### RECËIVËD

MAR 

## I 2U IiJ

Great Basin Unified APCD February 24,2016

Phillip L. Kiddoo, Air Pollution Control Officer
Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District

157 Short Street Bishop, CA 93514

Dear Mr. Kiddoo:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Board Order #160413-01, District Rule 433, and the Final 2016 SlP.



### Lone Pine Paiute-Shoshone Reservation (LPPSR) 

### was established 

### by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (City) in a land exchange with the United States Department of the lnterior 

### in 1937. By this date, the Owens River diversion had resulted in devastating air pollution from the dry lake bed, impacting the health and welfare of the tribal community only 5 miles from the source. Generations of community members have suffered in the path of this

extreme health hazard with no recourse.

Since 2001, we have developed 

### a respectful working relationship with Great Basin Unified Air
Pollution Control District. LPPSR supports the exhaustive efforts by the District in its scientific
and legal battles with the City. We recognize that these efforts are toward cleaner air for now and future generations.

The ecosystem of the lake was so completely altered that there was little hope of any revival. Water used for dust mitigation over the past 15 years has inadvertently contributed 

### to some habitat 

### restoration. Now 

### that 

### the City demands reductions 

### in water use, 

### the concern for maintaining wildlife habitat 

### has become another 

### priority. We anticipate that, regardless of
waterless and water neutral policies, the California Department of Fish & Wildlife, the Lahontan Water Quality Control Board, and California State Lands Commission will be vigilant to enforce protection of the ecological gains made despite the industrialization of the landscape. We strongly support efforts by these agencies to that end.

LPPSR has no objections to the documents set for approval. However, there are two general
areas of concern:Brine BACM as a variation on Shallow Flooding BACM should be carefully monitored for

habitat reduction. Language in the Order seems to support varying salinity where desired in any Shallow Flood sites, 

### ?nne BACM can be implemented 

### for dust control on Owens 

### Lake where Shallow Flooding infrastructure exrsfs 

### and Shallow Flooding 

### can be implemented...". Because high salinity can 

### be detrimental 

### to wildlife habitat, 

### is there adequate process for amending CDF&W permits as these changes occur? We appreciate the creative use of brine as an alternative, but expect its use to be in low habitat value DCAs only.

None of these documents reference the Cultural Resource Task Force (CRTF) which was established in 

### the Phase 

### 7a and Keeler Dunes Settlement 

### of June 

### 25, 2013. Though advisory in nature, the tribal representatives and various agencies have worked together for

over one year to determine dust control options for 7b (extended to Phase g/10) cultural sites. We believed that our recommendations would be honored, wherever possible, if any 7b site were to become emissive and require control (where 'avoidance' is not possible for
sites that contribute to NAAQS violations). The Board Order should include a reference to the CRTF and a process to implement the controls as the tribes recommended, unless they

are shown to be unfeasible to protect air quality.

Once again, LPPSR appreciates the opportunity to comment on Board Order #160413-01, District Rule 433, and the Final2016 SlP.

Sincerely,

Y 

### \fa.¡r.-r¡- 

### .-r¡.)l¡_¿E-t, { Mary L. Wuester, Tribal Chairperson
Lone Pine Paiute Shoshone ReservationATTACHMENT A - DRAFT 2016 SIP COMMENT

LETTERS AND DISTRICT RESPONSES:

DISTRICT RESPONSE TO

COMMENT LETTER NO. 1Phillip L. Kiddoo

Air Pollution Control Officer



### Gnrnr Beslx 

### Uurrnn Æn 

## PollurroN Corurnol 

### DrsrRrcr

157 Short Street, Bishop, California 93514-3537 Tel: 

### 760-872-8211 Fax: 760-872-6109

www.gbuapcd.org

March 25,2016

Mary L. Wuester
Tribal Chairperson

Lone Pine Paiute Shoshone Reservation P.O.Box747

Lone Pine, CA93545

RE: Comments from Lone Pine Paiute Shoshone Reservation on Board Order #160413-01. District Rule 433, and Final 2016 SIP

Dear Ms. Wuester,

Thank you reviewing and providing comments on the Great Basin Unified 

### Air Pollution Control District (District) Board Order #160413-01, District Rule 433, and the 2016 State Implementation
Plan (SIP). V/e appreciate the support and cooperation from the Lone Pine Paiute Shoshone
Reservation (LPPSR) in efforts to provide clean air in the Owens Valley Planning Area (OVPA). Participation by the LPPSR in the process is important to the District and has provided important input for dust control projects within the OVPA.

Even though the jurisdiction and mandate of the District only relates to air quality, input fiom Tribes, other government agencies, and interested stakeholders is critical in developing a complete dust mitigation program that meets the multiple needs of the area. As such, the District anticipates continuing to work with the LPPSR and agencies such as the California Department 

### of

Fish and Wildlife and the California State Lands Commission in the future to ensure that the dust control work within the OVPA is successful not only in providing clean air but also in providing
other environmental benef,rts.

The concern of the LPPSR regarding the potential impact in Brine BACM areas on wildlife was contemplated in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) completed for the 2003 and2008 SIPs which included a mandatory mitigation measure requiring the Los Angeles Department of V/ater
and Power (LADV/P) to conduct a toxicity monitoring program for the Owens Lake dust control project. The toxicity monitoring program is designed to investigate potential impacts from
bioaccumulation of heavy metals and other toxins to wildlife in dust control areas. Monitoring is conducted by the LADWP semi-annually (summer and winter) on a 14-year schedule that startedin2009. 

### If after the completion of the l4-year monitoring effort it is determined that there is no

evidence of toxicity issues occurring in wildlife from the project then the monitoring may be discontinued. If, however, monitoring shows that there are impacts to wildlife from the dust control project then the monitoring shall continue until impacts are not detected. 

### All reports on toxicity monitoring are submitted by the LADWP to California Department of Fish and V/ildlife,

Lahonton Regional Vy'ater Quality Control Board, and California State Lands Commission as well

as the District.

The Cultural Resource Task Force (CRTF) has worked diligently since November 2013 to provide constructive recommendations for dust controls in sensitive cultural resource areas. The District appreciates the thoughtful and respectful manner in which the members of the CRTF have operated. The District continues to support and 

### will honor the Tribes' recommendations for dust control options in Phase 7b andPhase 

### 9ll}b areas identified as containing eligible cultural

resources. Although not referenced by name, the CRTF is incorporated in Board Order #160413-

01 through reference to the Board Orders #130819-01 and #130916-01. These references can be found in Board Order #160413-01, Preamble paragraphs D and H, and in the Order 

### at2.A,2.B

and 3.8.

Once again, thank you for providing comments on the Board Order #160413-01, Rule 433, and, the2016 State Implementation Plan (SIP). Your input is valuable to the District.

Phillip L.ATTACHMENT A – DRAFT 2016 SIP COMMENT

LETTERS AND DISTRICT RESPONSES:

COMMENT LETTER NO. 2ATTACHMENT A - DRAFT 2016 SIP COMMENT

LETTERS AND DISTRICT RESPONSES:

COMMENT LETTER NO. 2 (ENCLOSURES)T16 T24 T26

T18S Area A

T25S

T11 T36-2

T1A-4 T27S T27N

T18N T28N

T1A-3 T13-3

T2-1 T23SE T32-1-L1

T37-2 T30-1_b

T3SW T18-0

T17-2_a T28S

T3SE T30-2

T21-L1

T1A-2_b T10-2_b T29-2_a

T25N

T10-3 T13-1_b T29-3

T17-1_a

T1A-1 T36-1_a

T2-4 T23NE T29-1

T36-1_b

T12-1

T4-4 T21A T23-5

T1-1

T4-3 T23SW

T1A-2_a T9_a T29-4

T3NE T37-1

T5-1 T35-2 T35-1



# ±

0 3 1.5 Miles

Project No: 410-04 Key

Total Area: 49.0 sq. mi.

Total change 9.0 sq. mi.

Decreased CE Requirement 0.002 sq. mi.

Increased CE Requirement 9.0 sq. mi.

No change 40.0 sq. mi.



## Difference in Control Efficiency (CE)

or CE Boundaries

Between 2016 SIP and 2008 SIP Version: 3/18/2016ATTACHMENT A – DRAFT 2016 SIP COMMENT

LETTERS AND DISTRICT RESPONSES:

DISTRICT RESPONSE TO

COMMENT LETTER NO. 2Phillip L. Kiddoo

Air Pollution Control Officer



### Gnn¿.r B¡.srN 

### UNrprno 

## Arn 

## Porr-urloN CoNTRoL 

## Drsrnrcr

157 Short Street, Bishop, California 93514-3537
Tel: 

### 760-872-8211 Fax: 760-872-6109

www.gbuapcd.org



### April4,2016

Mr. Milad Taghavi Manager of Owens Lake Policy and Planning

Los Angeles Dept. of V/ater and Power

111 North Hope Street

Lo s Angeles, California 9 00 12-2607

RE: Comments from Los Angeles Department of Water and Power on Adoption and Approval 

### of
(1) Proposed Order under the Provisions of Califomia Health and Safety Code Section

42316, (2) Proposed District Rule 433 for the Control of Particulate Emissions at Owens
Lake, and (3) Proposed Final2016 Revision to the Owens Lake PM10 Planning Area

Demonstration of Attainment State Implementation Plan

Dear Mr. Taghavi,

Thank you for reviewing and providing comments on the Great Basin Unified Air Pollution

Control District (District) Board Order #160413-01, District Rule 433, and the 2016 State Implementation Plan (SIP). Participation by the City of Los Angeles Department of Water and

Power (CitV) is important to the District and has provided important input in the process 

### of

preparing a SIP revision that consists of the 2008 SIP Order and the provisions of the 2014
Stipulated Judgment (Stipulated Judgment) as required by Article 

### 1l of the Stipulated Judgment.

The District reaffirms its commitment to and intends to abide by the terms of the Stipulated
Judgment. Nothing in Board Order #160413-01, District Rule 433, and the 2016 SIP are intended

to contradict the Stipulated Judgment.

As requested, your letter and enclosure dated March I8,2016 

### will be incorporated into the

administrative record. In response to your letter, request to incorporate previous comments by

reference and subsequent clarihcation to incorporate comments from December 10, 2015, the following documents are enclosed:



## o The City's previous comments dated October 23,2015, October 30,2015, and December

7 ,2015 with District responses (Enclosure 20160404a). 

## o The City's previous comments dated December 10, 2015 with District responses as clarified in our E-mail exchange on March 21,2016. (Enclosure 20I60404b).


## o District responses to City's comments dated March 14,2016 (Enclosure 20160404c). 

## o District responses to City's comments dated March 18,2016 (Enclosure 20160404d).Once again, thank you for providing comments on District Board Order #160413-01, District

Rule 433, and the District's 2016 SIP.

Air Pollution Control Officer

Enclosures:

20160404a

2016:0404b

2A160404c
20r60404dATTACHMENT A - DRAFT 2016 SIP COMMENT

LETTERS AND DISTRICT RESPONSES:

DISTRICT RESPONSE TO

COMMENT LETTER NO. 2 (ENCLOSURES)

# Enclosures:

20160404a

........................................................................... pages 1

– 35

20160404b

........................................................................... pages 36 ‐ 40

20160404c

........................................................................... pages 41

– 54

20160404d

........................................................................... pages 55 ‐ 76DWP Comments on Draft BO (10/23, 10/30 and12/7/2015) and District Response
1 DWP Comments on Draft BO # 151207-01 – October 23 and 30, 2015 District Responses follow DWP comments in italicized text.

________________________ _____________________ _________________________

PART 1 - Sent via email message from Milad Taghavi:

This is a follow-up to our Tuesday, October 20, 2015, conference call regarding the draft Board Order #1512XX (draft Order). Outline below is our primary comments regarding the draft Order (some of which were discu ssed during our conference call). We will be submitting additional comm ents by October 30, 2015.

1) Existing PM 10 Controls, Subsection 1.C, Page 4

o Is “Reduced Efficiency BACM” defined in the Clean Air Act?

As discussed in the Addendum to the General Preamble to the Clean Air Act (59 FR 42012) BACM is determined on a case-by-case basis considering th e nature and extent of the nonattainment problem and the technologi cal and economic feasibility of control

measures. This will be discussed in the SIP.

o This description of the methods used to control the Channel Areas misinterprets the 2006 Settlement Agreement and 2008 SIP, which did not include the Channel Areas as part of the Total Dust Control Area. Those areas, comprising 0.5 square miles, were not ordered for dust contro l. The parties agreed that due to the sensitive resources existing on the site, LADWP should take some actions to mitigate the emissions, but BACM was not ordered or deemed feasible.

The 2006 Settlement Agreement (para. 1, 2006 SA) and the 2008 SIP (para. 4, BO 08128- 01) identify the Channel Area as part of the To tal Dust Control Area. A description of the dust control method for the Channel Ar ea was included in the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for the 2008 SIP (S EIR, pp 2-4 – 2-5). The description of DWP’s strategy to improve dust controls to ac hieve better vegetation cover is consistent with the current approach being taken in the Channel Area. The APCO did not approve a non-BACM approach, as would be required by the 2006 SA if BACM was not implemented.

2) Phase 9/ 10 Project to Implement 2011 and 2012 Supplemental Control Requirement Determinations, Su bsection 3.A, Line 13, Page 5

o Should be revised to read as follow: “T he deadline set forth in this paragraph....”.

o The Force Majeure and Stipulated Penalties sections did not solely relate to
“construction” deadlines.DWP Comments on Draft BO (10/23, 10/30 and12/7/2015) and District Response
2 The sentence in the order “The constructi on deadline set forth in this paragraph is subject to the Force Majeure and Stipulated Pe nalties provisions se t forth in Paragraphs __ and __” is a direct quote from the stipulat ed judgment and is corre ctly stated in the draft Board Order. Including the word “c onstruction” is appropriate because it limits the District’s ability to issue NOVs and collect a monetary penalty to missed construction completion deadlines as stated in para. 17 of the BO (page 26, lines 23-28, see also 2014 SJ, para. 2.A.). Paragraph 15.A applies the clause to “the failure to meet dust control measure completion deadlines, ” and the clause does not exte nd to the failure to meet other requirements of th e stipulated judgment.

3) PM 10 Control Measures, Section 5, Lines 5 and 6, Page 6

o Should be revised to read as follow:“... and as described below in Paragraphs 9 through 11,....,the Reduced Efficiency BACM PM 10 control measure described in Paragraph 12.”

The references to the paragraph num bers are corrected as noted.

4) Contingency PM 10 Control Measures, Subsection 8.F, Lines 1 – 5, Page 8

o The last two sentences of this paragr aph contradict Articles 10 and 14 of the Stipulated Judgment. Article 10 states, in part, that “[t]he Parties agree to
collaborate in their efforts to secure support for the terms of this agreement, agreement implementation, and obtaini ng necessary permits, leases and approvals with the....”. Article 14 states, in part, that”...(d) action or non-action by, or inability to obtain the necessary authorizations or approvals from any governmental agency,.......(e) the inability to obtain private property owner access,....”

The District’s agreement to collaborate with the City and other agencies and the force majeure provision are not diminish ed by these two sentences.

The 2014 SJ (para. 3.E.) states “The City s hall be solely responsible for all CEQA compliance, and to the extent joint docume nts are prepared under CEQA and NEPA, for CEQA/NEPA compliance, and all lease and pe rmit requirements associated with any Contingency Measure.” Para. 5 G. also st ates in regard to implementing TwB2, “The City shall be solely responsible to obtai n all required approvals and permits required to implement TwB2. The District will support the City’s efforts to obtain such approvals in compliance with the law.”

In regards to the force majeure provisions in SJ article 14, it is impor tant to note that the cited sentences include a proviso for obtai ning approval, which was omitted in your quote, “... provided that the City demons trates it has made a timely and complete application to the agency and used its best efforts to obtain that approval,...” Similar language is applied to obtaining permission fr om land owners. A revision to this paragraph could add this proviso, however, it woul d be duplicative of the provisions in the Force Majeure section.DWP Comments on Draft BO (10/23, 10/30 and12/7/2015) and District Response
3 We have redrafted the Force Majeure clause to track the language in the Stipulated Judgment. Note Paragraph 14.A and 15.A of th e stipulated judgment shownig that the scope of the force majeu re clause is tied to “the failure to meet dust control measure completion deadlines.”

5) Contingency PM 10 Control Measures, Subsection H, Lines 13 – 21, Page 8

o The stated compliance deadline contradict Article I(c)(v) of the 2013 Settlement Agreement and Release which states, in part, that “....[t]he new Board order or
orders shall include deadli nes for constructing dust controls that accommodate project circumstances, including but not lim ited to, the time to complete a Phase III cultural resources recovery and per form additional environmental work required under CEQA to approve the new project.”

Para. I.c.v. of the 2013 SA, which is referr ed to, is under the Cultural Resource Task Force section of the 2013 SA and applies to cultural resource areas, which will already have an extended implementation deadline sinc e no new order has yet been issued for controlling these areas.

The 3-year compliance deadline (plus 2 years fo r managed vegetation) for all other areas is a longer period than allowed under the 2008 SIP. To simplify the planning process and the compliance deadlines, we made the construction deadline 3 years for all measures. We can justify an extension of the previous SIP deadline as not being “backsliding,” which is a re laxation of an existing contro l measure that EPA would disapprove, because the City agreed to not ch allenge a new order provided that it was within the 53.4 sq. mi. limit. The lack of an appeal process has cut at least a year out of the implementation process, th erefore we have not relaxed the implementation schedule. EPA’s anti-backsliding requirement for SIP re visions is dictated under CAA Section 110(l).

6) PM 10 Control Measures, Subsecti on 9.B.v, Line 6, Page 10

o Should be revised to read as follow: “... period specified in Paragraph 9.B.ii,....”

The reference to the paragraph numbers are corrected as noted.

7a) PM 10 Control Measures, Subsection 9.C.ii.a, Line 23, Page 10

o Should be revised to read as follow: “...Flooding areal wetness cover may be reduced to a minimum of 67 percent.” 7b) PM 10 Control Measures, Subsection 9.C.ii.b, Line 26, Page 10

o Should be revised to read as follow: “...Flooding areal wetness cover may be reduced to a minimum of 62 percent.” 7c) PM 10 Control Measures, Subsection 9.C.ii.c, Line 2, Page 11DWP Comments on Draft BO (10/23, 10/30 and12/7/2015) and District Response
4 o Should be revised to read as follow: “...Flooding areal wetness cover may be reduced to a minimum of 55 percent.”

Reducing the wetness cover during the spring ramping period would relax the current requirements from 70, 65 and 60% cover to 67, 62 and 55% cover, which would be considered backsliding, or a relaxation of an existing SIP requirement.

8) PM 10 Control Measures, Subsection 9. D.vi, Lines 2 - 4, Page 13

o The requirement that “[an]y such appeal sh all not relieve the City of the duty to
reflood a TWB 2 area within 37 days of a written or der from the AP CD” contradicts Article 5.D of the Stipulat ed Judgment. Since no such requirement is stated.

This sentence can be deleted or modified, si nce the disposition of the 37 day order under an appeal is not discussed in the 2014 SJ. However, this sentence makes sense because the City should get an injunction to stop the 37-day clock when they file the appeal,

otherwise the District order will still be in place. This can be clarified to indicate that they need an injunction to stop the clock. If the City lost their appeal, which means they lost their challenge of the or der to re-flood, then it would ma ke sense that the City had to comply with the original 37-day order. Unle ss there is an injunction to stop the clock or the City wins their appeal, a notice of viola tion for failure to comply would be based on meeting the original 37-day de adline for re-flooding. To clar ify this point, the section has been modified to clarify t hat the City may seek such reli ef from the Court, with the addition of the words “unless the City prope rly seeks and obtains an injunction from the Court before the expiration of the 37-day period.”

9) PM 10 Control Measures, Brine Shallow Fl ooding BACM, Subsection 9.E.v, Lines 4 - 8, Page 14

o The stated waivers are not contemplated in the Stipulated Judgment and seem to
contradict Article 11.B of the Stipulated Judgment, wh ich states, in part, that “...except that the City may challenge any new terms that the City has not agreed to in advance, and that is not contained in the 2008 SIP order as modified by this Stipulated Judgement.”

