Castaic Lake Water Agency Honby Pipeline Project

Home , Castaic Lake, Piru Creek

DRAFT Environmental Impact Report California State Clearinghouse No. 2005011071 Castaic Lake Water Agency Honby Pipeline Project

April 2005

This page intentionally left blank. DRAFT Environmental Impact Report California State Clearinghouse No. 2005011071 Castaic Lake Water Agency Honby Pipeline Project

Prepared for Castaic Lake Water Agency 27234 Bouquet Canyon Road Santa Clarita, California 91350

Prepared by April 2005

525 Anacapa Street, Santa Barbara, California 93101

This page intentionally left blank.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...... ES-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION...... 1-1 1.1 Overview ...... 1-1 1.2 Project Objectives ...... 1-1 1.3 Intended Uses of the EIR...... 1-4 1.4 Permits and Other Approvals Required to Implement the Project...... 1-4 1.5 Related Environmental Documentation ...... 1-5 1.6 Public Involvement Process...... 1-5 1.7 EIR Organization...... 1-6 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION...... 2-1 2.1 Project Location ...... 2-1 2.2 Project Components...... 2-1 2.2.1 Pipeline Design...... 2-1 2.2.2 Construction ...... 2-3 2.2.3 Testing and Disinfection ...... 2-4 2.2.4 Project Schedule and Phasing...... 2-4 2.2.5 Maintenance and Operations ...... 2-5 2.2.6 Mitigation Measures Included as Part of the Project ...... 2-5 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, DIRECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES ...... 3.0-1 3.1 Air Quality ...... 3.1-1 3.1.1 Environmental Setting...... 3.1-1 3.1.2 Impacts...... 3.1-4 3.1.3 Mitigation Measures ...... 3.1-8 3.1.4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ...... 3.1-8 3.2 Biological Resources ...... 3.2-1 3.2.1 Environmental Setting...... 3.2-1 3.2.2 Impacts...... 3.2-21 3.2.3 Mitigation Measures ...... 3.2-25 3.2.4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ...... 3.2-27 3.3 Noise ...... 3.3-1 3.3.1 Environmental Setting...... 3.3-1 3.3.2 Impacts...... 3.3-3 3.3.3 Mitigation Measures ...... 3.3-4 3.3.4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ...... 3.3-5 3.4 Population and Housing ...... 3.4-1 3.4.1 Environmental Setting...... 3.4-1 3.4.2 Impacts...... 3.4-1 3.4.3 Mitigation Measures ...... 3.4-1 3.4.4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ...... 3.4-2 3.5 Significant Unavoidable Impacts ...... 3.5-1

CLWA – Honby Pipeline i Draft EIR Table of Contents

4.0 GROWTH-INDUCING EFFECTS AND INDIRECT, GROWTH-RELATED IMPACTS...... 4-1 4.1 Growth-Inducing Effects...... 4-1 4.2 Growth-Related Impacts ...... 4-2 4.2.1 Aesthetic/Visual Resources...... 4-3 4.2.2 Agricultural Resources...... 4-3 4.2.3 Air Quality ...... 4-4 4.2.4 Biological Resources ...... 4-7 4.2.5 Cultural Resources...... 4-7 4.2.6 Geology, Soils, and Minerals ...... 4-8 4.2.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials...... 4-9 4.2.8 Hydrology and Water Quality ...... 4-10 4.2.9 Land Use and Planning...... 4-11 4.2.10 Noise ...... 4-12 4.2.11 Population and Housing...... 4-12 4.2.12 Public Services ...... 4-13 4.2.13 Recreation...... 4-14 4.2.14 Transportation and Circulation...... 4-14 4.2.15 Utilities/Service Systems ...... 4-15 5.0 CONSISTENCY WITH ADOPTED PLANS AND POLICIES...... 5-1 5.1 Southern California Association of Government’s Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG) and Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), and Compass Growth Vision Principles...... 5-1 5.1.1 Consistency with Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide Policies ...... 5-1 5.1.2 Consistency with Regional Transportation Plan ...... 5-5 5.1.3 Water Resources...... 5-8 5.1.4 Growth Visioning...... 5-8 5.1.5 Consistency with Growth Projections...... 5-10 5.2 County of Los Angeles General Plan ...... 5-10 5.2.1 Consistency with Policies...... 5-10 5.2.2 Consistency with Growth Projections...... 5-11 5.3 Santa Clarita Valley Area Plan of the County of Los Angeles General Plan...... 5-11 5.3.1 Consistency with Policies...... 5-12 5.3.2 Consistency with Growth Projections...... 5-12 5.4 City of Santa Clarita General Plan ...... 5-13 5.4.1 Consistency with Policies...... 5-13 5.4.2 Consistency with Growth Projections...... 5-14 5.5 CLWA Urban Water Management Plan 2000 ...... 5-15 6.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS...... 6-1 6.1 CEQA Requirements ...... 6-1 6.2 Cumulative Impact Analysis Methodology ...... 6-1 6.3 Analysis of Cumulative Impacts...... 6-1 6.3.1 Other CLWA Projects ...... 6-2 ii CLWA – Honby Pipeline Draft EIR Table of Contents

6.3.2 Projects Listed in the County of Los Angeles Development Monitoring System (DMS) ...... 6-11 6.3.3 Reasonably Foreseeable Land Development Projects Not Listed in the DMS Identified by the City of Santa Clarita Planning Division...... 6-12 6.3.4 Other Reasonably Foreseeable Land Development Projects Not Listed in the DMS...... 6-16 6.3.5 Additional Infrastructure Project...... 6-18 6.4 Cumulative Impacts by Resource ...... 6-19 7.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT ...... 7-1 7.1 Alternatives Considered but Not Carried Forward...... 7-1 7.2 Alternatives Carried Forward for Further Analysis ...... 7-1 7.2.1 No Project Alternative...... 7-1 7.2.2 Alternative Pipeline Alignment 1 ...... 7-2 7.2.3 Alternative Pipeline Alignment 2 ...... 7-4 7.3 Identification of the Environmentally Superior Alternative...... 7-6 8.0 LIST OF PREPARERS ...... 8-1 9.0 REFERENCES ...... 9-1 10.0 PERSONS AND AGENCIES CONSULTED...... 10-1 11.0 GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ACRONYMS...... 11-1

APPENDICES

A Figure Showing the Locations of Existing and Proposed Utilities in Ruether Avenue B Notice of Preparation, Initial Study, and Comments Received C Air Quality Emissions Data

CLWA – Honby Pipeline iii Draft EIR Table of Contents

LIST OF FIGURES

1.1-1 Existing Honby Pipeline...... 1-2 1.1-2 Location of Sub-Water Service Areas Served by the Proposed Honby Pipeline...... 1-3 2.1-1 Proposed Honby Pipeline Alignment ...... 2-2 3.2-1 Vegetation Map, Proposed Honby Pipeline Corridor ...... 3.2-3 7-1 Alternative Pipeline Alignment 1 ...... 7-3 7-2 Alternative Pipeline Alignment 2 ...... 7-5

LIST OF TABLES

ES-1 Summary of the Project’s Direct Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures...... ES-9 ES-2 Summary of the Project’s Indirect Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures...... ES-12 3.1-1 SCAQMD Emissions Significance Thresholds...... 3.1-5 3.1-2 Daily and Calendar Quarter Emissions for Construction of the Proposed Pipeline Project ...... 3.1-7 3.2-1 Sensitive Plant Species Known to Occur in the Vicinity of the Proposed Project ...... 3.2-9 3.2-2 Sensitive Wildlife Species Known to Occur in the Vicinity of the Proposed Project ...... 3.2-12 3.3-1 Typical Sound Levels Measured in the Environment and Industry...... 3.3-2 4.2-1 Summary of Mitigation Measures from Plans and Policies...... 4-5

iv CLWA – Honby Pipeline Draft EIR

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2 OVERVIEW

3 The Project is the construction of a 60-inch buried steel water pipeline to replace an existing 4 33-inch Honby pipeline, in a new alignment. The pipeline would be approximately 9,500 feet in 5 length. The existing Honby pipeline is inadequate because its alignment is within a planned 6 residential lot area (the Riverpark project)1 and because its size is inadequate to meet the 7 existing and future demand of the Castaic Lake Water Agency (CLWA) service area.2

8 The Project would be conducted in two phases. The first phase, expected to begin in summer 9 2005, would consist of the construction of a 2,500-foot segment of the pipeline. The 2,500-foot 10 segment would connect to the 84-inch Treated Water pipeline that leads from the Rio Vista 11 Water Treatment Plant (RVWTP). From the point of connection with the Treated Water 12 pipeline, the 2,500-foot segment would continue in Newhall Ranch Road and would connect to 13 the existing Honby pipeline.

14 The second phase, expected to begin in February 2006, would consist of the construction of the 15 remaining 7,000-foot segment of the pipeline. The 7,000-foot segment would continue the 16 pipeline from the end of the 2,500-foot segment, at its point of connection to the existing Honby 17 pipeline, to the new Sand Canyon pump station. The second phase, expected to begin in 18 February 2006, would consist of the construction of the remaining 7,000-foot segment of the 19 pipeline. The 7,000-foot segment would continue the pipeline from the end of the 2,500-foot 20 segment, at its point of connection to the existing Honby pipeline, to the new Sand Canyon 21 pump station3.

22 No new water supply is associated with the Project. The proposed pipeline would transport 23 water that is part of CLWA’s supply.

1 Newhall Land and Farming Company’s Riverpark project is composed of 419 single family residences and 704 multi-family residences, and one commercial lot. The environmental impacts of all development associated with the Riverpark project, including the removal by Newhall Land and Farming Company of portions of the existing Honby pipeline that interfere with its development, have been identified in an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared by the City of Santa Clarita (Impact Sciences 2004). A Draft Final EIR was released in December, 2004, and on December 21, 2004, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the project. The City Council is expected to decide whether to certify the EIR and approve the project in the spring of 2005. 2 The existing Honby pipeline is currently operating over capacity and conflicts with planned residential development and road construction. A preliminary demand analysis (Kennedy/Jenks Consultants 2004) indicates that meeting projected demand in the portion of the CLWA service area served by the pipeline (Sub-Water Service Areas [Sub-WSAs] 88-23, 88-25, 88-26, 88-27, 88-33, 88-35, 88-36, and 88-39, shown on Figure 1.1-2) would require pipeline capacity of 139 cubic feet per second (cfs) in the year 2050. In contrast, the existing Honby pipeline only has a capacity of 35 cfs. Additionally, due to friction losses, the existing Honby pipeline would not provide the required suction head for the new Sand Canyon pump station, either at current or future water demand (Black & Veatch 2003, cited in Kennedy/Jenks 2004). 3 Removal of the existing Honby pipeline after all connections are made for the proposed pipeline is not a part of this Project. The portions of the existing Honby pipeline that would interfere with the Riverpark project would be removed by Newhall Land and Farming Company as part of the Riverpark project. The rest of the existing Honby pipeline would remain in its current location. If Newhall Land and Farming Company did not remove the existing Honby pipeline, that would not affect the implementation of the Project. The proposed pipeline would still be constructed and the existing Honby pipeline would remain in its current location.

CLWA – Honby Pipeline ES-1 Draft EIR Executive Summary

1 PROJECT OBJECTIVES

2 Objectives of the Project are as follows:

3 • Provide the required peak capacity to serve the current and projected population in 4 the affected portion of the CLWA service area until year 2050, as planned for in 5 CLWA‘s Capital Improvements Program (CLWA 1988a). 6 • Accommodate changes required as a result of the Riverpark project, while ensuring 7 access to the pipeline for maintenance and repairs. 8 • Be technically compatible with the new Sand Canyon pump station.

9 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

10 Project Location

11 The proposed pipeline would be located in the City of Santa Clarita. It would connect with the 12 existing 84-inch Treated Water pipeline, which connects to the RVWTP. The pipeline would 13 end at the new Sand Canyon pump station, where it would connect to a short, 60-inch pipe 14 extending from the pump station. Water transported by the pipeline would be treated at the 15 RVWTP, as occurs with the existing pipeline. The total pipeline length is approximately 9,500 16 feet.

17 The pipeline would be constructed in two phases. Phase 1, which would have a total distance 18 of approximately 2,500 feet, would begin at the Treated Water pipeline, at a point located just 19 southeast of the RVWTP, where the Treated Water pipeline first intersects with the proposed 20 Newhall Ranch Road as it leaves the RVWTP. From there, it would extend in an easterly 21 direction within the proposed Newhall Ranch Road right-of-way for approximately 1,700 feet. 22 It would then head south down the slope just west of the above-ground Los Angeles Aqueduct 23 for approximately 500 feet and continue parallel to the western side of the aqueduct for a 24 distance of approximately 300 feet, where it would temporarily connect with the existing Honby 25 pipeline.

26 Phase 2 would begin at the north bank of the Santa Clara River, crossing the river parallel to the 27 above-ground Los Angeles Aqueduct on its western side (approximately 1,600 feet). On the 28 south side of the river, the pipeline would be installed in a new easement in the northern 29 portion of the East Greenbrier Mobile Home Park. The mobile home park maintains a greenbelt 30 and paved storage area for recreational vehicles in this area. The pipeline alignment would 31 continue east, crossing under the new Golden Valley Road flyover (a planned elevated roadway 32 expected to be completed by July 2005) and under property owned by the Los Angeles 33 Department of Water and Power (LADWP). This section of the pipeline would be 34 approximately 2,900 feet long. The pipeline would continue east in Soledad Street for a distance 35 of approximately 1,200 feet, then head north in Ruether Avenue for about 600 feet until Santa 36 Clara Street. It then would turn east for about 700 feet to the terminus at the intersection of 37 Santa Clara Street and Furnivall Avenue. The pipeline would end at the site of the Sand 38 Canyon pump station, which is currently under construction and scheduled for completion by 39 December 2005. The Phase 2 pipeline would be approximately 7,000 feet long.

ES-2 CLWA - Honby Pipeline Draft EIR Executive Summary

1 Project Components

2 Pipeline Design

3 The pipeline capacity would be 139 cfs. The pipeline would be coated and lined with cement- 4 mortar and would conform to the requirements of American Water Works Association 5 (AWWA). Appurtenances, such as air and vacuum relief valves (AVARs), blowoff/pumpouts, 6 cathodic test stations, air vents, and manway vaults, would be installed to provide access to the 7 pipeline for maintenance activities, and to protect the pipeline from water hammer, collapse, 8 and corrosion.

9 AVARs would be installed to release air from the pipeline during filling and normal operations 10 and to protect the pipeline from collapse due to vacuum conditions. They would be located at 11 the high points along the pipeline and spaced at intervals of no more than 1,500 feet. The 12 pressure rating of the AVARs would be 150 pounds per square inch.

13 Blowoff/pumpout facilities would be installed along the pipeline for relief of pipeline pressure 14 and dewatering when the pipeline is shut down and out of service for maintenance or internal 15 inspection. Blowoffs would be installed at each low point and on the upstream side of any 16 valve along the pipeline to facilitate and ensure complete dewatering. A submersible pump 17 may be required for complete dewatering. Three pumpouts would be installed; one on the low 18 point at the Santa Clara River crossing and two at additional low points along the alignment.

19 Flexible coupling that allows movement with minimal or no damage would be installed on the 20 upstream and downstream sides of the Santa Clara River crossing where changes in pipe 21 bedding (concrete encasement) occur.

22 Cathodic test stations would be spaced at intervals of approximately 1,000 feet to monitor 23 pipeline corrosion.

24 Manway vaults would be installed along the pipeline to allow access for inspection, routine 25 maintenance, and repairs. Air vents would be installed nearby to provide cross ventilation 26 when the manholes are entered for maintenance or inspection.

27 A butterfly valve would be installed at the connection to the Treated Water pipeline to facilitate 28 dewatering during an emergency or routine maintenance.

29 Construction

30 The pipeline would be installed at a depth of approximately 60 inches below ground surface, 31 except where it crosses the Santa Clara River. At the river crossing, it would be installed using 32 open cut construction, and the pipeline would be installed at a depth below the known river 33 scour level in order to protect it from damage caused by actions of the river and river bottom. A 34 scour analysis would be performed during design to determine the appropriate depth at which 35 the pipeline should be installed. The pipeline would be encased in concrete within the riverbed 36 and riverbank. The riverbed and other undeveloped areas would be restored to their pre- 37 construction condition after pipe installation.

CLWA - Honby Pipeline ES-3 Draft EIR Executive Summary

1 The pipeline would be installed in the existing roadway along Soledad Street, Ruether Avenue, 2 and Santa Clara Street. One lane would be kept open at all times during construction. The 3 pipeline trench would be backfilled at the end of each work day when work ceased. In all areas, 4 the newly laid pipe would be covered with about 12 inches of rock, which in turn would be 5 covered with compacted dirt from the original excavation. Local streets would be patched with 6 temporary asphalt or steel plates to allow vehicular access to all properties during their routine 7 business hours. Prior notification of construction would be provided to residents and business 8 owners adjacent to the pipeline corridor, and suitable hours of construction would be identified 9 in order to minimize disruption to local businesses (refer to the discussion under Project 10 Schedule and Phasing below). Roads would be repaired to City of Santa Clarita standards after 11 installation was completed.

12 Standard best management practices (BMPs) would be implemented and could include 13 construction of silt fences, revegetation, minimization of grading (to the extent possible), and 14 installation of erosion control barriers around stockpiled soil.

15 Grading for the portion of the pipeline that would be located in the proposed Newhall Ranch 16 Road right-of-way would be performed by Newhall Land and Farming Company as part of the 17 proposed Riverpark project.

18 The pipeline would cross under both the above-ground Los Angeles Aqueduct and the below- 19 ground Los Angeles Aqueduct, which are operated and maintained by LADWP. CLWA would 20 coordinate with the LADWP prior to pipeline installation to avoid any conflicts with these 21 pipelines, and any requirements provided by LADWP would be incorporated into the final 22 Project design. The pipeline also would run parallel to or cross several other above-ground and 23 below-ground utilities. The exact location of any utilities present in the pipeline corridor would 24 be identified prior to construction, and impacts to utilities would be avoided through spatial 25 separation and compliance with all applicable standards. No disruption of service would be 26 required.

27 It is anticipated that approximately 1 to 2 acres would be needed for equipment and materials 28 storage, parking, and a construction trailer. Staging areas would be located in areas that have 29 been disturbed and/or contain no sensitive environmental resources. It is possible that staging 30 areas could be located at the RVWTP, on the Riverpark property, and at the Sand Canyon Pump 31 station site.

32 Testing and Disinfection

33 Pipeline testing would be conducted prior to its operation. The pipeline would be cleaned, 34 filled with water, checked for leakage, and tested at the identified surge pressure for four hours. 35 The surge pressure would be based upon a surge analysis performed during detailed design. 36 The water would be discharged into the Santa Clara River or into local storm drains once the 37 test was completed. After successful testing, the pipeline would be disinfected with chlorine in 38 the form of either sodium hypochlorite or calcium hypochlorite according to AWWA standards 39 and de-chlorinated prior to discharge.

ES-4 CLWA - Honby Pipeline Draft EIR Executive Summary

1 Project Schedule and Phasing

2 The Project would be constructed in two phases. Phase 1 includes the 2,500-foot segment of the 3 pipeline that extends from an outlet on the Treated Water pipeline, continuing in Newhall 4 Ranch Road, then down the slope where it would connect to the existing Honby pipeline. This 5 would allow Newhall Land and Farming Company to perform rough grading of Newhall 6 Ranch Road, while maintaining continuity of service. Upon completion of the tie-in to the 7 existing Honby pipeline, Newhall Land and Farming Company would remove the portions of 8 the existing Honby pipeline that would interfere with development of the Riverpark site. If 9 Newhall Land and Farming Company did not remove the existing Honby pipeline, that would 10 not affect the implementation of the Project. The proposed pipeline would still be constructed, 11 and the existing Honby pipeline would remain in its current location.

12 Phase 2 would continue the alignment south across the Santa Clara River and proceed east to 13 the connection near the new Sand Canyon pump station. This segment would be 14 approximately 7,000 feet in length. Final tie-ins to the Phase 1 pipeline and the suction piping at 15 the Sand Canyon pump station would occur at the end of Phase 2.

16 Phase 1 construction activities are expected to begin in summer 2005 and last for approximately 17 two months. Phase 2 construction is expected to begin about ten months later, in February 18 2006, and last for approximately six months. The river crossing (which would occur during 19 Phase 2) would be scheduled to avoid the rainy season. With the exception of construction 20 occurring in local streets (Soledad Street, Ruether Avenue, and Santa Clara Street), work would 21 take place during hours typically allowed by the City of Santa Clarita, which limits construction 22 work to between 7 A.M. and 7 P.M. Monday through Friday and between 8 A.M. and 6 P.M. on 23 Saturday. Construction is prohibited on Sundays and major holidays: New Year’s Day, 24 Independence Day, Thanksgiving, Christmas, Memorial Day, and Labor Day. Work taking 25 place in Soledad Street, Ruether Avenue, and Santa Clara Street may occur outside those days 26 and hours because it would be conducted after business hours to enable local businesses to 27 retain access to their facilities. The City of Santa Clarita exempts public utility projects, such as 28 the proposed pipeline, from the scheduling restrictions outlined above (personal 29 communication, C. Williams 2005).

30 Maintenance and Operations

31 Typical maintenance activities would include valve exercising and internal inspection of the 32 pipeline.

33 Mitigation Measures included as Part of the Project

34 As described below, the Project includes a number of features that would reduce or avoid 35 environmental impacts.

36 A number of project design elements identified above would reduce potential impacts from 37 seismic events, including flexible couplings, which would allow movement with minimal or no 38 damage, and a butterfly valve, which would allow portions of the pipeline to be isolated during 39 an emergency. Other appurtenances, such as AVARs and blowoff/pumpouts also would 40 protect the pipeline. Additionally, potential impacts associated with landslides and erosion

CLWA - Honby Pipeline ES-5 Draft EIR Executive Summary

1 would be mitigated through compliance with standard seismic engineering and construction 2 practices and BMPs.

3 All disturbed areas would be restored to their previous condition, or to the standards specified 4 in permit conditions imposed by agencies having jurisdiction over the Project, once construction 5 was completed. This would reduce or avoid potential impacts to aesthetic and biological 6 resources and transportation. Additionally, the Santa Clara River crossing would be scheduled 7 to take place during the dry season, reducing the potential for erosion and some impacts to 8 biological resources.

9 Additionally, alternative route (detour) plans and a tentative schedule of planned closures 10 would be provided to the Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD) prior to construction. 11 LACFD Fire Stations 107, 111, 73, and 126 would be notified at least three days in advance of 12 any street closures that may affect fire/paramedic responses in the area. Although no 13 disruption of water service is anticipated (as described above, the exact location of any utilities 14 present in the pipeline corridor would be identified prior to construction, and impacts to 15 utilities would be avoided through spatial separation and compliance with all applicable 16 standards), in the unlikely event that disruption of water service would occur, it would be 17 coordinated with LACFD, and alternate water sources would be provided for fire protection 18 during the disruption.

19 Even though no prehistoric archaeological resources are present in or immediately adjacent to 20 the proposed pipeline corridor, it is located in an archaeologically sensitive area. The following 21 measures would be implemented in the unlikely event that presently unknown archaeological 22 remains are encountered during construction:

23 • In the event cultural remains are encountered during excavation, work will be stopped 24 immediately and temporarily redirected until a qualified archaeologist is retained to 25 determine the potential significance of the find pursuant to Phase 2 investigations. If the 26 remains are prehistoric, a local Native American observer will be retained to monitor the 27 archaeological excavation. If the remains are found to be significant, they may be 28 subject to a Phase 3 data recovery mitigation program funded by CLWA. A pre- 29 construction workshop will be conducted by a qualified archaeologist to ensure that any 30 new discoveries are adequately recorded, evaluated, and, if significant, mitigated. The 31 workshop minimally will address the following: review the types of archaeological 32 resources that may be uncovered; provide examples of common archaeological artifacts 33 and other cultural materials to examine; what makes an archaeological resource 34 significant; what would temporarily stop construction and for how long; procedures 35 that would be used to record, evaluate, and mitigate new discoveries with a minimum 36 of delay; and reporting requirements and the responsibilities of the construction 37 supervisor and crew.

38 The proposed pipeline corridor is also located in a paleontologically sensitive area. The 39 following is recommended in the event that presently unknown paleontological resources are 40 encountered during construction:

41 • In the event paleontological fossils are encountered during excavation, work will be 42 stopped immediately and temporarily redirected until a qualified paleontologist is

ES-6 CLWA - Honby Pipeline Draft EIR Executive Summary

1 retained to determine the potential significance of the find. If the fossils are found to be 2 significant, they will be removed and curated at the proper repository. A pre- 3 construction workshop will be conducted by a qualified paleontologist to ensure that 4 any new discoveries are adequately recorded, evaluated, and, if significant, mitigated. 5 The workshop minimally will address the following: review the types of paleontological 6 resources that may be uncovered; provide examples of common paleontological fossils 7 to examine; what makes an paleontological resource significant; what would 8 temporarily stop construction and for how long; procedures that would be used to 9 record, evaluate, and mitigate new discoveries with a minimum of delay; and reporting 10 requirements and the responsibilities of the construction supervisor and crew.

11 Permits and Other Approvals to Implement the Project

12 Pipeline crossings of the Santa Clara River potentially would require several permits, including 13 the following:

14 • Section 404 permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) for the pipeline and 15 associated construction activities (under section 12 of the Nationwide permit [NWP] for 16 Utility Line Discharges and section 33, which covers Temporary Construction, Access, 17 and Dewatering). 18 • Streambed Alteration Agreement (pursuant to section 1601 of the California Fish and 19 Game Code) from the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 20 • Regional Water Quality Certification (401 Permit) from the Los Angeles Regional Water 21 Quality Control Board (LARWQCB). 22 Other permits and approvals required for the construction and operation of the proposed 23 pipeline may include the following:

24 • An Encroachment Permit from the City of Santa Clarita and Los Angeles Flood Control 25 District for construction work within the public right-of-way of each jurisdiction. 26 • A General Construction Storm Water Permit from the LARWQCB. Requirements 27 include preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention (SWPP) Program for projects 28 that disturb more than 1 acre. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) is 29 considering a separate Statewide General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated 30 with Construction Activity from Small Linear Underground/Overhead Projects (Small 31 LUP Permit) that applies to pipeline projects that disturb between 1 and 5 acres. If this 32 permit is approved, it would apply to the Project if it is determined to disturb between 1 33 and 5 acres. If it would disturb more than 5 acres, the requirements of the General 34 Construction Storm Water Permit would apply. 35 • A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit from the 36 LARWQCB, pursuant to section 402 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), for discharges of 37 hydrostatic test water, along with Water Quality Certification (or a waiver thereof), 38 pursuant to section 401 of the CWA. 39 • A Fugitive Dust Control Plan, as required by the South Coast Air Quality Management 40 District (SCAQMD).

CLWA - Honby Pipeline ES-7 Draft EIR Executive Summary

1 • Long-term or permanent easements from property owners along the pipeline corridor: 2 Newhall Land and Farming Company, Greenbrier Associates Ltd, VBC 3 Investors LLC, 3 and LADWP. 4 • Temporary easements to accommodate construction activities. 5 • Trenching and Excavation Permit from the California Division of Occupational Safety 6 and Health. 7 • Modification of CLWA’s Domestic Water Supply Permit from the California Department 8 of Health Services (DHS). 9 Additionally, the Corps would confer with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to 10 determine whether consultation would be required under section 7 of the Endangered Species 11 Act (ESA) due to the presence of federally listed species in the Project area.

12 RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION

13 In 1988, CLWA completed the Final EIR for the Capital Improvements Program (CLWA 1988b), 14 which included a programmatic analysis of the Project, evaluating the impacts of “a new water 15 pipeline that could parallel the Honby pipeline along its entire length. “

16 A discussion of other projects that are closely related to the Project (including Riverpark, the 17 Sand Canyon pump station, and Cross Valley Connector), including the status of their 18 environmental review, is included in Chapter 6, Cumulative Impacts.

19 IMPACTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT

20 Direct impacts to the following resources were found not to be significant in the Initial Study 21 prepared for the Project (Appendix B) and therefore were not discussed in detail in the EIR: 22 aesthetics, agricultural resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous 23 materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, public 24 services, recreation, transportation, and utilities. A summary of the information included in the 25 Initial Study with respect to these resources is included in this EIR.

26 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

27 Table ES-1 summarizes the direct impacts of the Project, mitigation measures for significant 28 impacts, and the residual impacts that would occur after the implementation of mitigation 29 measures. Table ES-2 includes this information for the Project’s indirect, growth-related 30 impacts.

31 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

32 This section summarizes cumulative impacts by resource and identifies mitigation measures 33 where appropriate (Public Resources Code [PRC] section 21102; CEQA Guidelines sections 34 15002, 15021). The implementation of these mitigation measures may be the responsibility of 35 agencies other than CLWA, who would adopt them as part of their own environmental review 36 and approval processes.

ES-8 CLWA - Honby Pipeline Draft EIR Table ES-1. Summary of the Project’s Direct Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures (Page 1 of 3)

Environmental Resource Direct Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Impacts

Air Quality Impact AQ-1. Construction of the proposed None required Less than significant. pipeline would generate combustive and fugitive dust emissions, but they would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plans. (Less than significant impact) Impact AQ-2. Air emissions would result from None required Less than significant. construction of the proposed pipeline, but these would not exceed an ambient air quality standard or substantially contribute to an existing or projected air quality standard violation. (Less than significant impact) Impact AQ-3. Air emissions from construction of None required Less than significant. the proposed pipeline would not exceed any SCAQMD emission significance threshold. (Less than significant impact) Impact AQ-4. Air emissions from construction of None required Less than significant. the proposed pipeline would temporarily expose sensitive receptors to air pollutant concentrations. (Less than significant impact) Impact AQ-5. Pipeline construction temporarily None required Less than significant. would produce odors that would affect residents of the East Greenbrier Mobile Home Park. (Less than significant impact) Biological Impact BIO-1. Construction of the proposed BIO-1: CLWA will minimize disturbance to Less than significant. Resources pipeline would remove suitable habitat and native habitats, and listed and unlisted sensitive proposed critical habitat for the California species by implementation of the following gnatcatcher. (Significant impact) measures at construction sites prior to and during construction. Where ground

disturbances are required, CLWA’s construction program will include restricting disturbance, on- site monitoring, and Best Management Practices.

BIO-2: CLWA will develop a Habitat Revegetation, Restoration, and Monitoring Program, obtaining input from the California Department of Fish and Game, for implementation in all habitat areas directly affected by construction activities. The program

Table ES-1. Summary of the Project’s Direct Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures (Page 2 of 3)

Environmental Resource Direct Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Impacts

Biological will include invasive species control, topsoil Resources salvage and replacement, habitat rehabilitation (cont.) and revegetation.

Impact BIO-2. Construction of the Project would See Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2. Less than significant. disturb and temporarily remove riparian, wetland, and riverwash vegetation resulting in a temporary loss of habitat for common and unlisted sensitive wildlife and causing mortality to individuals of some wildlife species. (Significant impact)

Impact BIO-3. Construction of the proposed See Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2. Less than significant.

pipeline would remove sensitive upland vegetation and associated common and unlisted sensitive plant and wildlife species. (Significant impact) Impact BIO-4. Construction of the proposed See Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2. Less than significant. pipeline would remove river habitat used by fish species including potential use by the unarmored BIO-3 In order to eliminate the potential for threespine stickleback. Wildlife movement impacts to the unarmored threespine stickleback through the river by other non-aquatic species and other sensitive aquatic species and to may also be impeded. (Significant impact) minimize impacts to wildlife movement

corridors, construction within the Santa Clara River wash will be restricted to the dry season. This period shall be from May 1 to September 15. No construction activities shall be allowed to occur within the river wash outside of the designated dry period. In addition, surface elevations within washes shall be returned to preconstruction conditions prior to the end of the dry season. Impact BIO-5. Construction of the proposed None required Less than significant. pipeline would adversely impact biological resources with the Santa Clara River Significant Ecological Area (SEA). (Less than significant impact)

Table ES-1. Summary of the Project’s Direct Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures (Page 3 of 3)

Environmental Resource Direct Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Impacts

Biological Impact BIO-6. Construction of the Project would None required Less than significant. Resources disturb and remove disturbed and developed (cont.) areas along with associated ornamental vegetation as well as non-native grassland and associated wildlife. (Less than significant impact) Noise Impact NOI-1. Construction noise would cause a NOI-1: Advance notice of construction activities Significant unavoidable temporary increase in ambient noise levels at the will be provided to nearby residents and impact. East Greenbrier Mobile Home Park and the businesses. nearby commercial/industrial areas that could exceed local noise standards. (Significant impact) NOI-2: When construction activities occur sufficiently close to residential, commercial, and industrial uses to exceed City of Santa Clarita noise standards, one or more of the following noise reduction measures will be implemented: all internal combustion engine-powered equipment will be properly muffled and in good repair; machines will not be left idling; electric power will be used in lieu of internal combustion engine power whenever possible; noisy activities will be scheduled to minimize their duration at the site; if noise complaints are received, the contractor will conduct monitoring of noise levels, with corrective actions taken in response to excessive noise levels. Such measures could include constructing a temporary acoustic barrier between the noise source and the sensitive receptor. Population No direct impacts to population and housing None required. None. and Housing would occur.

Table ES-2. Summary of the Project’s Indirect Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures (Page 1 of 3)

Environmental Resource Indirect Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Impacts

Aesthetic/ Potential changes to the visual characteristics Implement the policies of the County of Los Significant unavoidable Visual and resources from development of open Angeles and City of Santa Clarita general and impact. Resources space and further urbanization of hillside and area plans. natural areas. Potential increase in the amount of night lighting and unwanted glare in presently undeveloped areas. (Significant growth-related impact) Agricultural Potential conversion of agriculture lands to non- Implement the policies of the County of Los Less than significant. Resources agricultural uses or for changes in agricultural Angeles and City of Santa Clarita general and zoning by local jurisdictions in order to allow a area plans. higher density or intensity of development. (Significant growth-related impact) Air Quality Potential increase in air pollutant emissions Implement the policies of the County of Los Significant unavoidable from transportation and development. Angeles and City of Santa Clarita general and impact. (Significant growth-related impact) area plans; comply with SCAQMD plans. Biological Conversion and degradation of habitat; Implement the policies of the County of Los Significant unavoidable Resources reduction/local extinction of local native plant Angeles and City of Santa Clarita general and impact. and wildlife populations; including sensitive area plans; comply with state and federal species; introduction of invasive non-native regulatory agencies permit conditions. species; disruption of established wildlife corridors and native wildlife nursery sites; impacts on sensitive fish and amphibian populations due to wastewater discharge and polluted runoff; conflicts with local policies and ordinances protecting biological resources. (Significant growth-related impact)

Cultural Potential disturbance of human remains, Implement the policies of the County of Los Less than significant. Resources archaeological, historical, and paleontological Angeles and City of Santa Clarita general and resources by excavation and grading activities area plans. associated with future development. (Significant growth-related impact) Table ES-2. Summary of the Project’s Indirect Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures (Page 2 of 3)

Environmental Resource Indirect Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Impacts

Geology and Potential from: geologic hazards, including Implement the policies of the County of Los Less than significant. Soils fault rupture, seismically induced ground Angeles and City of Santa Clarita general and failure, and seiches, as well as causing area plans. permanent changes in topography, loss of topsoil, and removal of unique geologic features. (Significant growth-related impact) Hazards and Previously contaminated sites may require the Implement the policies of the County of Los Less than significant. Hazardous removal or remediation of soils before Angeles and City of Santa Clarita general and Materials development. Potential increase in transport, area plans. use, and disposal of hazardous materials, along with increased risks of hazardous substance releases. Potential impairment of emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans. Increased public exposure to wildland fires. (Significant growth-related impact) Hydrology/ Potential increased demand on local Implement the policies of the County of Los Less than significant. Water Quality groundwater resources during periods of Angeles and City of Santa Clarita general and reduced SWP deliveries could result in area plans. substantial short-term stressing of groundwater supplies. Potential alteration of surface flows, reduction of aquifer recharge and increased amount and rate of stormwater runoff. Increased flooding and peak flow rates could result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. (Significant growth-related impact) Land Use and Potential division of a community or conflict Implement the policies of the County of Los Less than significant. Planning with adopted land use plans. Angeles and City of Santa Clarita general and (Significant growth-related impact) area plans. Noise Potential short-term increases from Implement the policies of the County of Los Less than significant. construction and grading activities, increase in Angeles and City of Santa Clarita general and traffic-related emissions and changes in land area plans. uses. (Significant growth-related impact) Table ES-2. Summary of the Project’s Indirect Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures (Page 3 of 3)

Environmental Resource Indirect Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Impacts

Population Potential increase in population and housing. Implement the policies of the County of Los Less than significant. and Housing (Significant growth-related impact) Angeles and City of Santa Clarita general and area plans. Public Potential increase in demand for public Implement the policies of the County of Los Less than significant. Services facilities and services (police, fire, schools, and Angeles and City of Santa Clarita general and library services). area plans. (Significant growth-related impact) Recreation Potential increase in demand for recreational Implement the policies of the County of Los Less than significant. resources. (Significant growth-related impact) Angeles and City of Santa Clarita general and area plans. Transporta- Potential increase in traffic and the need for Implement the policies of the County of Los Significant unavoidable tion/Traffic new or altered roads, highways, and Angeles and City of Santa Clarita general and impact. transportation systems in the Santa Clarita area plans. Valley. (Significant growth-related impact) Utilities and Potential increase wastewater generation and Implement the policies of the County of Los Significant unavoidable Service demand for wastewater treatment; potential Angeles and City of Santa Clarita general and impact related to increased Systems need for new storm water drainage facilities or area plans. Impacts to solid waste disposal demand for solid waste the expansion of existing facilities. (Less than may not be avoidable unless additional disposal services. significant growth-related impact) landfill capacity is approved and constructed. Potential increased demand for solid waste disposal services; potential increased need for potable water treatment facilities. (Significant growth-related impact)

Executive Summary

1 Aesthetics/Visual Resources

2 The Project would have a less than significant short-term direct impact to aesthetic/visual 3 resources. Its incremental contribution would not be cumulatively considerable in combination 4 with other reasonably foreseeable projects, and direct cumulative impacts would be less than 5 significant.

6 The Project would result in significant indirect impacts to aesthetics/visual resources in the 7 Santa Clarita Valley, which could compound or increase similar impacts of other projects. 8 These cumulative impacts are considered to be significant. Mitigation measures to reduce 9 significant indirect cumulative aesthetic/visual resources impacts are identified in Table ES-2, 10 but some significant impacts would be unavoidable depending on the magnitude and specific 11 location of future development.

12 Agricultural Resources

13 The Project would have no direct impacts to agricultural resources; thus, no direct cumulative 14 impacts would occur.

15 The Project would result in significant indirect impacts to agricultural resources in the Santa 16 Clarita Valley, which could compound or increase the impacts of other projects should they 17 affect agricultural lands. These cumulative impacts are considered to be significant. Mitigation 18 measures to reduce these significant indirect cumulative agricultural impacts to less than 19 significant are identified in Table ES-2.

20 Air Quality

21 The Project would have a less than significant short-term direct impact to air quality from 22 combustive and fugitive dust emissions during construction. Project emissions would disperse 23 over a large geographic area, and due to the mobile nature of most construction emission sources 24 and the short duration of their activity, Project construction emissions would not produce 25 substantial impacts in a given location. Project emissions, in combination with any reasonably 26 foreseeable emissions that would occur within the same timeframe or general location of the 27 Project, would not be cumulatively considerable and would not exceed any air quality standard or 28 contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality standard violation. Additionally, 29 the Project would comply with SCAQMD Rule 403, which requires that an activity not emit 30 substantial amounts of fugitive dust emissions to public areas. Therefore, the Project’s 31 incremental contribution would not be cumulatively considerable in combination with other 32 reasonably foreseeable projects, and direct cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

33 The Project would result in significant indirect impacts to air quality in the Santa Clarita Valley, 34 which could compound or increase similar impacts of other projects. These cumulative impacts 35 are considered to be significant. Mitigation measures to reduce significant indirect cumulative 36 air quality impacts are identified in Table ES-2, but some significant impacts would be 37 unavoidable.

CLWA - Honby Pipeline ES-15 Draft EIR Executive Summary

1 Biological Resources

2 The Project would have significant direct impacts to biological resources. Its direct impacts 3 would be cumulatively considerable in combination with other reasonably foreseeable projects, 4 and direct cumulative impacts would be significant. The Project’s contribution to significant 5 direct impacts would be mitigable to less than significant through the implementation of 6 mitigation measures BIO-1, BIO-2, and BIO-3 (see Table ES-1). Additionally, CEQA requires 7 mitigation measures to be identified for significant impacts to biological resources resulting 8 from other development projects, which would further reduce the cumulative impacts to 9 biological resources.

10 The Project would result in significant indirect impacts to biological resources in the Santa 11 Clarita Valley, which could compound or increase similar impacts of other projects. These 12 cumulative impacts are considered to be significant. Mitigation measures to reduce significant 13 indirect cumulative impacts to biological resources are identified in Table ES-2, but some 14 significant impacts would be unavoidable depending on the magnitude and specific location of 15 future development.

16 Cultural Resources

17 The Project would have no direct impact to known cultural resources and the project 18 description includes measures that would reduce impacts from disturbance of presently 19 unknown cultural resources to less than significant. Its incremental contribution would not be 20 cumulatively considerable in combination with other reasonably foreseeable projects, and direct 21 cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

22 The Project would result in significant indirect impacts to cultural resources in the Santa Clarita 23 Valley, which could compound or increase similar impacts of other projects. These impacts are 24 considered to be cumulatively considerable and significant. Mitigation measures to reduce 25 significant indirect cumulative impacts to cultural resources to less than significant are identified 26 in Table ES-2.

27 Geology, Soils, and Minerals

28 The Project would have short-term, localized impacts to geology and soils, but not minerals, 29 and the project description includes measures that would reduce these impacts to less than 30 significant. Its incremental contribution would not be cumulatively considerable in 31 combination with other reasonably foreseeable projects, and direct cumulative impacts would 32 be less than significant.

33 The Project would result in significant indirect impacts to geology, soils, and minerals in the 34 Santa Clarita Valley, which could compound or increase similar impacts of other projects. 35 These impacts are considered to be cumulatively considerable and significant. Mitigation 36 measures to reduce significant indirect cumulative impacts to geology, soils, and minerals to less 37 than significant are identified in Table ES-2.

ES-16 CLWA - Honby Pipeline Draft EIR Executive Summary

1 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

2 The Project would have short-term, localized, and less than significant impacts associated with 3 the use of hazardous materials, and all such use would be in accordance with standard practices 4 and permit conditions. Its incremental contribution would not be cumulatively considerable in 5 combination with other reasonably foreseeable projects, and direct cumulative impacts would 6 be less than significant.

7 The Project would result in significant indirect impacts associated with hazards and hazardous 8 materials in the Santa Clarita Valley, which could compound or increase similar impacts of 9 other projects. These impacts are considered to be cumulatively considerable and significant. 10 Mitigation measures to reduce significant indirect cumulative impacts associated with hazards 11 and hazardous materials to less than significant are identified in Table ES-2.

12 Hydrology/Water Quality

13 The Project would have short-term, localized, and less than significant impacts associated with 14 hydrology and water quality, and the use of BMPs has been included as part of the project 15 description. The Project’s incremental contribution would not be cumulatively considerable in 16 combination with other reasonably foreseeable projects, and direct cumulative impacts would 17 be less than significant.

18 The Project would result in significant indirect impacts to hydrology and water quality in the 19 Santa Clarita Valley, which could compound or increase similar impacts of other projects. 20 These impacts are considered to be cumulatively considerable and significant. Mitigation 21 measures to reduce significant indirect cumulative impacts to hydrology and water quality to 22 less than significant are identified in Table ES-2.

23 Land Use and Planning

24 The Project would have no direct impacts to land use and planning; thus, no direct cumulative 25 impacts would occur.

26 The Project would result in significant indirect impacts to land use and planning in the Santa 27 Clarita Valley, which could compound or increase similar impacts of other projects. These 28 impacts are considered to be cumulatively considerable and significant. Mitigation measures to 29 reduce significant indirect cumulative impacts to land use and planning to less than significant 30 are identified in Table ES-2.

31 Noise

32 The Project would have significant direct impacts to noise. Its direct impacts would be 33 cumulatively considerable in combination with other reasonably foreseeable projects in the 34 immediate project area occurring at the same time, and direct cumulative impacts would be 35 significant. The Project’s contribution to significant direct cumulative impacts would be reduced 36 through the implementation of mitigation measures NOI-1 and NOI-2, described in Table ES-1. 37 Additionally, CEQA requires mitigation measures to be identified for significant impacts to 38 noise resulting from other development projects, which would further reduce the cumulative 39 impacts to noise. Residual impacts may be significant, however, given the proximity of

CLWA - Honby Pipeline ES-17 Draft EIR Executive Summary

1 construction activities to nearby development (there is a potential for construction noise to 2 exceed City of Santa Clarita standards even after the implementation of mitigation measures).

3 The Project would result in significant indirect impacts to noise in the Santa Clarita Valley, 4 which could compound or increase similar impacts of other projects. These impacts are 5 considered to be cumulatively considerable and significant. Mitigation measures to reduce 6 significant indirect cumulative impacts to noise to less than significant are identified in Table ES- 7 2.

8 Population and Housing

9 The Project would have no direct impacts to population and housing; thus, no direct cumulative 10 impacts would occur.

11 The Project would result in significant indirect impacts to population and housing in the Santa 12 Clarita Valley, which could compound or increase similar impacts of other projects. These 13 impacts are considered to be cumulatively considerable and significant. Mitigation measures to 14 reduce significant indirect cumulative impacts to population and housing to less than significant 15 are identified in Table ES-2.

16 Public Services

17 The Project would have no direct impacts to public services; thus, no direct cumulative impacts 18 would occur.

19 The Project would result in significant indirect impacts to public services in the Santa Clarita 20 Valley, which could compound or increase similar impacts of other projects. These impacts are 21 considered to be cumulatively considerable and significant. Mitigation measures to reduce 22 significant indirect cumulative impacts to public services to less than significant are identified in 23 Table ES-2 under indirect impacts.

24 Recreation

25 The Project would have no direct impacts to recreation; thus, no direct cumulative impacts 26 would occur.

27 The Project would result in significant indirect impacts to recreation in the Santa Clarita Valley, 28 which could compound or increase similar impacts of other projects. These impacts are 29 considered to be cumulatively considerable and significant. Mitigation measures to reduce 30 significant indirect cumulative impacts to recreation to less than significant are identified in Table 31 ES-2.

32 Transportation and Circulation

33 The Project would have short-term, localized, and less than significant direct impacts associated 34 with transportation and circulation. Its incremental contribution would not be cumulatively 35 considerable in combination with other reasonably foreseeable projects, and direct cumulative 36 impacts would be less than significant.

ES-18 CLWA - Honby Pipeline Draft EIR Executive Summary

1 The Project would result in significant indirect impacts to transportation and circulation in the 2 Santa Clarita Valley, which could compound or increase similar impacts of other projects. 3 These impacts are considered to be cumulatively considerable and significant. Mitigation 4 measures to reduce significant indirect cumulative impacts to transportation and circulation to 5 less than significant are identified in Table ES-2.

6 Utilities/Service Systems

7 The Project would have no direct impacts to utilities and service systems with the exception of 8 less than significant impacts to solid waste disposal. This impact was considered in the EIR for 9 the Riverpark project; no additional direct cumulative impacts would occur.

10 The Project would result in significant indirect impacts to utilities and service systems in the 11 Santa Clarita Valley, which could compound or increase similar impacts of other projects. 12 These cumulative impacts are considered to be significant. Mitigation measures to reduce 13 significant indirect cumulative impacts to utilities and service systems are identified in Table 14 ES-2, but significant impacts to solid waste disposal would be unavoidable unless additional 15 landfill space or other disposal alternatives are approved.

16 Significant cumulative Project impacts in the CLWA service area would be as described under 17 indirect impacts, and the same mitigation measures would apply.

18 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS

19 Direct impacts of the Project to noise could be significant and unavoidable. These impacts 20 would be temporary, however, lasting only while construction occurred in proximity to noise 21 sensitive receptors. Alternatives to the Project were considered, including alternatives that 22 would reduce noise impacts. These alternatives would not meet Project objectives, however. 23 The Project is being proposed notwithstanding the short-term noise impact because the existing 24 Honby pipeline does not provide the required peak capacity to serve the current and projected 25 population in the affected portion of the CLWA service area until year 2050, and it would 26 conflict with uses proposed as part of the Riverpark project.

27 Indirect impacts of the Project to aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, 28 transportation/traffic and utilities/service systems could be significant and unavoidable (these 29 impacts are discussed in detail in Chapter 4). The Project is being proposed notwithstanding 30 these indirect impacts due to the deficiencies of the existing Honby pipeline, described above. 31 Moreover, while CLWA has the responsibility to provide wholesale water to retail purveyors 32 within the CLWA service area, it does not approve the locations of new development. City and 33 county planning agencies are responsible for creating land use plans that direct where 34 development should occur and for enforcing those plans. The Project would provide water that 35 could be used by new development in the CLWA service area, but it would not affect the 36 specific locations of planned development.

37 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT

38 Three alternatives were carried forward for detailed analysis.

CLWA - Honby Pipeline ES-19 Draft EIR Executive Summary

1 No Project Alternative

2 Under the No Project Alternative, the new Honby pipeline would not be constructed, and the 3 existing pipeline would not be replaced.

4 Alternative Pipeline Alignment 1

5 This alternative pipeline alignment, measuring approximately 9,600 feet in length, would begin 6 at an existing outlet on the 84-inch Treated Water pipeline. The outlet is located just southeast 7 of the RVWTP, where the Treated Water pipeline first intersects with the proposed Newhall 8 Ranch Road as it leaves the RVWTP. The first portion of the pipeline, approximately 2,000 feet 9 in length, would be built in the proposed future streets of the Riverpark project. Beginning at 10 the outlet, the pipeline would head south for approximately 950 feet. The pipeline would then 11 turn east for approximately 400 feet before again continuing south for approximately 300 feet. 12 From there it would continue southeast for approximately 400 feet to the boundary of the 13 Riverpark project. From the boundary of the Riverpark project, the pipeline would continue 14 northeast in an existing 40-foot easement along the north bank of the Santa Clara River. It 15 would cross under the above-ground Los Angeles Aqueduct and continue along the riverbank 16 in an easterly direction. Approximately 400 feet after passing under the area where the 17 proposed bridge over the Santa Clara River would be constructed, the pipeline would turn 18 south for approximately 600 feet, crossing the river and connecting with Santa Clara Street. The 19 pipeline would then proceed east in an existing pipeline easement in Santa Clara Street for 20 approximately 2,400 feet until its intersection with Furnivall Avenue, at which point it would 21 enter the new Sand Canyon pump station. The discussion of Project components above (under 22 Project Description) is applicable to this alternative.

23 Alternative Pipeline Alignment 2

24 This alternative pipeline alignment, measuring approximately 8,300 feet in length, would begin 25 at the same outlet of the Treated Water pipeline discussed in the first alternative alignment 26 above. From there, the pipeline would head in an easterly direction in the right-of-way for the 27 proposed extension of Newhall Ranch Road approximately 1,800 feet to the limit of Newhall 28 Land and Farming Company’s extension of Newhall Ranch Road. At that point, just before the 29 pedestrian bridge that is being proposed to cross over the above-ground Los Angeles Aqueduct 30 as part of the Riverpark project, the pipeline would head north for approximately 150 feet 31 before heading east to cross under the aqueduct. After crossing under the aqueduct, the 32 pipeline would turn south and then, upon reaching Newhall Ranch Road, continue east for 33 approximately 1,200 feet to a point just before the second proposed bridge (over the Santa 34 Clara River). There the pipeline would turn north again for about 300 feet, then proceed east 35 along the toe of the proposed bridge abutment for about 800 feet. The pipeline would then run 36 east along the north bank of the Santa Clara River for about 400 feet, then cross the Santa Clara 37 River, a distance of about 600 feet. The pipeline would then continue in the existing pipeline 38 easement in Santa Clara Street until its intersection with Furnivall Avenue, a distance of 39 approximately 2,400 feet, at which point it would enter the new Sand Canyon pump station. 40 The discussion of Project components above (under Project Description) is applicable to this 41 alternative.

ES-20 CLWA - Honby Pipeline Draft EIR Executive Summary

1 Environmentally Superior Alternative

2 The No Project Alternative would reduce or avoid some of the environmental impacts of the 3 Project, although some impacts (e.g., to air quality, noise, biological resources, geology and 4 soils, and water quality) would result from its implementation. Additionally, this alternative 5 would not meet the Project objectives and thus is not considered the environmentally superior 6 alternative.

7 Alternative Pipeline Alignment 1 would result in slightly greater air quality impacts than the 8 Project because the pipeline corridor is approximately 100 feet longer. This alternative would 9 result in slightly lessened noise impacts, although the impact classifications would not change. 10 Impacts to biological resources would be slightly reduced, although the impact classifications 11 would not change. Impacts to population and housing, including indirect impacts, would be as 12 described for the Project. This alternative would meet Project objectives, but was eliminated 13 from consideration as the environmentally superior alternative because of technical 14 considerations. This alignment would cross under the area that would be filled as part of the 15 proposed pedestrian bridge over the above-ground Los Angeles Aqueduct (part of Newhall 16 Land and Farming Company’s Riverpark project) and under the north abutment of the 17 proposed bridge crossing the Santa Clara River (part of the City of Santa Clarita’s Cross Valley 18 Connector project). Newhall Land and Farming Company and the City of Santa Clarita intend 19 to add 20 and 39 feet of fill to these two areas, respectively. The loads would exceed those 20 considered acceptable and would adversely affect the structural integrity of the pipeline 21 (Kennedy/Jenks Consultants 2004). Even if the Riverpark project did not go forward with the 22 pedestrian bridge, it is reasonable to expect that the City of Santa Clarita would construct the 23 bridge over the Santa Clara River4. Thus, this alignment would not be technically feasible and 24 is eliminated from further consideration as the environmentally superior alternative.

25 Alternative Pipeline Alignment 2 would have lesser air quality impacts than the Project because 26 the pipeline corridor would be shorter. Impacts to biological resources also would be lessened 27 because a greater percentage of the disturbance area would occur within an area that will be 28 graded or paved as part of the proposed extension of Newhall Ranch Road, reducing impacts 29 on common plant communities and common wildlife species associated. Impacts on sensitive 30 resources, such as riparian, wetland, riverwash, and Riversidean sage scrub habitat and 31 associated wildlife species also would be reduced substantially under this alternative. Short- 32 term noise impacts to the residents of the East Greenbrier Mobile Home Park would be lessened 33 under this alternative due to the greater distance between the construction corridor and the 34 mobile home park but would remain significant. Impacts to population and housing, including 35 indirect impacts, would be as described for the Project. This alternative would have lesser 36 direct environmental impacts than the Project. It is, however, dependent upon the timing of the 37 construction of the bridge over the Santa Clara River, which is uncertain because funding has 38 not been provided. It was eliminated from further consideration as the environmentally 39

4 The bridge is part of the Cross Valley Connector project, along with the extension of Newhall Ranch Road. The Newhall Ranch Road extension, including the bridge over the Santa Clara River, is included in the City of Santa Clarita’s General Plan and is considered the City’s highest priority roadway.

CLWA - Honby Pipeline ES-21 Draft EIR Executive Summary

1 superior alternative because of this uncertainty5. As discussed in section 1.1, the existing Honby 2 pipeline does not meet current peak demand. Further, delays in constructing the Santa Clara 3 River Bridge may result in unacceptable delays in providing water to the affected portion of the 4 service area and in meeting the Project objective of providing the required peak capacity to 5 serve current and projected population in the affected portion of the CLWA service area until 6 year 2050, as planned for in CLWA‘s Capital Improvements Program (CLWA 1988a).

