AV Citizens for AVCRUW - WordPress.com€¦ · WSSP-1 draft EIR, our organization’s ... An...

Tom Barnes, Resource Manager Antelope Valley-East Kern Water Agency January 8, 2008

August 4, 2008 Tom Barnes, Resource Manager Antelope Valley-East Kern Water Agency 6500 West Ave N Palmdale, CA 93551-2855 Subject: Comments to the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Antelope Valley-East Kern

Water Agency WSSP-2 Groundwater Recharge Project (“MND”) Dear Mr. Barnes: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the subject environmental analysis. Attached are our organization’s comments. Please note: as was also the case for comments to the AVEK WSSP-1 draft EIR, our organization’s comments to this MND are separate and distinct from those being submitted by myself as an individual.

Due to the numerous and extensive comments being submitted by us and others, it is apparent that this MND is not sufficient for the proposed WSSP-2 project, and therefore an EIR should be prepared.

Due to the numerous and extensive comments being submitted by us and others, we request that you:

1. Provide us with a copy of all comments to this MND; and 2. Provide us with a copy of your response to comments for review 10 days prior to the

adoption of the MND.

AVCRUW AV Citizens for Responsible Use of Water

P.O. Box 1360

Rosamond, CA 93560

AV Citizens for Responsible Use

of Water AVCRUW

Tom Barnes, Resource Manager Antelope Valley-East Kern Water Agency January 8, 2008

Please be advised that, as allowed by CEQA case law, we reserve the right to place additional comments in the record prior to and at any AVEK Board hearing that may be held to consider certification of this MND.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely, Randall E. Scott President, AV Citizens for Responsible Use of Water Enclosure: AVCRUW Comments to the MND

August 4, 2008

VIA HAND DELIVERY

Mr. Tom Barnes Resources Manager Antelope Valley-East Kern Water Agency 6500 West Avenue N Palmdale, CA 93551-2855 Re: Comments to Initial Study of the WSSP-2 Groundwater Recharge Project

Dear Mr. Barnes:

This letter is submitted on behalf of Antelope Valley Citizens for Responsible Use of Water (AVCRUW), to provide the following comments regarding the June 2008 Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (hereafter referred to as “Initial Study” or “MND”) for the Water Supply Stabilization Project No. 2, Groundwater Recharge Project (“Project”) (aka the Godde Water Bank). We understand the critical need for additional infrastructure to ensure reliable, clean water supplies for present and future agricultural, domestic, municipal and industrial purposes in the Antelope Valley. We strongly support all properly analyzed and coordinated water banking efforts. The project area for this Project immediately abuts the Antelope Valley Water Bank (“AVWB”) and, therefore, we would like to ensure that the projects are planned, permitted, designed, constructed, operated and monitored in a consistent, compatible fashion that maximizes benefits to the basin while not negatively impacting surrounding landowners. Our specific comments are set forth below. We look forward to working to resolve the issues that we have identified below so that this Project is assured of an adequate level of environmental evaluation, mitigation and monitoring.

In summary, the Project MND is significantly flawed and lacks adequate information and analysis regarding the Project description, environmental impacts, and mitigation measures. The comments below reflect our concerns with the Project, as proposed, and the constant concern that

AVCRUW AV Citizens for Responsible Use of Water

P.O. Box 1360

Rosamond, CA 93560

AV Citizens for Responsible Use

of Water AVCRUW

Mr. Tom Barnes Resources Manager Antelope Valley-East Kern Water Agency August 4, 2008 Page 2

the Project will likely result in significant impacts related to the following: air quality, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, transportation, growth inducement, utilities and services, cultural resources, public services. Additionally, in light of other past, ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable projects in the area, the Project will likely contribute considerably toward significant cumulative impacts that are not disclosed.

To comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), an MND must mitigate the effects to a point where “clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur.” (CEQA Guideline 15369.5.) The proposed mitigation measures do not adequately mitigate the identified effects. Clearly, the MND does not mitigate the direct and indirect environmental impacts that are not identified in the first instance. An environmental impact report (“EIR”) is required if there is a “fair argument” that significant impacts may occur. The fair argument standard which requires an EIR is a low threshold because, among other reasons, adopting an MND terminates the review process. As identified below, the MND itself concedes that significant impacts will result from the Project. The nature of this Project necessitates the preparation of an EIR to ensure that potential impacts are thoroughly evaluated and so that stakeholders have adequate information and time to formulate and submit their input. As such, we respectfully urge the Antelope Valley-East Kern Water Agency (“AVEK”) to develop and circulate an EIR for the Project for review and comment. PROCESS

1. AVEK did not provide important information related to the air impacts analysis, i.e., URBEMIS model results. Similarly, noise estimate assumptions and water quality data were not provided. These are not data that are otherwise available to the public. These important model runs, assumptions, and data must be included in the Initial Study and be made readily available to the public. A 45-day extension of the minimum review time offered by AVEK is required.

2. The Notice of Intent to Adopt the MND, published on July 2, 2008, in the Antelope Valley Press, provides inadequate notice. To comply with CEQA, AVEK must provide not less than 30 days for the public to review the MND. (CEQA Guideline 15073(a).) The Notice purports to provide a 30-day period, but it requires comments to be received by 5 p.m. on the last day. This “receipt” requirement improperly shortens the period with which the public has a right to review the MND.


PROJECT DESCRIPTION

3. The Project is described as the WSSP-2 Groundwater Recharge Project. Clearly, this Project is part of a larger water supply/storage program; however, the impacts of the overall program are not disclosed or analyzed. To avoid piece-mealing, AVEK’s document must disclose and analyze the impacts of its entire program. If the impacts of the program have been analyzed previously, then the Project document should incorporate that previous analysis by reference and the program impacts should be addressed in the cumulative impacts section of the Project document.

4. The title of the Project, “Groundwater Recharge Project,” is misleading. The Project proposes to recharge imported surface water in an aquifer, store the water until it is needed, and then recover the water for use; it’s a water bank project and should be described as such.

Project Purpose and Need

5. The Project description lacks adequate detail to fully inform the public of details regarding current agricultural practices as compared to the operation of the proposed Project are not provided. The Project description is inconsistent with the subsequent resources analysis. Such lack of inconsistent information necessarily results in an inadequate environmental impact analysis. A clear, precise Project description is key to a proper CEQA analysis. The MND fails this initial step and thus violates CEQA.

6. Previous AVEK documents show that 83% of AVEK deliveries in 2006 were treated water (presumably used for M&I) and that AVEK’s projected water demand increases are driven entirely by population increases, not agriculture, with the population served by AVEK projected to double by 2025. If the purpose and need are driven by population increase, then the Project is growth inducing (removes an obstacle to growth) and the impacts of that growth must be disclosed.

