Resolution 2016-03 EXHIBIT A: Findings of Fact Page 1 of 8 Governing Board of the Great Basin Un ified Air Pollution Control District April 13, 2016

RESOLUTION NO. 2016-03

EXHIBIT A - FINDINGS OF FACT

District Board Order #160413- 01, District Rule 433 and 2016 Revision to the Owens Valley PM 10 Demonstration of Attainment State Implementation Plan

Findings of Fact Under the Provisions of California Health & Safety Code §42316(a);

Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq ., and California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15091 and 15096; and Other Findings of Fact

Related Documentation:

2016 revision to the Owens Valley PM 10 Planning Area Demonstration of Attainment State Implementation Plan (2016 SIP)

Environmental Impact Report for the Owens Lake Dust Mitigation Program – Phase 9/10 Project (May 2015) (EIR)

Staff report on the subject of Board Order #160413-01, District Rule 433 and the 2016 SIP prepared

for the Great Basin Unified Air Polluti on Control District Governing Board

Project Files May Be Reviewed at:

Great Basin Unified Air Po llution Control District 157 Short Street, Bishop, California 93514 (760) 872-8211Resolution 2016-03 EXHIBIT A: Findings of Fact Page 2 of 8 RESOLUTION NO. 2016-03

Exhibit A - Findings of Fact Relating to:

District Board Order #160413- 01, District Rule 433 and 2016 Revision to the Owens Valley PM 10 Demonstration of Attainment State Implementation Plan

Contents

A. Findings of fact under the provisions of California Health & Safety Code §42316(a)

B. Findings of fact regarding adoption of the 2016 SIP

C. Findings of fact regarding the District acting as a Responsible Agency and its use of the City Environmental Impact Report for the Owens Lake Dust Mitigation Program – Phase 9/10 Project (May 2015) (EIR)Resolution 2016-03 EXHIBIT A: Findings of Fact Page 3 of 8 A. Findings of fact under the provisions of California Health & Safety Code §42316(a)

Section 42316(a) of the California Health and Safety Code provides the authority for the Great Basin

Air Pollution Control District to “require the City of Los Angeles to undertake reasonable measures, including studies, to mitigate th e air quality impacts of its activ ities in the production, diversion, storage, or conveyance of water and may require th e City to pay, on an annual basis, reasonable fees,

based on an estimate of the actual costs to the di strict of its activitie s associated with the development of the mitigation measures and related air quality analysis with respect to those activities of the City. The mitigation measures shall no t affect the right of the City to produce, divert, store, or convey water and, except for studies and monitoring activities, the mitigation measures may only be required or amended on the basis of subs tantial evidence establishi ng that water production, diversion, storage, or conve yance by the City causes or contributes to violations of state or federal ambient air quality standards.”

On the basis of substantial evidence in the record , and for the reasons set forth in the staff report prepared for the Governing Board’s April 13, 2016 hearing for adopti on and approval of (1) proposed District Board Order #1604 13-01 authorized by California He alth & Safety Code Section 42316 for the City of Los Angeles (C ity) to install, operate and ma intain dust control measures on the Owens Lake bed (2016 SIP Order), (2) a prop osed District Rule 433 (Control of Particulate Emissions at Owens Lake), and (3) a proposed fi nal 2016 revision to the previously-adopted Owens Valley PM 10 Planning Area Demonstration of Attainme nt State Implementation Plan (2016 SIP) (collectively Board Actions), which is hereby incor porated herein by reference, the Governing Board

of the Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control Distri ct (Governing Board) makes the following findings:

1. The Governing Board finds that there are viol ations of the state and federal ambient air quality standards for PM 10 in the Owens Valley PM 10 Planning Area.

2. The Governing Board finds that the dried bed of the Owens Lake causes and is the primary

contributor to the violations of the state and federal ambien t air quality standards for PM 10 in the Owens Valley PM 10 Planning Area.

3. The Governing Board finds that the City’s water diversions in the Owens Valley have uncovered essentially all of the dust source ar eas on the dried bed of Owens Lake, thus causing and contributing to violations of the st ate and federal ambient air quality standards

for PM 10 in the Owens Valley PM 10 Planning Area.

4. The Governing Board finds that the dust control measures (DCMs) known as Shallow Flooding, Managed Vegetation, and Gravel Blanke t, as required and permitted by the Board Actions, have been approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as Best Available Control Measures (B ACM) for the control of PM 10 emissions from the dried bed of

Owens Lake.