Brine shallow flooding is a new BACM that we are proposing in order to help the City save water, and there are no details other than as a potential control method in the 2014 SJ. Similar to Brine BACM, Para. 7. A of the 2014 SJ about dynamic water management says, “The proposed actions shall set forth the conditions upon which the APCO can approve the City’s application to undertake these dynamic water management actions.” The City’s acceptance of those conditions is required when they choose to implement DWM. A challenge of the conditions for Br ine BACM in the SIP under para. 11.B of the 2014 SJ could significantly dela y approval of this new meas ure. The City further agreed to waive any challenge to the terms of the stipulated judgment in Paragraph 13.A, and reserved no challenge to the brine shallow flooding determination under the stipulated judgment.DWP Comments on Draft BO (10/23, 10/30 and12/7/2015) and District Response
5 10) PM 10 Control Measures, Dynamic Water Management, Subsection 9.F.ii., Lines 16 - 21, Page 14

o The stated waivers are not contemplated in the Stipulated Judgment and seem to
contradict Article 11.B of the Stipulated Judgment, wh ich states in part that “...except that the City may challenge any new terms that the City has not agreed to in advance, and that is not contained in the 2008 SIP order as modified by this Stipulated Judgement.”

Dynamic water management is a new BACM that we are proposing to help the City save water, and there are no details other than as a conceptual idea in the 2014 SJ, and leaves

it to the District to determine the conditions for implementing it. Para. 7. A of the 2014 SJ says, “The proposed actions shall set forth the conditions upon which the APCO can approve the City’s application to undertake these dynamic water management actions.” The City’s acceptance of those conditions is required when they choose to implement DWM. A challenge of the conditions for dynamic water management in the SIP under para. 11.B of the 2014 SJ could significantly de lay approval of this new measure. The City further agreed to waive any challenge to the terms of the stipulated judgment in Paragraph 13.A, and reserved no challenge to the dynamic water management

determination under the stipulated judgment.

11) PM 10 Control Measures, Dynamic Water Management, Subsection 9.F.iii.2, Line 8, Page 15

o The stated 21 days cannot be adhered to under all operating conditions. Hence, LADWP respectively requests 37 days to m eet the reflooding requirements if the area is greater than 25 per cent of the DWM.

Expediency is needed in re-flooding areas to prevent violations of the NAAQS. The hearing board is available if circumstances don’t allow re-flooding within the allowed timeframe.

12) PM 10 Control Measures, Subsection 9.G, Line 20, Page 15

o Please provide references for the “ 90 days” requirement in the 2008 SIP.

See Exhibit 1 of Attachment B in the BO #080128-01. It provides 1 month if more water needs to be applied to existing shallow flood ar eas, or 12 months if land leveling needs to be done. Since most of the shallow flood area s have already been leveled, this could say 30 days instead of 90 days.

13) PM 10 Control Measures, Subsection 9.H, Lines 24 - 27, Page 15

o Should be revised to read as follow: “F rom July 1 through October 15 of each year, the District does not require the Cit y to apply water to Shallow FloodingDWP Comments on Draft BO (10/23, 10/30 and12/7/2015) and District Response
6 areas for dust control purposes. The Cit y shall comply with all other permits conditions and requirements.”

Suggested revision made.

14) PM 10 Control Measures, Subsection 9.L, Lines 19 - 22, Page 16

o Should be revised to read as follow: “...The DCM areas shall have lateral boundary edge berms and/or drains as necessary to contain excess waters in the
control areas and to isolate the dust cont rol measure areas from each other and
from areas not controlled unless otherwise warranted.”

We propose the following rewrite: “The DCM areas shall contain excess waters in the

control areas and isolate the dust control meas ure areas from each other and from areas not controlled by the use of lateral boundary edge berms and/or drains or other equally effective measures.”

15) PM 10 Control Measures, Subsection 9.N, Lines 4 - 8, Page 17

o Should be revised to read as follow: “A s necessary to protect human health, the City shall prevent, avoid and/or abate mo squito, other pest vector and biting nuisance insect in the vicinity of t he control areas that are actively being managed by application of water for dust mi tigation purposes, including within
communities less than three miles from the said control areas, by effective
means that minimize adverse effects upon adjacent wildlife.”

With minor edits, this revision is accepted.

16) BACM Managed Vegetati on, Subsection 10.B, Line 1, Page 18

o Should be revised to read as follow: “...under-controlled areas are not large enough to become emissive.”

Suggested revision made.

17) BACM M anaged Vegetation, Subsection 10. C, Line 13 and 14, Page 19

o Should be revised to read as follow: “...Species approved by the APCO. As of January 1, 2016, the only spec ies approved by the APCO is saltgrass (Distichlis spicata).”

First suggested revision made. The District made additional r evisions to include the plant list of 48 species.

18) BACM M anaged Vegetation, Subsection 10.G, Lines 10 – 13, Page 20DWP Comments on Draft BO (10/23, 10/30 and12/7/2015) and District Response
7 o Should be revised to read as follow: “T he dust control measures areas shall have lateral boundary edge berms and/or drain as necessary to contain excess waters
in the control areas and to isolate t he dust control measures areas from each
other and from areas not cont rol unless otherwise warranted.”

See suggested revision above.

19) BACM Managed Vegetation, Subsection 10.J, Lines 25 - 27, Page 20, and Lines 1 – 2, Page 21

o Should be revised to read as follow: “A s necessary to protect human health, the City shall prevent, avoid and/or abate mo squito, other pest vector and biting nuisance insect in the vicinity of t he control areas that are actively being managed by application of water for dust mi tigation purposes, including within
communities less than three miles from the said control areas, by effective
means that minimize adverse effects upon adjacent wildlife.”

See suggested revision above.

20) BACM Gr avel Blanket, Subsection 11. B, Lines 15 – 19, Page 21

o Should be revised to read as follow: “A ll gravel shall be durable have resistance to leaching and erosion.” The la st sentences should be deleted.

Suggest the same edit as above regarding ot her requirement for shallow flooding, to delete coloration and replace with “compl y with all other permits, conditions and requirements.”

21) BACM Gravel Blanket, Subsecti on 11.E, Line 13, Page 22

o Please provide the 2008 SIP references for the following requirement: “...reestablish within 60 days of written notice from the APCO.” This requirement is
not feasible under all o perational conditions.

See Exhibit 1 of Attachment B in the BO #080128-01. It requires that supplemental gravel be placed on areas within a timeframe of 4 months per square mile. This has been changed to the 4 month per square mile 2008 SIP requirement.

22) Reduced Efficiency BACM Contro l Measures, Section 12, Lines 19 – 28, Page 22, and Line 1 – 4, Page 23

o In addition to whether Reduced Efficien cy BACM is defined in the Clean Air Act and Channel Area was not part of the To tal Dust Control Area previously ordered, LADWP cannot im plement BACM within T1A- 1 DCA and Channel Area.

The District is approving th e current conditions in T1A- 1 (sand fences, with existing vegetation and natural wet areas) and th e Channel Area Managed Vegetation withDWP Comments on Draft BO (10/23, 10/30 and12/7/2015) and District Response
8 surface flooding to enhance existing cover age as MDCE BACM control measures as currently sufficient for BACM dust control requirements. Se e also the response to the Channel Area being part of the Total Dust Control area in comment #1.

23) Force Majeure, S ubsection 16.A, Line 17 – 28, Page 25

o Force Majeure is misspelled in the headi ngs. Additionally, the reference to “construction activities” should be deleted, as the Stipulated Judgment was not
limited to construction activities.

Misspelling corrected and reference to cons truction activities dele ted. Force Majeure, Subsection 16 is now verbatim from the 2014 Stipulated Judgment with appropriate paragraph references to 2015 SIP Board Order and case reference in 16.C.

24) Retention of Legal Authority, Section 20, Lines 26 – 28, Page 28, and Lines 1 – 5, Page 29

o This provision contradicts the District’ s agreement to limit future dust control orders to 53.4 square miles. It may be appr opriate to remove it from the new
order.

This makes it clear that the District maintain s its authority to order the City to implement additional controls for emissi ve areas outside of the Owen s Lake bed for air pollution caused by the City’s water gathering activ ities. The District must also require compliance with any change in th e law. The District intends to comply with each term of the Order in requiring controls at the Ow ens Lake bed underthe current law. We have proposed a revision to address these limited circumstances. The last phrase of the paragraph should refer to the lake bed dust control areas in paragraphs 1 through 8, and

not 9 and 10.

________________________ _____________________ _________________________

PART 2 - Sent via email message from Milad Taghavi:

This is a follow-up to our Tuesday, October 27, 2015, conference call regarding the draft Board Order #1512XX (draft Order). Outli ne below is LADWP’s additional comments regarding the draft Order (som e of which were discussed during our conference call).

________________________ _____________________ _________________________

25) Section 1.B, “Owens Lake Bed PM10 C ontrol Measure Areas,” Page 4, lines 12
& 13:DWP Comments on Draft BO (10/23, 10/30 and12/7/2015) and District Response
9 o There are practical limits on the am ount of control LADWP has over the establishment of vegetative cover. Vegetation needs a favorable environment to grow. Conditions on Owens Lake are inherently hostile to plant growth, and even with reclamation change occurs slowly. LADWP will work vigorously to bring all MV areas into compliance. This was the case with the original 3.5-square-mile Managed Veget ation (MV) area and will be the case
on all future MV areas.

The December 31, 2017 deadline to achieve fu lly-compliant vegetation cover was previously agreed to with the City in para. I.a.ii of the 2013 Settlement Agreement (2013 SA, Aug. 19, 2013).

26) Section 1.C, “Owens Lake Bed PM 10 Control Measure Areas,” Page 4:

o The title “Reduced Efficiency BACM” is vague, and focuses on the control efficiency outcome rather than the mode of dust control. The titles of all other BACM on Owen Lake allude to their parti cular control mode: for example, Gravel Blanket, Managed Vegetation, Shallow Flooding, Brine with BACM Backup, and Tillage with BACM Back up, among others. Adding to the confusion, many other dust contro l areas on Owens Lake have reduced control requirements (e.g., MDCE ar eas) but none of those are listed as “Reduced Efficiency BACM.”

o LADWP recommends re-designating T1A-1 as “Sand Fence BACM” and the
Channel Area as “Channel Area BACM.” T he description of each new BACM should summarize the appropriate facilit ies and activities associated with each BACM (for example, water spreading, enhanced seeding), the mechanisms acting to control dust emissions, the required control efficiencies, and procedures for evaluating compliance.

As suggested, the District replaced reduced efficiency BACM category and added appropriate descriptions and applied dust control methods for each area. This will be considered MDCE BACM (see Paragraph 13).

27) Section 2.A, “Phase 7a Cultural Resource Areas,” Page 4, lines 21 & 22:

o Delete “the presence of”

Suggested revision made.

28) Section 8.H, “Contingency PM10 Control Measures,” Page 8, line 7:

o Typo; should be “Paragraph 12...”

Section 8.H. refers to meeting the managed vegetation requirements in paragraph 11, it should actually refer to paragraph 10. The reference at the end of the sentenceDWP Comments on Draft BO (10/23, 10/30 and12/7/2015) and District Response
10 (p.8, line 19) is wrong and can also be dele ted, “as set forth in Paragraph 12 for

those areas.”

29) Section 9, “PM10 Cont rol Measures,” Page 9:

o This section is silent on the mode of water delivery for Shallow Flooding. Section 9.A should state that the acceptable means of water delivery include sprinkler Shallow Fl ooding and traditional mass Shallow Flooding.

Section 9.A currently states “Water shall be applied in amounts and by means sufficient to achieve the performance standards set forth in Paragraphs 9.B. through 9.G below.” The City has not demonstrated that sprinkler shallo w flooding can reliably meet the wetness cover target as determined using the current satellit e imagery method app roved for measuring wetness cover. (para. 9.I.)

If sprinklers can reliably achieve the wetness cover target as determined using approved methods, then it would be an acceptable mode of water delivery for shallow flooding as stated in this paragraph. No change is needed to the text.

30) Section 9.E.iii and 9.E.iv, “PM10 Control Measures,” Pages 13-14:

o This section states that the APCO may order the City to shallow flood a Brine BACM area if any one of the following cr iteria are met: the IPET method shows that the surface is emissive, or the sand flux is greater than 5 g/cm2/day. Limiting the re-flood decisio n to a single one of two criteria is inconsistent with Attachment E, “Brine with BACM Backup (Brine BACM),” Attachment A, “Monitoring and Enforcem ent Protocol for Owens Lake Brine with BACM Backup (Brine BACM).” Attach ment A, pages 4-8 lists at least five measures that may be used to tri gger a re-flood order, including but not limited to the following: Induced Particul ate Emission Test (IPET), sand flux monitoring, dust plume observations, surface integrity observations, and aerial photography and remote sensing.

o Attachment E, “Brine with BACM Ba ckup (Brine BACM),” Attachment A, “Monitoring and Enforcement Protocol for Owens Lake Brine with BACM Backup (Brine BACM)” does not state that any of these measures are more important than the others in assessing the need for a re-flood order; it simply
states that these ar e the measures that will be used in making a
decision. The Board Order should be dr afted to state t hat the District will endeavor to use multiple lines of ev idence in making re-flood decisions.

When available, it is a good idea to us e multiple lines of evidence. IPET and sand flux measurements are both requirement s in the 2014 SJ for TwB2 and are now proposed for use to determine if re-floodi ng is needed for the Brine and Dynamic Water Management variations on sha llow flood BACM. The IPET and sand flux measurements are objective measurement me thods that provide certainty that aDWP Comments on Draft BO (10/23, 10/30 and12/7/2015) and District Response
11 threshold has been exceeded. The other lines of evidence me ntioned are useful, but at this time will need to be refined to de velop objective criteria. If we encounter brine areas that have broken down and are becoming emissive, we will be able to evaluate these other methods to determine if they c an be used to determine if a surface is emissive or is approaching an emissive state.

The IPET method is intended to provide a measure of the erodibility of a surface before an actual event. With the early warn ing detection levels IPET can be used to detect weak surfaces before they reach a st ate that would requir e a re-flood order.The sand flux measurement can also show the erodibility of a surface before a reflood order is issued, provided that ther e are minor wind events that cause erosion before a big event occurs. Sand flux measur ements also provide a back-up monitor check in case IPET is not run on a surface, or it can provide an alert to the operator that the IPET should be run, or maintenance activities should take place to prevent a re-flood order.

See also the response to comment #9.

31) Section 9.F.iii.2, “PM10 C ontrol Measures,” Pages 15:

o This section states t hat the APCO may order the City to shallow flood a Dynamic Water Management (DWM) area “...if the APCO determines that emissive conditions exist in that area as determined by the Induced Particulate Erosion Test procedures in the TwB2 Monitoring Protocol.” In other words, the re-flood decision will be based on a single indicator: the IPET. This statement contradicts Board Order 1512xx, Attachment F, “2015 Owens Lake Dynamic Water Management Plan,” Section 4.2.1, Re-Flooding Order, which states that several conditions may be used to trigger a re-flood order, including: (1) observed dust plum es, (2) deterioration of the surface
such that it is in an emissive state using the TwB2 monitoring and enforcement protocol in the 2014 Stipulated Judgment , and (3) sand flux greater than 5 g/cm2/day. Attachment F also stipulates that the candidate reflood area must have been identified by such methods with a frequency of more than once in a rolling six-year period.

o This section should state that the District will endeavor to use multiple lines of evidence in making re-flood decisions, consistent with th e 2014 Stipulated Judgment, and that each area ordered for re-flooding must have been
identified as emissive more than once in a rolling six-year period.

The conditions for determining if a re-flood order will be issued for a Dynamic Water Management area are similar to those agreed to for TwB2 areas. See also the response to comments #10 and #31. The IPET method was added to Attachment F. .

LADWP misunderstands the “more than once in a six year period” language. This language does not refer to the ability of the APCO to order re-flooding of an entire orDWP Comments on Draft BO (10/23, 10/30 and12/7/2015) and District Response
12 partial area in any given year. The statemen t is meant to say that an area becomes ineligible for a modified dust season once it has been identified more than once in any rolling six year period. Areas that are removed from the DWM Plan must be Shallow Flooded using the standard October 16 to June 30 dust season. (para. 9.F.3)

32) Section 9.F.3, “PM10 Contro l Measures,”, Page 15, lines 10:

o LADWP should have the option to eval uate these situations before making this decision. It is possible that t here could be extenuating circumstances. LADWP suggests adding: “3. If any DW M area becomes emissive and is therefore issued a re-flood order by the APCO more than once in a rolling five-year period, these areas will may, at the sole discretion of the APCO, revert to the standard Shallow Flood period of October 16 through June 30. If reversion occurs, and the affected area may, at the APCO’s sole discretion, will no longer be eligible be re-cons idered for DWM at a later date.”

The foundation for inclusion as a DWM area is that the area is not emissive in the modified start or modified end of the Oct ober 16 - June 30 dust season. If an area is found to be emissive multiple times during th ese modified periods there is no justified reason on why it should be reconsidered for eligibility at a later date.

The frequency of one year in six having si gnificant sand flux (> 5 g/cm2/day) during the modified dust periods was used to dete rmine if areas were eligible for shortened dust control periods. Areas that had a frequency of activity in the modified dust periods of more than one year in six were excluded from DWM. Only five years of

data were needed to be included in the program for areas that had no events with significant sand flux since it still met the one in six requirement if a sixth year had significant activity.

Changing to one in five years as suggested means there could be a 20% chance that the area will have significant activity if it were allowed to have a shortened dust control season. It also does not account for multiple large dust events that could be caused by the same area during the two weeks it will take to re-flood the area, or three weeks to re-flood if more than 25% of the DWM areas are affected. Dust activity often occurs on multiple days during a short period when the winds are high and the surface is vulnerable, therefore condi tions that trigger a re-flood order could potentially result in NAAQS exceedances. Th e DWM areas were selected because there is a low risk of having significant activity outside of the shortened dust control period.

33) Section 9.G, “PM10 Control M easures,” Page 15, line 19:

o Add the words “air quality” to the first sentence: “If air quality modeling or monitoring data show an exceedance...”DWP Comments on Draft BO (10/23, 10/30 and12/7/2015) and District Response
13 Suggested revision made.

34) Section 9.G, “PM10 Contro l Measures,” Page 15:

o This section states that if air quality modeling or monitoring data shows an
exceedance of the PM10 standar d at the shoreline as a result of excessive dry areas, the APCO may require the Cit y to “increase the level of dust control efficiency within those Shallow Fl ood dust control areas.” The phrase “excessive dry areas” is somewhat vague and should be clarified. LADWP assumes that in this case, “excessive ” means wetness cover or distribution that is less than required le vels (that is, less than 75% wetness cover, or 72%
wetness cover for Shallow Flood areas a fter 2006). If that is the case, then the required action by the APCO isn’t to increase the control efficiency but rather to require that wetness cover and distribution be raised to compliant levels. As currently written, this sect ion could be interpreted to mean that the APCO reserves the right to increase the required control efficiency to any level deemed necessary to reduce exceedan ces at the shoreline. This action
would not be consistent with the 2014 Stipulated Judgment or any of the previous Owens Valley SIPs.

The requirement to increase the control ef ficiency in existing DCAs was included in the 2008 SIP, BO #080128-01, para. 10 A. It is included for shallow flood DCAs primarily to remedy dust problems that may be caused by large dry islands. See also para. 8.D.

35) Section 9.K, “PM10 Contro l Measures,” Page 16, line 19:

o LADWP recommends appending the phras e: “...sufficient to meet the requirements of District Rules 400 and 401 (visible emissions and fugitive
dust ), including but not limited to surf ace roughening, brine application, and vegetative cover (for MV and hybrid areas) .”

The substantially non-emissive provision appl ies to portions of shallow flood areas that are not required to meet the shallow flood cover requi rements, such as berms, roadways and other infrastructure used to support shallow flood dust controls (see para. 9.J.). Areas controlled with surfa ce roughening, brine, and vegetative cover are already covered with detailed perf ormance criteria in TwB2, Brine BACM and managed vegetation BACM requirements and is not intended to be applied to shallow flood infrastructure. This is not to say that they couldn’t be used for berms or roadways if it done in a manner that meets th e requirements of Di strict Rules 400 and 401 and is approved by the APCO.

A general inclusion of the suggested dust cont rol methods in this section would create a loophole in the control requirements if it re sults in excluding these areas from theDWP Comments on Draft BO (10/23, 10/30 and12/7/2015) and District Response
14 shallow flood DCA without spec ific performance requirements to ensure that they are

non-emissive.

36) Section 10.A, “BACM M anaged Vegetation,” Page 17:

o Although the District and LADW P collaborated on a 2005 Managed Vegetation Control Efficiency Study, t he study results were not explicitly
mentioned in reference to the modifi ed BACM requirements in the 2006 SIP. The MV BACM Study found that 99 percent control efficiency was achieved at 22 percent cover, not 50 per cent cover as drafted earlier in the
2003 SIP. The 2015 SIP should refer ence this study because of its importance in gaining a better understanding of how well Managed Vegetation works on Owens Lake, and subsequently, in paving the way for modified MV BACM requirements.

The SIP will reference all relevant studies supporting the BACM control measures. It will explain the performance criter ia for managed vegetation BACM and the supporting studies.

