medium at the potential den entrance to detect badger use. • If the den is inactive, the den would be carefully excavated or dismantled and refilled with
soil and the proposed Project would be initiated. • If tracks are observed on the tracking medium during any of the 3 days, the entrance will
be progressively blocked over the next 3 days using soil and other nearby materials (i.e., woody debris) to render the entrance progressively more difficult to access. To assure no loss of badgers, the den will then be hand excavated and backfilled to prevent re-occupation.
• Active natal dens would require establishment of a 300-foot buffer surrounding the active natal den. No work related to the proposed Project would take place within this buffer while the natal den is active. Once abandoned the den would be dismantled or excavated.
Bats MM-11: Pre-construction surveys for active bat roosting sites shall be conducted in buildings and trees that could support bats and are within 200-feet of the Project Area. • If no evidence of bats (i.e., direct observation, guano, staining, and strong odors) is
observed, no further mitigation shall be required. • If evidence of roosting bats is observed, a no-disturbance buffer of 250-feet shall be
established during the breeding season (April 15 through August 15). • No removal of trees showing evidence of roosting bats shall occur without prior
concurrence from CDFW. Where tree removal is unavoidable, a qualified bat biologist shall determine the bat species in residence, and CDFW will be consulted to determine the appropriate avoidance and minimization measures.
Antelope Valley – East Kern Water Agency – South North Intertie Pipeline SNIP Phase II Project Mitigated Negative Declaration - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan Page 6
Reptiles MM-12: A biologist shall survey the Project Area within 48 hours of construction prior to initial ground disturbance, and relocate any individuals encountered to suitable habitat outside the Project footprint. MM-13: Biological monitors will be present during the top layers of excavation and relocate any individuals encountered during this activity. Plants MM-14: Areas within the Project Area that present characteristics to indicate they could support any of the potential special status plants will be restored to pre-project conditions following construction. Air Quality MM-15: The project contractor will prepare and implement a Fugitive Dust Plan per AVAQMD guidelines that would include the following or other measures with the equivalent level of reduction for the entire project. The fugitive dust control plan can be incorporated onto the project’s Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. • All materials excavated or graded would be sufficiently watered to prevent excessive
dust. • All clearing, grading, earth-moving, or excavation activities would cease during periods of
high winds so as to prevent excessive amounts of dust. • Stockpiles of soil or other fine loose material would be stabilized by watering or other
appropriate method such as non-toxic soil binders to prevent wind-blown fugitive dust. • On-site vehicle speed on unimproved roads would be limited to 15 miles per hour. • Streets adjacent to the project site would be kept clean and project-related accumulated
silt shall be removed to prevent excessive amounts of dust. In addition to the Fugitive Dust Plan, the construction contractor would implement measures, such as the following, to reduce emission of exhaust from vehicles and diesel generators: • All equipment shall be maintained as recommended by manufacturer’s manuals. • Idling engines shall be shut down when not in use for over 30 minutes. • Electric equipment shall be used whenever possible in lieu of diesel or gasoline powered
equipment. • All construction vehicles shall be equipped with proper emissions control equipment and
kept in good and proper running order to substantially reduce nitrogen oxides (NOX) emissions.
• On-road and off-road diesel equipment shall use diesel particulate filters if permitted under manufacturer’s guidelines.
• All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered. Cultural MM-16: The Agency will be entering into a consultation services agreement with the Fernandeno Tatavian Board of Mission Indians to provide consultation services to the Agency
Antelope Valley – East Kern Water Agency – South North Intertie Pipeline SNIP Phase II Project Mitigated Negative Declaration - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan Page 7
with respect to potential cultural resources of importance that could exist within the project boundaries. MM-17: In the event that any cultural resources are uncovered, all work within the vicinity of the find should stop until a qualified archaeologist can assess the finds and make recommendations. Noise MM-18: The project Contractor shall to comply with the Los Angeles County Municipal Code Section 12.08.440 related to noise during construction operations.
Top Related