7 The Project is identified as the environmentally superior alternative that meets Project 8 objectives.

9 AREAS OF KNOWN CONTROVERSY

10 Comment letters from businesses received in response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP) 11 expressed concern regarding the routing of the pipeline in local streets. Specific concerns 12 involved loss of access to businesses during pipeline construction, impacts from noise, dust, and 13 traffic congestion, and conflicts with a proposed sewer line in Ruether Avenue. In response to 14 these concerns, the project description has been clarified to indicate that local businesses would 15 be contacted prior to construction to determine their hours of operation and that construction 16 would occur outside their normal business hours. Additionally, the project description has 17 been clarified to indicate that the pipeline trench would be covered each day at the end of the 18 work day and streets would be patched with temporary asphalt or steel plates, thus allowing 19 continued vehicular access to businesses. In response to concerns regarding conflicts with the 20 proposed sewer line, the dimensions of existing and proposed utilities in Ruether Avenue were 21 reviewed, and it was determined that there would be adequate space to accommodate both the 22 proposed pipeline and the proposed sewer line without any service restrictions. The results of 23 this analysis are shown in Appendix A. A number of commenters suggested routing the 24 proposed pipeline north along Furnivall Avenue to Santa Clara Street, but this was determined 25 to be technically infeasible because it would require reconfiguring the already constructed 26 portions of the Sand Canyon pump station. Moreover, given the measures described above, 27 pipeline construction would not restrict access to businesses during normal business hours, and 28 impacts from dust, and traffic congestion would be avoided or would be minimal. Impacts to 29 local businesses from construction noise are still considered significant because City of Santa 30 Clarita noise standards would be exceeded, but in practice, they would be minimized since 31 construction would occur after business hours. Should the pipeline be installed in other streets 32 instead of following the proposed alignment, noise impacts would be transferred to those other 33 streets.

34 UNRESOLVED ISSUES

35 No unresolved environmental issues have been identified.

5 The bridge is part of the Cross Valley Connector project, along with the extension of Newhall Ranch Road. The Newhall Ranch Road extension, including the bridge over the Santa Clara River, is included in the City of Santa Clarita’s General Plan and is considered the City’s highest priority roadway. Thus, while there is uncertainty regarding the timing of bridge construction, it is reasonable to believe that it will be constructed.

ES-22 CLWA - Honby Pipeline Draft EIR

1 1.0 INTRODUCTION

2 1.1 OVERVIEW

3 The Project is the construction of a 60-inch buried steel water pipeline to replace an existing 4 33-inch Honby pipeline, in a new alignment. The pipeline would be approximately 9,500 feet in 5 length. The existing Honby pipeline is inadequate because its alignment is within a planned 6 residential lot area (the Riverpark project)1 and because its size is inadequate to meet the existing 7 and future demand of the Castaic Lake Water Agency (CLWA) service area.2 The existing 8 pipeline is shown in Figure 1.1-1.

9 The Project would be conducted in two phases. The first phase, expected to begin in summer 10 2005, would consist of the construction of a 2,500-foot segment of the pipeline. The 2,500-foot 11 segment would connect to the 84-inch Treated Water pipeline that leads from the Rio Vista Water 12 Treatment Plant (RVWTP). From the point of connection with the Treated Water pipeline, the 13 2,500-foot segment would continue in Newhall Ranch Road and would connect to the existing 14 Honby pipeline.

15 The second phase, expected to begin in February 2006, would consist of the construction of the 16 remaining 7,000-foot segment of the pipeline. The 7,000-foot segment would continue the 17 pipeline from the end of the 2,500-foot segment, at its point of connection to the existing Honby 18 pipeline, to the new Sand Canyon pump station.3

19 No new water supply is associated with the Project. The proposed pipeline would transport 20 water that is part of CLWA’s supply.

21 1.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES

22 Objectives of the Project are as follows:

CLWA – Honby Pipeline 1-1 Draft EIR

1.0 Introduction

1 • Provide the required peak capacity to serve the current and projected population in the 2 affected portion of the CLWA service area until year 2050, as planned for in CLWA‘s 3 Capital Improvements Program (CLWA 1988a). 4 • Accommodate changes required as a result of the Riverpark project, while ensuring access 5 to the pipeline for maintenance and repairs. 6 • Be technically compatible with the new Sand Canyon pump station. 7 1.3 INTENDED USES OF THE EIR

8 The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires preparation of an EIR when an 9 agency action is believed to have a potential for significant impacts to the environment. An EIR is 10 “a public document used by the governmental agency to analyze the significant environmental 11 effects of a proposed project, to identify alternatives, and to disclose possible ways to reduce or 12 avoid the possible environmental damage” (CEQA Guidelines, section 15002). An EIR serves as 13 an informational document for decisionmakers and the general public alike. This is a Project EIR 14 addressing actions that were anticipated and programmatically evaluated in the certified Capital 15 Program and Water Plan, including Acquisition of Supplemental Water and of a Proposed Second Plant 16 Site Final EIR (Capital Improvements Program EIR) (CLWA 1988b).

17 CLWA is the lead agency for preparation of the EIR and thus will evaluate, and if appropriate, 18 certify this EIR, make CEQA findings, and approve the Project. All documents referenced in this 19 EIR are available for public inspection at the CLWA offices at 27234 Bouquet Canyon Road, Santa 20 Clarita, CA 91350, (661) 297-1600.

21 1.4 PERMITS AND OTHER APPROVALS REQUIRED TO IMPLEMENT THE 22 PROJECT

23 Pipeline crossings of the Santa Clara River potentially would require several permits, including 24 the following:

25 • Section 404 permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) for the pipeline and 26 associated construction activities (under section 12 of the Nationwide Permit [NWP] for 27 Utility Line Discharges and section 33, which covers Temporary Construction, Access, and 28 Dewatering). 29 • Streambed Alteration Agreement (pursuant to section 1601 of the California Fish and 30 Game Code) from the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 31 • Regional Water Quality Certification (401 Permit) from the Los Angeles Regional Water 32 Quality Control Board (LARWQCB). 33 Other permits and approvals required for the construction and operation of the proposed pipeline 34 may include the following:

35 • An Encroachment Permit from the City of Santa Clarita and Los Angeles Flood Control 36 District for construction work within the public right-of-way of each jurisdiction. 37 • A General Construction Storm Water Permit from the LARWQCB. Requirements include 38 preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention (SWPP) Program for projects that

1-4 CLWA – Honby Pipeline Draft EIR 1.0 Introduction

1 disturb more than 1 acre. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) is 2 considering a separate Statewide General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated 3 with Construction Activity from Small Linear Underground/Overhead Projects (Small 4 LUP Permit) that applies to pipeline projects that disturb between 1 and 5 acres. If this 5 permit is approved, it would apply to the Project if it is determined to disturb between 1 6 and 5 acres. If it would disturb more than 5 acres, the requirements of the General 7 Construction Storm Water Permit would apply. 8 • A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit from the LARWQCB, 9 pursuant to section 402 of the Clean Water Act, for discharges of hydrostatic test water, 10 along with Water Quality Certification (or a waiver thereof), pursuant to section 401 of the 11 Clean Water Act (CWA). 12 • A Fugitive Dust Control Plan, as required by the South Coast Air Quality Management 13 District (SCAQMD). 14 • Long-term or permanent easements from property owners along the pipeline corridor: 15 Newhall Land and Farming Company, Greenbrier Associates Ltd, VBC 3 Investors LLC, 16 and Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP). 17 • Temporary easements to accommodate construction activities. 18 • Trenching and Excavation Permit from the California Division of Occupational Safety and 19 Health. 20 • Modification of CLWA’s Domestic Water Supply Permit from the California Department 21 of Health Services (DHS). 22 Additionally, the Corps would confer with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to 23 determine whether consultation would be required under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act 24 (ESA) due to the presence of federally listed species in the Project area.

25 1.5 RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION

26 In 1988, CLWA completed the Final EIR for the Capital Improvements Program (CLWA 1988b), 27 which included a programmatic analysis of the Project, evaluating the impacts of “a new water 28 pipeline that could parallel the Honby pipeline along its entire length. “

29 A discussion of other projects that are closely related to the Project (including Riverpark, the Sand 30 Canyon pump station, and Cross Valley Connector), including the status of their environmental 31 review, is included in Chapter 6, Cumulative Impacts.

32 1.6 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESS

33 As required by Public Resource Code (PRC) section 21080.4 and CEQA Guidelines section 15082, 34 CLWA, the lead agency, issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) indicating its determination to 35 prepare an EIR for the Project. The NOP and Initial Study can be found in Appendix B. The NOP 36 was issued on January 13, 2005 and the public comment period ended on February 17, 2005.

37 Comment letters on the NOP were received from the CDFG, the Southern California Association 38 of Governments (SCAG), LACFD, and five businesses located along the pipeline corridor.

CLWA – Honby Pipeline 1-5 Draft EIR 1.0 Introduction

1 Comment letters are included in Appendix B and have been considered in the preparation of this 2 EIR.

3 As required by PRC section 21161 and CEQA Guidelines section 15085, CLWA will file the Notice 4 of Completion for the Draft EIR with the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, which 5 coordinates state-level reviews through the State Clearinghouse. In addition, as required by PRC 6 section 21092 and CEQA Guidelines section 15087, the Notice of Completion/Availability of the 7 Draft EIR will be posted for 30 days in the office of the County Clerk in the counties of Los 8 Angeles and Ventura.

9 1.7 EIR ORGANIZATION

10 The EIR is organized as follows:

11 • The Executive Summary includes an overview of the Project, Project objectives and the 12 Project description, followed by a description of the permits and other approvals needed 13 to implement the Project; a discussion of related environmental documentation and 14 impacts found not to be significant; summary tables listing direct and indirect 15 environmental impacts of the Project, mitigation measures for significant impacts, and 16 residual impacts remaining after mitigation (i.e., significant unavoidable adverse impacts) 17 for each of the environmental resources considered in this EIR; and discussions of 18 cumulative impacts, significant unavoidable impacts, Project alternatives, and areas of 19 known controversy. 20 • Chapter 1 introduces the Project and its objectives, the uses of the EIR, permits and other 21 approvals needed to implement the Project, related environmental documentation, and 22 the public involvement process. 23 • Chapter 2 describes the Project. 24 • Chapter 3 includes a description of the affected environment for each of the resources 25 considered in this EIR, direct environmental impacts of the Project, and mitigation 26 measures for significant impacts. It also includes discussions of those resources whose 27 effects were considered but found to be not significant and significant unavoidable 28 impacts. 29 • Chapter 4 discusses growth-inducing impacts of the Project and growth-related impacts 30 from induced growth. 31 • Chapter 5 addresses the Project’s consistency with adopted plans and policies of relevant 32 jurisdictions. 33 • Chapter 6 discusses the cumulative impacts of the Project in combination with other 34 closely related projects. 35 • Chapter 7 presents alternatives to the Project and identifies an environmentally superior 36 alternative. 37 • Chapter 8 identifies the preparers of this EIR. 38 • Chapter 9 includes references used in preparing this EIR.

1-6 CLWA – Honby Pipeline Draft EIR 1.0 Introduction

1 • Chapter 10 lists persons and agencies contacted during preparation of the EIR. 2 • Chapter 11 is a glossary of terms used in the EIR and acronyms. 3 • Appendix A contains a figure showing the locations of existing and proposed utilities in 4 Ruether Avenue. 5 • Appendix B contains the Initial Study, NOP, and letters received in response to the NOP. 6 • Appendix C contains air quality emissions calculations.

CLWA – Honby Pipeline 1-7 Draft EIR 1.0 Introduction

This page intentionally left blank

1-8 CLWA – Honby Pipeline Draft EIR

1 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION

3 The proposed pipeline (see Figure 2.1-1) would be located in the City of Santa Clarita. It would 4 connect with the existing 84-inch Treated Water pipeline, which connects to the RVWTP. The 5 pipeline would end at the new Sand Canyon pump station, where it would connect to a short, 6 60-inch pipe extending from the pump station. Water transported by the pipeline would be 7 treated at the RVWTP, as occurs with the existing pipeline. The total pipeline length is 8 approximately 9,500 feet.

9 The pipeline would be constructed in two phases. Phase 1, which would have a total distance 10 of approximately 2,500 feet, would begin at the Treated Water pipeline, at a point located just 11 southeast of the RVWTP, where the Treated Water pipeline first intersects with the proposed 12 Newhall Ranch Road as it leaves the RVWTP. From there, it would extend in an easterly 13 direction within the proposed Newhall Ranch Road right-of-way for approximately 1,700 feet. 14 It would then head south down the slope just west of the above-ground Los Angeles Aqueduct 15 for approximately 500 feet and continue parallel to the western side of the aqueduct for a 16 distance of approximately 300 feet, where it would temporarily connect with the existing Honby 17 pipeline.

18 Phase 2 would begin at the north bank of the Santa Clara River, crossing the river parallel to the 19 above-ground Los Angeles Aqueduct on its western side (approximately 1,600 feet). On the 20 south side of the river, the pipeline would be installed in a new easement in the northern 21 portion of the East Greenbrier Mobile Home Park. The mobile home park maintains a greenbelt 22 and paved storage area for recreational vehicles in this area. The pipeline alignment would 23 continue east, crossing under the new Golden Valley Road flyover (a planned elevated roadway 24 expected to be completed by July 2005) and under property owned by the LADWP. This 25 section of the pipeline would be approximately 2,900 feet long. The pipeline would continue 26 east in Soledad Street for a distance of approximately 1,200 feet, then head north in Ruether 27 Avenue for about 600 feet until Santa Clara Street. It then would turn east for about 700 feet to 28 the terminus at the intersection of Santa Clara Street and Furnivall Avenue. The pipeline would 29 end at the site of the Sand Canyon pump station, which is currently under construction and 30 scheduled for completion by December 2005. The Phase 2 pipeline would be approximately 31 7,000 feet long.

32 2.2 PROJECT COMPONENTS

33 2.2.1 Pipeline Design

34 The pipeline capacity would be 139 cfs. The pipeline would be coated and lined with cement- 35 mortar and would conform to the requirements of American Water Works Association 36 (AWWA). Appurtenances, such as air and vacuum relief valves (AVARs), blowoff/pumpouts, 37 cathodic test stations, air vents, and manway vaults, would be installed to provide access to the 38 pipeline for maintenance activities, and to protect the pipeline from water hammer, collapse, 39 corrosion.

40 AVARs would be installed to release air from the pipeline during filling and normal operations 41 and to protect the pipeline from collapse due to vacuum conditions. They would be located at

CLWA – Honby Pipeline 2-1 Draft EIR

2.0 Project Description

1 the high points along the pipeline and spaced at intervals of no more than 1,500 feet. The 2 pressure rating of the AVARs would be 150 pounds per square inch.

3 Blowoff/pumpout facilities would be installed along the pipeline for relief of pipeline pressure 4 and dewatering when the pipeline is shut down and out of service for maintenance or internal 5 inspection. Blowoffs would be installed at each low point and on the upstream side of any 6 valve along the pipeline to facilitate and ensure complete dewatering. A submersible pump 7 may be required for complete dewatering. Three pumpouts would be installed; one on the low 8 point at the Santa Clara River crossing and two at additional low points along the alignment.

9 Flexible coupling that allows movement with minimal or no damage to the pipeline would be 10 installed on the upstream and downstream sides of the Santa Clara River crossing where 11 changes in pipe bedding (concrete encasement) occurs.

12 Cathodic test stations would be spaced at intervals of approximately 1,000 feet to monitor 13 pipeline corrosion.

14 Manway vaults would be installed along the pipeline to allow access for inspection, routine 15 maintenance, and repairs. Air vents would be installed nearby to provide cross ventilation 16 when the manholes are entered for maintenance or inspection.

17 A butterfly valve would be installed at the connection to the Treated Water pipeline to facilitate 18 shutdown during an emergency or routine maintenance.

19 2.2.2 Construction

20 The pipeline would be installed at a depth of approximately 60 inches below ground surface, 21 except where it crosses the Santa Clara River. At the river crossing, it would be installed using 22 open cut construction, and the pipeline would be installed at a depth below the known river 23 scour level in order to protect it from damage caused by actions of the river and river bottom. 24 A scour analysis would be performed during design to determine the appropriate depth at 25 which the pipeline should be installed. The pipeline would be encased in concrete within the 26 riverbed and riverbank. The riverbed and other undeveloped areas would be restored to their 27 pre-construction condition after pipe installation.

28 The pipeline would be installed in the existing roadway along Soledad Street, Ruether Avenue, 29 and Santa Clara Street. One lane would be kept open at all times during construction. The 30 pipeline trench would be backfilled at the end of each work day when work ceased. In all areas, 31 the newly laid pipe would be covered with about 12 inches of rock, which in turn would be 32 covered with compacted dirt from the original excavation. Local streets would be patched with 33 temporary asphalt or steel plates to allow vehicular access to all properties during their routine 34 business hours. Prior notification of construction would be provided to residents and business 35 owners adjacent to the pipeline corridor, and suitable hours of construction would be identified 36 in order to minimize disruption to local businesses (refer to the discussion under section 2.2.4, 37 Project Schedule and Phasing below). Roads would be repaired to City of Santa Clarita 38 standards after installation was completed.

39 Standard best management practices (BMPs) would be implemented and could include 40 construction of silt fences, revegetation, minimization of grading (to the extent possible), and 41 installation of erosion control barriers around stockpiled soil.

CLWA – Honby Pipeline 2-3 Draft EIR 2.0 Project Description

1 Grading for the portion of the pipeline that would be located in the proposed Newhall Ranch 2 Road right-of-way would be performed by Newhall Land and Farming Company as part of the 3 proposed Riverpark project.

4 The pipeline would cross under both the above-ground Los Angeles Aqueduct and the below- 5 ground Los Angeles Aqueduct, which are operated and maintained by LADWP. CLWA would 6 coordinate with LADWP prior to pipeline installation to avoid any conflicts with these 7 pipelines, and any requirements provided by LADWP would be incorporated into the final 8 Project design. The pipeline also would run parallel to or cross several other above-ground and 9 below-ground utilities. The exact location of any utilities present in the pipeline corridor would 10 be identified prior to construction, and impacts to utilities would be avoided through spatial 11 separation and compliance with all applicable standards. No disruption of service would be 12 required.

13 It is anticipated that approximately 1 to 2 acres would be needed for equipment and materials 14 storage, parking, and a construction trailer. Staging areas would be located in areas that have 15 been disturbed and/or contain no sensitive environmental resources. It is possible that staging 16 areas could be located at the RVWTP, on the Riverpark property, and at the Sand Canyon Pump 17 station site.

18 2.2.3 Testing and Disinfection

19 Pipeline testing would be conducted prior to its operation. The pipeline would be cleaned, 20 filled with water, checked for leakage, and tested at the identified surge pressure for 4 hours. 21 The surge pressure would be based upon a surge analysis performed during detailed design. 22 The water would be discharged into the Santa Clara River or into local storm drains once the 23 test was completed. After successful testing, the pipeline would be disinfected with chlorine in 24 the form of either sodium hypochlorite or calcium hypochlorite according to AWWA standards 25 and de-chlorinated prior to discharge.

26 2.2.4 Project Schedule and Phasing

27 The Project would be constructed in two phases. Phase 1 includes the 2,500-foot segment of the 28 pipeline that extends from an outlet on the Treated Water pipeline, continuing in Newhall 29 Ranch Road, then down the slope where it would connect to the existing Honby pipeline. This 30 would allow Newhall Land and Farming Company to perform rough grading of Newhall 31 Ranch Road, while maintaining continuity of service. Upon completion of the tie-in to the 32 existing Honby pipeline, Newhall Land and Farming Company would remove the portions of 33 the existing Honby pipeline that would interfere with development of the Riverpark site. If 34 Newhall Land and Farming Company did not remove the existing Honby pipeline, that would 35 not affect the implementation of the Project. The proposed pipeline would still be constructed, 36 and the existing Honby pipeline would remain in its current location.

37 Phase 2 would continue the alignment south across the Santa Clara River and proceed east to 38 the connection near the new Sand Canyon pump station. This segment would be 39 approximately 7,000 feet in length. Final tie-ins to the Phase 1 pipeline and the suction piping at 40 the Sand Canyon pump station would occur at the end of Phase 2.

41 Phase 1 construction activities are expected to begin in summer 2005 and last for approximately 42 two months. Phase 2 construction is expected to begin about ten months later, in February 2006,

2-4 CLWA – Honby Pipeline Draft EIR 2.0 Project Description

1 last for approximately six months. The river crossing (which would occur during Phase 2) 2 would be scheduled to avoid the rainy season. With the exception of construction occurring in 3 local streets (Soledad Street, Ruether Avenue, and Santa Clara Street), work would take place 4 during hours typically allowed by the City of Santa Clarita, which limits construction work to 5 between 7 A.M. and 7 P.M. Monday through Friday and between 8 A.M. and 6 P.M. on Saturday. 6 Construction is prohibited on Sundays and major holidays: New Year’s Day, Independence 7 Day, Thanksgiving, Christmas, Memorial Day, and Labor Day. Work taking place in Soledad 8 Street, Ruether Avenue, and Santa Clara Street may occur outside those days and hours because 9 it would be conducted after business hours to enable local businesses to retain access to their 10 facilities. The City of Santa Clarita exempts public utility projects, such as the proposed 11 pipeline, from the scheduling restrictions outlined above (personal communication, C. Williams 12 2005).

13 2.2.5 Maintenance and Operations

14 Typical maintenance activities would include valve exercising and internal inspection of the 15 pipeline.

16 2.2.6 Mitigation Measures included as Part of the Project

17 As described below, the Project includes a number of features that would reduce or avoid 18 environmental impacts.

19 A number of project design elements identified above would reduce potential impacts from 20 seismic events, including flexible couplings, which would allow movement with minimal or no 21 damage, and a butterfly valve, which would allow portions of the pipeline to be isolated during 22 an emergency. Other appurtenances, such as AVARs and blowoff/pumpouts also would 23 protect the pipeline. Additionally, potential impacts associated with landslides and erosion 24 would be mitigated through compliance with standard seismic engineering and construction 25 practices and BMPs.

26 All disturbed areas would be restored to their pre-construction condition, or to the standards 27 specified in permit conditions imposed by agencies having jurisdiction over the Project. This 28 would reduce or avoid potential impacts to aesthetic and biological resources and 29 transportation. Additionally, the Santa Clara River crossing would be scheduled to take place 30 during the dry season, reducing the potential for erosion and some impacts to biological 31 resources.

32 Additionally, alternative route (detour) plans and a tentative schedule of planned closures 33 would be provided to the Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD) prior to construction. 34 LACFD Fire Stations 107, 111, 73, and 126 would be notified at least three days in advance of 35 any street closures that may affect fire/paramedic responses in the area. Although no 36 disruption of water service is anticipated (as described above, the exact location of any utilities 37 present in the pipeline corridor would be identified prior to construction, and impacts to 38 utilities would be avoided through spatial separation and compliance with all applicable 39 standards), in the unlikely event that disruption of water service would occur, it would be 40 coordinated with LACFD, and alternate water sources would be provided for fire protection 41 during the disruption.

CLWA – Honby Pipeline 2-5 Draft EIR 2.0 Project Description

1 Even though no prehistoric archaeological resources are present in or immediately adjacent to 2 the proposed pipeline corridor, it is located in an archaeologically sensitive area. The following 3 would be implemented in the unlikely event that presently unknown archaeological remains 4 are encountered during construction:

5 • In the event cultural remains are encountered during excavation, work will be stopped 6 immediately and temporarily redirected until a qualified archaeologist is retained to 7 determine the potential significance of the find pursuant to Phase 2 investigations. If the 8 remains are prehistoric, a local Native American observer will be retained to monitor the 9 archaeological excavation. If the remains are found to be significant, they may be 10 subject to a Phase 3 data recovery mitigation program funded by CLWA. A pre- 11 construction workshop will be conducted by a qualified archaeologist to ensure that any 12 new discoveries are adequately recorded, evaluated, and, if significant, mitigated. The 13 workshop minimally will address the following: review the types of archaeological 14 resources that may be uncovered; provide examples of common archaeological artifacts 15 and other cultural materials to examine; what makes an archaeological resource 16 significant; what would temporarily stop construction and for how long; procedures 17 that would be used to record, evaluate, and mitigate new discoveries with a minimum of 18 delay; and reporting requirements and the responsibilities of the construction supervisor 19 and crew.

20 The proposed pipeline corridor is also located in a paleontologically sensitive area. The 21 following is recommended in the event that presently unknown paleontological resources are 22 encountered during construction:

23 • In the event paleontological fossils are encountered during excavation, work will be 24 stopped immediately and temporarily redirected until a qualified paleontologist is 25 retained to determine the potential significance of the find. If the fossils are found to be 26 significant, they will be removed and curated at the proper repository. A pre- 27 construction workshop will be conducted by a qualified paleontologist to ensure that 28 any new discoveries are adequately recorded, evaluated, and, if significant, mitigated. 29 The workshop minimally will address the following: review the types of paleontological 30 resources that may be uncovered; provide examples of common paleontological fossils 31 to examine; what makes an paleontological resource significant; what would 32 temporarily stop construction and for how long; procedures that would be used to 33 record, evaluate, and mitigate new discoveries with a minimum of delay; and reporting 34 requirements and the responsibilities of the construction supervisor and crew.

2-6 CLWA – Honby Pipeline Draft EIR

1 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, DIRECT ENVIRONMENTAL 2 IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES

3 INTRODUCTION

4 CEQA Guidelines section 15143 states that “The EIR shall focus on the significant effects on the 5 environment…. Effects dismissed in an Initial Study as clearly insignificant and unlikely to 6 occur need not be discussed further in the EIR unless the Lead Agency subsequently receives 7 information inconsistent with the findings in the Initial Study.” In compliance with the CEQA 8 Guidelines, this chapter provides a detailed analysis of the resources for which potentially 9 significant environmental impacts were identified in the Initial Study (Appendix B): air quality, 10 biological resources, noise, and population and housing. The discussion of each resource 11 includes a description of the affected environment, criteria used to evaluate the significance of 12 Project impacts, direct impacts, and mitigation measures for significant impacts. The 13 significance criteria used are based on CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G.

14 The Project could result in indirect, growth-related impacts to all resources identified in the 15 sample Initial Study questionnaire included in CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G. These impacts 16 and corresponding mitigation measures are discussed in a consolidated section, Chapter 4, 17 Growth-Inducing Impacts and Growth-Related Impacts. Cumulative impacts are addressed in 18 Chapter 6.

19 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT

20 CEQA Guidelines section 15128 requires that EIRs contain a statement briefly indicating the 21 reasons that various possible significant effects of a project were determined not to be 22 significant and therefore were not discussed in detail in the EIR. This information is included in 23 the Initial Study (Appendix B) and summarized below.

24 Aesthetics — The proposed pipeline would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic 25 vista, substantially damage scenic resources, or substantially degrade the existing visual 26 character or quality of the construction site or its surroundings because it would be placed 27 underground in previously disturbed or developed areas. The westernmost portion of the 28 pipeline would be located along the proposed extension of Newhall Ranch Road, in an area that 29 is designated by the City of Santa Clarita as a secondary ridgeline, but it would be installed only 30 after grading for the road was completed. Thus, no new grading would be required for this 31 portion of the pipeline. The pipeline would then be installed under the Santa Clara River in a 32 sparsely vegetated area and would parallel the above-ground Los Angeles Aqueduct. The 33 riverbed would be restored to pre-construction condition once installation was completed. The 34 pipeline would traverse the south side of the river along the greenbelt and RV storage 35 associated with the mobile home park. The remainder of the pipeline would cross an 36 undeveloped area containing high voltage transmission lines or would be placed underground 37 in a street lined by industrial uses. Any disturbed areas would be restored to their 38 preconstruction condition. Construction would occur during the night in local streets to avoid 39 restricting access to adjacent businesses, which could require the use of additional lighting in

CLWA – Honby Pipeline 3.0-1 Draft EIR 3.0 Affected Environment

1 the immediate construction area. This use would be temporary, however, and would be located 2 in an area used for commercial and industrial purposes.

3 Agricultural Resources — The proposed pipeline would not be located in an area that contains 4 Prime Farmland, Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, nor 5 would it be located in an area zoned for agricultural use or on land that is under a Williamson 6 Act contract (Impact Sciences 2004).

7 Cultural Resources — The Project area contains one historic architectural resource, CA-LAN- 8 2105H, the above-ground Los Angeles Aqueduct. The aqueduct is located within an existing 9 utility easement, and the Project would not result in any physical change to the facility. 10 Therefore, no impacts to this historic architectural resource would occur. No known prehistoric 11 archaeological resources are present in or immediately adjacent to the proposed pipeline 12 corridor. The pipeline corridor is, however, located in an archaeologically sensitive area, in an 13 area that was suitable for permanent and semi-permanent settlement due to the presence of a 14 source of fresh water and rich food resources (i.e., abundant birds, foraging animals, and plants) 15 that were hunted and gathered. Therefore, it is possible, though unlikely, that presently 16 unknown prehistoric archaeological resources could be encountered during construction.

17 No human remains have been recorded within the Project area. Prehistoric cemeteries are, 18 however, associated with large village sites located adjacent to water sources where the source 19 of freshwater and the rich food resources (i.e., the abundance of birds, foraging animals, and 20 plants) would have been ideal for long-term settlement. CA-LAN-351, located on a series of 21 river terraces along the north bank of the Santa Clara River, approximately 1,500 feet south of 22 the Project area, is composed of a wide range of cultural materials and is interpreted as a 23 village/habitation site. Therefore, although no human remains have been recorded within the 24 Project area, it is possible that presently unknown isolated burials could be encountered during 25 construction.

26 Construction of the Project has the potential to destroy unique paleontological resources. The 27 Saugus Formation, underlying portions of the proposed pipeline, is considered to have high 28 paleontological sensitivity. The proposed pipeline would be installed approximately 60 inches 29 below ground surface, and the Saugus Formation could be exposed during construction, 30 potentially disturbing fossils.

31 Implementation of the mitigation measures included as part of the project description (section 32 2.2.6) would effectively mitigate any impacts from discoveries of presently unknown 33 archaeological or paleontological resources to less than significant. No additional measures 34 would be required.

35 Geology and Soils — The Project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial 36 adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death because the pipeline would be 37 designed to withstand seismic events. Even if the pipeline were damaged as a result of geologic 38 hazards, the risks to the public or structures would not be significant because the pipeline 39 would be buried; line valves would be installed in order to isolate potentially damaged sections 40 of pipeline, thus minimizing the amount of water that could be spilled; and any spilled water

3.0-2 CLWA – Honby Pipeline Draft EIR 3.0 Affected Environment

1 largely would be absorbed into the ground. Additionally, the pipeline would not underlie any 2 inhabited structures.

3 The Project area is not mapped under the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, which 4 limits the construction of habitable structures within these areas. Sections of the San Gabriel 5 Fault are located in the vicinity of the Project, approximately 4,200 feet to the west at the closest 6 point. This fault has been mapped as an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone. Similar to all of 7 Southern California, the Project area is susceptible to ground shaking and other related hazards 8 as a result of seismic activity. Because the Project area is not located on an active fault, impacts 9 due to fault rupture are not expected to occur.

10 Strong, seismically induced ground shaking can be expected along the pipeline alignment. 11 Seismically induced liquefaction, differential settlement, and lateral spreading can be expected 12 as a result of a large earthquake on a nearby or regional fault. Such potential ground shaking is 13 common to all areas of Southern California. Although no structure can be designed to preclude 14 earthquake damage, measures can be taken to minimize such damage. Components of the 15 Project design include seismic safety design features to minimize the potential for damage 16 during an earthquake (i.e., flexible couplings). Such couplings would allow flexibility in the 17 pipeline during strong ground shaking. In addition, line valves would be installed in order to 18 isolate potentially damaged sections of pipeline and air valves would be installed to release 19 pipeline pressure.

20 The majority of the proposed pipeline route would be located within flat, previously graded, 21 urban areas or the Santa Clara River. However, north of the river, a section of the proposed 22 route would be located within a state-defined landslide potential zone. Landslides may occur 23 in this area as a result of construction activities and/or may subsequently occur during pipeline 24 operations. Project-related construction in this area would be short term (approximately two 25 months), and much of it would occur within a previously graded roadway. In addition, the 26 Project site would be restored to pre-project conditions at completion. Slope stability impacts 27 would be mitigated through components of the Project design, including compliance with 28 standard seismic engineering and construction practices and BMPs.

29 Project construction would result in disturbance of on-site soils and short-term erosion-induced 30 siltation of the Santa Clara River. Where the proposed route crosses the river, the pipeline 31 would be located adjacent to the existing above-ground Los Angeles Aqueduct, which is 32 routinely accessed for maintenance. Erosion-related impacts associated with short-term 33 construction activities would be mitigated through components of the Project design, including 34 compliance with standard BMPs and construction guidelines. In addition, a Storm Water 35 Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would be required, which would include BMPs to minimize 36 erosion and siltation.

37 Sandy, cohesionless sediments within the Santa Clara River floodplain may be locally prone to 38 collapse. Collapsible soils can damage overlying structures and foundations. However, as 39 discussed above, components of the Project design include flexible couplings and other seismic 40 safety features at strategic locations along the pipeline. Such couplings would allow flexibility 41 in the pipeline in areas of collapsible soils. In addition, line valves would be installed in order 42 to isolate potentially damaged sections of pipeline, and air valves would be installed to release

CLWA – Honby Pipeline 3.0-3 Draft EIR 3.0 Affected Environment

1 pipeline pressure. Such components of the Project design would minimize pipeline damage 2 and/or rupture in the event of soil collapse, as well as minimize releases of large quantities of 3 water in the event of pipeline rupture.

4 Soils beneath the proposed pipeline route along the Santa Clara River are generally sandy and 5 not prone to expansion. Other sections of the proposed pipeline route are previously disturbed 6 and/or developed urban areas. Construction in these areas would occur within existing roads. 7 However, clay-rich soils that may be prone to expansion could be encountered in areas outside 8 of the Santa Clara River. Such expansive soils could result in damage to the pipeline in these 9 areas. Expansive soil-related impacts would be mitigated through components of the Project 10 design, including compliance with standard construction guidelines.

11 Hazards and Hazardous Materials —During construction, heavy equipment and vehicles would be 12 present in the Project area. All contractors would be required to adhere to mandatory federal 13 Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations. Most of this equipment requires a 14 number of petroleum products such as fuel, hydraulic fluids, and lubricants for effective 15 operation. Lubricant and hydraulic fluid changes and replenishment would be required less 16 frequently. Typically, service trucks deliver these types of fluids to the site and then perform 17 the necessary fuel and oil transfers. The risk of small fuel or oil spills is considered possible, but 18 this would have a negligible impact on public health. Any spills would be cleaned up in 19 accordance with permit conditions. During off-working hours, heavy equipment and vehicles 20 in areas that could be accessed by the public would be secured in a general contractor’s staging 21 area that would not pose a safety hazard. Impacts to public health and safety resulting from 22 heavy equipment operations and fueling would be less than significant.

23 Most of the pipeline would be constructed in areas that have no vehicular access. The 24 easternmost portion of the pipeline would be constructed in local streets (along Soledad Street, 25 Ruether Avenue, and Santa Clara Street). Pipeline installation would require the temporary 26 closure of one lane along four blocks of these two-lane streets. The other lane would be open at 27 all times; thus, access to and from the surrounding areas would be maintained. Additionally, 28 alternate access roads are present in the area. Slow-moving construction-related traffic may 29 temporarily reduce optimal traffic flows in the Project area, but this would not significantly 30 delay emergency vehicles traveling through the area, and any delays would be minor and 31 would only affect short segments of these roadways. Additionally delays would occur only 32 infrequently when construction vehicles or construction materials were delivered to the site.

33 The fuel tanks on board some construction equipment can contain fuel volumes ranging from 34 100 to 500 gallons. Accidental ignition could result in a fire, which, depending on the location, 35 could spread. All such equipment is required to have fire suppression equipment on board or 36 at the work site and to ensure the availability of an adequate on-site supply of water with all- 37 weather access for fire-fighting equipment and emergency vehicles. Therefore, adherence to 38 Los Angeles County codes and requirements during construction would reduce the potential 39 for significant fire hazard impacts. Additionally, emergency fire services are located nearby.

40 Hydrology and Water Quality — Water used for testing the pipeline prior to its operation would 41 be dechlorinated and discharged into the Santa Clara River or local storm drains once the test

3.0-4 CLWA – Honby Pipeline Draft EIR 3.0 Affected Environment

1 was completed. Potable water would be used for the test, and discharge would comply with 2 the terms of the LARWQCB permit that would be required.

3 The pipeline would be underground and generally would be installed in areas that have 4 already been graded. Construction could result in some erosion, but BMPs would be followed, 5 which would minimize the potential for erosion or siltation to occur. The pipeline would cross 6 the Santa Clara River, but the river would be restored to its condition prior to construction, and 7 its course would not be altered.

8 The existing drainage pattern of the pipeline corridor would not be substantially altered. The 9 rate or amount of surface water runoff would not increase because the pipeline would be 10 underground and no increase in impervious surface would be required as a direct result of the 11 Project. The pipeline would be buried and would be constructed in a way that minimized 12 damage from seismic events. Even if damage occurred, water from the pipeline would be 13 absorbed into the ground and would be localized.

14 Land Use and Planning — The pipeline would be underground and would follow existing or 15 proposed roads, open space (where it crossed the Santa Clara River), or would run along the 16 edge of the East Greenbrier Mobile Home Park. It would not divide an established community 17 or otherwise affect land uses. Project consistency with adopted plans and policies is addressed 18 in Chapter 5.

19 Mineral Resources — Natural sand and gravel deposits suitable for construction aggregate are 20 found in the Santa Clara River within the Project area. In addition, most of the Santa Clara 21 River wash is zoned as MRZ-2 on California Geological Survey (CGS) maps for Mineral Land 22 Classification of the Greater Los Angeles Area (CGS 1987). Zone MRZ-2 indicates that 23 significant mineral deposits are present or that a high likelihood for their presence exists. 24 However, this section of the Santa Clara River is identified by the City of Santa Clarita as an 25 Significant Ecological Area (SEA), which limits construction and development within the 100- 26 year flood plain where extraction would occur. In addition, where it would cross the Santa 27 Clara River, the proposed pipeline would be installed below grade within the existing right-of- 28 way of the above-ground Los Angeles Aqueduct. Thus, the area affected by pipeline 29 construction is not suitable for mineral resource extraction.

30 Oil and gas development has historically occurred within the Santa Clarita Valley. However, 31 the closest oil field, the Bouquet Canyon Field, is located approximately 0.7 mile to the 32 northwest from the Project site, and the nearest individual oil well is located 0.5 mile to the 33 west. Completion of the Project would not inhibit any potential future oil and gas extraction 34 beneath the site because the Project only requires a narrow corridor, and modern directional 35 drilling techniques are capable of extracting oil and gas from great lateral distances.

36 Public Services — The Project would not require or provide new or physically altered 37 governmental facilities.

38 Recreation — The Project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional 39 parks, nor does it include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of 40 recreational facilities.

CLWA – Honby Pipeline 3.0-5 Draft EIR 3.0 Affected Environment

1 Transportation — The Project would require only minor increases in traffic during the 2 construction period from construction workers’ personal vehicles and the movement of 3 construction equipment. Operations would require only a limited number of trips during 4 maintenance activities. The temporary, minor increases in construction traffic and the periodic 5 trips by maintenance vehicles would not exceed level of service standards. The pipeline would 6 not create hazards since it would be buried, and roadways would be restored to the appropriate 7 standards once construction was completed. One lane of traffic would be open at all times 8 during construction; thus, emergency access would be maintained. Additionally, construction 9 would be scheduled to occur after business hours, and the trench would be backfilled and 10 covered each day, thus allowing access to the businesses adjacent to the pipeline corridor. 11 Construction activities would temporarily limit parking along the affected roadways but 12 parking is available on nearby streets. Long-term parking capacity would not be affected by the 13 Project.

14 Utilities — Neither construction nor operation of the Project would generate wastewater 15 requiring treatment. The Project is the construction of a new water facility; it would not require 16 the construction of other facilities. Water used to test the proposed pipeline prior to operation 17 could be discharged into the local storm drain system, but this would not require the 18 construction of new storm drainage facilities or their expansion. The portion of the pipeline 19 that would be removed by Newhall Land and Farming Company would be disposed of in an 20 appropriate landfill in accordance with regulatory requirements. Other construction activities 21 would generate incidental amounts of solid waste. All waste would be disposed of in 22 accordance with appropriate regulations. Project operation would not generate solid waste.

3.0-6 CLWA – Honby Pipeline Draft EIR

1 3.1 AIR QUALITY

2 Emissions from construction and operation of the Project would affect air quality in the 3 immediate project area and the surrounding region. The project site is located in the northwest 4 portion of the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). The SCAB consists of the non-desert portions of Los 5 Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties and all of Orange County. The SCAB covers an 6 area of approximately 15,500 square kilometers (6,000 square miles) and is bounded on the west 7 by the Pacific Ocean, on the north and east by the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto 8 mountains, and on the south by the San Diego County line.

9 3.1.1 Environmental Setting

10 Description of Resource

11 Air quality at a given location can be described by the concentration of various pollutants in the 12 atmosphere. Units of concentration are generally expressed in parts per million (ppm) or 13 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3). The significance of a pollutant concentration is determined 14 by comparing the concentration to an appropriate national and/or state ambient air quality 15 standard. These standards represent the allowable atmospheric concentrations at which the 16 public health and welfare are protected and include a reasonable margin of safety to protect the 17 more sensitive individuals in the population. The EPA establishes the National Ambient Air 18 Quality Standards (NAAQS). Maximum pollutant concentrations generally may not exceed a 19 NAAQS more than once per year and they may not exceed the annual standards. The state 20 standards, established by the California Air Resources Board (ARB), are termed the California 21 Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). Maximum pollutant concentrations may not equal or 22 exceed the CAAQS. Pollutants that have established national or state ambient air quality 23 standards are known as criteria pollutants. The criteria pollutants of primary concern that are 24 considered in this air quality assessment include ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen 25 dioxide (NO2), and particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10). Although there 26 are no ambient standards for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) or nitrogen oxides (NOx), they 27 are important as precursors to O3.

28 Region of Influence

29 Identifying the Region of Influence (ROI) for air quality requires knowledge of the types of 30 pollutants being emitted, emission rates, and release parameters of pollutant sources (e.g., effluent 31 temperature), the source proximity to other pollutant sources, and meteorological conditions. The 32 ROI for inert pollutants (pollutants other than O3 and its precursors) is generally limited to a few 33 miles downwind from a source. The ROI for O3 can extend much farther downwind than for 34 inert pollutants. Ozone is a secondary pollutant formed in the atmosphere by photochemical 35 reactions of previously emitted pollutants, or precursors. Ozone precursors are mainly the 36 reactive portion of reactive organic carbons (ROCs) and NOx. In the presence of solar radiation, 37 the maximum effect of ROCs and NOx emissions on O3 levels usually occurs several hours after 38 they are emitted and many miles from the source. Ozone and O3 precursors transported from 39 other regions can also combine with local emissions to increase local O3 concentrations.

CLWA – Honby Pipeline 3.1-1 Draft EIR 3.1 Air Quality

1 Baseline Air Quality

2 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has designated all areas of the United States as 3 having air quality better than (attainment) or worse than (nonattainment) the NAAQS. A 4 nonattainment designation means that a primary NAAQS has been exceeded more than once per 5 year in a given area. The ARB also designates areas of the state as either in attainment or 6 nonattainment of the CAAQS. An area is in nonattainment if a CAAQS has been exceeded more 7 than once in three years. In regard to the NAAQS, the SCAB is presently in “extreme” 8 nonattainment for O3 and “serious” nonattainment for CO and PM10. The SCAB was historically 9 in nonattainment of the NAAQS for NO2. The main sources of NO2 emissions are on-road 10 vehicles. Due to a reduction in emissions caused by national emission standards for new vehicles 11 and a state vehicle emissions testing program, the region has attained the NO2 standard since 12 1991. As a result, the EPA in September 1998 redesignated the SCAB to attainment of the NO2 13 NAAQS and the region is now considered a maintenance area for NO2. In regard to the CAAQS, 14 the SCAB is presently in “extreme” nonattainment for O3, “severe” nonattainment for CO, and 15 nonattainment for PM10. The SCAB is in attainment for both the NAAQS and CAAQS for sulfur 16 dioxide (SO2).

17 Generally, concentrations of photochemical smog, or O3, are highest during the summer months 18 and coincide with the season of maximum solar insolation. Inert pollutant concentrations tend to 19 be the greatest during the winter months and are a product of light wind conditions and surface- 20 based temperature inversions that are frequent this time of year. These conditions limit 21 atmospheric dispersion. However, in the case of PM10 impacts from fugitive dust sources, 22 maximum dust impacts may occur during high wind events and/or in proximity to man-made 23 ground-disturbing activities, such as vehicular activities on roads and earth moving during 24 construction activities.

25 Air quality within the SCAB has improved since the inception of air pollutant monitoring in 1976. 26 This improvement is mainly due to lower-polluting on-road motor vehicles and the 27 implementation of emission reduction strategies by the SCAQMD. This trend towards cleaner air 28 has occurred in spite of continued population growth. While the SCAB exceeded the national O3 29 standard on 208 days in 1977, the number of O3 exceedance days in 2001 was only 36, which is the 30 lowest on record (SCAQMD 2004a). However, this number of exceedances is still greater than for 31 any other region in the nation. The number of O3 exceedance days within the SCAB increased to 32 68 in 2003.

33 Regulatory Setting

34 The Federal Clean Air Act of 1969 and its subsequent amendments (CAA) establish air quality 35 regulations and the NAAQS and delegate the enforcement of these standards to the states. In 36 California, the ARB is responsible for enforcing air pollution regulations. The ARB has in turn 37 delegated to local air agencies the responsibility of regulating stationary emission sources. In the 38 SCAB, the SCAQMD regulates stationary sources of air pollution. In areas that exceed the 39 NAAQS, the CAA requires preparation of a State Implementation Plan (SIP), detailing how the 40 state will attain the standards within mandated time frames. The CAA identifies emission 41 reduction goals and compliance dates based upon the severity of the ambient air quality standard

3.1-2 CLWA – Honby Pipeline Draft EIR 3.1 Air Quality

1 violation within a region. The following is a summary of the air quality rules and regulations that 2 would apply to the project and its related activities.

3 SCAQMD Regulations

4 Attainment plans are strategies that reduce emissions to a level that will bring a region into 5 attainment of an ambient air quality standard. Plans designed to attain the NAAQS are 6 incorporated into a SIP. Every three years, the SCAQMD and SCAG prepare a plan to show 7 progress towards attaining the ambient air quality standards in the SCAB. The most current plan 8 is the 2003 Air Quality Management Plan (SCAQMD 2003). The 2003 Air Quality Management Plan 9 (AQMP) (1) updates the attainment demonstration for the federal standards for O3 and PM10, (2) 10 replaces the 1997 attainment demonstration for the federal CO standard and provides a basis for a 11 maintenance plan for CO for the future, and (3) updates the maintenance plan for the federal NO2 12 standard that the SCAB has met since 1992. Through this attainment planning process, the 13 SCAQMD develops the SCAQMD Rules and Regulations to regulate sources of air pollution in the 14 SCAB (SCAQMD 2004b). The most pertinent SCAQMD rules that would apply to the proposed 15 project include the following:

16 Rule 403 - Fugitive Dust. This rule prohibits emissions of fugitive dust from any active operation, 17 open storage pile, or disturbed surface area, such that the dust remains visible beyond the 18 emission source property line. A person conducting active operations shall utilize one or more of 19 the applicable best available control measures to minimize fugitive dust emissions from each 20 fugitive dust source type. Large operations (in excess of 50 acres of disturbed surface area or any 21 earth-moving operation that exceeds 5,000 cubic yards of daily earthmoving or throughput three 22 times in a year) shall either implement control measures identified in the rule or obtain an 23 approved fugitive dust emissions plan from the SCAQMD. Since the proposed improvements 24 would not qualify as a large operation, the project construction manager would only have to 25 implement best available control measures identified in the rule to minimize fugitive dust 26 emissions from proposed earth-moving and grading activities.

27 Toxic Air Contaminants

28 Toxic air contaminants (TACs) include air pollutants that can produce serious illnesses or 29 increased mortality, even in low concentrations. TACs are compounds that have no established 30 ambient standards, but are known or suspected to cause short-term (acute) and/or long-term 31 (chronic non-carcinogenic or carcinogenic) adverse health effects. Sources of TACs within the 32 SCAB include industrial processes, dry cleaners, gasoline stations, paint and solvent operations, 33 and fossil fuel combustion. The ARB designates diesel particulate matter (DPM) from the 34 combustion of diesel fuel as a TAC and they identify DPM as a substance that can cause cancer 35 and chronic non-cancer health risks. Since the proposed construction activities include a variety 36 of diesel-powered emission sources, this EIR includes an analysis of the impact of proposed DPM 37 emissions to public health.

38 Sensitive Receptors

39 The impact of air emissions on sensitive members of the population is a special concern. Sensitive 40 receptor groups include children, the elderly, and the acutely and chronically ill. The locations of 41 these groups include residences, schools, playgrounds, daycare centers, and hospitals. The only

CLWA – Honby Pipeline 3.1-3 Draft EIR 3.1 Air Quality

1 sensitive receptors in proximity to the project site are residents in the East Greenbrier Mobile 2 Home Park, some of whom are within 125 feet of the proposed pipeline construction corridor.

3 Climate and Meteorology

4 The climate of the project region is classified as Mediterranean, characterized by warm, dry 5 summers and mild, wet winters. The major influence on the regional climate is the Eastern Pacific 6 High, a strong persistent anticyclone, topography, and the moderating effects of the Pacific 7 Ocean.

8 Large-scale atmospheric subsidence associated with the Eastern Pacific High produces an 9 elevated temperature inversion along the West Coast for much of the year. The base of this 10 subsidence inversion is generally from 300 to 800 meters (1,000 to 2,500 feet) above mean sea level 11 during the summer. The base of the inversion often limits vertical mixing, which can trap air 12 pollutants in the lower atmosphere. The mountain ranges that surround the Los Angeles Basin 13 constrain the horizontal movement of air and also inhibit the dispersion of air pollutants out of 14 the region. These two factors, combined with the air pollution sources of over 16 million people, 15 are responsible for the high pollutant conditions that can occur in the SCAB.

16 About 90 percent of the annual rainfall in the project region occurs between November and April, 17 with a monthly peak in February. The annual average precipitation from 1971 through 2000 for 18 the Dry Canyon Reservoir, approximately 5 miles north of the project site, was 15.1 inches 19 (Western Region Climate Center 2004). Infrequent precipitation during the summer months can 20 occur from tropical air masses that originate from continental Mexico or tropical storms off the 21 West Coast of Mexico. The extended dry season produces low soil moisture, which is responsible 22 for one of the main air pollution problems in the region, fugitive dust (PM10).

23 The proximity of the Eastern Pacific High and a thermal low pressure system in the desert interior 24 to the east produces a daytime westerly breeze that prevails within the project region for most of 25 the year. Easterly land breezes prevail during the evening hours and colder months of the year. 26 The Santa Clara River Valley often constrains the air flow up and down this topographical feature 27 at the project site.

28 3.1.2 Impacts

29 3.1.2.1 Significance Criteria

30 Criteria used to determine the significance of impacts related to air quality are based on federal, 31 state, and local air pollution standards and regulations. The project would produce a significant 32 impact to the air resource if its emissions (as found in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines):

33 • Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plans. 34 • Exceed an ambient air quality standard or substantially contribute to an existing or 35 projected air quality standard violation. 36 • Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the 37 project region is nonattainment under an applicable national or state ambient air quality 38 standard, including emission increases that exceed SCAQMD emissions significance

3.1-4 CLWA – Honby Pipeline Draft EIR 3.1 Air Quality

1 thresholds as shown in Table 3.1-1. These thresholds apply to either short-term project 2 construction or long-term operational activities. 3 • Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations 4 • Create objectionable odors that affect a substantial number of people. 5 The project Initial Study determined that construction or operation of the project would have no 6 effect in regard to the following criterion and therefore this criterion is not discussed further:

7 • Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate. 8 SCAQMD emissions thresholds used for the purpose of establishing the significance of impacts 9 are shown in Table 3.1-1.

Table 3.1-1. SCAQMD Emissions Significance Thresholds Calendar Daily Project Phase/Pollutant Quarter (Pounds) (Tons)

CONSTRUCTION Reactive Organic Compounds 75 2.50 Carbon Monoxide 550 24.75 Nitrogen Oxides 100 2.50 Sulfur Oxides (SOx) 150 6.75 PM10 150 6.75

OPERATIONS Reactive Organic Compounds 55 NA Carbon Monoxide 550 NA Nitrogen Oxides 55 NA Sulfur Oxides (SOx) 150 NA PM10 150 NA Source: (SCAQMD 1993)

10 3.1.2.2 Environmental Impacts 11 Project construction activities would involve the use of heavy-duty equipment and trucks that 12 would produce emissions of nonattainment pollutants, including ROCs and NOx (O3 precursors), 13 CO, and PM10 (due to fuel combustion and fugitive dust). Equipment usage and scheduling data 14 needed to calculate emissions for the proposed construction activities were obtained in 15 consultation with the project engineer (personal communication, J. Aranda and B. Yates 2004). 16 Emission factors used to derive project source emission rates were obtained from the ARB 17 OFFROAD Emissions Model (ARB 1999), the EMFAC2000 and EMFAC2002 on-road mobile 18 source emission factor models (ARB 2000 and 2002), and special studies on fugitive dust 19 emissions (EPA 1995). Fugitive dust emissions estimated for earth-moving activities were 20 reduced by 75 percent from uncontrolled levels to reflect project compliance with SCAQMD Rule 21 403. Appendix C includes supporting data used to estimate project construction emissions.

CLWA – Honby Pipeline 3.1-5 Draft EIR 3.1 Air Quality

1 Impact AQ-1. Construction of the proposed pipeline would generate combustive and fugitive 2 dust emissions, but they would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable 3 air quality plans. Project construction would produce nonattainment pollutants in the form of 4 combustive emissions and fugitive dust (PM10) emissions. The 2003 AQMP proposes emission 5 reduction measures that are designed to bring the SCAB into attainment of the state and national 6 ambient air quality standards. The attainment strategies in this plan include mobile source 7 control measures and clean fuel programs that are enforced at the state and federal level on 8 engine manufacturers and petroleum refiners and retailers and as a result, project construction 9 would comply with these control measures. The SCAQMD also adopts AQMP control measures 10 into the SCAQMD rules and regulations, which are then used to regulate sources of air pollution 11 in the SCAB. Some of the PM10 emission reduction strategies in the 2003 AQMP rely on the 12 control of fugitive dust sources, such as construction sites. The SCAQMD has adopted Rule 403 13 (Fugitive Dust) for this purpose. The construction contractor would be required to comply with 14 Rule 403 by implementing one or more of the best available control measures (BACMs) outlined 15 in the rule during proposed earth-moving activities. Therefore, compliance with these 16 requirements would ensure that the Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of 17 the applicable air quality plans and would produce less than significant impacts in regard to this 18 criterion.

19 Impact AQ-2. Air emissions would result from construction of the proposed pipeline, but 20 these would not exceed an ambient air quality standard or substantially contribute to an 21 existing or projected air quality standard violation. The project region presently exceeds the 22 state and national ambient standards for O3, PM10, and CO. Ozone is a secondary pollutant 23 formed in the atmosphere by photochemical reactions of previously emitted pollutants, or 24 precursors. The O3 problem in the SCAB is due to the presence of numerous stationary and 25 mobile sources of precursor emissions and meteorological and topographical characteristics that 26 enhance O3 formation on a regional basis. Particulate matter is both a regional and local air 27 pollutant, since PM10 levels result from direct emission sources, such as motor vehicles or 28 construction activities, and regional PM10 formation due to photochemical processes. CO is a 29 local pollutant emitted directly from combustion sources. Elevated CO concentrations usually 30 occur in proximity to congested roadway systems and airports.