37) Section 10.B, “BACM Managed Vegetation,” Page 18 and 19:

o The average cover of 37 percent is associated with a particular reference satellite image and analytical procedure. Those assumptions should be listed here to put the threshold of 37 percent vegetation cover into proper context.

Additional information is included in supporting documents for the managed vegetation performance criteria to ex plain the source of cover data and the assumptions used in the analysis . This detailed information does not need to be listed

in the Board Order.

o The cover levels shown in Board Order 1512xx Table 10.1 (page 19) were established during development of t he Managed Vegetation Operations and Maintenance Plan, and based on the reference 2004 satellite image for the
southern MV area. The 2004 satellit e image became the reference image because it depicted a spatially heterogeneou s MV area that, despite localized areas of sparse or no vegetation, was “w orking.” At the whole-site scale, the
MV cover levels and distribution were sufficient to control sand motion everywhere within the site’s interior. This image showed an average cover level of 37 percent, as measured by the method being used at that time.

Later, the manner in which the imagery was ground truthed to assess vegetative cover was changed, shifting from automated analysis of Digital Point Frame (DPF) photographs (in which the ratio of vegetation to total pixels is determined) to “pin counting” of images . In pin counting, a visual grid is digitally overlaid onto the DPF photos, and intersections of the grid with pixels containing vegetation are counted by an observer. The proportion of intersections is taken to be the percent cover. This switch in methods wasDWP Comments on Draft BO (10/23, 10/30 and12/7/2015) and District Response
15 ordered by the District. As a result of this change, the vegetative cover results for all imagery (including the reference 2004 image upon which Table 10.1 cover levels are based) shifted dow nward, but this shift has never been quantified in a joint, follow-up analysis. Because the Table 10.1 criteria were
never corrected to account for this change in analytical method, the criteria shown are likely higher than they w ould be were the 2004 image analyzed in
the same manner as t he compliance assessment imagery. The Table 10.1 compliance criteria should be reviewed by the District and LADWP to refine the required cover levels at different scales.

District staff disagrees with this commen t. The automated dig ital point frame method for vegetation cover analysis was unacceptable to the District due to difficulty in automatically recognizing vegetation. Shadowing and damp soil were not satisfactorily distinguishabl e from the saltgrass leaves, which resulted in an overestimate of the vegetation cover as compared to standard point frame

measurements.

38) Section 10.C, “BACM Managed Vegetation,” Page 19:

o The California State Lands Commission (CSLC) has approved Phase 7a, including all of the species on the following list, which was developed by the Owens Lake Master Planning partners. Additional background regarding the
list will be sent to the Distric t in a separate communication.

This paragraph has been amended to incl ude those additional plant species.

39) Section 10.G, “BACM M anaged Vegetation,” Page 20:

o LADWP suggests removing or modifyi ng this section. We agreed with the District to remove the perimeter drain requirements for SF. They were shown to be unnecessary for environmental purposes because the zone of seepage
influence was short. Perimeter drains ar e mainly installed to protect root zones and other infrastructure, as well as to conserve water by recycling it. Measures to protect water quality are in the Waste Discharge Requirements, which are too complex to capture in such a short space in the
SIP. The SIP should either ack nowledge the Regional Board and its jurisdiction and leave water quality regulat ion to them, or not mention water quality at all, recognizing that DWP must operate within the law and restrictions imposed by other agencies.

This provision is part of the design requirements for managed vegetation BACM and was included in BO #080128-01, para. 16.C.v for long-term management of managed vegetation DCAs. The inclusi on of this requirement does not create a conflict with water quality regulations.

40) Section 11.A.i and 11.A.ii, “ BACM Gravel Blanket,” Page 21:DWP Comments on Draft BO (10/23, 10/30 and12/7/2015) and District Response
16 o This section should clarify that geotextile fabric is not required for four-inch lift of gravel. With a two-inch lift of grav el, underlayment with geotextile fabric is always required.

The original gravel BACM measure in the 1998 SIP, which required 4-inch deep gravel said, “Where necessary to support the gravel blanket, it shall be placed over a permanent permeable geotextile fabric.” (BO #981116-01) In the opinion of DWP’s design engineers, they believed the geotext ile fabric was needed under the 4-inch gravel blanket. There are no examples of 4-in ch gravel blanket areas to show that it was unnecessary to have the geotextile fabric.

The first criteria for 4” gravel specifically states “where it is necessary to support the gravel blanket” and the second criteria for 2”gravel does not have this caveat. This allows LADWP greater management flexibly shou ld to need arise to apply gravel in an area without geotextile fabric. One hy pothetical future scenario is a sensitive cultural resources area. Geotextile fabric placement requires significant lakebed surface disturbance. With 4” gravel and no geotextile fabric, hence less surface disturbance, this may be a viable option if supported by th e cultural resource task force.

The two criteria will be kept as is.

41) Section 12.A, “Reduced Efficiency BACM Control Measures,” Page 22:

o The description of each new BACM should summarize the appropriate
facilities and activities associated with each BACM (for example, water spreading, enhanced seeding), the me chanisms acting to control dust emissions, the required control effici encies, and procedures for evaluating compliance.

As suggested in comment #26, the District will replace the reduced efficiency BACM category with MDCE BACM with appropr iate descriptions for each area.

42) Section 12.B, “Reduced Efficiency BACM Control Measures,” Page 23:

o The phrase “For areas of Reduced Efficiency BACM control measures that do

not function as designed ...” should be stated more precisely as follows: “For areas of Reduced Efficiency BA CM control measures that do not meet the MDCE performance standards ...” How will the District determine whether the Channel Area meets the performance requi rements for the i ndividual MDCEs subareas that comprise the whole? If monitoring or modeling is used, than those compliance procedures need to be described in sufficient detail for LADWP to fulfill its responsibility to review and approve new information per the 2014 Stipulated Judgment.

o As currently written, t here is no opportunity for LADWP to review the APCO’s
decision to increase the control efficien cy or the amount of time allowed forDWP Comments on Draft BO (10/23, 10/30 and12/7/2015) and District Response
17 such an increase. LADWP requests that the District provide an opportunity to review and comment on the propos al before a decision is made.

LADWP’s phrase revision is acceptable. The contingency measure provisions in 8.C, 8.D and Attachment B describe the process for determining the impact from lakebed sources, including areas in existing DCAs. All information and data collected as part of the Dust ID program is available to the City upon request.

Sections 9.G, 10.K and 11.E are written to account for previous deficiencies regarding situations where increased cont rol efficiencies may be required for Shallow Flood, managed vegetation and gra vel. Language consistent with other sections of the Board Order to allow LA DWP to provide opportunity to review and comment on APCO’s decision has also been incorporated.

43) Section 13, “New BACM, Adju stments to Existing BACM, and BACM Transitions,” Page 23:

o In the 2014 Stipulated Judgment, the District and City committed to work together to advance certain opportunities for waterless or water-efficient dust
control measures in the future. Page 11 of the 2014 Stipulated Judgment

states: “The Parties will continue to collabor ate on the expedited testing of Tillage, Engineered Roughness Elements, Lake Brine and Dust Palliative
Chemicals as candidate BACMs. The Parties further agree to identify additional candidate BACMs, as appropr iate. New dust control measures should be waterless, where feasible. Where not feasible, new dust control measures should be water neutral by o ffsetting any new or increased water use with water savings elsewhere on the lakebed.” These jointly approved goals are important for the future of Owens Lake and should be brought
forward into the Board Order.

The 2014 SJ, which includes provisions for the City and District to collaborate on new dust control measures in order to save water (para. 6.B), is included as

Attachment A to the Board Order. It’s unn ecessary to repeat this commitment in the

Board Order.

44) Section 13.E, “New BACM, Adju stments to Existing BACM, and BACM Transitions,” Page 23, line 2:

o Typos. The text should be revised to state: “...to the existing BACMs described in Paragraphs 9, 10, and 11 of this Order.”

Text revised as suggested in Secti on 13 (now paragraphs 9, 10, 11 and 12).

45) Subsection 15.A, “Stormwater Management,” Page 25, Lines 7 - 9:

o LADWP request the removal of the follo wing sentence from the SIP: “...Any repairs the require dust controls to be out of compliance with the performanceDWP Comments on Draft BO (10/23, 10/30 and12/7/2015) and District Response
18 standards set forth in this Order shall be subject to the District Hearing Board variance procedure.” There is no need to restrict the APCO’s discretion in the SIP. Furthermore, if a breakdown r eport indicates that more than couple weeks would be needed to repair the damaged infrastructure, a variance may
be needed for such breakdown.

Request accepted. BO #080128-01, para. 20 contai ns similar provisions, but does not include the statement about going to the Hearing Board. Although it is a good idea to go to the hearing board if you are going to be out of compliance, it is DWP’s prerogative to request a variance. Reques ting a variance is not an obligation for

DWP or the APCO. The APCO has the disc retion to issue NOVs and if that doesn’t result in compliance order an abatement he aring. The hearing board provision can

be removed.

46) Section 19.C, “Additional Requirements,” Page 28:

o This section states: “ The City shall apply BACM to control air emissions from its construction/implementation activities occurring in the District’s geographic
boundaries .” The standard list of BACM fo r Owens Lake are not appropriate for construction/implementation activities . This section should reference the temporary dust control measures that have been used in the past (hay bales, sand fences, soil roughening, water, brine, etc.).

o Additionally, the latt er part of this sentenc e should read “...within the OVPA.” The District’s “geographic boundar ies” extend well beyond the
OVPA.

This provision applies to any activities th at may emit air pollu tion and are associated with dust control projects at Owens Lake; such as, gravel mining, cement and asphalt plants, or construction activities. These operations could take place outside of the Owens Valley Planning Area, e.g. Bishop. BAC Ms appropriate for these activities

have and will continue to be included as conditions on District-issued permits to

operate.

47) List of Attachments, Page 31:

o The list of attachment should include the 2013 Settlement Agreement and
Release for the Keeler Dunes.

Paragraphs 2.A. and 3.B. refers to the 2013 Abatement Order #130916-01, and the 2013 Settlement Agreement (August 19, 2013) and to the provisions contained therein for cultural resource areas. The SIP will include a discussion of the regulatory history, including the 2013 Settlement Agr eement. The 2013 SOA, which includes the 2013 SA, should be added as an appendix to th e SIP, as opposed to an attachment to the BO. The 2013 SOA contains all the prov isions for the cultural resource areas andDWP Comments on Draft BO (10/23, 10/30 and12/7/2015) and District Response
19 the Keeler Dunes. It would be good not to have to hunt this do cument down in the future.

48) Exhibit 1,”PM10 Control Areas and Coordinates”: Several points:

o Note that page 6 of the 2014 Stipulated Judgment lists the area of Phases 9 and 10 as 3.62 square miles. The l egend in Exhibit 1 lists 3.7 square
miles. LADWP recommends that all ar eas in the Board Order be rounded to
the nearest one-hundredth of a square mile.

Fixed in Revised Exhibit 1.

o The Board Order text does not mention “Hybrid BACM.”

Fixed in Revised Exhibit 1. Just to clarify, there is no Hybrid BAC M only hybrid dust cont rol areas with BACM.

o “Gravel Blanket” is the BACM title.

Fixed in Revised Exhibit 1.

.

o The Board Order text does not mention “Brine Test.”

Fixed in Revised Exhibit 1.

o The Board Order text does not m ention “Engineered Roughness Test.”

Fixed in Revised Exhibit 1.

49) Exhibit 4, “Dynamic Water Management Dust Control Areas”:

o The map should show the sprinkler Shallow Flood areas with end dates of May 30.

Map shows eligible areas and their modified dust season. The map cannot forsee future areas and method of irrigation. In A ttachment F it is now specified that the dust season for DWMP areas irrigated with sprinklers shall start two weeks earlier and end one month later than shown on the map.

50) Attachment B, ”2015 Owens Valley Pl anning Area Additional BACM Contingency Measures Determination,” Map 1-Owens Lak e Dust ID Monitoring Network:DWP Comments on Draft BO (10/23, 10/30 and12/7/2015) and District Response
20 o Suggest several updates to this map:

 The 24 DWP Sensits in T12-1 have been removed and replaced by four

TwB2 Sensits.

 Numerous DWP Sensits are present in T10-1b, T13-1b, T26, and T29-2ab

as part of the Shallow Flood Wetness Cover Test.

 Additional Sensits will be plac ed in the Dynamic Water Management

Areas.

Suggested updates made to revised map.

51) Attachment D, Subar ticle 1.A.1.A, Page 2:

o The 1.5 square miles referenced in this Subarticle was increased to 3.0 square miles per the Stipulated Judgmen t, Subarticle 8.A, Page 11, Line 22.

Attachment D, Subarticle 1.A.1.A is specific to the Shallow Flood Cover Test and this was not increased by the Stipulated Judgment. Only the size of Transition Areas were increased from 1.5 to 3.0 mi2 by the Stipul ated Judgment and this is reflected in

Attachment D Section 3. TRANSITI ONING FROM ONE BACM TO ANOTHER

BACM.

52) Attachment D, ”Procedure for Modi fying Best Available Control Measures (BACM) for the Owens Valley Planning Area,” Page 1, Para 1:

o The requirement in Attachment D t hat the performance standard for a BACM be met during transition would effectiv ely preclude further transition to
habitat/dust control on Owens Lake. Th is provision conflicts with the 2014 Stipulated Judgment (Section 8, Re visions to the 2008 SIP Transition Procedure, Paragraph 8 of the Stipulated Abatement Order). This section
also cites Attachment D to the Board Order, with which this provision also
conflicts.

A careful read of Paragraph 1 of Attach ment D, which says, “[The City] may transition from one approved BACM to anothe r provided that, with the exceptionsDWP Comments on Draft BO (10/23, 10/30 and12/7/2015) and District Response
21 address below, the performance standard of one or the other BACM is met at all times during the transition, ...” indicates that there are exceptions to meeting the performance standards at all times. The paragraph is followed with three exceptions, including the following:

“3. Transition from one BACM to another th at requires a time period where neither BACM’s performance standards can be met.”

The provisions for transitioning from one BACM to another without meeting the performance standards of either is explai ned in section 3 of Attachment D and is limited to 3.0 square miles at one time. Th is is consistent with the 2014 SJ, para. 8.

A careful read of paragraph 1 of Attachment D would also inform the City that the amount of area that can be transitioned is not limited if th e area is in compliance at all times, e.g. replacing a shallow flo od DCA with gravel BACM during the non-dust control period. Staying in compliance at all times during the BACM transition process was what the District envisioned as the way it would be done, which may explain why the first paragr aph reads as it does. The City should keep this in mind,

since the shorter dust contro l periods under the DWM Plan may allow more areas to be transitioned to managed vegetation, TWB2 or gravel BACM during the off-season while still staying in full compliance.

53) Attachment D, ” Procedure for Modify ing Best Available Control Measures (BACM) for the Owens Valley Planning Ar ea,” Page 8, “Comments on Potential New BACM,” Page 8, Item 10, “the appropr iate responsible agency approvals, permits and leases” to be included in BACM application”:

o Developing BACM for use on Owens Lake is a two-step process: (1) Perform
effectiveness studies and obtain Distr ict approval for use of BACM at locations to be approved later, and (2) obtain all other required approvals, permits, and leases. It isn’t possi ble to obtain “approvals, permits, and leases” without first designing a proj ect, and it wouldn’t be prudent for LADWP to design a project and obtain all the required approvals, permits, and leases without first knowing whet her the District would accept the underlying dust control concept. That’s why this section should be rewritten to encompass a two-step process. Permi ts, approvals, and leases is the final stage in the process.

It is fine for the City to consider this a two-step process, but each of the elements required to perform acceptable research on new BACM approaches are clearly listed in this section. Revising this section as a two-step approach could diminish the importance of these elements, each of wh ich the District considers of critical importance to BACM research.DWP Comments on Draft BO (10/23, 10/30 and12/7/2015) and District Response
22 54) Attachment D, ” Procedure for Modify ing Best Available Control Measures (BACM) for the Owens Valley Planning Area,” Page 9, “Research on Potential New BACM,” Paragraph 3:

o LADWP requests that this paragraph to be further clarified to read “Upon adoption by the District Board, approval by CARB, and submission to USEPA
of a SIP Revision that identifies ne w BACM for Owens Lake, the City may implement one or more of the new cont rol measures on up to three square mile (combined) of the next area identified as a BACM Contingency Measure area, or as a BACM Transition Area, until EPA approves the new measure(s)
as BACM.”

This is the same provision as in A ttachment D to BO #080128-01. New BACM must be approved by EPA before it can be fully implemented. Until it is approved by EPA,

new BACMs will have limited application.

55) Attachment E, ”2015 DRAFT Brine with BACM Backup (Brine BACM),” Section 5.1, Page 14, paragraph 3:

o Recommend adding two new items: “3. Sp reading of brine conveyed to the
site from elsewhere.” and “4. Alteration of topography to fac ilitate items 1, 2,
or 3.”

Appropriate text will be added to the Brine BACM report.

56) Attachment E, ”2015 DRAFT Brine with BACM Backup (Brine BACM),” Section 6.0, Page 16, Para 1:

o The results of ongoing and planned brine studies will be used to determine the thickness of brine required to achi eve a stabilized surface. Attachment E
should reference those studies and note that the required thickness(es) may change in the future at the sole discretion of the APCO.

This language is already included in Atta chment A to the Brine report in Section B.4.f. Similar language was also added to section 6.0.

57) Attachment E, ”2015 DRAFT Brine with BACM Backup (Brine BACM),” Attachment A, Secti on B, page 4, bottom:

o The addition of the IPET since the last draft significantly reduces the viability of Brine as a dust control measure because the IPET is highly conservative and likely to exaggerate the emission pot ential of Brine BACM areas. Please restore the earlier protocol, or de-em phasize the IPET as a measure of surface stability on Brine areas.DWP Comments on Draft BO (10/23, 10/30 and12/7/2015) and District Response
23 IPET testing is one of several criteria that will be used to determine if a brine surface is deteriorating and requires mainten ance or re-flooding) The conditions for determining if a re-fl ood order will be issued for a Brine BACM area are similar to those agreed to for TwB2 areas. See also the response to comments #9 and #30.

58) Attachment F, ” DRAFT Technica l Report: 2015 Owens Lake Dynamic Water Management Plan,” Page ES-2, last paragraph:

o LADWP recommends replacing this se ction with Page 9, Paragraph 4 of Appendix D, which also re cognizes other agencies’ jurisdictions but in more clear and accurate language.

Text replaced as requested.

59) Attachment F, ” DRAFT Technica l Report: 2015 Owens Lake Dynamic Water Management Plan,” Page ES-5, Figure ES-1:

o An earlier District position held that dat a collected during the current variance period would be used by the APCO to evalua te the suitability of the additional areas for inclusion in the DWM regime. LADWP recommends that this earlier provision be included in the Board Order.

The District reviewed data from May 2015 to October 2015 for the additional areas that DWP requested for the variance. The wetness data for these areas are plotted below and show that the wetness cover for these areas was high (mostly above the 75% mark) for most of the spring dust seas on and for all of the start of the fall

season. Thus there is no additional data available and the areas do not meet the

criteria established to be eligible for the DWMP.DWP Comments on Draft BO (10/23, 10/30 and12/7/2015) and District Response
24 This plot shows the wetness cover trend in shallow flood areas that had water shut off in May 2015, two months before the end of the season. Despite the early shut-off, the a reas remained mostly in compliance with the 72% wet cover requirement. No additional information coul d be gained for the DWM evaluation regarding late seaso n dust activity in these areas.

60) Attachment F, “DRAFT Technica l Report: 2015 Owens Lake Dynamic Water Management Plan,” Section 4.2, bottom of page 9:

o This section does not appear to take into account the recently modified provisions allowing for an extended period of operation in sprinkler DWM areas. The modified provisions are a recognition that sprinkled areas can be wetted almost instantly upon a re-flood order, extending the duration of the wetted period because the ramp-up and ramp-down periods are short. The text should be updated to reflec t the modified provisions.

The language in the report is clarified.

61) Attachment F, “DRAFT Technica l Report: 2015 Owens Lake Dynamic Water Management Plan,” Section 4.2. 1, page 10, last paragraph:

o This paragraph currently reads: “ If physically feasible, re-flooding can be limited to portions of the DWMP areas that are determined by the APCO to require re-flooding and not the entire DWMP areas. Such re-flooding orders are not appealable by the LADWP to the District Governing Board, Hearing Board or any other agency. ” LADWP requests that this section be reworded to state clearly that the District’s intention is to issue re-flood orders only forDWP Comments on Draft BO (10/23, 10/30 and12/7/2015) and District Response
25 those portions of DWMP areas that have been found to be emissive by the conditions listed at the top of page 11 (ite ms 1 through 3) more than once in a continuous rolling six-year period. For example, if a DWMP area contains six Sensit sites and only one of those sites (call it “Sensit 3”) exceeds the 5 g/cm 2 /day threshold, then only the area attr ibuted to Sensit 3 would be issued a re-flood order, not the entire DWMP area encompassing all six Sensit sites. This approach is consistent with maintenance and re-flood orders for Tillage with BACM Backup (TwB2) areas.