7. In Section 1.5.1 of the Initial Study, AVEK asserts the need for 400,000 AF of storage over the next 25 to 30 years. The basis for this estimate should be provided in the Initial Study as it is fundamental to understanding the role of the Project in (only partially) meeting the asserted need and to evaluating alternatives to the Project in meeting such need.

8. Section 1.4.2 states that “Recharge supplies would be delivered to AVEK customers within the Antelope Valley region; there is no provision for banking supplies for others or for delivery of banked supplies out of the Antelope Valley region.” What is the Antelope Valley


region? Are the Project capacities (recharge, recovery, total) sized for AVEK’s current demands or for demands projected for the next 30 years?

9. What assumptions were made regarding decreased agricultural demands and increased M&I demands over the next three decades in arriving at a storage capacity need of 400,000 AF?

A. Section 1.5.1 states that there are ‘no functional groundwater storage facilities in the region…”. That statement is misleading. The water bank operated by the Semitropic-Rosamond Water Bank Authority (the Authority) is located adjacent to AVEK’s proposed Project. Infrastructure required to deliver water to the Authority’s existing facilities is in place, and the Rosamond Community Services District has requested that AVEK wheel RCSD water to the Authority’s facility.

10. The Project Description provided is inadequate because:

A. It does not explicitly define the total Project capacity. The storage capacity is calculated to be 155,000 to 165,000 AF (Section 1-2), but a project capacity is not defined. Section 2.4.2.4 suggests AVEK’s Project “has capacity to receive and store about 200,000 acre-feet of water.”

B. It does not explicitly describe the annual recharge capacity or clearly describe or

constrain when recharge or recovery would occur during the year. A project recharge capacity can be inferred from Section 1.4.1 to be 36,000 AF/year (300 AF/day*120 days [4 months, Nov-Feb]). Section 1.4.1, however, suggests a November through March recharge period, and throughout the document AVEK leaves open the door for recharge outside those periods.

C. It does not describe the annual recovery capacity. A project recovery capacity is

not stated and cannot be reasonably inferred from the information provided.

D. It does not clearly describe how many recovery wells will be required. Section 1.3.2 suggests that a total of 10 to 13 wells would be used (5 existing wells and 5 to 8 new wells); however, Section 2.13.3.2 suggests that 15 new projection wells would be constructed. Capacities for the existing wells and new wells are not specified.

E. The delivery of recovered water to AVEK users is unclear. Section 1.1 states that

the “stored water will be extracted using pumps, delivered to the West Feeder via


internal buried pipelines, and then delivered to AVEK customers…”. Section 2.10.1, however, states that “The pipelines provided for return of banked water would be integrated into AVEK’s drinking water system, thereby not affecting flow through the West Feeder.”

F. Section 1.3.1 indicates that a stubble will be established during recharge operations. The ET of any vegetation must be accounted for in estimating the amount of water actually recharged versus the amount of water applied to the recharge areas.

G. It is unclear throughout the document which water application methods (i.e., center pivot versus flood irrigation) were analyzed for any particular impact or resource area. Since either method may be used, the document must analyze and clearly disclose the impacts of each for each resource area (e.g., air quality, hazards, etc.). In addition, more details regarding the pivot method is necessary to determine this method’s efficacy and corresponding environmental impacts.

H. Section 1.3.1 (b) suggests that construction of berms for flood irrigation would take

1-2 weeks, but Section 2.12.3.2 suggests that their construction would take 1-4 weeks; please clarify what assumptions were used in the analyses (e.g., air, noise, etc.).

I. The locations of existing and new production wells are not described. If the new

wells are located in Kern County, then the wells would need to be sited on appropriately zoned land and permits would be required from the Kern County Department of Environmental Health.

J. Section 1.3.2 makes a vague reference to “phasing” the Project, but it is unclear

what parts of the Project may be phased.

K. The potential impacts associated with the construction of new power lines to the new production wells need to be analyzed and disclosed. Also, do existing powerlines have sufficient capacity to bear the loads of up to 15 production wells?

L. Section 1.3.3(a) suggests that in lieu water deliveries may be made. The vague

reference to a potential in-lieu program is not adequately described; the Project description does not include any in-lieu program.


• Where would it occur? • Is it only for agriculture or does it apply to M&I? • When would it occur? • Would this in-lieu recharge capacity be in addition to that provided by

recharge basins? • If the in-lieu program only applies to future increases in groundwater use,

then it’s not clear that the surface water provided by AVEK would be in lieu of water currently being used. Given that native groundwater in the basin is in the process of adjudication, it’s not clear that future increases in groundwater use are reasonable to foresee.

M. Section 1.3.3(b) contains several inconsistencies. References are made to an “8-

mile main pipeline” and to a “7-mile pipeline.” Are these referring to the same pipeline? What are the size(s) and capacity(ies) (cfs) of the pipeline(s)? Also, at a rate of 550 feet/day, such a pipeline would be completed in about 3 months, not the “6+ months” (whatever that means?). The estimates of excavation volumes do not appear to be accurate: an 8-10 foot deep trench producing “85-90 cubic feet of soil/lineal foot of trench;” and, a 6-7 foot deep trench producing about 90 cubic feet of spoil/linear foot of pipeline.”

N. It does not describe what kind of treatment stations will be used. Section 1.3.3

states that in-line treatment facilities would not emit criteria pollutants, but the document does not provide a description of the treatment that would occur or a comprehensive list of materials that would be used in the treatment.

O. Section 1.4.1 includes the statement, “It is more likely that delivery and recharge

will vary and more or less area may be required.” The assumptions that AVEK developed for the amount of land used for recharge must be disclosed clearly and carried consistently throughout all impact analyses. In order for the Project to be adequately described and impacts analyzed, and to avoid piece-mealing, the total area proposed for recharge must be determined and disclosed. If the total area proposed for recharge is dependent on information that AVEK has not gathered, then AVEK should constrain the Project based on what is known or should gather that information as part of the EIR process rather than defer the disclosure or analysis of impacts to a later date.


P. How much recharge could occur outside the November to February period? Recharge outside this window could have impacts on AVEK’s delivery of water during the high-demand, irrigation season, or on the development of hazards related to mosquitoes and migrating birds. AVEK’s analyses underestimate such impacts by suggesting that recharge would not likely occur during the March-October period.

Q. The construction of pipelines typically requires staging areas. Will such areas be

required? If so, AVEK must described their size, location, and activities that may occur there (e.g., maintenance, refueling, etc.) and associated impacts.

R. Section 1.8 fails to note that permits will be required for the construction of new

wells in Kern County (which may only be allowed on parcels that are appropriately zoned). Will the treatment plant require a permit from the air district?