31 Project construction would produce both combustive and fugitive dust emissions. Project 32 construction emission sources would operate within the pipeline corridor and up to several miles 33 away (e.g., delivery trucks that would support the proposed construction activities). These 34 emissions would disperse over a large geographic area and, due to the mobile nature of most 35 construction emission sources and the short duration of their activity, Project construction 36 emissions would not produce substantial impacts in a given location. The Project also would 37 comply with SCAQMD Rule 403, which requires that an activity not emit substantial amounts of 38 fugitive dust emissions to public areas. Table 3.1-2 shows that Project construction emissions 39 would not exceed any SCAQMD emission significance threshold, which implies that they would 40 not be substantial. As a result, project combustive and fugitive dust emissions would not exceed 41 any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality standard 42 violation. Therefore, the project would produce less than significant air quality impacts based 43 upon this criterion.

3.1-6 CLWA – Honby Pipeline Draft EIR 3.1 Air Quality

1 Impact AQ-3. Air emissions from construction of the proposed pipeline would not exceed any 2 SCAQMD emission significance threshold. The SCAQMD has developed the thresholds 3 identified in Table 3.1-1 to determine the significance of proposed emissions for CEQA purposes 4 (SCAQMD 1993). Table 3.1-2 presents estimates of peak daily and calendar quarter emissions that 5 would result from the Project construction activities. These data show that emissions associated 6 with peak daily and calendar quarter construction activities would remain below all SCAQMD 7 emission significance thresholds. The main contributors to combustive emissions from these 8 activities include (1) an excavator used for trenching and (2) trucks that deliver pipe to the project 9 site. Fugitive dust from earth-moving activities would contribute to the majority of PM10 10 emissions for most construction activities. Since Project construction emissions would not exceed 11 any SCAQMD emission significance thresholds, they would not produce a cumulatively 12 considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment 13 under an applicable national or state ambient air quality standard. Therefore, the Project would 14 produce less than significant air quality impacts based upon this criterion. Table 3.1-2. Daily and Calendar Quarter Emissions for Construction of the Proposed Pipeline Project Air Emissions Construction Period ROC CO NOx SOx PM10 Peak Daily Emissions (1) 8 43 87 2 59 SCAQMD Daily Significance Thresholds 75 550 100 150 150 Peak Calendar Quarter Emissions (1) 0.16 0.75 1.73 0.05 1.89 SCAQMD Calendar Quarter Sig. Thresholds 2.50 24.75 2.50 6.75 6.75 Note: (1) Peak daily and calendar quarter emissions would occur during Phase 2 construction and all sources except the tunneling machine, pipe pusher, and concrete trucks would contribute to these emissions (see Appendix C).

15 Impact AQ-4. Air emissions from construction of the proposed pipeline would temporarily 16 expose sensitive receptors to air pollutant concentrations. Sensitive receptors in proximity to 17 the Project site include residents in the East Greenbrier Mobile Home Park, which is bordered on 18 the north by approximately 2,000 feet of the proposed pipeline corridor. Some residents in this 19 neighborhood are within 125 feet of the pipeline corridor. As mentioned above in the discussion 20 of Impact AQ-2, combustive emissions from Project construction would not produce substantial 21 criteria pollutant impacts in a given location. This conclusion also applies to sensitive receptors 22 located near the corridor. Additionally, Project compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 would 23 ensure that the increase in fugitive dust emissions during construction would be minimal outside 24 of the construction area.

25 Project construction equipment would emit TACs that could impact public health. The main 26 source of TACs from Project construction would occur as particulate emissions from diesel- 27 powered on- and off-road equipment. Consistent with the discussion of Impact AQ-2, TACs 28 emitted from Project construction equipment would not produce substantial ambient impacts 29 adjacent to the pipeline corridor, due to the mobile and transitory nature of these sources. 30 Therefore, Project construction would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations 31 of air pollutants and the project would produce less than significant air quality impacts based upon 32 this criterion.

CLWA – Honby Pipeline 3.1-7 Draft EIR 3.1 Air Quality

1 Impact AQ-5. Pipeline construction temporarily would produce odors that would affect 2 residents of the East Greenbrier Mobile Home Park. Nuisance odors resulting from the 3 following project construction sources may be noticeable to some individuals for short periods of 4 time: (1) combustive emissions from the use of diesel fuel in construction equipment and (2) 5 hydrocarbon emissions from the use of asphalt during Phase 2 paving activities. Individuals most 6 susceptible to Project odor emissions include residents in the East Greenbrier Mobile Home Park. 7 However, the transitory nature of these emissions would not produce substantial odor impacts to 8 the public. Therefore, emissions from project construction would not create objectionable odors 9 that would affect a substantial number of people and would produce less than significant air 10 quality impacts based upon this criterion.

11 3.1.3 Mitigation Measures

12 Since the proposed construction activities would produce less than significant air quality impacts, 13 the project would not require any measures to mitigate air emissions.

14 3.1.4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

15 No significant unavoidable adverse air quality impacts would result from the Project.

3.1-8 CLWA – Honby Pipeline Draft EIR

1 3.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

2 3.2.1 Environmental Setting

3 Relevant literature on the biological resources of the Project area and adjacent areas was 4 reviewed. Initially, the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) was reviewed to 5 determine the localities of known observations of sensitive species in the vicinity of the 6 proposed pipeline corridor. Additionally, Federal Register listings, protocols, and species data 7 provided by the USFWS and CDFG were reviewed for federally and state-listed species 8 potentially occurring within the Project vicinity. Regional flora and fauna field guides also 9 were used in identification of species and suitable habitats. The majority of the area that would 10 be affected by the Project lies within the Riverpark project boundaries, and a recent EIR for this 11 project (Impact Sciences 2004) includes a detailed account of current biological resource 12 conditions on the Riverpark site. Consequently, the following discussion relies upon the survey 13 results and analysis included in the Riverpark EIR.

14 In the summer of 2004, Science Application International Corporation (SAIC) biologists 15 conducted a field survey of the Project area to verify the data provided in the above-mentioned 16 literature review. The goal of the investigation was to ensure that the general condition of 17 biological resources in the Project area remained as reported in the Riverpark EIR. In addition, 18 areas that were not described in the Riverpark EIR were assessed by SAIC biologists, and the 19 biological resources present were inventoried.

20 Names used to describe plant communities, where applicable, follow the nomenclature of 21 CDFG (CDFG 2003) which is based, in part, on the descriptions contained within A Manual of 22 Vegetation by Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf (1995). Common plant names are taken from Hickman 23 (1993), Roberts (1989), Beauchamp (1986), Munz (1974), and Abrams (1923 and 1944). 24 References used for the nomenclature of wildlife include The Society for the Study of 25 Amphibians and Reptiles (2000), the American Ornithologists’ Union (2000), and Jones et al. 26 (1982) for mammals.

27 The Project site is located on the Newhall 7.5-minute U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle 28 map in northern Los Angeles County and is surrounded by a mixture of urban development 29 and vacant land. The property is generally situated south of the RVWTP, east of Bouquet 30 Canyon Road, and north of Soledad Canyon Road (Figure 2.1-1). The pipeline alignment 31 crosses the Santa Clara River immediately west of the above-ground Los Angeles Aqueduct. 32 Topography across the site ranges from the river bed itself, to terraces above the river on both 33 sides, to steeply sloping hillsides on the north side. Elevation at the Project site ranges from 34 approximately 1,200 feet at the south side of the river wash to 1,620 feet above mean sea level 35 (MSL) near the northern terminus of the proposed pipeline alignment. Based on a 100-foot 36 wide disturbance corridor along the proposed 9,500-foot long pipeline alignment, the Project 37 site includes a total area of approximately 22.9 acres.

38 3.2.1.1 Vegetation

39 Plant communities in the area traversed by the proposed pipeline alignment (Figure 3.2-1) 40 include southern riparian scrub, riverwash scrub, Riversidian sage scrub, non-native grassland,

CLWA – Honby Pipeline 3.2-1 Draft EIR 3.2 Biological Resources

1 ornamental/landscaped, and disturbed/developed/urban. Eastward from the RVWTP the 2 proposed pipeline alignment passes through open space and disturbed areas proposed for 3 residential development under the Riverpark project, including Riversidian sage scrub and non- 4 native grassland. Upon reaching the existing above-ground Los Angeles Aqueduct, the 5 pipeline route turns south to parallel that aqueduct across the Santa Clara River through 6 riverwash scrub vegetation. At the southern edge of the river floodplain, the proposed 7 alignment turns east and continues adjacent to the Santa Clara River traversing a long, narrow 8 parkway comprised of mowed grass and non-native trees and a paved parking lot within the 9 existing East Greenbrier Mobile Home Park. Continuing east, the pipeline route crosses 10 through an undeveloped area consisting of Riversidian sage scrub, southern riparian scrub, and 11 mowed non-native grassland. Near the center of this area, the pipeline alignment crosses over a 12 cement-lined drainage ditch. The pipeline alignment then continues eastward through a mixed 13 commercial and residential development along paved streets until terminating at the Sand 14 Canyon pump station. Vegetation within this final segment is limited to a few scattered 15 ornamental street trees adjacent to the proposed pipeline route.

16 Prior to Project implementation, grading for the proposed Newhall Ranch Road will be 17 completed as part of the Riverpark construction or as part of the Cross Valley Connector 18 project. As a result, existing vegetation along this portion of the pipeline corridor would be 19 removed prior to pipeline installation. The communities described below were present at the 20 time of this study. Sensitive plant species occurring or potentially occurring on the site are 21 discussed in section 3.2.1.3, Sensitive Biological Resources.

22 Riverwash Scrub

23 Within the Project area, the Santa Clara River is generally dominated by unconsolidated river 24 wash sediment (sands and gravels) with sparse vegetation, that is scattered or in dense patches. 25 Shrub and sub-shrub species found in the drier portions of the riverbed include mule fat 26 (Baccharis salicifolia), tamarisk (Tamarix sp.), scale-broom (Lepidospartum squamatum), deer weed 27 (Lotus scoparius), giant woolly star (Eriastrum densifolium ssp. elongatum), and California 28 buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum). The non-native large, bamboo-like giant reed (Arundo 29 donax) is also present. Smaller species growing in the riverbed include buckwheat (Eriogonum 30 baileyi), Mediterranean schismus (Schismus barbatus), cryptantha (Cryptantha micrantha), hairy 31 golden aster (Heterotheca sessiliflora ssp. fastigiata), tumble mustard (Sisymbrium altissimum), 32 foxtail chess (Bromus madritensis), slender pectocarya (Pectocarya linearis ssp. ferocula), and 33 annual bur-sage (Ambrosia acanthicarpa). Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii ssp. fremontii) 34 and willows (Salix sp.) are scattered individually or in small clumps in the wash.

35 Although scattered individual riparian trees are present, no riparian forest associations are 36 present. Because of the dynamic nature of vegetation growth within the river channel 37 (vegetation species, density, and extent can vary depending upon frequency and extent of 38 scouring water flows and periods of low water or drought), the plant composition within the 39 river channel can change from year to year.

40 This community occurs along approximately 450 feet of the proposed pipeline alignment, 41 covering roughly 1.13 acres around the center of the segment that crosses the Santa Clara River.

3.2-2 CLWA – Honby Pipeline Draft EIR Disturbed/Developed/Urban Southern Riparian Scrub Ornamental/Landscaped Disturbance Corridor Non-native Grassland Riverpark Disturbance Area Riversidean Sage Scrub Pipeline Alignment Riverwash (Phases I and II)

0 500 Meters 0 2,000 Feet

Figure 3.2-1. Vegetation Map, Proposed Honby Pipeline Corridor

3.2-3 3.2 Biological Resources

10 This page intentionally left blank.

3.2-4 CLWA – Honby Pipeline Draft EIR 3.2 Biological Resources

1 Riversidian Sage Scrub

2 This community is a xeric (dry) type of coastal sage scrub generally found south of Point 3 Conception in California (Holland 1986), particularly along the coastal side of the Santa Susana, 4 Santa Monica, San Gabriel, and San Bernardino mountain ranges. It supports low, soft-woody 5 shrubs up to 3.3 feet in height. Plant growth occurs in late winter and spring after the rains, 6 with most species flowering in spring and summer. Typical stands are relatively open. 7 Riversidian sage scrub (RSS) is found on xeric sites such as steep slopes, severely drained soils, 8 or relatively clayey soils that are slow to release moisture. It typically intergrades with several 9 Southern California chaparrals, and at the Project site it intergrades with Venturan coastal sage 10 scrub (VSS). Many of the sage scrub plant species observed on site are also associated with VSS 11 but the total composition of sage scrub plant species is more closely associated with RSS than 12 VSS. This community is found on sloping terrain throughout the site.

13 The dominant species of this community is California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum var. 14 foliolosum). Less dominant species include thickleaf yerba santa (Eriodictyon crassifolium var. 15 nigrescens), California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), purple sage (Salvia leucophylla), black 16 sage (S. mellifera), white sage (S. apiana), goldenbush (Ericameria palmeri var. pachylepis), encelias 17 (Encelia actoni and E. californica), chaparral mallow (Malicothamnus fasciculatus), our Lord’s 18 candle (Yucca whipplei), linear-leaved stillingia (Stillingia linearifolia), California aster (Lessingia 19 filaginifolia var. filaginifolia), deer weed, beavertail cactus (Opuntia basilaris var. basilaris), giant 20 wild-rye (Leymus condensatus), and cotton-thorn (Tetradymia comosa). Introduced annual grasses 21 prevalent in the understory are dominated by foxtail chess and wild oats (Avena fatua, A. 22 barbata). Native needle grasses (Nassella cernua, N. lepida) are present in the interstitial spaces of 23 the shrubs. Herbaceous understory species include non-native shortpod mustard (Hirschfeldia 24 incana), red-stemmed filaree (Erodium cicutarium), and tocalote (Centaurea melitensis), as well as 25 native wishbone bush (Mirabilis californica), fascicled tarweed (Hemizonia fasciculata), woolly 26 fruited lomatium (Lomatium dasycarpum ssp. dasycarpum), malacothrix (Malacothrix saxatilis var. 27 tenuifolia), and chia (Salvia columbariae).

28 This community occurs along approximately 410 feet of the proposed pipeline alignment on the 29 north side of the Santa Clara River and accounts for 2.2 acres currently and 1.6 acres at the time 30 of Project implementation.

31 Southern Riparian Scrub

32 This community is found within the Santa Clara River floodplain, on relatively flat terraces 33 immediately adjacent to the riverbed. The vegetation consists of a combination of mule fat 34 scrub and southern willow scrub species, including mule fat, arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis), 35 sand-bar willow (Salix exigua), red willow (Salix laevigata), Fremont cottonwood, scale-broom, 36 and the highly invasive non-native tamarisk and giant reed. Additional native species 37 occurring in the southern riparian scrub include Great Basin sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata), 38 shad-scale (Atriplex canescens ssp. linearis), Mexican elderberry (Sambucus mexicanus), thickleaf 39 yerba santa, cholla (Opuntia prolifera), and mugwort (Artemisia douglasiana).

40 Approximately 3,050 feet of the proposed pipeline alignment traverses this community located 41 in three segments: the north and south sides of the river bed and just east of the mobile home

CLWA – Honby Pipeline 3.2-5 Draft EIR 3.2 Biological Resources

1 park. The acreage of this community is 4.3 acres at present, although 3.7 acres are expected at 2 the time of Project implementation.

3 Non-native Grassland

4 This community occurs on relatively flat terrain in the northern portion of the pipeline 5 alignment. Annual introduced grasses up to approximately 1.6 feet in height are the dominant 6 species. Non-native grasslands typically occur on fine-textured, usually clay soils, that are 7 moist to wet in the winter, but dry in the summer and fall (Holland 1986). Grass species 8 recorded in this assemblage on site include several brome species and wild oats. Introduced 9 herbaceous species present include red-stemmed filaree, small-seed sandmat (Chamaesyce 10 polycarpa), and shortpod mustard. Scattered native plants recorded in the non-native grasslands 11 include wishbone bush, California fuschia (Epilobium canum), tansy phacelia (Phacelia 12 tanacetifolia), and California thistle (Cirsium occidentalle var. californicum). Non-native grassland 13 occurs in two areas: the northernmost pipeline segment, just south of the RVWTP; and at the 14 eastern end, just west of the developed area. The area of non-native grassland totals 15 approximately 5.2 acres currently and will occupy 1.3 acres of the site at the time of Project 16 implementation.

17 Ornamental/Landscaped

18 This plant community is found along a community parkway area within the fenced property 19 boundary of the East Greenbrier Mobile Home Park. Approximately 1,000 feet of the proposed 20 route traverses this community. This area is generally mowed grass with planted ornamental 21 trees, including Mediterranean pepper trees (Schinus molle). Immediately outside of the fenced 22 boundary to the north, a few Fremont cottonwoods and western sycamores (Platanus racemosa) 23 are present at the southern edge of the wash. This area accounts for 2.28 acres of the Project site 24 currently and is likely to remain the same until Project implementation.

25 Disturbed/Developed/Urban

26 This community is found along the residential streets near the eastern terminus of the proposed 27 pipeline corridor. Vegetation in this community is limited to small landscaped residential and 28 commercial areas and city trees. The remainder of the area mapped under this category consists 29 of paved roadways, sidewalks, and a variety of buildings. This areas accounts for 7.9 acres of 30 the Project corridor currently and will account for 7.8 acres at the time of Project 31 implementation.

32 3.2.1.2 Wildlife

33 The natural plant communities discussed above provide habitat for wildlife. While a few 34 wildlife species are entirely dependent on a single plant community, the entire mosaic of all the 35 plant communities within the study area and adjoining areas constitutes a functional ecosystem 36 for a variety of wildlife species, both within the Project area and as part of the regional 37 ecosystem. In the following discussions of wildlife populations on the site, representative 38 examples of each taxonomic group either observed or expected on the site are provided. 39 Sensitive wildlife species occurring or potentially occurring within the area are discussed in 40 section 3.2.1.3, Sensitive Biological Resources.

3.2-6 CLWA – Honby Pipeline Draft EIR 3.2 Biological Resources

1 Amphibians and Reptiles

2 The Santa Clara River is ephemeral in the Project area, although with perennial input of urban 3 runoff in various places, water generally is present only after recent rains. During years of 4 sufficient rainfall, water may be present within the river channel into spring and early summer, 5 providing habitat for amphibians within the area affected by the Project. Amphibian 6 populations in this area are expected to be low, due in large measure to the lack of persistent or 7 permanent surface water in the drainages and within the Santa Clara River channel on a year- 8 round basis. However, as some amphibious species may move considerable distances from 9 breeding sites during the non-breeding season, there is potential for a few amphibian species to 10 occur. Western toad (Bufo boreas) and Pacific chorus frog (Pseudacris regilla), both of which are 11 abundant locally in disturbed sites and even urban situations, have been observed in the Project 12 area. A focused survey conducted in 2004 detected an additional amphibian, the western 13 spadefoot toad (Spea hammondii) in the vicinity, which is discussed further in section 3.2.1.3. 14 Common reptile species observed or expected to occur in the Project area include western fence 15 lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis), side-blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana), San Diego alligator lizard 16 (Elgaria malticarinata webbii), western skink (Eumeces skiltonianus), common kingsnake 17 (Lampropeltis getulus), and southern Pacific rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis helleri).

18 Birds

19 The diversity of structure and plant communities present on the site and nearby provides both 20 forage and nesting habitat for several locally occurring common bird species. Some species are 21 known to be closely associated with specific plant communities, whereas other species utilize a 22 variety of habitat types for foraging and breeding. Bewick’s wren (Thryomanes bewickii), 23 California thrasher (Toxostoma redivivum), spotted towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus), and 24 California towhee (P. crissalis) have been observed in the scrub habitats. In open scrub habitat, 25 species including Say’s phoebe (Saynoris saya), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), 26 morning dove (Zenaida macroura), European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), and white-throated swift 27 (Aeronautes saxatalis) are expected or have been observed. Because large agricultural areas, open 28 fields, and open space areas are present in the region, in addition to open oak woodland habitat 29 near-by, a number of raptor (birds-of-prey) species occur in the Project vicinity. Some of these 30 species, including turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), and 31 American kestrel (Falco sparverius), have been observed foraging over the scrub habitat in the 32 Project area. While these raptor species may forage in this area, nesting is not expected due to 33 the lack of trees. Nesting in nearby areas is expected and has been observed.

34 Mammals

35 A variety of mammal species occur in the vicinity of the Project. Large species, including mule 36 deer (Odocoileus hemionus), coyote (Canis latrans), and bobcat (Lynx rufus) have been detected by 37 scat and tracks during past site surveys. Desert cottontail (Sylvilagus auduboni), California 38 ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi), and Botta’s pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae) are 39 expected to be common in many of the more open areas of the Project area. Additional species 40 observed during past surveys or detected by scat were common raccoon (Procyon lotor), 41 domestic cat (Felis cattus), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), Virginia opossum (Didelphis 42 virginana), deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus), and brush rabbit (Sylvilagus bachmani). Several

CLWA – Honby Pipeline 3.2-7 Draft EIR 3.2 Biological Resources

1 other small rodent species are expected to also occur on site in each of the habitat types present. 2 A few common bat species including big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus) and California myotis 3 (Myotis californicus) also potentially forage and temporarily roost on site. However, as the 4 Project area does not support ideal roosting habitat and is not situated adjacent to permanent 5 open water, most bat species known to occur in the vicinity would not be expected to utilize on- 6 site resources on more than an infrequent basis. Most of the locally occurring bat species 7 typically feed on insects over aquatic habitats.

8 3.2.1.3 Sensitive Biological Resources

9 Sensitive biological resources are habitats or individual species that have special recognition by 10 federal, state, or local conservation agencies and organizations. This includes species that are 11 listed as endangered or threatened, or that are designated as rare, special concern, or fully 12 protected. The CDFG, USFWS, and special groups like the California Native Plant Society 13 (CNPS) maintain watch lists of such resources. For the purpose of this assessment, sources used 14 to determine the sensitive status of biological resources are:

15 • Plants: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS 1997), CDFG (2001), CNDDB (State of 16 California Resources Agency 2004a), and CNPS (Skinner and Pavlik 1994), 17 • Wildlife: California Wildlife Habitat Relationships Database System (CWHRDS 1991), 18 USFWS (1997), CDFG (2001), State of California Resources Agency (2004c), and Remsen 19 (1978), and 20 • Habitats: State of California Resources Agency (2004a). 21 Sensitive species that occur or potentially could occur in the Project area are based on one or 22 more of the following: (1) the direct observation of the species on the site during a recent 23 biological survey, (2) a record reported in the CNDDB, and (3) the Project site is within known 24 distribution of a species and contains appropriate habitat.

25 Federal authorization for incidental take of a federally listed species by a private individual or 26 private entity can be granted through section 7 or section 10(a) of the Endangered Species Act 27 (ESA). For state-listed species, authorization is through section 2081 of the Fish and Game 28 Code.

29 Sensitive Plant Communities/Critical Habitat

30 The Project area supports two habitat types considered rare and worthy of consideration by the 31 CNDDB (State of California Resources Agency 2004a). On-site, these communities include 32 southern riparian scrub and Riversidian sage scrub. In addition, the proposed pipeline’s 33 disturbance corridor traverses a small portion of USFWS proposed Critical Habitat for the 34 California gnatcatcher. Although some of this area will be converted into graded roadway prior 35 to Project implementation, approximately 0.62 acre will remain.

36 Sensitive Plant Species

37 Sensitive plants include those listed, or candidates for listing by USFWS, CDFG, and CNPS 38 (particularly list 1A, 1B, and 2). Several sensitive plant species were reported in the CNDDB

3.2-8 CLWA – Honby Pipeline Draft EIR 3.2 Biological Resources

1 from the Project vicinity using the Newhall and Mint Canyon quadrangles. A list of sensitive 2 plant species known to occur in the Project region is presented in Table 3.2-1. An assessment of 3 the potential for each of these species to occur in the Project area is provided in the final column 4 of the table. No state- or federally listed endangered or threatened plant species are expected to 5 occur in the area that would be directly disturbed by the Project.

Table 3.2-1. Sensitive Plant Species Known to Occur in the Vicinity of the Proposed Project Scientific Name/ Status Common Name (Fed/State/CNPS) Habitat and Description Distribution in Project Area FEDERALLY OR STATE-LISTED THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES Braunton’s milkvetch FE/-/1B Closed-cone coniferous Marginally suitable habitat on Astragalus brauntonii forest, chaparral, coastal site but not observed during scrub, valley and foothill focused plant surveys. grassland, recent burns or disturbed areas; carbonate soils. Nevin’s barberry FE/CE/1B Chaparral, coastal scrub, Suitable habitat occurs on site, Berberis nevinii cismontane woodlands, but not observed during riparian scrub. focused plant surveys. San Fernando Valley FC/CE/1B Coastal scrub; sandy soils. Suitable habitat occurs on site, spineflower but not observed during Chorizanthe parryi ssp. focused plant surveys. fernandina Slender-horned spineflower FE/CE/1B Chaparral, coastal scrub Suitable habitat occurs on site, Dodecahema leptoceras (alluvial fan), cismontane but not observed during woodland; sandy soils. focused plant surveys. Conejo dudleya FT/-/1B Chaparral, coastal scrub; Suitable habitat occurs on site, Dudleya parva often associated with clay but not observed during soils. focused plant surveys. Spreading navarretia FT/-/1B Chenopod scrub, marshes No suitable habitat occurs on Navarretia fossalis and swamps, playas, vernal site nor was it observed pools. during focused plant surveys. California Orcutt Grass FE/CE/1B Vernal pools. No suitable habitat on site nor Orcuttia californica was it observed during

focused plant surveys. Lyon’s pentachaeta FE/CE/1B Chaparral, coastal scrub, No suitable habitat occurs on Pentachaeta lyonii valley and foothill grassland; site nor was it observed volcanic endemic soils. during focused plant surveys. OTHER SENSITIVE SPECIES Slender mariposa lily -/-/1B Foothill canyons in chaparral; Species present in the Calochortus clavatus var. occurs in San Gabriel Mts. immediate vicinity and gracilis potentially present on site.

CLWA – Honby Pipeline 3.2-9 Draft EIR 3.2 Biological Resources

Table 3.2-1. Sensitive Plant Species Known to Occur in the Vicinity of the Proposed Project (cont.) Scientific Name/ Status Common Name (Fed/State/CNPS) Habitat and Description Distribution in Project Area Plummer’s mariposa lily -/-/1B Chaparral, other habitats, Species present in the Calochortus plummerae usually on granitic soils; immediate vicinity and Transverse and Peninsular potentially present on site. ranges Late-flowering mariposa lily -/-/4 Suitable habitat occurs on site, Calochortus weedii var. vestus but not observed during focused plant surveys. Peirson’s morning-glory FSC/-/4 Chaparral, chenopod scrub, Species present in the Calystegia peirsonii coastal scrub. immediate vicinity and potentially present on site. Southern tarplant -/-/1B Chaparral, coastal scrub; No suitable habitat on site nor Centromadia parryi ssp. sandstone rocky outcrops. was it observed during australis focused plant surveys. Santa Susana tarplant -/CR/1B Chaparral, coastal scrub; No suitable habitat occurs on Deinandra minthornii sandstone rocky outcrops. site nor was it observed during focused plant surveys. Dune larkspur -/-/1B Maritime chaparral, Species present in the Delphinium parryi coastal dunes. immediate vicinity and potentially present on site. Blochman’s dudleya FSC/-/1B Coastal bluff scrub, Suitable habitat occurs on site, Dudleya blochmaniae ssp. coastal scrub; rocky, but not observed during blochmaniae often clay or serpentine soils. focused plant surveys.

Many-stemmed dudleya FSC/-/1B Chaparral, coastal scrub, and Suitable habitat occurs on site, Dudleya multicaulis grasslands; often associated but not observed during with clay soils. focused plant surveys. Palmer’s grappling hook -/-/4 Chaparral, coastal scrub, Species present in the Harpagonella palmeri valley and foothill grasslands. immediate vicinity and potentially present on site. Round-leaved filaree -/-/2 Cismontane woodland, valley No suitable habitat on site nor Erodium macrophyllum and foothill grassland; clay was it observed during soils. focused plant surveys. Los Angeles sunflower -/-/1A Coastal salt and freshwater No suitable habitat on site nor Helianthus nuttallii ssp. marshes and swamps. was it observed during parishii focused plant surveys. Southern California black -/-/4 Chaparral, cismontane Species present in the walnut woodland, coastal scrub. immediate vicinity and Juglans californica var. potentially present on site in californica very small numbers. Southwestern spiny rush -/-/4 Coastal dune (mesic), No suitable habitat on site nor Juncus acutus ssp. leopoldii meadows (alkaline seeps), was it observed during coastal salt marsh. focused plant surveys. Davidson’s bush mallow -/-/1B Chaparral, cismontane Suitable habitat occurs on site, Malacothamnus davidsonii woodland, coastal sage scrub, but not observed during riparian woodland. focused plant surveys.

3.2-10 CLWA – Honby Pipeline Draft EIR 3.2 Biological Resources

Table 3.2-1. Sensitive Plant Species Known to Occur in the Vicinity of the Proposed Project (cont.) Scientific Name/ Status Common Name (Fed/State/CNPS) Habitat and Description Distribution in Project Area Chaparral nolina -/-/1B Chaparral, coastal scrub; No suitable habitat on site nor Nolina cismontana sandstone gabbro soils. was it observed during focused plant surveys. Short-joint beavertail cactus -/-/1B Chaparral, Joshua tree Suitable habitat occurs on site, Opuntia basilaris var. woodland, Mojavean desert but not observed during brachyclada scrub, pinyon and juniper focused plant surveys. woodland. Pringle’s yampah -/-/4 Chaparral, cismontane No suitable habitat on site nor Perideridia pringlei woodland, coastal scrub, was it observed during pinyon and juniper focused plant surveys. woodlands; serpentinite, clay

soils. Rayless ragwort -/-/2 Cismontane woodland, Marginal suitable habitat on Senecio aphanactis coastal scrub; alkaline soils. site, but not observed during focused plant surveys. Key to Species Listing Status Codes FE Federally listed as Endangered SE State-listed as Endangered SFP State Fully Protected FT Federally listed as Threatened ST State-listed as Threatened CSC California Special Concern FSC Federal Special Concern Species SCE State candidate for Endangered Species FPE Federally proposed as Endangered SCT State candidate for Threatened FPT Federally proposed as Threatened SP State Protected California Native Plant Society (CNPS) List 1A: Presumed extinct in California. List 1B: Rare, threatened, or endangered throughout their range. List 2: Rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common in other states. List 3: Plant species for which additional information is needed before rarity can be determined. List 4: Species of limited distribution in California (i.e., naturally rare in the wild), but whose existence does not appear to be susceptible to threat. Sources: State of California Resources Agency (2004a); State of California Resources Agency (2004b); California Native Plant Society (2003); and Impact Sciences (2004). Note: All mentions of “focused plant surveys” refer to surveys conducted as part of the Riverpark project environmental analysis.

2 Sensitive Wildlife Species

3 A list of sensitive wildlife species known to occur in the Project region is presented in Table 3.2- 4 2. An assessment of the potential for each of these species to occur on the Project site is 5 provided in the final column of the table.

CLWA – Honby Pipeline 3.2-11 Draft EIR 3.2 Biological Resources

Table 3.2-2. Sensitive Wildlife Species Known to Occur in the Vicinity of the Proposed Project Scientific Name/ Status Common Name (Fed/State) Habitat and Description Distribution in Project Area FEDERALLY- OR STATE-LISTED THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES INVERTEBRATES San Diego fairy shrimp FE/- Vernal pools. No vernal or other seasonal Branchinecta sandiegoensis pools were detected during site surveys; therefore, no suitable habitat is present. Riverside fairy shrimp FE/- Vernal pools. No vernal or other seasonal Streptocephalus woottoni pools were detected during site surveys; therefore, no suitable habitat is present. FISHES Santa Ana sucker FT/CSC Occupies small to medium- During years with sufficient Catastomus santaanae (FT status does sized perennial streams with rainfall for flow through the not include water ranging in depth from area, suckers may occur on populations in a few centimeters to a meter the site or pass through it. the Santa Clara or more. River system) Steelhead (Southern FE/CSC Clean, clear, cool, well- Steelhead have not been California ESU) oxygenated streams with identified in the Santa Clara Oncorhynchus mykiss relatively deep and gravelly River east of Piru Creek, substrate for spawning. approximately 10 miles west Migrate from ocean in winter of the Project site. and to ocean in spring to summer. Unarmored threespine FE/CE, CFP Slow-moving and backwater During years with sufficient stickleback areas. rainfall for flow through the Gasterosteus aculeatus area, this species may occur williamsoni on the site or pass through it. This species has been observed in ponded water within tire tracks on or near the Project site (exact location cannot be determined). (Courtois 1999, cited in Impact Sciences 2004)

3.2-12 CLWA – Honby Pipeline Draft EIR 3.2 Biological Resources

Table 3.2-2. Sensitive Wildlife Species Known to Occur in the Vicinity of the Proposed Project (cont.) Scientific Name/ Status Common Name (Fed/State) Habitat and Description Distribution in Project Area AMPHIBIANS Arroyo toad FE/CSC, CP Restricted to with shallow, Focused surveys following Bufo microscaphus californicus gravely pools adjacent to USFWS protocol were sandy terraces that have a conducted in the river on the nearly complete closure of Project site in 2002 and 2003 cottonwoods, oaks, or with no indication of species willows, and almost no presence. An associated herbaceous cover; require habitat analysis determined shallow pools with minimal Project site upland habitat to current, little to no emergent be of low value to this vegetation, and a sand or pea species. gravel substrate overlain with flocculent silt for egg deposition. California red-legged frog FT/CSC, CP Permanent water sources No suitable habitat present Rana aurora draytonii such as ponds, lakes, on site. reservoirs, streams, and adjacent riparian woodlands. REPTILES (NONE) BIRDS Western yellow-billed FC/CE Nests along the broad, lower No suitable habitat present cuckoo (nesting) flood-bottoms of larger river on site. Coccyzus americanus systems; riparian forests and occidentalis riparian jungles of willow, often mixed with cottonwoods, with understory of blackberry, nettles, or wild grape. Southwestern willow FE/CE Riparian woodlands that No suitable habitat present flycatcher (nesting) contain water and low willow on site. Empidonax traillii extimus thickets. Bank swallow (nesting) -/CT Colonial nester; nests Limited suitable habitat on Riparia riparia primarily in riparian and site and no recent records of other lowland habitats west occurrence in the area. Not of the desert. Requires observed during focused bird vertical banks/cliffs with surveys. fine-textured/sandy soils near streams, rivers, lakes, ocean to dig nesting hole.

CLWA – Honby Pipeline 3.2-13 Draft EIR 3.2 Biological Resources

Table 3.2-2. Sensitive Wildlife Species Known to Occur in the Vicinity of the Proposed Project (cont.) Scientific Name/ Status Common Name (Fed/State) Habitat and Description Distribution in Project Area Coastal California FT/CSC Coastal sage scrub in areas of Marginal habitat occurs in gnatcatcher flat or gently sloping terrain. limited areas on the Project Polioptila californica californica site; however, this species has been documented in the Project vicinity. Not observed during focused bird surveys. Proposed critical habitat for this species occurs along the alignment on the slope on the north side of the river. Least Bell's vireo (nesting) FE/CE Riparian vegetation with No suitable habitat present Vireo bellii pusillus extensive willows below on site. elevation of 2,000 ft. MAMMALS (NONE) OTHER SENSITIVE SPECIES INVERTEBRATES San Emigdio blue butterfly FSC/- Often near streambeds, No recent documented Plebulina emigdionis washes, or alkaline areas; occurrences in the area. associated with Atriplex However, suitable habitat is canescens. present on site as low numbers of the host plant Atriplex canescens were recorded. Not observed during focused surveys. (Bruyea 2003, cited in Impact Sciences 2004) FISHES Arroyo chub FSC/CSC Slow-moving or backwater During years with sufficient Gila orcutti sections of warm to cool rainfall for flow through the streams with mud or sand area, arroyo chubs may occur substrates. on the site or pass through it. AMPHIBIANS Coast range newt -/CSC Grasslands and woodlands; No perennial sources of water Taricha torosa torosa (San Luis breeds in ponds, reservoirs, and, therefore, no suitable Obispo and and slow-moving streams. habitat on site. Species was south) not observed during on-site field investigations. Western spadefoot toad FSC/CSC Open areas in lowland No suitable ponding areas for Spea hammondii grasslands, chaparral, and breeding occur on Project site. pine-oak woodlands; requires Observed in adjacent areas

temporary rain pools that last during a focused survey in approximately three weeks 2004. and lack exotic predators.

3.2-14 CLWA – Honby Pipeline Draft EIR 3.2 Biological Resources

Table 3.2-2. Sensitive Wildlife Species Known to Occur in the Vicinity of the Proposed Project (cont.) Scientific Name/ Status Common Name (Fed/State) Habitat and Description Distribution in Project Area REPTILES Southwestern pond turtle FSC/CSC, CP Streams, ponds, freshwater Not expected to occur due to Clemmys marmorata pallida (full species) marshes, and lakes with lack of suitable habitat. growth of aquatic vegetation. San Diego horned lizard FSC/CSC, CP Relatively open grasslands, Suitable habitat occurs on site Phrynosoma coronatum (full species) scrublands, and woodlands in association with open blainvillii with fine, loose soil. scrub and riverbank habitats. Species is known to occur in the Project region and may occur on site although it was not observed during site surveys. California horned lizard FSC/CSC, CP Exposed gravelly-sandy soils Suitable habitat occurs on site Phrynosoma coronatum (full species) with minimal shrubs, riparian in association with open frontale woodland clearings, dry scrub and riverbank habitats. chamise chaparral, and Species is known to occur in annual grasslands with the Project region and may scattered seepweed or occur on site although it was saltbush. not observed during site surveys. Coastal whiptail FSC/- Open areas in semiarid Suitable habitat occurs on site Cnemidophorus tigris grasslands, scrublands, and in association with open multiscutatus woodlands. scrub and riverbank habitats. Species is known to occur in the Project region and may occur on site although it was not observed during site surveys. Silvery legless lizard FSC/CSC Stabilized dunes, beaches, Suitable habitat occurs on site Anniella pulchra pulchra dry washes, chaparral, and in association with open pine, oak, and riparian scrub and riverbank habitats. woodlands; associated with Occurrence of species has not sparse vegetation with sandy been recently reported in the or loose, loamy soils. site vicinity and species not observed on site during field surveys. Two-striped garter snake FSC/CSC, CP Perennial and intermittent No suitable habitat on site. Thamnophis hammondii streams having rocky or sandy beds and artificially created aquatic habitats (man-made lakes and stock ponds); requires dense riparian vegetation.

CLWA – Honby Pipeline 3.2-15 Draft EIR 3.2 Biological Resources

Table 3.2-2. Sensitive Wildlife Species Known to Occur in the Vicinity of the Proposed Project (cont.) Scientific Name/ Status Common Name (Fed/State) Habitat and Description Distribution in Project Area BIRDS Western least bittern FSC/CSC Habitat is centered on dense No suitable habitat present (nesting) emergent wetlands of cattails on site nor was it observed Ixobrychus exilis hesperis and tules for nearly all of its during focused bird surveys. needs. White-tailed kite (nesting) -/CFP Open vegetation; uses Species known from area and Elanus leucurus woodlands for cover. suitable foraging habitat occurs on site. Nesting recently observed nearby. (Guthrie 1999) Northern harrier (nesting) -/CSC Coastal salt marsh, Suitable nesting habitat does Circus cyaneus freshwater marsh, grasslands, not occur on the Project site, agricultural fields. but this species could occasionally forage on the site. Not observed during focused bird surveys. Sharp-shinned hawk -/CSC Nests in woodlands; forages Suitable nesting habitat does (nesting) over dense chaparral and not occur on the Project site; Accipiter striatus scrublands. however, this species may occasionally forage on the site. One observation was made during focused bird surveys. (Guthrie 1999) Cooper's hawk (nesting) -/CSC Dense stands of live oaks and Marginal nesting habitat Accipiter cooperi riparian woodlands. occurs in limited areas on the Project site; could occasionally forage on the site. Several individual observations were made by Guthrie in 1995–1998 and 2000. No nesting observations were made during surveys. Ferruginous hawk FSC/CSC Grasslands, agricultural Infrequent seasonal migrant. (wintering) fields, open scrublands. Suitable foraging area Buteo regalis present. Not observed during focused bird surveys. Golden eagle (nesting & -/CSC, CFP Mountains, deserts, and open No suitable nesting habitat is wintering) country. Nesting habitat present on site, but species is Aquila chrysaetos consists primarily of cliffs known from the Project and rocky ledges, sometimes vicinity and may periodically trees, and rarely ground and forage on site. Not observed man-made structures. during focused bird surveys. Merlin (wintering) -/CSC Coastlines, wetlands, Marginally suitable habitat Falco columbarius woodlands, agricultural present on the site. Not fields, grasslands. observed during focused bird surveys.

3.2-16 CLWA – Honby Pipeline Draft EIR 3.2 Biological Resources

Table 3.2-2. Sensitive Wildlife Species Known to Occur in the Vicinity of the Proposed Project (cont.) Scientific Name/ Status Common Name (Fed/State) Habitat and Description Distribution in Project Area Prairie falcon (nesting) -/CSC Grasslands, savannas, Suitable nesting habitat does Falco mexicanus rangeland, agricultural fields, not occur on the Project site, desert scrub; requires but this species could sheltered cliff faces for shelter occasionally forage on the and nesting. site. Not observed during focused bird surveys. Western burrowing owl FSC/CSC Grasslands and open scrub, Marginally suitable habitat (burrow sites) particularly with ground present. Not observed Athene cunicularia hypugea squirrel burrows. during focused bird surveys. Long-eared owl (nesting) -/CSC Dense, riparian and live oak Suitable nesting habitat is not Asio otus thickets near meadow edges, present on the Project site, and nearby woodland and but this species could forest habitats. Also found in occasionally forage on the dense conifer stands at higher site. Not observed during elevations. focused bird surveys. California horned lark -/CSC Grasslands, disturbed areas, Marginally suitable habitat Eremophila alpestris actia agriculture fields, and beach present. Not observed areas. during focused bird surveys. Loggerhead shrike FSC/CSC Grasslands with scattered Suitable nesting and foraging Lanius ludovicianus shrubs, trees, fences, or other habitat present. Species perches. documented in Project area. Yellow warbler (nesting) -/CSC Riparian thickets and Small amount of suitable Dendroica petechia brewsteri woodlands. habitat present on site. Individuals have been observed in Project vicinity in recent years. Yellow-breasted chat -/CSC Riparian thickets and riparian Suitable habitat is not present (nesting) woodlands with a dense on site. Not observed during Icteria virens understory. focused bird surveys. Summer tanager (nesting) -/CSC Cottonwood-willow riparian Suitable habitat not present Piranga rubra habitats, especially older, on site. One individual dense stands along rivers and observed on one occasion on streams. adjacent lands is considered a migrant. Southern California rufous- FSC/CSC Coastal sage scrub. Observed on site during crowned sparrow general wildlife surveys and Aimophila ruficeps canescens focused bird surveys. Suitable nesting and foraging habitat present.

CLWA – Honby Pipeline 3.2-17 Draft EIR 3.2 Biological Resources

Table 3.2-2. Sensitive Wildlife Species Known to Occur in the Vicinity of the Proposed Project (cont.) Scientific Name/ Status Common Name (Fed/State) Habitat and Description Distribution in Project Area Bell's sage sparrow (nesting) FSC/CSC Saltbush scrub and chaparral. Suitable nesting habitat Amphispiza belli belli occurs in limited areas on the Project site; species is known from the Project vicinity and may periodically forage on site. Observed during focused bird surveys. (Crawford 2003, cited in Impact Sciences 2004) Tricolored blackbird (nesting FSC/CSC Freshwater marshes and Suitable habitat not present colony) riparian scrub. on site. Agelaius tricolor MAMMALS Yuma myotis FCS/CSC Found in a variety of habitats; This species was not observed Myotis yumanensis optimal habitats are open during site surveys and is not forests and woodlands with expected to occur due to lack sources of water over which of suitable nesting or foraging to feed. habitat on site. Bats may fly over the site. Spotted bat FSC/CSC Deserts, scrublands, This species was not observed Euderma maculate chaparral, coniferous during site surveys and is not woodlands. expected to occur due to lack of suitable nesting or foraging habitat on site. Very few spotted bats have been recorded from the Project vicinity. This species was not observed on the site. Pale big-eared bat FSC (full Utilizes a variety of This species was not observed Corynorhinus townsendii species)/CSC communities, including during site surveys and is not pallescens (full species) conifer and oak woodlands expected to occur due to lack and forests, arid grasslands of suitable nesting or foraging and deserts, and high habitat on site. Bats may fly elevation forests and over the site. meadows. Pallid bat -/CSC Arid habitats, including This species was not observed Antrozous pallidus grasslands, shrublands, during site surveys and is not woodlands, and forests; expected to occur due to lack prefers rocky outcrops, cliffs, of suitable nesting or foraging and crevices with access to habitat on site. Bats may fly open habitats for foraging. over the site. Western mastiff bat FSC (ssp. Primarily arid lowlands and This species was not observed Eumops perotis californicus) coastal basins with rugged, during site surveys and is not /CSC rocky terrain, along with expected to occur due to lack suitable crevices for day- of suitable nesting or foraging roosts. habitat on site. Bats may fly over the site.

3.2-18 CLWA – Honby Pipeline Draft EIR 3.2 Biological Resources

Table 3.2-2. Sensitive Wildlife Species Known to Occur in the Vicinity of the Proposed Project (cont.) Scientific Name/ Status Common Name (Fed/State) Habitat and Description Distribution in Project Area San Diego desert woodrat -/CSC Chaparral, coastal sage scrub, Suitable habitat occurs on the Neotoma lepida intermedia understory of tree thickets. site. San Diego desert woodrat was observed on site during site surveys. San Diego black-tailed FSC/CSC Chaparral and coastal sage Suitable habitat occurs on the jackrabbit scrub. site. Black-tailed jackrabbits Lepus californicus bennettii were observed on site during site surveys. Ringtail -/CFP Prefers a mixture of forest A small amount of suitable Bassariscus astutus and shrubland habitats in habitat occurs on site; close association with rocky presence was not detected areas or riparian habitats. during site surveys. American badger -/CSC Drier open stages of shrub, Limited suitable habitat on Taxidea taxus forest, and herbaceous site; presence was not habitats with friable soils. detected during site surveys. Mountain lion -/CFP Occurs in a variety of scrub This species is known to Felis concolor browni and forested habitats. occur in the Project region. No suitable denning sites are present on the Project site, though it may be occasional utilized by this species. Key to Species Listing Status Codes FE Federally listed as Endangered SE State-listed as Endangered SFP State Fully Protected FT Federally listed as Threatened ST State-listed as Threatened CSC California Special Concern FSC Federal Special Concern Species SCE State candidate for Endangered Species FPE Federally proposed as Endangered SCT State candidate for Threatened FPT Federally proposed as Threatened SP State Protected Sources: State of California Resources Agency (2004a); State of California Resources Agency (2004b); California Native Plant Society (2003); and Impact Sciences (2004). Note: All mentions of “site surveys” or “focused bird surveys” refer to surveys conducted as part of the Riverpark project biological assessment.

1 Jurisdictional Wetlands and “Waters of the U.S.”

2 Three key agencies regulate activities within inland streams, wetlands, and riparian areas in 3 California. The Corps Regulatory Program regulates activities pursuant to section 404 of the 4 Clean Water Act, the CDFG regulates activities under the Fish and Game Code section 1600- 5 1607, and the LARWQCB regulates activities under section 401 of the CWA and the California 6 Porter Cologne Act.

7 Corps jurisdictional wetlands were delineated using a routine determination according to the 8 methods outlined in the Corps Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) 9 based on hydrologic and edaphic features of the site, and on the vegetation composition of the 10 site. Non-wetland “waters of the U.S.” are delineated based on the limits of the ordinary high

CLWA – Honby Pipeline 3.2-19 Draft EIR 3.2 Biological Resources

1 water mark (OHWM) as determined by erosion, the deposition of vegetation or debris, and 2 changes in vegetation. The CDFG jurisdiction is defined to the bank of the stream/channels or 3 to the limit of the adjacent riparian vegetation.

4 The Project area was investigated to determine the presence or absence of Corps, CDFG, and/or 5 LARWQCB jurisdiction as part of the Riverpark project. One drainage in the Project area, the 6 Santa Clara River, was found to be jurisdictional. Approximately 3.8 acres of Corps 7 jurisdictional “waters of the U.S.,” including some wetlands, and 3.8 acres of CDFG 8 jurisdictional streambed and associated riparian habitat were delineated.

9 Significant Ecological Area

10 The Santa Clara River is included in the largest Significant Ecological Area (SEA) in the Santa 11 Clarita Valley, extending through the City of Santa Clarita and along the entire Santa Clara 12 River watershed. It supports a variety of natural habitats including freshwater marsh, coastal 13 sage scrub, oak woodland, and riparian woodlands. A great portion of the river channel, 14 through the planning area, remains dry for most of the year. In scattered areas, however, the 15 water table under the streambed is high, and lush riparian vegetation provides refuge for birds 16 and wildlife. For example, the red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus) is restricted to this 17 community and is becoming increasingly uncommon in southern California due to habitat loss. 18 This assemblage of vegetation described as a broad wash association in the SEA descriptions is 19 unlike that found in steeper mountain canyons and is rare in the Los Angeles basin. It is the 20 only major river drainage from the San Gabriel Mountains that remains unchannelized for most 21 of its length. This area was designated as an SEA primarily because of the threat of loss of 22 suitable habitat for the unarmored threespine stickleback, a federally- and state-listed 23 endangered species. This species formerly occurred in the Los Angeles, San Gabriel, and Santa 24 Ana rivers but is now restricted to San Francisquito Canyon, three areas in the Santa Clara 25 River, and San Antonio Creek on Vandenberg Air Force Base. The stickleback requires clean, 26 free-flowing perennial streams and ponds surrounded by natural vegetation. The adjacent 27 floodplain of the Santa Clara River is included in this SEA in order to preserve this habitat. The 28 natural vegetation along the ephemeral to intermittent portion of the stream slows heavy runoff 29 during rainy seasons and thus decreases destruction and siltation of stickleback habitats 30 downstream.

31 Wildlife Movement Corridors

32 Wildlife corridors link together areas of suitable habitat that are otherwise separated by rugged 33 terrain, changes in vegetation, or human disturbance. The fragmentation of open space areas by 34 urbanization creates isolated “islands” of wildlife habitat. In the absence of habitat linkages 35 that allow movement to adjoining open space areas, various studies have concluded that some 36 wildlife species, especially the larger and more mobile mammals, are not likely to persist over 37 time because they prohibit the infusion of new individuals and genetic information (MacArthur 38 and Wilson 1967, Soule 1987, Harris and Gallager 1989, Bennett 1990).

39 Corridors mitigate the effects of habitat fragmentation by: (1) allowing animals to move 40 between remaining habitats, which allows depleted populations to be replenished and 41 promotes genetic diversity; (2) providing escape routes from fire, predators, and human

3.2-20 CLWA – Honby Pipeline Draft EIR 3.2 Biological Resources

1 disturbances, thus reducing the risk that catastrophic events (such as fires or disease) will result 2 in population or local species extinction; and (3) serving as travel routes for individual animals 3 as they move within their home ranges in search of food, water, mates, and other needs (Noss 4 1983, Fahrig and Merriam 1985, Simberloff and Cox 1987, Harris and Gallagher 1989).

5 Wildlife movement activities usually fall into one of three movement categories: (1) dispersal 6 (e.g., juvenile animals from natal areas, individuals extending range distributions); (2) seasonal 7 migration; and (3) movements related to home range activities.

8 The Project site includes a portion of the Santa Clara River, which represents a natural 9 topographic feature that is likely to funnel wildlife through the Project area. The effect of the 10 river as a corridor for movement has become greater over time due to the increased urban 11 development surrounding the river. As a result, many wildlife species are expected to rely on 12 occasional or seasonal movement through the Project area.

13 3.2.2 Impacts

14 3.2.2.1 Regulatory Setting

15 The following regulations are applicable in determining the potential effects of the Project on 16 biological resources:

17 Endangered Species Act (1973, as amended; 16 USC 1531 et seq.). Protects threatened and 18 endangered species, as well as species proposed for listing and critical habitat, as listed by the 19 USFWS, from unauthorized take, and directs federal agencies to ensure that their actions do not 20 jeopardize the continued existence of such species. Section 7 of the ESA defines federal agency 21 responsibilities for consultation with the USFWS. The Act requires preparation of a Biological 22 Assessment (BA) to address the effects on listed and proposed species of a project requiring an 23 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). In a Biological Opinion issued as a result of formal 24 section 7 consultation, the USFWS may authorize incidental take of listed species under section 25 9 of the Act. Under section 10 of the Act, the USFWS may issue permits, with conditions, that 26 authorize the take (harm or harassment) of a listed species by non-federal entities.

27 Clean Water Act of 1977 (33 USC 1251 et seq.). Provides for the restoration and maintenance of 28 the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters. Section 404 of the CWA 29 prohibits the discharge of dredged or fill materials into waters of the United States, including 30 wetlands, except as permitted under separate regulations by the Corps and EPA. An important 31 aspect of the regulations is that discharges into waters of the United States, and the placement 32 of fill in wetlands in particular, should be avoided if there are practicable alternatives. A section 33 404 permit application would have to be submitted to the Corps and approved prior to any 34 discharge of fill or dredged material into waters of the U.S. or wetlands.

35 Executive Orders 11988 and 11990, Floodplain Management and Protection of Wetlands, 36 respectively. These Executive Orders require federal agencies to provide leadership to protect 37 the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains and wetlands. Federal agencies are 38 directed to avoid development in floodplains where possible, and to minimize the destruction 39 or degradation of wetlands.

CLWA – Honby Pipeline 3.2-21 Draft EIR 3.2 Biological Resources

1 Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.). The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) 2 governs the taking, killing, possession, transportation, and importation of migratory birds, their 3 eggs, parts, and nests. The take of all migratory birds is governed by the MBTA's regulation of 4 taking migratory birds for educational, scientific, and recreational purposes and requiring 5 harvest to be limited to levels that prevent overutilization. Further, the MBTA prohibits the 6 take, possession, import, export, transport, selling, purchase, barter, or offering for sale, 7 purchase or barter, any migratory bird, their eggs, parts, and nests, except as authorized under 8 a valid permit (50 CFR 21.11). Certain exceptions apply to employees of the Department of the 9 Interior to enforce the MBTA and to employees of federal agencies, State game departments, 10 municipal game farms or parks, and public museums, public zoological parks, accredited 11 institutional members of the American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums (now 12 called the American Zoo and Aquarium Association), and public scientific or educational 13 institutions.

14 Executive Order 13186 (effective January 10, 2001). This Executive Order outlines the 15 responsibilities of federal agencies to protect migratory birds, in furtherance of the MBTA, the 16 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Acts, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, ESA, and 17 NEPA.

18 California Endangered Species Act of 1984 (Fish and Game Code Section 2050 et seq.). Provides 19 for the protection of rare, threatened, and endangered plants and animals, as recognized by 20 CDFG, and prohibits the taking of such species without their authorization. State agencies are 21 required to consult with CDFG on actions that may affect listed or candidate species. With 22 regard to plants, the California Endangered Species Act greatly expanded upon protection 23 afforded to rare, threatened, and endangered plants under the earlier California Native Plant 24 Protection Act of 1977.

25 3.2.2.2 Significance Criteria

26 The criteria used to determine the significance of impacts to biological resources are based on 27 Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. The Project would result in a significant impact if it 28 would:

29 • have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any 30 species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status in local or regional plans, 31 policies, or regulations, or by the CDFG or USFWS; 32 • have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural 33 community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the 34 CDFG or USFWS; 35 • have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by section 36 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, 37 etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means; 38 • interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or 39 wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or 40 impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites;

3.2-22 CLWA – Honby Pipeline Draft EIR 3.2 Biological Resources

1 • conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a 2 tree preservation policy or ordinance; or 3 • conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), Natural 4 Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), or other approved local, regional, or state HCP. 5 3.2.2.3 Environmental Impacts

6 Implementation of the Project would result in the removal of all vegetation within a 100-foot- 7 wide disturbance corridor along the entire length of the proposed 9,500-foot long pipeline 8 alignment. The impact area is slightly narrower where the alignment is within paved streets. 9 The total disturbance area is approximately 22.3 acres. As described above, a portion of the 10 disturbance corridor is developed roadway prior or would be graded to Project 11 implementation. Therefore, the Project would not directly impact biological resources in those 12 areas. For the remaining portion of the disturbance corridor, impacts associated with the 13 construction of the Project are as follows.