The language in the report is clarified so that a re-flood order can be issued for a partial area associated with testing and monitoring. The LADWP appears to misunderstand the statement: “more than once in a continuous rolling six-year period.” This language refers to an area being ki cked out of the DWMP program and not to having a re-flood order made for any given year. Also see response to comment #31.

62) Attachment F, “DRAFT Technica l Report: 2015 Owens Lake Dynamic Water Management Plan,” Section 4.2.1, page 11, paragraph 1, item 3:

o The sand flux units are not correct. The sentence should read: “Sand flux at a sand flux monitoring (SFM) site exceeds 5 grams/cm 2

/day .”

Units corrected.

________________________ _____________________ _________________________

PART 3 – Comments from LADWP sent via email message on December 7, 2015 from Milad Taghavi. These comments were extr acted from a WORD document submitted by LADWP. Page and line numbers refer to lo cations in DWP’s document and may differ
from those in the late st draft Board Order.

________________________ _____________________ _________________________

63) Section A, Preamble, Page 1, line 19, this also applies to comments on page 12, line 26 and page 16, line 6:

o General Note - Please clarify that State Standards are to be met at communities surrounding Owens Lake and not at the shoreline monitors.

In accordance with District Rule 401.D, the City is required to implement dust

controls on the Owens Lake bed in order to meet the State PM10 standard at residences within communities zoned for re sidential use in the latest Inyo County General Plan Use Diagrams. A sentence will be added at the end of Preamble paragraph E to provide the following clarification,DWP Comments on Draft BO (10/23, 10/30 and12/7/2015) and District Response
26 “and to meet the CAAQS at residences w ithin communities zoned for residential use in the Inyo County General Plan Use Diagr ams in accordance with District Rule

401.D.”

64) Sections I & J, Preamble, Page 3, Lines 6 and 13:

o Insert text to say that if the board order is stayed or disapproved (e.g. CARB or EPA action), that BO 080128-01 and the Stipulated Judgment shall
continue in effect.

Text revised as suggested.

65) Section 1, Existing PM10 Controls, Page 3, Line 28:

o Change Area to plural, “Areas”

Suggested revision made.

66) Section 1.C, Existing PM10 C ontrols, Page 4, lines 24-25:

o Suggest text change. “On 0.5 square -miles on the south end of Owens Lake known as the ‘Channel Area,’ the City shall continue to operate and maintain dust controls using application of water to Managed Vegetation and enhance existing vegetation coverage with surface flooding as required to comply with the MDCE performance standards set fo rth in the 2008 SIP Order and shown
in Exhibit 2.”

Suggested revision made with small edits.

67) Section 5, PM10 Control Meas ures, Page 6, Lines 6 and 16:

o Change measure to plural, “measures”

Suggested revision made.

68) Section 8. A, Contingency PM10 C ontrol Measures, Page 7, Line 7:

o The City may be ordered to implement BACM Contingency Measures such
that the total area wher e the City shall implement BACM PM10 controls or MDCE BACM PM10 controls is up to 53.4 square miles, and the City shall comply with those orders without appeal.

Suggested revision made. Note that paragraphs 5 and 12 limit MDCE BACM to areas that were already approved. New area s that are controlled will be required to have 99 or 100% control efficiency in orde r to optimize the em ission reductions forDWP Comments on Draft BO (10/23, 10/30 and12/7/2015) and District Response
27 the limited new areas available for du st control orders under the contingency

measure.

69) Section 8. B, Contingency PM10 Control Measures, Page 7, Line 10:

o Suggest text change, “The District will not order the City to implement mitigation measures, including bu t not limited to BACM PM10 control measures, on additional areas on the lakebed beyond the total area of 53.4 square miles under Health & Safety Code Section 42316 or any other law requiring the City to control windblown dust emissions (including PM10, PM2.5 or any speciated compone nts or products of PM).”

We have made the suggested edit with sm all changes for grammatical purposes.

70) Section 8. C, Contingency PM10 Control Measures, Page 7, lines 18-20:

o Suggest text change, “At least once in every calendar year, the The APCO
will make a determination as to whet her BACM Contingency Measures are to be ordered at least once in every calendar year.”

Suggested revision made.

71) Section 8. D, Contingency PM 10 Control Measures, Page 7, line 26:

o Suggest text change, “ Source areas that cause or c ontribute to a monitored or
modeled exceedance of the NAAQS or State Standard may be new source areas, or may be emissions from ar eas with existing dust controls.”

Suggested revision made.

72) Section 8. D, Contingency PM10 Cont rol Measures, Pages 7 and 8, Comments regarding DWP’s choice in Atta chment B to BO 080128-01:

o Attachment “B” to the Board Or der 080128-01 (2008 Owens Valley Planning Area Supplemental Control Requirements Determination Procedure) states the following:

 Subarticle A.3 – District directs Ci ty to implement dust controls, 1 st Paragraph, Page 8 of 17: “Source areas in A.2 that causes or contribute to an exceedance may be new source areas, or may be emissions from areas with existing dust controls....For emissions fr om areas with existing dust controls, the City will have the choice of increasi ng the controls in the existing dust control areas or controlling other c ontributing sources that will result in lowering the monitored impact below 150 μg/m 3 exceedance threshold, if
such areas exists.”DWP Comments on Draft BO (10/23, 10/30 and12/7/2015) and District Response
28  Subarticle B.7 – District directs the City to implement dust controls, 2 nd Paragraph, Pages 11 and 12 of 17: “If po ssible, the City will have the choice of increasing the control efficiencie s on existing dust control areas and/or controlling other contributing sources that will result in lowering of the modeled impact below the 150 μg/m 3 exceedance threshold. If the APCO
identifies the need for additional contro ls, the APCO will issue a written SCR determination to the City.”

It appears that in the new order, the City’s choice is being withdrawn.

This comment addresses the provision on pages 7 and 8, paragraph 8.D., which states:

8.D.”Source areas that cause or contribute to a monitored or modeled exceedance of the NAAQS or State Standard may be new source area s, or may be areas with existing dust controls. For emissions from areas with exi sting dust controls, the City will have the choice of increasing the controls in the exis ting dust control areas or controlling other contributing sources that will result in lo wering the monitored impact below the NAAQS or State Standard, if such areas exist. If the City chooses to increase the controls in existing areas, it shall prepare and submit a written application to the APCO that contains District-approved modeling which demonstrates that the monitored impact can be reduced below the NAAQS by increasing th e controls in existing dust control areas. The APCO has sole discretion whether to approve or disapprove the application.”

The choice of whether to 1) improve dust contro l in an existing dust control area or to 2) control other contributing areas such as new ar eas is still left to th e City; if there is a choice to be had. However, the APCO’s approval of which area to control is necessary because the potential control of new areas will affect the 53.4 square mile total area that can be ordered for control.

If there is a choice of which areas to cont rol and the APCO orders controls in a new area as opposed to increasing controls in an exi sting area, the City may submit an application to control an existing area. This appears to be the only case where there may be room for discussion if the APCO issues an order to control a new area. If there were no choice of areas to control, an order to control a ne w area within the 53.4 s quare mile total dust control area could not be appealed.

If the District orders increasing controls in an existing area, the City may have a different opinion and may want to control a new area. In that case, the APCO would have to approve an application to control the new area, othe rwise there would no order

to control this new area and it would not be part of the 53.4 square mile total dust

control area.

73) Section 8.E, Contingency PM10 Control Measures, Page 8, line 9DWP Comments on Draft BO (10/23, 10/30 and12/7/2015) and District Response
29 o Suggest text change. “The BACM Contingen cy Measures shall be limited to the Owens Lake bed below the regulatory shore line elevation of 3,600.00 feet above mean sea level (amsl) and above the nat ural brine pool ordinary high water elevation of 3,553.55 feet amsl.

. This sentence is correct as stated. The term Regulatory Shoreline will be corrected by inserting initial capital letters.

74) Section 8.F Contingency PM10 Cont rol Measures, Page 8, lines 17-18

o Suggest text change. “Failure or inability to secure such permissions and authorizations shall not relieve the City fr om its obligation to timely install and operate the ordered Contingency Measures, except to the extent any such delay is caused by Force Majeure as defined in Paragraph 16.”

. This is not a correct statement of the Force Majeure clause. The section has been changed to add the sentence “This Section is su bject to the provisi ons of Paragraph 16 if they are applicable.”

75) Section 9, BACM Shallo w Flooding, Page 9, line 23, comment regarding DWP’s sprinkler project:

o Please confirm based on our phone call on November 18th that LADWP does not
need to further demonstrate the effectivene ss of sprinkler irrigation for applying water to shallow flooding DCAs.

The City should continue the sprinkler proj ect to determine if wetness cover amounts less than 75% can reliably accomplish the 99% control needed for shallow flood BACM areas. Continuation of the project will also provide info rmation on how water application using sprinklers can provide we tness covers comparable to the wetness accomplished with bubblers and whiplines as me asured using satellite imagery. If the City already has answers to these questions, it would be beneficial to share the results

with the District at the ne xt Dust Control Workshop.

76) Section 9.B.v, BACM Shallo w Flooding, Page 10, line 21:

o Suggested text change, “If for any Sha llow Flooding area, t he percent of areal wetness cover in the periods specified in Paragraphs 9.B.ii, iii, and iv, above, is below the minimum percentages specified for each BACM Shallow Flood area based on satellite imagery the air quality m odel for the analysis period, and there
were no monitored or modeled exceedances of the NAAQS at or above elevation 3,600 feet above mean sea level (Regulat ory Shoreline), t hat area will be deemed to be in compliance, if the Cit y demonstrates in writing and the APCO reasonably determines in writing that maximum water delivery flows were maintained throughout the applicable period.DWP Comments on Draft BO (10/23, 10/30 and12/7/2015) and District Response
30 Suggested revision made, and “for the analys is period” removed for grammatical

purposes.

77) Section 9.D.iii and iv, Tillage With Shallow Flood BACM Backup, Page 12, lines 10 and 19, this also applies to page 32, lines 9-13.:

o Suggest text change. Use “Stipulated Judgment” and not the abbreviation SJ.

Suggested revision made.

78) Section 9.D.vi, Tillage With Shal low Flood BACM Backup, Page 13, line 17:

o Suggest text change. “Any such appeal shal l not relieve the Cit y of the duty to reflood a TWB2 area within 37 days of a wr itten order from th e APCO unless the City properly seeks and obtains an injunction from the Court before the expiration of the 37-day period.

Suggested revision made, and a clarifying clause “to enjoin the reflooding” is added.

79) Section 9.E.iii, Brine BA CM, Page 14, lines 6-7:

o Suggest text change. “The APCO may order the City to shallow flood any Brine BACM area or emissive portion thereof if any of the following criteria are met.

Suggested revision made.

80) Section 9.E.iii and iv, Bri ne BACM, Page 14, lines 6-20.

o Comment - This paragraph [9.E.iii] gives the APCO disc retion, yet the next subsection iv. Appears to take it away. We understand that the District does not want to commit to using the tillage roughnes s test, PM10 monitor test, or surface armoring test. But it would be short-sighted to eliminate these as options that the District may find useful in the future. Therefore, we suggest leaving this paragraph as is, but giving the APCO the option to rely on the other tests in the next paragraph. Otherwise, a new Boar d Order would be needed to use tests that the Stipulated Judgment al ready provides for. Why tie your hands that way?

o Suggest text change in paragraph 9.E. iv. “If the APCO determines that Paragraph 9.E.iii.1 or 9. E.iii.2 are met, the APCO will give written notice to the City that the area must m eet the Shallow Flood BACM r equirements for that area within 37 days, unless, in its discretion, the APCO determines that re-flooding in not necessary, based on other information, in cluding but not limited to the tillage roughness, PM10 monitor, or surface armo ring tests described in Attachment A, Stipulated Judgment Attachment C.”DWP Comments on Draft BO (10/23, 10/30 and12/7/2015) and District Response
31 The surface of a Brine BACM area does not hav e the same surface characteristics as the tilled surface in TWB2 areas which w ould make the surface roughness and armoring tests inapplicable to Brine BACM areas. Unli ke TWB2, there is currently no requirement for upwind downwind PM10 monitoring near Brine BACM areas. A re-flood order will likely be limited to sand flux data and IPET information unless new techniques become available to determine if brine areas have become emissive. No change to this paragraph is needed.

81) Section 9.F.iii.2), Dynamic Wa ter Management, Page 15, lines 18-19:

o Suggest text change to clarify that re-f lood orders can apply to a portion of the
dust control measure area. “The APCO ma y order and the City is required to implement BACM Shallow-Flooding on the DCM area or portion thereof if the
APCO determines that emissive surface conditions exist in that area as determined by the Induced Pa rticulate Erosion Test procedures in the TWB2 Monitoring Protocol.”

Suggested revision made.

82) Section 9.F.iii.3), Dynamic Water Management, Page 15, line 27:

o Suggest text change to clarify that re-f lood orders can apply to a portion of the dust control measure area. “If any DW M area or portion thereof becomes
become emissive and is ther efore issued a reflood order by the APCO more than once in a continuous six-year period, these areas will revert to the standard shallow flood period of October 16 through June 30 and will no longer be eligible
for DWM.

Suggested revision made.

83) Section 9.G, comment regarding timefram e to increase control in shallow flood areas, Page 16, line 10:

o The comment addresses the 90 day deadl ine in the following paragraph “If air quality modeled or monitoring data shows an exceedance or exceedances of the
NAAQS or State Standard at or above the Regulatory S horeline as a result of excessive dry areas within Shallow Flooding control ar eas during the dust control periods for each year and the APCO det ermines that existing PM10 control measures require a higher level of contro l efficiency, the City shall increase the control efficiency of those measures within 90 days of its receipt of a written determination by the APCO informing the Cit y of this determination, and maintain that higher control efficiency until the APCO determines that a reduced control efficiency is appropriate.”

o Comment: Please reference Exhibit 10 of the 2008 SIP for shallow flood.DWP Comments on Draft BO (10/23, 10/30 and12/7/2015) and District Response
32 Exhibit 10 of the 2008 SIP allows the City 12 months to improve the wetness cover in shallow flood areas if land leveling will be required or if additional laterals will need to be installed. However, if more water application is needed to overcome evapotranspiration then the deadline is one month. To make this paragraph consistent with Exhibit 10 it can be revised as follows:

Paragraph 9.G. “If air quality modelinged or monitoring data shows an exceedance or exceedances of the NAAQS or State Standard at or above the Regulatory Shoreline as a result of excessive dry areas within Sha llow Flooding control areas during the dust control periods for each year and the APCO determines that existing PM10 control measures require a higher leve l of control efficiency, the C ity shall increase the control efficiency of those measures within 90 days one month of its receipt of a written determination by the APCO informing the C ity of this determination if more water application is needed to overcome evapotrans piration, or within 12 months of a written determination if land leveling or the installation of more la terals to the water delivery system are needed, and maintain that hi gher control efficienc y until the APCO

determines that a reduced cont rol efficiency is appropriate.”

84) Section 11.F, BACM Gravel Blanket, Page 22, line 24:

o Suggest text change to delete “(BACM)” since it is already defined in paragraph

1.A.

Suggested revision made by leaving BACM and de leting the definition in this sentence.

85) Section 12.A, MDCE BACM Cont rol Measures, Page 23, line 5:

o Suggest text change. “For these ar eas only, MDCE BACM DCMs control measures will continue to be operated to meet the required MDCE performance
standards shown in Exhibit 2.”

Alternative suggestion. “For these dust control areas only, MDCE BACM DCMs will continue to be operated to meet the re quired MDCE performance standards shown in

Exhibit 2.”

Note that with the BACM acronym there is redundancy in saying BACM control measure.

86) Section 13.E, New BACM, Adjust ments to Existing BACM and BACM Transitions, page 24, lines 24-25.

o This comment is in regards to the 18 m onth period for transiti on in the following paragraph, “The City shall only conduct c onstruction of any Transition Area project between July 1 of year when on-si te work on the project begins, through December 31 of the next year when a ll such work shall be completed and the new controls shall be fully installed and operational.DWP Comments on Draft BO (10/23, 10/30 and12/7/2015) and District Response
33 o Comment - Please simply specify 18 months. LADWP may be able to utilized additional time to complete the transiti on areas by starting the work during nondust season or during the commencement of DWM period.

The City may be missing the free pass fo r transitioning areas without limitation. Attachment D of the proposed Board Order sa ys in the first paragraph, “The City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (C ity) may transition from one approved BACM to another provided that, with the excepti ons addressed below, the performance standard of one or the other BACM is met at a ll times during the transition...” For instance graveling a shallow flood area during the non-du st control season is not counted as part of the 3.0 square mile transition area.

The limitations for timeframes (July 1 to December 31, 18 months) to transition from one BACM to another and for the amount of area th at could be transitioned at one time only apply to transition projects where the perf ormance standards of neither BACM can be met during the transition period. In this case, the limitations in Sec tion 3 of the Proposed BO Attachment D, - Transitioning from One BACM to Another BACM comes into play. It states, “If the City wishes to transition from one ex isting BACM to another existing BACM without meeting the performance standard of one or the other BACM at all times, it may submit an application to the APCO in writing for permission to do so.”

Limiting transition projects from July 1 to D ecember 31 (18 months), helps to ensure that the project only allows potential dust em issions during one spring season, which is generally the dustiest period of the year.

To clarify the BACM transition limitati ons, paragraph 13.C. will be modified to incorporate the language reflecting the terms from BO Attachment D:

“ If the City wishes to transition from one existing BACM to another BACM without meeting the performance standards of either BACM at all times, the Transition Area project size shall be limited to a maximu m size of 3.0 square-m iles at one time as provided for in Attachment D, “2016 Proce dure for Modifying Best Available Control Measures (BACM) for the Owens Valley Planning Area.”

87) Section 17.C, Stipulated Penalties, Page 27, line 22:

o Suggest text change. “This Paragraph 17 applie s only to the failure to meet dust control measure construction completion deadlines as set forth in Paragraph 16.A and does not apply to any other notice of violation or enfor cement of laws by the District or its APCO.

This change was made.

88) Section 18.A, Performance Moni toring Plan, Page 28, lines 2 and 6:DWP Comments on Draft BO (10/23, 10/30 and12/7/2015) and District Response
34 o Suggest text change. Delete “DCMs” and re place with “dust control measures.”

Suggested revision made.

89) Section 19.B, Additional R equirements, Page 29, lines 2-5:

o Comment - The District provided this hel pful language in response to LADWP’s request for clarification of this term in a previous draft.

o Suggest text change. “The City shall apply BACM to control air emissions from its construction/implementation activities occurring in the District’s geographic boundaries. This provision applies to any acti vities that may emit air pollution and are associated with dust control projects at Owens Lake; such as, gravel mining, cement and asphalt plants, or constructi on activities. These operations could take place outside of the Owens Valley Planning Area, e.g. Bishop. BACMs appropriate for these activities have and will continue to be included as conditions on District-issued permits to operate.”

Suggested revision made with additi on of “in the City of” Bishop.

90) Section 20, Retention of Legal Authority, Page 29, lines 8-26:

o There are number of changes that would be better left to reading the original text and suggested revised text to understand if the changes are su bstantial, or grammatical.

o Original text: “Notwithstandi ng any other provision of th is Order, the District shall maintain its authority under Health & Sa fety Code Section 4231 6 to order the City to implement additional controls, to contro l additional emissive areas and/or to
undertake additional reasonable measures necessary to mitigate the air pollution caused in the District by the City’s water-gathering activities in order to prevent the OVPA from failing to attain or ma intain the NAAQS or State Standard for

PM 10 , if circumstances arise that are not specifically addressed in Paragraphs 1 through 8 of this Order.”

o Suggest text change. “Nothing in this Order affect s the District’s authority under Health & Safety Code Section 42316 to order the City to undertake reasonable
measures on areas other than the Ow ens Lake bed below elevation 3,600.00 feet above mean sea level (“amsl”) and above the natural brine pool at elevation 3,553.55 feet amsl, the K eeler Dunes, and the Swansea and Olancha Dunes to mitigate the air quality impacts of its water gathering activities in order to prevent the OVPA from failing to attain or ma intain the NAAQS or State Standard for
PM10. Section II of the Settlement Agreement and Releas e dated August 19, 2013, between the District and the City est ablishes the parties’ respectiveDWP Comments on Draft BO (10/23, 10/30 and12/7/2015) and District Response
35 responsibilities regarding the Keel er Dunes and the Swansea and Olancha
Dunes.”