Location

11. The assessor parcel numbers of the parcels owned by AVEK and included in the proposed Project are not provided and should be added to the text and figures to enable identification of the precise Project location. Section 1.1 indicates that all of the Project parcels are in Los Angeles County. However, the bounding area indicated in bullets includes an area north of Avenue A, south of Gaskell Road and east of 155th Street West that is within Kern County and potentially within the recovery area of the pre-existing AVWB. What facilities and activities are proposed by AVEK for this area?

12. The portion of the Project area in Kern County is within the Willow Springs Specific Plan

and requires approval from Kern County Planning if proposed Project activities are not currently allowed by the specific plan.

Operations / Maximum Recharge and Recovery Rates

13. The project description for a water bank must specify the maximum instantaneous (typically in cubic feet per second, cfs) and maximum annual volumes (typically in acre-feet, AF) of recharge and recovery operations so that project impacts can be adequately evaluated. Section 1.2, “Capacity” does not specify these capacities. Section 1.4.1 indicates a maximum recharge rate of 300 AF/day (approximately 150 cfs) yet Section 2.9.3.3 indicates a rate of 400 AF/day (approximately 200 cfs, a 33% difference) – which of these rates are correct? Table 14 indicates a recharge operation totaling 200,000 AF/year – which is not possible


with the capacities cited above. Please clarify. Section 2.10.1 indicates that the AVEK West Feeder has a capacity of 225 cfs. However, in the past, AVEK engineers have indicated that the actual operational capacity of the West Feeder is 150 cfs . Under this capacity, the proposed Project would use up all conveyance capacity in the West Feeder, leaving no capacity available for deliveries to downstream AVEK customers. This would be a significant impact on existing AVEK customers.

14. The document does not provide any indication of the maximum recovery rate although Section 1.3.2 indicates that the proposed Project would include 10 to 13 recovery wells (new and existing). This number of recovery wells suggests that the proposed Project recovery rate would be less than 100 cfs. What is the anticipated recovery rate? Table 14 indicates a recovery operation totaling 180,000 AF/year – which is not possible with 10 to 13 wells. Please clarify. The lack of clearly stated Project capacities prevents adequate evaluation of potential impacts. The document should be modified to clearly state capacities and analyze the impacts associated with those capacities.

15. Section 1.2 indicates that the available storage space ranges from 155,000 to 165,000 acre-feet (AF). Table 14 indicates a recharge operation of 200,000 AF/year, which is more than the estimated available storage. Applying more water than the available storage capacity would cause significant impacts, including flooding. Please clarify this apparent discrepancy.

16. Section 1.3.1.(a) states, “As is typical for groundwater recharge and recovery operations, AVEK would account for various types of losses (such as evaporation during recharge) by recovering not more than 90% of the water that is delivered for recharge.” This is a misstatement. Water banks typically limit recovery to 90% of the applied water that percolates after evaporative losses have been deducted. This 10% “leave-behind” is used to aid in basin overdraft recovery. Evaporative losses alone are typically more than 10% in the summer months and always greater than zero even in the winter months. Therefore, the Project would always contribute less than 10% to the basin and in some circumstances would actually overdraft the basin during recovery (by the amount of evaporative loss that exceeded 10%). The Project should account for evaporative losses as well as leave behind 10% of recharged water (applied water less evaporative losses) for overdraft recovery.

17. Section 1.2 indicates that a single shallow test pit provided a recharge rate of approximately 2 feet per day. Details on this test were not provided. Did this 2 foot per day recharge rate continue through the end of the test? Did this rate include deductions for evaporative losses? Did AVEK monitor shallow piezometers, nearby ditches and deeper monitoring wells to


confirm that the recharged water reached the water table and that recharged water did not perch on shallow low permeability layers? The pertinence of these questions is that assumed recharge rates of 1-2 feet/day were used throughout the Draft Initial Study as the basis for acreage calculations, volume of earthwork (and therefore air emission) calculations, annual water conveyance (and therefore energy use) calculations and a variety of other analyses. If the assumed 1-2 foot/day recharge rate is erroneously high, the estimated impacts would be erroneously low. Please provide a copy of the pilot test report which details how recharge rates changed over time, documents deduction of evaporative losses and demonstrates that recharge water reached the water table without significant perching above the water table. It should be noted that AVEK’s hydrogeologic analysis appears to rely on logs from borings advanced more than 30 years ago for purposes other than evaluation of recharge suitability. Please provide copies of all of these data with the requested report.

18. The MND indicates that the land will continue to be farmed when not being used for recharge operations. While the recharge operation may culturally mimic irrigation practices, the volumes of water applied during recharge will be orders of magnitude higher than those applied during irrigation, with the potential for flushing of herbicides, pesticides and fertilizers downward. In order to reduce this potential impact on groundwater quality, Kern County imposed a requirement that farming permanently convert to organic practices once recharge has commenced on a particular parcel. AVEK has not specified that they will convert to organic farming practices. We recommend that AVEK commit to conversion to organic farming practices. In addition, the MND fails to analyze the environmental impacts associated with applying large volumes of water to recently formed land.

19. As recognized by AVEK, there is a high degree of uncertainty regarding recharge rates, and therefore the required acreages and recharge methods. Under these circumstances it is customary for the project proponent to analyze the conservatively high impact scenario. For the Project, the high impact scenario would be that recharge rates are low and that recharge basins (not center pivot irrigation) will be required. AVEK has analyzed the temporary recharge basin scenario, but assumed a recharge rate of 1-2 feet/day and assumed that the property has an even slope. As noted above, we suspect that the cited 1-2 feet/day recharge rate may be erroneously high and have requested a copy of the AVEK pilot test report. If the recharge rate is lower than the assumed range, the acres of required ponded area (and therefore volume of earthwork and associated air emissions) would increase significantly.

20. The MND proposes to use center pivots or to build temporary small berms, similar to those used for flood irrigation, to perform recharge operations. The proposed Project area has


rolling topography that (without significant leveling) will cause a high degree of variability in the depth of ponded water. Combined with the notoriously high winds in the area, it is a certainty that moderately compacted, low, temporary berms will periodically erode and fail, causing water to spill out of the designated recharge areas. The proposed recharge area is bounded by several major county roads that could be flooded by this spillage. Uncontrolled flooding of recharge water onto county roads would pose a significant traffic hazard, especially to night-time traffic. The Project should be revised to include permanent peripheral berms to protect adjacent roads and landowners from uncontrolled spillage. Any design of peripheral berms would have to take into account natural drainage patterns of an ephemeral stream that bisects the proposed recharge area so as to not cause flooding during natural run-off events (as recognized in Section 2.10.3.2). The construction and air quality impacts should be re-evaluated to reflect the necessary increase in earthwork volumes.

21. While we recognize that the precise locations of new recovery wells cannot yet be specified, a figure should be provided that delineates the area within which recovery wells would be installed. Lack of this figure prevents adequate impact analysis.

ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

22. The alternatives analysis is fundamentally flawed in that AVEK purchased the Godde properties specifically for the purposes of water banking prior to considering alternatives and analyzing the impacts of a water bank (i.e., complying with CEQA). The purchase of the Property for the purposes of water banking is a project under CEQA because it was a discretionary activity directly undertaken by a public agency, is not considered a “nonproject” as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15378, and is not exempt from CEQA. Further, there is nothing in the record to suggest that AVEK found that the purchase of the property was exempt from CEQA, e.g., no evidence that a Notice of Exemption was prepared. Apart from the issues of approving the purchase of the Property without first complying with CEQA and/or piece-mealing, the purchase necessarily prejudices AVEK to consider first and foremost a water banking project that includes the purchased properties.

23. The MND’s reasoning for not considering other water banks is flawed (Sections 1.5.2 and 1.6). Also, the MND should provide rationale for revising its alternative evaluation criteria.

24. Section 1.4.2, Recovery, suggests that 90% of the water delivered for recharge would actually reach the aquifer where it could be later recovered. The Initial Study assumes that less than 10% of the water will be lost to evapotranspiration (ET), and other losses during recharge and conveyance. The 10% loss is not supported by any quantitative analysis.


Actual ET values and other losses should and can be calculated. The 10% of the actually recharged water that is left behind is intended to assure that the aquifer has a net benefit as a result of the Project. The Project provides no such assurance; in fact, as presented, the Project could contribute to continued overdraft.

IMPACTS ANALYSIS Aesthetics/Visual Resources 25. The analysis fails to consider the impacts on aesthetic resources associated with construction

activities, which could occur over the course of several years.

26. The analysis fails to disclose that the proposed recharge areas may create a new source of substantial glare.

Agricultural Resources 27. The analysis is entirely irrelevant to the identified CEQA Significance criteria, i.e.:

conversion of important farmlands; conflict with existing zoning or Williamson Act contracts; other changes that result in conversion of farmland; cancellation of open space contracts. The MND does not identify how the lands are zoned or whether the subject properties are important farm lands, under Williamson Act contracts, or under open space contracts.

28. As described, the permanent above-ground facilities (e.g., treatment plant, storage tanks, etc) will result in a direct conversion of agricultural land (see Section 2.11.1). Such impacts would be significant if they were to convert Prime or Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance or if the use conflicts with Williamson Act or Open Space contracts.

29. To the extent that an increase in AVEK’s reliability could induce growth or remove an obstacle to growth, it could result in the conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural use. Such conversion would be a significant impact.

30. To the extent that AVEK plants a cover crop to minimize, post-recharge wind erosion, the ET of the planted crop must be factored into the amount of water actually recharged.


31. The Project is consistently described as continuing historical farming practices, yet the historical practices are never described. How much land has been historically fallowed and for what period of time? What percentage will be used for recharge?

Air Quality 32. AVAQMD Rule 423 relates to the renovation, demolition, or removal of buildings. What

buildings is AVEK proposing to renovate, demolish, or remove?

33. This section provides no baseline air quality data upon which to assess the proposed Project. Such data are particularly important for evaluating the Project’s contribution to existing air quality violations and cumulative impacts. AVEK has not provided information regarding the baseline environmental setting for adequate air impact analysis.

34. AVEK suggests that visibility-reducing particles and toxic air contaminants are unlikely to be emitted in quantifiable quantities; however, fugitive dust emissions may reduce visibility and ROG and diesel particulate matter may contain TACs. The above pollutants are quantifiable for AVEK’s Project and should be disclosed.

35. The Initial Study does not describe the treatment processes proposed by AVEK nor the hazardous materials that would be used in water treatment. Will the treatment plant require a permit from the air district with jurisdiction? Which air district has jurisdiction for the treatment plant location?

36. The foundation of AVEK’s air impacts analysis is alluded to in Section 2.4.2, i.e., URBEMIS model runs, but the model results are not presented in the Initial Study. Section 2.4.2.1 suggests that mitigation measures were assumed in running the URBEMIS model, but AVEK has not disclosed the specific mitigation measures that were assumed, and it is not clear that AVEK has firmly committed to those mitigation measures in implementing its Project. AVEK must provide copies of the model runs and their underlying assumptions, including assumed mitigation measures. Any assumed mitigation measures must be explicitly incorporated into AVEK’s Initial Study. Importantly, AVEK must extend the review time by 45 days from the time AVEK provides the model runs and underlying assumptions to the public for adequate public review.

37. Section 2.4.2.1 asserts that it would “implement AVAQMD Table 1 Best Available Control Measures from the SCAQMD (2005).” It is unclear whether AVEK is intending to refer to an AVAQMD document or a SCAQMD document. No SCAQMD (2005) document is


included in the references section of the Initial Study. More importantly, AVEK has not explicitly described the measures that it would implement. Further, compliance with applicable rules should not be considered mitigation; it’s something AVEK is required to do anyway. As such, it should be part of the Project description.

38. Table 6 fails to disclose CO or PM2.5 emissions relative to regional projections.

39. Section 4.2.1.4, Avoid Land Use Conflicts, refers to siting the Project in an area with existing sustainable agriculture. Kern County has already formally noted that the proposed use is not consistent with the WSSP. Further, sustainable agriculture typically refers to agriculture with limited environmental impact, such as organic farming, which is also more compatible with a water bank than traditional chemically-intensive agricultural practices. AVEK should request a land use designation change to make its Project consistent with the WSSP and must commit to organic farming practices to ensure its Project does not contaminate groundwater.

40. Measures AIR-1 and AIR-2 are vague regarding applicability. Which of the recommended control measures will AVEK implement?

41. Condition 2 under AIR-1 is inadequate as Section 2.8.3.1 states that “grading in periods of winds in excess of 10 mph could therefore cause erosion (see estimates in Air Quality Analysis).”

42. Regarding Measure AIR-3, did AVEK estimate VOC emissions?

43. Section 2.4.5 appears to be inadequate in that it in no way addresses cumulative impacts.

44. SOx emissions estimates are not provided; hence, it is not possible to assess whether or not such emissions are significant (per Section 2.4.5). Similarly, AVEK did not provide an analysis upon which to determine whether or not the Project could expose sensitive receptors to an increased cancer risk.

45. It appears that potential NOx emissions related to annual berm construction and ongoing emissions from the storage, treatment, and pumping station could approach 33% of KCAPCD or AVAMD thresholds for CEQA significance. Additionally, AVEK’s proposed mitigation would reduce estimated ROG emissions by only 1%, and estimated CO emissions would not be reduced at all.