14 Impact BIO-1. Construction of the proposed pipeline would remove suitable habitat and 15 proposed critical habitat for the California gnatcatcher. The RSS community that would be 16 removed as a result of Project implementation is considered suitable for occupation by the 17 California gnatcatcher, a federally listed and state-designated sensitive species. This plant 18 community has also been identified by the USFWS as potentially playing an important part in 19 the long-term survival of the species in the region as indicated by its designation as proposed 20 critical habitat. However, this species is uncommon in the area and has not been detected 21 during focused surveys of the habitat in recent years. In addition, the habitat that would be 22 removed would be largely isolated following development of the Riverpark project. As a result, 23 the value of the habitat for use by the California gnatcatcher would be further reduced. 24 Although the potential for direct impacts to the species is very low, the habitat being removed 25 does have some potential in the long term to support the California gnatcatcher and does 26 contain the constituent elements of important habitat within proposed critical habitat. 27 Therefore, this impact is considered significant.

28 Impact BIO-2. Construction of the Project would disturb and temporarily remove riparian, 29 wetland, and riverwash vegetation, resulting in a temporary loss of habitat for common and 30 unlisted sensitive wildlife and causing mortality to individuals of some common and 31 unlisted sensitive wildlife species. Construction of the proposed pipeline would result in the 32 temporary removal of approximately 4.8 acres of riparian, wetland, and stream vegetation that 33 provide habitat for wildlife within the Santa Clara River. The habitat values these communities 34 provide for wildlife, and erosion and sediment control would be temporarily lost as a result. 35 Plant communities that are associated with water courses are rare in the region and are 36 considered sensitive by many resource agencies, including the CDFG, which designates such 37 communities as Highest Inventory Priority. In addition, impacts to these sensitive resources are 38 regulated by the Corps, LARWQCB, and CDFG.

39 Project construction would also result in the unavoidable mortality to some individuals of 40 wildlife species in the right-of-way (ROW), especially of species that are dormant at the time of 41 construction and species that are relatively sedentary and unlikely to avoid the activity by 42 leaving the area. Construction activity would also cause more mobile species such as birds and

CLWA – Honby Pipeline 3.2-23 Draft EIR 3.2 Biological Resources

1 medium and large mammals to avoid the disturbance area during the construction period, 2 effectively reducing the amount of habitat available to them. Common species are the most 3 likely to be affected, although unlisted sensitive species potentially occurring in the area, (see 4 Table 3.2-2) may also be affected. Construction activities would also result in the temporary 5 loss of foraging habitat for common and unlisted sensitive wildlife in adjacent habitat areas.

6 The temporary loss of riparian, wetland, and riverwash habitat and impacts to associated 7 wildlife would be significant due to the sensitivity of the Santa Clara River and associated 8 resources.

9 Impact BIO-3. Construction of the proposed pipeline would remove sensitive upland 10 vegetation and associated common and unlisted sensitive plant and wildlife species. 11 Implementation of the Project would result in the removal of 0.6 acre of RSS. This community is 12 designated as a Highest Inventory Priority community by the CDFG due to its rarity and its 13 reduced acreage following development of the region. RSS is known to support a large variety 14 of species including common and unlisted sensitive plants and animals. Its removal represents 15 a loss of habitat and habitat values in adjacent areas for many species. Consequently, this 16 impact would be significant.

17 Impact BIO-4. Construction of the proposed pipeline would remove river habitat used by 18 fish species including potential use by the unarmored threespine stickleback. Wildlife 19 movement through the river by other non-aquatic species may also be impeded. Project 20 construction disturbances within the Santa Clara River may potentially interfere with the 21 movement of common and sensitive fish species, including the Santa Ana sucker and 22 unarmored threespine stickleback, that may use active flow channels seasonally, when water is 23 present. Pipeline installation across the river would essentially make the area impassable to fish 24 attempting to move up or down the river. Use of these channels is expected to be infrequent 25 due to the short duration of surface flows and the distance from year round-occupied habitat. 26 However, if such flows and the unarmored threespine stickleback were present at the time of 27 construction, impacts would be significant.

28 Construction activities within the river could also interfere with movement of other wildlife 29 species that may occasionally use the river wash for migration or other movement. Such 30 movement is more likely during the wet season. Impacts could be significant for local 31 populations of species that need this movement corridor for survival.

32 Impact BIO-5. Construction of the proposed pipeline would adversely impact biological 33 resources within the Santa Clara River SEA. The portion of the Project impact area that lies 34 within the Santa Clara River is designated by the City of Santa Clarita (as well as the County of 35 Los Angeles) as an SEA. The designation indicates that the biological resources contained 36 within it are a part of a biological resource (i.e., the Santa Clara River) that is considered 37 sensitive. Development in such areas is required to undergo an additional layer of 38 environmental review and must adhere to conditions specified by the City for developing in 39 that area. Impacts, therefore, would be short term and less than significant.

40 Impact BIO-6. Construction of the Project would disturb and remove disturbed and 41 developed areas along with associated ornamental vegetation as well as non-native grassland 42 and associated wildlife. Approximately 10.1 acres of the Project disturbance corridor is

3.2-24 CLWA – Honby Pipeline Draft EIR 3.2 Biological Resources

1 currently developed or would be developed at the time of Project construction. This includes 2 areas that are within paved roadways and sidewalks as well as buildings that occur on either 3 side of the roadway and within the 100-foot disturbance corridor. It also includes those areas 4 that would lie within the paved roadways to be constructed as part of the Riverpark project. 5 Although these areas would be removed or temporarily disturbed, impacts to biological 6 resources are expected to be minimal due to the lack of resources dependent upon these areas. 7 Adjacent areas are not expected to experience substantial indirect disturbance such as noise due 8 to the short duration of the impact. As a result, this impact is considered less than significant.

9 Implementation of the Project would result in the removal of 0.2 acre of non-native grassland 10 vegetation and disturbance of a small amount of adjacent non-native grassland areas. Due to 11 the non-native origin of this community, it is of lower value than most communities for native 12 wildlife and biodiversity is generally low. Unlisted sensitive species are also uncommon within 13 this habitat type.

14 Project construction would also result in the unavoidable mortality to individuals of wildlife 15 species in the ROW, especially those that are dormant at the time of construction or that are 16 relatively sedentary and unlikely to avoid the activity by leaving the area. Construction activity 17 would also cause individuals of more mobile species such as birds and medium and large 18 mammals to avoid the disturbance area during the construction period, effectively reducing the 19 amount of habitat available to them. Construction activity would also result in the temporary 20 loss of foraging habitat for some wildlife in adjacent habitat areas.

21 Based on the relatively low habitat value, the small amount being removed or disturbed, and 22 the temporary nature of the impact, this impact is considered less than significant.

23 3.2.3 Mitigation Measures

24 The following measures will be implemented:

25 BIO-1 CLWA will minimize disturbance to native habitats, and listed and unlisted sensitive 26 species by implementation of the following measures at construction sites prior to and 27 during construction. Where ground disturbances are required, CLWA’s construction 28 program will include:

29 Restricting Disturbance

30 • Restriction of staging, construction activities, equipment storage, and personnel to 31 existing disturbed areas (such as roads, pads, or otherwise disturbed areas) to the 32 maximum extent feasible. 33 • Clearly marking and delineating the limits of the staging areas as well as the 34 construction corridors/zones in the field and graphically on all final construction 35 drawings or blueprints. Personnel or equipment in native habitats outside the 36 construction limits will be prohibited. 37 • Using methods to minimize the construction corridor width to the maximum extent 38 feasible in sensitive habitats, such as transporting and stockpiling excavated materials in 39 disturbed areas off the ROW, or into other parts of the ROW, by truck or conveyor belt.

CLWA – Honby Pipeline 3.2-25 Draft EIR 3.2 Biological Resources

1 On-Site Monitoring

2 • Biological monitoring of habitat clearing activities and removal of sedentary animals, 3 both common and sensitive, within the ROW prior to clearing. This will require a 4 qualified biologist to be at the location of habitat removal prior to clearing to attempt to 5 remove animals where visible and during removal activities to ensure that no 6 inadvertent impacts to adjacent habitats occur. Weekly inspections of the ROW 7 perimeter near work areas will also reduce the potential for inadvertent impacts to 8 adjacent habitat. 9 BMPs

10 • Dust control. All areas of mechanical ground disturbance, including dirt access 11 roadways, will be consistently moistened to reduce the creation of dust clouds. The 12 frequency of watering will be consistent with the desired goal and in accordance with 13 regional standards and BMPs. 14 • Erosion control. Devices such as straw bails and “v” ditches will be installed in areas 15 where construction activities may directly or indirectly cause increased erosion or 16 sediment deposition on adjacent habitats. 17 • Removal of trash from construction areas routinely. All refuse, including non- 18 construction materials such as paper and miscellaneous food packaging materials, will 19 be removed from the ROW to prevent littering of the adjacent habitat areas outside of 20 the ROW. At a minimum, site clean-ups will occur weekly. 21 (Addresses Impact BIO-1, BIO-2, BIO-3, and BIO-4) 22 BIO-2 CLWA will develop a Habitat Revegetation, Restoration, and Monitoring Program, 23 obtaining input from CDFG, for implementation in all habitat areas directly affected by 24 construction activities. The program will include the following measures:

25 Invasive Species Control

26 • Where appropriate and feasible, the area to be disturbed will be treated to kill invasive 27 exotic species and limit their seed production prior to initiating any earthmoving 28 activity with the objectives of (1) preventing invasive species from spreading from the 29 disturbance area, and (2) removing weed sources from the salvaged topsoil. Herbicides 30 will be used only by a licensed herbicide applicator and may require notification to 31 property owners or resource agencies. The treatment will be completed in advance of 32 the earthmoving in order for this mitigation to have its intended effect (e.g., the 33 treatment would need to occur prior to target species setting seed). 34 Topsoil Salvage and Replacement

35 • In areas where vegetation and soil are to be removed, the topsoil will be salvaged and 36 replaced. This may be accomplished using two lifts, the first to salvage the seed bank, 37 and the second to salvage soil along with soil biota in the root zone. Soil will be 38 stockpiled in two areas near the Project site, with the seed bank labeled to identify it. 39 Topsoil will be replaced in the proper layers after final reconfiguration of disturbed

3.2-26 CLWA – Honby Pipeline Draft EIR 3.2 Biological Resources

1 areas. Stockpiles will be covered if the soil is to be left for an extended period of time to 2 prevent losses due to erosion and invasion of weeds. 3 Habitat Rehabilitation and Revegetation

4 • Plans and specifications for replanting areas disturbed by the Project. Replanting will be 5 with native species propagated from locally collected seed or cuttings, and, if applicable, 6 will include seed of sensitive species that would be impacted during construction 7 activities. 8 • Monitoring procedures and performance criteria will be developed to address 9 revegetation and erosion control. The performance criteria will consider the level of 10 disturbance and the condition of adjacent habitats. Monitoring will continue for 3-5 11 years, or until performance criteria have been met. Appropriate remedial measures, 12 such as replanting, erosion control, or weed control, will be identified and implemented 13 if it is determined that performance criteria are not being met. 14 (Addresses Impact BIO-1, BIO-2, BIO-3, and BIO-4)

15 BIO-3 In order to eliminate the potential for impacts to the unarmored threespine stickleback 16 and other sensitive aquatic species and to minimize impacts to wildlife movement 17 corridors, construction within the Santa Clara River wash will be restricted to the dry 18 season. This period will be from May 1 to September 15. No construction activities will 19 be allowed to occur within the river wash outside of the designated dry period. In 20 addition, surface elevations within washes will be returned to preconstruction 21 conditions prior to the end of the dry season. (Addresses Impact BIO-4)

22 Because the portion of the Project within the Santa Clara River is in jurisdictional waters of the 23 U.S. and some of the affected habitat is wetland, a permit from the Corps and the LARWQCB 24 would be required under sections 404 and 401 of the CWA. Some areas are also subject to 25 section 1600 of California Fish and Game Code. Additional impact minimization and 26 mitigation measures may be identified by these agencies as part of the regulatory processes.

27 3.2.4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

28 No significant unavoidable adverse impacts would occur.

29 Residual impacts would include the temporary loss of vegetation and wildlife habitat, and some 30 unavoidable mortality of a few individuals of common and, possibly, unlisted sensitive wildlife 31 species. Impacts would gradually decrease over several years as the area revegetates and 32 wildlife populations increase. Because the habitat that would be affected is of moderate quality, 33 and few individuals of wildlife species would be lost, the functions and values of the habitat 34 could likely be replaced within a short time (a few years), and therefore the residual impact 35 would be less than significant.

36 Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 would ensure that an equal or greater 37 amount of suitable California gnatcatcher habitat is restored with a habitat value equal to or 38 greater than the habitat removed. As a result of implementing Mitigation Measure BIO-3, no 39 impacts to the unarmored threespine stickleback or any other fish species would occur. Impacts

CLWA – Honby Pipeline 3.2-27 Draft EIR 3.2 Biological Resources

1 to unlisted sensitive species, including the Santa Ana sucker, would also be avoided. 2 Additionally, adherence to any additional conditions set forward by the City of Santa Clarita to 3 reduce impacts to SEAs would further ensure that the biological resources within the Project 4 area are restored to a level of equal to or greater habitat value than prior to construction.

3.2-28 CLWA – Honby Pipeline Draft EIR

1 3.3 NOISE

2 Sources of stationary or transient noise can be characterized as unwanted sound that could 3 disrupt normal activities or diminish the quality of the environment. Stationary sources are 4 generally localized, while transient or mobile sources can occur irregularly. The noise generated 5 combines with the ambient sounds to produce the local acoustical environment. The response to 6 noise can be quite varied depending on the noise source, the sensitivity of the receptor and the 7 time of day in which it occurs.

8 Several noise measurement scales are used to describe noise in a particular location. A decibel 9 (dB) is a unit of measurement that indicates the relative amplitude of a sound. The zero on the 10 decibel scale is based on the lowest sound level that the healthy, unimpaired human ear can 11 detect. Sound levels in decibels are calculated on a logarithmic basis. An increase of 10 dB 12 represents a ten-fold increase in acoustic energy, while 20 dB is 100 times more intense, 30 dB is 13 1,000 times more intense, etc. Each 10 dB increase in sound level is perceived as approximately a 14 doubling of loudness over a fairly wide range of intensities. There are several methods of 15 characterizing sound. The most common in California is the A-weighted sound level, or dBA. 16 This scale gives greater weight to the frequencies of sound to which the human ear is most 17 sensitive.

18 Because sound levels can vary markedly over a short period of time, a method for describing 19 either the average character of the sound or the statistical behavior of the variations must be 20 utilized. Most commonly, environmental sounds are described in terms of an average level that 21 has the same acoustical energy as the summation of all the time-varying events. This energy- 22 equivalent sound/noise descriptor is called Leq. The most common averaging period is hourly, 23 but Leq can describe any series of noise events of arbitrary duration.

24 Since the sensitivity to noise increases during the evening and at night—because excessive noise 25 interferes with the ability to sleep—24-hour descriptors have been developed that incorporate 26 artificial noise penalties added to quiet-time noise events. The Community Noise Equivalent 27 Level (CNEL) is a measure of the cumulative noise exposure in a community, with a 5 dB penalty 28 added to evening (7:00 P.M. to 10:00 P.M.) and a 10 dB addition to nocturnal (10:00 P.M. to 7:00 29 A.M.) noise levels.

30 Noise-sensitive receptors include residential areas, facilities such as schools and hospitals, and 31 certain types of recreational uses where a quiet setting is considered to be an integral part of the 32 recreational experience.

33 Representative outdoor and indoor noise levels in units of dBA are shown in Table 3.3-1.

34 3.3.1 Environmental Setting

35 Regulatory Setting

36 The Noise Element of the City of Santa Clarita’s General Plan contains noise-related goals and 37 policies, and the City’s Noise Ordinance establishes noise thresholds for specific times and noise 38 levels for construction activities and noise levels for stationary noise sources. The allowable noise

CLWA – Honby Pipeline 3.3-1 Draft EIR 3.3 Noise

1 Table 3.3-1. Typical Sound Levels Measured in the Environment and Industry

At a Given Distance From Subjective dBA Noise Environments Noise Source Impression 140

Civil Defense Siren (100') 130

Jet Takeoff (200') 120 Pain Threshold

110 Rock Music Concert

Diesel Pile Driver (100') 100 Very Loud

90 Boiler Room Freight Cars (50') Printing Press Plant Pneumatic Drill (50') 80 Freeway (100') In Kitchen with Garbage Disposal Running Vacuum Cleaner (10') 70 Moderately Loud Data Processing Center 60 Department Store Light Traffic (100') 50 Large Transformer (200') 40 Private Business Office Quiet

Soft Whisper (5') 30 Quiet Bedroom

20 Recording Studio

10 Threshold of Hearing 0 Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 1985

2 levels in residential areas are 65 dBA during the daytime and 55 dBA during the nighttime. In 3 commercial and manufacturing areas, up to 80 dBA is allowed during the daytime and 70 dBA is 4 allowed during the nighttime. Construction work is limited to the hours between 7 A.M. and 7 5 P.M. Monday through Friday and between 8 A.M. and 6 P.M. on Saturday. Construction is 6 prohibited on Sundays and on major holidays. The City of Santa Clarita exempts public utility 7 projects, such as the proposed pipeline, from these scheduling restrictions (personal 8 communication, C. Williams 2005).

3.3-2 CLWA – Honby Pipeline Draft EIR 3.3 Noise

1 Existing Conditions

2 Sources of noise in the Project area are vehicular traffic and routine activities associated with the 3 East Greenbrier Mobile Home Park, RVWTP, and commercial and industrial development east of 4 Golden Valley Road. The primary source of noise is traffic from Soledad Canyon Road, which lies 5 approximately 800 feet south of the proposed pipeline alignment at its closest point. Noise 6 measurements taken under moderately windy conditions along the north side of the river, 7 approximately 1,000 feet from this road, indicated that noise levels ranged from 47 dBA to 66 dBA 8 (Leq), with an average Leq of approximately 59 dBA (Impact Sciences 2004). Subsequent 9 measurements during calm weather resulted in an Leq of approximately 56 dBA (Impact Sciences 10 2004).

11 The only noise sensitive receptor sufficiently close to be affected by noise from the Project is the 12 mobile home park, which lies just south of the proposed pipeline corridor. The average noise 13 level at this site is approximately 64 dBA (CNEL) (Impact Sciences 2004).

14 3.3.2 Impacts

15 3.3.2.1 Significance Criteria

16 The criteria used to determine the significance of impacts related to noise are based on Appendix 17 G of the State CEQA Guidelines. The Project would result in significant impacts it if would:

18 • expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local 19 General Plan or Noise Ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies; 20 • expose persons to or generate excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise 21 levels; 22 • cause a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above 23 levels existing without the project; 24 • cause a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project 25 vicinity above levels existing without the project; 26 • for a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been 27 adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, expose people residing 28 or working in the project area to excessive noise levels; or 29 • for a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, expose people residing or working in 30 the project area to excessive noise levels. 31 3.3.2.2 Environmental Impacts

32 The Project’s noise impacts would result from construction activities; as noted in the Initial Study 33 (Appendix B), operation of the proposed pipeline would generate minimal noise, primarily from 34 periodic vehicular trips, and would not exceed any regulatory standards. Noise impacts from 35 construction depend upon the noise generated by the various pieces of construction equipment, 36 the timing and length of time of noise-generating activities, the distance between the noise- 37 generating activities and nearby sensitive receptors, and the time of day or night that the 38 construction activities occur. Construction is typically carried out in stages. During each stage of

CLWA – Honby Pipeline 3.3-3 Draft EIR 3.3 Noise

1 construction, a different mix of construction equipment would operate. The impact analysis is 2 based on a worst-case scenario, using a mix of equipment operating at relatively high noise levels 3 to calculate the maximum hourly noise levels that are likely to occur during construction.

4 As discussed in the Initial Study, the Project would not have the potential to cause the following 5 impacts:

6 • Expose persons to or generate excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise 7 levels; 8 • Cause a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity 9 above levels existing without the project; 10 • Expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels (for a 11 project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been 12 adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport); or 13 • Expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels (for a 14 project within the vicinity of a private airstrip).

15 Impact NOI-1. Construction noise would cause a temporary increase in ambient noise levels at 16 the East Greenbrier Mobile Home Park and the nearby commercial/industrial areas that could 17 exceed local noise standards. Construction would occur during the hours and days allowed by 18 the City of Santa Clarita. Pipeline construction would require a variety of equipment, depending 19 on the conditions along the route, potentially including a hydraulic excavator, trucks, paving 20 equipment, crane, and gas welding machine. As a worst-case scenario, construction activities 21 would generate a maximum hourly noise level of approximately 89 dBA at 100 feet from the 22 construction site. Noise decreases by 6 dBA for every doubling of the distance. Thus, noise 23 would be reduced to approximately 77 dBA at 400 feet from the construction site. The residents 24 of the East Greenbrier Mobile Home Park, the nearest of which are approximately 125 feet from 25 the pipeline corridor, and the commercial/industrial areas that adjoin the pipeline route 26 temporarily would be exposed to noise that could exceed City of Santa Clarita standards. 27 Pipeline construction typically proceeds several hundred feet a day, and the noise exposure at any 28 given location would be brief, but the impact would be significant.

29 3.3.3 Mitigation Measures

30 The following measures will be implemented:

31 NOI-1: Advance notice of construction activities will be provided to nearby residents and 32 businesses. (Addresses Impact NOI-1.)

33 NOI-2: When construction activities occur sufficiently close to residential, commercial, and 34 industrial uses to exceed City of Santa Clarita noise standards, one or more of the 35 following noise reduction measures will be implemented (Addresses Impact NOI-1):

36 • All internal combustion engine-powered equipment will be properly muffled and in good 37 repair. 38 • Machines will not be left idling.

3.3-4 CLWA – Honby Pipeline Draft EIR 3.3 Noise

1 • Electric power will be used in lieu of internal combustion engine power whenever 2 possible. 3 • Noisy activities will be scheduled to minimize their duration at the site. 4 • If noise complaints are received, the contractor will conduct monitoring of noise levels, 5 with corrective actions taken in response to excessive noise levels. Such measures could 6 include constructing a temporary acoustic barrier between the noise source and the 7 sensitive receptor. 8 3.3.4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

9 Given the proximity of construction activities to nearby development, there is a potential for 10 construction noise to exceed City of Santa Clarita standards even after the implementation of the 11 above mitigation measures. Thus, the Project could result in temporary, but significant and 12 unavoidable impacts from construction. It should be noted, however, that construction in local 13 streets would occur after business hours, thus minimizing the potential for adverse noise impacts 14 to adjacent businesses.

CLWA – Honby Pipeline 3.3-5 Draft EIR 3.3 Noise

This page intentionally left blank.

3.3-6 CLWA – Honby Pipeline Draft EIR

1 3.4 POPULATION AND HOUSING

2 3.4.1 Environmental Setting

3 Based on U.S. Census Bureau data, the population in the CLWA service area in 2000 was 4 approximately 190,0001. (This is the most recent data available. The next census will not be taken 5 until 2010.) About 80 percent of the CLWA service area population resides in the City of Santa 6 Clarita, whose population increased by about 36 percent between 1990 and 2000, from 110,642 to 7 151,088. Within the City of Santa Clarita, the 2000 Census reported 50,787 occupied housing units, 8 a 12,313-unit increase since 1990. Based on 2000 Census data, about three persons occupy each 9 housing unit. Assuming the same persons per occupied housing unit, there would be about 10 63,300 occupied housing units in the CLWA service area.

11 3.4.2 Impacts

12 3.4.2.1 Significance Criteria

13 The criteria used to determine the significance of impacts related to population and housing are 14 based on Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. The Project would result in significant 15 impacts it if would:

16 • induce substantial population growth in an area either directly (e.g., by proposing new 17 homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other 18 infrastructure); 19 • displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of 20 replacement housing elsewhere; or 21 • displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement 22 housing elsewhere.

23 3.4.2.2 Environmental Impacts

24 The Project would not directly induce population growth (e.g., it does not require the construction 25 of new homes or businesses), nor would it displace existing housing or people. The Project would 26 remove an obstacle to future population growth by allowing CLWA to serve the anticipated 27 future population of a portion of its service area. The indirect impacts from this potential growth 28 are addressed in detail in Chapter 4, Growth-Inducing Effects and Growth-Related Impacts.

29 3.4.3 Mitigation Measures

30 No direct significant impacts to population and housing would occur; therefore, no mitigation 31 measures are required for direct impacts. Mitigation measures for indirect impacts associated

1 Using a Geographic Information System (GIS), the census blocks and tracts that were fully or partially within the CLWA service area were determined. If a block was partially within the service area, the percent of the area within the service area was multiplied by the block census counts.

CLWA – Honby Pipeline 3.4-1 Draft EIR 3.4 Population and Housing

1 with Project-induced population and housing growth are addressed in Chapter 4, Growth- 2 Inducing Effects and Growth-Related Impacts (section 4.2.11, Population and Housing).

3 3.4.4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

4 No significant unavoidable direct impacts would result from the Project. Significant and 5 unavoidable indirect impacts to aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, transportation and 6 circulation, and utilities and service systems may result from Project-induced population and 7 housing growth.

3.4-2 CLWA – Honby Pipeline Draft EIR

1 3.5 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS

2 Direct impacts of the Project to noise could be significant and unavoidable. These impacts would 3 be temporary, however, lasting only while construction occurred in proximity to noise sensitive 4 receptors. Alternatives to the Project were considered, including alternatives that would reduce 5 noise impacts. These alternatives would not meet Project objectives, however. The Project is 6 being proposed notwithstanding the short-term noise impact because the existing Honby pipeline 7 does not provide the required peak capacity to serve the current and projected population in the 8 affected portion of the CLWA service area until year 2050, and it would conflict with uses 9 proposed as part of the Riverpark project.

10 Indirect impacts of the Project to aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, transportation/traffic 11 and utilities/service systems could be significant and unavoidable (these impacts are discussed in 12 detail in Chapter 4). The Project is being proposed notwithstanding these indirect impacts due to 13 the deficiencies of the existing Honby pipeline, described above. Moreover, while CLWA has the 14 responsibility to provide wholesale water to retail purveyors within the CLWA service area, it 15 does not approve the locations of new development. City and county planning agencies are 16 responsible for creating land use plans that direct where development should occur and for 17 enforcing those plans. The Project would provide water that could be used by new development 18 in the CLWA service area, but it would not affect the specific locations of planned development.”

CLWA – Honby Pipeline 3.5-1 Draft EIR 3.5 Significant Unavoidable Impacts

This page intentionally left blank.

3.5-2 CLWA – Honby Pipeline Draft EIR 1 4.0 GROWTH-INDUCING EFFECTS AND 2 INDIRECT, GROWTH-RELATED IMPACTS

3 4.1 GROWTH-INDUCING EFFECTS

4 CEQA Requirements

5 CEQA Guidelines section 15126.2(d) states that an EIR must discuss the ways in which a Project 6 could:

7 • foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either 8 directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment; 9 • remove obstacles to population growth; 10 • require the construction of new community facilities that could cause significant 11 environmental effects; 12 • encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, 13 either individually or cumulatively. 14 The Guidelines further state that it must not be assumed that growth in any area is necessarily 15 beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment. The analysis below discusses 16 whether the Project is growth-inducing using the CEQA definition. Consistency with growth 17 projections included in local and regional planning documents is addressed in Chapter 5.

18 General Factors Affecting Population Growth

19 Growth does not necessarily result from only one project or factor in a community. Rather, 20 several factors affect the location, size, direction, timing, type, and rate of population growth, 21 depending on the region where the community is located. These factors include local 22 government planning, public services, natural resources, economic climate, and political and 23 environmental concerns. City and county planning agencies adopt and administer general and 24 specific plans, zoning maps and ordinances, and other planning documents that contain policies 25 and maps to identify the intensity and type of development that would be allowed in specific 26 locations. As part of the local government development approval process, wholesale and retail 27 water purveyors provide information on their ability to serve additional water users; however, 28 local jurisdictions other than wholesale or retail water purveyors ultimately control 29 development approval decisions.

30 Although local governments play a role in growth management, the location and timing of 31 growth also depends on economic factors such as the availability and cost of developable land, 32 recessions in local and national economies, interest rates, and demand for housing. Political 33 factors include state and local laws that mandate businesses to comply with certain rules, 34 regulations, and permitting requirements that address environmental and community concerns. 35 Other political decisions also impact growth, such as alleviation of property taxes as an 36 incentive to lure businesses to certain communities. Quality of life issues such as crime, climate, 37 air quality, traffic and commuting distances, as well as the availability, cost, and quality of

CLWA – Honby Pipeline 4-1 Draft EIR 4 — Growth-Inducing Effects and Growth-Related Impacts

1 community services such as schools, transportation facilities, recreation facilities, and police and 2 fire protection, may also be important factors influencing the timing and location of growth.

3 Growth Inducement in the CLWA Service Area

4 The Project would result in increased pipeline capacity. The existing 33-inch Honby pipeline 5 could provide up to 25,340 acre-feet per year (AFY) (35 cfs), assuming it was operated at 6 maximum capacity at all times. The proposed 60-inch pipeline could provide 75,300 AFY (139 7 cfs) if operated at maximum capacity, a 49,960 AFY (104 cfs) increase. This scenario does not 8 account for standard operational practices, however. Water demand varies according to the 9 season and hydrologic conditions. CLWA’s water pipelines are sized to accommodate the peak 10 demand (e.g., water demand during summer months); in practice, the pipelines transport less 11 water when the demand is lower (e.g., during the rainy season). The proposed pipeline was 12 sized to be consistent with CLWA’s operational practices. Based on these practices, the 13 maximum capacity was reduced by a factor of 1.8 to determine the average capacity. Applying 14 this factor, the anticipated annual delivery from the existing pipeline would be approximately 15 14,100 AFY, and the annual delivery of the proposed pipeline would be approximately 41,800 16 AFY, an increase of about 27,700 AFY. As a worst-case scenario, the analysis of growth-related 17 impacts assumes the maximum increase of 49,960 AFY.

18 Based on urban water consumption of approximately 61,000 acre-feet (AF) in the service area in 19 2000 (SCVWP 2001) and a service area population of approximately 190,000 persons (based on 20 U.S. Census 2000 data), it was determined that 1 AF serves approximately 3.1 persons annually 21 (190,000 persons/61,000 AF per year = 3.1 persons per AF per year). This planning factor 22 represents the water needed for both residential and non-residential urban uses associated with 23 this population. Thus, the proposed pipeline would be able to serve approximately 154,900 24 more persons than the existing pipeline. Using the 3.0 persons per housing unit factor included 25 in the Los Angeles County General Plan, the Project could serve about 51,600 additional 26 housing units.

27 The Project would make additional water available to a portion of the CLWA service area. 28 Although the availability of water is not in and of itself sufficient to cause population growth or 29 development, if insufficient water were available, this would constitute an obstacle to 30 population growth if the project proponents found no alternative water supply. Therefore, 31 having increased pipeline capacity is considered to be growth inducing because it is deemed to 32 remove an obstacle to population growth. Because it would remove such an obstacle, the 33 Project may indirectly foster economic or population growth or the construction of additional 34 housing within the CLWA service area. Potential environmental impacts from growth that 35 could result from the Project are addressed in section 4.2 below.

36 4.2 GROWTH-RELATED IMPACTS

37 Introduction

38 CEQA Guidelines section 15064(d) requires that an EIR evaluate the indirect impacts of a 39 project. Indirect impacts are those that are caused by a project and are reasonably foreseeable, 40 but that may occur later in time or at some distance from the project site(s). Growth-related

4-2 CLWA – Honby Pipeline Draft EIR 4 — Growth-Inducing Effects and Growth-Related Impacts

1 impacts are the indirect impacts of population growth or development, such as the conversion 2 of open land to developed land, added traffic, and increased demand for public services.

3 CLWA has the responsibility to provide wholesale water to retail purveyors within the CLWA 4 service area, but does not approve the locations of new development. City and county planning 5 agencies are responsible for creating land use plans that direct where development should 6 occur and for enforcing those plans. The Project would provide water that could be used by 7 new development in the CLWA service area, but it would not affect the specific locations of 8 planned development.

9 This EIR generally discusses growth-related impacts in a qualitative manner based on the likely 10 changes that could occur as a result of future land use changes and/or specific development 11 projects within the CLWA service area. It references impacts identified in the Final EIR for the 12 City of Santa Clarita General Plan (City of Santa Clarita 1991a,b) since this document provides 13 the most current and comprehensive overview of environmental impacts resulting from 14 projected growth in the Santa Clarita Valley.

15 4.2.1 Aesthetic/Visual Resources

16 Significant growth-related impacts to aesthetic/visual resources may include changes to the 17 visual characteristics and resources of the area through the development of open space and 18 further urbanization of hillside and natural areas. Development could result in substantial 19 adverse effects on scenic vistas, substantially damage scenic resources, or substantially degrade 20 the existing visual character or quality of individual sites and their surroundings. Further, 21 potential development within the CLWA service area could also result in an increase in the amount 22 of night lighting and unwanted glare in presently undeveloped areas. Haphazard development 23 could obstruct scenic views of, and from, the project area and contribute to a “confused urban 24 image.”

25 Mitigation Measures

26 Impacts to aesthetic/visual resources would be reduced by local governments implementing 27 existing policies of the County of Los Angeles and City of Santa Clarita general and area plans 28 (see Table 4.2-1 for a listing of applicable policies). Impacts may not be fully mitigable to less 29 than significant, however, depending on the magnitude of future development and its specific 30 location. Specific mechanisms for implementing these policies would be determined in the 31 course of project-specific environmental review, as required under CEQA. Implementing these 32 plans and policies would also reduce less-than-significant project impacts.

33 4.2.2 Agricultural Resources

The State of California Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program has designated approximately 3 percent of the mapped area within the CLWA service area as either Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. The amount of land formally designated for agricultural uses within the Santa Clarita Valley planning area is small, however (roughly 1 square mile [City of Santa Clarita 1991a, General Plan Map]) and located in the west, near the Ventura County border. A substantial portion of the agricultural land in the Los Angeles County portion of the service area has been recently re-designated by the County of Los Angeles to other land uses defined in the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan, west of the Project area. Indirect impacts to

CLWA – Honby Pipeline 4-3 Draft EIR 4 — Growth-Inducing Effects and Growth-Related Impacts

agricultural resources from development would not be significant because most, if not all, agricultural land in the Santa Clarita Valley is located outside of the area served by the proposed pipeline.

1 Mitigation Measures

2 No mitigation measures are required, because no significant impacts would occur.

3 4.2.3 Air Quality

4 Population, employment, and manufacturing growth would result in increased air pollutant 5 emissions for which the SCAB does not currently meet federal or state standards. Toxic 6 emissions may result from some industrial development. Additionally, mobile emissions from 7 vehicle operations would increase, including localized CO concentrations and PM10 emissions. 8 Fugitive dust emissions would also result from construction.

9 A determination of the Project’s consistency with the 2003 AQMP, which includes assumptions 10 and objectives that demonstrate future attainment of the ambient air quality standards within 11 the project region, is largely dependent on the planning factors selected to estimate growth 12 served by the Project. The SCAQMD used SCAG demographic and economic factors found in 13 the 2001 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) to forecast future emissions in the 2003 AQMP. At 14 that time, SCAG projected that the 2025 population for the Santa Clarita Valley would be 15 352,382, with 126,563 households (personal communication, P. Gutierrez 2003). The Project can 16 serve approximately 154,900 persons. Adding this to the 2000 population of 190,000 produces 17 an estimated population of 344,900, which is lower than the SCAG 2025 projection included in 18 the 2001 RTP. Therefore, the Project would be consistent with the 2003 AQMP.

19 Other impacts would be significant because development could violate air quality standards or 20 contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. It also could result in a 21 cumulatively considerable net increase in certain criteria pollutants for which the region is in 22 non-attainment, and it could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. 23 Certain types of industrial development could create objectionable odors affecting a substantial 24 number of people if constructed without appropriate mitigations.

25 Mitigation Measures

26 Impacts to air quality would be reduced by local governments implementing existing policies of 27 the County of Los Angeles and City of Santa Clarita general and area plans. Additionally, 28 compliance with SCAQMD plans also would reduce air quality impacts (see Table 4.2-1). All 29 impacts may not be reduced to less-than-significant levels, particularly since the Project area 30 does not currently meet federal or state standards. Specific mechanisms for implementing these 31 plans and policies would be determined in the course of project-specific environmental review, 32 as required under CEQA. Implementing these plans and policies would also reduce less-than- 33 significant project impacts.

4-4 CLWA – Honby Pipeline Draft EIR Table 4.2-1. Summary of Mitigation Measures from Plans and Policies Page 1 of 2 Environmental APPLICABLE PLANS AND POLICIES Resources County of Los Angeles –General County of Los Angeles - Santa City of Santa Clarita – General Other Plans Plan Clarita Area Plan Plan Aesthetic/Visual Scenic Highways Element Circulation Element contains Community Design Element None Resources Circulation policies 9 through 14. policies 4.1 - 4.3 policies 1.1 through 1.3, 2.1 through Conservation and Open Space Community Design Element 2.6, 3.1 through 3.6, 4.1 through 4.4, Element policies 18, 19, and 24 policies (1.1, 2.1, 3.1, 3.2 through 3.7) 5.1 through 5.3, 6.1 through 6.8, 7.1 through 7.4, 8.1 through 8.5, 9.1 through 9.10, 10.1 through 10.5, and 11.1 through 11.9 Agricultural Land Use policy 7, 20 and 21. None None None Resources Conservation and Open Space Element policy 7 Air Quality Conservation and Open Space Environmental Resources Air Quality Element 1.1, 1.2, 7.1, 8.1 SCAQMD 1997 Air Quality Element policy 1 Management Element policy 1.8 through 8.3, 9.1, 14.1, 15.1, and 15.2. Management Plan and the 1999 Mobile emissions are controlled by Revised Ozone Plan policies 1.1, 1.2, 12.1 through 12.3, SCAQMD proposed comprehensive 2.1 through 2.5, 3.1, 4.1, 5.1, 6.1, 10.1, plan update, Proposed 2003 Air 10.2, 11.1, and 11.2 Quality Management Plan Biological Conservation and Open Space Land Use Element policy 5.3 and Land Use Element policy 1.10. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, Resources Element policy 8 and 13 5.4. Open Space and Conservation Section 10 of the Endangered Environmental Resources Element policies 1.1, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 3.1, Species Act, and Section 1600 of the Management Element policies 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 5.5, and 7.7 Fish and Game Code 1.1through 1.4, 1.9, and 2.1 through 2.3 Cultural Resources Conservation and Open Space Environmental Resources Open Space and Conservation None Element policies 20 through 23 Management Element policy 1.6 and Element policies 10.1 through 10.6 1.7 Geology, Soils, Land Use Element policies 7, 25, 26, Land Use Element policies 4.1, 4.2. Open Space and Conservation State of California Uniform Building and Minerals and 28. Safety Element policy 3.3, and 4.2. Element policies 2.2, and 5.1. Code. Safety Element policies 1 through 7, Environmental Resources Safety Element policies 1.3 through 8, and 10. Management Element policy 3.3 1.6, 1.8, 1.12, 1.13 Conservation and Open Space Element policy 17 Hazards and Conservation and Open Space Land Use Element policy 4.1. Safety Element policies 2.1, 3.1 None Hazardous Element policy 29. Environmental Resources through 3.10, and 4.1 through 4.5 Materials Safety Element’s Wildland and Management Element policy 4.3. Urban Fire Hazards policies 15 Safety Element policy 2.1 through 19. Hazardous Materials policies 20 through 24. Emergency Response, Preparedness and Recovery policies 25 through 35. Research and Safety Information Systems policies 36 through 38 Table 4.2-1. Summary of Mitigation Measures from Plans and Policies Page 2 of 2 Environmental APPLICABLE PLANS AND POLICIES Resources County of Los Angeles –General County of Los Angeles - Santa City of Santa Clarita – General Other Plans Plan Clarita Area Plan Plan Hydrology and Conservation and Open Space Public Services and Facilities Open Space and Conservation The LARWQCB Basin Plan and Water Quality Element policies 4 through 6, and Element policies 1.1, 1.2, 3.3, and 4.1 Element policies 5.1 through 5.3, 5.6, Santa Clara River Basin Plan 26. and 7.1 through 7.15, and 7.3. Safety Element policies 11 through Public Services, Facilities, and 14 Utilities Element policies 1.2, 1.3 through 1.7, and 1.8. Public Safety Element policy 1.10 Land Use and Land Use Element policies Land Use Element policies Land Use Element policies None Planning Noise Noise Element policies 1 though 16 Noise Element policies 1.2 and 1.3 Noise Element policies 1.2 and 1.4, None 2.1 through 2.8, 3.1 through 4.3 Population and Population projections Population projections and Land Population projections and Land None Housing Use Element policies Use Element policies Public Services None Land Use Element policy 7.1 Land Use Element policies 1.2 Leroy F. Green School Facilities Act through 1.5. Public Services, of 1998 (SB 50) provides a statewide Facilities, and Utilities Element 1.2 financing program for school through 1.5, 1.14, 1.16 through 1.18, facilities 2.1, and 2.2 Recreation Conservation and Open Space Environmental Resources Parks and Recreation Element Los Angeles County Ordinance Element policies 30 through 33 Management Element policies 5.1 policy 4.1 21.24.340 et seq., the Parkland through 5.7. Dedication Ordinance, requires that Trails policies 6.1 through 6.6. the subdivider of a residential Bikeways policies 7.1 through 7.6 subdivision “shall provide local park space to serve the subdivision, pay a fee in lieu of provision of such park land . . provide local park space containing less than the required obligation but developed with amenities equal in value to the park fee, or do a combination of the above. Transportation Transportation Element Circulation Circulation Element policies 1.1 Land Use Element policies 1.1, Southern California Association of and Circulation policies 1 through 41. through 1.7, and 2.1 through 2.3 1.8,and 1.9 Governments – 2004 Regional Plan of Bikeways policy 2 Transportation Plan Utilities/Service Public Facilities policies 1 through Public Services and Facilities Public Services, Facilities, and None Systems 10, 12 through 15, 17 through 20, Element policies 2.1 and 2.2. Utilities Element policies 1.2 and 25 Land Use Element policy 7.1 through 1.5, 1.14, 1.16 through 1.18, 2.3, 2.6, 2.7, 5.1, and 5.6

4 — Growth-Inducing Effects and Growth-Related Impacts

1 4.2.4 Biological Resources

2 The Project would transport water that could be used for land development, thereby indirectly 3 affecting biological resources. Impacts to threatened and endangered species and other 4 sensitive biological resources within the CLWA service area, including wetlands, generally 5 would be adverse due to the conversion and degradation of habitat. Although increased water 6 use may increase certain types of habitat areas (e.g., through increased runoff) resulting in a 7 positive impact to wetlands, related land development would entail the loss, degradation, or 8 fragmentation of habitats, which may result in local native plant and wildlife populations, 9 including sensitive species, being reduced in size and made increasingly vulnerable to local 10 extinction. Non-native species introduced through ornamental landscaping or habitat 11 disturbances could compete with native species or invade previously disturbed habitats, 12 including those of special status species. Additionally, development could disrupt established 13 wildlife corridors and impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. These impacts would be 14 significant.

15 Increased wastewater treatment plant discharges, additional runoff from impervious surfaces 16 (i.e., surfaces that are incapable of being penetrated by moisture) and new runoff from the 17 irrigation of urban landscaping could increase the amount of wetlands and aquatic habitat 18 below such discharges. However, water quality below these discharges could be degraded 19 from pollutants (both point and non-point sources) carried in these waters. This could have a 20 substantial adverse effect on riparian habitat and sensitive fish and amphibian populations, 21 which would be a significant impact.

22 Development could also result in conflicts with local policies and ordinances protecting 23 biological resources, which would be a significant impact. As noted in section 3.4, Biological 24 Resources, however, there are no adopted HCPs or NCCPs within the CLWA service area. 25 Federal and State ESA compliance, as necessary, has been accomplished on a development- 26 specific basis.

27 Mitigation Measures

28 Impacts to biological resources would be reduced by local governments implementing the 29 existing policies of the County of Los Angeles and City of Santa Clarita general and area plans, 30 although all impacts may not be reduced to less than significant depending on the magnitude 31 and specific location of development (see Table 4.2-1). Specific mechanisms for implementing 32 these policies would be determined in the course of project-specific environmental review, as 33 required under CEQA. Implementing these plans and policies would also reduce less-than- 34 significant project impacts. Regulatory agencies such as the Corps (which has regulatory 35 authority over wetlands), USFWS, and CDFG may also impose permit conditions that reduce 36 significant impacts.

37 4.2.5 Cultural Resources

38 As discussed in the EIR for the City of Santa Clarita General Plan, excavation and grading 39 activities associated with future development could result in significant impacts to 40 archaeological, historical, and paleontological resources. Development also could result in

CLWA – Honby Pipeline 4-7 Draft EIR 4 — Growth-Inducing Effects and Growth-Related Impacts

1 significant impacts associated with the disturbance of human remains. Significant impacts on 2 cultural resources may include the following:

3 • grading of prehistoric archaeological or paleontological sites, thereby demolishing the 4 site and eliminating its ability to yield important information; 5 • construction of new buildings that could impair the setting of a historic structure or 6 district, thereby altering the structure’s or district’s ability to embody distinctive 7 characteristics of a type or period; or 8 • excavation of utility trenches for new developments that uncover human remains or a 9 paleontologic deposit, thereby destroying those remains.

10 Mitigation Measures

11 Impacts to cultural resources would be mitigated to less than significant by local governments 12 implementing the policies of the County of Los Angeles and City of Santa Clarita general and 13 area plans since the policies contain measures for either avoiding impacts to such resources or 14 providing adequate documentation of the resources (see Table 4.2-1). Specific mechanisms for 15 implementing these policies would be determined in the course of project-specific 16 environmental review, as required under CEQA. Implementing these plans and policies would 17 also reduce less-than-significant project impacts.

18 4.2.6 Geology, Soils, and Minerals

19 The County of Los Angeles and City of Santa Clarita general plans indicate that the CLWA 20 service area contains a number of seismic hazards. Several active faults located in the general 21 Project area, such as the San Gabriel, San Andreas, San Fernando, and Sierra Madre faults, 22 could cause structural damage as a result of ground shaking, subsidence, and liquefaction. The 23 San Gabriel fault is also capable of causing structural damage as a result of ground rupture. 24 Depending on the location, new construction within the CLWA service area could expose 25 people or structures to adverse effects, including risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture 26 of a known earthquake fault; strong seismic ground shaking; seismic-related ground failure, 27 including liquefaction; and landslides. Liquefaction is most likely to occur in areas of the 28 CLWA service area that are saturated at very shallow depths, such as adjacent to the Santa 29 Clara River. Due to the rugged, high relief of the foothill and mountainous areas surrounding 30 the Santa Clarita Valley, landslides and unstable slopes are present in many areas of the CLWA 31 service area. The impacts on development are dependent upon the type of construction, 32 proximity to faults, degree of slope, bedrock orientation within slopes, and soil type of 33 individual project sites. Impacts throughout the CLWA service area could be significant.

34 There also is a potential for the CLWA service area to contain geologic units or soils that are 35 unstable. Future development projects could be subject to on- or off-site landslides, lateral 36 spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. This would be a significant impact.

37 As noted in the EIR for the City of Santa Clarita General Plan, new construction could result in 38 localized soil erosion on or adjacent to future development sites, which could result in the loss 39 of topsoil and siltation of downstream drainages, creeks, and the Santa Clara River. This would 40 be a significant impact.

4-8 CLWA – Honby Pipeline Draft EIR 4 — Growth-Inducing Effects and Growth-Related Impacts

1 The County of Los Angeles General Plan and City of Santa Clarita General Plan indicate that 2 the CLWA service area contains expansive soils. Future development could be located on such 3 soils, creating substantial risks to life or property. This would be a significant impact.

4 It is anticipated that sewers would serve future development in the urbanized portions of the 5 CLWA service area, although the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems 6 may be required in outlying areas. Impacts could be significant if construction were to occur on 7 soils that were incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative 8 wastewater disposal systems.

9 The County of Los Angeles General Plan and City of Santa Clarita General Plan indicate that 10 the CLWA service area contains mineral resources such as gold, oil, and aggregate. The EIR for 11 the City of Santa Clarita General Plan notes that if development encroached on mineral resource 12 areas, the extraction of these resources could be incompatible if development is allowed in such 13 areas. To the extent that future development resulted in the loss of availability of a known 14 mineral resource that was of value to the residents of the region and state or the loss of 15 availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general 16 plan, specific plan, or other land use plan, impacts would be significant.

17 Mitigation Measures

18 Impacts to geology, soils, and minerals would be mitigated to less than significant by local 19 governments implementing the existing policies of the County of Los Angeles and City of Santa 20 Clarita general and area plans since these policies contain adequate measure to avoid or reduce 21 such impacts (see Table 4.2-1). Specific mechanisms for implementing these policies would be 22 determined in the course of project-specific environmental review, as required under CEQA. 23 Implementing these plans and policies also would reduce less-than-significant project impacts.

24 4.2.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

25 Operations of past and existing businesses and industries in the CLWA service area may have 26 resulted in soil contamination from the use of hazardous materials, spills, or disposal of these 27 materials. Therefore, depending on the specific location, new development on previously 28 contaminated sites may require the removal or remediation of soils before property 29 development can commence. New commercial and residential development also may result in 30 increased transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials, along with increased risks of 31 hazardous substance releases. Certain types of development could impair implementation of or 32 physically interfere with emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans, and could 33 result in increased exposure to wildland fires where urbanization is adjacent to such areas. 34 These impacts would be significant. No airport-related risks would occur because the CLWA 35 service area is not located within an airport land use plan area; nor is it in the vicinity of a 36 public airport, public use airport, or private airstrip.

37 Mitigation Measures

38 Impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials would be mitigated to less than 39 significant by local governments implementing the following policies of the County of Los 40 Angeles and City of Santa Clarita general and area plans since these contain adequate measures 41 to avoid or reduce such impacts (see Table 4.2-1). Specific mechanisms for implementing these

CLWA – Honby Pipeline 4-9 Draft EIR 4 — Growth-Inducing Effects and Growth-Related Impacts

1 policies would be determined in the course of project-specific environmental review, as 2 required under CEQA. Implementing these plans and policies would also reduce less-than- 3 significant project impacts.

4 4.2.8 Hydrology and Water Quality

5 As local purveyors become increasingly dependent on State Water Project (SWP) supplies, 6 which are variable and may be reduced during dry years, local groundwater resources may be 7 required to support a larger portion of the total demand from future development during 8 periods of reduced SWP supplies. Should it occur, this short-term reliance on groundwater 9 resources would be considered a significant impact since it could result in the substantial 10 depletion of groundwater supplies on a short-term basis in dry hydrologic years.

11 Increased municipal and industrial use of water would increase the amount of water treated at 12 the existing and planned raw and wastewater treatment plants. This could result in additional 13 discharges from the wastewater treatment plants and increased flows in the portion of the Santa 14 Clara River west of Interstate 5. In the future, some of the water presently being discharged 15 into the Santa Clara River could be diverted prior to discharge for landscape irrigation and 16 other permitted uses of reclaimed water within the CLWA service area. Impacts would be 17 significant if future development violated any water quality standard or waste discharge 18 requirements.

19 The Project would not indirectly affect drinking water quality in the CLWA service area, but it 20 could adversely affect the water quality of surface waters through increased discharges by the 21 local wastewater treatment plants. While the future inflow water to the water reclamation 22 plants would have approximately the same concentration of chloride and other constituents as 23 present today, the use of the additional water transported by the proposed pipeline would 24 increase the load of chloride and other constituents treated and discharged by these treatment 25 plants. The Los Angeles County Sanitation District recently has adopted an ordinance, 26 however, that prohibits the installation and use of new self-regenerating water softeners in the 27 Santa Clarita Valley, which would reduce the amount of chloride load in the watershed. The 28 potential indirect impact would be less than significant because new development would be 29 required to comply with this ordinance.

30 Future development within the CLWA service area could increase the amount of impervious 31 surface (roads, buildings, other paved areas). This could reduce percolation of rainwater to 32 groundwater in the urbanized portions of the CLWA service areas, alter surface flows, and 33 increase the amount and rate of stormwater runoff through storm sewers or other engineered 34 drainages. However, most surface runoff enters the Santa Clara River and recharges the 35 Alluvial Aquifer. As noted in the EIR for the City of Santa Clarita General Plan, development 36 could affect water quality from non-point source discharges. The Project would result in 37 significant indirect impacts from increased urban runoff. The increase in impervious surface 38 also could affect the peak flow rates of floodwaters and could increase flooding on- or off-site of 39 future development. Increased flooding and peak flow rates could result in substantial erosion 40 or siltation on- or off-site. Impacts could be significant.

41 If new development were allowed in floodplains, it could expose additional persons and 42 property to flood hazards and would impede or redirect flood flows. Development, in

4-10 CLWA – Honby Pipeline Draft EIR 4 — Growth-Inducing Effects and Growth-Related Impacts

1 particular the placement of impervious surfaces (i.e., surfaces that can not be penetrated by 2 moisture), in areas critical to the recharge of the Alluvial Aquifer and Saugus Formation would 3 not alter the storage capabilities of these aquifers, but it could reduce the rate of aquifer 4 recharge. These would be considered significant impacts.

5 Seiches (creation of large waves on a lake or reservoir) could occur as a result of earthquake- 6 induced ground shaking or landslides in Castaic Lake, Pyramid Lake, or Bouquet Reservoir, 7 potentially resulting in flooding of downstream communities. Mudflows also could occur, 8 particularly in mountainous areas, as a result of new development.

9 Mitigation Measures

10 Impacts to water resources would be mitigated to less than significant by local governments 11 implementing the policies of the County of Los Angeles and City of Santa Clarita general and 12 area plans since they contain adequate measures for reducing or avoiding impacts (see Table 13 4.2-1). Specific mechanisms for implementing these policies would be determined in the course 14 of project-specific environmental review, as required under CEQA. Implementing these plans 15 and policies would also reduce less-than-significant project impacts. Additionally, compliance 16 with the LARWQCB Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the Coastal Watersheds of Los 17 Angeles and Ventura Counties, as amended, also would reduce significant and less-than- 18 significant impacts.

19 4.2.9 Land Use and Planning

20 The residential, commercial, and industrial development that could occur in the future in the 21 CLWA service area could convert undeveloped or agricultural portions of the service area to 22 some form of urbanized development. While adopted policies and plans of local jurisdictions 23 would reduce most potential conflicts between incompatible uses, these policies and plans may 24 not eliminate building in some sensitive areas such as hillside management areas, open space 25 areas, and sensitive wildlife habitat areas. In addition, as more land within the CLWA service 26 area is developed, there may be more pressure to build in areas that have greater constraints, 27 such as hillside areas, and to convert open space to developed uses. Depending on the location 28 and type of development, there is the potential for new development to physically divide an 29 established community. Without adequate mitigation, there also is a potential for some 30 conflicts with adopted land use plans, policies, or regulations that were adopted for the purpose 31 of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. These land use impacts would be considered 32 to be significant. No HCPs or NCCPs have been adopted within the CLWA service area. 33 Federal and California ESA compliance has been accomplished on a development-specific basis. 34 The County of Los Angeles has identified and protected areas of particular environmental 35 concern through the designation of five specific SEAs in the Santa Clarita Valley. City and 36 county planning agencies are responsible for creating land use plans that direct where 37 development should occur and for enforcing those plans. While CLWA has the responsibility 38 to provide wholesale water to water retailers within the CLWA service area, it does not approve 39 the locations of new development. The Project would transport water that could be used by 40 new development in the CLWA service area, but it would not affect the specific locations of 41 planned development.