This is the same comment as No. 24 above. Th e intent of the original paragraph has two purposes. First, the District must be able to enforce exis ting law and any changes to that law. If the federal or state law requirements change in the future, the District would be required to modify its rule to comply with the new law. Sec ond, the District’s authority to require the City to control air pollution extends to other areas, sour ces and activities in the District outside of those regulated through this Board Order. We have revised this paragraph to clarify these terms.

91) Section 22, Relationship to Boar d Order 080128-01 and Stipulated Judgment, Page 31, lines 1-4:

Suggested text change. B oard Order #080128-01 shall immediately be in effect
and shall remain in full force for the dur ation of any stay or, in the case of disapproval, until another Order is issued by th is Board, except to the extent that
the terms of Board Order #080128-01 were superceded, revised, modified or otherwise affected by the Stipulated Judgment. The Cit y shall not challenge the provisions of this Board Order #080128-01, read in conjunction with the Stipulated Judgment, now or in the future in any administrative or judicial forum, under any law, statute or legal theory w hatsoever including Health & Safety Code
Section 42316.

We have added a clarifying senten ce that the Stipulated Judgme nt shall remain in effect.DWP Comments on Draft Rule 433 – December 10, 2015

Email from Milad Taghavi to Phill Kiddoo and Duane Ono (December 10, 2015) regarding “Preliminary Comments on Draft Rule 433”

District Responses follow DWP comments in italicized text.

1) Outline below are our preliminary comments regarding the draft Rule 433. We intent to speak further with the USEPA regarding the draft Rule 433 and to see whether the negotiated terms in the Stipulated Judgment could be referenced in the Rule in order to provide the negotiated protection from 3 rd party actions.

The District is bound by the terms in the Stipulated Judgment as they apply to requirements in Rule 433, even if they are not specifically mentioned in the rule. Rule 433 is intended to put the dust control requirements and provisions of the Stipulated Judgment and other Board Orders for Owens Lake into a regulatory format that can be approved by the US EPA. Provisions in the Stipulated Judgment that are not fed erally approvable are ex cluded from the proposed rule, but are covered in the proposed Board

Order.

2) Introductory paragraph : The final sentence states: “This regulation does not preclude the City or the District from implementing more stringent or additi onal mitigation pursuant to the Stipulated Judgment.” Inclusion of this sentence, with its reference to the Stipulated Judgment, may be well intentioned. However, the Stipulated Judgment itself does not include any provisions regarding implementation of more stringent or additional mitigation, other than the contingency measure areas already addressed in the draft Rule. Therefore, the inclusion of the sentence may well create ambiguity regarding the terms of the Stipulated Judgment itself. I suggest thi s sentence be deleted.

The contingency measure in the BO may require the City to increase controls in existing dust control areas (BO para. 8.D.). The proposed rule includes specific control requirements for each area and does not include a provision to increase controls in existing areas. Therefore, the sentence removes this ambiguity between the rule and the

BO.

3) A. Definitions, 1. “BACM PM10 Control Areas” : The introductory paragraph of the definition uses the terms “regulatory shoreline elevation” and “ordinary high
water elevation”. “Regulatory shoreline elevation” appears to be a new way to refer to the 3,600 elevation
– it is not used in the Stipulated Judgement or other
documents I reviewed. “Ordinary high water elevation” is sometimes used in documents as a way of referring to the 3,553.55 elevation, but not consistently

so. In order to avoid raising new issues by creating new terms, I suggest the rule stick to the terms in the Stipulated Judgement. See, e.g., paragraph 3.B. on p. 7of the S tipulated Judgement. So, the Definition would read: “‘BACM PM10
Control Areas’ are areas on the dried bed of Owens Lake at or below the regulatory shoreline elevation of 3,600 feet and at or above Owen’s Lake’s ordinary high water the elevation of 3,553.55 feet on which BACM PM10 Control Measures shall be implemented ...”

The inclusion of the terms Regulatory S horeline (which will be capitalized in the

revision ) and the “Owens Lake ordinary high water elevation” provide helpful information about upper and lower boundaries of the lakebed dust control areas. The location of the 3,600 foot elevation depends on which map is used, and therefore a Regulatory Shoreline was negotiated to define the location of the former shoreline. The “Owens Lake ordinary high water” description provides support for why the lower bound of the dust control area is at 3,553.55 feet, otherwise the selection of this elevation

may appear to be arbitrary and caprici ous.

4) A. Definitions, 1. h. “Erosion Threshold” : Under this definition, re

- flooding is triggered if either the sand flux or the IPET threshold is exceeded. The Stipulated Judgment allows the APCO to use a longer list of diagnostic tools, including tillage roughness, PM10 monitor, and surface armoring

. These three
additional tests should be included in Subsection h. While we understand that the Air District does not want to be required to demonstrate an exceedence of all five thresholds before ordering re

- flood, the language of Subsection h would

**pre vent**  the APCO from using the other tools, which would be contrary to the framework of the Stipulated Judgment.

The term “erosion threshold” is used for sand flux and IPET monitoring for TWB2, Brin e BACM, DWM dust control areas and is consistent with its use in the Stipulated Judgment. Brine BACM and DWM do not include erosion threshold criteria for re-flood orders based on surface roughness, PM10 monitoring or surface armoring; these par ameters only apply to TWB2.

Although the SJ allows for the discretionary use of information such as PM10 monitor data or surface roughness measurements for TWB2 areas, a federally approved rule must provide clear and objective criteria for re-flood orders. This discretionary language is seen with the use of the word “may” in the following SJ provision, “The APCO may issue a reflood order if the daily PM10 difference between the downwind and upwind monitors exceeds 100 ug/m3,” (SJ Att C. D.3.e). Th is and other discretionary provisions of Stipulated Judgment may be more stringent than the rule and are omitted from proposed

rule 433.

5) A. Definitions, 1. i “Approved BACM”: This definition states that approved BACM includes the specific controls specified above, as well as equivalent methods approved by the APCO and EPA. Ordinarily, an air district rule does not specify that APCO decisions must be expressly ratified by EPA, so I am
inclined to recommend the EPA reference be deleted. However, if the Air Districtand EPA view this provision as allowing some expedited approval of additional BACM without having to go through a SIP revision, then it may be advantageous to keep it. LADWP and the Air District should discuss.

This provision is also used in South Coast AQMD Rule 403, Tables 2 & 3, which was

pr eviously approved by the US EPA in 2008 (73 FR 12639). It is intended to expedite the approval and implementation of new BACMs without going throug h the full SIP revision process. In the District’s opinion, a letter from EPA approving a new control method as

BACM would be sufficient to allow its use.

6) A. Definitions, 3. “Eligible Cultural Resource Area”: In light of the uncertainty of implementation of dust control measures in these areas, I suggest editing the language as follows: “‘Eligible Cultural Resource Area or ECR Area’ is an area
or areas where dust control measures will be have been ordered but may be implemented on a deferred schedule due to ...”

It is possible that new dust control areas under the contingency measure may include

additional ECR areas that have not been ordered for control. This definition will be changed as follows:

“ Eligible Cultural Resource Area or ECR Area” is an area or areas where dust control

measures will may be implemented on a deferred schedule due to the presence of significant cultural resources that make the areas eligible for listing under the California Register of Historic Resources

.

7) B. Requirements, 4: This paragraph specifies a deadline of December 31, 2017, for controlling the Phase 9/10 area (other than the ECR areas). In the Stipulated Judgment, this deadline is subject to the Force Majeure and Stipulat ed Penalties provisions. The rule needs to include these same relief valves.

The SJ provisions for force majeure and the stipulated penalties are not applicable to the US EPA and cannot be included in a federally approved rule. However, the District is bound by those provisions through the SJ and proposed BO. See response to comm ent
#1.

8) B. Requirements, 5: This paragraph concerns the use of TWB2, Brine Shallow Flooding or DWM as alternatives to BACM Shallow Flooding. The final sentence

states: “If TWB2, Brine Shallow Flooding or Dynamic Water Management do not
meet CE levels specified in Exhibit 2, the City shall implement BACM Shallow Flooding.” This appears to be absolute and self

- executing. There is no process for the Air District to determine and notify the City that the CE has not been met
and order re

- flood. There is also nothing about the time allowed to accomplish
the re

- flood. Additional detail should be added to conform the rule to theStipulated Judgment. The rule also should be consistent with the commitments in the Stipulated Judgment, Attachment C to reconsid er many of the criteria, triggers or values based on data following implementation of the alternative
controls. The Stipulated Judgment, Attachment C acknowledged that many of the criteria, triggers and values may be unnecessarily stringent. Freezing the criteria, triggers and values in the rule would be contrary to the intention of the parties in the Stipulated Judgment. The paragraph also should specify that re

flood may be partial.

By design, the application of TWB2, Brine BACM and DWM should achieve at least 99% control, which is sufficient to meet the control efficiency target for all MDCE are as. I f they fail to meet the performance criteria a re-flood order will be issued and the area will then need to comply with MDCE BACM cover requirements for shallow flooding. Following flooding, i f the APCO determines that the MDCE control efficiency target for shallow flood areas needs to be increased in order to prevent PM10 exceedances, then BO paragraph 12 will apply. Rule 433.B.5. will be revised as follows:

B.5. In areas containing infrastructure capable of achieving and maintaining compliant BACM Shallow Flooding the City may implement TWB 2 , Brine Shallow Flooding or Dynamic Water Management as alternatives to BACM Shallow Flooding or M DCE BACM shallow flooding. to achieve the CE levels specified in Exhibit 2

. If TWB 2 , Brine BACM or Dynamic Water Management do not meet CE levels specified in Exhibit 2 , the City shall implement BACM Shallow Flooding.

9) C. Contingency Measures, 1: This paragraph requires the District to determine at least annually whether additional lake bed areas require BACM in order for the
OVPA to attain or maintain the PM10 NAAQS. There is no sunset. It is not clear what happens under this provision once the Air District has ordered all the contingency measure controls allowed under the Stipulated Judgment. Note that it is unusual in a prohibitory rule for the District to impose mandatory requirements on itself. I recommend this paragraph simply be deleted. Dele tion will not take away any authority that the District already has.

Annual determinations under 433.C. ensure s that monitoring will continue at Owens

Lake and that air quality standards will be maintained in the future. This provision is applicable to the City since it means that new dust control orders may be issued as a result of these annual determinations.

10) C. Contingency Measures, 2: This paragraph states that if the District has not
demo nstrated attainment with the PM10 NAAQS on or before December 31, 2017, or has not met reasonable further progress, the District “shall order the City” to apply BACM PM10 Control Measures to areas of the lake bed that cause
or contribute to the exceedences

. This paragraph does not have any limit on the amount of additional or total square miles ordered for control, and Paragraph 4 is stated as “may order”, so it does not provide the same absolute cap as the Stipulated Judgment. Wording should be revised to be consistent with the cap inthe Stipulated Judgment. Also, the Stipulated Judgment provides that all additional controls will be waterless or water neutral, so this paragraph should likewise specify that the Air District may order and the City is obligated to implement only order waterless or water neutral controls.

To incorporate the 53.4 sq. mi. limitation and the use of waterless or water neutral

BACM , we will amend paragraphs 433.C.2 and 433.C.4 as follows:

C.2. If the District has not demonstrated attainment with the PM 10 NAAQS on or before December 31, 2017, or has not met reasonable further progress milestones, the District shall order the City to apply one or more BACM PM 10 Control Measures as set forth in Paragraphs A.2 and C.4 on those areas of the Owens Lake bed that cause or contribute to exceedances of the PM 10 NAAQS

.

C.4. The District may order the City to implement, operate and maintain a total of up to 53.4 square miles of waterless or water -neutral BACM PM 10 Control Measures on the Owens Lake bed below the Regulatory Shoreline (elev. 3,600 feet) and above the ordinary high water level of Owens Lake (elev. 3,553.55 feet).

11) C. Contingency Measures, 5: This paragraph specifies deadlines and control efficiency for contingency measure areas. There are several inconsistencies between this paragraph and the Stipulated Judgment. First, in the Stipulated Judgment, the deadline for contingency measures is subject to the Force Majeure and Stipulated Penalties provisions, and the rule needs to include these
same relief valves. Second, the Stipulated Judgment does not mandate a 99% control efficiency for all contingency measure areas. A lower CE may be sufficient to meet attainment, and the rule should not preclude the AP CO from establishing MDCE Areas within the contingency measure areas.

The SJ provisions for force majeure and the stipulated penalties are not applicable to the US EPA and cannot be included in a federally approved rule. However, the District is bound by those provisions through the SJ and proposed BO. See response to comment #1. Although the stipulated judgment does not mandate a 99% control efficiency for contingency measure areas, the 4.8 square mile limitation on areas that can be ordered for control should be conserved. It would not be advantageous to the District to order less than 99% control. For instance, if a 4.8 square mile source area caused a violation and 50% control might be adequate, the choices would be 1) order MDCE at 50% on the

entir e 4.8 sq. mi. and hope it is adequate, 2) order 99% control on the entire 4.8 sq. mi. and never worry about it again, or 3) order 99% control on the worst 2.4 sq. mi. and have 2.4 sq. mi. in reserve. Options 2 and 3 both require 99% control and provide assurance that the dust source will be adequately controlled.DWP SIP Comments (3-14-2016) Page 1 District Response - March 16, 2016 

### Document Article Comment District Response

1 Board Order

#160413-01 E 2 12 14 "..., and to meet the CAAQS at residences within communities zoned for residential use in the Inyo County General Plan Use Diagrams in accordance with District Rule 401.D (State Standard);" This language was introduce in February 2016 version. It is not consistent with the 2008 SIP, Section 7.7, Page 7-7, which states the following: "However, compliance with the state PM10 standard of 50 ug/m3 in the communities surrounding Owens Lake may require additional control measures. In order to help meet the state PM10 standard, the Board adopted District Rule 401.D in December 2006. This rule will require the City to implement dust

control measures in lake bed areas that cause or

contribute the monitored violations of the state PM10 standard in any community surrounding Owens Lake." The new proposed language greatly deviates from the scope of the SIP. This statement simply supports
the need for the SIP revision

because the current control
measures are insufficient to
attain the federal and state
standards. No change
suggested.

2 Board Order

#160413-01 I 3 7 8 Why was Order #130916-01 was left out? BO # 130916-01 will be added.

3 Board Order

#160413-01 J 3 13 14 Why was Order #130916-01 was left out? BO # 130916-01 will be added.

4 Board Order

#160413-01 K 3 20 21 It is not clear from this provision whether transitioning allowed under this requirement. Will change to allow transition
projects that have been
initiated to continue if there is a
stay or disapproval. 

### Pages Line LADWP Comments 03-14-2016DWP SIP Comments (3-14-2016) Page 2 District Response - March 16, 2016 

### Document Article Comment District Response Pages Line LADWP Comments 03-14-2016

5 Board Order

#160413-01 3.B 6 3 " 2013 Stipulated Abatement Order #130819-01"

should read "Board Order #130819-01". Including the term "2013
Stipulated Abatement Order"
before the BO number provides

additional context to
understand the basis for this
order. No change.

6 Board Order

#160413-01 6 6 20 Exhibit #2 is different from Fig. 5.7 of 2008 SIP. It reflects MDCE's that has been placed by LADWP, and not MDCE's that are required. In 2010, DWP requested that
the District change some of the

MDCE areas to 99% control to

allow those areas to be included
in the fall and spring shallow
flood ramping program (to save
water). If the MDCE control
efficiencies are allowed in the
SIP, then ramping will not be

allowed in these areas. No
change to Exhibit 2.

7 Board Order

#160413-01 8.A 7 2 3 "To provide the emission reductions necessary to
meet the NAAQS and State Standard in the OVPA" is not consistent with the 2014 Stipulated Judgment, Article 3, Page 7, which simply states "To provide the emission reduction necessary to meet the
NAAQS in the OVPA". Please remove the reference to State Standard in this part of the article. Meeting the state standard is
discussed in Section 6.4 of the
SIP. The 53.4 sq. mi. total area
that can be ordered for control

will be used to meet the state
and federal standard.DWP SIP Comments (3-14-2016) Page 3 District Response - March 16, 2016 

### Document Article Comment District Response Pages Line LADWP Comments 03-14-2016

8 Board Order

#160413-01 8.A 7 4 10 This provision appear to require the City to implement MDCE BACM PM10 control measures in addition to the 53.4 square miles of BACM Contingency Measures versus in lieu of. MDCE BACM will be removed
from this paragraph, since it is
already considered BACM in
paragraph 10. It incorrectly
implies that MDCE BACM is
different from BACM.

9 Board Order

#160413-01 8.C 7 18 Suggest replacing "At least once in every calendar year" to "from time to time". The phrase "from time to time"
provides a vague commitment
to determine if additional areas

need to be controlled. It is also
backsliding on the prior SIPs to

make determinations at least
once in every calendar year. No
change.

10 Board Order

#160413-01 8.D 8 2 Reference to "or State Standard" is not consistent with the Order #080128-01, Article B.7, Page 12. Article B.7, states that "...If possible, the City will have the choice of increasing the control efficiencies on existing dust control areas and/or controlling other contributing sources that will result in lowering the modeled impact below the 150 ug/m3 exceedance threshold." Meeting the state standard is
discussed in Section 6.4 of the

SIP and in CH&SC Section 42316
regarding the City of Los
Angeles. The reference you
provided is in BO 080128-01,
Attachment B, section B.7. This
lengthy provision was replaced
with this simpler version in 8.D.
to eliminate the dispute
resolution process in BO 080128-

01.DWP SIP Comments (3-14-2016) Page 4 District Response - March 16, 2016 

### Document Article Comment District Response Pages Line LADWP Comments 03-14-2016

11 Board Order

#160413-01 8.D 7 26 There is no basis for "State Standard" in the 2008 SIP or 2014 Stipulated Judgment for this requirement. Meeting the state standard is

discussed in Section 7.7 in the
2008 SIP, Section 6.4 in the

2016 SIP, and in CH&SC Section
42316 regarding the City of Los
Angeles. The 2014 SJ (para. 3)
regarding the 53.4 sq. mi cap
says, " Any BACM Contingency

Measure orders shall be based
on evidence presented to the

APCO that the area considered
for such order has caused or
contributed to an exceedance of

the NAAQS or State Standard."DWP SIP Comments (3-14-2016) Page 5 District Response - March 16, 2016 

### Document Article Comment District Response Pages Line LADWP Comments 03-14-2016

12 Board Order

#160413-01 8.D 8 7 There is no basis for "The APCO has sole discretion whether to approve or disapprove the application" in the 2008 SIP or 2014 Stipulated Judgment for this requirement. The City will not be contesting the District's determination but there is nothing about City's applications. BO 080128-01 Attachment D,
2008 Procedures for Modifying

BACM contains similar
language. The alternative was
the lengthy dispute resolution
process in Attachment B, which
was the process followed in the
SCRD appeal hearings and

culminated in the 2014 SJ.
Attachment D provides the
procedure for the City to submit
a written application to
demonstrate that impacts will
be reduced by increasing
controls in existing areas, and

the APCO has sole discretion to
approve or disapprove the
application.

13 Board Order

#160413-01 8.F 8 16 19 This provision leaves out Article 5.G of the 2014 Stipulated judgment which states that "The District will support the City's efforts to obtain such approvals in compliance with the law. The provision should state all and not just some of the parties

commitment. Attachment A to the proposed

BO contains the entire SJ.
Repeating all SJ provisions in
the BO is not necessary. The
District is committed to support
the City's efforts to get
approvals for the dust control

projects.DWP SIP Comments (3-14-2016) Page 6 District Response - March 16, 2016 

### Document Article Comment District Response Pages Line LADWP Comments 03-14-2016

14 Board Order

#160413-01 9.F.6 17 5 Please explain "less than once in a continuous sixyear period" This paragraph should be
compared to 9.F.5 which applies
to areas that are issued re-flood

orders more than once in 6
years. Paragraph 9.F.6 allows
the City to still have the spring
DWM period if they are issued a
re-flood order in the fall, as long
as they have less than one reflood order in a 6-year period.

15 Board Order

#160413-01 11.E 23 24 28 Please also add 6 to 36 months that is stated for stabilizing by other means under 2008 SIP Order, Attachment B, Exhibit 10, Page 16 of 17 The 3rd sentence in 11.E will be
revised to say, "If any of these

conditions are observed over
areas larger than one acre,
additional gravel will be
transported by the City to the
playa and applied to the playa
surface such that the original
performance standard is reestablished within four months
per square mile of gravel cover,
or within thirty-six months per
square mile of gravel cover if
replaced by different BACM
(such as shallow flooding or
managed vegetation), of written

notice from the APCO."DWP SIP Comments (3-14-2016) Page 7 District Response - March 16, 2016 

### Document Article Comment District Response Pages Line LADWP Comments 03-14-2016

16 Board Order

#160413-01 11.F 24 4 7 References have been to BACM for mitigating dust emissions from the City's gravel mining and transportation activities. In this document, BACM has been defined as Managed Vegetation, Gravel Cover and Shallow Flooding. Hence, such measures cannot be applied on mining and transportation activities. Please clarify what is meant by BACM under this provision. Will clarify "BACM for fugitive
dust sources" to distinguish this
from lakebed BACM, and will
reference the WRAP Fugitive

Dust Handbook, WGA, 2006.