46. In light of the facts that the air basin is in nonattainment for ozone, that NOx and ROG are precursors of ozone, that estimated NOx and ROG emissions are substantial (8.15 tons/year and 1.63 tons/year, after mitigation), and that AVEK’s proposed mitigation reduces NOx and ROG levels only modestly, there is substantial evidence that AVEK’s Project could result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant for which the Project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.

Biological Resources 47. The Initial Study suggests that a biological survey was completed in April 2008; however, it

provides no details about who completed the survey or their qualifications.

48. The findings of the survey are suspect because no information is provided about the seasonality of the species and their likelihood of being present in the Project area during April, when the survey was conducted.

49. The conclusions about the presence or prevalence of species based on a review of the CNDDB are not supported (e.g., “The number of nesting burrowing owls in the Antelope Valley is low,” and “The Swainson’s hawk nesting population in the Antelope Valley is small”). The CNDDB reflects recorded occurrences of some species. Such records, or the lack thereof, are essentially an artifact of whether or not appropriate surveys have been completed in a particular area. It is unlikely that extensive surveys have been completed in a relatively undeveloped and stable area such as rural areas of Antelope Valley. As such, AVEK’s assessment may underestimate impacts to special status species, including species listed in the West Mojave Plan. Also, no reference is provided for “CNDDB 2008.”

50. Section 1.8 indicates that a Streambed Alteration Agreement Permit may be required for the Project; however, the need for such a permit is not discussed in this section. Apparently, there are no streams or similar water bodies associated with purchased property. Thus, the need for a Streambed Alteration Agreement is perplexing.

51. The MND fails to disclose or analyze the potential impacts of noise and ongoing O&M activities on biological resources.

52. The conclusion in Section 2.5.6 that “No wildlife habitat will be impacted” is not supported. As noted in Section 2.5.1, agricultural areas and roads provide habitat for many species, including special status species, such as Swainson’s hawk, white-tailed kite, western burrowing owls, and bats.


53. Although the West Mojave Plan is not generally applicable to agricultural lands, it may be applicable to the areas where AVEK is proposing to install pipelines. The West Mojave Plan addresses Swainson’s hawk, white-tailed kite, western burrowing owls, and bats. As such, AVEK’s Project may be incompatible and not compliant with the West Mojave Plan. This potential should be fully disclosed and analyzed to determine the Project’s environmental impacts.

Cultural Resources 54. AVEK’s analysis makes it clear that the Project area is rich in cultural resources and that

currently unknown resources could be impacted by Project activities.

55. AVEK’s proposed cultural resources mitigation is inadequate. First, CR-3 does not require monitoring of construction activities by a qualified archaeologist. Self-monitoring by an unqualified individual is wholly inadequate to mitigate potential significant impacts to cultural resources. Further, the proposed mitigation does not disclose the impacts of applying vast amounts of water for recharge to as-yet undiscovered cultural resources. Such application is not-at-all similar to the water applied for irrigation. In light of the above, the Project as proposed may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource.

56. AVEK included no analysis of the Project’s potential to affect paleontological resources, which have potential to occur in the area. No mitigation is offered to prevent the direct or indirect destruction of unique paleontological resources or site. As proposed, the Project could result in significant impacts to such resources.

Energy Use 57. AVEK’s statement that “the only alternative source of water supply to meet dry year and/or

emergency needs in the AVEK Service area would be desalination of wastewater or sea water.” is false and misleading. Water districts in southern California commonly acquire water from willing sellers through temporary transfer programs, which are coordinated by the Department of Water Resources. Such programs do not require the energy demands of desalination suggested. AVEK is participating in such a program in 2008.

58. AVEK’s proposed mitigation measures are vague. Since the machinery and lighting of the in-line treatment facilities have not been described, AVEK’s “commitment” to energy


efficiency is hollow. Proposed mitigation related to the use of energy efficient construction equipment is similarly vague.

Geology and Soils 59. Section 2.8.3.1 states that “Grading in periods of wind in excess of about 10 mph could

therefore cause erosion.” Measure AIR-1 may allow clearing, grading, earthmoving and excavation activities with winds up to 25 mph, and AVEK has no other measures limiting speeds to 10 mph. As such, the Project as described could cause substantial erosion. This is another example of a potential significant environmental impact that is not adequately addressed and thus, the MND fails to comply with CEQA.

60. Section 2.8.3.2 states that, in the event that a berm fails, “No erosive flows are anticipated.” Failure of a 3-foot high berm certainly could cause erosive flows and the substantial loss of topsoil.

61. Section 2.8.3.4 appears to be deficient. First, it does not address the concerns expressed by residents regarding the potential effects of recharge activities on their existing septic systems as the recharge water “stair-steps” its way toward groundwater. Second, it is unclear whether or not the treatment plant will have a septic system. Waste disposal for the treatment plant was not disclosed in the Project description. Will the treatment plant have restrooms for the 10 new permanent employees? What wastes will be generated at the treatment plant and how will they be managed?

62. Mitigation Measure Geo-3 suggests that shut-off valves will be installed on “major pipelines.” Such features were not disclosed in the Project description. What defines a major pipeline? How does AVEK “presently monitor water supply operations”? What is the maximum flow that could occur in a pipeline? How long would it take for AVEK to recognize a leak? How long would it take for AVEK to close a valve to stop the flow from a leaking pipeline? What is the maximum volume of water in a pipeline between valves? How much water could be discharged before a valve would be closed?

63. Mitigation Measure Geo-4 indicates the need to store water treatment chemicals in secondary containment units. The use and storage of chemicals is not disclosed in the Project description.

Hazards


64. As noted previously, the Project description does not disclose the types of chemicals nor the treatment processes that will be used, nor how the chemicals will be transported to the facilities. In the absence of information, one must assume that releases of such chemicals could occur and cause significant impacts to nearby residents, groundwater resources, and wildlife.

65. The focus on only eight pesticides as a concern for groundwater contamination is misplaced. Section 6800(a), Article 1, Subchapter 1, Chapter 4, Division 6 of the California Agriculture Code identifies approximately 70 pesticides as having the potential to contaminate groundwater, including pesticides commonly used on alfalfa, barley and wheat.

66. In order to evaluate the potential hazards associated with groundwater contamination, AVEK must review the cropping and agricultural chemical use history of the properties, conduct statistically valid sampling of surface and subsurface soils for both chemical residues and soil properties, and then assess the migration of such chemicals under the operating conditions described for water banking and the ongoing use of chemicals for agriculture.

67. The proposed application of water for the purposes of groundwater banking (as opposed to normal irrigation practices) may cause agricultural chemicals (including pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, insecticides, and fertilizers) to migrate to groundwater.

68. Section 2.9.3.2 should address the risks associated with bird strikes during the period March through October since the Project is described to include recharge activities during this time frame.