CLWA – Honby Pipeline 4-11 Draft EIR 4 — Growth-Inducing Effects and Growth-Related Impacts

1 Mitigation Measures

2 Impacts to land use and planning would be mitigated to less than significant by local 3 governments implementing the policies of the County of Los Angeles and City of Santa Clarita 4 general and area plans since they contain adequate measures to reduce or avoid such impacts 5 (see Table 4.2-1). Specific mechanisms for implementing these policies would be determined in 6 the course of project-specific environmental review, as required under CEQA. Implementing 7 these plans and policies would also reduce less-than-significant project impacts.

8 4.2.10 Noise

9 Development would result in an increase in ambient noise levels due to the potential increase in 10 associated traffic. Long-term increases in noise levels could also be associated with commercial 11 and industrial development. Residential areas and other sensitive receptors near transportation 12 corridors and other noise generators may experience increased noise. Development would also 13 result in short-term increases in local noise levels from construction and grading activities. 14 Impacts would be significant if noise generated were in excess of local standards or if a 15 substantial temporary or permanent increase in noise occurred. Impacts would also be 16 significant if development resulted in exposure of persons to excessive groundborne noise or 17 vibration.

18 Mitigation Measures

19 Impacts to noise would be mitigated to less than significant by local governments implementing 20 the policies of the County of Los Angeles and City of Santa Clarita general and area plans since 21 they contain adequate measures to reduce or avoid such impacts (see Table 4.2-1). Specific 22 mechanisms for implementing these policies would be determined in the course of project- 23 specific environmental review, as required under CEQA. Implementing these plans and 24 policies would also reduce less-than-significant project impacts.

25 4.2.11 Population and Housing

26 As described above, it is assumed that the Project could serve approximately 154,900 persons 27 and 51,600 housing units. Impacts would be significant because the Project could indirectly 28 induce substantial population growth in the CLWA service area. The Project would not 29 displace substantial numbers of existing houses or substantial numbers of people.

30 Mitigation Measures

31 Impacts to population and housing would be mitigated to less than significant by local 32 governments implementing the policies of the County of Los Angeles and City of Santa Clarita 33 general and area plans since they contain adequate measures to reduce or avoid such impacts. 34 Applicable plans and policies are listed in Table 4.2-1. Specific mechanisms for implementing 35 these policies would be determined in the course of project-specific environmental review, as 36 required under CEQA. Implementing these plans and policies would also reduce less-than- 37 significant project impacts.

4-12 CLWA – Honby Pipeline Draft EIR 4 — Growth-Inducing Effects and Growth-Related Impacts

1 4.2.12 Public Services

2 Growth in the CLWA service area could result in impacts to the following public services:

3 Police - Increased demand for services from the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department 4 (which also contracts with the City of Santa Clarita to provide services) and the California 5 Highway Patrol would occur. This would include additional staffing, facilities, and equipment, 6 and could affect response times to handle calls for service. Any special problems posed by new 7 developments (e.g., roadway access or terrain) would be considered at the time the 8 development is reviewed. Impacts could be significant since the new development could 9 require new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause 10 significant environmental impacts.

11 Fire - Increased demand for services from the Los Angeles County Fire Department and from 12 private providers of emergency response/paramedic services for additional staffing, facilities, 13 and equipment would occur and could affect response times to handle calls for service. Any 14 special problems posed by new developments (e.g., roadway access or terrain) would be 15 considered at the time the development is reviewed. Additional considerations such as the 16 location of a proposed new development in moderate or high fire hazard zones, the adequacy of 17 water supplies/fire flows, and types of vegetative cover would be taken into account. In 18 addition, state and county fire codes, standards, and guidelines exist to which all developments 19 must adhere. Impacts could be significant, since the new development could require new or 20 physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant 21 environmental impacts.

22 Schools - Growth would generate increased enrollments and the need for additional staffing, 23 facilities, and resources in some or all of the school districts in the CLWA service area. All 24 school districts in the service area have reported that they are either at capacity or are 25 experiencing overcrowding, and temporary facilities are being used in every district. However, 26 newly built schools since 2002 have eased the overcrowding to some degree. Additional 27 enrollments would be considered at the time new development is reviewed, and would include 28 input from affected school districts. Impacts are considered to be significant based on current 29 capacity limitations since additional schools would likely have to be built, which could cause 30 significant environmental impacts.

31 Libraries - Growth would generate increased demand for library services and associated need 32 for staffing, facilities, and resources (books, magazines, periodicals, etc.) in some or all of the 33 libraries in the CLWA service area. Library services provided by the County of Los Angeles 34 Library Department in the Santa Clarita Valley are currently below planning standards, based 35 on a planning standard of two material items per capita and 0.389 gross square feet of space per 36 capita. Additional demands, including cumulative demands for square feet of library space and 37 related resources would be considered at the time new development is reviewed. Impacts on 38 libraries are considered to be significant based on current shortages, since additional libraries 39 would likely have to be built, which could cause significant environmental impacts.

CLWA – Honby Pipeline 4-13 Draft EIR 4 — Growth-Inducing Effects and Growth-Related Impacts

1 Mitigation Measures

2 Impacts to public services would be mitigated to less than significant by local governments 3 implementing the policies of the County of Los Angeles and City of Santa Clarita general and 4 area plans since they contain adequate measures to reduce or avoid such impacts (see Table 4.2- 5 1). Specific mechanisms for implementing these policies would be determined in the course of 6 project-specific environmental review, as required under CEQA. Implementing these plans and 7 policies would also reduce less-than-significant project impacts.

8 4.2.13 Recreation

9 Significant growth-related impacts to recreational resources may include increased demand for 10 recreational resources, such as public parks and trails and other recreation areas. This demand 11 could exacerbate existing shortfalls in local parkland and may outpace the ability of public 12 agencies to provide these resources.

13 Mitigation Measures

14 Impacts to recreation would be mitigated to less than significant by local governments 15 implementing the policies of the County of Los Angeles and City of Santa Clarita general and 16 area plans since they contain adequate measures to reduce or avoid such impacts (see Table 4.2- 17 1). Specific mechanisms for implementing these policies would be determined in the course of 18 project-specific environmental review, as required under CEQA. Implementing these plans and 19 policies would also reduce less-than-significant project impacts.

20 4.2.14 Transportation and Circulation

21 Growth in the CLWA service area would result in the following:

22 • Daily trips in the service area would potentially increase over current levels. 23 • There would be a related need for new private or public roadways, parking facilities, 24 and for subsequent road maintenance. 25 • Increased demand for transit systems could occur, and there may be an alteration of 26 present patterns of circulation. 27 • Roadways with existing capacity constraints could require upgrading or may experience 28 further deterioration in levels of service.

29 The EIR for the City of Santa Clarita General Plan noted significant, potentially unmitigable 30 impacts at certain isolated road segments from growth allowed under the General Plan. The 31 segments most likely to be significantly affected are Bouquet Canyon Road near Haskell 32 Canyon Road, McBean Parkway north of State Route 126, Soledad Canyon Road between Sierra 33 Highway and Whites Canyon Road, Rye Canyon Road east of Interstate 5, and San Fernando 34 Road between Newhall Avenue and State Route 14. In general, growth-related impacts would 35 be significant because they could cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the 36 existing load and capacity of the street system and could cause an exceedance of an established 37 level of service standard. Specific developments could substantially increase hazards due to a 38 design feature, or result in inadequate emergency access or parking capacity. Development also

4-14 CLWA – Honby Pipeline Draft EIR 4 — Growth-Inducing Effects and Growth-Related Impacts

1 could conflict with adopted plans and policies or programs supporting alternative 2 transportation. Air traffic is projected to increase throughout the southern California region 3 regardless of whether the Project is implemented, and new or expanded airports are being 4 evaluated. Planning efforts for these projects would be required to demonstrate that the new 5 locations/expansions do not result in substantial safety risks.

6 Mitigation Measures

7 Impacts to transportation and circulation would be reduced, but not necessarily mitigated to 8 less than significant, by local governments implementing the policies of the County of Los 9 Angeles and City of Santa Clarita general and area plans due to the delay between the time 10 improvements are needed and the time they can be provided (see Table 4.2-1). Specific 11 mechanisms for implementing these policies would be determined in the course of project- 12 specific environmental review, as required under CEQA. Implementing these plans and 13 policies would also reduce less-than-significant project impacts. Impacts also would be reduced 14 by compliance with the SCAG 2001 RTP.

15 4.2.15 Utilities/Service Systems

16 Solid Waste. Growth would generate increased demand for solid waste disposal services due to 17 construction-related and operational impacts of new land development. Los Angeles County 18 operates several landfills that serve the CLWA service area. The location and volume of waste 19 generation, including cumulative demands, provision of recycling programs, and existing 20 landfill capacity and expansion plans, would be considered at the time new development is 21 reviewed. Impacts are considered significant, however, because an adequate supply of landfill 22 space has not been ensured for the future and would remain so unless additional landfill space 23 or other disposal alternatives are approved.

24 Water Treatment. Growth would increase the need for potable water and consequently create an 25 increased demand for water treatment. The proposed pipeline would transport water treated at 26 the RVWTP, which has a current rated peak capacity to treat 30 mgd. Its annual peak capacity 27 is 33,607 AF, and its estimated average annual capacity is 16,803. When the RVWTP capacity is 28 increased to meet the next increment of anticipated growth (a proposed expansion from 30 mgd 29 to 60 mgd) in the CLWA service area, the proposed pipeline peak and average capacity would 30 exceed the capacity of the treatment plant. These impacts were evaluated programmatically in 31 the Capital Improvements Program EIR (CLWA 1988b) and addressed with regard to water 32 supply and reliability in CLWA’s UWMP (CLWA 2000b).

33 The proposed pipeline would remove an obstacle to future growth, leading to the need to 34 further expand the treatment capacity of the RVWTP. This would be a significant, potentially 35 unavoidable impact, because the expansion of this facility could cause significant 36 environmental effects, including significant or less-than-significant impacts to aesthetics, air 37 quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous 38 materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, noise, 39 transportation, and utilities and service systems.

40 Wastewater. Growth would result in an increase in wastewater generation and demand for 41 wastewater treatment primarily at facilities operated by County Sanitation District No. 26 and

CLWA – Honby Pipeline 4-15 Draft EIR 4 — Growth-Inducing Effects and Growth-Related Impacts

1 District No. 32 in Los Angeles County, which service the Santa Clarita Valley. These two 2 districts jointly operate a regional system known as the SCVJSS for which the 2015 Joint 3 Sewerage System Facilities System Plan has been approved (LACSD 1998). The SCVJSS has a 4 current combined capacity (from the Saugus and Valencia treatment plants) of 28.1 million 5 gallons per day (mgd). The System Plan identified the need for further expansion to the 6 practical site capacity of 34.1 mgd by 2010, which has been extended to 2020. The deadline for 7 the final expansion capacity (i.e., for increasing the capacity by 6 mgd from 28.1 to 34.1 mgd) 8 has been extended to 2020 (personal communication, S. Highter 2004). The ultimate expansion 9 is intended to serve a population of 321,000.

10 Assuming that roughly 50 percent of the increase in delivered water requires treatment in a 11 wastewater treatment plant, this would represent approximately 22.5 mgd (49,960 AF x 0.5 = 12 24,980 AF x 0.33 =8,243 mg per year divided by 365 = 22.5 mgd).

13 Based on per capita demand, if the ultimate wastewater treatment plant expansion to 34.1 mgd 14 is intended to serve 321,000 persons, the 28.1 mgd of treatment capacity would be able to serve 15 approximately 265,000 persons. The Project can serve approximately 154,900 persons. Adding 16 this to the Santa Clarita Valley’s 2000 population of 190,000 produces an estimated population 17 of 344,900, which would exceed the existing and planned capacity of the treatment plants. This 18 would be a significant, potentially unavoidable, impact, because it would require the 19 construction of wastewater treatment facilities or the expansion of existing facilities, the 20 construction of which could cause significant environmental effects, including significant or 21 less-than-significant impacts, to aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, 22 geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and 23 planning, mineral resources, noise, transportation, and utilities and service systems.

24 Storm Water Drainage. New construction would likely require the construction of new storm 25 water drainage facilities or the expansion of existing facilities, which could cause significant 26 environmental impacts.

27 Mitigation Measures

28 Impacts to utilities and service systems generally would be mitigated to less than significant by 29 local governments implementing the policies of the County of Los Angeles and City of Santa 30 Clarita general and area plans since they contain adequate measures to reduce or avoid impacts. 31 Impacts to solid waste disposal, however, may not be avoidable unless additional landfill 32 capacity is approved and constructed (see Table 4.2-1). Specific mechanisms for implementing 33 these policies would be determined in the course of project-specific environmental review, as 34 required under CEQA. Implementing these plans and policies would also reduce less-than- 35 significant project impacts. Impacts to water treatment and wastewater may be unavoidable, 36 because expanding capacity to meet the projected demand could result in additional 37 environmental impacts.

4-16 CLWA – Honby Pipeline Draft EIR 1 5.0 CONSISTENCY WITH ADOPTED PLANS AND POLICIES

2 CEQA Guidelines section 15125(d) requires that a proposed project be compared to existing 3 general and regional plans. The following sections address the consistency of the Project with 4 adopted plans and policies of the local agency that has planning authority over the area directly 5 affected by the Project, the City of Santa Clarita. Project consistency with the SCAG Regional 6 Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG) and RTP also is addressed.

7 The discussion also focuses on growth management policies and general policies related to 8 water supply and infrastructure for development of planning agencies where indirect 9 development could occur (i.e., within portions of the CLWA service area located in the City of 10 Santa Clarita and the County of Los Angeles). A discussion of Project consistency with growth 11 projections in the relevant regional, general, or area plans, including those of SCAG, the County 12 of Los Angeles, and the City of Santa Clarita is included. CLWA’s UWMP (CLWA 2000b) is 13 addressed in section 5.6 below. Consistency with relevant air quality management plans is 14 included in section 3.1, Air Quality.

15 5.1 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT’S 16 REGIONAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND GUIDE (RCPG) AND 17 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN (RTP), AND COMPASS 18 GROWTH VISION PRINCIPLES

19 Scoping comments received from SCAG requested a review of the policies listed below. SCAG 20 is a regional planning agency whose functions include regional transportation planning, air 21 quality planning, demographic projections, and the review of projects of regional significance to 22 determine consistency with regional plans, including SCAG’s RCPG and RTP. The numbered 23 policies and other text shown in italics below are taken directly from SCAG’s comments on the 24 NOP for this EIR.

25 5.1.1 Consistency with Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide Policies

26 Growth Management Chapter (GMC)

27 3.01 The population, housing, and jobs forecasts which are adopted by SCAG’s Regional Council (RC) 28 and that reflect local plans and policies, shall be used by SCAG in all phases of implementation 29 and review.

30 As discussed in section 5.1.5, the population that could be served by the Project would not 31 result in an exceedance of SCAG’s adopted growth forecasts for the Santa Clarita Valley.

32 3.03 The timing, financing, and location of public facilities, utility systems, and transportation 33 systems shall be used by SCAG to implement the region’s growth policies.

34 The Project would be consistent with this policy because it would not conflict with the timing, 35 financing, and location of public facilities, utility systems, and transportation systems.

CLWA – Honby Pipeline 5-1 Draft EIR 5.0 Plans and Policies

1 GMC Policies Related to the RCPG Goal to Improve the Regional Standard of Living

2 The Growth Management goals to develop urban forms that enable individuals to spend less income on 3 housing cost, that minimize public and private development costs, and that enable firms to be more 4 competitive, strengthen the regional strategic goal to stimulate the regional economy. The evaluation of 5 the proposed project in relation to the following policies would be intended to guide efforts toward 6 achievement of such goals and does not infer regional interference with local land use powers.

7 3.05 Encourage patterns of urban development and land use, which reduce costs on infrastructure 8 construction and make better use of existing facilities.

9 The Project is intended to serve development that is projected to occur in the western portion of 10 the CLWA service area. It would not directly result in changes in patterns of urban 11 development or land use and would make use of existing facilities. Specifically, it would 12 transport water treated in the existing RVWTP to the Sand Canyon pump station, which is 13 currently under construction.

14 3.09 Support local jurisdictions’ efforts to minimize the cost of infrastructure and public service 15 delivery, and efforts to seek new sources of funding for development and the provision of services.

16 The Project is the construction of water system infrastructure in order to provide water to a 17 portion of the CLWA service area. It would be consistent with this policy because it would not 18 conflict with local jurisdictions’ efforts to minimize the cost of infrastructure and public service 19 delivery, or efforts to seek new sources of funding for development and the provision of 20 services.

21 3.10 Support local jurisdictions’ actions to minimize red tape and expedite the permitting process to 22 maintain economic vitality and competitiveness.

23 The Project would not change local jurisdictions’ permitting processes and would be consistent 24 with this policy.

25 GMC Policies Related to the RCPG Goal to Improve the Regional Quality of Life

26 The Growth Management goals to attain mobility and clean air goals and to develop urban forms that 27 enhance quality of life, that accommodate a diversity of life styles, that preserve open space and natural 28 resources, and that are aesthetically pleasing and preserve the character of communities, enhance the 29 regional strategic goal of maintaining the regional quality of life. The evaluation of the proposed project 30 in relation to the following policies would be intended to provide direction for plan implementation, and 31 does not allude to regional mandates.

32 3.12 Encourage existing or proposed local jurisdictions' programs aimed at designing land uses which 33 encourage the use of transit and thus reduce the need for roadway expansion, reduce the number of 34 auto trips and vehicle miles traveled, and create opportunities for residents to walk and bike.

35 The Project is not a land development project and would not directly result in added population 36 or otherwise directly result in increased vehicle trips or create opportunities for residents to 37 walk and bike. While CLWA has the responsibility to provide wholesale water to water 38 retailers within the CLWA service area and to provide infrastructure for its delivery, CLWA

5-2 CLWA – Honby Pipeline Draft EIR 5.0 Plans and Policies

1 does not have the authority to plan or approve new development in its service area. Rather, the 2 authority and responsibility for planning, approving, and mitigating the impacts of specific 3 development projects is primarily the responsibility of local governments and regulatory 4 agencies.

5 3.13 Encourage local jurisdictions' plans that maximize the use of existing urbanized areas accessible to 6 transit through infill and redevelopment.

7 While CLWA has the responsibility to provide wholesale water to water retailers within the 8 CLWA service area and to provide infrastructure for its delivery, CLWA does not have the 9 authority to develop land use plans. Rather, the authority and responsibility for developing 10 and approving such plans is the responsibility of local governments.

11 3.16 Encourage developments in and around activity centers, transportation corridors, underutilized 12 infrastructure systems, and areas needing recycling and redevelopment.

13 While CLWA has the responsibility to provide wholesale water to water retailers within the 14 CLWA service area and to provide infrastructure for its delivery, CLWA does not have the 15 authority to develop land use plans or approve development. Rather, the authority and 16 responsibility for developing and approving such plans is the responsibility of local 17 governments.

18 3.18 Encourage planned development in locations least likely to cause environmental impact.

19 While CLWA has the responsibility to provide wholesale water to water retailers within the 20 CLWA service area and to provide infrastructure for its delivery, CLWA does not have the 21 authority to approve new development in its service area. Rather, the authority and 22 responsibility for approving and mitigating the impacts of specific development projects is 23 primarily the responsibility of local governments and regulatory agencies.

24 3.20 Support the protection of vital resources such as wetlands, groundwater recharge areas, 25 woodlands, production lands, and land containing unique and endangered plants and animals.

26 The Project would not directly affect production lands or groundwater recharge areas. It could, 27 however, affect sensitive biological resources, but the implementation of mitigation measures 28 identified in section 3.2 of this EIR, would result in Project consistency with this policy. The 29 Project could result in indirect, growth-related effects to the above-referenced vital resources, as 30 discussed in section 4.2. CLWA does not have the authority to approve new development in its 31 service area, however. Rather, the authority and responsibility for approving and mitigating 32 the impacts of specific development projects is primarily the responsibility of local governments 33 and regulatory agencies. The Project would be consistent with this policy.

34 3.21 Encourage the implementation of measures aimed at the preservation and protection of recorded 35 and unrecorded cultural resources and archaeological sites.

36 The Project would not have a direct impact on known cultural resources; however, the project 37 description includes measures that would be implemented in the event of unexpected 38 discoveries. While the Project could result in indirect, growth-related effects on cultural

CLWA – Honby Pipeline 5-3 Draft EIR 5.0 Plans and Policies

1 resources, as discussed in section 4.2, CLWA does not have the authority to approve the 2 location of new development in its service area or to impose mitigation measures. Rather, the 3 authority and responsibility for approving and mitigating the impacts of specific development 4 projects is primarily the responsibility of local governments and regulatory agencies. The 5 Project would be consistent with this policy.

6 3.22 Discourage development, or encourage the use of special design requirements, in areas with steep 7 slopes, high fire, flood, and seismic hazards.

8 A small portion of the proposed pipeline north of the Santa Clara River would be constructed in 9 an area with steep slopes, and some of it would be located in the river’s floodplain. 10 Additionally, the pipeline would be subject to seismic hazards. The pipeline would be 11 constructed using appropriate engineering practices for such conditions, however, consistent 12 with the direction to “encourage the use of special design requirements.” While the Project 13 could result in indirect, growth-related development in areas with steep slopes and high fire, 14 flood, and seismic hazards, as discussed in section 4.2, CLWA does not have the authority to 15 approve the location of new development in its service area or to impose mitigation measures. 16 Rather, the authority and responsibility for approving and mitigating the impacts of specific 17 development projects is primarily the responsibility of local governments and regulatory 18 agencies. The Project would be consistent with this policy.

19 3.23 Encourage mitigation measures that reduce noise in certain locations, measures that would 20 reduce exposure to seismic hazards, minimize earthquake damage, and to develop emergency 21 response and recovery plans.

22 Mitigation measures have been included in this EIR that would reduce construction noise, and 23 measures have been included in the project description that would reduce impacts from seismic 24 hazard and minimize earthquake damage. The Project would not affect emergency response 25 and recovery plans. While the Project could result in indirect, growth-related development that 26 could result in exposure to seismic hazards, earthquake damage, or affect emergency response 27 plans, as discussed in section 4.2, CLWA does not have the authority to approve the location of 28 new development in its service area or to impose mitigation measures. Rather, the authority 29 and responsibility for approving and mitigating the impacts of specific development projects is 30 primarily the responsibility of local governments and regulatory agencies. The Project would 31 be consistent with this policy.

32 GMC Policies Related to the RCPG Goal to Provide Social, Political, and Cultural Equity

33 The Growth Management Goal to develop urban forms that avoid economic and social polarization 34 promotes the regional strategic goal of minimizing social and geographic disparities and of reaching 35 equity among all segments of society. The evaluation of the proposed project in relation to the policy 36 stated below is intended guide direction for the accomplishment of this goal, and does not infer regional 37 mandates and interference with local land use powers.

38 3.24 Encourage efforts of local jurisdictions in the implementation of programs that increase the 39 supply and quality of housing and provide affordable housing and evaluated in the Regional 40 Housing Needs Assessment.

5-4 CLWA – Honby Pipeline Draft EIR 5.0 Plans and Policies

1 While CLWA has the responsibility to provide wholesale water to water retailers within the 2 CLWA service area and to provide infrastructure for its delivery, CLWA does not have the 3 authority to plan or approve new development in its service area. Rather, the authority and 4 responsibility for approving and mitigating the impacts of specific development projects is 5 primarily the responsibility of local governments and regulatory agencies.

6 3.27 Support local jurisdictions and other service providers in their efforts to develop sustainable 7 communities and provide, equally to all members of society, accessible and effective services such as: 8 public education, housing, health care, social services, recreational facilities, law enforcement, and fire 9 protection.

10 In its function as a water wholesaler, CLWA provides water to purveyors within its service area 11 who, in turn, serve local customers. CLWA provides water without regard to the circumstances 12 of the end-user customers. The Project would be consistent with this policy.

13 5.1.2 Consistency with Regional Transportation Plan

14 The RTP links the goal of sustaining mobility with the goals of fostering economic development, 15 enhancing the environment, reducing energy consumption, promoting transportation-friendly 16 development patterns, and encouraging fair and equitable access to residents affected by 17 socioeconomic, geographic, and commercial limitations. The RTP continues to support all 18 applicable federal and state laws in implementing the proposed project. Among the relevant 19 goals and policies of the RTP are the following:

20 Regional Transportation Plan Goals

21 • Maximize mobility and accessibility for all people and goods in the region. 22 • Ensure travel safety and reliability for all people and goods in the region. 23 • Preserve and ensure a sustainable regional transportation system. 24 • Maximize the productivity of our transportation system. 25 • Protect the environment, improve air quality and promote energy efficiency. 26 • Encourage land use and growth patterns that complement our transportation 27 investments. 28 The Project would have short-term, localized, and less than significant impacts to air quality 29 and transportation and would be consistent with these goals. The Project would not directly 30 affect land use and patterns. While the Project could result in indirect, growth-related 31 development that could result in impacts to transportation, air quality, energy consumption, 32 land use patterns, and other environmental resources, as discussed in section 4.2, CLWA does 33 not have the authority to approve the location of new development in its service area or to 34 impose mitigation measures. Rather, the authority and responsibility for approving and 35 mitigating the impacts of specific development projects is primarily the responsibility of local 36 governments and regulatory agencies.

CLWA – Honby Pipeline 5-5 Draft EIR 5.0 Plans and Policies

1 Regional Transportation Plan Policies

2 Transportation investments shall be based on SCAG’s adopted Regional Performance 3 Indicators.

Performance Performance Measures Definition Performance Outcome Indicator

Mobility • Average Daily Speed Speed-experienced by 10% Improvement travelers regardless of mode. • Average Daily Delay Delay-excess travel time 40% Improvement resulting from the difference between a reference speed and actual speed. Total daily delay and daily delay per capita are indicators used.

Accessibility • Percent PM peak work Auto 90% trips within 45 minutes Transit 37% of home

• Distribution of work trip Auto 8% Improvement travel times Transit 8% Improvement

Reliability • Percent variation in Day-to-day change in travel 10% Improvement travel time times experienced by travelers. Variability results from accidents, weather, road closures, system problems and other non-recurrent conditions.

Safety • Accident Rates Measured in accidents per 0.3% Improvement million vehicle miles by mode.

Cost • Benefit-to-Cost (B/C) Ratio of benefits of RTP $3.08 Effectiveness Ratio investments to the associated investments costs.

Productivity • Percent capability Transportation infrastructure utilized during peak capacity and services conditions provided.

• Roadway Capacity - 20% Improvement at vehicles per hour per lane known bottlenecks by type of facility.

• Transit Capacity – seating N/A capacity utilized by mode.

5-6 CLWA – Honby Pipeline Draft EIR 5.0 Plans and Policies

Performance Performance Measures Definition Performance Outcome Indicator

Sustainability • Total cost per capita to Focus in on overall $20 per capita, primarily sustain current system performance, including in preservation costs performance infrastructure condition. Preservation measure is a sub- set of sustainability.

Preservation • Maintenance cost per Focus is on infrastructure Maintain current capita to preserve condition. Sub-set of conditions system at base year sustainability. conditions

Environmental • Emissions generated by Measured/forecast emissions Meets conformity travel include CO, NOX, PM10, SOX requirements and VOC. CO2 as secondary measure to reflect greenhouse emissions.

Environmental • Expenditures by quintile Proportionate share of No disproportionate Justice and ethnicity expenditures in the 2004 RTP impact to any group or by each quintile. quintile • Benefit vs. burden by quintiles Proportionate share of benefits to each quintile ethnicity.

Proportionate share of additional airport noise by ethnic group.

1 • Ensuring safety, adequate maintenance, and efficiency of operations on the existing multi-modal 2 transportation system will be RTP priorities and will be balanced against the need for system 3 expansion investments. 4 • RTP land use and growth strategies that differ from currently expected trends will require a 5 collaborative implementation program that identifies required actions and policies by all affected 6 agencies and sub-regions. 7 • HOV [High Occupancy Vehicle] gap closures that significantly increase transit and rideshare 8 usage will be supported and encouraged, subject to Policy #1. 9 The Project would have short-term, localized, and less than significant impacts to transportation 10 and would be consistent with these policies. While the Project could result in indirect, growth- 11 related development that could result in impacts to transportation, as discussed in section 4.2, 12 CLWA does not have the authority to approve the location of new development in its service 13 area or to impose mitigation measures. Rather, the authority and responsibility for approving 14 and mitigating the impacts of specific development projects is primarily the responsibility of 15 local governments and regulatory agencies.

CLWA – Honby Pipeline 5-7 Draft EIR 5.0 Plans and Policies

1 5.1.3 Water Resources

2 The following recommendations are non-mandated and as such are provided for information 3 and advisory purposes. SCAG signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with The 4 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD), the largest wholesale water agency 5 in the region, to develop the Water Resources Chapter (WRC). The WRC also includes 6 projections of water supply and demand for areas within the SCAG region, outside the 7 boundaries of MWD. Population and growth projections on which the WRC was based, were 8 developed through the year 2010, and have not been updated to reflect recently adopted SCAG 9 growth forecasts through the year 2020.

10 Projected Water Demand in the MWD Service Area in 2010 (Million Acre Feet)

County 2010

Los Angeles 1.93

Orange 0.73

Riverside 0.62

San Bernardino 0.30

Ventura 0.15

Within SCAG Region 3.73

San Diego 0.81

MWD Service Area 4.54

11 The Project would serve a portion of CLWA’s service area, which consists of portions of Los 12 Angeles and Ventura counties. It would not transport water to the MWD service area.

13 5.1.4 GROWTH VISIONING

14 In June 2004, SCAG’s Regional Council adopted the Compass Vision, a new vision for Southern 15 California, to accommodate the projected 6 million new residents expected to live in the region 16 by 2030. Driven by four key principles, mobility, livability, prosperity and sustainability, the 17 Compass Vision emphasizes the following strategies to better coordinate land use and 18 transportation decision-making:

19 • To focus growth in existing and emerging centers and along major transportation 20 corridors 21 • To create significant areas of mixed-use development and walkable communities 22 • To target growth around existing and planned transit stations 23 • To preserve existing open space and stable residential areas

5-8 CLWA – Honby Pipeline Draft EIR 5.0 Plans and Policies

1 The Compass Vision has resulted in a new framework for Southern California’s future and a 2 new perspective on how local decision-makers can make planning choices that will have both 3 tremendous value to both individual communities and the region as a whole. The following 4 “Regional Growth Principles” are proposed to provide a framework for local and regional 5 decision making that improves the quality of life for all SCAG residents. Each principle is 6 followed by a specific set of strategies intended to achieve this goal.

7 Principle 1: Improve mobility for all residents

8 • Encourage transportation investments and land use decisions that are mutually 9 supportive. 10 • Locate new housing near existing jobs and new jobs near existing housing. 11 • Encourage transit-oriented development. 12 • Promote a variety of travel choices. 13 Principle 2: Foster livability in all communities

14 • Promote infill development and redevelopment to revitalize existing communities. 15 • Promote developments, which provide a mix of uses. 16 • Promote “people scaled,” walkable communities. 17 • Support the preservation of stable, single-family neighborhoods. 18 Principle 3: Enable prosperity for all people

19 • Provide, in each community, a variety of housing types to meet the housing needs of all 20 income levels. 21 • Support educational opportunities that promote balanced growth. 22 • Ensure environmental justice regardless of race, ethnicity or income class. 23 • Support local and state fiscal policies that encourage balanced growth. 24 • Encourage civic engagement. 25 Principle 4: Promote sustainability for future generations

26 • Preserve rural, agricultural, recreational and environmentally sensitive areas. 27 • Focus development in urban centers and existing cities. 28 • Develop strategies to accommodate growth that uses resources efficiently, eliminate 29 pollution and significantly reduce waste. 30 • Utilize “green” development techniques. 31 To this end, SCAG will continue to develop tools and resources to assist cities and counties as 32 they plan for a better future for all Southern Californians.

33 The Project is a water infrastructure project, not a land development project. It would have 34 short-term, less than significant impacts to transportation and would not directly affect land use

CLWA – Honby Pipeline 5-9 Draft EIR 5.0 Plans and Policies

1 patterns. It would have significant impacts to environmentally sensitive areas, but mitigation 2 measures have been included in section 3.2 of this EIR that would reduce these impacts to less 3 than significant. While the Project could result in indirect, growth-related development that 4 could result in impacts to transportation, agricultural resources, recreation, environmentally 5 sensitive areas, and other environmental resources, as discussed in section 4.2, CLWA does not 6 have the authority to approve the location of new development in its service area or to impose 7 mitigation measures. Rather, the authority and responsibility for approving and mitigating the 8 impacts of specific development projects is primarily the responsibility of local governments 9 and regulatory agencies.

10 5.1.5 Consistency with Growth Projections

11 The following section addresses the Project’s consistency with SCAG’s adopted growth 12 forecasts. As noted above, SCAG updated the demographic forecasts for the Santa Clarita 13 Valley Area (i.e., Regional Statistical Area 8) in 2004 and projects that the 2030 population for 14 the Santa Clarita Valley will be about 405,100, with 128,400 households (personal 15 communication, P. Gutierrez 2004; J. Minjares 2004). The Project can serve approximately 16 154,900 more persons than the existing pipeline (see section 4.1 for assumptions). Adding this 17 to the 2000 population in the CLWA service area of 190,000 produces an estimated population 18 of 344,900, which is less than the SCAG 2030 projection. The Project also could serve about 19 51,600 housing units more than the existing pipeline. Adding this to the 63,300 housing units 20 present in the CLWA service area (based on 2000 Census data) would result in 114,900 housing 21 units, which also is less than the 2030 projection. Thus, the Project would serve a portion of the 22 growth projected by SCAG and would be consistent with SCAG’s growth projections.

23 5.2 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES GENERAL PLAN

24 The Project is not physically located within the unincorporated portion of Los Angeles County, 25 but could remove an obstacle to growth in a portion of the county within the CLWA service 26 area.

27 5.2.1 Consistency with Policies

28 General Goals and Policies

29 18. Conserve the available supply of water and protect water quality.

30 Conservation is already part of CLWA’s water resource management program, and the Project 31 would not affect these water conservation efforts. The Project would not have a direct effect on 32 water quality, with the exception of short-term, less than significant impacts during 33 construction. The Project would be consistent with this policy.

34 43. Maintain a balance between increased intensity of development and the capacity of needed 35 facilities such as transportation, water and sewage systems.

36 The Project would not directly require or result in the construction or expansion of facilities 37 such as those mentioned in this policy. The Project would allow water to be made available to a 38 portion of the anticipated future development in the CLWA service area, which would be 39 consistent with this policy. This future development would require construction of additional 40 transportation, water storage and delivery, and sewage collection systems that would either be

5-10 CLWA – Honby Pipeline Draft EIR 5.0 Plans and Policies

1 provided by developers or various service providers, as appropriate. CLWA does not have the 2 authority to approve new development or to increase the capacity of transportation, sewage, 3 and other facilities not related to its role as a wholesale water provider. Rather, this is primarily 4 the responsibility of local governments and regulatory agencies.

5 Conservation, Open Space, and Recreation

6 1. Protect ground water recharge and watershed areas, conserve storm and reclaimed water, and 7 promote water conservation programs.

8 The Project would not have a direct impact on groundwater recharge and watershed areas, nor 9 would it affect efforts to conserve water. It would serve a portion of anticipated future 10 development in the CLWA service area that could reduce recharge areas; however, CLWA does 11 not have the authority to approve new development in its service area. Rather, the authority 12 and responsibility for approving and mitigating the impacts of specific development projects is 13 primarily the responsibility of local governments and regulatory agencies. Although the 14 conservation of storm and reclaimed water and other conservation measures are not a part of 15 the Project, it would not in any way inhibit these actions. The Project would be consistent with 16 this policy.

17 5. Encourage the maintenance, management, and improvement of the quality of imported domestic 18 water, ground water supplies, natural runoff and ocean water.

19 The Project would transport high quality, imported water received from the SWP. This action 20 would not directly affect groundwater quality of the Alluvial Aquifer or Saugus Formation, nor 21 would it affect natural runoff or ocean water. The Project would be consistent with this policy.

22 Public Facilities Chapter

23 3. Encourage private firms and public agencies providing water and waste management services to 24 cooperate with all levels of government in establishing, enacting and enforcing consistent 25 standards and criteria.

26 CLWA is subject to applicable standards and criteria regulating provision of water service. The 27 Project would be consistent with this policy.

28 5.2.2 Consistency with Growth Projections

29 Consistency with Los Angeles County growth projections is addressed below under section 30 5.3.2.

31 5.3 SANTA CLARITA VALLEY AREA PLAN OF THE COUNTY OF LOS 32 ANGELES GENERAL PLAN

33 The Santa Clarita Valley Area Plan (comprehensively updated December 6, 1990), in 34 conjunction with other chapters and elements of the Los Angeles County General Plan, is used 35 for making critical public decisions regarding the Santa Clarita Valley.

CLWA – Honby Pipeline 5-11 Draft EIR 5.0 Plans and Policies

1 5.3.1 Consistency with Policies

2 The Area Plan states that for the Santa Clarita Valley, it shall be the policy of the Los Angeles 3 County Board of Supervisors to:

4 Land Use Element

5 1.1 Accommodate the year 2010 population and land use demand as projected for the Santa Clarita 6 Valley, designating sufficient area for appropriate use and a reasonable excess to provide adequate 7 flexibility.

8 1.2 Closely monitor growth in the Santa Clarita Valley, so that growth does not exceed the capacity 9 of the existing or planned infrastructure nor result in significant negative environmental 10 impacts.

11 1.3 Provide for development in the study area, which is consistent with the plan, and encourage other 12 governmental and private agencies to do the same.

13 7.1 Encourage development of convenient services to meet the needs of Santa Clarita Valley residents 14 including . . . public utilities. Such services should be expanded at a rate commensurate with 15 population growth. Phasing of development and implementation should be timed to prevent gaps 16 in service as the area grows.

17 The Project could serve approximately 154,900 more persons than the existing pipeline. When 18 added to the 2000 population of the CLWA service area (190,000), the resulting population 19 would exceed Los Angeles County’s 2010 population projection of 270,000 persons by 74,900. 20 Thus, the Project would accommodate the 2010 demand. The County of Los Angeles would be 21 responsible for ensuring that future development, including development that could be served 22 by the Project, would be consistent with these policies, which direct that development be 23 consistent with the general plan and that adequate public and commercial services and 24 infrastructure be provided to serve population growth, while minimizing environmental 25 impacts. The Project would be consistent with these policies.

26 Public Services and Facilities Element

27 1.2 Use imported water supply to relieve over drafted groundwater basins and maintain their safe 28 yield for domestic uses outside of urban areas.

29 The Project would be consistent with this policy since the pipeline would carry imported SWP 30 water. The Santa Clarita Valley groundwater basin is not classified as overdrafted (DWR 31 2003a).

32 5.3.2 Consistency with Growth Projections

33 The Santa Clarita Valley Area Plan includes population and housing projections for the Santa 34 Clarita Valley adopted by the County of Los Angeles. The projections are based on 1987 35 population estimates and extend to the year 2010. The area plan projects that the Santa Clarita 36 Valley will contain 270,000 persons and 93,400 housing units in 2010. Los Angeles County, in 37 conjunction with the City of Santa Clarita, is in the process of updating growth projections for

5-12 CLWA – Honby Pipeline Draft EIR 5.0 Plans and Policies

1 the Santa Clarita Valley as part of the One Valley, One Vision project. This project will result in 2 the Valleywide General Plan, intended to guide development in the Santa Clarita Valley for 20+ 3 years.

4 As described in section 4.1, the Project can serve approximately 154,900 persons more than the 5 existing pipeline. Adding this to the 2000 population of 190,000 for the Santa Clarita Valley area 6 (which generally corresponds with the CLWA service area) produces an estimated population 7 of 344,900. This exceeds the 2010 forecast of 270,000 persons. The Project is not intended, 8 however, to serve population only through 2010. CLWA’s UWMP assumes a rate of 2,240 9 connections per year. If all of these connections were residential (recognizing that the 10 methodology utilized in the UWMP reflects that these connections may include other types of 11 connections in addition to households), and assuming that three people are served by each 12 connection, this would result in an annual increase of 6,720 people. This rate of growth would 13 result in an increased population of 67,200 between 2000 and 2010, for a total population of 14 257,200. Thus, CLWA’s projections in its UWMP indicate that the growth forecast for 2010 15 would not be exceeded as a result of the Project.

16 5.4 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA GENERAL PLAN

17 The section below analyzes the consistency of the Project with relevant growth management 18 policies and population forecasts in the City of Santa Clarita General Plan and its associated 19 EIR. (Also refer to the discussion of the One Valley, One Vision process in section 5.3.2.)

20 5.4.1 Consistency with Policies

21 Growth Management

22 Goal 1: To preserve the character of communities and the integrity of the Santa Clarita Valley by 23 permitting orderly growth through synchronization of development with the availability of 24 public facilities such as roads, sewers, water service and schools needed to support it.

25 The Project would provide the infrastructure to make water available for projected 26 development within the CLWA service area and would be consistent with this goal.

27 LU-1.1: Develop and implement a Public Facilities Ordinance that requires that adequate 28 infrastructure exist or be programmed for construction within a defined period of time as a 29 condition of development approval.

30 The City of Santa Clarita’s authority to develop and implement a Public Facilities Ordinance 31 would not be affected by the Project, which seeks to make adequate water supply infrastructure 32 available for future development.

33 LU-1.2: Develop and implement a program of Development Impact Fees to provide adequate public 34 facilities and services in a timely manner.

35 The City of Santa Clarita’s authority to develop and implement a Development Impact Fee 36 program would not be affected by the Project, which would provide the infrastructure to 37 facilitate making adequate water supply available in a timely manner.

CLWA – Honby Pipeline 5-13 Draft EIR 5.0 Plans and Policies

1 LU-1.8: Encourage the concept of traffic mitigation agreements that provide a variety of 2 transportation options included but not limited to automobiles, transit, commuter trains, 3 light rail and bicycle pathways.

4 The Project would not have a direct impact on traffic demand. The City of Santa Clarita’s 5 authority to encourage traffic mitigation agreements that provide a variety of transportation 6 options would not be affected by the Project.

7 LU-1.9: Continue to pursue a policy of cooperation with Los Angeles County and seek adequate 8 documentation, notification, and mitigation of infrastructure impacts beyond or bordering 9 the City’s boundaries.

10 The Project would not affect cooperation between the City of Santa Clarita and Los Angeles 11 County. This EIR provides information regarding potential indirect impacts of the Project to 12 both Los Angeles County and the City of Santa Clarita, consistent with the spirit of this policy.

13 H-1.1: Implement the land use plan which provides opportunities for the development of a wide 14 range of new housing types within the city.

15 The City of Santa Clarita has the authority to implement its General Plan by approving or 16 denying residential and mixed-use development plans within its jurisdiction, which could 17 include development served by the Project. CLWA does not have the authority to approve land 18 development.

19 Energy Conservation Element

20 1.1 Conserve energy in all its forms to a degree commensurate with an optimum level of living and 21 economic activities.

22 The amount of energy used by the Project would be commensurate with the amount of water 23 transported through the pipeline. CLWA utilizes energy conservation measures where feasible, 24 however, and the Project would be consistent with this policy.

25 5.4.2 Consistency with Growth Projections

26 The Final EIR for the City of Santa Clarita General Plan (1991b) identifies low, moderate, and 27 high buildout population estimates for the City of Santa Clarita Planning Area, which 28 comprises 256 square miles within the Santa Clarita Valley. The City of Santa Clarita occupied 29 approximately 42 square miles when the Planning Area was initially identified in 1991 and 30 developed the larger Planning Area in recognition of its probable ultimate responsibility for 31 services and governmental jurisdiction within the valley. The City of Santa Clarita has land 32 development approval authority within the city boundaries and Los Angeles County has 33 development approval authority in unincorporated Los Angeles County. The Final EIR 34 identifies several public services, such as schools, libraries and roads that “cannot at present 35 adequately serve the existing population.” The City of Santa Clarita reported a population of 36 151,088 persons in 2000.

37 The population buildout estimates in the city’s Final EIR are 228,274 persons (low), 256,944 38 (medium), and 521,977 (high). As described in section 4.1, the Project could serve

5-14 CLWA – Honby Pipeline Draft EIR 5.0 Plans and Policies

1 approximately 154,900 persons more than the existing pipeline. Adding the potential 2 population served by the Project to the city’s 2000 population (151,088) would result in a 3 potential population of approximately 305,988 persons. This exceeds the low and medium 4 buildout estimates and is less than the high buildout estimate. As noted above, however, not all 5 of the population served would be located in the City of Santa Clarita; a portion would be 6 located in an unincorporated portion of Los Angeles County.

7 5.5 CLWA URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 2000

8 A UWMP is a planning tool whose periodic preparation (every five years, in years ending with 9 a 5 and 0) is mandated by the Legislature pursuant to the California Urban Water Management 10 Planning Act. It generally guides the actions of water management agencies, serving as a 11 management tool and providing a framework for action, but not functioning as detailed project 12 development or action. As encouraged by the Act, the 2000 UWMP was prepared for the 13 regional CLWA service area, which includes the service areas of the four retail water purveyors: 14 CLWA’s Santa Clarita Water Division (SCWD), Los Angeles County Waterworks District No. 15 36, Newhall County Water District (NCWD), and Valencia Water Company (VWC). The plan 16 presents information about the water demand, water supply, water conservation, water 17 recycling, and reliability planning in the CLWA’s service area.

18 The UWMP was challenged in the Superior Court of Kern County, and a judgment was entered 19 July 2003 upholding the UWMP in all respects. The petitioners in that case appealed the 20 judgment. On September 22, 2004, the Court of Appeal for the Fifth District ordered the trial 21 court to vacate the approval of the 2000 UWMP. Pursuant to the Order on Remand from the 22 Court of Appeal, CLWA revoked its approval of the 2000 UWMP and adopted an Amendment 23 on January 24, 2005. Although information in the 2000 UWMP was considered in the 24 preparation of this EIR, this EIR does not rely on that information, and an independent analysis 25 and determination of environmental impacts was carried out for the Project.

CLWA – Honby Pipeline 5-15 Draft EIR 5.0 Plans and Policies

1 This page intentionally left blank.

5-16 CLWA – Honby Pipeline Draft EIR 1 6.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

2 6.1 CEQA REQUIREMENTS

3 Cumulative impacts refer to two or more individual impacts that, when considered together, 4 are considerable or that compound or increase other environmental impacts. A cumulative 5 impact is the change in the environment that results from the incremental impact of a project 6 when added to other closely related past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future projects. 7 Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant impacts 8 taking place over time. An EIR must discuss the cumulative impacts of a project when the 9 project’s incremental impact is cumulatively considerable (CEQA Guidelines section 15130[a]). 10 “Cumulatively considerable” means that the project’s incremental effects are significant when 11 viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and 12 the effects of other probable future projects (CEQA Guidelines section 15065 [a][3]). In this 13 analysis, if the Project’s incremental impact would be cumulatively considerable in combination 14 with the impacts of other projects, the impact is identified as a “significant cumulative impact.”

15 6.2 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY

16 Projects included in the cumulative impact analysis were identified using a list approach (CEQA 17 Guideline section 15130[b][1]) and are those that could result in impacts to the same resources as 18 the Project, in the same geographic areas. Projects considered in this analysis fall into two major 19 categories:

20 • Other CLWA water supply, management, and distribution projects, and 21 • Land use development within the Santa Clarita Valley.

22 Individual water and land use development projects are evaluated for cumulative impacts in 23 combination with the direct effects of the Project. Additionally, the potential for cumulative 24 indirect impacts resulting from projected growth associated with both water and land 25 development projects is evaluated.

26 6.3 ANALYSIS OF CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

27 This section describes the projects included in the cumulative impact analysis, the status of their 28 environmental documentation, anticipated environmental impacts of those projects, and the 29 potential cumulative impacts of those projects in combination with the Project.

30 Direct impacts to the CLWA service area would result primarily from pipeline construction; thus, 31 impacts to resources such as air quality and noise would cease once construction was finished. 32 Impacts to biological resources from the temporary loss of vegetation and wildlife habitat and 33 some unavoidable mortality of common wildlife species would be longer lasting and would 34 gradually decrease over several years as the area revegetates and wildlife populations increase.

35 The proposed pipeline could transport water that could be used to serve a portion of anticipated 36 future growth and thus would indirectly cause impacts from new development. The Project 37 could provide water to approximately 154,900 more persons than the existing Honby pipeline and

CLWA – Honby Pipeline 6-1 Draft EIR 6.0 Cumulative Impacts

1 about 51,600 additional housing units (see Chapter 4, Growth-Inducing and Growth Related 2 Impacts). Indirect impacts were identified for all resources analyzed in the present EIR (refer to 3 Chapter 4) and thus could contribute to cumulative impacts in combination with other 4 development and water supply, management, and distribution projects.

5 6.3.1 Other CLWA Projects

6 Proposed CLWA Water Acquisition from the Buena Vista Water Storage District and Rosedale- 7 Rio Bravo Water Storage District (BVWSD/RRBWSD) Storage and Recovery Program

8 Project Description

9 Under this project, CLWA would purchase an annual water supply of 11,000 AF from 10 BVWSD/RRBWSD for a renewable 30-year period. The amount of water purchased could 11 increase to up to 20,000 AFY over time and would be available through an existing groundwater 12 storage program. The California Aqueduct would be used to deliver both exchanged SWP water 13 and banked water to CLWA on a space-available basis within the capacity of SWP facilities. 14 Water purchased from BVWSD/RRBWSD would be delivered to CLWA as needed to meet the 15 demands of its service area. Should delivery of the water not be required in a given year, CLWA 16 would have the option to store the water in any groundwater storage or banking program to 17 which it has access. Additionally, the newly obtained water supply would enable lands to be 18 annexed to the CLWA service area. In accordance with the applications for annexation filed with 19 CLWA, a portion of the water acquired from BVWSD/RRBWSD could be allocated to meet the 20 water demands of those lands. No new construction would be required to implement the project.

21 Environmental Analysis Status and Anticipated Impacts

22 An Initial Study for this project is in preparation, and a Draft EIR is expected to be released in the 23 summer of 2005. It is anticipated that the project would result in minimal direct environmental 24 impacts to the CLWA service area because no new construction would be required. Indirect 25 impacts to all environmental resources could result from the new development served by water 26 provided by this project on the annexed lands. Additionally, it is anticipated that the CLWA 27 water acquisition project would result in indirect growth-related impacts; the 20,000 AFY of water 28 acquired as a result of this project would be able to serve approximately 62,000 people and 20,666 29 residences. The types of indirect impacts from increased population and associated development 30 would be similar to those of the Project (refer to Chapter 4), but the intensity of the impacts would 31 be somewhat less because the population served would be smaller.

32 Cumulative Impacts with the Project

33 Both projects would result in significant, indirect, growth-related impacts to all environmental 34 resources in the Santa Clarita Valley. The indirect impacts of the two projects would not be 35 strictly additive, because some of the new water could be used in the area served by the proposed 36 pipeline. Nonetheless, each project would result in significant growth-related impacts, and the 37 indirect cumulative impacts of the two projects would be significant for all environmental 38 resources.

6-2 CLWA – Honby Pipeline Draft EIR 6.0 Cumulative Impacts

1 Proposed Storage/Exchange Program between CLWA and RRBWSD

2 Project Description

3 Under this project, RRBWSD would set up an account for CLWA, and CLWA’s SWP Table A 4 Amount that is not utilized within its service area would be delivered to the water banking and 5 recovery program and recharged in recharge/percolation ponds. Water would be returned to 6 CLWA in the California Aqueduct through pumpback to the Cross Valley Canal and delivered at 7 Tupman, although SWP water may be exchanged or substituted for extracted groundwater at the 8 request of either RRBWSD or CLWA. The RRBWSD program currently provides 20,000 AFY of 9 recharge capacity, and the environmental impacts of operating this water banking and recovery 10 program have been analyzed in separate environmental documentation and are not the subject of 11 CLWA’s EIR. Extracted or exchanged water would be delivered at Tupman and would meet the 12 current water quality requirements of the SWP. This is a long-term banking program that would 13 last through 2035, the length of CLWA’s Water Supply Contract with DWR, although the 14 program may be extended beyond that date to correspond with any extension of the Water 15 Supply Contract. Existing infrastructure may be used for the project, although it may be 16 determined that improvements may be needed to increase recharge or extraction capacity within 17 the RRBWSD. Such improvements have been analyzed in separate environmental documentation 18 and are not the subject of CLWA’s EIR.

19 Environmental Analysis Status and Anticipated Impacts

20 An Initial Study for this project is expected to be released in the spring of 2005, followed by an 21 EIR. It is anticipated that the project would result in minimal direct environmental impacts to the 22 CLWA service area because no new construction would be required. It would result in indirect 23 growth-related impacts due to increased reliability of the water supply. The types of indirect 24 impacts from increased population and associated development would be similar to those of the 25 Project (refer to Chapter 4), but the intensity of the impacts would be somewhat less because the 26 population served would be smaller.

27 Cumulative Impacts with the Project

28 Both projects could result in significant, indirect, growth-related impacts to all environmental 29 resources in the Santa Clarita Valley. The indirect impacts of the two projects would not be 30 strictly additive, because some of the water provided through the Storage/Exchange Program 31 could be used in the area served by the proposed pipeline. Nonetheless, each project could result 32 in significant growth-related impacts, and the indirect cumulative impacts of the two projects 33 would be significant for all environmental resources.

34 Expansion of Rio Vista Water Treatment Plant (RVWTP)

35 Project Description

36 This project would expand the water treatment capacity at the existing RVWTP and the pumping 37 capacity at the associated off-site existing pump station. The RVWTP is located on Bouquet 38 Canyon Road near the CLWA Administration Building. The plant was designed to facilitate 39 future expansion to help meet anticipated increasing demand for potable water in the Santa

CLWA – Honby Pipeline 6-3 Draft EIR 6.0 Cumulative Impacts

1 Clarita Valley. It is currently able to supply retail purveyors with an estimated 30 mgd of potable 2 water. The associated pump station is located near the Bouquet Canyon Road crossing of the 3 Santa Clara River.

4 The RVWTP’s treatment capacity would be expanded to 60 mgd by expanding the existing 5 clarifier/filter structure. The construction of the new portion of the structure would be within a 6 previously disturbed area at the treatment plant site. The total disturbed area would be less than 7 1 acre. Additionally, minor modifications to the existing pump station would be completed; i.e., 8 replacing existing equipment with higher capacity equipment and installing a new pump and 9 generator. Replacement and installation of equipment would be completely within the existing 10 pump station building that is located in a previously disturbed area. Additionally, a meter facility 11 and 200 feet of 48-inch pipeline would be constructed in an already disturbed area. BMPs would 12 be used during construction to minimize impacts to geologic resources and water quality.

13 Environmental Analysis Status and Anticipated Impacts

14 The impacts of this project were programmatically evaluated by CLWA in 1988 (CLWA 1988b), 15 and in 1989, CLWA evaluated the environmental impacts of the original construction of the 16 RVWTP in a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) (CLWA 1989). An Initial Study for the 17 RVWTP expansion project is currently being finalized by CLWA. The Initial Study, when 18 complete, is expected to identify potentially significant but mitigable impacts to cultural resources 19 (potential disturbance during construction), geology and soils (seismic, collapsible/expansive 20 soils, and erosion related impacts), hazards and hazardous materials (increased chemical usage at 21 the RVWTP), hydrology and water quality (water quality impacts during construction), and noise 22 (pipeline construction in proximity to residences and a school). Less than significant impacts may 23 include impacts to aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, geology and soils, hazards and 24 hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, 25 noise, transportation and traffic, and utilities and service systems.

26 In addition, the expansion of the RVWTP would increase treatment capacity by approximately 30 27 mgd (total capacity would be 60 mgd) and thus would result in indirect, growth-related impacts. 28 Assuming operations consistent with average annual capacity, the incremental increase in 29 capacity would serve approximately 17,000 housing units, whereas the maximum (peak) increase 30 in capacity could serve approximately 34,000 housing units. The RVWTP project would result in 31 indirect growth-related impacts to all resource categories, similar to those of the Project (refer to 32 Chapter 4).