17 Board Order

#160413-01 20 30 18 27 In order to be consistent with the 2014 Stipulated Judgment, the provision should read: "If there is a

material change in federal or state law.......The District shall also maintain its authority under Health & Safety Code Section 42316.......Board Order

#130916-01 , provided, however, that nothing in

this sentence authorizes the District to order the City to implement mitigation measures in contravention of the provisions in Paragraph

8.B of this Order

. See attached letter from District
to LADWP with analysis of
paragraph 20. No change to this
paragraph.

18 Rule 433 Rule 433 omits important terms that were included in the Stipulated Judgment concerning potential delays in installation and implementation of controls, specifically, the provisions concerning Force Majeure and Stipulated Penalties. These provisions were discussed

with EPA and determined to be
unapprovable at the federal

level. However, the District is
bound by the terms of the 2014
SJ including the provisions for
Force Majeure and stipulated
penalties. No change to the

rule.DWP SIP Comments (3-14-2016) Page 8 District Response - March 16, 2016 

### Document Article Comment District Response Pages Line LADWP Comments 03-14-2016

19 SIP S.4 S-3 1st Paragraph, states that "PM10 emissions in the OVPA are dominated by fugitive dust emissions resulting from wind erosion on the exposed Owens Lake playa." This statement should be revised to reflect the current emission inventory in Table S-2 which clearly reflects that PM10 emissions in the OVPA are no longer dominated by emissions from the exposed playa. PM10 emissions from the Keeler and Olancha Dunes System are over 10 times greater that those from exposed Owens Lake playa. Replace the first sentence with
the following, "In the last
century, PM10 emissions in the
OVPA were dominated by
fugitive dust emissions largely
from wind erosion on the
exposed Owens Lake playa.

These emissions have been on
the decline starting in 2002 with
the implementation of dust
control measures by the City of
Los Angeles, and is expected to

continue to decrease with

additional control measures
being implemented by the end
of 2017."

20 SIP S.4 S-3 3rd Paragraph, please explain the justification for utilizing near -exceedance to calculate the 24-hour PM10 concentration versus highest PM10 concentration that were used in previous SIPs. This section is a summary that
hits the high points contained in

the SIP. Readers that want to
know more are encouraged to
read past the summary. A
detailed explanation for the
BACM assessment approach is
in the body of the SIP and in
Appendix V.DWP SIP Comments (3-14-2016) Page 9 District Response - March 16, 2016 

### Document Article Comment District Response Pages Line LADWP Comments 03-14-2016

21 SIP S.4 S-4 1st Paragraph, states that "....For purpose of the significant source analysis .......The two-kilometer buffer has been applied..... at the monitors;" Please clarify whether there are any known discrete source

areas within the 2-kilometers wide buffer around Owens Lake. Also, please indicate whether the

District would order non-diffuse source area to be controlled if attainment is not achieved by December 31, 2017. The district has not identified

discrete dust source areas
within the 2-km buffer. They

are assumed to be intermittent

scattered. The district is
confident that once lake bed
dust controls are completed

PM10 will be winnowed out
from the off-lake areas that are
causing NAAQS violations at the
shoreline. This passive control
approach is the most cost
effective and feasible control
measure for these areas. There
are currently no plans for
implementing control measures
for these areas if the NAAQS are

not met.DWP SIP Comments (3-14-2016) Page 10 District Response - March 16, 2016 

### Document Article Comment District Response Pages Line LADWP Comments 03-14-2016

22 SIP S.5.1.1 S-6 5th Bullet, states that "The percentage of each area that must have substantially evenly distributed standing water or surface-saturated soil shall be based on the Shallow Flooding Control Efficiency Curve ..." There is no reference to subsequent

revisions based on Subarticle 5.2.4 of 2008 SIP (i.e., Shallow Flooding Wetness Cover Refinement Field Testing). For Section 6.2.1.1 - Shallow
Flooding BACM we will discuss
the procedures to refine the
shallow flood control efficiency

curve. This will summarize
section 5.2.4 of the 2008 SIP of
Shallow Flooding Operations
Refinements, provide a link to

BO 160413-01, Attachment D
for the test requirements, and
state that a shallow flood
control efficiency test was

started in 2015 and results are
expected in 2016. This will also
be inserted in a brief form into
the SIP summary.DWP SIP Comments (3-14-2016) Page 11 District Response - March 16, 2016 

### Document Article Comment District Response Pages Line LADWP Comments 03-14-2016

24 SIP S.6.1 S-11 The provision states that "In the same manner as

the off-lake dust source areas were created as a result of sand migration from the lake bed, the..". This provision should also reflect that these sand migration and off-lake dust source areas were not created in just the 100 years. Owens Lake was formed some 800,000 years ago by tectonic activity under a portion of the Owens River. The tectonic activity caused the underlying bedrock to tilt upward along a plain, which increased the outlet elevation by more than 200 feet and cause a large, terminal

inland lake to form behind the barrier. the surface level on Owens Lake has varied dramatically over its history, mostly in response to climate variation. During periods when the lake was dry (which occurred at least 6 times in the last 15,000 years - one event lasted more than 2,500 years), sand migrated across the former shorelines and fanned across the surrounding desert. Additionally, it can not simply be attributed to City even after commencement of water gathering activities without detail investigation. The off-lake dust source areas
that are of the most concern for

PM10 exceedances are those
that are adjacent to the lake
bed and were formed within the
last 100 years. Sands that have
been migrating for thousands of
years have fanned across the
shoreline and beyond
winnowing out much of the fine

dust that is PM10. Also, there is

less wind erosion in ancient
sand deposits in the Owens Lake
area where the surface has
been given time to stabilize with
vegetation or a desert
pavement of coarse sands and
pebbles as a result of the fine
dust winnowing process.

25 SIP S.6.4 S-14 LADWP has provided information in the past that monitors at Shorelines are affected/influenced by dust storms originating far to the north and south of

Owens Lake. Would the District like for LADWP to resubmit such information again? Quantitative evidence about
dust events that impact the
Owens Lake area is always

welcome.DWP SIP Comments (3-14-2016) Page 12 District Response - March 16, 2016 

### Document Article Comment District Response Pages Line LADWP Comments 03-14-2016

26 Appendix G The purpose of Appendix G appears to be a

determination that if on-lake sources are controlled sufficiently to meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), then off-lake sources will respond similarly and also meet the NAAQS. In this way the Owens Valley Planning Area (OVPA) would be protected from exceeding the NAAQS without controls on off-lake sources. The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) is concerned about several assumptions in Appendix

G. If the State Implementation Plan (SIP) actions do

not result in attainment or if the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) requires reasonable further progress, our interpretation of Appendix G is that the Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District (District) has concluded that LADWP would be obligated to control dust

emissions from off-lake dust sources that are not part of the Keeler and Olancha Dunes. There are currently no plans for
implementing control measures
for off-lake areas if the NAAQS

are not met. Nor has the District
considered a process for
determining who would be
responsible for implementing
dust controls in off-lake areas if
they were needed. However,
the District has agreed that the
City of Los Angeles will not be
responsible for controlling dust
from the Keeler, Olancha or

Swansea Dunes in the areas
shown on the map in the 2013
SIP Amendment, Exhibit 4.DWP SIP Comments (3-14-2016) Page 13 District Response - March 16, 2016 

### Document Article Comment District Response Pages Line LADWP Comments 03-14-2016

27 Appendix G (Cont'd) The 2013 Settlement Agreement exempts LADWP

from orders to control dust emissions from the Keeler and Olancha Dunes, but only for certain portions of each dune field. LADWP disagree with Appendix G’s conclusion that the dust that may

exist on the off-lake areas does or will exist there as a result of the City of Los Angeles’ water diversion activities in the past century. We are hopeful the District’s predictions are correct, and therefore in order to avoid a dispute over the liability issue at this time, LADWP requests that the District include a memorandum in the SIP that clarifies Appendix G and the BACM Analysis, stating that if off-lake sources become emissive and prevent the OVPA from reaching attainment in the future, the District will analyze and determine whether the emissions are attributable to the City of Los Angeles’ or another actor, or are naturally-occurring dust emissions that are subject to the Exceptional Events Policy. In determining liability, the District will employ appropriate scientific rigor and comply with all necessary legal requirements. The SIP limits the City of Los
Angeles' liability for dust control

measures to the Owens Lake
bed, and the District has agreed
that the City is not liable for
dust from the Keeler, Swansea
and Olancha Dunes, emanating
from the areas that were
mapped. These mapped
boundaries were negotiated
with the City in a Settlement
Agreement (June 25, 2013).
There are currently no plans for
implementing control measures
for off-lake areas if the NAAQS

are not met. Nor has the District
considered a process for
determining who would be
responsible for implementing
dust controls in off-lake areas if
they were needed.DWP SIP Comments (3-14-2016) Page 14 District Response - March 16, 2016 

### Document Article Comment District Response Pages Line LADWP Comments 03-14-2016

28 SIP S.6.4, 4.1,

Table 4.- 1, Table 4-2,

Table 4- 3, 5.2.2,

and 6.2.2 S14, 30, 31, 32, 35, 37, 38,

and

49 The dunes should be clarified as dune systems. Emission calculations are based
on the mapped areas for the

Keeler, Olancha and Swansea
Dunes and are distinctly
different from emission
calculations for areas in the 2
km band outside of the dune
boundaries. Using the term
dune system does not clarify
anything in the SIP, but muddies
the distinction in regard to the
mapped boundaries of the

Keeler, Swansea and Olancha
Dunes where the City has no
responsibility.

29 SIP 6.6 56 Cost and Employment - Questions regarding amortization over the next 25 years for $891 million expenditures. DWP is revising the cost
analysis they previously sent to

us. Written documentation is
needed to support any changes
to the cost and employment
section. As part of the cost
analysis they plan to include the
lost revenue from power
generation due to the diversion
of water to Owens Lake. This
should consider the power loss
downstream of the Owens Lake

diversion.District Response to LADWP SIP Comments (3

‐ 18

‐ 2016) 1 Phillip L. Kiddoo

Air Pollution Control Officer



## G REAT 

## B ASIN 

## U NIFIED 

## A IR 

## P OLLUTION 

## C ONTROL 

## D ISTRICT

157 Short Street, Bishop, California 93514

‐ 3537

Tel: 760

‐ 872

‐ 8211 E

‐ mail: pkiddoo @ g buap c d.o rg

April 4, 2016

Subject: District Responses to March 18, 2016 Ci ty of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (City) Comments

Comments submitted by the City are followe d by the District’s response shown in Times Roman italic font . The District added comment numbers to aid in tracking the comments.

Comment #1

In 2014

, the City of Los Angeles (City) Department of Water and Power (LADWP) and

the District (collectively

, Parties) reached a historic agreement to end disputes over

new dust mitigation orders for areas on Owens Lake and to limit future dust control

orders to no more than 53.4 square

‐ miles of lakebed

. The Parties ' agreement was captured in an enforceable court order i n a s t i pulate d judgment in the case of the
City of Los Angeles v. California Air Resources Board

, eta/

., Sacramento County
Superior Court Case No

. 34

‐ 2013

‐ 800001451

‐ CU

‐ WM

‐ GDS (Stipulated Judgment )

.

Section 11

. B

. of the Stipulated Judgment contemplated that the District would

prepare a State Implementation Plan revision consisting of the 2008 Owens Lake

PM 10 Planning Area Demonstration of Attainment State Implementation Plan Order (2008 SIP Order ) and the provisions of the Stipulated Judgment and limited any legal challenges by the City to "any new term that the City has not agreed to in
advance, and that is not contained in the 2008 SIP Order as modified by this Stipulated Judgment."

Nothing in the Stipulated Judgment or any previous agreements between the Parties

limits the ability of the City to comment on the 2016 Draft SIP Documents. By its very
nature, the Stipulated Judgment modified several terms of the 2008 SIP Order. For example, the District's decision to limit future lakebed dust mitigation orders to 53.4

square

‐ miles was an exercise of regulatory discretion based on its years of data collection

and air quality expertise. The 2008 SIP Order had nothing comparable within its terms.

LADWP understands the District intends to comply with the terms of the Stipulated Judgment that LADWP and the District crafted together. LADWP has taken several steps to

meet the obligations LADWP undertook under the Stipulated Judgment. We note theDistrict Response to LADWP SIP Comments (3

‐ 18

‐ 2016) 2 preamble to Proposed Board Order 160413

‐ 01 and the introductions to all the 2016 Draft

SIP Documents as the District's intention to use these documents to implement the terms

of the Stipulated Judgment.

As you know, a key term that was essential to the City's endorsement of the Stipulated Judgment was the District's exercise of its regulatory authority when it agreed to Paragraph

3.B. of the Stipulated Judgment, which states "except for the 4

. 8 square

‐ mile BACM
Contingency Measure area and any area re

‐ ordered for control under Paragraph 2.B of this Judgment, the District shall not issue any further orders for mitigation measures to the City

under Section 42316 or any other law, including but not limited to SCRDs, requiring the City

to control windblown dust emissions (including PM 10 , PM 2.5 or any speciated components or products of PM) from any areas on the dried Owens Lake bed beyond the combined 53.4

square

‐ miles. The provisions in this paragraph do not apply to fee orders issued to the City

under Section 42316, or any orders for areas that are not on the dried Owens Lake bed."

Stipulated Judgment Recital Z states: "Based on data collected, the 2011, 2012, 2013 and

2014 SCRDs, modeling and experience by the District to date, the District estimate s that the City's control of dust emissions by applying BACM to 48.6 square ‐ miles of the dried Owens

Lake bed, and the District's control of dust emissions from the adjacent Keeler Dunes will

reduce emissions in the OVPA such that it can attain the NAAQS. Further monitoring and

data collection will be needed to confirm the estimates of attainment." The District used its

air quality expertise and determined that mitigation o f 48.6 square

‐ miles of the lakebed

would cause the region to meet air quality standards and it planned for mitigation on an
additional 4.8 square

‐ miles as a contingency measure if the original estimate was wrong.

The Stipulated Judgment governs the actions of the City and the District as set forth in Paragraph 18.C, which provides that "[b]y executing this Stipulated Judgment, each of the

Parties acknowledges and agrees that the rights and remedies provided in this Stipulated Judgment shall be the sole and exclusive rights and remedies surviving as between and

among the Parties hereto relating to the subject matter of this Stipulated Judgment."

Response #1 Comments regarding the 2014 Stipulated Judgment are noted. The City has not correctly quoted Paragraph 11.B of the Stipulated Judgment. It dele tes the first part of the sentence in its quote: “The City shall support and not c hallenge the adoption of the [2016 ] SIP Order by the District Governing Board, CARB and EPA, except that the City may challenge any new term that the City has not agreed to in advance, and that is not cont ained in the 2008 SIP Order as modified by this Stipulated Judgment.” Here, the District has re vised the 2008 SIP to in corporate the terms of the Stipulated Judgment. Under these circumstan ces, and as directed by the Court’s order, the City shall support and not chal lenge the adoption of the 2016 SIP Order by the District Governing Board. In addition, Paragraph 10.C of the Stipulated Judgment also applies as follows:District Response to LADWP SIP Comments (3

‐ 18

‐ 2016) 3 The City shall not appeal or contest th e 2015 [2016] SIP Orde r that contain the terms of this Stipulated J udgment now or in the future in any administrative or judicial forum , under any law, statute or legal theory whatsoever including CEQA or Section 42316, and agrees that th e terms of that 2015 SIP Order are valid and reasonable under [Health and Safety Code] Section 42316.

Responding to City’s comments re garding Paragraph 3.B, the District retains its authority to require additional controls to co mply with federal and state law if there is a change in the law, or for areas that are not covered by the Stip ulated Judgment or other agreements. This was detailed in a letter from th e District to the LADWP dated March 9, 2016 (see Attachment A). Based upon subsequent communications, we unde rstand LADWP accepts the analysis in this

letter.

Proposed Board Order 160413

‐ 01:

Comment #2

General Comment 1

‐ The provisions of the Stipulated Judgment have been selectively

modified or left out in Proposed Board Order 160413

‐ 01, which significantly broadens

the District's enforcement actions without a recourse venue for the City to appeal such

actions.

Response #2

This is incorrect. The 2014 Stipulated Judgment is included as Attachment A to the proposed board order. Paragr aph 21 of the board order states:

“This Board Order consists of the 2008 SIP Order as modified by the 2013 SIP Amendment and the Stipulated Judgment. The Stipulated Judgment is attached hereto as Attachment A, and its terms are incorporated into this Board Order as if fully set forth herein.”

Repeating all provisions cont ained in the Stipulated J udgment in the board order is unnecessary, since it is attached to the order in its entirety. See also Paragraph 10.C of the Stipulated Judgment cited above.

Comment #3

An example of these unilateral modifications can be found in Paragraph 8.A of Proposed

Board Order 160413

‐ 01 which states: "[t]o provide the emission reduction necessary to

meet the NAAQS and State Standard in the OPVA, the APCO may order the City on or any

time after January 1, 2016, to implement BACM PM 10 control measures or MDCE BACM

PM 10 control measures on additional areas on the dried Owens Lake bed from those implemented under Paragraph 1

‐ 3 of this order (BACM Contingency Measures) ."These

modifications that are highlighted in bold significantly exceed the scope and limit of the carefully negotiated and agreed upon provisions in the Stipulated Judgmen t for theDistrict Response to LADWP SIP Comments (3

‐ 18

‐ 2016) 4 following reasons:

o In the corresponding Paragraph 3.A of the Stipulated Judgment, the Air Pollution

Control Officer (APCO) may consider exceedance of the National Ambient Air Quality

Standards (NAAQS) or State Standard; however, APCO can only order the City to implement Best Available Control Measures (BACM) Contingency Measures solely

based on exceedances of NAAQS with any further recourse or appeal.

o It also appears that a new Minimum Dust Control Efficiency ( MDCE ) BACM PM 10 Control Measure category has been established, requiring control by the City beyond the 53.4 square

‐ mile limit contained in the Stipulated Judgment. The 0.5

square

‐ mile Channel Area, for example, was not included in any prior dust control

order on Owens Lake.

Response #3 The Stipulated Judgment provides for meeti ng the state standard as well as the NAAQS. Paragraph 3 states,

"Any BACM Contingency Measure orders shall be based on evidence presented to the APCO that the area considered for such order has caused or contributed to an exceedance of the NAAQS or State Standard."

Paragraph 8.A of the proposed Board Order incorrectly implied that MDCE BACM was different from BACM, which could be misint erpreted in regards to its inclusion or exclusion in the 53.4 square-mile dust contro l cap on the lake bed. Paragraph 8.A is proposed to be modified by striking MDCE BACM PM 10 control measures as follows:

“To provide the emission reductions necessa ry to meet the NAAQS and State Standard in the OVPA, the APCO may order the City on or any time after January 1, 2016 to implement BACM PM 10 control measures or MDCE BACM PM 10 control measures on additional areas on the dried Owens Lake bed from those implemented under Paragraphs 1-3 of this order (BACM Contingency Measures ). The City may be ordered to implement BACM Contingency Measures such that the total area wher e the City shall implement

BACM PM 10

controls is up to 53.4 square miles, and the City shall comply with those orders without appeal. These control areas need not be contiguous.”

The City incorrectly contends that the 0.5 square-mile Channel Area was not previously ordered on Owens Lake, and that requiring controls for th e Channel Area under this order would require them to control areas beyond the 53.4 square-mi le lake bed cap. The Channel Area was ordered for control in 2008 and it is already included in the 53.4 square-mile limit. Board Order 080128-01, paragraph 4 states:

“Channel Area PM 10 controls – A 0.5 square-mile area of natural drainage channels on the south area of the Owens Lake bed is known as the “Channel Area” and is delineated in Exhibit 1. The City shall control PM 10 emissions from the Channel Area byDistrict Response to LADWP SIP Comments (3

‐ 18

‐ 2016) 5 implementing and operating BACM, modified-BAC M or alternative non-BACM controls approved by the District’s Air Pollution Contro l Officer (APCO), that take into account

the resource issues in the Channel Area, by April 1, 2010.”

See also Paragraph 10.C of the Stipulated Judgment cited above.

Comment #4

An example of supportive provisions that are left out can be seen in exclusion of "[t]he

District will support the City's efforts to obtain such approvals in compliance with the law" as provided in Paragraph 5.G of the Stipulated Judgment in the Paragraph 8.F of Proposed

Board Order 160413

‐ 01.