69. The discussion of the potential presence of larger birds is inconsistent. In one section, AVEK states “First, many of the larger birds that would be of concern to flight operations do not occur in the Antelope Valley during the period when recharge is likely to be feasible (November through February).” Later, AVEK states “Given the results of recent Lancaster Christmas Bird Counts, ducks, geese, swans, hawks, eagles, vultures, falcons, ravens, and gulls do occur in the Antelope Valley during periods when recharge may occur”. Bird strike hazards associated with the presence larger birds was not disclosed or analyzed by AVEK and would be a significant impact.

70. The conclusion that “Edwards AFB has a relatively low level of bird strike problems” is inconsistent with the data presented (e.g., 1 strike for 3,095 operations) and the statement “A review of BAM for the period from November through February indicates that the air strike risk is considered moderate.”


71. The proposed “active disturbance of birds to discourage use” could cause impacts to biological resources in the Project vicinity, including special status species (Mitigation Measures HAZ-6). AVEK must disclose the specific harassment actions it proposes to take to discourage bird use and analyze the impacts of those specific actions on biological resources. If pyrotechnic devices are used, they also could cause significant impacts related to land use, hazards, and noise.

72. Measure HAZ-2 suggests that “lack of cover crop” will discourage bird attraction, but Section 2.5.4 states that unfarmed areas will get a cover crop to prevent soil erosion. Such crops would not be appropriate as they could provide feed for and attract birds, increasing the BASH for Edwards AFB.

73. Mitigation Measure HAZ-7 refers to “The agreement” between AVEK and the Mosquito Abatement District, but does not require such an agreement. AVEK must submit to oversight from the MAD.

74. Mitigation Measure HAZ-7 states that, according to the AVMVCD, “The best way to disrupt mosquito lifecycle and thereby reducing the need for pesticides is to let the field completely dry out once per week.” Is AVEK committing to dry out its fields once per week as a means to reduce this impact? If not, what is the basis for concluding that the impact is less than significant?

75. Has AVEK reported the contamination that it has found on its properties to any authorities (e.g., US EPA, Regional Water Quality Control Board, Department of Toxic Substances Control, County environmental health departments, local fire departments)? If not, that may be why the Project area is not listed as a hazardous materials site.

76. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 is not appropriate to apply to the five known areas of contamination. The potential impacts of that contamination on water quality must be assessed and disclosed, not deferred to a later date. Contaminated areas must be reported to local, state and federal regulators and cleaned-up with proper oversight and understanding of the proposed use of the land, i.e., a water bank.

77. The conclusion that the Project could not affect the implementation of an adopted management plan (e.g., emergency response or emergency evacuation plan) is inaccurate and/or inconsistent with AVEK’s discussion of traffic impacts in Section 2.16.2, and must be revised.


Hydrology and Water Quality 78. Section 2.10 Hydrology and Water Quality does not describe where or how the water AVEK

proposes to store is currently being used. Since the SWP typically only delivers about 70% of SWP Contractors allocations and other SWP Contractors have existing storage capacity to take “excess” water in normal to wet years, it is reasonable to assume that the “excess” water is currently being taken by other SWP Contractors. The current use of the “excess” water by others represents a baseline condition. Therefore, AVEK must disclose the potential impacts of taking that “excess” water (estimated to be up to 36,000 AFA) from others.

79. Since the proposed site lies within a floodplain, it appears that the Project will either divert flood flows or capture flood flows. If the Project diverts flood flows, then AVEK needs to analyze the effects of flood flows on adjacent landowners and roads. Since approximately 1,500 acres are involvâ�…�Ð>�¶GET http://mail.google.com/a/waterav.orgisting drainage pattern of the site in a manner that could cause substantial erosion or siltation.

80. Further, AVEK’s proposed use of temporary, uncompacted berms does not provide sufficient protection from periodic break-throughs that could flood roads (causing traffic hazards) and adjacent properties. This is not like irrigation – it involves much higher flows at greater depths and for extended periods.

81. If the Project captures flood flows, as suggested in Section 2.10.3.2 and Measure HWQ-1, then the quality of the captured water needs to be described and its impact on groundwater must be analyzed.

82. Table 12 presents analytical results for “wells in the vicinity.” While AVEK states that the wells were sampled in 2007, other relevant information is omitted. The additional information required to evaluate the data include: well-specific data (rather than what appears to be an average value), well locations, well construction details, well sampling procedures, analytical procedures, detection limits, reporting limits, and data validation.

83. AVEK’s analysis focused on the potential effects of imported surface water on groundwater quality, but did not analyze the potential effects of the recovered groundwater on AVEK’s water supply. Nitrate levels in groundwater exceed drinking water standards by at least 45%, and it is likely that arsenic levels in some of the wells exceed drinking water standards. The addition of such waters into AVEK’s drinking water supply could result in significant water quality impacts. Since AVEK has not described the proposed locations or screened intervals of recovery wells, a fair argument can be made that the water recovered from storage would


be of poorer quality with respect to arsenic contamination than the SWP water that was recharged.

84. The potential significant impacts of the delivery of nitrate- and arsenic-laden water to AVEK’s customers must be disclosed and analyzed.

85. As noted previously, AVEK’s focus on only eight pesticides as a concern for groundwater contamination is misplaced. Section 6800(a), Article 1, Subchapter 1, Chapter 4, Division 6 of the California Food and Agriculture Code identifies approximately 70 pesticides as having the potential to contaminate groundwater, including pesticides commonly used on alfalfa, barley and wheat. Further, the absence of agricultural chemicals in groundwater from under current water application rates does not demonstrate that groundwater beneath the site will not become contaminated under a regime of much greater water application rates. This potential impact has not been considered.

86. As noted previously, AVEK must review the cropping and agricultural chemical use history of the properties, conduct statistically valid sampling of surface and subsurface soils for both chemical residues and soil properties, and then assess the migration of such chemicals under the operating conditions described for water banking and the ongoing use of chemicals for agriculture.

87. Additionally, the proposed application of water for the purposes of groundwater banking (as opposed to normal irrigation practices) may cause agricultural chemicals (including pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, insecticides, and fertilizers) to migrate to groundwater.

88. Section 2.10.2.5 states that “AVEK has committed to monitor groundwater levels and to suspend recharge if they reach 75 feet below ground surface.” AVEK’s commitment (Measure HWQ-6), however, states that “operations will be suspended in the event that offsite water levels rise to within 20 feet of the ground surface.”

89. Section 2.10.3.2 states that temporary berms will be “not greater than about 18 inches in height.” In several other sections of the document, however, berms are described as being up to 36 inches high. Failure of a 36 inch berm could cause significant flooding, erosion, and siltation.

90. Measure HWQ-2 should not be conditioned on concerns being raised. The Initial Study must disclose the potential effects of the berms on flooding. As noted above, both the diversion of water around the Project and/or the capture of water within the Project could cause flooding.