5. The Governing Board finds that the DCMs known as Shallow Flooding, Managed Vegetation, and Gravel Blanket, as require d and permitted by the Board Actions, are reasonable and proven control measures for controlling PM 10 emissions from the dried bed of

Owens Lake.Resolution 2016-03 EXHIBIT A: Findings of Fact Page 4 of 8 6. The Governing Board finds that the DCMs known as Shallow Flooding, Managed Vegetation, and Gravel Blanket, as required and permitted by the Board Actions, will be effective in mitigating the air quality impact s caused by the City of Los Angeles’ water

diversions.

7. The Governing Board finds that the alterna tive DCM known as Tillage with BACM Backup is proposed as a reasonable and effectiv e control strategy in the Board Actions.

8. The Governing Board finds that the DCMs and al l their associated requirements contained in the Board Actions do not affect the right of the C ity to produce, divert, store or convey water.

9. The Governing Board finds the DCMs required and provided for by the Board Actions can be completed by the milestones and dead lines set forth in the Board Actions.

10. The Governing Board finds that the time peri od for implementation contained in the Board Actions is a reasonable pe riod to complete the implementation of the DCMs.

11. The Governing Board finds that the contingenc y measures contained in the Board Actions are reasonable and adequate to ensure the Owens Valley PM 10 Planning Area attains the

federal PM 10 ambient air quality standard as expeditiously as practicable.

12. The Governing Board finds that there are r easonable and valid mechanisms in place that allow the District to enforce compliance w ith the requirements contained in the Board

Actions.

13. The Governing Board finds that California He alth & Safety Code Section 42316(a) provides

the District with the author ity and resources necessary to insure compliance with the requirements set forth in the Board Actions.

14. The Governing Board finds that the 2016 SIP Order consists of the 2008 SIP Order and the relevant provisions of the Stipulated Judgm ent entered on December 30, 2014 in the case captioned City of Los Angeles v. Califor nia Air Resources Board, et al ., Case No. 34-2013- 80001451-CU-WM-GDS (Stipulated Judgment), and th at the Board Actions are consistent with the Stipul ated Judgment.

15. The Governing Board makes each and every of th e above findings on the basis of substantial

evidence in the record. The District is the custodi an of the materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which the decision to approved the Proposed Project is based. These

materials are located at the District’s offi ces at 157 Short Street , Bishop, California 93514.

B. Findings of fact regarding the appr oval and adoption of the Board Actions

16. Based upon the fact that the Owens Valley PM 10 Planning Area (Owens Valley) has been designated a serious non-attainment area by th e USEPA, and that the Owens Valley is required by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 to attain the PM 10 24-hour standard as expeditiously and practicable, the GBUAPCD G overning Board finds that the approval and adoption of the Board Actions is necessary.Resolution 2016-03 EXHIBIT A: Findings of Fact Page 5 of 8 17. Based upon the fact that California Health a nd Safety Code Section 42316(a) allows the District to require the City of Los Angeles to undertake reasonable measures to mitigate the air quality impacts of the City’s water-gathering activities, the Governing Board finds that the District has the authority to adopt the Bo ard Actions, including the adoption and issuance

of District Board Order #160413-01.

18. Based upon public comment on the Plan, the Gove rning Board finds that the Board Actions

and each element of those actions are written cl early so that they can be easily understood by the persons affected.

19. Based upon an examination of the legal and regulatory history of the Owens Valley PM 10 Planning Area, and the above findings on the compa tibility of the Plan and Order with Health and Safety Code Section 42316, the Governing Board finds that the Board Actions are consistent with existing statutes, court d ecisions, and state and federal regulations.

20. Based upon the fact that state law delegates to the District the respons ibility for control of stationary sources of air pollution, the Governing Board finds that the Board Actions do not duplicate existing state or federal regulations.

21. The Governing Board references the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and State of California Health and Safety Code Section 42316 as the laws that the District implements through the Board Actions.

22. The Governing Board finds that reasonable noti ce of the Governing Boar d’s intention to hold a public hearing to approve and adopt the Board Actions was given in compliance with the provisions of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 51.102.

23. The Governing Board finds that notice of the public hearing to approve and adopt the Board Actions was published in the following newspape rs more than 30 days in advance of the hearing: the Inyo Register (Inyo County), the Review Herald (Mono County) and the Tahoe Daily Tribune (for Alpine County).