Exclusion of supportive provisions are very apparent in the Proposed Board

Order 160413

‐ 01 especially when counting the number of times that enforcement

statements such as "[t]he City shall be solely responsible", or "[t]he APCO has sole

discretion whether to approve or disapprove", or "[t]he City shall not appeal or contest"

are incorporated and repeated in the main body versus being delegated to reference

sections.

Hence, LADWP requests that relevant provisions in the Proposed Board Order 160413

‐ 01

to exactly mirror the provisions of the Stipulated Judgment without further modifications.

This request is in line with the District Governing Board's action in 2013 in which the
provisions of the 2013 Settlement Agreement and Release were fully and without

modifications incorporated in Board Order No. 110317

‐ 01.

Response #4 As stated in response to comme nt #2, repeating all provisions contained in the Stipulated Judgment in the board order is unnecessary, sinc e the Stipulated Judgment is included as

Board Order Attachment A.

It is essential that an enfor ceable board order contain the key provisions clarifying the roles of the parties, the expectations fo r compliance, and any matters that may be contested in case of devia tions in compliance. In regards to paragraph 5.G. of the Stipulated Judgment, the District regularly par ticipates in meetings with the California State Lands Commission and other parties in order to support the City’s efforts to implement water saving dust control measur es such as Tillage with BACM back-up, dynamic water management, gravel BACM and brine BACM. The District remains committed to help with the City’s efforts to obtain approval for BACM dust control

measures at Owens Lake.

See also Paragraph 10.C of the Stipulated Judgment cited above.

Comment #5

Paragraph K, Page 3, Lines 20 ‐ 21

‐ Please clarify whether transitioning is allowedDistrict Response to LADWP SIP Comments (3

‐ 18

‐ 2016) 6 under this requirement.

Response #5 Will change paragraph K of the proposed Board Order to allow transition projects that have been initiated to continue if there is a stay or disapproval of the Board Order.

“WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 172(e) of the Cl ean Air Act, to prevent the deterioration of air quality due to dismantling or “backslid ing” on control measur es that have already been implemented before any such stay or dis approval, the District intends that the City shall continue to operate and maintain all control measures that are operational or implemented , or were in the process of transit ioning to a different control measure at the time of any such stay or disapproval without interrup tion, unless and until a further Order of the District allows for such interruption;”

Comment #6 Paragraph E, in parts, states that "..., and to meet the CAAQS at residences within

communities zoned for residential use in the Inyo County General Plan Use Diagrams in

accordance with District Rule 401.0 (State Standard)". This requirement without

clarification as specified in Section 7.7 of the 2008 SIP Order vastly expands the applicability of the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) beyond the

communities surrounding Owens Lake.

Hence, LADWP requests that the clarification similar to the clarification in Section 7.7 of

the 2008 SIP Order, which states "in any community surrounding Owens Lake" be added

to this provision.

Response #6 Paragraph E, duplicates langua ge in Rule 401.D. which does not mention “in any community surrounding Owens Lake.” In pr actical terms, this exclusion does not expand the applicability of the playa dust controls to m eet the state standard to all Inyo County communities. This is because if any Owens Lake dust controls are needed to meet the state standard, it would be tr iggered by high monitored impacts at

communities near Owens Lake and not at communities farther downwind where dust

concentrations would be orders of magnitude lower due to disp ersion. Just as provided in the 2008 SIP, proposed SI P section 6.4 currently incl udes the City’s requested language regarding meeting the state standard,

“The Board adopted District Rule 401.D in December 2006, which requires the City to implement dust control measures in lake bed ar eas that cause or contribute to monitored violations of the state PM 10 standard in any community surrounding Owens Lake.”

Comment #7

Exhibit 2, Dust Control Efficiency Map ‐ The proposed Exhibit 2 is different from FigureDistrict Response to LADWP SIP Comments (3

‐ 18

‐ 2016) 7 5.7 of the 2008 SIP Order as shown in the enclosed map, entitled "Difference in Control Efficiency (CE) or CE Boundaries between 2016 SIP and 2008 SIP". The proposed Exhibit

2 mandates significantly higher Control Efficiencies (CE) and MDCEs on nine (9) square

‐ miles of Owens Lake playa than had been previously specified in the District's 2011,
2012, 2013 and 2014 Supplemental Control Requirements Determinations.

Response #7 The City does not appear to find fault with the change in control efficiency, but an explanation of the differences may provide a better understanding of the history of dust controls at Owens Lake. The differences between the control efficiencies in 2008 SIP Figure 5.7 and Exhibit 2 in the proposed board order can be attributed to four changes that have taken place since 2008;

1. Areas that were originally intended to be controlle d through Moat & Row with less than 99% control efficiency were not constructed because the City was unable to get the necessary approval for their construction. Fa ilure to meet the April 1, 2010 dust control deadline resulted in those areas being required to implement BACM with 99% control ef ficiency. (BO #080128-01, Para. 3) These areas,

which became known as the Phase 7a ar eas were completed in December 2015.

2. Gravel BACM with 100% control efficie ncy was implemented on 2.0 square miles to provide emission offsets under a variance granted for the Phase 7a areas after missing the April 1, 2010 deadline. Th e gravel area was not identified as a significant dust source area until 2010 and therefore it was not included in 2008 SIP Figure 5.7. Areas that were converte d from shallow flood to gravel also had control efficiencies increased from 99% to 100% in the 2016 SIP.

3. To reduce water use in sha llow flood areas, the City requested that some areas that were required to have less than 99% control efficiency be changed to 99% to

allow those areas to be included in the fall and spring shallow flood ramping program. (See proposed BO at 9.C.ii re garding shallow fl ood ramping in 99% control efficiency areas.) These shallo w flood areas have been operated at 99% control efficiency since fall 2012.

4. Phase 9 and 10 areas, which are required to be completed by December 2017 are included in the Exhibit 2 map. These ar eas were not anticipated when the 2008 SIP Figure 5.7 map was created. These new dust control areas are expected to have 99% control efficiency BACM.

The map in Attachment B shows the differen ces in the 2008 and 2016 dus t control efficiency

areas.

Comment #8

LADWP has been mitigating dust emissions from some of the areas on Owens Lake playaDistrict Response to LADWP SIP Comments (3

‐ 18

‐ 2016) 8 under higher

‐ than

‐ required MDCEs for operations purposes and to comply with fall and
spring shouldering requirements of the 2008 SIP Order. LADWP currently anticipates
continuing operating at these higher

‐ than ‐ required levels; however, it retains the right to

revert at any time to the required lower MDCEs. LADWP is working on developing plans

which will remove the current operational restrictions which will enable it to continue to comply with fall and spring shouldering requirements while continuing to operate other adjacent areas at the required lower MDCEs. Additionally, it appears that the required protocols for modifying MDCEs have not been followed as specified in the 2006 Settlement
Agreement.

Hence, LADWP requests to retain the MDCE Selection Process that was mutually agreed

upon in the 2006 Settlement Agreement and incorporated into the 2008 SIP Order as
Attachment A.

For the Owens Lake Dust Mitigation Program ‐ Phase 1 through 7 Projects, the required

CEs are shown in Figure 5.7 of the 2008 SIP Order. For Owens Lake Dust Mitigation
Program ‐ Phase 8, 9, and 10 Projects, the required CEs are all uniformly at 99 percent.

Furthermore, LADWP welcomes the District's suggestion for modifying the MDCE Selection

Process spreadsheet in order to accommodate future changes in either CEs or dust control

area boundaries.

Response #8 The 2008 SIP included an EXCEL spreadsheet that could be used to adjust control efficiency targets in MDCE areas while still preventing modeled air quality exceedances at the Regulatory Shoreline. (BO #080128-01, Attachment A – Settlement Agreement, Exhibit 6) However, changes to the target MDCEs were requi red to be made prior to April 1, 2010, so the application of the MDCE spreadsheet had a li mited life. Section 4 of the 2006 Settlement Agreement states:

“Prior to April 1, 2010, the Target MDCEs may be modified, upon request of the City and written approval of the APCO, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, if the modified MDCEs meet the criteria set forth in the MDCE Selection Process Spreadsheet, attached as Ex hibit 6, pursuant to Section 3.”

The application period for use of the MDCE spreadsheet expired April 1, 2010, and would not be appropriate for current or future conditions at Owens Lake.

Com ment #9 Paragraph 8.D, Page 8, Line 7

‐ Paragraph 8.D partly states that "[t]he APCO has sole

discretion whether to approve or disapprove the application". There is no basis for this

mandate in the 2008 SIP Order or 2014 Stipulated Judgment. The City understands and will

not contest the District's determination but there is nothing about the City's applications.District Response to LADWP SIP Comments (3

‐ 18

‐ 2016) 9 Hence, LADWP requests that statement such as "which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld" be added to the said provision.

Response #9 Paragraph 8.I. applies to all provisions of c ontingency measures ordered under Section 8 and it requires the submittal of a Remedial Action Plan which includes the written application under 8.D. It in cludes the requested language.

“Within 60 days of the date that the APC O orders the City to implement the BACM Contingency Measures, the City shal l prepare and submit for the APCO’s consideration and written approval, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, a Remedial Acti on Plan (RAP) that specifies the type and location of BACM to be installed and provides for the full and timely completion of those

measures.”

Comment #10 Paragraph 11.E, Page 23, Lines 2 4

‐ 2 8

‐ Please also add 6 to 36 months that is stated for stabilizing by other means under the 2008 SIP Order, Attachment B, Exhibit 10, Page 16 of

17.

Response #10 Paragraph 11.E of the proposed board order has been revised as indicated below.

“The gravel placement design and implementati on shall adequately protect the graveled areas from the deposition of wind- and water- borne soil, settling of gravel into lakebed sediments or infiltration of se diments from below. All gravel ed areas will be visually monitored by the City at least annually to ensu re that the Gravel Bl anket is not filled with sand, dust or salt and that it has not been inundated or washed out from flooding. If any of these conditions are observed over ar eas larger than one acre, additional gravel will be transported by the City to the playa and applied to the playa surface such that the original performance standard is re-established within four months of written notice from the APCO per square mile of gravel cover , or within thirty-s ix months per square mile of gravel cover if replaced by di fferent BACM (such as shallow flooding or managed vegetation), of written notice from the APCO

. The City may comment upon the APCO’s determination, but shall not appeal or contest that determination in any administrative or judicial forum, under any law, statute or legal theory whatsoever including Health & Safety Code Section 42316.”

Comment #11 Paragraph 11.F, Page 24, Lines 4

‐ 7 ‐ Paragraph 11.F specifies the use of "BACM" for
mitigating dust emissions from the City's gravel mining and transportation activities. In
previous State Implementation Plans, BACM was defined as Managed Vegetation, Gravel

Cover, or Shallow Flooding, and only applied to Owens Lake playa source areas. TheDistrict Response to LADWP SIP Comments (3

‐ 18

‐ 2016) 10 Proposed 2016 SIP should define BACM in the context of gravel mining and
transportation activities.

Response #11

Paragraph 11.F of the proposed board order has been revised as indicated below.

“The City shall apply BACM for fugitive dust sources (see WRAP Fugitive Dust Handbook, Western Governors’ Association, 2006) and New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) emission limits to its gr avel mining and transportation activities occurring within the District’s geographic boundar ies as required by the District in the City’s District-issued Authority to Construct and Permit to Operate.”

Comment #12 Paragraph 20, Page 30

‐ Paragraph 20 is not consistent with the Stipulated Judgment. In

order to be consistent with the Stipulated Judgment, the provision should read: "If there

is a material change in federal or state law .......The District shall also maintain its authority under Health & Safety Code Section 42316 .......Board Order No. 130916

‐ 01, provided, however, that nothing in this sentence authorizes the District to order the City

to implement mitigation measures in contravention of the provisions in Paragraph 8.8 of

this Order".

Response #12 See the letter from the District to LADW P (Kiddoo to Harasick, March 9, 2016) in

Attachment A which contains an analysis of paragraph 20. Based upon subsequent communications, we understand LADWP accepts the analysis in this letter. No change to this paragraph.

Proposed 2016 SIP:

Comment #13

Section S.4, Page S

‐ 3, Paragraph 1

‐ Section S.4 states that " PM 10 emissions in the OVPA are
dominated by fugitive dust emissions resulting from wind erosion on the exposed Owens

Lake playa." This statement should be revised to reflect the current emission inventory in

Table S

‐ 2 which clearly reflects that PM 10 emissions in the Owens Valley Planning Area (OVPA) are no longer dominated by emissions from the exposed playa. According to Table

S

‐ 2, PM 10 emissions from the Keeler and Olancha Dunes System are now over 10 times

greater than those from exposed Owens Lake playa.

Response #13 This sentence in Section S.4 will be replaced with the following,

"In the last century, PM 10 emissions in the OVPA were dominated by fugitive dustDistrict Response to LADWP SIP Comments (3

‐ 18

‐ 2016) 11 emissions largely from wind erosion on the exposed Owens Lake playa. These emissions have been on the decline starting in 2002 with the im plementation of dust control measures by the City of Los Angeles, and is expected to continue to decrease

with additional control measures be ing implemented by the end of 2017."

Comment #14

Section S.4, Page S

‐ 3, paragraph 3

‐ Please explain the justification for basing the emission
inventory, and therefore the PM 10 control strategy, on a near ‐ exceedance day rather than

the maximum PM 10 concentration day used in other State Implementation Plans. By definition, a near

‐ exceedance day is one that marginally exceeds the federal NAAQS.

Shouldn't the PM 10 attainment control strategy be based on the maximum

‐ day PM 10 concentration day, or some variation of the maximum such as the fourth highest PM 10 concentration day?

Appendix V of the Proposed 2016 SIP does not offer a direct answer to this and subsequent attainment questions.

Response #14 The near-exceedance day sele ction and the design-day sele ction have two different purposes that can be found in the BACM analysis discussions and the modeled attainment

demonstration in the SIP.

The near-exceedance day was se lected for the purpo se of evaluating emissions from PM 10 sources to determine wh ich source categories had signific ant emissions and were required to have BACM applied in accor dance with EPA gui dance. This is discussed in SIP Chapter 4 and Appendix V-1.

The design day is based on the monitored concentrations at each site and depends on how many years monitoring was conducted durin g the period from 2009-2014. For a monitor site that operated for five yea rs, the sixth highest value is the design co ncentration used for

the attainment demonstra tion. If only two years of data were available, then the third highest monitored conc entration would be used for the de sign day at that site. For attainment demonstration pur poses, the SIP contro l strategy is acce ptable if the model shows that after the application of control me asures the forecasted design day at each

monitor location has been reduced to a le vel below the NAAQS. See SIP chapter 7 and Appendix VII-1.

Comment #15

Section S.4, Page S

‐ 4, Paragraph 1

‐ This Section states that " ...For purpose of the significant

source analysis

....... The two

‐ kilometer buffer has been applied

.. . at the monitors..." This
assumption is inconsistent with the 2008 SIP Order, which implies that a "...strong source

‐ receptor relationship" for playa sources extends as far away as 10 or 15 kilometers from the

PM 10 monitors (roughly one ‐ third to one

‐ half of the length of Owens Lake; see 2008 SIPDistrict Response to LADWP SIP Comments (3

‐ 18

‐ 2016) 12 Order, page 4

‐ 9, items 6 and 8). All of the existing dust mitigation facilities on Owens Lake

were identified using data conforming with these two distance criteria.

In a March 17, 2016, conference call with LADWP, the District clarified its position that the
impacts of sand motion from the Owens Lake playa are limited to a distance of two

kilometers from the shoreline. If this clarification is still valid, please reflect such

clarification in the main body of the document.

Response #15 The statements contained in the SIP regarding of f-lake sources in the 2 km buffer accurately reflect the understanding of the District staf f, which is that our monitoring and modeling analysis indicate that except for the Keeler and Olancha Dune s, emissions from off-lake

sources more than 2 kilometers away from the shoreline do not have a significant impact on achieving attainment. This is because emission sources that are near the monitor sites have a much higher impact on monitor concentrati ons than sources located further away. It would be a misinterpretation of our expl anation during the March 17, 2015 conference call to say “the impacts of sand motion from the Owens Lake playa are limited to a distance of two kilometers from the shoreline.”

Comment #16

Section S.6.1, Page S

‐ 11 ‐ This Section states: ”In the same manner as the off ‐ lake dust source

areas were created as a result of sand migration from the lake bed, the ECR areas will have

less sand migration from the adjacent areas after dust controls are in place and it is expected

that emissions will be reduced as dus t is winnowed from the loose sand deposits." This paragraph should acknowledge that off

‐ lake dust source areas were not just created in the

last 100 years. Owens Lake was formed some 800,000 years ago by tectonic activity under a portion of the Owens River. The tectonic activity caused the underlying bedrock to tilt upward along a plain, which increased the outlet elevation by more than 200 feet and

caused a large, terminal inland lake to form behind the barrier. The surface level on Owens

Lake has varied dramatically over its history, mostly in response to climate variation. When

the water was high, sandy beaches and beach dune deposits formed around its perimeter

due to a combination of wind and wave action (and flash flooding on the alluvial fans). During periods when the lake was dry, which occurred at least 6 times in the last 15,000 years (one

event lasted more than 2,500 years), sand migrated across the former shorelines and fanned

across the surrounding desert. Not all sand deposits around Owens Lake are strictly Aeolian (i.e., windblown) in origin. Many of the dune systems surrounding Owens Lake lie at the

distal end of alluvial fans emanating from the Coso and lnyo Mountains, suggesting that

water and sediment load from flash floods plays a significant role in stabilizing, if not forming, dunes. The history of Owens Lake is well documented in numerous published

scientific reports, including: Bacon et al. 2006; Benson et al. 2001, 2002; Gale 1915; Grayson
1993, 2000; Li et al. 2000; Lee 1915; Mihevc et al. 1997; and Orme and Orme 2008.

Sand accumulation in near

‐ shoreline areas cannot be attributed solely to the City's waterDistrict Response to LADWP SIP Comments (3

‐ 18

‐ 2016) 13 gathering activities in the last 100 years. Additional, detailed scientific investigations are
needed to understand the relative contribution of the exposed Owens Lake playa versus
other sources, including those occurring in both modern and prehistorical times.

Response #16 As noted by the LADWP, the history of Owen s Lake has been studied by many different researchers resulting in an extensive library of scientific papers and report s. Review of these reports and work conducted in the area shows that the geologic history of Owens Lake is long and complicated. The statement by LADWP that th e “off-lake dust source areas were not just created in the last 100 years” is only partially true and does not recognize the complicated history of the Owens Lake area. Other than sh ort-term temporary sources created by flash flooding events, all of the off-la ke sources consist of active and mobile sand dune and sand sheet deposits formed since the recent historic desiccation of Owens Lake.

The sand dune areas around the Owens Lake shorelands were not all formed at the same time or in the same manner. Age dating and geomor phic mapping of the different dune systems around Owens Lake show that the dunes can be divided into older stable vegetated paleo-dunes and younger active mobile dunes and sand sheets. Although the material forming the older and younger dunes is similar, namely sa nd, the age character of the di fferent aged dunes is different and distinct. These two set of de posits did not form at the same time or in the same manner and should not be lumped together. The active mobile sands that form most of the off-lake sources are modern deposits that formed quickly due to the recent desiccation of Owens Lake within the last 100+ years.

The history of Owens Lake can be divided into two main periods. The first period, began over 140,000 years ago and extends to the late 1800s when large-scale human water diversions began. During the first period, the level of ancient Owens Lake changed naturally in response to climatic and hydrologic conditions and regional tectonic activ ity. Even though Owens Lake is thought to have completely desiccated during this period it dried at a natural rate and geologic evidence suggests that material moving off of the lake bed wa s deposited in the paleo-dune systems associated with shore line features around the lake bed and not into large mobile dunes or sand sheets. These paleo-dune systems ar e present in many of the shoreland areas surrounding the north, east and southern sides of current Owens Lake and are characterized by the presence of stable vegeta tion and dune ridge morphology w ith the dune ridge orientation parallel to subparallel w ith shoreline features.

The second period in Owens Lake history co vers the last approx imately 130 years since European-Americans began large-scale water dive rsions in the Owens Valley. During this period the level of Owens Lake did not change natu rally but instead the main source of water into the lake (the Owens River) was essentially sh ut off instantaneously ca using desiccation at a highly accelerated rate leaving a highly unstable lake bed exposed to wind erosion. As a result of this, large volumes of material were trans ported off of the lake bed into the surrounding environment. This mass movement of material overwhelmed the existi ng conditions in many areas around the lake shore forming significa nt active sand deposits. Unlike the preserved paleo-dune systems, these younger modern sand deposits form highly mobile broad sand sheetsDistrict Response to LADWP SIP Comments (3

‐ 18

‐ 2016) 14 and dune deposits covering portions of the surrounding alluvial f ans with features that are largely perpendicular to the preserved shorelines.