33 The project EIR is expected to begin preparation in the winter of 2005 and be completed by the 34 following winter.

35 Cumulative Impacts with the Project

36 The construction periods of Phase 2 of the proposed pipeline project and the RVWTP could 37 potentially overlap, and both projects have the potential to affect a variety of resources during 38 construction. Project-specific air quality impacts for each project would be less than significant, 39 and they would be cumulatively less than significant, as well, because construction equipment 40 would be mobile and operated intermittently, both projects would be required to comply with 41 SCAQMD Rule 403 to reduce fugitive dust, and emissions would be localized. Both projects

6-4 CLWA – Honby Pipeline Draft EIR 6.0 Cumulative Impacts

1 possibly could affect cultural resources and geology and soils, but the Honby project contains 2 measures as part of the project description that would mitigate the impacts from discoveries of 3 presently unknown resources to less than significant, and BMPs and compliance with standard 4 engineering practices would be used by both projects to minimize impacts to geology and soils 5 and water quality; thus, cumulative impacts to these resources would be less than significant. Both 6 projects would require the use of common hazardous materials during construction, but these 7 would be used in accordance with standard practices and permit conditions, and cumulative 8 impacts would be less than significant. Both projects would result in noise impacts during 9 construction, but the RVWTP pipeline, the construction of which would affect sensitive receptors, 10 would be located approximately 1.5 miles from the proposed Honby pipeline, and the cumulative 11 impacts of pipeline construction would not be additive. The RVWTP facility itself is sufficiently 12 removed from noise sensitive receptors and it is far enough from Honby pipeline construction 13 that cumulative impacts would be less than significant. The Honby project would result in 14 significant but mitigable impacts to biological resources, but the RVWTP project would be 15 constructed in already disturbed areas, and impacts would be cumulatively less than significant.

16 Both projects would result in significant, indirect, growth-related impacts to all environmental 17 resources in the Santa Clarita Valley. The indirect impacts of the two projects would not be 18 strictly additive, because some of the water treated by the RVWTP could be transported by the 19 proposed Honby pipeline. Nonetheless, each project would result in significant growth-related 20 impacts, and the indirect cumulative impacts of the two projects would be significant for all 21 environmental resources.

22 Expansion of Earl Schmidt Filtration Plant

23 Project Description

24 CLWA is upgrading and expanding the treatment system of the existing Earl Schmidt Filtration 25 Plant (ESFP) capacity from 33.6 mgd to 56 mgd. The existing ESFP is located at 32700 North Lake 26 Hughes Road in the community of Castaic. Construction started in September 2003 and the 27 newly expanded facility is expected to begin operation in April 2005. The ESFP project will 28 provide upgrades to meet water quality regulations, provide a greater degree of redundancy in 29 treatment capacity in the event of an emergency, meet existing summer peaking needs, and serve 30 future growth. The plant’s expansion also includes process improvements to achieve compliance 31 with current and proposed water quality regulations as well as replacement of an existing raw 32 water pumping station.

33 Project’s Environmental Analysis Status and Anticipated Impacts

34 In April 2003, CLWA certified the Final EIR on the ESFP project and filed the Notice of 35 Determination (CLWA 2003). The EIR found that construction of the ESFP project would result in 36 temporary but significant impacts to air quality, cultural resources (potential disturbance during 37 construction), geology and soils (construction on expansive soils), noise, and transportation 38 (increased traffic). Operation of the ESFP project would result in less than significant impacts to 39 aesthetics, agricultural resources, biological resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous 40 materials, land use and planning, noise, and recreation resources. With the exception of 41 temporary impacts to noise and air quality from construction, all significant impacts were

CLWA – Honby Pipeline 6-5 Draft EIR 6.0 Cumulative Impacts

1 mitigable to less than significant through the implementation of mitigation measures adopted by 2 CLWA.

3 The ESFP expansion project would increase treatment capacity by approximately 22.4 mgd and 4 thus would result in indirect, growth-related impacts. Assuming operations consistent with 5 average annual capacity, the incremental increase in capacity would serve approximately 13,000 6 housing units, whereas the maximum (peak) increase in capacity could serve approximately 7 30,000 housing units. The ESFP expansion project would result in indirect growth-related impacts 8 to all resource categories similar to the effects of the Project (refer to Chapter 4).

9 Cumulative Impacts with the Project

10 Construction of the ESFP project would be completed prior to the onset of the Honby pipeline 11 construction; additionally, the two projects are located nearly 7 miles apart. No direct cumulative 12 impacts would occur.

13 Both projects would result in significant, indirect, growth-related impacts to all environmental 14 resources in the Santa Clarita Valley, and the indirect cumulative impacts of the two projects 15 would be significant for all environmental resources.

16 Sand Canyon Project (aka Honby Extension and Storage Project)

17 Project Description

18 CLWA is in the process of constructing the Sand Canyon pipeline, pump station, and storage 19 reservoir project (formerly known as the Honby Extension/Storage Reservoir). Construction is 20 expected to be completed by the end of 2005. The project includes a 48-inch, approximately 30,000 21 foot long water pipeline, originating near the intersection of Furnivall Avenue and Santa Clara 22 Street where the new Sand Canyon pump station is also being constructed. The pipeline will 23 travel from the new pump station easterly and southerly, terminating in a new storage reservoir 24 west of Rolling Hills Avenue and Warmuth Road. The new pump station will provide the lift to 25 transport water to the proposed 7-million-gallon storage reservoir.

26 Project’s Environmental Analysis Status and Anticipated Impacts

27 The environmental impacts from construction and operation of this project were evaluated in two 28 MNDs. The Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Extension of Imported Water 29 Transmission Systems in the Castaic Lake Water Service Area (CLWA 1999) was adopted by CLWA in 30 February 1999. Additionally, the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Honby 31 Extension and Storage-1 was adopted by CLWA in February 2000 (2000 MND) (CLWA 2000a). The 32 project evaluated in the 2000 MND was considered to be an interim project of the Honby 33 Extension project evaluated in the 1999 MND.

34 Hilltop construction of the storage reservoir incorporates design elements to address site-specific 35 geology including landslides, mudflows, and safety issues. Significant but mitigable impacts 36 were identified for geology and soils (erosion, sedimentation, expansive soils, and collapsible 37 soils), water quality (discharge of pollutants into adjacent water bodies), air quality (construction 38 related air emissions), transportation and traffic (related to emergency access and

6-6 CLWA – Honby Pipeline Draft EIR 6.0 Cumulative Impacts

1 bicycle/pedestrian traffic along the Santa Clara River), biological resources (e.g., least Bell’s Vireo, 2 southwestern willow flycatcher, alluvial scrub habitat, nesting of migratory birds), noise 3 (construction related), and aesthetics (related to construction of the pump station and reservoir).

4 Cumulative Impacts with the Project

5 Both the Honby and Sand Canyon pipeline projects would result in air quality impacts. These 6 impacts would be cumulatively less than significant, because construction equipment would be 7 mobile and operated intermittently, both projects would be required to comply with SCAQMD 8 Rule 403 to reduce fugitive dust, and emissions would be localized. Both projects would result in 9 significant impacts to biological resources, and these would be cumulatively significant, because 10 the impacts to biological resources in the same general area would be compounded. Cumulative 11 impacts to geology and soils and water quality would not occur, because measures have been 12 included as part of the Honby pipeline project description that would minimize or avoid these 13 impacts. Both projects would result in noise impacts during construction, but the Sand Canyon 14 pipeline construction activities would be well removed from the proposed Honby pipeline by the 15 time construction started on the latter project, and the cumulative impacts of pipeline construction 16 would not be additive. Cumulative impacts to transportation would not occur because the 17 Honby pipeline project would have short-term, less than significant impacts to a localized area 18 and would not affect the same access roads and pathways as the Sand Canyon project. 19 Cumulative impacts to aesthetics would not occur because the Honby pipeline project would not 20 result in above-ground structures or long-term impacts.

21 Both projects could transport water that could be used to serve a portion of anticipated future 22 growth and thus would indirectly cause impacts from new development. The indirect 23 cumulative impacts of the two projects would be significant for all environmental resources.

24 Pitchess Pipeline (aka Lateral Extension)

25 Project Description

26 The Pitchess Pipeline is a 24-inch, approximately 4,300-foot-long pipeline that would originate 27 east of Interstate 5 and terminate near the intersection of the Old Road and Sedona Way in 28 unincorporated Los Angeles County. A portion of the pipeline is located within the Pitchess 29 Honor Farm, and a portion also crosses Castaic Creek. The Pitchess Pipeline will provide 30 imported water to supplement existing groundwater supplies currently used by local purveyors 31 for demand generated in the northwestern portion of the CLWA service area. Construction is 32 scheduled to begin in the winter of 2005 and be completed in the fall of 2005.

33 Project’s Environmental Analysis Status and Anticipated Impacts

34 CLWA approved a MND for the project in 1999, at that time referred to as the Lateral Extension 35 (CLWA 1998). Construction of the Pitchess Pipeline project would result in temporary but 36 significant impacts to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, 37 hazards and hazardous materials, noise, transportation, and water quality. Operation of the 38 Pitchess Pipeline project would result in indirect impacts to environmental resources from 39 growth-related development. Surveys for the arroyo toad were conducted at the Castaic Creek 40 crossing and surveys for active nests of migratory birds were conducted in the construction area

CLWA – Honby Pipeline 6-7 Draft EIR 6.0 Cumulative Impacts

1 (SAIC 2003a and 2003b). Based on the results of the surveys, no additional measures are needed 2 to reduce biological impacts to these species.

3 Cumulative Impacts with the Project

4 Direct impacts of the Pitchess pipeline project to air quality, geology and soils, hazards and 5 hazardous materials, noise, transportation, and water quality would be short-term and localized, 6 as would the impacts to these resources from the Honby pipeline project. Moreover, the two 7 projects are located approximately 5.5 miles apart. Thus, no cumulative impacts to these 8 resources would occur. Neither project would affect known cultural resources, and the Honby 9 pipeline project contains measures in the project description that would effectively mitigate the 10 impacts from discoveries of presently unknown resources. Cumulative impacts would be less 11 than significant. Both projects could significantly affect the unarmored threespine stickleback, and 12 the cumulative impact would be significant.

13 Both projects would result in significant, indirect, growth-related impacts to all environmental 14 resources in the Santa Clarita Valley, and the cumulative impacts of the two projects would be 15 significant for all environmental resources.

16 Sky Blue Tank Site Additions

17 Project Description

18 In April 2003, CLWA approved a MND for the Sky Blue Tank Site Additions (the Sky Blue 19 project), a project of CLWA’s SCWD, a retail purveyor. The project includes construction of two 20 above-ground water storage tanks and an associated storm drainage system on a site owned by 21 the purveyor. One tank already has been constructed; it is anticipated that the second tank will 22 be constructed in about one year (winter of 2006). This site already contains a 1-million-gallon 23 water tank and a 2-million-gallon water tank. Access to the site would be provided by the 24 existing access road off of Whites Canyon Road just north of Enderly Street. The project will 25 provide peak hour water storage for an approved residential development and will complete 26 the water supply for this development. The Sky Blue project MND addressed only impacts 27 resulting from the construction of the tanks. No new water supply is associated with this 28 project.

29 Project’s Environmental Analysis Status and Anticipated Impacts

30 The Sky Blue project MND identified significant impacts that would be reduced to less than 31 significant after implementation of mitigation measures for the following resources: biological 32 resources, geology and soils, hazards (construction in a high fire hazard area), hydrology and 33 water quality, and land use and planning. It identified less than significant impacts for the 34 following resources: aesthetics, air quality, noise, transportation and traffic, and utilities/service 35 systems.

36 Cumulative Impacts with the Project

37 Impacts from the first phase of construction already have occurred and would not contribute to a 38 cumulative impact in combination with the Honby pipeline project, particularly since mitigation

6-8 CLWA – Honby Pipeline Draft EIR 6.0 Cumulative Impacts

1 measures were implemented that reduced all impacts to less than significant; these included the 2 only significant impact to biological resources, which was from construction of the new 3 subsurface drain. Construction of the second tank could overlap with construction of the Honby 4 pipeline, but impacts would be cumulatively less than significant because impacts to resources 5 such as noise, transportation, and air quality would be short-term and localized, or because 6 different resources would be affected (e.g., the Honby pipeline would not affect fire hazards, land 7 use, or aesthetics). Additionally, both projects would generate only minimal amounts of solid 8 waste during construction, which would be disposed in an appropriate manner and which would 9 not exceed the capacity of any landfills.

10 Perchlorate Containment and Groundwater Production Restoration Projects

11 In 1997, the Santa Clarita Water Company (CLWA’s SCWD) detected perchlorate in two 12 production wells tapping the Saugus Formation, both of which are near the Whittaker-Bermite 13 property, located east of San Fernando Road and south of Soledad Canyon Road. These wells, 14 Saugus-1 and Saugus-2, had perchlorate levels as high as 45 µg/L and were taken out of service. 15 Two other Saugus production wells in the valley have shown detectable levels of perchlorate 16 below 18 µg/L, and the use of these wells also was suspended. These wells are located in the 17 NCWD and in VWC’s service area. The combined capacity of all four Saugus wells is 7,900 18 gallons/minute. In addition, in 2002 perchlorate was detected in one Alluvial production well 19 located near the former Whittaker-Bermite facility, which has been the primary focus of potential 20 perchlorate contamination that has impacted the wells in the region. That well tested positive for 21 perchlorate at a level of 5.9 µg/L (SCVWP 2003). This well was also taken out of service, resulting 22 in a total of five perchlorate-impacted wells having been removed from active water supply 23 service (SCVWP 2003). Two projects are being developed to contain perchlorate and restore 24 groundwater production facilities, discussed below.

25 Perchlorate Containment Project

26 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

27 The project consists, in part, of pumping contaminated groundwater from Saugus 1 and 2 and 28 installing monitoring wells to provide groundwater monitoring in both the Alluvium and Saugus 29 Formation. The contaminated groundwater would be treated to remove perchlorate prior to 30 being pumped to CLWA’s Rio Vista Intake Pump Station (RVIPS) for subsequent distribution. 31 The treatment system would be designed for a capacity of at least 2,400 (gpm) (1,200 gpm per 32 well). The objectives of the project are to provide containment for perchlorate in the Saugus 33 Formation and provide limited containment in the Alluvial Aquifer. The project would consist of 34 (1) the installation of two new variable speed pumps at Saugus 1 and 2 and the construction of 35 pipelines1 to transport the contaminated water from Saugus 1 and 2 to the RVIPS, (2) the 36 construction of a treatment system at the RVIPS, and (3) the construction of a new cluster 37 monitoring well and sentry well network.

1 A 10-inch steel pipeline, approximately 1,300 feet in length and a 16-inch pipeline approximately 4,620 feet in length.

CLWA – Honby Pipeline 6-9 Draft EIR 6.0 Cumulative Impacts

1 PROJECT’S ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS STATUS AND ANTICIPATED IMPACTS

2 It is anticipated that a MND will be prepared for the project, which is expected to be operational 3 by February 2006. The project would have short-term impacts to air quality and noise during 4 construction, which could be significant. Impacts to biological resources and cultural resources 5 are expected to be less than significant, because construction would occur in already disturbed 6 areas (although there is a potential for the discovery of presently unknown cultural resources). 7 Additionally, the new 16-inch pipeline would be placed on an existing bridge when crossing the 8 Santa Clara River, thus reducing or avoiding impacts to sensitive resources. Impacts to geology 9 and soils could result from construction, particularly in proximity to the Santa Clara River. The 10 project would result in increased use of hazardous materials, although impacts to groundwater 11 quality from perchlorate contamination would be beneficial. Short-term traffic impacts would 12 occur during construction activities and may be significant.

13 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS WITH THE PROJECT

14 Both the Honby pipeline and the perchlorate containment projects would result in air quality 15 impacts. These impacts would be cumulatively less than significant, because construction 16 equipment would be mobile and operated intermittently, both projects would be required to 17 comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 to reduce fugitive dust, and emissions would be localized. The 18 Honby pipeline project would result in significant impacts to biological resources, but these 19 would not be cumulatively significant, because the perchlorate containment project would be 20 constructed in already disturbed areas, and the new pipeline associated with this project would 21 be placed on an existing bridge when crossing the Santa Clara River. Cumulative impacts to 22 geology and soils and water quality would not occur, because measures have been included as 23 part of the Honby pipeline project description that would minimize or avoid these impacts; 24 additionally, the perchlorate containment project would avoid construction in the Santa Clara 25 River. Both projects would result in noise impacts during construction, but the perchlorate 26 containment project construction activities would be well removed from the Honby pipeline, and 27 the cumulative impacts of pipeline construction would not be additive. Cumulative impacts to 28 transportation would not occur because the Honby pipeline project would have short-term, less 29 than significant impacts to a localized area and would not affect the same access roads and 30 pathways as the perchlorate containment project.

31 The perchlorate containment project would address contamination in CLWA’s existing water 32 supply and would not result in indirect, growth-related impacts. Thus, no cumulative indirect 33 impacts would occur.

34 Groundwater Production Restoration Project

35 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

36 The project seeks to restore the water supply capacity lost as a result of the perchlorate 37 contamination and the subsequent shut down of the four Saugus wells and the Alluvial well. 38 Before the shutdown, the five wells provided a combined historical annual production of 5,300 39 acre-feet of water per year (AFY). This project seeks to make up the shortfall between the amount 40 produced prior to the shutdown and the anticipated production from the groundwater 41 production restoration project.

6-10 CLWA – Honby Pipeline Draft EIR 6.0 Cumulative Impacts

1 The project would consist of the construction of a new wellfield and construction of new pipelines 2 to transmit the pumped groundwater. Two new wells would be built in the Saugus Formation. 3 To distribute the pumped groundwater, pipelines ranging from 12 to 39 inches would be built. 4 The combined length of the pipelines would be approximately 17,100 feet.

5 PROJECT’S ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS STATUS AND ANTICIPATED IMPACTS

6 It is anticipated that a MND will be prepared for the groundwater production restoration project, 7 and it is expected to be operational by February 2006. The project would have short-term impacts 8 to air quality and noise during construction, which could be significant. Impacts to cultural 9 resources are expected to be less than significant, because construction would occur in already 10 disturbed areas, although there is a potential for the discovery of presently unknown resources. 11 There is a potential for impacts to biological resources and geology and soils, particularly in the 12 vicinity of the Santa Clara River. Short-term traffic impacts would occur during construction 13 activities and may be significant. Impacts to water supply would be beneficial.

14 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS WITH THE PROJECT

15 Both the Honby pipeline and the groundwater production restoration projects would result in air 16 quality impacts. These impacts would be cumulatively less than significant, because construction 17 equipment would be mobile and operated intermittently, both projects would be required to 18 comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 to reduce fugitive dust, and emissions would be localized. The 19 Honby pipeline project would result in significant impacts to biological resources, and these could 20 be cumulatively significant if the groundwater production restoration project also impacts 21 biological resources. Cumulative impacts to geology and soils and water quality would not occur, 22 because measures have been included as part of the Honby pipeline project description that 23 would minimize or avoid these impacts. Both projects would result in noise impacts during 24 construction, but the perchlorate containment project construction activities would be well 25 removed from the Honby pipeline, and the cumulative impacts of pipeline construction would 26 not be additive. Cumulative impacts to transportation would be less than significant because the 27 Honby pipeline project would have short-term, less than significant impacts to a localized area, 28 and impacts associated with the new wells (the only component of the groundwater production 29 restoration project to occur in the same area) would be minor.

30 The production restoration project would restore a portion of CLWA’s existing water supply, 31 would not produce new water and would not result in indirect, growth-related impacts. Thus, no 32 cumulative indirect impacts would occur.

33 6.3.2 Projects Listed in the County of Los Angeles Development Monitoring System 34 (DMS)

35 Project Description

36 The Development Monitoring System (DMS) system is a list of proposed and approved projects 37 maintained by the County of Los Angeles to provide an estimate of certain development and 38 environmental parameters. The DMS includes information on pending, approved, and 39 recorded projects filed within the unincorporated area of the Santa Clarita Valley, as well as the 40 City of Santa Clarita. The intended use of the DMS system is to determine individual project

CLWA – Honby Pipeline 6-11 Draft EIR 6.0 Cumulative Impacts

1 and cumulative demands for public services and infrastructure. Because the Project is a water 2 supply infrastructure project, rather than a development project, a standard analysis using the 3 DMS data would not apply. However, the DMS can be used to determine how much new 4 development is anticipated in addition to development potentially served by the Project. An 5 estimate of additional development that could potentially be served by the Project was 6 identified in Chapter 4.

7 As of October 1, 2003, the DMS system included 62,472 single family dwelling units, 29,037 multi- 8 family dwelling units, and 1,818 mobile home units, for a total of 93,327 units (Impact Sciences 9 2004). The DMS has not been updated in several years (personal communication, A. Carreon 10 2005), and this is considered representative of the most current information available. The exact 11 timing of the completion of these projects is uncertain because the completion schedule is 12 dependent upon many variables, including market demand, construction phasing, capital 13 resources of the individual developers and ability of the various governmental agencies to process 14 and issue the required permits. In addition, it should be noted that projects listed in the DMS 15 sometimes remain on the list beyond completion or after construction has been delayed or may no 16 longer be likely, and therefore the DMS list is only an estimate of known future development.

17 Project’s Environmental Analysis Status and Anticipated Impacts

18 Projects listed in the DMS would impact a broad spectrum of environmental resources. As a 19 result of the land use approval process, including the project-specific CEQA analyses, many of 20 these impacts would be reduced to less than significant or no impact through the application of 21 mitigation measures. However, in some instances, project-specific findings have found that other 22 community needs and other factors have overridden the concerns for environmental resources 23 and impacts to these resources.

24 Cumulative Impacts with the Project

25 As discussed in Chapter 4, the Project could serve about 51,600 more housing units than the 26 existing pipeline; thus, there is overlap between the amount of growth supported by the Project 27 and the amount of growth projected by the DMS. The types of impacts from development 28 included in the DMS would be generally comparable to those growth-related impacts of the 29 Project described in Chapter 4 and would be cumulatively significant for all resources.

30 6.3.3 Reasonably Foreseeable Land Development Projects Not Listed in the DMS 31 Identified by the City of Santa Clarita Planning Division

32 The following projects were identified by the City of Santa Clarita Planning Division for inclusion 33 in the cumulative impact analysis and are believed not to be included in the DMS. Their potential 34 to contribute to direct cumulative impacts in combination with the Honby pipeline project is 35 discussed below. Similar to those projects included in the DMS (see section 6.3.3.2), the types of 36 impacts from these development projects would be generally comparable to those indirect, 37 growth-related impacts of the Project described in Chapter 4 and are assumed to be cumulatively 38 significant for all resources.

6-12 CLWA – Honby Pipeline Draft EIR 6.0 Cumulative Impacts

1 Riverpark Development

2 Project Description

3 As noted in Chapter 1, a large portion of the existing Honby pipeline is located in an area that is 4 proposed for residences as part of the Riverpark development (Tract 53425). The Riverpark 5 development is composed of 419 single family residences and 704 multi-family residences, and 6 one commercial lot, in addition to a trail system, park, and open space. The project includes the 7 extension of Newhall Ranch Road, including the Newhall Ranch Road/Golden Valley Road 8 Bridge over the Santa Clara River to the Golden Valley Road/Soledad Canyon Road flyover, 9 which is currently under construction. The extension of Newhall Ranch Road also is being 10 analyzed by the City of Santa Clarita as part of the Cross Valley Connector project, described 11 below in section 6.3.3.5.

12 Project’s Environmental Analysis Status and Anticipated Impacts

13 The environmental impacts of all development associated with the Riverpark project have been 14 identified in an EIR prepared by the City of Santa Clarita (Impact Sciences 2004). A Draft Final 15 EIR was released in December, 2004, and on December 21, 2004, the Planning Commission 16 recommended approval of the project. The City Council is expected to decide whether to certify 17 the EIR and approve the project in the spring of 2005. The EIR identified significant impacts that 18 are mitigable to less than significant for geotechnical resources, flooding, water quality, parks and 19 recreation, fire services, sheriff services, and cultural resources. Significant and unavoidable 20 impacts were identified for air quality, traffic/access, noise, biological resources, solid waste 21 disposal, visual resources, and agricultural resources.

22 Cumulative Impacts with the Project

23 The two projects are located in the same geographic area, and construction could occur at the 24 same time. Some of the resources affected by the Riverpark project would not be directly or 25 adversely affected by the proposed Honby pipeline, such as flooding, parks and recreation, fire 26 services, sheriff services, and agricultural resources and thus are not considered further in the 27 cumulative impact analysis. Both projects would be affected by geotechnical conditions, but the 28 Honby project description includes mitigation measures that would reduce these impacts to less 29 than significant, and the cumulative impact also would be less than significant. The Riverpark 30 project would have significant impacts to cultural resources, but the Honby pipeline project 31 would not affect known cultural resources, and mitigation measures have been included as part 32 of the project description that would mitigate the impacts from discoveries of presently unknown 33 resources to less than significant. Therefore, the cumulative impact would be less than significant.

34 Both projects would have the potential to have significant impacts to biological resources, 35 including riparian, wetland, and riverwash vegetation, upland vegetation, and sensitive fish 36 species, such as the unarmored threespine stickleback. The cumulative impact thus would be 37 significant. Both projects also would affect sensitive biological resources associated with the Santa 38 Clara River SEA, but development in such areas is required to undergo an additional layer of 39 environmental review and must adhere to conditions specified by the City for developing in that 40 area. Cumulative impacts, therefore, would be less than significant.

CLWA – Honby Pipeline 6-13 Draft EIR 6.0 Cumulative Impacts

1 Both projects would have the potential to affect air quality; although impacts of the Honby 2 pipeline project would be less than significant. As stated under Impact AQ-2 in section 3.1 of this 3 EIR, Project emissions would disperse over a large geographic area, and due to the mobile nature 4 of most construction emission sources and the short duration of their activity, Project construction 5 emissions would not produce substantial impacts in a given location. Project emissions, in 6 combination with any reasonably foreseeable emissions that would occur within the same 7 timeframe or general location of the Project, would not be cumulatively considerable and would 8 not exceed any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air 9 quality standard violation. Additionally, the Project would comply with SCAQMD Rule 403, 10 which requires that an activity not emit substantial amounts of fugitive dust emissions to public 11 areas. Therefore, the air quality impacts of the Project in combination with those of the Riverpark 12 project would be cumulatively less than significant.

13 The Riverpark project would result in significant and unavoidable long-term impacts to 14 traffic/access, but the Honby pipeline project would have only localized, temporary impacts 15 that primarily would affect the roads comprising the pipeline corridor. The Project’s 16 contribution to traffic/access impacts would not be considerable, and the cumulative impact 17 would be less than significant. The Riverpark project would result in significant and 18 unavoidable long-term impacts to visual resources, but the Honby pipeline project would result 19 in only temporary disturbance during construction. The Riverpark project would result in 20 significant and unavoidable construction-related and long-term impacts to solid waste disposal, 21 but the impacts of disposing of a portion of the existing Honby pipeline, which would be the 22 primary impact associated with the Honby pipeline project, were included in the Riverpark EIR. 23 Thus, no additional cumulative impacts would occur. Both projects would result in significant 24 noise impacts, and because the noise would occur at the same general time, in the same general 25 location, the impacts would be cumulatively significant.

26 Golden Triangle Apartments

27 Project Description

28 This project is located on the southwest corner of Golden Triangle and Isabella Parkway, 29 approximately 0.2 mile south of the Sand Canyon Pump Station. The project includes the 30 construction of 188 apartments and a 10,000 square-foot commercial building on an 31 approximately 22-acre site. The project also includes subdivision of the 22 acres into three parcels: 32 one for the existing Pep Boys automotive building, one for the proposed apartments, and one for 33 the proposed commercial building. Cut and fill of approximately 120,000 cubic yards of earth 34 would be required and would be balanced onsite. Construction is anticipated to begin in late 35 2005 or early 2006.

36 Project’s Environmental Analysis Status and Anticipated Impacts

37 Environmental analysis has not been performed, but it is anticipated that an EIR will not be 38 required. Project construction would likely result in impacts to air quality, geology and soils, land 39 use (zone change and general plan amendment), biological resources, water supply, and 40 aesthetics.

6-14 CLWA – Honby Pipeline Draft EIR 6.0 Cumulative Impacts

1 Cumulative Impacts with the Project

2 Impacts to air quality would be cumulatively less than significant because construction equipment 3 would be mobile and operated intermittently, both projects would be required to comply with 4 SCAQMD Rule 403 to reduce fugitive dust, and emissions would be short-term and localized. 5 Impacts to biological resources could be cumulatively significant, depending on the extent of the 6 impacts of the housing project. Impacts to geology and soils would be short-term and localized 7 and would not result in a cumulative impact in combination with the Honby pipeline project. 8 The pipeline project would not affect land use, water supply, or aesthetics (except for short-term 9 disturbance during construction), and impacts would not be cumulatively considerable or 10 significant.

11 Centre Pointe Business Park Rezone Projects

12 Project Description

13 Two projects have been identified that would involve the rezoning of land designated as business 14 park for residential use. One project would be within the Centre Pointe Business Park, which is 15 bordered by Soledad Canyon Road on the north, Centre Pointe Park on the south and west, and 16 Ruether Avenue on the east; the other would be adjacent to the business park. These sites are 17 roughly 0.5 mile south of the Sand Canyon pump station. No plans have been submitted to the 18 City of Santa Clarita, and the exact number of proposed residences is not known.

19 Project’s Environmental Analysis Status and Anticipated Impacts

20 No environmental documentation for these projects has been prepared, but it is anticipated that 21 typical construction-related impacts would occur, such as noise, air quality, and erosion impacts, 22 as well as long-term aesthetic impacts.

23 Cumulative Impacts with the Project

24 Cumulative impacts in combination with the Honby pipeline project are unlikely since the 25 construction periods would not overlap and since construction impacts would be short-term and 26 localized. Additionally, impacts to biological resources are not anticipated since the Center Pointe 27 project appears to be in a previously disturbed area.

28 Soledad Townhomes Project

29 Project Description

30 This project includes 411 residential units and 10,000 square feet of small retail space and would 31 be located next to the bowling alley on Soledad Canyon Road, across from the East Greenbrier 32 Mobile Home Park.

CLWA – Honby Pipeline 6-15 Draft EIR 6.0 Cumulative Impacts

1 Project’s Environmental Analysis Status and Anticipated Impacts

2 The project application has been submitted to the City of Santa Clarita, and an Initial Study is in 3 preparation. It is anticipated that an EIR will be prepared. Project construction would likely 4 result in impacts to air quality, geology and soils, water supply, and aesthetics.

5 Cumulative Impacts with the Project

6 Direct cumulative impacts in combination with the Honby pipeline project are unlikely since the 7 construction periods probably would not overlap and since construction impacts would be short- 8 term and localized; additionally, the Honby pipeline project would not result in long-term 9 impacts to aesthetics.

10 6.3.4 Other Reasonably Foreseeable Land Development Projects Not Listed in the DMS

11 Other reasonably foreseeable land development projects not identified in the DMS because 12 tentative tract maps had not been submitted as of October 1, 2003 were also considered. These 13 include the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan and Water Reclamation Plant and Stevenson Ranch 14 Phase V Project. Their potential to contribute to direct cumulative impacts in combination with 15 the Honby pipeline project is discussed below. Similar to those projects included in the DMS (see 16 section 6.3.3.2), the types of impacts from these development projects would be generally 17 comparable to those indirect, growth-related impacts of the Project described in Chapter 4 and are 18 assumed to be cumulatively significant for all resources.

19 Newhall Ranch Specific Plan and Water Reclamation Plant

20 Project Description

21 The project would include residential, commercial and mixed-use development. The project 22 would include a total of 21,308 dwelling units, 5,549,000 square feet of commercial/mixed use 23 development, and a 6.8 mgd water reclamation plant. The specific plan includes establishment of 24 San Fernando spineflower conservation/preserve areas. The project site is located wholly within 25 the CLWA service area just east of Ventura County on the north slopes of the Santa Susana 26 Mountains west of Valencia and one-eighth of a mile from the Six Flags Magic Mountain theme 27 park.

28 The project’s potable water would be supplied, in part, by using the applicant’s historical Alluvial 29 Aquifer groundwater, which is currently committed to agricultural uses. The project applicant 30 also has secured a potable water supply through a contract with Nickel Family, LLC (the source 31 of this water is the Kern River and is secured through pre-1914 water rights). This contract has 32 secured the applicant’s rights to 1,607 acre-feet of water per year from this source.

33 In addition, the applicant has entered into an agreement to reserve and purchase water storage 34 capacity of up to 55,000 acre-feet in Semitropic Water Storage District’s existing groundwater 35 banking project. Any water stored in this account in Semitropic’s existing banking project could 36 be extracted in dry years in amounts of up to 4,950 acre-feet per year. This supply would be used 37 as a source for the Specific Plan in dry years only.

6-16 CLWA – Honby Pipeline Draft EIR 6.0 Cumulative Impacts

1 The applicant’s non-potable water for the project would be supplied, in part, by reclamation of 2 wastewater from the Water Reclamation Plant, which is to be constructed as part of the Newhall 3 Ranch Specific Plan. In addition, CLWA would serve the project with reclaimed water from 4 existing upstream Water Reclamation Plants, consistent with CLWA’s draft Reclaimed Water 5 System Master Plan, which is being implemented in stages. These two sources would supply all 6 of the project’s non-potable water needs.

7 Project’s Environmental Analysis Status and Anticipated Impacts

8 The Board of Supervisors of Los Angeles County certified the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan Final 9 EIR, as revised by an additional environmental analysis, and re-approved the Specific Plan and 10 related project approvals, on May 27, 2003. The additional environmental analysis was required 11 to address certain specified issues arising from litigation challenging the Specific Plan and 12 environmental documentation (“Newhall Ranch litigation”), discussed below.

13 The County’s initial certification of the Specific Plan EIR was challenged in a consolidated CEQA 14 action in Kern County Superior Court (United Water Conservation District v. County of Los 15 Angeles, et al., Case No. 239324-RDR). After a hearing in 2000, the trial court found that the Final 16 EIR required additional environmental analysis on certain issues, including water supplies to 17 serve the Specific Plan. As a result, the trial court set aside approval of the project and the EIR 18 certification, but only with respect to the specified issues. The trial court did not set aside 19 approval of the project or EIR certification with respect to any other issues.

20 On May 27, 2003, the County’s Board of Supervisors certified the additional environmental 21 analysis and re-approved the project. Project opponents again challenged the adequacy of the 22 environmental documentation, but the trial court ruled in favor of both the County and the 23 applicant by finding that the additional analysis met the requirements of both CEQA and the 24 court’s prior decision in the Newhall Ranch litigation.

25 On December 19, 2003, project opponents filed an appeal of the trial court’s decision in the 26 Newhall Ranch litigation. On April 1, 2004, the parties settled their differences, resulting in the 27 dismissal of the appeal and the final resolution of the Newhall Ranch litigation. This outcome 28 cleared the way for the Newhall Ranch environmental documentation to be used as the 29 programmatic EIR to guide development of the Specific Plan.

30 The Newhall Ranch Final EIR, as revised (Impact Sciences 2004), identified significant but 31 mitigable impacts to the following environmental resource areas: geology and soils (impacts 32 associated with grading activities); environmental safety (oil and natural gas related impacts); 33 biological resources (impacts to the San Fernando Valley spineflower); traffic/access (increase in 34 the amount of average daily traffic trips); noise (vehicular noise); water resources and wastewater 35 disposal (water supply and water quality of wastewater entering the Santa Clara River); natural 36 gas and electricity demand; education (impacts on school facilities); public services and fire 37 hazards (impacts relating to fire and police services); libraries (demands for library materials and 38 services); and parks, recreation, and trails (impacts to County parks and trails). Unavoidable 39 significant impacts were identified for the following resource areas: agricultural resources (loss of 40 Prime Farmland); visual (conversion of land from rural to suburban); air quality (vehicular, 41 construction, and operational emissions); and solid waste disposal (landfill capacity for solid and

CLWA – Honby Pipeline 6-17 Draft EIR 6.0 Cumulative Impacts

1 hazardous waste). Less than significant impacts were identified for the following resource areas: 2 cultural/ paleontological resources (potential impacts to undiscovered buried resources from 3 grading activities); environmental safety (placement of development within a dam inundation 4 area, hazards associated with electrical transmission lines and natural gas lines, transportation of 5 hazardous waste along SR-126, and the proximity of the project to the Chiquita Canyon Landfill); 6 biological resources (impacts to the use of Salt Canyon as a wildlife corridor, and impacts to 7 species within an SEA); and population, housing, and employment.

8 Cumulative Impacts with the Project

9 Most impacts of the Honby pipeline project would be short-term and localized, and would not 10 contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact in combination with the Newhall Ranch project. 11 Direct impacts to biological resources from the Honby pipeline project, however, would be 12 cumulatively significant in combination with the impacts of the Newhall Ranch project.

13 Stevenson Ranch Phase V Project

14 Project Description

15 This project is currently in the design phase, but it is anticipated that it would consist of 16 approximately 3,000 residential units and some ancillary facilities. The location is 0.5 miles west 17 of Interstate 5 and 1.25 miles south of SR 126, southwest of the Six Flags Magic Mountain theme 18 park in Stevenson Ranch. The land is outside the CLWA service area and an annexation to the 19 service area would be required before CLWA could provide water to the site.

20 Project’s Environmental Analysis Status and Anticipated Impacts

21 It is anticipated that an Initial Study will be released in the spring of 2005, followed by an EIR. 22 Impacts to the following environmental resources may occur: aesthetics, air quality, biological 23 resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, noise, traffic and transportation public services, 24 public utilities, population and housing, recreation, and water quality/water resources.

25 Cumulative Impacts with the Project

26 Most impacts of the Honby pipeline project would be short-term and localized and would not 27 contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact in combination with the Stevenson Ranch Phase 28 V project. Direct impacts to biological resources from the Honby pipeline project, however, 29 would be cumulatively significant in combination with the impacts of the Phase V project.

30 6.3.5 Additional Infrastructure Project

31 Cross Valley Connector Project

32 Project Description

33 The City of Santa Clarita has proposed the extensions of Newhall Ranch Road and Golden Valley 34 Road as part of the Cross Valley Connector project. The Cross Valley Connector includes the 35 construction of Newhall Ranch Road east of the proposed terminus provided by Newhall Land

6-18 CLWA – Honby Pipeline Draft EIR 6.0 Cumulative Impacts

1 and Farming Company and a connection to the proposed Golden Valley Flyover, an elevated 2 roadway crossing Soledad Canyon Road. The City plans to construct the two necessary bridges: 3 one over the LADWP’s above-ground Los Angeles Aqueduct and another over the Santa Clara 4 River. The southerly portion of the Cross Valley Connector is under construction, including the 5 flyover on Golden Valley Road from a point south of Golden Triangle Road and extending north 6 of Soledad Canyon Road approximately 1,400 feet and an interchange. Construction is expected 7 to last until the fall of 2005.

8 Project’s Environmental Analysis Status and Anticipated Impacts

9 The portion of Golden Valley Road and Newhall Ranch Road between Soledad Canyon and 10 Bouquet Canyon Road, including the bridge over the Santa Clara River, is currently under 11 environmental review. A Draft EIR is expected to be released in the spring of 2005. Typical 12 construction-related impacts are expected, including impacts to air quality, hazards and 13 hazardous materials, noise, biological resources, geology and soils, and water quality. Most of 14 this road alignment was evaluated for the presence of cultural resources as part of the Riverpark 15 EIR or is part of the Santa Clara River and is unlikely to contain cultural resources.

16 Cumulative Impacts with the Project

17 Both projects would have the potential to affect air quality, although impacts of the Honby 18 pipeline would be less than significant and the impacts of the Cross Valley Connector project are 19 not known. Impacts to air quality would be cumulatively less than significant because construction 20 equipment would be mobile and operated intermittently, both projects would be required to 21 comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 to reduce fugitive dust, and emissions would be short-term and 22 localized. Therefore, the impacts of the Project in combination with those of the Cross Valley 23 Connector project would be cumulatively less than significant.

24 To the extent that construction periods overlap, the Honby pipeline project and Cross Valley 25 Connector project could result in cumulatively significant noise impacts. Both projects are 26 unlikely to affect cultural resources, and the Honby project contains measures as part of the 27 project description that would mitigate the impacts from discoveries of presently unknown 28 resources to less than significant. The cumulative impact to cultural resources would be less than 29 significant. Both projects could affect geology and soils and water quality, but the Honby project 30 includes use of BMPs and compliance with standard engineering practices to minimize impacts to 31 geology and soils and water quality; thus, cumulative impacts to these resources would be less 32 than significant. Both projects would require the use of common hazardous materials during 33 construction, but these would be used in accordance with standard practices and permit 34 conditions, and cumulative impacts would be less than significant. Noise impacts would be 35 cumulatively significant if construction periods overlapped, and cumulative impacts to biological 36 resources would be significant because both projects could affect sensitive biological resources 37 along the Santa Clara River.

38 6.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS BY RESOURCE

39 This section summarizes cumulative impacts by resource and identifies mitigation measures 40 where appropriate (PRC section 21102; CEQA Guidelines sections 15002, 15021). The 41 implementation of these mitigation measures may be the responsibility of agencies other than

CLWA – Honby Pipeline 6-19 Draft EIR 6.0 Cumulative Impacts

1 CLWA, who would adopt them as part of their own environmental review and approval 2 processes.

3 Aesthetics/Visual Resources

4 The Project would have a less than significant short-term direct impact to aesthetic/visual 5 resources. Its incremental contribution would not be cumulatively considerable in combination 6 with other reasonably foreseeable projects, and direct cumulative impacts would be less than 7 significant.

8 The Project would result in significant indirect impacts to aesthetics/visual resources in the Santa 9 Clarita Valley (see section 4.2.1), which could compound or increase similar impacts of other 10 projects. These cumulative impacts are considered to be significant. Mitigation measures to 11 reduce significant indirect cumulative aesthetic/visual resources impacts are identified in section 12 4.2, but some significant impacts would be unavoidable depending on the magnitude and specific 13 location of future development.

14 Agricultural Resources

15 The Project would have no direct impacts to agricultural resources; thus, no direct cumulative 16 impacts would occur.

17 The Project would result in significant indirect impacts to agricultural resources in the Santa 18 Clarita Valley (see section 4.2.2), which could compound or increase the impacts of other projects 19 should they affect agricultural lands. These cumulative impacts are considered to be significant. 20 Mitigation measures to reduce these significant indirect cumulative agricultural impacts to less 21 than significant are identified in section 4.2.

22 Air Quality

23 The Project would have a less than significant short-term direct impact to air quality from 24 combustive and fugitive dust emissions during construction. As stated under Impact AQ-2 in 25 section 3.1 of this EIR, Project emissions would disperse over a large geographic area, and due to 26 the mobile nature of most construction emission sources and the short duration of their activity, 27 Project construction emissions would not produce substantial impacts in a given location. Project 28 emissions, in combination with any reasonably foreseeable emissions that would occur within the 29 same timeframe or general location of the Project, would not be cumulatively considerable and 30 would not exceed any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected 31 air quality standard violation. Additionally, the Project would comply with SCAQMD Rule 403, 32 which requires that an activity not emit substantial amounts of fugitive dust emissions to public 33 areas. Therefore, the Project’s incremental contribution would not be cumulatively considerable 34 in combination with other reasonably foreseeable projects, and direct cumulative impacts would 35 be less than significant.

36 The Project would result in significant indirect impacts to air quality in the Santa Clarita Valley 37 (see section 4.2.3), which could compound or increase similar impacts of other projects. These 38 cumulative impacts are considered to be significant. Mitigation measures to reduce significant

6-20 CLWA – Honby Pipeline Draft EIR 6.0 Cumulative Impacts

1 indirect cumulative air quality impacts are identified in section 4.2, but some significant impacts 2 would be unavoidable.

3 Biological Resources

4 The Project would have significant direct impacts to biological resources. Its direct impacts would 5 be cumulatively considerable in combination with other reasonably foreseeable projects, and 6 direct cumulative impacts would be significant. The Project’s contribution to significant direct 7 impacts would be mitigable to less than significant through the implementation of mitigation 8 measures BIO-1, BIO-2, and BIO-3, described in section 3.2.3 of this EIR. Additionally, CEQA 9 requires mitigation measures to be identified for significant impacts to biological resources 10 resulting from other development projects, which would further reduce the cumulative impacts 11 to biological resources.

12 The Project would result in significant indirect impacts to biological resources in the Santa Clarita 13 Valley (see section 4.2.4), which could compound or increase similar impacts of other projects. 14 These cumulative impacts are considered to be significant. Mitigation measures to reduce 15 significant indirect cumulative impacts to biological resources are identified in section 4.2, but 16 some significant impacts would be unavoidable depending on the magnitude and specific location 17 of future development.

18 Cultural Resources

19 The Project would have no direct impact to known cultural resources, and the project description 20 includes measures that would reduce impacts from disturbance of presently unknown cultural 21 resources to less than significant. Its incremental contribution would not be cumulatively 22 considerable in combination with other reasonably foreseeable projects, and direct cumulative 23 impacts would be less than significant.

24 The Project would result in significant indirect impacts to cultural resources in the Santa Clarita 25 Valley (see section 4.2.5), which could compound or increase similar impacts of other projects. 26 These impacts are considered to be cumulatively considerable and significant. Mitigation 27 measures to reduce significant indirect cumulative impacts to cultural resources to less than 28 significant are identified in section 4.2.

29 Geology, Soils, and Minerals

30 The Project would have short-term, localized impacts to geology and soils, but not minerals, and 31 the project description includes measures that would reduce these impacts to less than significant. 32 Its incremental contribution would not be cumulatively considerable in combination with other 33 reasonably foreseeable projects, and direct cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

34 The Project would result in significant indirect impacts to geology, soils, and minerals in the 35 Santa Clarita Valley (see section 4.2.6), which could compound or increase similar impacts of 36 other projects. These impacts are considered to be cumulatively considerable and significant. 37 Mitigation measures to reduce significant indirect cumulative impacts to geology, soils, and 38 minerals to less than significant are identified in section 4.2.

CLWA – Honby Pipeline 6-21 Draft EIR 6.0 Cumulative Impacts

1 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

7 The Project would result in significant indirect impacts associated with hazards and hazardous 8 materials in the Santa Clarita Valley (see section 4.2.7), which could compound or increase similar 9 impacts of other projects. These impacts are considered to be cumulatively considerable and 10 significant. Mitigation measures to reduce significant indirect cumulative impacts associated with 11 hazards and hazardous materials to less than significant are identified in section 4.2.

12 Hydrology/Water Quality

18 The Project would result in significant indirect impacts to hydrology and water quality in the 19 Santa Clarita Valley (see section 4.2.8), which could compound or increase similar impacts of 20 other projects. These impacts are considered to be cumulatively considerable and significant. 21 Mitigation measures to reduce significant indirect cumulative impacts to hydrology and water 22 quality to less than significant are identified in section 4.2.

23 Land Use and Planning

24 The Project would have no direct impacts to land use and planning; thus, no direct cumulative 25 impacts would occur.

26 The Project would result in significant indirect impacts to land use and planning in the Santa 27 Clarita Valley (see section 4.2.8), which could compound or increase similar impacts of other 28 projects. These impacts are considered to be cumulatively considerable and significant. 29 Mitigation measures to reduce significant indirect cumulative impacts to land use and planning 30 to less than significant are identified in section 4.2.

31 Noise

32 The Project would have significant direct impacts to noise. Its direct impacts would be 33 cumulatively considerable in combination with other reasonably foreseeable projects in the 34 immediate project area occurring at the same time, and direct cumulative impacts would be 35 significant. The Project’s contribution to significant direct cumulative impacts would be reduced 36 through the implementation of mitigation measures NOI-1 and NOI-2, described in section 3.2.3 37 of this EIR. Additionally, CEQA requires mitigation measures to be identified for significant 38 impacts to noise resulting from other development projects, which would further reduce the

6-22 CLWA – Honby Pipeline Draft EIR 6.0 Cumulative Impacts

1 cumulative impacts to noise. Residual impacts may be significant, however, given the proximity 2 of construction activities to nearby development (there is a potential for construction noise to 3 exceed City of Santa Clarita standards even after the implementation of mitigation measures).

4 The Project would result in significant indirect impacts to noise in the Santa Clarita Valley (see 5 section 4.2.9), which could compound or increase similar impacts of other projects. These impacts 6 are considered to be cumulatively considerable and significant. Mitigation measures to reduce 7 significant indirect cumulative impacts to noise to less than significant are identified in section 4.2.

8 Population and Housing

9 The Project would have no direct impacts to population and housing; thus, no direct cumulative 10 impacts would occur.

11 The Project would result in significant indirect impacts to population and housing in the Santa 12 Clarita Valley (see section 4.2.10), which could compound or increase similar impacts of other 13 projects. These impacts are considered to be cumulatively considerable and significant. 14 Mitigation measures to reduce significant indirect cumulative impacts to population and housing 15 to less than significant are identified in section 4.2.

16 Public Services

17 The Project would have no direct impacts to public services; thus, no direct cumulative impacts 18 would occur.

19 The Project would result in significant indirect impacts to public services in the Santa Clarita 20 Valley (see section 4.2.11), which could compound or increase similar impacts of other projects. 21 These impacts are considered to be cumulatively considerable and significant. Mitigation 22 measures to reduce significant indirect cumulative impacts to public services to less than significant 23 are identified in section 4.2.

24 Recreation

25 The Project would have no direct impacts to recreation; thus, no direct cumulative impacts would 26 occur.

27 The Project would result in significant indirect impacts to recreation in the Santa Clarita Valley 28 (see section 4.2.12), which could compound or increase similar impacts of other projects. These 29 impacts are considered to be cumulatively considerable and significant. Mitigation measures to 30 reduce significant indirect cumulative impacts to recreation to less than significant are identified in 31 section 4.2.

32 Transportation and Circulation

CLWA – Honby Pipeline 6-23 Draft EIR 6.0 Cumulative Impacts

1 The Project would result in significant indirect impacts to transportation and circulation in the 2 Santa Clarita Valley (see section 4.2.13), which could compound or increase similar impacts of 3 other projects. These impacts are considered to be cumulatively considerable and significant. 4 Mitigation measures to reduce significant indirect cumulative impacts to transportation and 5 circulation to less than significant are identified in section 4.2.

6 Utilities/Service Systems

10 The Project would result in significant indirect impacts to utilities and service systems in the Santa 11 Clarita Valley (see section 4.2.14), which could compound or increase similar impacts of other 12 projects. These cumulative impacts are considered to be significant. Mitigation measures to 13 reduce significant indirect cumulative impacts to utilities and service systems are identified in 14 section 4.2, but significant impacts to solid waste disposal would be unavoidable unless additional 15 landfill space or other disposal alternatives are approved.

6-24 CLWA – Honby Pipeline Draft EIR

1 7.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT

2 This section analyzes alternatives to the Project. CEQA Guidelines (section 15126) require that an 3 EIR describe a reasonable range of feasible alternatives to the project or project location that could 4 feasibly attain most of the basic project objectives and would avoid or substantially lessen one or 5 more of the significant environmental impacts of the Project. Project alternatives must be feasible 6 based on specific economic, social, legal, and technical considerations. The EIR must explain the 7 rationale for selecting the alternatives to be discussed, identify those that were not carried 8 forward because they were infeasible, and briefly explain why they were not carried forward. 9 The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a “rule of reason,” which requires the 10 EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. Additionally, the 11 No Project Alternative must be analyzed. If there is an “environmentally superior” alternative to 12 the Project, it must be identified. If the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project 13 Alternative, the EIR must identify an additional “environmentally superior” choice among the 14 other project alternatives. Section 7.2 discusses the alternatives that were considered but 15 eliminated from detailed consideration. Section 7.3 evaluates the impacts of those alternatives 16 carried forward for detailed consideration, and section 7.4 identifies the environmentally superior 17 alternative.

18 7.1 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT NOT CARRIED FORWARD

19 The use of a 54-inch or 72-inch diameter pipeline was considered. The 54-inch pipeline would 20 have construction-related impacts that were very similar to those of the Project and would not 21 substantively reduce those impacts. Additionally, it would not meet the Project objectives 22 because it would not provide the required peak capacity and therefore was eliminated from 23 further consideration. The 72-inch pipeline would be larger than needed to convey peak 24 projected demand through the year 2050 and thus would have potentially greater growth 25 inducement and growth-related impacts. It also would have construction impacts that were 26 greater than those of the Project and, therefore, it too was eliminated from further consideration.

27 7.2 ALTERNATIVES CARRIED FORWARD FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS

28 7.2.1 No Project Alternative

29 Under the No Project Alternative, the new Honby pipeline would not be constructed, and the 30 existing pipeline would not be replaced. The direct and indirect environmental impacts 31 associated with the Project would not occur, nor would the following Project goals and objectives 32 be met:

33 • The existing Honby pipeline would not be able to provide the required peak capacity to 34 meet the anticipated needs of the current and projected population in the affected portion 35 of the CLWA service area up until year 2050, as planned for in the CLWA Capital 36 Improvements Program (CLWA 1988a).

37 • The existing Honby pipeline is located in an area proposed for development as part of the 38 Riverpark project. Because the roads proposed as part of this development do not follow 39 the existing pipeline alignment, segments of the pipeline would be located in back yards

CLWA – Honby Pipeline 7-1 Draft EIR 7.0 Alternatives

1 and potentially under houses, making maintenance and repair of the pipeline very 2 difficult and potentially causing damage to these residences in the event of pipeline 3 failure. Additionally, a portion of the existing pipeline is located in an area planned for a 4 roadway by the City of Santa Clarita as part of the Cross Valley Connector project. The 5 additional fill that would be placed on the pipe as a result of this project would place an 6 unacceptable load on the pipe and would require its reinforcement or relocation. This 7 would result in temporary noise and air quality impacts, and potentially impacts to other 8 resources, such as biological resources, geology and soils, and water quality.

9 • The existing Honby pipeline would not be technically compatible with the new Sand 10 Canyon pump station (it would not provide the required suction head for the new pump 11 station, either at the current or future water demand).

12 7.2.2 Alternative Pipeline Alignment 1

13 This alternative pipeline alignment (shown in Figure 7-1), measuring approximately 9,600 feet in 14 length, would begin at an existing outlet on the 84-inch Treated Water pipeline. The outlet is 15 located just southeast of the RVWTP, where the Treated Water pipeline first intersects with the 16 proposed Newhall Ranch Road as it leaves the RVWTP. The first portion of the pipeline, 17 approximately 2,000 feet in length, would be built in the proposed future streets of the Riverpark 18 project. Beginning at the outlet, the pipeline would head south for approximately 950 feet. The 19 pipeline would then turn east for approximately 400 feet before again continuing south for 20 approximately 300 feet. From there it would continue southeast for approximately 400 feet to the 21 boundary of the Riverpark project. From the boundary of the Riverpark project, the pipeline 22 would continue northeast in an existing 40-foot easement along the north bank of the Santa Clara 23 River. It would cross under the above-ground Los Angeles Aqueduct and continue along the 24 riverbank in an easterly direction. Approximately 400 feet after passing under the area where the 25 proposed bridge over the Santa Clara River would be constructed, the pipeline would turn south 26 for approximately 600 feet, crossing the river and connecting with Santa Clara Street. The 27 pipeline would then proceed east in an existing pipeline easement in Santa Clara Street for 28 approximately 2,400 feet until its intersection with Furnivall Avenue, at which point it would 29 enter the new Sand Canyon pump station. The discussion of Project components in section 2.2 is 30 applicable to this alternative.

31 7.2.2.1 Air Quality

32 Impacts AQ-1 through AQ-5 generally apply to this alternative because similar construction 33 practices would be followed. A comparable portion of this pipeline would be placed under roads 34 already graded for the Riverpark project, but this alternative would have slightly greater air 35 quality impacts than the Project because the pipeline length would be approximately 100 feet 36 longer. Impacts would remain less than significant.

37 7.2.2.2 Biological Resources

38 Impacts BIO-1 through BIO-6 generally would apply to this alternative. Although impacts to 39 riparian vegetation and wash habitat and associated species would be reduced, the reduction 40 would not be substantial. Impacts to RSS and USFWS designated Critical Habitat for the 41

7-2 CLWA – Honby Pipeline Draft EIR

7.0 Alternatives

1 California gnatcatcher would also be reduced by a small amount. All other impacts would 2 essentially be the same as for the Project.