24. The Governing Board finds that the Board Actions were available for public inspection at the District’s office in Bishop, California at least 30 days in advance of the public hearing to approve and adopt those actions.

25. The Governing Board finds that the Executive Of ficer of the California Air Resources Board was given notice of the public hearing and a copy of the Board Actions at least 30 days in advance of the hearing.

26. The Governing Board finds that the Administ rator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (through the Regional Administrator) wa s given notice of the public hearing and a copy of the Board Actions at least 30 days in advance of the hearing.

27. The Governing Board finds that the adjacent Ke rn County Air Pollution Control District was given notice of the public hearing and a copy of the Board Actions at least 30 days in advance of the hearing.Resolution 2016-03 EXHIBIT A: Findings of Fact Page 6 of 8 28. The Governing Board finds that the City of Los Angeles was given notice of the public hearing and a copy of the Board Actions at least 30 days in adva nce of the hearing.

29. The Governing Board finds that for the reasons and based on the facts set forth in Resolution 2016-02, that it has considered the environmen tal effects of the Board Actions as a Responsible Agency under the Californi a Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

30. The Governing Board makes each and every of th e findings in this Exhibit on the basis of

substantial evidence in the record. The Distri ct is the custodian of the materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon whic h the decision to approve the Board Actions is

based. These materials are located at the Dist rict’s offices at 157 Short Street, Bishop,

California 93514.

C. Findings of fact regarding the District acti ng as a Responsible Agency and its use of the City Environmental Impact Report for the Owens Lake Dust Mitigation Program – Phase 9/10 Project (May 2015) (EIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 2014071057)

The action authorized and required by the Board Actions is a “proje ct” as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CE QA) (Public Resources Code §21000 et. seq.) . The City is the lead agency for the project. The Dist rict is the responsible agency.

On July 2, 1997, the Governing Board of the Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District (Governing Board) adopted and cer tified the Final Environmental Im pact Report (1997 EIR) for the 1997 Owens Valley PM 10 Planning Area Demonstration of Attainment State Implementation Plan and Incorporated Board Order (1997 SIP) concurrently with the adoption of that 1997 SIP. The 1997 SIP was revised when the Governing Board adopted the 1998 Owens Valley PM 10 Planning Area Demonstration of Attainment State Implemen tation Plan and Incorporated Board Order on November 16, 1998 (1998 SIP). The Governing Boar d, concurrently with the 1998 SIP adoption,

certified an addendum to the 1997 EIR entitled Adde ndum No. 1 to the Final Environmental Impact Report for the 1998 Owens Valley PM 10 Planning Area Demonstration of Attainment State Implementation Plan and Incorporated Board Or der (1998 EIR). The 1998 SIP was revised when the Governing Board adopted the 2003 Owens Valley PM 10 Planning Area Demonstr ation of Attainment State Implementation Plan and Incorporated Board Order on November 13, 2003 (2003 SIP). The Governing Board, concurrently with the 2003 SIP adoption, certified the 2003 EIR entitled Final Environmental Impact Report for the 2003 Owens Valley PM 10 Planning Area Demonstration of Attainment State Implementation Plan a nd Incorporated Board Order (2003 EIR).

For consideration of the revisions contained in the 2008 SIP, the District prepared a 2008 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for the 2008 SIP. Pursuant to the requirements of CEQA,

the 2008 FSEIR described the 2008 SIP and affected environment; it identifies, analyzes and evaluates the potential significant environmenta l impacts that may result from the project; it identifies measures to mitigate adverse environmen tal impacts; and it identifies and compares the merits of project alternatives.

In 2011, a dispute arose between the GBUAPCD and the City regarding th e requirements of the 2008 SIP, which were resolved when the Sacramento Superior Cour t entered a Stipulated Judgment for the GBUAPCD on December 30, 2014 in the case captioned City of Los Angeles v. CaliforniaResolution 2016-03 EXHIBIT A: Findings of Fact Page 7 of 8 Air Resources Board, et al ., Case No. 34-2013-80001451-CU-WM- GDS (Stipulated Judgment). Under the Stipulated Judgment, the City served as Lead Agency to prepare and certify the Environmental Impact Report for the Owens Lake Dust Mitigation Program – Phase 9/10 Project (May 2015) (EIR) for the dust cont rol project required by the Board Actions; and filed a Notice of Determination for the project on June 8, 2015 (State Clearinghouse No. 2014071057).