91. Measure HWQ-3 mentions fueling by Authorized Personnel only. Fueling is not disclosed in the Project description. Where will it occur? What volumes and types of fuel may be used? Where will maintenance occur?

92. Measure HWQ-4 refers to storing materials and conducting work “outside of the channel.” To what “channel” is AVEK referring?

93. The title of Measure HWQ-5 suggests that water will be retained on the site at the treatment facility, but the text that follows does not support that notion. Please clarify if and how flow will be retained at the treatment plant.

94. Measure HWQ-6, Protection of off-site wells, fails to define:

A. How groundwater will be monitored: who will monitor it; where it will be monitored; for what constituents, and how often?

B. How impacts will be anticipated, avoided, or detected relative to baseline

C. What the criteria for a substantial effect will be

D. Who decides whether an affected groundwater user receives compensation and the

nature of the compensation

95. “Mitigation Measure HWQ-7” is not mitigation; it is compliance with applicable regulations.

96. Section 2.10.6 states that “Implementation of monitoring and best management practices will ensure that local wells owners are not adversely affected.” As noted in Measure HWQ-6, however, AVEK anticipates that Project operations could “substantially affect offsite wells.”


Land Use and Planning

97. Section 2.11.1 states that the property proposed for the storage, treatment, and pumping stations is “within the Willow Springs Specific Plan on land designated for residential (Map Code 5.6).” As such, the Project conflicts with an “applicable land use plan, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project (including, but not limited to, a general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)….” This significant impact should be disclosed and mitigated.

98. In Section 2.11.3, the statement that “The Project occurs in the general area of the West Mojave Plan but does not affect any wildlife habitat or species addressed by this plan” is inaccurate. As noted previously, the West Mojave Plan addresses Swainson’s hawk, white-tailed kite, western burrowing owls, and bats –species identified by AVEK as having potential to be in the Project area. As such, AVEK’s Project may be incompatible and not compliant with the West Mojave Plan.

Noise

99. The calculations and assumptions used to estimate noise impacts are not fully disclosed. For instance, the noise generated by specific pieces of equipment is not provided.

100. In several instances, it appears that Project noise levels would exceed county standards.

A. Annual berm construction noise levels of up to 77 dBA for activities lasting up to 4 weeks would exceed Los Angeles County’s daytime standard of 75 dBA and proposed noise standard for longer-term activities of 50 dBA.

B. Well construction noise levels in excess of 65 dBA for a month would exceed Los

Angeles County’s proposed noise standard for longer-term activities of 50 dBA and Kern County’s Day L50 standard for sensitive land uses.

C. Pipeline construction noise levels of up to 77 dBA would exceed both Kern County

and Los Angeles County standards.

101. Measure NOISE-1 refers to “threshold distances determined above”; however, “noise thresholds” are not defined in the Initial Study. The first item in NOISE-1 is likely assumed to occur in estimating noise levels and, therefore, would not be expected to reduce noise


levels relative to the estimates. The second item does not address construction within 1,200 feet of residences. The third item does not define “close.” Most importantly, Measure NOISE-1 makes no firm commitment to implement any particular measures and since no noise monitoring is proposed, noise levels may still exceed standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.

102. Measure NOISE-2 suggests that a property owner must request noise reduction. An owner’s request does not change the noise levels nor the applicable standards. If an owner does not request noise reduction, then noise levels may still exceed standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.

103. Neither NOISE-1 nor NOISE-2 adequately address the potential for the Project to generate a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project.

Population and Housing

104. Stabilization of water supplies in the Antelope Valley could clearly induce substantial population growth in the area. Although AVEK may not be able to mitigate the potential impacts associated with such growth, it must nonetheless disclose the potential impacts.

105. The discussion of population fails to consider the indirect impacts of new treated water on population growth.

Traffic

106. The document fails to disclose the impacts of construction on roadways. Will roads and driveways be inaccessible during construction; if so, for how long? Will detours be required; if so, how much extra time, distance, and fuel will be required to navigate the detours? Will roads be damaged by the heavy equipment? How will roads be restored to repair damage caused by heavy equipment?

107. Traffic Measure TR-1 should include CalTrans consultation due to impacts of the Project on SR 138.


Utilities and Services

108. It is unclear whether or not the treatment plant will have a septic system. Waste disposal for the treatment plant was not disclosed in the Project description. Will the treatment plant have restrooms for the 10 new permanent employees? Knowing that there is arsenic in the groundwater and that the solid waste from many arsenic treatment systems is considered a hazardous waste, AVEK should analyze the storage and disposal of the treatment byproducts. What other wastes will be generated at the treatment plant and how will they be managed?

109. Contrary to the assertion in Section 2.17.3, it seems likely that construction and operation of a water treatment plant would generate volumes and types of waste that would substantially different from current farming operations. Management of wastes must be described in the Initial Study.

110. Impacts associated with the installation of new power poles and lines have not been described. How many line extensions would be required over how many miles? How many poles would be required? Where would the lines and poles be located?

111. Additionally, AVEK did not provide analyses of the capacities of current utilities to serve its Project. It is possible that additional facilities (substations, trunk lines), beyond the power poles and line extensions, may be required. If so, the impacts of the construction and operation of those facilities must be disclosed.

Growth Inducing Impacts

112. As noted previously, AVEK’s analysis fails to disclose either local or regional growth inducing impacts. Increased water stability may induce growth. Expansion of AVEK’s treated water network is likely to induce growth.

113. In Section 2.19.2, AVEK suggests that its banked water would only be used during severe drought and/or emergency conditions, but AVEK has made to commitment to limit its operations in such a manner.

114. In Section 2.19.3, AVEK states “Because water had not constrained growth, those interested in growth control were required to pass legislation forcing consideration of water supply.” Accordingly, in light of recent legislation, water supply reliability/stability does now constrain growth, and the historic relationships between water supplies and growth that AVEK presents is likely irrelevant.


115. As noted in Section 2.19 of the Initial Study, the discussion of growth inducing impacts must analyze whether the Project would remove obstacles to population and/or housing growth. In Section 2.19.3, the analysis draws the conclusion that:

In summary, given that AVEK has normal-to-wet-year supplies adequate to meet projected demands in the foreseeable future, one would not expect that normal, project growth patterns would change, or that the availability of drought/emergency supply would alter the decision making process related to growth.

116. Based upon existing literature either written by AVEK (2005 Urban Water Management Plan

[UWMP]) or that was sponsored and adopted by AVEK (Antelope Valley Integrated Regional Water Management Plan, 2007 [AVIRWMP]):

A. It is not a given that AVEK has adequate normal-to-wet-year supplies to meet projected demand in the foreseeable future.