3 7.2.2.3 Noise

4 Impact NOI-1 generally would apply to this alternative, but short-term noise impacts to the 5 residents of the East Greenbrier Mobile Home Park would be lessened due to the greater distance 6 between the construction corridor and the mobile home park. The nearest residences would be 7 approximately 625 feet from the construction corridor, and noise levels at this location would be 8 approximately 74 dBA, which would exceed City of Santa Clarita noise standards. Impacts to the 9 commercial industrial area along Santa Clara Street would be comparable to those of the Project. 10 Impacts would be temporary but significant. This impact would be reduced, but not necessarily to 11 less than significant, through the implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI-1 and NOI-2.

12 7.2.2.4 Population and Housing

13 Impacts to population and housing would be as described for the proposed action, because the 14 pipeline would have the same capacity; only the routing would be different. This alternative 15 would not directly induce population growth (e.g., it does not require the construction of new 16 homes or businesses), nor would it displace existing housing or people. It would remove an 17 obstacle to future population growth by increasing the capacity of the Honby pipeline to carry 18 water to the eastern portion of the CLWA service area.

19 7.2.3 Alternative Pipeline Alignment 2

20 This alternative pipeline alignment (shown in Figure 7-2), measuring approximately 8,300 feet in 21 length, would begin at the same outlet of the Treated Water pipeline discussed in the first 22 alternative alignment above. From there, the pipeline would head in an easterly direction in the 23 right-of-way for the proposed extension of Newhall Ranch Road approximately 1,800 feet to the 24 limit of Newhall Land and Farming Company’s extension of Newhall Ranch Road. At that point, 25 just before the pedestrian bridge that is being proposed to cross over the above-ground Los 26 Angeles Aqueduct as part of the Riverpark project, the pipeline would head north for 27 approximately 150 feet before heading east to cross under the aqueduct. After crossing under the 28 aqueduct, the pipeline would turn south and then, upon reaching Newhall Ranch Road, continue 29 east for approximately 1,200 feet to a point just before the second proposed bridge (over the Santa 30 Clara River). There the pipeline would turn north again for about 300 feet, then proceed east 31 along the toe of the proposed bridge abutment for about 800 feet. The pipeline would then run 32 east along the north bank of the Santa Clara River for about 400 feet, then cross the Santa Clara 33 River, a distance of about 600 feet. The pipeline would then continue in the existing pipeline 34 easement in Santa Clara Street until its intersection with Furnivall Avenue, a distance of 35 approximately 2,400 feet, at which point it would enter the new Sand Canyon pump station. The 36 discussion of Project components in section 2.2 is applicable to this alternative.

37 7.2.3.1 Air Quality

38 Impacts AQ-1 through AQ-5 generally apply to this alternative because similar construction 39 practices would be followed. Air quality impacts would be less than significant and would be less

7-4 CLWA – Honby Pipeline Draft EIR

7.0 Alternatives

1 than under the Project because the pipeline length would be approximately 1,200 feet shorter and 2 because more of the pipeline would be located in an already graded roadway.

3 7.2.3.2 Biological Resources

4 Under this alternative, a much greater percentage of the disturbance area would occur within an 5 area that will be graded or paved as part of the proposed extension of Newhall Ranch Road. As a 6 result, impacts to biological resources would be reduced. Impacts on common plant communities 7 and common wildlife species associated with them would be lower than under the Project. 8 Impacts to sensitive resources, such as riparian, wetland, riverwash, and Riversidean sage scrub 9 habitat and associated wildlife species also would be reduced substantially under this alternative.

10 Because no removal of Riversidean sage scrub or California gnatcatcher designated Critical 11 Habitat would occur under this alternative, Impacts BIO-4 and BIO-5, which are impacts that are 12 significant but mitigable to less than significant, would not occur. Although the severity of the 13 disturbance would be reduced, Impact BIO-3 applies to this alternative and would remain 14 significant but mitigable to less than significant through the implementation of Mitigation 15 Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2. Impacts BIO-6 and BIO-7 would apply to this alternative and 16 would remain less than significant.

17 7.2.3.3 Noise

18 Short-term noise impacts to the residents of the East Greenbrier Mobile Home Park would be 19 lessened under this alternative due to the greater distance between the construction corridor and 20 the mobile home park, but would still exceed the City of Santa Clarita noise standards. The 21 nearest residences would be approximately 1,000 feet from the construction corridor, and noise 22 levels at this location would be approximately 69 dBA. Impacts to the commercial industrial area 23 along Santa Clara Street would be comparable to those of the Project. Impacts would be 24 temporary and significant. Noise impacts would be reduced, but not necessarily to less than 25 significant, through the implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI-1 and NOI-2.

26 7.2.3.4 Population and Housing

27 Impacts to population and housing would be as described for the proposed action, because the 28 pipeline would have the same capacity; only the routing would be different. This alternative 29 would not directly induce population growth (e.g., it does not require the construction of new 30 homes or businesses), nor would it displace existing housing or people. It would remove an 31 obstacle to growth future population growth by increasing the capacity of the Honby pipeline to 32 carry water to the eastern portion of the CLWA service area.

33 7.3 IDENTIFICATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR 34 ALTERNATIVE

35 The No Project Alternative would reduce or avoid some of the environmental impacts of the 36 Project, although some impacts (e.g., to air quality, noise, biological resources, geology and soils, 37 and water quality) would result from its implementation. Additionally, this alternative would

7-6 CLWA – Honby Pipeline Draft EIR 7.0 Alternatives

1 not meet the Project objectives and thus is not considered the environmentally superior 2 alternative.

3 Alternative Pipeline Alignment 1 would result in slightly greater air quality impacts than the 4 Project because the pipeline corridor is approximately 100 feet longer. This alternative would 5 result in slightly lessened noise impacts, although the impact classifications would not change. 6 Impacts to biological resources would be slightly reduced, although the impact classifications 7 would not change. Impacts to population and housing, including indirect impacts, would be as 8 described for the Project. This alternative would meet Project objectives, but was eliminated from 9 consideration as the environmentally superior alternative because of technical considerations. 10 This alignment would cross under the area that would be filled as part of the proposed pedestrian 11 bridge over the above-ground Los Angeles Aqueduct (part of Newhall Land and Farming 12 Company’s Riverpark project) and under the north abutment of the proposed bridge crossing the 13 Santa Clara River (part of the City of Santa Clarita’s Cross Valley Connector project). Newhall 14 Land and Farming Company and the City of Santa Clarita intend to add 20 and 39 feet of fill to 15 these two areas, respectively. The loads would exceed those considered acceptable and would 16 adversely affect the structural integrity of the pipeline (Kennedy/Jenks Consultants 2004). Even if 17 the Riverpark project did not go forward with the pedestrian bridge, it is reasonable to expect that 18 the City of Santa Clarita would construct the bridge over the Santa Clara River1. Thus, this 19 alignment would not be technically feasible and is eliminated from further consideration as the 20 environmentally superior alternative.

21 Alternative Pipeline Alignment 2 would have lesser air quality impacts than the Project because 22 the pipeline corridor would be shorter. Impacts to biological resources also would be lessened 23 because a greater percentage of the disturbance area would occur within an area that will be 24 graded or paved as part of the proposed extension of Newhall Ranch Road, reducing impacts on 25 common plant communities and common wildlife species associated. Impacts on sensitive 26 resources, such as riparian, wetland, riverwash, and Riversidean sage scrub habitat and 27 associated wildlife species also would be reduced substantially under this alternative. Short-term 28 noise impacts to the residents of the East Greenbrier Mobile Home Park would be lessened under 29 this alternative due to the greater distance between the construction corridor and the mobile 30 home park, but would remain significant. Impacts to population and housing, including indirect 31 impacts, would be as described for the Project. This alternative would have lesser direct 32 environmental impacts than the Project. It is, however, dependent upon the timing of the 33 construction of the bridge over the Santa Clara River, which is uncertain because funding has not 34 been provided. It was eliminated from further consideration as the environmentally superior 35 alternative because of this uncertainty2. As discussed in section 1.1, the existing Honby pipeline 36 does not meet current peak demand, and delays in constructing the Santa Clara River Bridge may 37 result in unacceptable delays in providing water to the affected portion of the service area and in 38 meeting the Project objective of providing the required peak capacity to serve current and

1 The bridge is part of the Cross Valley Connector project, along with the extension of Newhall Ranch Road. The Newhall Ranch Road extension, including the bridge over the Santa Clara River, is included in the City of Santa Clarita’s General Plan and is considered the City’s highest priority roadway. 2 The bridge is part of the Cross Valley Connector project, along with the extension of Newhall Ranch Road. The Newhall Ranch Road extension, including the bridge over the Santa Clara River, is included in the City of Santa Clarita’s General Plan and is considered the City’s highest priority roadway. Thus, while there is uncertainty regarding the timing of bridge construction, it is reasonable to believe that it will be constructed.

CLWA – Honby Pipeline 7-7 Draft EIR 7.0 Alternatives

1 projected population in the affected portion of the CLWA service area until year 2050, as planned 2 for in CLWA‘s Capital Improvements Program (CLWA 1988a).

3 The Project is identified as the environmentally superior alternative that meets Project objectives.

7-8 CLWA – Honby Pipeline Draft EIR

8.0 LIST OF PREPARERS

Debby Baca, Graphics Supervisor, SAIC B.S., Technical Illustration/Commercial Design, Bemidji University, Minnesota 1979 Years of Experience: 25 (Other Firms — 11)

Marc Blain, Senior Wildlife Biologist, SAIC B.S., Environmental Biology, California State University - Northridge, 1994 M.S., Applied Ecology and Conservation Biology, Frostburg State University, 1997 Years of Experience: 11 (Other Firms — 9)

Chris Crabtree, Air Quality Specialist, SAIC B.A., Environmental Studies, University of California, Santa Barbara, 1978 Years of Experience: 18 (Other Firms — 6)

J. Lauren Everett, Water Resources Specialist, SAIC B.S., Environmental Studies, University of California, Santa Barbara, 1998 M.S., Environmental Science and Management, Donald Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, 2001 Years of Experience: 2

Cay FitzGerald, Technical Illustrator, SAIC Studies toward B.A., Fine Arts, Santa Barbara City College Years of Experience: 24 (Other Firms — 8)

A. Trevor Pattison, Environmental Analyst, SAIC B.S., Geological Sciences, University of California at Santa Barbara, 1999 Years of Experience: 6 (Other Firms — 1)

Julie Quinn, Water Resources Scientist / Environmental Planner, SAIC B.S., Environmental Sciences, University of California, Riverside, 2002 M.S., Environmental Science and Management, Donald Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, 2004 Years of Experience: 1 (Other Firms — 2)

Forrest C. Smith, Publications Manager, SAIC B.A., History and Political Science, University of California, Santa Barbara, 1970 Years of Experience: 30 (Other Firms - 14)

Karen R. Stark, Editor/Document Specialist, SAIC B.A., Psychology, University of California, Santa Barbara, 1990 Years of Experience: 14 (Other Firms - 9)

CLWA – Honby Pipeline 8-1 Draft EIR 8.0 List of Preparers

Robert D. Thomson, Vice President, Water Resources/ Environmental Management Business Group, CH2M HILL B.S., Zoology, University of California, Davis, 1973 M.S., Ecology, University of California, Davis, 1977 Years of Experience: 28

Joseph P. Walsh, III, GIS Specialist, SAIC B.A., Physical Geography, University of California, Santa Barbara, 1993 Years of Experience: 12 (Other Firms — 2)

Lorraine B. Woodman, Project Manager/Senior Scientist, SAIC B.A., Anthropology, Pomona College, Claremont, 1975 M.A., Anthropology, University of California, Santa Barbara, 1978 Ph.D., Anthropology, University of California, Santa Barbara, 1981 Years of Experience: 24 (Other Firms — 8)

8-2 CLWA – Honby Pipeline Draft EIR

1 9.0 REFERENCES

2 Abrams, L. 1923. Illustrated Flora of the Pacific States: Washington, Oregon, and California. Volume l. 3 Ophioglossaceae to Aristolochiaceae: Ferns to Birthworts. Stanford University Press, 4 Stanford, CA, 538 pp.

5 ______. 1944. Illustrated Flora of the Pacific States: Washington, Oregon, and California. Volume II. 6 Polygonaceae to Krameriaceae: Buckwheats to Kramerias. Stanford University Press, 7 Stanford, CA, 635 pp.

8 American Ornithologists’ Union. 2000. The A.O.U. Check-List of North American Birds. 7th ed. 9 Allen Press. Lawrence, Kansas.

10 Beauchamp. 1986. Flora of San Diego County. Sweetwater River Press, National City, CA.

11 Bennett, A. F. 1990. Habitat Corridors and the Conservation of Small Mammals in a Fragmented 12 Forest. Landscape Ecology 4:109-122.

13 Bruyea. 2003. Bruyea Biological Consulting. Letter summarizing the results of a Butterfly Survey 14 for River Park, SEATAC Biota Projects. June 2003. In: Impact Sciences. 2004. Draft 15 Environmental Impact Report for the Riverpark Development Project, for the City of Santa 16 Clarita Department of Building and Planning. March.

17 California Air Resources Control Board (ARB). 2002. EMFAC 2002 On-Road Mobile Source 18 Emissions Inventory. Web site http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/on- 19 road/emfac2002_output_table.htm.

20 ______. 2000. EMFAC 2000 On-Road Mobile Source Emissions Inventory, Technical Support 21 Document. Web site http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/on-road/emfac2k_output_table.htm.

22 ______. 1999. OFFROAD Emissions Model. Web site http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/msei.htm.

23 California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2003. List of California Terrestrial Natural 24 Communities Recognized by The California Natural Diversity Database, September 2003 25 Edition.

26 ______. 2001. Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes and Lichens List. July.

27 California Geological Survey (CGS). 1987. California Geological Survey Maps for Mineral Land 28 Classification of the Greater Los Angeles Area.

29 California Native Plant Society. 2003. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. 30 Sacramento, California.

CLWA – Honby Pipeline 9-1 Draft EIR 9.0 References

1 California Wildlife Habitat Relationships Database System (CWHRDS). 1991. Life History, 2 Management, and Habitat Relationships Information on 675 Species of Amphibians, 3 Reptiles, Birds, and Mammals Known to Occur in the State. Operated and maintained by 4 the California Department of Fish and Game in cooperation with the California 5 Interagency Wildlife Task Group (CIWTG).

6 Castaic Lake Water Agency (CLWA). 2003. Final EIR, Expansion of Earl Schmidt Filtration Plant 7 (SCH #2002061061). March.

8 ______. 2000a. Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Honby Extension and 9 Storage-1.

10 ______. 2000b. Urban Water Management Plan. December.

11 ______. 1999. Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Extension of Imported 12 Water Transmission Systems in the Castaic Lake Water Service Area.

13 ______. 1989. Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration Construction of a Second Water 14 Treatment Plant Castaic Lake Water Agency. Prepared by Kennedy/Jenks/Chilton. 15 November.

16 ______. 1988a. Capital Improvements Program.

17 ______. 1988b. Capital Improvements Program EIR.

18 City of Santa Clarita. 1991a. City of Santa Clarita General Plan.

19 ______. 1991b. Final EIR for the City of Santa Clarita General Plan.

20 County of Los Angeles. 1990. Santa Clarita Area Plan.

21 County of Los Angeles. General Plan.

22 Courtois. 1999. In: Impact Sciences. 2004. Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Riverpark 23 Development Project, for the City of Santa Clarita Department of Building and Planning. 24 March.

25 Crawford. 2003. In: Impact Sciences. 2004. Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Riverpark 26 Development Project, for the City of Santa Clarita Department of Building and Planning. 27 March.

28 Department of Water Resources. 2003a. California’s Groundwater – Bulletin 118, Draft Basin 29 Descriptions: San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin, Kern County Subbasin, Santa 30 Clarita Valley Groundwater Basin. 31 http://www.groundwater.water.ca.gov/bulletin118/basin_desc/index.cfm.

32 Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical Report 33 Y-87-1, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.

9-2 CLWA – Honby Pipeline Draft EIR 9.0 References

1 Fahrig, L., and G. Merriam. 1985. Habitat patch connectivity and population survival. Ecology 2 66: 1762-1768.

3 Guthrie, D. 1995. Bird Surveys Along a Portion of the Santa Clara River and Its Tributaries Near 4 Valencia, California. July 1995.

5 Harris, Larry D. and Peter B. Gallagher. 1989. New initiatives for wildlife conservation: the need 6 for movement corridors. In Defense of Wildlife: Preserving Communities and Corridors. 7 Washington, D.C.: Defenders of Wildlife.

8 Hickman., J. C. (ed.). 1993. The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California. Berkeley: University of 9 California Press.

10 Holland, R. F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. 11 State of California Resources Agency. Department of Fish and Game. Non-Game 12 Heritage Program. Sacramento, California.

13 Impact Sciences. 2004. Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Riverpark Development 14 Project, for the City of Santa Clarita Department of Building and Planning. March.

15 Jones, C., R. S. Hoffmann, D. W. Rice, R. J. Baker, M. D. Engstrom, R. D. Bradley, D. J. Schmidly, 16 and C. A. Jones. 1982. Revised Checklist of North American Mammals North of Mexico. 17 Occasional Papers, Museum of Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas.

18 Kennedy/Jenks Consultants. 2004. Draft Honby Pipeline Preliminary Design Report. June.

19 LACSD (Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County). 2002. Santa Clarita Valley Joint Sewerage 20 System Chloride Source Report. October.

21 ______. 1998. Joint Sewerage System Facilities System Plan.

22 LARWQCB (Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board). 1995. Basin Plan for the Coastal 23 Watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties.

24 MacArthur, R. H., and E. O. Wilson. 1967. The Theory of Island Biogeography. Princeton University 25 Press, Princeton.

26 Munoz, P.A.. 1974. A Flora of Southern California. Berkeley: University of California Press.

27 Noss, R.F. 1983. A Regional Landscape Approach to Maintain Diversity. BioScience 33:700-706.

28 Remsen, J. V., Jr. 1978. Bird Species of Special Concern in California. California Department of 29 Fish and Game, Sacramento. Wildlife Management Administrative Report No. 78-1. 54pp.

30 Roberts, N.C. 1989. Baja California Plant Field Guide. La Jolla, Natural History Publishing 31 Company.

CLWA – Honby Pipeline 9-3 Draft EIR 9.0 References

1 SAIC (Science Applications International Corporation). 2003a. Results of Focused Surveys for The 2 Arroyo Toad on the Castaic Lake Water Agency Lateral Extension Project Site in Los 3 Angeles County, California. Letter to Rick Farris, USFWS from Marc Blain, SAIC dated 4 August 14, 2003.

5 ______. 2003b. Results of Nesting Bird Surveys on the Castaic Lake Water Agency Lateral 6 Extension Project Site in Los Angeles County, California. Letter to Michael Thompson, 7 CLWA from Marc Blain, SAIC dated July 29, 2003.

8 Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf 1995. A Manual of California Vegetation. California Native Plant Society. 9 Sacramento, California.

10 SCAQMD (South Coast Air Quality Management District). 2004a. Historic Ozone Air Quality 11 Trends. Web site http://www.aqmd.gov/smog/o3trend.html.

12 ______. 2004b. South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules and Regulations.

13 ______. 2003. South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2003 Draft Air Quality 14 Management Plan. http://www.aqmd.gov/aqmp/#cap.

15 ______. 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook.

16 SCVWP (Santa Clarita Valley Water Purveyors). 2003. Santa Clarita Valley Water Report 2002.

17 ______. 2001. Santa Clarita Valley Water Report 2000.

18 Simberloff, D. and J. Cox. 1987. Consequences and Costs of Conservation Corridors. 19 Conservation Biology. Volume 1, No. 1, May 1987.

20 Skinner, M. W. and B. M. Pavlik. 1994. California Native Plant Society's Inventory of Rare and 21 Endangered Vascular Plants of California. California Native Plant Society. Special 22 Publication, no. 1, 5th ed. Sacramento, California.

23 Soule, M.E. 1987. Conservation Biology: the Science of Scarcity and Diversity. Sinauer Associates, Inc., 24 Sunderland, MA.

25 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2004. Final Regional Transportation 26 Plan, Destination 2030.

27 State of California Resources Agency. 2004a. Department of Fish and Game. Natural Heritage 28 Division. Natural Diversity Data Base: Record Search for Information on Threatened, 29 Endangered, Rare, or Otherwise Sensitive Species and Communities in the Mint Canyon 30 Area. Sacramento, California.

31 ______. 2004b. Department of Fish and Game. Natural Heritage Division. Special Animals List. 32 Sacramento.

9-4 CLWA – Honby Pipeline Draft EIR 9.0 References

1 ______. 2004c. Department of Fish and Game. Wildlife & Habitat Data Analysis Brach. 2 California Natural Diversity Database. List of California Terrestrial Natural Communities 3 Recognized by the Natural Diversity Data Base. Sacramento.

4 The Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles. 2000. Catalogue of American Amphibians and 5 Reptiles, Saint Louis, MO.

6 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 1985. The Noise Guidebook. Washington, 7 D.C.: General Printing Office.

8 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1995. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, 9 AP-42, Volume I. Section 13.2.3, Heavy Construction Operations. Web site 10 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch13/final/c13s02-3.pdf.

11 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1997. Draft Recovery Plan for the Upland Species of the 12 San Joaquin Valley, California.

13 Western Region Climate Center. 2004. Dry Canyon Reservoir, California (042516) - Period of 14 Record Monthly Climate Summary. Period of record from 7/1/48 to 1/31/90. Website 15 http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?cadryc+sca.

CLWA – Honby Pipeline 9-5 Draft EIR 9.0 References

This page intentionally left blank

9-6 CLWA – Honby Pipeline Draft EIR 1 10.0 PERSONS AND AGENCIES CONSULTED

2 Aranda, Julia. Senior Engineer, Kennedy/Jenks Consultants. 2004.

3 Yates, Bill. Senior Project Manager, Kennedy/Jenks Consultants. 2004.

4 Carreon, Angelique. Information Systems Analyst, County of Los Angeles, Department of 5 Regional Planning. 2005.

6 Gutierrez, Pablo. Associate Regional Planner, Southern California Association of Governments. 7 2003, 2004.

8 Highter, Steven. Los Angeles County Sanitation District. 2004.

9 Minjares, Javier. Senior Planner, Southern California Association of Governments. 2004.

10 Williams, Curtis. Sr. Community Preservation Officer, City of Santa Clarita. 2005.

CLWA – Honby Pipeline 10-1 Draft EIR 10.0 Persons and Agencies

1 This page intentionally left blank.

10-2 CLWA – Honby Pipeline Draft EIR

1 11.0 GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ACRONYMS

2 acre-foot Volume of water (43,560 cubic feet) that would cover one 3 acre to a depth of one foot, about 326,000 gallons of water.

4 affected environment Existing biological, physical, social, and economic 5 conditions of an area subject to change, both directly and 6 indirectly, as a result of a proposed human action.

7 aquifer Any underground formation that stores, transmits and 8 yields water to wells and springs.

9 candidate species Plant or animal species not yet officially listed as 10 threatened or endangered, but which is undergoing status 11 review by the Service.

12 chlorination The application of chlorine to drinking water or water to 13 disinfect undesirable compounds.

14 critical habitat Specific areas with physical or biological features essential 15 to the conservation of a listed species and that may require 16 special management considerations or protection. These 17 areas have been legally designated via Federal Register 18 notices.

19 cumulatively considerable When the incremental effects of an individual project are 20 considerable when viewed in connection with the effect of 21 past projects, the effects of other projects, and the effects of 22 probably future projects.

23 cultural resource Building, site, district, structure, or object significant in 24 history, architecture, archeology, culture, or science.

25 discharge The rate at which a volume of water passes a given point in 26 a given amount of time.

27 edaphic features Relating to soils.

28 effluent Solid, liquid or gaseous wastes that enter the environment 29 as a by-product of human-oriented processes; or water that 30 has undergone treatment to remove pollutants.

31 endangered species A species or subspecies, as identified in the federal 32 California Endangered Species Act, whose survival is in 33 danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion 34 of its range.

35 erosion Wearing away of earth rock by running water, glaciers, 36 winds and waves.

CLWA – Honby Pipeline 11-1 Draft EIR 11.0 Glossary of Terms and Acronyms

1 filtration The process by which solid particles are separated from a 2 liquid by passing the liquid through a permeable material. 3 Also, the physical or mechanical process of separating 4 insoluble particulate matter from a fluid, such as air or 5 liquid, by passing the fluid through a filter medium that 6 will not let the particulates through.

7 groundwater Water stored beneath the surface in open pore spaces and 8 fractures in rock.

9 groundwater recharge Refers to the addition to the water within the earth that 10 occurs naturally from infiltration of rainfall and from water 11 flowing over the earth materials that allow water to 12 infiltrate below the land surface.

13 hydrology Science dealing with natural runoff and its effect on 14 streamflow.

15 impervious surface The ability to repel water, or not let water infiltrate into the 16 soil.

17 Intake Pumping Station The existing or proposed raw water pumping plant.

18 Lead Agency The agency initiating and overseeing the preparation of an 19 environmental impact statement or report.

20 maximum contaminant level The maximum permissible level of a contaminant allowed 21 in water delivered to any user of a public water system.

22 non-point source Non-point source - diffuse discharges of waste throughout 23 the natural environment which are a major cause of water 24 pollution. Difficult to pinpoint physically, but can be 25 classified by type: urban runoff, agriculture, mining, septic 26 tank leach fields and silviculture.

27 percolation The vertical movement of water within the soil.

28 primary disinfection Refers to the settling out of large suspended solids by 29 screening and sedimentation before either discharging the 30 treated wastewater or subjecting it to further treatment.

31 riparian Of, on, or pertaining to the bank of a river, pond, or lake.

32 runoff Rainfall or snow melt which is not absorbed by soil, 33 evaporated, or transpired by plants, but finds its way into 34 streams as surface flow. 35 watershed The drainage area upstream of a specified point on a 36 stream.

11-2 CLWA – Honby Pipeline Draft EIR 11.0 Glossary of Terms and Acronyms

1 ACRONYMS

2 AF acre-feet

3 AFY acre-feet per year

4 AQMP Air Quality Management Plan

5 ARB California Air Resources Board

6 AVAR air and vacuum relief valve

7 AWWA American Water Works Association

8 BA Biological Assessment

9 BACM best available control measure

10 B/C Benefit-to-Cost Ratio

11 BMP Best Management Practice

12 BVWSD Buena Vista Water Storage District

13 CAA Federal Clean Air Act of 1969 and subsequent amendments

14 CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards

15 CDFG California Department of Fish and Game

16 CEQA California Environmental Quality Act

17 cfs cubic feet per second

18 CGS California Geological Survey

19 CIWTG California Interagency Wildlife Task Group

20 CLWA Castaic Lake Water Agency

21 CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database

22 CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level

23 CNPS California Native Plant Society

24 CO carbon monoxide

25 Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

CLWA – Honby Pipeline 11-3 Draft EIR 11.0 Glossary of Terms and Acronyms

1 CWA Clean Water Act

2 CWHRDS California Wildlife Habitat Relationships Database System

3 dB decibel

4 dBA A-weighted sound level

5 DHS California Department of Health Services

6 DMS Development Monitoring System

7 DPM diesel particulate matter

8 DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control

9 EIR Environmental Impact Report

10 EIS Environmental Impact Statement

11 EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

12 ESA Endangered Species Act

13 ESFP Earl Schmidt Filtration Plant

14 GIS Geographic Information System

15 GMC Growth Management Chapter

16 gpm gallons per minute

17 HCP Habitat Conservation Plan

18 LACFD Los Angeles County Fire Department

19 LADWP Los Angeles Department of Water and Power

20 LARWQCB Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board

21 LUP Linear Underground/Overhead Project

22 µg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter

23 MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act

24 MCL Maximum Contaminant Level

25 mgd million gallons per day

11-4 CLWA – Honby Pipeline Draft EIR 11.0 Glossary of Terms and Acronyms

1 MND Mitigated Negative Declaration

2 MOU Memorandum of Understanding

3 MSL mean sea level

4 MWD The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California

5 NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

6 NCCP Natural Community Conservation Plan

7 NCWD Newhall County Water District

8 NO2 nitrogen dioxide

9 NOP Notice of Preparation

10 NOx nitrogen oxide

11 NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

12 NWP Nationwide permit

13 O3 ozone

14 OHWM ordinary high water mark

15 PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter

16 PRC Public Resource Code

17 ppm parts per million

18 RC Regional Council

19 RCPG Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide

20 ROC reactive organic carbon

21 ROI Region of Influence

22 ROW right-of-way

23 RRBWSD Rosedale-Rio Bravo Water Storage District

24 RSS Riversidian sage scrub

25 RTP Regional Transportation Plan

CLWA – Honby Pipeline 11-5 Draft EIR 11.0 Glossary of Terms and Acronyms

1 RVWTP Rio Vista Water Treatment Plant

2 RVIPS Rio Vista Intake Pump Station

3 RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board

4 SAIC Science Applications International Corporation

5 SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition

6 SCWD Santa Clarita Water Division

7 SCAB South Coast Air Basin

8 SCAG Southern California Association of Governments

9 SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District

10 SEA Significant Ecological Area

11 SIP State Implementation Plan

12 SO2 sulfur dioxide

13 SOX sulfur oxide

14 SWP State Water Project

15 SWPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention

16 SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan

17 SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board

18 TAC Toxic air contaminant

19 UWMP Urban Water Management Plan

20 USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

21 USGS U.S. Geological Survey

22 VOC volatile organic compound

23 VWC Valencia Water Company

24 VSS Venturan coastal sage scrub

25 WRC Water Resources Chapter

26 WSA Water Service Area

11-6 CLWA – Honby Pipeline Draft EIR

Appendix A Figure Showing the Locations of Existing and Proposed Utilities in Ruether Avenue

This page intentionally left blank.

Appendix B Notice of Preparation, Initial Study, and Comments Received

NOTICE OF PREPARATION

To: All Concerned Parties

From: Castaic Lake Water Agency (CLWA) 27234 Bouquet Canyon Road Santa Clarita, CA 91350

Subject: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report

Project: Honby Pipeline

Lead Agency: Castaic Lake Water Agency

The Project is the construction and operation of a 60-inch diameter, approximately 9,500-foot water pipeline. It would replace the existing Honby pipeline, which is undersized (it does not meet current peak demand, nor can it meet projected future demand) and partially located in an area proposed for development. The existing pipeline connects to the 84-inch Treated Water pipeline from the Rio Vista Water Treatment Plant approximately 6,000 feet west of the westerly property line of the treatment plant. From the connection point, the existing pipeline extends east, roughly parallel to the Santa Clara River, then turns south and crosses the river. It then continues in an easterly direction and terminates at the new Sand Canyon pump station, which is currently under construction and is replacing the existing Honby pump station.

The attached Initial Study describes the proposed project, its location and environmental setting; and includes a potentially significant effects checklist and related discussion.

CLWA has determined that the proposal may have potentially significant impacts on the environment and that an environmental impact report (EIR) should be prepared to address potential impacts in the following issue areas: air quality, biological resources, noise, and population and housing.

We need to know the views of you, your agency, or your organization as to the scope and content of the environmental information that is germane to your statutory responsibilities or other interest in connection with the proposed project. Agencies will need to use the EIR prepared by CLWA, if applicable, when considering any permit or other approval of the project that they may be required or authorized to issue. Comments should be provided on this NOP, including the enclosed Initial Study, in order to give the lead agency the opportunity to effectively consider your comments during preparation of the EIR.

Due to the time limits mandated by state law, your response to this NOP must be received at the earliest possible date but not later than 30 days after receipt of this notice. Please respond to:

1 January 13, 2005

Castaic Lake Water Agency c/o Science Applications International Corporation Attention: Lorraine Woodman 525 Anacapa Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 (805) 564-6151

January 13, 2005 ______Date ______Dan Masnada General Manager Castaic Lake Water Agency Telephone: (661) 297-1600 Attachment:: Initial Study

2 Environmental Checklist

1. Project Title:

Honby Pipeline Project

2. Lead Agency Name and Address:

Castaic Lake Water Agency 27234 Bouquet Canyon Road Santa Clarita, CA 91350

3. Contact Person and Phone Number:

Dan Masnada, General Manager (661) 297-1600

4. Project Location:

The proposed Honby pipeline would be located in the City of Santa Clarita, and it would connect with the existing 84- inch Treated Water pipeline at the Rio Vista Water Treatment Plant (RVWTP). The total pipeline length is 9,500 feet. As shown on Figure 11, the pipeline would be constructed in two phases. Phase 1 would begin at the Treated Water pipeline. From there, it would extend in an easterly direction within the proposed Newhall Ranch Road right-of-way and would head south down the slope, a total distance of approximately 2,500 feet. Phase 2 would begin at the north bank of the Santa Clara River, crossing the river parallel to the above-ground Los Angeles Aqueduct. On the south side of the river, the pipeline would be installed in a new easement in the East Greenbrier mobile home park. The mobile home park maintains a greenbelt and paved storage area for recreational vehicles in this area. The pipeline alignment continues east, crossing the new Golden Valley Road flyover (a planned elevated roadway expected to be completed by July 2005) and property owned by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP). It continues east in Soledad Street, then heads north in Ruether Avenue to Santa Clara Street. It then turns east to the terminus at the intersection of Santa Clara Street and Furnivall Avenue. It ends at the site of the Sand Canyon pump station, which is currently under construction and scheduled for completion by December 2005. The Phase 2 pipeline is approximately 7,000 feet.

5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:

Castaic Lake Water Agency 27234 Bouquet Canyon Road Santa Clarita, CA 91350

6. General Plan Designation:

Residential Medium (RM), Open Space (OS), Industrial Commercial (IC), with a Significant Ecological Area (SEA) Overlay in all areas

7. Zoning:

Residential Medium (RM), Open Space (OS), Industrial Commercial (IC)

8. Description of Project:

Overview

The Project is the construction and operation of a 60-inch-diameter water pipeline approximately 9,500 feet in length. It would replace the existing Honby pipeline, which does not meet current peak demand, and will not meet projected future demand. Portions of the existing Honby pipeline are located in an area proposed for residential development. The existing pipeline connects to the 84-inch Treated Water pipeline from the RVWTP approximately 6,000 feet west of the westerly property line of the treatment plant (see Figure 2). From the connection point, the existing pipeline

1 All figures can be found at the end of this Initial Study, in Appendix A.

Honby Pipeline Initial Study 1 extends east, roughly parallel to the Santa Clara River, then turns south and crosses the river. It then continues in an easterly direction and terminates at the new Sand Canyon pump station, which is currently under construction and is replacing the existing Honby pump station.

A preliminary demand analysis (Kennedy/Jenks Consultants 2004) indicates that meeting the projected demand in the portion of the CLWA service area served by the pipeline (Water Service Sub-Areas 88-23, 88-25, 88-26, 88-27, 88- 33, 88-35, 88-36, and 88-39) (Figure 3) would require pipeline capacity of 139 cfs in the year 2050. In contrast, the existing Honby pipeline only has a capacity of 35 cfs. Additionally, due to friction losses, the existing pipeline would not provide the required suction head for the new pump station, either at the current or future water demand (Black & Veatch 2003). Moreover, a large portion of the existing pipeline is located in an area that is proposed for development with residences as part of the Riverpark project (Tract 53425). The Riverpark project is composed of 419 single family residences, 704 multi-family residences, and one commercial lot2. The roads proposed as part of this development do not follow the existing pipeline alignment; segments of the pipeline would be located in back yards and potentially under houses, making maintenance and repair of the pipeline very difficult and potentially causing damage to these residences in the event of pipeline failure. Approximately 5,400 feet of this portion of the pipeline would be removed by Newhall Land and Farming Company as part of the Riverpark project. A portion of the remainder of the pipeline would be covered with earth fill as part of the pedestrian bridge over the above-ground Los Angeles Aqueduct, proposed as part of the Riverpark development, and the vehicle bridge that would be constructed over the Santa Clara River as part of the Cross Valley Connector project proposed by the City of Santa Clarita. The existing pipeline would remain in service, however, until the final connections with the new pipeline were made.

The proposed pipeline would be able to provide the required peak capacity to serve the affected portion of the CLWA service area until year 2050, as planned for in CLWA’s Capital Improvements Program (CLWA 1988). Water transported in the Honby pipeline would be treated at the RVWTP.

Pipeline Design

The pipeline capacity would be 139 cfs. The steel pipeline would be coated and lined with cement-mortar and would conform to the requirements of American Water Works Association (AWWA). Appurtenances, such as air and vacuum relief valves (AVARs), blowoff/pumpouts, cathodic test stations, air vents, and manway vaults, would be installed to protect the pipeline from water hammer, collapse, corrosion, and to provide access to the pipeline for maintenance activities.

AVARs would be installed to release air from the pipeline during filling and normal operations and to protect the pipeline from collapse due to vacuum conditions. They would be located at the high points along the pipeline and spaced at intervals of no more than 1,500 feet. The pressure rating of the AVARs would be 150 pounds per square inch.

Blowoff/pumpout facilities would be installed along the pipeline for relief of pipeline pressure and dewatering when the pipeline is shut down and out of service for maintenance or internal inspection. Blowoffs would be installed at each low point and on the upstream side of any valve along the pipeline to facilitate and ensure complete dewatering. A submersible pump may be required for complete dewatering. Three pumpouts would be installed; one on the low point at the Santa Clara River crossing and two at additional low points along the alignment.

Flexible couplings to mitigate earth movement with minimal or no damage would be installed on the upstream and downstream sides of the Santa Clara River crossing where changes in pipe bedding (concrete encasement) occurs.

Cathodic test stations would be spaced at intervals of approximately 1,000 feet to monitor pipeline corrosion.

Manway vaults would be installed along the pipeline to allow access for inspection, routine maintenance, and repairs. Air vents would be installed nearby to provide cross ventilation when the manholes are entered for maintenance or inspection.

A butterfly valve would be installed at the connection to the Treated Water pipeline to facilitate dewatering during an emergency or routine maintenance.

2 The environmental impacts of all development associated with the Riverpark project have been identified in an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared by the City of Santa Clarita (City of Santa Clarita 2004). A Draft Final EIR was released in December, 2004, and on December 21, 2004, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the project. The City Council is expected to decide whether to certify the EIR and approve the project in the spring of 2005.

2 Honby Pipeline Initial Study

Construction

The pipeline would be installed at a depth of approximately 60 inches below the ground surface elevation, except where it crosses the Santa Clara River. At the river crossing, it would be installed using an open cut below the known river scour levels. The riverbed and other undeveloped areas would be restored to their previous condition after installation. The pipeline would be encased in concrete within the riverbed and riverbank. The pipeline would be installed in the existing roadway along Soledad Street and Furnival Avenue. These roads would be repaired to City of Santa Clarita standards after installation was completed. One lane would be kept open at all times during construction. Prior notification of construction would be provided to residents and business owners adjacent to the pipeline corridor. Standard best management practices (BMPs) would be implemented and could include construction of silt fences, revegetation, minimization of grading (to the extent possible), and installation of erosion control barriers around stockpiled soil.

Grading for the portion of the pipeline that would be located in the proposed Newhall Ranch Road right-of-way would be performed by Newhall Land and Farming Company as part of the proposed Riverpark project.

The pipeline would cross both the above-ground Los Angeles Aqueduct and the below-ground Los Angeles Aqueduct, which are operated and maintained by LADWP. CLWA would coordinate with LADWP prior to pipeline installation to avoid any conflicts with these pipelines, and any requirements provided by LADWP would be incorporated into the final Project design. The pipeline also would run parallel to or cross several other above- and below-ground utilities. The exact location of any utilities present in the pipeline corridor would be identified prior to construction, and impacts to utilities would be avoided through spatial separation and compliance with all applicable standards. No disruption of service would be required.

It is anticipated that approximately 1 to 2 acres would be needed for equipment and materials storage, parking, and a construction trailer. Staging areas would be located in areas that have been disturbed and/or contain no sensitive environmental resources. It is possible that staging areas could be located at the RVWTP, on the Riverpark property, and at the Sand Canyon Pump station site.

Testing and Disinfection

Pipeline testing would be conducted prior to its operation. The pipeline would be cleaned, filled with water, checked for leakage, and tested at the identified surge pressure for four hours. The surge pressure would be based upon a surge analysis performed during detailed design. The water would be discharged into the Santa Clara River or into local storm drains once the test was completed. After successful testing, the pipeline would be disinfected with chlorine in the form of either sodium hypochlorite or calcium hypochlorite according to AWWA standards and dechlorinated prior to discharge.

Project Schedule

The Project would be constructed in two phases. Phase 1 includes the 2,500-foot segment of the pipeline that extends from the Treated Water pipeline, continuing in Newhall Ranch Road, then down the slope to connect to the existing Honby pipeline. This would allow Newhall Land and Farming Company to perform rough grading of Newhall Ranch Road, while keeping the existing Honby pipeline in service. Upon completion of the tie-in to the existing Honby pipeline, Newhall Land and Farming Company would remove the portions of the existing Honby pipeline that would interfere with development of the Riverpark site.

Phase 2 would continue the alignment south across the Santa Clara River and proceed east to the connection near the new Sand Canyon pump station. This segment would be approximately 7,000 feet in length. Final tie-ins to the Phase 1 pipeline and the suction piping at the Sand Canyon pump station would occur at the end of Phase 2.

Phase 1 construction activities are expected to begin in April 2005 and last for approximately two months. Phase 2 construction is expected to begin in February 2006 and last for approximately six months. The river crossing would be scheduled to avoid the rainy season. Work would take place during hours allowed by the City of Santa Clarita, which limits construction work to between 7 A.M. and 7 P.M. Monday through Friday and between 8 A.M. and 6 P.M. on Saturday. Construction is prohibited on Sundays and major holidays: New Year’s Day, Independence Day, Thanksgiving, Christmas, Memorial Day, and Labor Day.

Maintenance and Operations

Typical maintenance activities would include valve exercising and internal inspection of the pipeline.

Honby Pipeline Initial Study 3 Mitigation Measures included as Part of the Project

As described below, the Project includes a number of features that would reduce or avoid environmental impacts.

A number of project design elements identified above would reduce potential impacts from seismic events, including flexible couplings, which would allow movement with minimal or no damage, and a butterfly valve, which would allow portions of the pipeline to be isolated during an emergency. Other appurtenances, such as AVARs and blowoff/pumpouts also would protect the pipeline. Additionally, potential impacts associated with landslides and erosion would be mitigated through compliance with standard seismic engineering and construction practices and BMPs.

All disturbed areas would be restored to their previous condition, or to the standards specified in permit conditions imposed by agencies having jurisdiction over the Project, once construction was completed. This would reduce or avoid potential impacts to aesthetic and biological resources and transportation. Additionally, the Santa Clara River crossing would be scheduled to take place during the dry season, reducing the potential for erosion and some impacts to biological resources.

Even though no prehistoric archaeological resources are present in or immediately adjacent to the proposed pipeline corridor, it is located in an archaeologically sensitive area. The following would be implemented in the unlikely event that potential unknown archaeological remains are encountered during construction:

In the event cultural remains are encountered during excavation, work will be stopped immediately and temporarily redirected until a qualified archaeologist is retained to determine the potential significance of the find pursuant to Phase 2 investigations. If the remains are prehistoric, a local Native American observer will be retained to monitor the archaeological excavation. If the remains are found to be significant, they may be subject to a Phase 3 data recovery mitigation program funded by CLWA. A pre-construction workshop will be conducted by a qualified archaeologist to ensure that any new discoveries are adequately recorded, evaluated, and, if significant, mitigated. The workshop minimally will address the following: review the types of archaeological resources that may be uncovered; provide examples of common archaeological artifacts and other cultural materials to examine; what makes an archaeological resource significant; what would temporarily stop construction and for how long; procedures that would be used to record, evaluate, and mitigate new discoveries with a minimum of delay; and describe reporting requirements and the responsibilities of the construction supervisor and crew.

The proposed pipeline is also located in a paleontologically sensitive area. The following is recommended in the event that potential unknown paleontological resources are encountered during construction:

In the event paleontological fossils are encountered during excavation, work will be stopped immediately and temporarily redirected until a qualified paleontologist is retained to determine the potential significance of the find. If the fossils are found to be significant, they will be removed and curated at the proper repository. A preconstruction workshop will be conducted by a qualified paleontologist to ensure that any new discoveries are adequately recorded, evaluated, and, if significant, mitigated. The workshop minimally will address the following: review the types of paleontological resources that may be uncovered; provide examples of common paleontological fossils to examine; what makes an paleontological resource significant; what would temporarily stop construction and for how long; procedures that would be used to record, evaluate, and mitigate new discoveries with a minimum of delay; and describe reporting requirements and the responsibilities of the construction supervisor and crew.

9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:

Surrounding Land Uses. The northernmost portion of the pipeline, which would be placed in the proposed Newhall Ranch Road, is bordered on the north by the CLWA administrative offices and the RVWTP. On the south, the corridor is bordered by open space, although it is proposed for residential development as part of the Riverpark project. The pipeline would cross the Santa Clara River parallel with and adjacent to the above-ground Los Angeles Aqueduct. As it moved east, it would be bordered on the north by open space and on the south by the East Greenbrier Mobile Home Park and open space until entering the mixed commercial, industrial, and residential development present east of Golden Valley Road.

Environmental Setting. The Project is located in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), an area currently in violation of the state and national standards for ozone (O3) and respirable particulate matter (particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter) (PM10). The SCAQMD regulates sources of air emissions within the SCAB. With regard to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), the area of SCAB that encompasses the Project area is presently

4 Honby Pipeline Initial Study

in “extreme” nonattainment for O3 and “serious” nonattainment for carbon monoxide (CO) and PM10. With regard to the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), the SCAB is presently in “extreme” nonattainment for O3, “severe” nonattainment for CO, and nonattainment for PM10. The SCAB now attains the federal and state standards for CO, and the SCAQMD will request reclassification as attainment for CO in the next few years (SCAQMD 2003).

Developed areas along the pipeline corridor contain non-native and/or ruderal (disturbed) vegetation. The Santa Clara River supports several plant communities in the vicinity of the proposed river crossing, including southern- cottonwood willow riparian forest, alluvial fan sage scrub and mulefat scrub. Upland of the river, mixed chaparral and coastal sage scrub communities also are present. Native plant communities in the area support a diverse assemblage of common and sensitive wildlife species. In addition, the river acts as an important wildlife migration corridor in the area. Sensitive plant species known to the area include slender mariposa lily (Calochortus clavatus var. gracilis), plummer’s mariposa lily (Calochortus plummerae), Nevin’s barberry (Berberis nevinii), Los Angeles sunflower (Helianthus nuttallii ssp. parishii), San Fernando spineflower (Chorizanthe parryi var. fernandina), slender- horned spineflower (Dodecahema leptoceras), and short-joint beavertail cactus (Opuntia basilaris var. brachyclada) (CDFG 2004). Sensitive wildlife species potentially occurring in the vicinity of the Project area include least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma coronatum [blainvillei]) arroyo toad (Bufo microscaphus californicus), western spadefoot (Spea (=Scaphiopus) hammondii), southwestern pond turtle (Emys (=Clemmys) marmorata pallida), arroyo chub (Gila orcutti), Santa Ana sucker (Catostomus santaanae), and unarmoured three- spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus wiliamsoni) (CDFG 2004). Additional sensitive species may occur.

The Santa Clara River and adjacent floodplain are designated by Los Angeles County as an SEA. A corresponding area has been given an SEA overlay designation in the City of Santa Clarita General Plan. The portion of the pipeline that crossed the Santa Clara River would traverse this SEA. This designation is used to designate areas of prime importance to the City and the Santa Clarita Valley for protection and preservation. Development is severely limited, and the intent of the SEA is to ensure the continued viability of the biota contained within the SEA.

The portion of the pipeline corridor that lies within the borders of the Riverpark site has been surveyed for cultural resources. No prehistoric archaeological resources are present in or immediately adjacent to the corridor, although the surrounding area contains several sites, including a village or habitation site, lithic scatters, and isolated artifacts. The above-ground Los Angeles Aqueduct is considered an historic architectural site, CA-LAN-2105H (City of Santa Clarita 2004). The geology of the Project is generally defined by Quaternary age alluvium (encompassing both Pleistocene and Holocene deposits) associated with river wash of the Santa Clara River, adjacent terrace deposits on benches in the underlying Saugus Formation and slope wash, and artificial/engineered fill in developed areas (City of Santa Clarita 2004). Paleontological resources are generally found in sedimentary rock units, including Pliocene and Pleistocene strata. Vertebrate fossils typically have more paleontological value than invertebrate fossils, which are fairly common throughout Southern California. Most vertebrate fossils are found in non-marine sedimentary deposits in Southern California. Exposures of non-marine fossils occur along incised river terraces or within continental terraces of late Pleistocene age. Vertebrate fossils are somewhat randomly scattered throughout, and most bone material is discovered by chance exposure (SAIC 2003). In Simi Valley, the Saugus Formation, considered to have high paleontological potential, yielded Pleistocene vertebrates including extinct horses, large cats, dogs, elephants, turtles, peccaries (similar to wild boars), deer, and sharks (Worden 1998).

With the exception of a moderately steep-sloped bluff along the northern edge of the river, the topography is flat to gently sloping along the river and greenbelt and within urban developed areas. Slope gradients increase north of the river near the RVWTP. The elevation of the Project area ranges from approximately 1,100 to 1,300 feet above mean sea level (msl).

The County of Los Angeles soils map identifies two soil types in the area: Metz-Cortina and Balcom-Castaic-Saugus associations (USDA Soil Conservation Service 1969). Metz soils generally consist of loamy sand to sand that occurs on gently sloping alluvial fans (0-5 percent slopes). Balcom soils generally consist of silty clay loams that occur on moderate to steep mountain slopes (30 to 50 percent). Much of the developed area along the proposed route is likely underlain by engineered soils associated with urban development.

No active faults are located within the Project area; however, the San Gabriel fault zone is located less than 1 mile west at its closest point. An active fault is defined as showing displacement within Holocene time (last 11,000 years). The San Gabriel fault zone is mapped as an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone. Special fault studies must be completed before construction of habitable structures can occur in such zones.

Similar to all of Southern California, the Project area is prone to ground shaking and other seismic related hazards such as liquefaction and landslides. Liquefaction is defined as the transformation of a granular material from a solid state into a liquefied state as a consequence of increased pore pressure, which results in the loss of grain-to-grain contact. Seismic groundshaking is capable of providing the mechanism for liquefaction, usually in fine-grained, loose

Honby Pipeline Initial Study 5 to medium dense, saturated sands and silts. Much of the Project area is located within a State-defined liquefaction potential zone, and a small section of the proposed route north of the river is located within a landslide potential zone (CDC 1998). Project location within these areas does not necessarily mean that seismic related hazards would occur; however, existing conditions and historic information make this area prone to such occurrences.

10. Other Agencies:

Reviewing Agencies:

None.

Approval Agencies:

Pipeline crossings of the Santa Clara River potentially would require several permits, including the following:

• Section 404 permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the pipeline and associated construction activities (under Section 12 of the Nationwide permit [NWP] for Utility Line Discharges and Section 33, which covers Temporary Construction, Access, and Dewatering).

• Streambed Alteration Agreement (pursuant to Section 1601 of the California Fish and Game Code) from the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG).

• Regional Water Quality Certification (401 Permit) from the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB).

Other permits and approvals required for the construction and operation of the proposed pipeline may include:

• An Encroachment Permit from the City of Santa Clarita and Los Angeles Flood Control District for construction work within the public right-of-way of each jurisdiction.

• A General Construction Storm Water Permit from the LARWQCB. Requirements include preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention (SWPP) Program for projects that disturb more than 1 acre. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) is considering a separate Statewide General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity from Small Linear Underground/Overhead Projects (Small LUP Permit) that applies to pipeline projects that disturb between 1 and 5 acres. If this permit is approved, it would apply to the Honby pipeline project if it is determined to disturb between 1 and 5 acres. If it would disturb more than 5 acres, the requirements of the General Construction Storm Water Permit would apply.

• A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit from the LARWQCB, pursuant to Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, for discharges of hydrostatic test water, along with Water Quality Certification (or a waiver thereof), pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act.

• A Fugitive Dust Control Plan, as required by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD).

• Long-term or permanent easements from property owners along the pipeline corridor: Newhall Land and Farming Company, Greenbrier Associates Ltd, VBC 3 Investors LLC, and Los Angeles Department of Water and Power.

• Temporary easements to accommodate construction activities.

• Trenching and Excavation Permit from the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health.

• Modification of CLWA’s Domestic Water Supply Permit from the California Department of Health Services.

Additionally, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers would confer with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to determine whether consultation would be required under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act due to the presence of federally listed species in the Project area.

6 Honby Pipeline Initial Study

Environmental Factors Potentially Affected:

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially directly affected by the Project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. The Project would remove an obstacle to growth in the CLWA service area (indicated by the checked box next to “Population/Housing.”) Hence, the Project could result in indirect, growth-related impacts to all resource categories.

Aesthetics Agricultural Resources Air Quality

Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils

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

Environmental 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 to the project have been made by or agreed to by the applicant. 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” 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 pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the project, nothing further is required.

January 13, 2005 Signature Date

Honby Pipeline Initial Study 7 This page intentionally left blank

8 Honby Pipeline Initial Study

Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues & Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact

I. AESTHETICS – Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b. 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?

Discussion: a) The proposed pipeline would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista because it would be placed underground in previously disturbed or developed areas. The westernmost portion of the pipeline would be located along the proposed extension of Newhall Ranch Road, in an area that is designated by the City of Santa Clarita as a secondary ridgeline, but it would be installed only after grading for the road was completed. Thus, no new grading would be required for this portion of the pipeline. The pipeline would then be installed under the Santa Clara River in a sparsely vegetated area and would parallel the above-ground Los Angeles Aqueduct. The riverbed would be restored to pre-construction condition once installation was completed. The pipeline would traverse the south side of the river along the greenbelt and RV storage associated with the mobile home park. The remainder of the pipeline would cross an undeveloped area containing high voltage transmission lines or would be placed underground in a street lined by industrial uses. Any disturbed areas would be restored to their preconstruction condition. b) The proposed pipeline would not substantially damage scenic resources because the pipeline would be placed underground, and any disturbed areas would be restored to their preconstruction condition. c) The proposed pipeline would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the construction site or its surroundings because the pipeline would be placed underground, and any disturbed areas would be restored to their preconstruction condition. d) No light or glare would be associated with the construction of this underground pipeline.

Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues & Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact

II. AGRICULTURAL 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 prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agricultural farmland. 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 in the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use?

Honby Pipeline Initial Study 9 b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could individually or cumulatively result in loss of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?

Discussion: a, b, c) The proposed pipeline would not be located in an area that contains Prime Farmland, Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, nor would it be located in an area zoned for agricultural use or on land that is under a Williamson Act contract (City of Santa Clarita 2004).

Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues & Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact

III. AIR QUALITY - Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or pollution control district 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 emission 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?

Discussion: a) The CLWA service area is located in the Santa Clarita Valley, which is in the northwestern portion of the SCAB. The SCAQMD is responsible for regulating emission sources within the SCAB. The SCAQMD has developed the 2003 Air Quality Management Plan (2003 AQMP) to bring the region into attainment of the state and national ambient air quality standards (SCAQMD 2003). CLWA would ensure that the Project would comply with all applicable air regulations, such as Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust), which would in turn ensure that it would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of an applicable air quality plan.

Some of the PM10 strategies in the 2003 AQMP rely on the control of fugitive dust sources, such as construction sites. The SCAQMD has adopted Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust) for this purpose. The construction contractor would have to comply with Rule 403 by implementing one or more of the best available control measures (BACMs) outlined in rule for each proposed fugitive dust source type. Therefore, Project construction activities would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the PM10 attainment plan.

Operation of the Project would produce only minor quantities of air emissions due to periodic maintenance vehicle usage. Therefore, Project operation would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the attainment plans.

b) Based on the NAAQS, the area of SCAB that encompasses the Project area is presently in “extreme” nonattainment for O3 and “serious” nonattainment for CO and PM10. Based on the CAAQS, the SCAB is

10 Honby Pipeline Initial Study

presently in “extreme” nonattainment for O3, “severe” nonattainment for CO, and nonattainment for PM10. Project construction would produce both combustive emissions and fugitive dust emissions (PM10). Because construction equipment would be mobile and would operate intermittently, combustive emissions would not produce substantial impacts at any particular location. Therefore, combustive emissions from Project construction equipment would not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Since the Project must comply with SCAQMD Rule 403, fugitive dust emissions from Project construction would not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation.