The City’s EIR covers the actions required by the Board Actions, requi ring the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) to instal l Best Available Contro l Measures (BACM) to mitigate dust on areas known as Phase 9/10. The Phas e 9/10 Project (Project) consists of seventeen separate and discrete Dust Control Areas (DCAs): Duck Pond-L1, C2-L1, T10-1-L1, T17-2-L1, T21-L1, T21-L2, T37-2-L4, T37-2-L3, T37-2-L2, T37-2-L1,T35-2-L1, T37-1-L1, T32-1-L1, Duck Pond-L2, T10-3-L1, T21-L3, T21-L4, as well as 1.82 sq miles of Transition Areas that currently contain DCMs, but will be transi tioned to less water-intensive me thods (Transition Area). Other areas may be the subject of contingency measures. The Project will expand the existing system of DCMs on Owens Lake by construction and operation of an additional 3.61 sq miles of dust control in seventeen DCAs, as identified above, and 1.82 sq miles of Transition Ar ea dust controls in one existing DCA. Installation of BACM on Project DCAs and Transition Area entails ground disturbing activities such as grad ing, dirt moving, boring, trenching an d road, berm, pipeline and other

construction.

The City EIR also analyzed the potential environm ental impacts associated with the construction and operation of the proposed Project and sets forth th e applicable facts supporting the Board's findings. Significant impacts were identified for cultural resources for the or iginally proposed Project that could not be mitigated to less than significant levels. All other impacts including air quality, biological resources, and transporta tion, were found to be less than significant as mitigated. Based on the analysis presented in the City EIR and public comments received, th e Avoidance Alternative

has been identified as the envir onmentally superior alternative. The Avoidance Alternative avoids significant impacts to cultural resources. Mitigation measures have been identified to reduce all other impacts to less than significant levels.

The City also developed a Mitigation Monitori ng and Reporting Program to ensure implementation of the mitigation measures for the Environmentally Superior Alternative outlined in the City EIR. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program wa s prepared by LADWP as the lead agency for Project under CEQA, in conformance with P ublic Resources Code Section 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15097. Adoption of a Mitiga tion Monitoring and Reporting Program is required for projects in which the lead ag ency has required changes or adopted mitigation to avoid significant environmental effects. LADWP shall have primary responsibility for administrating the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program activ ities to staff, consultants, or contractors. LADWP has the responsibility of ensuring that monitoring is documented through periodic reports and that deficiencies are promptly corrected. LADWP's designated environmental monitor will track and document compliance with mitigation measures, note any problems that may result, and take appropriate action to remedy problem s. Specific responsibilities of LADWP include coordination of all mitigation monitoring activities, management of the preparation, approval, and filing of monitoring or permit compliance reports, maintena nce of records concerni ng the status of all approved mitigation measures, and coordination with other agencies.

The City concluded that its EIR identifies impacts th at are potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated, and proposes mitigation measures and a program for implementation, over whichResolution 2016-03 EXHIBIT A: Findings of Fact Page 8 of 8 LADWP will maintain oversight and act as moni toring agent. The City found that with the implementation of the above noted mitigation measures for the environmentally superior alternative, potential impacts to cultural resources, air qualit y, biological resources, and transportation will be less than significant.

The CEQA Guidelines require the District Governing Board, with the District as a responsible agency, to consider the information in the City EIR along with other information that may be presented to the District when d eciding whether to approve the Propos ed Project. The EIR sets forth

the information to be considered in the Govern ing Board’s evaluation of benefits and potential impacts to the environment resulting from the im plementation of the Board Actions. The Governing Board has reviewed and considered the information in City EIR and applied its independent judgment and analysis to consider that inform ation in taking the Board Actions. The Governing Board concurs with the City’s analysis, findi ngs and conclusions, a nd specifically that:

 Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the signifi cant environmental effects as identified in the City EIR.

 The mitigation measures identified in the C ity EIR are feasible and will be required as conditions of approval.

 All significant effects on the environment due to the project have been eliminated or substantially lessened where feasible.

 Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project which mitigate or avoid many of the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the City EIR.

 There is no new information, changes in the project or changes in circumstances or conditions since the preparation and certification of the City EI R that would require further revision or addendum to that EIR, or that woul d require further environmental review before taking the Board Actions

Further findings by the Governing Board are contained in Resolution 2016-02 and which are incorporated and made part of these findings by reference.