B. It is unreasonable to deduce the intent of AVEK is to use the Project only as a

drought/emergency supply, but instead also for current and future normal demand. C. A reasonable conclusion is that water banking is a key component of increasing

AVEK’s average annual available water supply to sustain current demand and remove an obstacle to future growth.

117. Average or “Probable” Year Supply. Table 12 (page 33), “Projected Probably 5-Year Supply and Demand Comparison” of AVEK’s 2005 UWMP indicates a current and future shortfall in normal-year supplies as noted below. Additionally, the UWMP (page 33) concludes the following:

The comparison of the projected probable year supply and demand indicates a shortfall starting in the year 2006. This comparison is based on current usage patterns by the retail purveyors and agriculture users. The short fall in supply does not take into account the reliability of other sources available to water purveyors, such as their use of groundwater, future groundwater banking programs, future conservation efforts, and use of recycled water.


118. AVEK does not have adequate normal-to-wet-year supplies to meet projected demand in the foreseeable future. Furthermore, AVEK identifies future groundwater banking as an additional source of water.

119. Water Supply is an Obstacle to Growth. The AVIRWMP (page 3-36), which AVEK has adopted, indicates clearly that the lack of water supplies are limiting growth in the region:

Additionally, as detailed below in Section 3.5, “Land Use Management Assessment” water is a limiting factor of the Antelope Valley Region’s growth rate. In order to accommodate this projected growth the supply of water in the Antelope Valley Region must be increased.

120. Meeting New Demand. The AVIRWMP (page 3-17) clearly connects the use of

groundwater banking with an increase in AVEK’s annual average annual available water supply by regulating seasonal deliveries (summer vs. winter):

However, AVEK is currently unable to beneficially apply its entire Table A amount of SWP water, even during years when the full Table A amount is available. This inability to fully use available supply stems from the variability of demand during winter and summer, and the existing infrastructure to receive, store, and deliver water to users. AVEK currently provides most of their water through direct deliveries to meet current demand. When demand is high during summer months, the aqueduct bringing water to AVEK has a conveyance capacity below the demand for water. During the winter months, demand is much lower than aqueduct capacity. If AVEK had sufficient infrastructure to receive and store the water when it can take delivery during the winter months, it could then deliver that water during higher demands or during times when less SWP water is available.

121. The IRWMP (page 3-37) further concludes:

AVEK has capacity constraints in the summer and limited demand for water during the winter months. Thus, additional storage or recharge in the winter months is required in order for them to beneficially use their full Table A amount.

122. AVEK’s own 2005 UWMP (page 4) indicates that it is actively seeking to develop banking

programs to support anticipated growth over the next 20 years:

Currently, AVEK is actively involved with the planning stages and coordination of a fully


regional water banking program. The proposed water banking program would function under a Joint Power Association format and treat all area-wide water interests equally by offering participation to all customers if desired. AVEK currently has a Water Supply Capacity Charge that funds system improvements that will be required for the anticipated growth of AVEK’s customers over the next 20 years. See Appendix D for list of proposed facility expansions. An improvement identified as a proposed facility expansion includes California Aqueduct turnouts, raw water pipelines and basin inlets that could be used for groundwater recharge.

123. It is clear that funds received by AVEK through its Water Supply Capacity Charge for

anticipated future growth can be used to develop infrastructure to enable groundwater banking, therefore removing an obstacle to growth.

124. It is abundantly clear from the aforementioned literature that: A. AVEK does not have adequate supplies to meet water supply demands in normal years; B. Groundwater banking is part of AVEK’s plan to meet drought/emergency supply as well as current normal year demand and future demand in all types of water years; C. Groundwater banking will remove an obstacle to growth.

125. The Initial Study (page 116) clearly states: “AVEK notes that there are significant and unavoidable impacts associated with growth.” Therefore, an Environmental Impact Report is necessary to analyze these significant and unavoidable impacts associated with growth caused by development of this Project.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

126. The analysis of cumulative impacts is wholly inadequate in that it neither: Considers a list of past, present, and probable future projects; nor, considers a summary of projections contained in relevant adopted general plans or related planning documents, or prior environmental documents that had been adopted and certified.

127. The identification of no impact or beneficial categories is inaccurate:

A. The Project may convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance.


B. The MND does not disclose whether or not the Project would involve lands under Williamson Act or Open Space Act protections.

C. The increased stability/reliability of AVEK’s treated water system could indirectly

result in the conversion of farm land.

D. The MND does not discuss whether the Project is consistent with the West Mojave Plan.

E. The MND does not assess the potential for unique paleontological resources to be

present.

F. The Project may not (yet) be included on a list of hazardous materials sites only because AVEK has not reported known contamination to responsible state agencies.

G. The Project does conflict with land use designations in Kern County. Construction

of water delivery pipelines in Los Angeles County may require a conditional use permit.

H. The MND does not disclose the hazardous materials associated with the Project nor

the wastes that construction and operation of the Project may produce.

MANDATORY CEQA FINDINGS

128. AVEK’s own findings reveal that its Project is proposed for an area of rich cultural resources potential. Both construction and operation of the Project could eliminate important examples of major periods of California prehistory.

129. The Project could have cumulatively considerable impacts to related to air, noise, and agricultural resources:

130. The Project fails to disclose the potential impacts of taking water from where it is currently used. Such impacts could cause substantial adverse impacts on human beings outside Antelope Valley.


131. Section 2.21.3 makes reference to the use of propane. The Project description includes no mention of propane, and the air impacts section includes no analysis of impacts associated with propane combustion.

132. Section 2.21.4 should address significant cumulative impacts. As noted above, the analysis did not consider a list of past, present, and probable future projects or a summary of projections contained in relevant adopted general plans or related planning documents, or prior environmental documents that had been adopted and certified.

133. The Project appears to be based on an assessment of water needs over the next 25-30 years and is sized to meet an increased future demand. As described, it does not limit recharge to wet or above-normal water years or limit recovery to severe drought or emergency conditions. The MND suggests that limitations on water supply reliability may be used to constrain growth. The Project will create an extended network of treated water pipelines. In light of the above, it is foreseeable that AVEK’s Project could remove an obstacle to growth.

As it appears AVEK has included substantial portions of its prior banking project draft EIR (SCH No. 200705195) in this environmental analysis, we are including AVCRUW’s comments to that effort. Please include these comments as part of AVCRUW’s overall comments to the MND for the current project. Based upon AVCRUW’s review of the MND, this proposed Project requires a complete environmental analysis, including detailed descriptions and analysis of the mitigation measures AVEK is committed to implement.

Sincerely,

Randall Scott President AV Citizens for Responsible Use of Water

AV Citizens for AVCRUW - WordPress.com€¦ · WSSP-1 draft EIR, our organization’s ... An...

Documents

Transcript of AV Citizens for AVCRUW - WordPress.com€¦ · WSSP-1 draft EIR, our organization’s ... An...