Operation of the Project would produce only minor quantities of air emissions due to maintenance vehicle usage. As a result, impacts from these emissions would not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. c) Construction and operation of the Project would produce emissions of nonattainment pollutants, including reactive organic compounds (ROCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) (O3 precursors), CO, and PM10. The SCAQMD has developed the following thresholds to determine the significance of proposed emissions for CEQA purposes (SCAQMD 1993): (1) daily operational emissions of 55 pounds of ROCs or NOx, 150 pounds of sulfur oxides (SOx) or PM10, or 550 pounds of CO; (2) daily construction emissions of 75 pounds of ROG, 100 pounds of NOx, 150 pounds of SOx or PM10, or 550 pounds of CO; and (3) calendar quarter construction emissions of 2.5 tons of ROG or NOx, 6.75 tons of SOx or PM10, or 24.75 tons of CO.

Due to the magnitude of proposed construction activities, it is expected that Project construction emissions would exceed the daily and calendar quarter NOx significance thresholds developed by the SCAQMD. Therefore, construction of the Project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. This issue will be examined in detail in the Project EIR.

Project operational emissions would be substantially less than the SCAQMD significance thresholds. d) Project construction would occur in proximity to a mobile home park and commercial and industrial development and could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, as described in (c) above. This issue will be examined in detail in the Project EIR. e) The Project would not produce permanent or long-term objectionable odors. As described above, there would be short-term increases in pollutants associated with construction activities. Nuisance odors resulting from diesel-powered construction equipment may be noticeable to some individuals. However, these would be temporary and would not be considered a significant impact. Likewise, operation of the Project would produce minor quantities of odorous pollutants due to maintenance vehicles. These odors, however, are considered minor and would result in a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures

Mitigation measures will be developed as part of the Project EIR, and could include the following:

• To mitigate NOx emissions, the construction contractor will use the latest construction equipment available, with the lowest emissions. If needed, daily equipment usage would be phased to reduce daily emissions.

The air quality analysis assumes that construction activities will comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 by implementing one or more fugitive dust BACMs identified in the rule for each proposed fugitive dust source type. The requirement that a project must comply with SCAQMD rules technically is not a mitigation measure under CEQA. However, for purposes of disclosure, the following are example BACMs the construction contractor could implement during activities that generate fugitive dust (SCAQMD 1999):

• Land clearing/earth-moving – Apply water by means of trucks, hoses and/or sprinklers prior to land clearing. This will increase the moisture content of soils and increase its stability.

• Land clearing/earth-moving – In active earth-moving areas, apply water at sufficient frequency and quantity to prevent visible emissions from extending more than 100 feet from the point of origin.

• Unpaved roads – Apply water in sufficient quantity to keep surface moist.

Honby Pipeline Initial Study 11 • Unpaved roads – Vehicle speeds shall not exceed 15 miles per hour.

• Storage piles – Install three-sided barriers equal to height of material, with no more than 50 percent porosity.

• Paved road track-out – Prevent or remove within one hour the track-out of bulk material onto public paved roads as a result of their operations.

• Disturbed surface areas/inactive construction sites – Apply chemical stabilizers on areas that no longer have active operations.

• All material transported offsite would be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust.

• The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation operations would be minimized at all times.

Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues & Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact

IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES – Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse impact, 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 impact on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c. Adversely impact federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) either individually or in combination with the known or probable impacts of other activities through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of 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 Communities Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

Discussion: a) The Project area is within the known distribution of several federally listed threatened and endangered

12 Honby Pipeline Initial Study

species. In addition, several historic occurrences of listed species in the vicinity of the Project area have been documented in the California Natural Diversity Database (CDFG 2004). Species potentially occurring in the vicinity of the Project area include, but are not limited to, Nevin’s barberry, arroyo toad, San Fernando spineflower, Santa Ana sucker, slender-horned spineflower, and unarmoured three-spined stickleback (CDFG 2004). Based on the results of surveys conducted as part of the preparation for the Riverpark project, most of these species are unlikely to occur within the impact area of the Project. In addition, all vegetation within the northern segment of the proposed pipeline alignment would be removed as part of the Riverpark project. However, unarmoured three-spined stickleback could be present during the winter season, as could several additional unlisted sensitive species, and they could be adversely affected by construction activities. This issue will be examined in detail in the Project EIR. b) Construction of the portion of the pipeline alignment that crosses the Santa Clara River would result in the removal of riparian vegetation considered sensitive and under the regulatory jurisdiction of the CDFG. In addition, the Santa Clara River at the proposed alignment is located within the Santa Clara River SEA. The impact would be temporary because the vegetation would be restored following construction, but the impact could be significant. This issue will be examined in detail in the Project EIR. c) Wetlands and other Waters of the U.S. under federal jurisdiction occur within the Santa Clara River and may occur in other smaller tributary drainages along the proposed pipeline alignment. These areas could be affected by construction activities, including but not limited to, removal, fill, and modification of material within the Santa Clara River. The impact would be temporary because the pipeline corridor would be restored following construction, but the impact could be significant. This issue will be examined in detail in the Project EIR. d) The Santa Clara River is an important migration corridor for local native species. Most of this use is dependent upon the season of the year. At certain times of the year, construction activities could adversely affect migrating species. This issue will be examined in detail in the Project EIR. e) The Project area would be subject to all City of Santa Clarita established environmental protection guidelines. Many of these guidelines provide for the protection of sensitive species habitats, wildlife corridors, and preservation of important ecological areas as outlined in the City’s General Plan and other relevant documents. Adverse impacts on these resources would be mitigated in accordance with the corresponding local guidelines and regulations. As a result, the Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Although the City of Santa Clarita has an Oak Tree Ordinance that includes restrictions on oak tree removal, the results of survey conducted as part of the preparation for the Riverpark project indicate that no oak trees exist within the impact area of the Project (City of Santa Clarita 2004); thus, no conflicts with this ordinance would occur. f) No habitat conservation plans have been developed for the Project area. Therefore, no conflict would occur. A similar type of document, the Natural River Management Plan (Valencia Company 1998), was prepared by various state and federal agencies to provide a long-term master plan approach to development along the Santa Clara River. As a matter of regulatory compliance, the Project would be developed in accordance with guidelines set forth in this document.

Mitigation Measures

Mitigation measures will be developed as part of the Project EIR, but could include the following:

• Seasonal restrictions, habitat replacement, and compliance with City of Santa Clarita SEA guidance measures.

Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues & Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact

V. CULTURAL RESOURCES – Would the project: a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5?

Honby Pipeline Initial Study 13 b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 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?

Discussion: a) The Project area contains one historic architectural resource, CA-LAN-2105H, the above-ground Los Angeles Aqueduct. The aqueduct is located within an existing utility easement and the Project would not result in any physical change to the facility. Therefore, no impacts on this historic architectural resource would occur. b) No known prehistoric archaeological resources are present in or immediately adjacent to the proposed pipeline corridor. The pipeline corridor is, however, located in an archaeologically sensitive area, in an area that was suitable for permanent and semi-permanent settlement due to the presence of a source of freshwater and rich food resources (i.e., abundant birds, foraging animals, and plants) that were hunted and gathered. Therefore, it is possible, though unlikely, that unknown prehistoric archaeological resources could be encountered during construction. c) Construction of the Project has the potential to destroy unique paleontological resources. The Saugus Formation, underlying portions of the proposed pipeline, is considered to have high paleontological sensitivity. The proposed pipeline would be installed approximately 60 inches below the ground surface, and the Saugus Formation could be exposed during construction, potentially disturbing fossils. d) No human remains have been recorded within the Project area. Prehistoric cemeteries are, however, associated with large village sites located adjacent to water sources where the source of freshwater and the rich food resources (i.e., the abundance of birds, foraging animals, and plants) would have been ideal for long-term settlement. CA-LAN-351, located on a series of river terraces along the north bank of the Santa Clara River, approximately 1,500 ft south of the Project area, is composed of a wide range of cultural materials and is interpreted as a village/habitation site. Therefore, although no human remains have been recorded within the Project area, it is possible that unknown isolated burials could be encountered during construction.

Mitigation Measures

Implementation of the mitigation measures included as part of the project description would effectively mitigate any impacts from unanticipated discoveries of archaeological or paleontological resources to less than significant. No additional measures would be required. Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues & Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact 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?

14 Honby Pipeline Initial Study

iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?

iv) Landslides? b. Would the project 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?

Discussion: a) The Project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death because the pipeline would be designed to withstand seismic events. Even if the pipeline were damaged as a result of geologic hazards, the risks to the public or structures would not be significant because the pipeline would be buried; line valves would be installed in order to isolate potentially damaged sections of pipeline, thus minimizing the amount of water that could be spilled; and any spilled water largely would be absorbed into the ground. Additionally, the pipeline would not underlie any inhabited structures. i) The Project area is not mapped under the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, which limits the construction of habitable structures within these areas. Sections of the San Gabriel Fault are located in the vicinity of the Project, approximately 4,200 feet to the west at the closest point. This fault has been mapped as an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone. Similar to all of Southern California, the Project area is susceptible to ground shaking and other related hazards as a result of seismic activity. Because the Project area is not located on an active fault, impacts due to fault rupture are not expected to occur. ii-iii) Strong, seismically induced ground shaking can be expected along the pipeline alignment. Seismically induced liquefaction, differential settlement, and lateral spreading can be expected as a result of a large earthquake on a nearby or regional fault. Such potential ground shaking is common to all areas of Southern California. Although no structure can be designed to preclude earthquake damage, measures can be taken to minimize such damage. Components of the Project design include seismic safety design features to minimize the potential for damage during an earthquake (i.e., flexible couplings). Such couplings would allow flexibility in the pipeline during strong ground shaking. In addition, line valves would be installed in order to isolate potentially damaged sections of pipeline and air valves would be installed to release pipeline pressure. iv) The majority of the proposed pipeline route would be located within flat, previously graded, urban areas or the Santa Clara River. However, north of the river, a section of the proposed route would be located within a State-defined landslide potential zone. Landslides may occur in this area as a result of construction activities and/or may subsequently occur during pipeline operations. Project-related construction in this area would be short-term (approximately two months), and much of it would occur within a previously graded roadway. In addition, the Project site would be restored to pre-project conditions at completion. Slope stability impacts would be mitigated through components of the Project design, including compliance with standard seismic engineering and construction practices and BMPs. b) Project construction would result in disturbance of on-site soils and short-term erosion induced siltation of the Santa Clara River. Where the proposed route crosses the river, the pipeline would be located adjacent to the existing above-ground Los Angeles Aqueduct, which is routinely accessed for maintenance.

Honby Pipeline Initial Study 15 Erosion-related impacts associated with short-term construction activities would be mitigated through components of the Project design, including compliance with standard BMPs and construction guidelines. In addition, a SWPPP would be required, which would include BMPs to minimize erosion and siltation. c) See response to “a.” In addition, sandy, cohesionless sediments within the Santa Clara River floodplain may be locally prone to collapse. Collapsible soils can damage overlying structures and foundations. However, as discussed above, components of the Project design include flexible couplings and other seismic safety features at strategic locations along the pipeline. Such couplings would allow flexibility in the pipeline in areas of collapsible soils. In addition, line valves would be installed in order to isolate potentially damaged sections of pipeline, and air valves would be installed to release pipeline pressure. Such components of the Project design would minimize pipeline damage and/or rupture in the event of soil collapse, as well as minimize releases of large quantities of water in the event of pipeline rupture. d) Soils beneath the proposed pipeline route along the Santa Clara River are generally sandy and not prone to expansion. Other sections of the proposed pipeline route are previously disturbed and/or developed urban areas. Construction in these areas would occur within existing roads. However, clay rich soils that may be prone to expansion could be encountered in areas outside of the Santa Clara River. Such expansive soils could result in damage to the pipeline in these areas. Expansive soil-related impacts would be mitigated through components of the Project design, including compliance with standard construction guidelines. e) No septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems are included as part of the Project.

Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues & Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact

VII. 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 the reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely 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. Is the project 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 air strip, 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?

16 Honby Pipeline Initial Study

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

Discussion: a) The Project would not require the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. b) During construction, heavy equipment and vehicles would be present in the Project area. All contractors would be required to adhere to mandatory federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations. Most of this equipment requires a number of petroleum products such as fuel, hydraulic fluids, and lubricants for effective operation. Lubricant and hydraulic fluid changes and replenishment would be required less frequently. Typically, service trucks deliver these types of fluids to the site and then perform the necessary fuel and oil transfers. The risk of small fuel or oil spills is considered possible, but this would have a negligible impact on public health. Any spills would be cleaned up in accordance with permit conditions. During off working hours, heavy equipment and vehicles in areas that could be accessed by the public would be secured in a general contractor’s staging area that would not pose a safety hazard. Impacts to public health and safety resulting from heavy equipment operations and fueling would be less than significant. c) The Project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste. d) The site is not included on the list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (California Department of Toxic Substances Control 2004). e) No Project components are located within an airport land use plan or within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport. f) No Project components are located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. g) Most of the pipeline would be constructed in areas that have no vehicular access. The easternmost portion of the pipeline would be constructed in local streets (along Soledad Street and Furnivall Avenue). Pipeline installation would require the temporary closure of one lane along four blocks of these two-lane streets. The other lane would be open at all times; thus, access to and from the surrounding areas would be maintained. Additionally, alternate access roads are present in the area. Slow-moving construction-related traffic may temporarily reduce optimal traffic flows in the Project area, but this would not significantly delay emergency vehicles traveling through the area any delays would be minor and would only affect short segments of these roadways. Additionally, delays would occur only infrequently when construction vehicles or construction materials were delivered to the site. h) The fuel tanks on board some construction equipment can contain fuel volumes ranging from 100 to 500 gallons. Accidental ignition could result in a fire, which, depending on the location, could spread. All such equipment is required to have fire suppression equipment on board or at the work site and to ensure the availability of an adequate on-site supply of water with all-weather access for fire-fighting equipment and emergency vehicles. Therefore, adherence to Los Angeles County codes and requirements during construction would reduce the potential for significant fire hazard impacts. Additionally, emergency fire services are located nearby.

Honby Pipeline Initial Study 17

Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues & Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact

VIII. 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 (i.e., 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 floodplain, 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 floodplain 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?

Discussion: a) Water used for testing the pipeline prior to its operation would be dechlorinated and discharged into the Santa Clara River or local storm drains once the test was completed. Potable water would be used for the test, and discharge would comply with the terms of the RWQCB permit that would be required. b) Construction of the pipeline would not affect the groundwater supply. c) The pipeline would be underground and generally would be installed in areas that have already been

18 Honby Pipeline Initial Study

graded. Construction could result in some erosion, but BMPs would be followed, which would minimize the potential for erosion or siltation to occur. The pipeline would cross the Santa Clara River, but it would be restored to its condition prior to construction, and its course would not be altered. d) As noted in (c) above, the existing drainage pattern of the pipeline corridor would not be substantially altered. The rate or amount of surface water runoff would not increase because the pipeline would be underground and no increase in impervious surface would result from the Project. e) The pipeline would not create or contribute runoff water. f) No other water quality impacts would occur. g) No housing would be constructed as part of the Project. h) The pipeline would be buried and thus would not impede or redirect flood flows. i) The pipeline would be buried and would be constructed in a way that minimized damage from seismic events. Even if damage occurred, water from the pipeline would be absorbed into the ground and would be localized. j) The Project is not located near the ocean or open water bodies; thus, it would not affect or be affected by seiches or tsunamis. The pipeline would be buried, and its operation would not cause mudflows. Construction could result in minor erosion, but this would be minimized by the use of BMPs, and construction would occur in areas that are generally level; thus, mudflows would not occur. Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues & Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact

IX. 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 communities conservation plan?

Discussion: a) The pipeline would be underground and would follow existing or proposed roads, open space (where it crossed the Santa Clara River), or would run along the edge of a mobile home park. It would not divide an established community. b) The pipeline would be consistent with CLWA’s Capital Improvements Program and Urban Water Management Plan (CLWA 1988, 2000). CLWA, as a special district, is not required to comply with the zoning and general plan designations identified by the City of Santa Clarita; moreover, the City jurisdiction does not extend to below-ground uses. Therefore, no conflict with existing general plan or zoning designations would occur. The City of Santa Clarita General Plan contains several goals and policies related to water supply, including:

• Goal 1: Work with utilities and other service providers to ensure adequate and safe public infrastructure and public services for City residents, including upgrading and expansion of existing deficient systems.

• Policy 1.7: Work with wholesale and retail water purveyors to ensure provision of an adequate supply of water of high quality to all households and businesses within the City.

Honby Pipeline Initial Study 19

• Policy 1.12: Work with responsible agencies, such as wholesale and retail water purveyors…to ensure: The provision of a sufficient supply of water at a reasonable rate….

Thus, the Project would be consistent with the water supply goals policies of the City of Santa Clarita General Plan because it would facilitate the provision of water to a portion of the existing development in the eastern part of the service area, along with future development. c) No habitat conservation plans have been developed for the Project area. Therefore, no conflict would occur. A similar type of document, the Natural River Management Plan (Valencia Company 1998), was prepared by various state and federal agencies to provide a long-term master plan approach to development along the Santa Clara River. As a matter of regulatory compliance, the Project would be developed in accordance with guidelines set forth in this document. Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues & Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact

X. 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?

Discussion: a-b) Natural sand and gravel deposits suitable for construction aggregate are found in the Santa Clara River within the Project area. In addition, most of the Santa Clara River wash is zoned as MRZ-2 on California Geological Survey maps for Mineral Land Classification of the Greater Los Angeles Area (CGS 1987). Zone MRZ-2 indicates that significant mineral deposits are present, or that a high likelihood for their presence exists. However, this section of the Santa Clara River is identified by the City of Santa Clarita as an SEA, which limits construction and development within the 100-year flood plain where extraction would occur. In addition, where it would cross the Santa Clara River, the proposed pipeline would be installed below grade within the existing right-of-way of the above-ground Los Angeles Aqueduct. Thus, the area affected by pipeline construction is not suitable for mineral resource extraction.

Oil and gas development has historically occurred within the Santa Clarita Valley. However, the closest oil field, the Bouquet Canyon Field, is located approximately 0.7 mile to the northwest from the Project site, and the nearest individual oil well is located 0.5 mile to the west. Completion of the Project would not inhibit any potential future oil and gas extraction beneath the site because the Project only requires a narrow corridor, and modern directional drilling techniques are capable of extracting oil and gas from great lateral distances.

Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues & Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact

XI. 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?

20 Honby Pipeline Initial Study

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 air strip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

Discussion: a) The City of Santa Clarita has adopted a noise ordinance that sets specific times and noise levels for construction activities and noise levels for stationary noise sources. Construction activities are not allowed between the hours of 7 P.M. and 7 A.M. Monday through Friday, before 8 A.M. and after 6 P.M. on Saturday, and anytime on Sunday or a major holiday. Construction daytime noise levels above 65 decibels (dBA) in residential areas and 80 dBA in commercial areas are prohibited. However, construction noise levels up to 70 dBA are permitted for up to 15 minutes an hour and up to 75 dBA for up to 5 minutes an hour in residential areas.

Construction would occur during the hours allowed by the City of Santa Clarita. Pipeline construction would require a variety of equipment, depending on the conditions along the route, potentially including a hydraulic excavator, trucks, paving equipment, crane, and gas welding machine. As a worst-case scenario, construction activities would generate a maximum hourly noise level of approximately 89 dBA at 100 feet from the construction site. Noise decreases by 6 dBA for every doubling of the distance. Thus, noise would be reduced to approximately 77 dBA at 400 feet from the construction site. The residents of the East Greenbrier Mobile Home Park, the nearest of which are approximately 125 feet from the pipeline corridor, and the commercial/industrial areas that adjoin the pipeline route temporarily would be exposed to noise that could exceed City of Santa Clarita standards, which would be a significant impact. Pipeline construction typically proceeds several hundred feet a day, and the noise exposure at any given location would be brief. This issue will be addressed in detail in the Project EIR.

Operation of the pipeline would generate minimal noise, primarily from periodic vehicular trips, and would not exceed any regulatory standards. b) Although some groundborne vibration could result from construction, the Project would not require the use of equipment that created excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise either during construction or operations. c) Refer to the discussion of operational impacts under (a) above. d) Refer to the discussion of construction and operational impacts under (a) above. This issue will be addressed in detail in the Project EIR. e) The Project is not located within an airport land use area, nor is there an airport within two miles of the project site. f) The Project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip.

Honby Pipeline Initial Study 21

Mitigation Measures

Mitigation measures will be developed in the Project EIR. Potential measures could include:

• All internal combustion engine-powered equipment shall be properly muffled and in good repair.

• Machines shall not be left idling.

• Electric power shall be used in lieu of internal combustion engine power whenever possible.

• Noisy activities shall be scheduled to minimize their duration at the site.

• If noise complaints are received, the contractor will conduct monitoring of noise levels, with corrective actions taken in response to excessive noise levels. Such measures could include constructing a temporary barrier between the noise source and the sensitive receptor. •

Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues & Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact

XII. 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?

Discussion: a) The Project would not directly induce population growth. It would, however, remove an obstacle to population growth by allowing CLWA to serve the anticipated future population of a portion of its service area. Thus, the Project could indirectly induce substantial population growth and may indirectly foster economic growth or the construction of additional housing within the affected portion of the CLWA service area. Significant, indirect, growth-related impacts to all environmental resources could result from Project implementation. This issue will be addressed in detail in the Project EIR. b) The Project would not displace housing. c) The Project would not displace people.

22 Honby Pipeline Initial Study

Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues & Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact

XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES - Would the project: a. 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?

Discussion: a) The Project would not require or provide new or physically altered governmental facilities.

Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues & Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact

XIV. 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?

Discussion: a) The Project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks. b) The Project does not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities.

Honby Pipeline Initial Study 23

Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues & Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact

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

Discussion: a) The Project would require only minor increases in traffic during the construction period from construction worker’s personal vehicles and the movement of construction equipment. Operations would require only a limited number of trips during maintenance activities. b) The temporary, minor increases in construction traffic and the periodic trips by maintenance vehicles would not exceed level of service standards. c) The Project would not affect air traffic patterns. d) The pipeline would not create hazards since it would be buried and roadways would be restored to the appropriate standards once construction was completed. e) One lane of traffic would be open at all times during construction; thus, emergency access would be maintained. f) Construction activities would temporarily limit parking along the affected roadways, but parking is available on nearby streets. Long-term parking capacity would not be affected by the Project. g) The Project would not conflict with any policies supporting alternative transportation.

24 Honby Pipeline Initial Study

Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues & Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact

XVI. 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 statues and regulations related to solid waste?

Discussion: a) Neither construction nor operation of the Project would generate wastewater requiring treatment. b) The Project is the construction of a new water facility; it would not require the construction of other facilities. c) Water used to test the proposed pipeline prior to operation could be discharged into the local storm drain system, but this would not require the construction of new storm drainage facilities or their expansion. d) The Project is not a development project requiring a water supply. e) See (a) above. f) The portion of the pipeline that would be removed by Newhall Land and Farming Company would be disposed of in an appropriate landfill in accordance with regulatory requirements. Other construction activities would generate incidental amounts of solid waste. Project operation would not generate solid waste. g) All waste would be disposed of in accordance with appropriate regulations.

Honby Pipeline Initial Study 25 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues & Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact

XVII. 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, 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, 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?

Discussion: a) The Project potentially would result in significant direct impacts to air quality, biological resources, and noise. The Project would not directly induce population growth. It would, however, remove an obstacle to population growth by allowing CLWA to serve the anticipated future population of the eastern portion of its service area. Thus, the Project could indirectly induce substantial population growth and may indirectly foster economic growth or the construction of additional housing within the CLWA service area. Significant, indirect, growth-related impacts to all environmental resources could result from Project implementation. b) As discussed under (b) above, the Project could indirectly induce substantial population growth, resulting in significant, indirect, growth-related impacts to all environmental resources. Similar impacts would result from other development in the Santa Clarita Valley. To the extent that this development exceeds that which could be supported by the Project, impacts could be cumulatively considerable. Cumulative impacts also could occur from other construction projects in the Project area that affected the same environmental resources. c) Refer to (a) and (b) above.

26 Honby Pipeline Initial Study

List of Preparers

Debby Baca, Graphics Supervisor, SAIC B.S., Technical Illustration/Commercial Design, Bemidji University, Minnesota 1979 Years of Experience: 25 (Other Firms — 11)

Chris Crabtree, Air Quality Specialist, SAIC B.A., Environmental Studies, University of California, Santa Barbara, 1978 Years of Experience: 18 (Other Firms — 6)

J. Lauren Everett, Water Resources Specialist, SAIC M.E.S.M., Environmental Science and Management, Donald Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, 2001 B.S., Environmental Studies, University of California, Santa Barbara, 1998 Years of Experience: 2

A. Trevor Pattison, Environmental Analyst, SAIC B.S., Geological Sciences, University of California at Santa Barbara, 1999 Years of Experience: 6 (Other Firms — 1)

Perry W. Russell, Geologist, SAIC M.S., Geological Sciences, California State University, Northridge, 1988 B.A., Geological Sciences, University of California, Santa Barbara, 1984 Years of Experience: 18 (Other Firms - 9)

Forrest C. Smith, Publications Manager, SAIC B.A., History and Political Science, University of California, Santa Barbara, 1970 Years of Experience: 30 (Other Firms - 14)

Karen R. Stark, Editor/Document Specialist, SAIC B.A., Psychology, University of California, Santa Barbara, 1990 Years of Experience: 14 (Other Firms - 9)

David F. Stone, Planning and Cultural Resource Manager M.A., Anthropology, University of California, Santa Barbara, 1984 B.A., Anthropology (Honors), University of California, Santa Cruz, 1978 Years of Experience: 26 (Other Firms — 15)

Robert D. Thomson, Program Manager/Assistant Vice President, SAIC B.S., Zoology, University of California, Davis, 1973 M.S., Ecology, University of California, Davis, 1977 Years of Experience: 27 (Other Firms — 14)

Honby Pipeline Initial Study 27 Kenneth D. Victorino, Archaeologist, SAIC M.A., Anthropology, California State University, Fullerton , 1996 B.A., Anthropology, California State University, Fullerton, 1991 Years of Experience: 12 (Other Firms - 8)

Joseph P. Walsh, III, GIS Specialist, SAIC B.A., Physical Geography, University of California, Santa Barbara, 1993 Years of Experience: 12 (Other Firms — 2)

28 Honby Pipeline Initial Study

References

Black & Veatch. 2003. Preliminary Design Report for the Sand Canyon Pump Station, Pipeline & Reservoir. March.

CDC (California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology). 1998. State of California Seismic Hazard Zones, Newhall Quadrangle. February 1.

CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game). 2004. California Natural Diversity Database.

California Department of Toxic Substances Control. 2004. DTSC’s Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (Cortese List). http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/database/Calsites/Corese_List. Accessed May 25, 2004.

California Geological Survey. 1987. Mineral Land Classification of the Greater Los Angeles Area Maps.

CLWA (Castaic Lake Water Agency). 2000. 2000 Urban Water Management Plan. Prepared by SA Associates, Reiter/Lowry Consultants, Black & Veatch. December.

______. 1988. Capital Program and Water Plan.

City of Santa Clarita. 2004. Draft Final Riverpark Draft Environmental Impact Report. Prepared by Impact Sciences, Inc.

Kennedy/Jenks Consultants. 2004. Draft Honby Pipeline Preliminary Design Report. June.

SAIC (Science Applications International Corporation). 2003. Diablo Canyon ISFSI Environmental Impact Report (Sections Only).

SCAQMD (South Coast Air Quality Management District). 2003. South Coast Air Quality Management District 2003 Draft Air Quality Management Plan.

______. 1999. Rule 403 Implementation Handbook. Office of Planning and Policy.

______. 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook.

USDA Soil Conservation Service. 1969. Los Angeles County Report and General Soil Map.

Valencia Company. 1998. Natural River Management Plan.

Worden, Leon. 1998. Where Once Was Water. http://www.scvhistory.com/scvhistory/sg081898.htm. August.

Honby Pipeline Initial Study 29 This page intentionally left blank

30 Honby Pipeline Initial Study

Appendix A Figures

This page intentionally left blank. PIPELINE (9,500 FEET +)

LEGEND New 60" Honby Pipeline (Phase 1 - 2,500 Feet) Scale New 60" Honby Pipeline (Phase 2 - 7,000 Feet) N 0 500 Feet Source: Kennedy/Jenks Consultants 2004

Figure 1. Proposed Honby Pipeline Alignment N Scale 0 200 Feet Source: Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, 2004

Figure 2. Existing Honby Pipeline 5 Castaic Lake

Earl Schmidt Filtration Plant Proposed Sand Canyon Pump Station Honby Pipeline

Rio Vista Water 88-39 Treatment Plant

Los Ange 88-25 88-25 Ventura County 88-25

le 88-35 s County 88-25 88-36 88-23 WSA 03-3

88-26 14 88-36 88-33 88-36 88-33

88-33

88-27 5

88-36 LEGEND CLWA Boundary Water Service Area Water Service Sub-Area Scale N Proposed Water Pipeline 0 2 4 City of Santa Clarita Miles

Figure 3. Location of Water Service Sub-Areas Served by the Proposed Honby Pipeline

This page intentionally left blank. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE NOP

This page intentionally left blank.

March 8, 2005

Ms. J. Lauren Everett Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) 525 Anacapa Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101

RE: Comments on the Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Report for the Honby Pipeline Project, City of Santa Clarita - SCAG No. I 20050098.

Dear Ms. Everett:

Thank you for submitting the Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Report for the Honby Pipeline Project, City of Santa Clarita to SCAG for review and comment. As stated in CEQA Section 15201, each public agency must include provisions in its CEQA procedures for wide public involvement, both formal and informal for a 30–45 day review and comment period. SCAG received this NOP EIR after this time frame but will provide our standard review process. As areawide clearinghouse for regionally significant projects, SCAG reviews the consistency of local plans, projects, and programs with regional plans. This activity is based on SCAG's responsibilities as a regional planning organization pursuant to state and federal laws and regulations. Guidance provided by these reviews is intended to assist local agencies and project sponsors to take actions that contribute to the attainment of regional goals and policies.

We have reviewed the aforementioned Notice of Preparation, and have determined that the proposed Project is regionally significant per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Section 15206). The proposed project is the construction and operation of a 60- inch diameter, approximately 9,500 foot water pipeline. It would replace the existing Honby pipeline, which is undersized (it does not meet current demand nor will it meet projected future demand) and partially located in an area proposed for development. CEQA requires that EIRs discuss any inconsistencies between the proposed project and applicable general plans and regional plans (Section 15125 [d]). If there are inconsistencies, an explanation and rationalization for such inconsistencies should be provided.

Policies of SCAG's Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide, Regional Transportation Plan, and Compass Growth Vision Principles, applicable to your project, are outlined in the attachment. We expect the Program EIR to specifically cite the appropriate SCAG policies and principles and address the manner in which the Project is consistent with applicable core policies or supportive of applicable ancillary policies and principles. Please use our policy numbers to refer to them in your Program EIR. Also, we would encourage you to use a side- by-side comparison of SCAG policies and principles with a discussion of the proposed project’s consistency and support to those guidelines.

Please provide a minimum of 45 days for SCAG to review the Draft EIR when this document is available. If you have any questions regarding the attached comments, please contact me at (213) 236-1852. Thank you.

Sincerely,

April Grayson Associate Regional Planner Intergovernmental Review March 3, 2005 Ms. J Lauren Everett Page 2

COMMENTS ON THE NOTICE OF INTENT TO PREPARE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE HONBY PIPELINE PROJECT, CITY OF SANTA CLARITA.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The project is the construction and operation of a 60-inch diameter, approximately 9,500 foot water pipeline. It would replace the existing Honby pipeline, which is undersized (it does not meet current demand nor will it meet projected future demand) and partially located in an area proposed for development. The existing pipeline connects to the 84- inch Treated Water pipeline from the Rio Vista Water Treatment Plant approximately 6,000 feet west of the westerly property line of the treatment plant. From the connection point, the eisting pipeline extends east, roughly parallel to the Santa Clarita River, then turns south and crosses the river. It then continues in an easterly direction and terminates at the new Sand Canyon pump station, which is currently under construction and is replacing the Honby pump station.

CONSISTENCY WITH REGIONAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND GUIDE POLICIES

The Growth Management Chapter (GMC) of the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG) contains the following policies that are particularly applicable and should be addressed in the Alternatives Analysis and Environmental Impact Statement:

3.01 The population, housing, and jobs forecasts, which are adopted by SCAG's Regional Council (RC) and that reflect local plans and policies, shall be used by SCAG in all phases of implementation and review.

Regional Growth Forecasts

The EIS should reflect the most current SCAG forecasts, which are the 2004 RTP (Adopted April 2004) Population, Household and Employment forecasts. The forecasts for your city and subregion, are as follows:

Adopted SCAG Regionwide Forecasts 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Population 19,967,835 21,294,093 22,561,643 23,781,797 24,935,979 Households 6,260,842 6,758,353 7,259,762 7,773,287 8,281,758 Employment 8,368,607 9,456,903 10,038,316 10,614,346 11,171,537

March 3, 2005 Ms. J. Lauren Everett Page 3

Adopted North L.A. County Forecasts 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Population 614,502 735,262 852,964 967,387 1,076,013 Households 181,825 221,538 256,966 292,658 327,745 Employment 182,284 215,955 235,070 253,417 270,409

City of Santa Clarita 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Forecasts* Population 169,793 187,795 200,104 211,367 221,915 Households 55,614 62,837 67,832 72,883 77,868 Employment 50,292 57,248 60,691 64,012 67,133

* The 2004 RTP growth forecast at the regional, county and subregional level was adopted by RC in April, 2004. City totals are the sum of small area data and should be used for advisory purposes only.

3.03 The timing, financing, and location of public facilities, utility systems, and transportation systems shall be used by SCAG to implement the region’s growth policies.

GMC POLICIES RELATED TO THE RCPG GOAL TO IMPROVE THE REGIONAL STANDARD OF LIVING

The Growth Management goals to develop urban forms that enable individuals to spend less income on housing cost, that minimize public and private development costs, and that enable firms to be more competitive, strengthen the regional strategic goal to stimulate the regional economy. The evaluation of the proposed project in relation to the following policies would be intended to guide efforts toward achievement of such goals and does not infer regional interference with local land use powers.

3.05 Encourage patterns of urban development and land use, which reduce costs on infrastructure construction and make better use of existing facilities.

3.09 Support local jurisdictions’ efforts to minimize the cost of infrastructure and public service delivery, and efforts to seek new sources of funding for development and the provision of services.

3.10 Support local jurisdictions’ actions to minimize red tape and expedite the permitting

March 3, 2005 Ms. J. Lauren Everett Page 4

process to maintain economic vitality and competitiveness.

GMC POLICIES RELATED TO THE RCPG GOAL TO IMPROVE THE REGIONAL QUALITY OF LIFE

The Growth Management goals to attain mobility and clean air goals and to develop urban forms that enhance quality of life, that accommodate a diversity of life styles, that preserve open space and natural resources, and that are aesthetically pleasing and preserve the character of communities, enhance the regional strategic goal of maintaining the regional quality of life. The evaluation of the proposed project in relation to the following policies would be intended to provide direction for plan implementation, and does not allude to regional mandates.

3.12 Encourage existing or proposed local jurisdictions' programs aimed at designing land uses which encourage the use of transit and thus reduce the need for roadway expansion, reduce the number of auto trips and vehicle miles traveled, and create opportunities for residents to walk and bike.

3.13 Encourage local jurisdictions' plans that maximize the use of existing urbanized areas accessible to transit through infill and redevelopment.

3.16 Encourage developments in and around activity centers, transportation corridors, underutilized infrastructure systems, and areas needing recycling and redevelopment.

3.18 Encourage planned development in locations least likely to cause environmental impact.

3.20 Support the protection of vital resources such as wetlands, groundwater recharge areas, woodlands, production lands, and land containing unique and endangered plants and animals.

3.21 Encourage the implementation of measures aimed at the preservation and protection of recorded and unrecorded cultural resources and archaeological sites.

3.22 Discourage development, or encourage the use of special design requirements, in areas with steep slopes, high fire, flood, and seismic hazards.

3.23 Encourage mitigation measures that reduce noise in certain locations, measures aimed at preservation of biological and ecological resources, measures that would reduce exposure to seismic hazards, minimize earthquake damage, and to develop emergency response and recovery plans.

March 3, 2005 Ms. J. Lauren Everett Page 5

GMC POLICIES RELATED TO THE RCPG GOAL TO PROVIDE SOCIAL, POLITICAL, AND CULTURAL EQUITY

The Growth Management Goal to develop urban forms that avoid economic and social polarization promotes the regional strategic goal of minimizing social and geographic disparities and of reaching equity among all segments of society. The evaluation of the proposed project in relation to the policy stated below is intended guide direction for the

accomplishment of this goal, and does not infer regional mandates and interference with local land use powers.

3.24 Encourage efforts of local jurisdictions in the implementation of programs that increase the supply and quality of housing and provide affordable housing as evaluated in the Regional Housing Needs Assessment.

3.27 Support local jurisdictions and other service providers in their efforts to develop sustainable communities and provide, equally to all members of society, accessible and effective services such as: public education, housing, health care, social services, recreational facilities, law enforcement, and fire protection.

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN

The 2004 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) also has goals and policies that are pertinent to this proposed project. This RTP links the goal of sustaining mobility with the subgoals of fostering economic development, enhancing the environment, reducing energy consumption, promoting transportation-friendly development patterns, and encouraging fair and equitable access to residents affected by socio-economic, geographic and commercial limitations. The RTP continues to support all applicable federal and state laws in implementing the proposed project. Among the relevant goals and policies of the RTP are the following:

Regional Transportation Plan Goals • Maximize mobility and accessibility for all people and goods in the region. • Ensure travel safety and reliability for all people and goods in the region. • Preserve and ensure a sustainable regional transportation system. • Maximize the productivity of our transportation system. • Protect the environment, improve air quality and promote energy efficiency. • Encourage land use and growth patterns that complement our transportation investments.

March 3, 2005 Ms. J. Lauren Everett Page 6

Regional Transportation Plan Policies

Transportation investments shall be based on SCAG’s adopted Regional Performance Indicators. Performance Performance Performance Indicator Measures Definition Outcome Mobility • Average Daily Speed Speed-experienced by travelers 10% Improvement regardless of mode. • Average Daily Delay Delay-excess travel time resulting 40% Improvement from the difference between a reference speed and actual speed. Total daily delay and daily delay per capita are indicators used. Accessibility • Percent PM peak work Auto 90% trips within 45 minutes Transit 37% of home • Distribution of work trip Auto 8% Improvement travel times Transit 8% Improvement Reliability • Percent variation in Day-to-day change in travel times 10% Improvement travel time experienced by travelers. Variability results from accidents, weather, road closures, system problems and other non-recurrent conditions. Performance Performance Performance Indicator Measures Definition Outcome Safety • Accident Rates Measured in accidents per million 0.3% Improvement vehicle miles by mode. Cost Effectiveness • Benefit-to-Cost (B/C) Ratio of benefits of RTP $3.08 Ratio investments to the associated investments costs. Productivity • Percent capability Transportation infrastructure utilized during peak capacity and services provided. conditions • Roadway Capacity - vehicles 20% Improvement at known per hour per lane by type of bottlenecks facility. • Transit Capacity – seating N/A capacity utilized by mode. Sustainability • Total cost per capita to Focus in on overall performance, $20 per capita, primarily in sustain current system including infrastructure condition preservation costs performance Preservation measure is a sub-set of sustainability. Preservation • Maintenance cost per Focus is on infrastructure Maintain current conditions capita to preserve condition. Sub-set of system at base year sustainability. conditions Environmental • Emissions generated Measured/forecast emissions Meets conformity by travel include CO, NOX, PM10, SOX requirements and VOC. CO2 as secondary measure to reflect greenhouse emissions.

March 3, 2005 Ms. J. Lauren Everett Page 7

Environmental • Expenditures by Proportionate share of No disproportionate impact Justice quintile and ethnicity expenditures in the 2004 RTP by to any group or quintile each quintile.

• Benefit vs. burden by Proportionate share of benefits to quintiles each quintile ethnicity.

Proportionate share of additional airport noise by ethnic group.

• Ensuring safety, adequate maintenance, and efficiency of operations on the existing multi-modal transportation system will be RTP priorities and will be balanced against the need for system expansion investments.

• RTP land use and growth strategies that differ from currently expected trends will require a collaborative implementation program that identifies required actions and policies by all affected agencies and sub-regions.

• HOV gap closures that significantly increase transit and rideshare usage will be supported and encouraged, subject to Policy #1.

Water Resources

The following recommendations are non-mandated and as such are provided for information and advisory purposes. SCAG signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Metropolitan Water District (MWD), the largest wholesale water agency in the region, to develop the Water Resources Chapter (WRC). The WRC also includes projections of water supply and demand for areas within the SCAG region, outside the boundaries of MWD. Population and growth projections on which the WRC was based, were developed through the year 2010, and have not been updated to reflect recently adopted SCAG growth forecasts through the year 2020.

Projected Water Demand in the MWD Service Area in 2010 (Million Acre Feet)

County 2010

Los Angeles 1.93 Orange 0.73 Riverside 0.62 San Bernardino 0.30 Ventura 0.15 Within SCAG Region 3.73 San Diego 0.81 MWD Service Area 4.54

March 3, 2005 Ms. J. Lauren Everett Page 8

GROWTH VISIONING

In June 2004, SCAG’s Regional Council adopted the Compass Vision, a new vision for Southern California, to accommodate the projected 6 million new residents expected to live in the region by 2030. Driven by four key principles, mobility, livability, prosperity and sustainability, the Compass Vision emphasizes the following strategies to better coordinate land use and transportation decision-making:

• To focus growth in existing and emerging centers and along major transportation corridors • To create significant areas of mixed-use development and walkable communities • To target growth around existing and planned transit stations • To preserve existing open space and stable residential areas

The Compass Vision has resulted in a new framework for Southern California’s future and a new perspective on how local decision-makers can make planning choices that will have both tremendous value to both individual communities and the region as a whole. The following “Regional Growth Principles” are proposed to provide a framework for local and regional decision making that improves the quality of life for all SCAG residents. Each principle is followed by a specific set of strategies intended to achieve this goal.

Principle 1: Improve mobility for all residents • Encourage transportation investments and land use decisions that are mutually supportive. • Locate new housing near existing jobs and new jobs near existing housing. • Encourage transit-oriented development. • Promote a variety of travel choices

Principle 2: Foster livability in all communities • Promote infill development and redevelopment to revitalize existing communities. • Promote developments, which provide a mix of uses. • Promote “people scaled,” walkable communities. • Support the preservation of stable, single-family neighborhoods.

Principle 3: Enable prosperity for all people • Provide, in each community, a variety of housing types to meet the housing needs of all income levels. • Support educational opportunities that promote balanced growth. • Ensure environmental justice regardless of race, ethnicity or income class. • Support local and state fiscal policies that encourage balanced growth • Encourage civic engagement.

March 3, 2005 Ms. J. Lauren Everett Page 9

Principle 4: Promote sustainability for future generations • Preserve rural, agricultural, recreational and environmentally sensitive areas. • Focus development in urban centers and existing cities. • Develop strategies to accommodate growth that uses resources efficiently, eliminate pollution and significantly reduce waste. • Utilize “green” development techniques.

To this end, SCAG will continue to develop tools and resources to assist cities and counties as they plan for a better future for all Southern Californians.

CONCLUSIONS

All feasible measures needed to mitigate any potentially negative regional impacts associated with the proposed project should be implemented and monitored, as required by CEQA. This includes incorporating the monitoring or reporting of any mitigation measures into the Draft EIR so that members of the public, Responsible Agencies and others can review them before they are adopted. Additionally, it will ensure that any mitigation measures will be specific enough to be monitored effectively. [CEQA Deskbook - Chapter 5, 1999 edition].

March 3, 2005 Ms. J. Lauren Everett Page 10

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS

Roles and Authorities

THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS (SCAG) is a Joint Powers Agency established under California Government Code Section 6502 et seq. Under federal and state law, SCAG is designated as a Council of Governments (COG), a Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA), and a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). SCAG’s mandated roles and responsibilities include the following:

SCAG is designated by the federal government as the Region's Metropolitan Planning Organization and mandated to maintain a continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive transportation planning process resulting in a Regional Transportation Plan and a Regional Transportation Improvement Program pursuant to 23 U.S.C. '134, 49 U.S.C. '5301 et seq., 23 C.F.R. '450, and 49 C.F.R. '613. SCAG is also the designated Regional Transportation Planning Agency, and as such is responsible for both preparation of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) under California Government Code Section 65080 and 65082 respectively.

SCAG is responsible for developing the demographic projections and the integrated land use, housing, employment, and transportation programs, measures, and strategies portions of the South Coast Air Quality Management Plan, pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 40460(b)-(c). SCAG is also designated under 42 U.S.C. '7504(a) as a Co-Lead Agency for air quality planning for the Central Coast and Southeast Desert Air Basin District.

SCAG is responsible under the Federal Clean Air Act for determining Conformity of Projects, Plans and Programs to the State Implementation Plan, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. '7506.

Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65089.2, SCAG is responsible for reviewing all Congestion Management Plans (CMPs) for consistency with regional transportation plans required by Section 65080 of the Government Code. SCAG must also evaluate the consistency and compatibility of such programs within the region.

SCAG is the authorized regional agency for Inter-Governmental Review of Programs proposed for federal financial assistance and direct development activities, pursuant to Presidential Executive Order 12,372 (replacing A-95 Review).

SCAG reviews, pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21087, Environmental Impacts Reports of projects of regional significance for consistency with regional plans [California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Sections 15206 and 15125(b)].

Pursuant to 33 U.S.C. '1288(a)(2) (Section 208 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act), SCAG is the authorized Areawide Waste Treatment Management Planning Agency.

SCAG is responsible for preparation of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment, pursuant to California Government Code Section 65584(a).

SCAG is responsible (with the Association of Bay Area Governments, the Sacramento Area Council of Governments, and the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments) for preparing the Southern California Hazardous Waste Management Plan pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 25135.3.

Revised July 2001

This page intentionally left blank.

Appendix C Air Quality Emissions Data

Table 1. Emission Source Data for the Honby Pipeline Construction Project. Hp Ave. Daily Number Hourly Equip-Hrs Daily Work Total Activity/Equipment Type Rating Load Factor Active Hp-Hrs Per Day Hp-Hrs Days Hp-Hrs Pipeline Construction - Phase 1 Excavator 428 0.50 1 214 8 1,712 63 107,000 Loader 105 0.50 1 53 4 210 21 4,375 Pipelayer 305 0.40 1 122 8 976 63 61,000 Water Truck 300 0.40 1 120 2 240 63 15,000 Welder - 350 Amp. 38 0.70 1 27 8 213 63 13,300 Delivery Truck - Pipe (1) NA NA 160 NA 5 800 10 7,778 Dump Truck (1) NA NA 0.9 NA 12 11 21 225 Fugitive Dust (2) NA NA 2 NA 8 NA 63 125 Remove Existing Pipeline Excavator 168 0.50 1 84 8 672 20 13,440 Loader 105 0.50 1 53 2 105 20 2,100 Truck - Pipe Removal (1) NA NA 15 NA 2 30 18 540 Fugitive Dust (2) NA NA 0.5 NA 8 NA 20 10 Pipeline Construction - Phase 2 Excavator 428 0.50 1 214 8 1,712 159 273,053 Loader 105 0.50 1 53 4 210 57 11,909 Paving Machine - Asphalt 115 0.50 1 58 6 345 5 1,725 Pipelayer 305 0.40 1 122 8 976 159 155,666 Roller 80 0.58 1 46 5 232 5 1,160 Tunneling Machine 200 0.50 1 100 8 800 30 24,000 Pipe pusher 200 0.50 1 100 8 800 30 24,000 Water Truck 300 0.40 1 120 2 240 159 38,278 Welder - 350 Amp. 38 0.70 1 27 8 213 159 33,940 Asphalt Truck (1) NA NA 10 NA 10 100 5 500 Concrete Truck (1) NA NA 10 NA 10 100 23 2,300 Delivery Truck - Pipe (1) NA NA 160 NA 5 800 16 12,759 Dump Truck (1) NA NA 8.2 NA 12 98 57 5,580 Fugitive Dust (2) NA NA 2 NA 8 NA 159 319 Notes: (1) Number Active = miles/roundtrip, Hours/Day = daily truck trips, Daily Hp-Hrs = daily miles, and Total Hp-Hrs = total miles. (2) Number Active is acres disturbed at one time and Total Hp-Hrs is acre-days for the entire activity. Table 2. Emission Factors for Construction of the Honby Pipeline Project. Fuel Emission Factors (Grams/Horsepower-Hour) Project Year/Emission Source Type ROG CO NOx SOx PM10 References Year 2005 Off-Road Equipment - 25-50 Hp D 2.06 5.92 5.94 0.18 0.70 (1) Off-Road Equipment - 51-120 Hp D 1.11 3.77 7.56 0.18 0.77 (1) Off-Road Equipment - 121-175 Hp D 0.71 3.04 6.94 0.18 0.42 (1) Off-Road Equipment - 176-250 Hp D 0.46 1.48 6.66 0.18 0.23 (1) Off-Road Equipment - 251-500 Hp D 0.37 1.73 5.51 0.18 0.20 (1) On-road Truck - 5 mph (Gms/Mi) D 3.15 34.05 19.47 0.14 0.86 (2) On-road Truck - 25 mph (Gms/Mi) D 1.01 9.49 11.92 0.14 0.39 (2) On-road Truck - 35 mph (Gms/Mi) D 0.71 6.87 11.43 0.13 0.27 (2) On-road Truck - 55 mph (Gms/Mi) D 0.49 6.76 15.47 0.13 0.23 (2) On-Road Trucks - Local Trip (Gms/Mi) D 1.03 9.93 12.15 0.14 0.38 (3) On-Road Trucks - Distant Trip (Gms/Mi) D 0.78 8.94 14.61 0.13 0.31 (4) On-road Truck - Idle (Gms/Hr) D 55.75 247.00 396.00 NA NA (5) Fugitive Dust (Lbs/acre-day) ------27.50 (6) Notes: (1) Composite emission factors developed from ARB OFFROAD emissions model (1999) and based on average California equipment fleet age distributions for project year 2005. (2) Heavy duty diesel truck running emission factors developed from EMFAC2002 (ARB 2002). Units in grams/mile for project year 2004. Based on annual average conditions at 60 degrees and 50% humidity. PM = combustive + tire wear + brake wear (3) Composite factor based on a round trip of 5% at 5 mph, 65% at 25 mph, and 30% at 35 mph. Units in grams/mile for project y Although not included in these data, 10 minutes of idling mode also included in the emissions for each truck round trip. (4) Same as (2), except composite factor based on a round trip of 5% at 5 mph, 30% at 25 mph, and 65% at 55 mph. (5) Heavy duty diesel truck idling emission factors obtained from EMFAC2000 Technical Support Document (ARB 2000). Units in grams/hour. (6) Units in lbs/acre-day from section 11.2.3 of AP-42 (EPA 1995). Emissions reduced by 75% from uncontrolled levels to represent compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 - Fugitive Dust. Table 3. Daily Emissions from Construction of the Honby Pipeline Project. Pounds Per Day Construction Activity/Equipment Type ROG CO NOx SOx PM10 Pipeline Construction - Phase 1 Excavator 1.4 6.5 20.8 0.7 0.8 Loader 0.5 1.7 3.5 0.1 0.4 Pipelayer 0.8 3.7 11.9 0.4 0.4 Water Truck 0.2 0.9 2.9 0.1 0.1 Welder - 350 Amp. 1.0 2.8 2.8 0.1 0.3 Delivery Truck - Pipe 1.5 16.2 26.5 0.2 0.5 Dump Truck 0.3 1.3 2.0 0.0 0.0 Fugitive Dust 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 55.0 Subtotal (1) 5.6 33.2 70.4 1.6 57.5 Remove Existing Pipeline Excavator 1.1 4.5 10.3 0.3 0.6 Loader 0.3 0.9 1.7 0.0 0.2 Truck - Pipe Removal 0.1 0.8 1.1 0.0 0.0 Fugitive Dust 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.8 Subtotal 1.4 6.2 13.1 0.3 14.6 Pipeline Construction - Phase 2 Excavator 1.4 6.5 20.8 0.7 0.8 Loader 0.5 1.7 3.5 0.1 0.4 Paving Machine - Asphalt 0.8 2.9 5.7 0.1 0.6 Pipelayer 0.8 3.7 11.9 0.4 0.4 Roller 0.6 1.9 3.9 0.1 0.4 Tunneling Machine 0.8 2.6 11.7 0.3 0.4 Pipe pusher 0.8 2.6 11.7 0.3 0.4 Water Truck 0.2 0.9 2.9 0.1 0.1 Welder - 350 Amp. 1.0 2.8 2.8 0.1 0.3 Asphalt Truck 0.4 3.1 4.1 0.0 0.1 Concrete Truck 0.4 3.1 4.1 0.0 0.1 Delivery Truck - Pipe 1.5 16.2 26.5 0.2 0.5 Dump Truck 0.5 3.2 4.4 0.0 0.1 Fugitive Dust 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 55.0 Subtotal (1) 9.7 51.4 114.1 2.5 59.6 Peak Daily Emissions (2) 7.7 43.1 86.5 1.9 58.7 SCAQMD Daily Thresholds (Pounds) 75 550 100 150 150 Note: (1) Assumes that all equipment would operate simultaneously, which is an overestimate of daily emissions. (2) Peak daily emissions would occur during Phase 2 construction and all sources except the tunneling mac pipe pusher, and concrete trucks would contribute to these emissions. Table 4. Calendar Quarter Emissions from Construction of the Honby Pipeline Project. Tons Per Calendar Quarter Construction Activity/Equipment Type ROG CO NOx SOx PM10 Pipeline Construction - Phase 1 Excavator 0.04 0.20 0.65 0.02 0.02 Loader 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.00 0.00 Pipelayer 0.02 0.12 0.37 0.01 0.01 Water Truck 0.01 0.03 0.09 0.00 0.00 Welder - 350 Amp. 0.03 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.01 Delivery Truck - Pipe 0.01 0.08 0.13 0.00 0.00 Dump Truck 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 Fugitive Dust - - - - 1.72 Subtotal (1) 0.12 0.55 1.39 0.04 1.78 Remove Existing Pipeline Excavator 0.01 0.05 0.10 0.00 0.01 Loader 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 Truck - Pipe Removal 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 Fugitive Dust - - - - 0.14 Subtotal 0.01 0.06 0.13 0.00 0.15 Pipeline Construction - Phase 2 Excavator 0.05 0.22 0.69 0.02 0.02 Loader 0.01 0.05 0.10 0.00 0.01 Paving Machine - Asphalt 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 Pipelayer 0.03 0.12 0.39 0.01 0.01 Roller 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 Tunneling Machine 0.01 0.04 0.18 0.00 0.01 Pipe pusher 0.01 0.04 0.18 0.00 0.01 Water Truck 0.01 0.03 0.10 0.00 0.00 Welder - 350 Amp. 0.03 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.01 Asphalt Truck 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 Concrete Truck 0.00 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.00 Delivery Truck - Pipe 0.01 0.13 0.21 0.00 0.00 Dump Truck 0.01 0.09 0.12 0.00 0.00 Fugitive Dust - - - - 1.82 Subtotal (1) 0.18 0.87 2.13 0.06 1.90 Peak Calendar Quarter Emissions (2) 0.16 0.75 1.73 0.05 1.89 SCAQMD Quarterly Thresholds (Tons) 2.50 24.75 2.50 6.75 6.75 Note: (1) Assumes that all equipment would operate simultaneously during a calendar quarter. Emissions for equipment that would operate more then 3 months are assumed to operate for 66 days during a calenda (2) Peak calendar quarter emissions would occur during Phase 2 construction and all sources except the tunneling machine, pipe pusher, and concrete trucks would contribute to these emissions.