The significant sand deposits present in the Ow ens Lake area were deposited by aeolian, fluvial and lacustrine processes and not from flooding on th e alluvial fans. This is supported by the particle size distribution and sor ting, sedimentary stru ctures present as well as the mineral composition. The mineral composition of the sand in both the paleo and modern dunes around the lake bed indicate a source fr om the Owens River and not from th e alluvial fans coming out of the Inyo or Coso Mountains. Sedimentary stru ctures in the dune deposits show well developed laminar to cross-bedded structures indicative of aeolian activity and not alluvial deposition.

However, in many of the dune areas that are present on the shor elands of Owens Lake there are deposits of flood silts. The silt deposits occur as a series of separated patches

that are either interbedded with aeolian sands or form a cap on underlying sands of aeolian origin. Contacts between the fl ood silts and the underlying aeolian sands are sharp and represent a clear unconformity. The surface of the silts exhibits polygonal crack systems, which developed as the water body dried out. The flood silts are thought to be the distal end point of floodwate rs from alluvial fans that head in the Inyo and Coso Mountains. The flood silts were deposited by silt-laden water flows, which were dammed at their lower extent by sm all pre-existing stable dunes.

For more information about the geologic hi story of Owens Lake see SIP Section 2.2.1.1 and the cited references.

Comment #17

Section S

‐ 6.4, Page S

‐ 14

‐ LADWP has provided information in the past that shoreline

monitors are affected/influenced by dust storms originating far to the north and south of

Owens Lake. The evidence is clear: regional scale dust storms cause PM 10 exceedances at

the shoreline monitors. This fact is not addressed anywhere in the Proposed 2016 SIP.

Response #17 The City has submitted anecdotal evidence of regional dust sources, however, quantitative evidence is needed to evaluate the impact of th ose dust sources at monitor sites near Owens Lake and how those sources affect attainment with the NAAQS. Observations at Owens Lake show the highest monitored PM 10 impacts are caused by source areas on and near the Owens Lake bed. Monitoring data in the Owens Valley shows that occasional regional dust events do occur, but an analysis of PM 10 monitor data from upwind and downwind of Owens

Lake shows that PM 10 from upwind sources are overwhelme d by the sources closest to the

lake bed.

Comment #18

Section 6.6, Page 56

– The District’s cost analysis which are based on the past 15 years of

dust mitigation on Owens Lake assumes that the facilities that have been constructedDistrict Response to LADWP SIP Comments (3

‐ 18

‐ 2016) 15 since 2000 will last for another 25 years, and hence, the costs are amortized in that

manner. The District’s cost analysis does not adequately account for following significant charges:

o Life expediency of constructed facilities ‐ The facilities are not expected to last up

to 40 years as assumed in the analysis, especially in the harsh environment of

Owens Lake. This is anticipated the facilities needs to be replaced or upgraded

every 20 to 25 years;

o Cost of the Water ‐ Future cost of the water is anticipated to double in the next five

years partly due to inflation rates and environmental regulations. For example, the

cost of untreated water in 2004 ranged from $326 to $407 per acre

‐ foot. In 2016,

the cost of untreated water ranges from $594 to $728 per acre

‐ foot;

o Higher labor and material charges;

o Replacement cost of existing construction maintenance equipment;

o Tougher labor and environmental regulations effecting the permitting and replacement costs of such facilities;

o Loss of Power Generation Revenue ‐ LADWP generates power from the water that

is exported to the City from Eastern Sierra through several hydropower generating

stations. In 2016, the loss of generation amounts to reduction in power generation

revenue of $106 per acre

‐ feet; and

o Increased cost of habitat monitoring and compliance reporting.

Hence, LADWP requests that exclusion of such valid charges be recognized in this section,

and LADWP is willing to work with the District to properly account for such charges prior to

consideration and adoption of the Proposed 2016 SIP.

Response #18 The cost analysis for Owens Lake dust control projects contained in the SIP is based on information provided by LADW P. (LADWP, 2015b) The information provided in this comment is noted, and the District would be glad to wo rk with the City when documentation can be provided to support the basis for these costs.

The purpose of the cost analysis is to estimate the cost per ton of PM 10

controlled to determine if it is reasonable when com pared to the cost effectiven ess values for other approved PM 10 SIPs. Without the suggested changes, th e current cost effectiveness va lue in the SIP is $2,520 per ton for lake bed controls, and $219 per ton for the K eeler Dunes project. In comparison, this is

more than 25 times less than the cost estimate for windblown dus t controls in the San Joaquin Valley that can range up to $65,000 per ton. Ther efore, even doubling th e annual cost estimate would still yield a reasonable cost per ton in comparison to control measures contained in an approved SIP.

Comment #19 Appendix X ‐ 1, GBUAPCD Proposed Rule 433

‐ Proposed Rule 433 omits important terms

that were included in the Stipulated Judgment concerning potential delays in installationDistrict Response to LADWP SIP Comments (3

‐ 18

‐ 2016) 16 and implementation of controls, specifically, the provisions concerning Force Majeure and Stipulated Penalties. By omitting these terms, Proposed Rule 433 could be interpreted as transforming the remaining terms specifying controls and deadlines into a completely

different set of requirements and consequences than those negotiated by the Parties and

embodied in the Stipulated Judgment. The stringency and timetables for implementation

were acceptable to the City only when combined with the relief mechanisms provided by

the Force Majeure and Stipulated Penalties provisions. Accordingly, LADWP requests that

the provisions in Paragraphs 14 and 15 of the Stipulated Judgment be repeated in Proposed

Rule 433.

Response #19 These provisions were discussed with the US EPA and determined to be unapprovable at the federal level. However, the District will fo llow the terms of the 2014 Stipulated Judgment including the provisions for Force Majeure and s tipulated penalties. No change to the rule.

Comment #20

Off

‐ Lake PM 10 Reductions in Areas Adjacent to Lakebed Dust Controls Memorandum (Memorandum), dated October 9, 2015, from Messrs. Duane Ono and Chris Howard to Mr.

Phill Kiddoo, et al. The purpose of this Memorandum appears to be a determination that if

on

‐ lake sources are controlled sufficiently to meet NAAQS, then off

‐ lake sources will respond similarly and also meet NAAQS. In this way OVPA would be protected from exceeding NAAQS without requiring controls on off

‐ lake sources. LADWP is concerned

about several assumptions in this Memorandum. If the State Implementation Plan actions

do not result in attainment of NAAQS by 2017, or if the United States Environmental

Protection Agency (USEPA) requires reasonable further progress, our interpretation of the

Memorandum is that the District has concluded that LADWP would be obligated to control

dust emissions from off

‐ lake dust sources that are not part of the Keeler and Olancha

Dunes. Does the District agree with this interpretation?

The 2013 Settlement Agreement exempts LADWP from orders to control dust emissions

from the Keeler and Olancha Dunes, but only for certain portions of each dune field.

LADWP disagree with the Memorandum's conclusion that the dust that may exist on the

off

‐ lake areas does or will exist there as a result of the City's water diversion activities in the

past century. LADWP is hopeful the District's predictions are correct, and therefore in order

to avoid a dispute over th e liability issue at this time, LADWP requests that the District

include a memorandum in the Proposed 2016 SIP that clarifies the Memorandum and the

BACM Analysis, stating that if off

‐ lake sources become emissive and prevent the OVPA from reaching attainment in the future, the District will analyze and determine whether the

emissions are attributable to the City or another actor, or are naturally

‐ occurring dust

emissions that are subject to the Exceptional Events Policy. In determining liability, the

District should employ appropriate scientific rigor and comply with all necessary legal
requirements.District Response to LADWP SIP Comments (3

‐ 18

‐ 2016) 17 Response #20 The District believes that scientific evi dence in the form of sand motion and PM 10 data support the approach to control dust from the off-lake sources by cont rolling the source of sand and material blown into those areas from the lake be d. At this time, there has been no discussion about what party, if any, would be liable for implementing dust contro ls in off-lake areas or the procedures that would be followed if off-lake dust sources prevent the area from attaining the NAAQS.

Comment #21

LADWP's previous comments, dated October 23, 2015, October 30, 2015, and December 7,
2015, are incorporated in this letter by reference.

Response #21 The District’s responses to LADWP’s previously submitted comments are included in the enclosures to this response letter.

Comment #22

In closing, we appreciate your commitment to implementing the terms of the 2014 Stipulated Judgment and understand our mutual intent to revise the terms of the 2008 SIP Order to

include the terms of the Stipulated Judgment. In order to alleviate any third

‐ party misinterpretations, LADWP would appreciate a reaffirmation in writing that th e District is

committed to implementing the Stipulated Judgment and nothing in the District's 2016 Draft

SIP Documents are intended to contradict the Stipulated Judgment.

Response #22

As stated in the cover letter to this response, “The District reaffirms its commitment to and intends to abide by the terms of the Stipul ated Judgment. Nothing in Board Order #160413-01,
District Rule 433, and the 2016 SIP are intended to contradict the Stipulated Judgment.”

Comment #23

LADWP requests that the District revise the Proposed Draft 2016 SIP Documents as provided in this letter and enclosure, and we look forward to working with the District to

fulfill the terms of the Stipulated Judgment.

Response #23 The proposed SIP, board order and Rule 433 were r evised as noted in the District’s responses

in this attachment and enclosur es sent with this letter.Phillip L. Kiddoo

Air Pollution Control Officer



## Gne¡,r Bnsrru 

## UrulrleD AIR 

## Pot-luTIoN CorurnoI- DISTRIcT

L57 Short Street, Bishop, California 935L4-3537

Tel : 760-87 2-82LL E-mail : pkiddoo@Sbu a pcd.org

March 9,2016

Via Electronic and U.S. Mail

Mr. Richard Harasick Director, Water Operations Division

Los Angeles Department of Water & Power

111 North Hope Street, Room 1449 Los Angeles, Californi a 90012-2694

Subject: Paragraph 20 of the Draft2016 SIP Order

Dear Richard:

This letter addresses concerns expressed by the City of Los Angeles Department of Water and

Power (City) regarding Paragraph 20 of the proposed 2016 State Implementation Plan Order (2016 SIP Order). I've gone back to the 2008 SIP Order, the 2014 Stipulated Judgment and

all draft paragraph 20 revisions to the 2016 SIP Order over the course of the past several

months to have a comprehensive understanding of paragraph 20 in current Draft Final form

out for public review so the Great Basin Unif,red Air Pollution Control District's (District)

resolution to concems expressed by the City is correct.

The purpose of the 2016 SIP Order is to revise the 2008 SIP Order (Board Order # 080128-01)

to incorporate the terms of the Stipulated Judgment entered by the Sacramento Superior Court

on December 30, 2014 (Stipulated Judgment). Paragraph20 confirms the fact that the Great

Basin Unified Control District (District) retains its legal authority under Health and Safety

Code Section 42316 to require the City to implement additional controls, to control additional

emissive areas and/or to undertake additional reasonable measures necessary to mitigate the air pollution caused in the District by the City's water-gathering activities in order to prevent the

Owens Valley Planning Area from failing to attain or maintain the National Ambient 

### Air
Quality Standards for particulate matter, only 

### if circumstances arise that are not specifically

addressed in the Stipulated Judgment, or in the settlement agreement between the City and the

District regarding the Keeler Dunes (Board Order #130916-01).

The District concludes that the limited retention of legal authority provided in Paragraph 20 is
required by federal Clean 

### Air Act and the state Health and Safety Code. In addition, rather

than being in conflict with the Stipulated Judgment, Paragraph 20 is both consistent with and required by the Stipulated Judgment, as discussed in more detail below.

Stipulated Judgment: This analysis begins with the Stipulated Judgment. Paragraph 10.B provides as follows:
By December 31, 2015, the District shall prepare a SIP revision [to the 2008 SIPJ thatincorporates the provisions of this Stipulated Judgment (" 2015 SIP 

### Order"). The District

intends to act as a responsible agency and use the City's Phase 9/10 CEQA/NEPA

documents to act on the SIP revision. 

### If the City's CEQA/NEPA document is not adequate



### for the District's approval purposes, the District shall have until December 31, 2016 to act

on the SIP revision.

The City and District (collectively "Parties") subsequently stipulated and obtained the Court's

approval to extend the date for the revised SIP Order to 

### April 15,2016, and to rename the

rêvise¿ SIP as the2016 SIP Order. The 2016 SIP Order is expressly intended to comply with

all requirements of federal, state and local law, including the requirements of the federal Clean

Air Act to attain the National Ambient 

### Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and the requirements

of Health and Safety Code Section42316. Accordingly, Paragraph 10.E provides as follows:

The Parties have developed the terms of this Stipulated Judgment with the intention that its

provisions wilt be incorporated into the 2015 [2016] SIP Order and are consistent with -applicable provisions offederal, state and local law, including Section 42316, including 

### all

applicable provisions offederal law regarding attainment of the NAAQS.

2003 SIP Order: Because the 2016 SIP Order consists of revisions to the 2008 SIP Order to

incorporate the terms of the Stipulated Judgment, we next tum to the terms of the 2008 SIP

Order that are to be retained and that are consistent with the Stipulated Judgment. In the 2008

SIP Order, the Parties agreed to Paragraph 13 entitled "Alternative Methods for Implementing

Contingency Measures and Supplemental Controls":

Notwithstanding any other provision of this Order, the District shall maintain its authority

under Health and Safety Code Section 423I6 to order the City to implement additional

controls, to control additional emissive areas and/or to undertake additional reasonable

measures necessary to mitigate the air pollution caused in the District by the City's watergathering activities in order to prevent the OVPA from 

### failing to attain or maintain the

NAAQS 

## þr PMI0, if circumstances arise that are not specifically addressed in Paragraphs

10 [Contingency Measures 

### - Supplemental Control DeterminationsJ or 12 [Criteria 

### for
Determining the Needþr Additional 

### PMI} Controlsl of this Order.

This provision was carefully discussed and the final language was agreed to by the City and

District. It acknowledges that the District is required by law to retain its legal authority under

Health and Safety Code Secti on 42316 for those circumstances that are not specifically

addressed in the 2008 SIP Order. The City is also required comply with all applicable law

regarding its activities, including any change in the law.

The City further agreed that the 2008 SIP including its retention of legal authority in Paragraph

13 was valid and reasonable and that it would not challenge this term in any judicial or

administrative proceeding. (See 2006 Settlement Agreement). The Court in entering the

Stipulated Judgment confirmed that the City was legally required to comply with this term 

### of

the Settlement Agreement (see Stipulated Judgment Exhibit A page 4) and the City agreed that

the Court's ruling was final and binding upon the Parties (Stipulated Judgment, Paragraph

13.C.)

Draft 2016 SIP Order: Pursuant to the Stipulated Judgment, the District prepared a dtaft2016

SIP Order to incorporate the terms of the Stipulated Judgment into the 2008 SIP Order. In the

earlier draft versions shared with the City, the District retained Paragraph 13 of the 2008 SIPOrder and proposed the term that is now identified as Paragraph 20 of the 2016 SIP Order:

Notwithstanding any other provision of this Order, the District shall maintain its authority

under Heatth & Safety Code Section 42316 to order the City to implement additional

controls, to control additional emissive areas and/or to undertake additional reasonable

measLffes necessary to mitigate the air pollution caused in the District by the City's watergathering activities in order to prevent the OVPA from 

### failing to attain or maintain the

W,arl,gS 

### ¡o, PMl0, if circumstances arise that are not specifically addressed in Paragraphs 

## I through 

## I of this Order.

In response, the City expressed concerns that the term "notwithstanding" could be read to

contrádict other provisions of the Stipulated Judgment, including Paragraph 3 which provides

for 53.4 square miles of control measures including 4.8 square miles of additional BACM

Contingency Measures.

The District sought to clarify Paragraph 20 in response to the City's concerns. In a revised

draft of the 2016 SIP Order, the District narrowed the language to more specifically identify

that its retention of legal authority under Health and Safety Code Section 42316 was limited to

(a) a change of federal or state law that would require additional orders under Section 42376,

or (b) for areas that are not specifically addressed by the Stipulated Judgment or the Keeler

Dunes settlement. The revised and most recent version of Paragraph 20 provides as follows:



### If there is a change in federal or state law that requires controls in addition to those
provided in this Order, then the District shall maintain its authority under Health & Safety

Code Section 423I6 to adopt a new order to require the City to comply with these new legal requirements. The District shall also maintain its authority under Health & Safety

Code Section 42316 to order the City to control additional sources of air pollution and/or

to undertake additional reasonable measures necessary to mitigate the air pollution caused

in the District by the City's water-gathering activitiesfor other areas, sources or activities

that are not specffically addressed in Paragraphs 

### I through 

## I of this Order, or that are

located outside of the Keeler, Olancha and Swansea dune areas as specffied in Board

Order #130916-01.

These two triggers for Paragraph2} are not reasonably subject to dispute. First, 

### if there is a
change in the law that requires additional controls, the District must have the ability to require

the City to comply with the new 

### law. The City has not indicated in any of its communications

that it disagrees with this principle.

In addition, the Stipulated Judgment is not in conflict with this principle 

### - exactly the opposite

is true, where the Stipulated Judgment requires a2016 SIP Order that incorporates the 2008

SIP provisions such as this retention of legal authority. Thus, the Stipulated Judgement does

not provide that if the law changes, the District is somehow barred from complying with those

requirements and the City is allowed to operate in violation of the new 

### law. Such an outcome

is illegal and therefore this provision is not negotiable. The District must be clear on this point

so that there is no argument in the future that the District surrendered its legal authority under

Health and Safety Code Secti on 42316 should there be a change in the legal requirements

which the District and the City are required to follow.

In context, the probability that there 

### will be such a change of law is speculation. The District

is not aware of any such new law that is either proposed or in the process of adoption that

would trigger Paragraph 

### 20. The District further reiterates its belief that under existing law,the provisions of the Stipulated Judgment including Paragraph 3 satisfy the City's duty under

Health and Safety Code Section 42316 regarding the areas of the lakebed referenced in the
Stipulated Judgment. The District has no hidden agenda or other intention to circumvent those

terms or to require additional areas for control on the dried Owens Lake bed under existing
law beyond those as provided by the Stipulated Judgment.

The second trigger in Paragraph 20 is that the District maintains its legal authority for areas

that arc not covered by the Stipulated Judgment or the Keeler Dunes settlement. That is straightforward 

### - if an areaitis not covered, then it is not covered. (See also Paragraph 3.8 

### of

the Stipulated Judgment ["The provisions in this paragraph do not apply to fee orders issued to

the City under Section 42316, or any orders 

### for areas that are nof on the dried Owens

Lake 

### bed."] At this time, the District has no plans for issuing fuither orders to the City and

again reiterates that it has no hidden agenda or other intention to circumvent the terms of its

agreements with the City.

For both triggers, the District 

### will issue a new Order to address any change in the law. The

District intends to comply with existing law and any new law, and expects the City to do the

same.

Bar to the City's Challenge to Adoption of the 2016 SIP Order. As shown above, the District

has revised the 2008 SIP to incorporate the terms of the Stipulated Judgment. Paragraph2}

was agreed upon and included in the 2008 SIP, and its inclusion in the 2016 SIP Order
complies with the Stipulated Judgment. Under these circumstances, Paragraph 10.C of the
Stipulated Judgment applies as follows:

The City shall not appeal or contest the 201 5 [2016J SIP Order that contain the terms 

### of

this Stipulated Judgment now or in the future ín any admínistrative or 

### judicíalforum,

under any law, statute or legal theory whatsoever including CEQA or Section 423I6, and
agrees that the terms of thøt 2015 

### SP Order are valid and reasonable under Section

423 16.

Under Paragraph 10.C, the City may not challenge Paragraph2\ and its inclusion in the 2016

SIP Order at the upcoming District Board hearing on 

### April 13,2016 without violating the
Stipulated Judgment, which is enforceable as a court order.

Paragraph 20 is a correct and necessary statement. We hope this letter provides useful

information to support the District's analysis of the City's concerns, and that the District and City may proceed in cooperation to the adoption and issuance of the 2016 SIP Order.

Please do not hesitate to contact me 

### if you have any questions.

Phillip L. Kiddoo
Air Pollution Control Off,rcer, Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control DistrictGreat Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District 

# Comparison of SIP Control Efficiency Figures

Legend:

2008 SIP vs 2016 SIP
Change in Control Efficiency

Decrease (0.003 sq mi)

Increase - Phase 7a (2.1 sq mi)

Increase - Per LADWP Request (2.1 sq mi)

New area (5.9 sq mi)

No change (39.1 sq mi)

Removed Area (0.12 sq mi)

Shoreline 3600' 0 1 2 Miles 

# É

3/29/2016 1:30:22 PM Comparison of SIP Control Efficiency Figures 20160324.mxd