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 Reservation
ATTACHMENT A - DRAFT 2016 SIP COMMENT 

LETTERS AND DISTRICT RESPONSES: 

DISTRICT RESPONSE TO 

COMMENT LETTER NO. 1
Phillip 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 started
in2009. 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. 2










ATTACHMENT 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 1.5 3

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

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

LETTERS AND DISTRICT RESPONSES: 

DISTRICT RESPONSE TO 

COMMENT LETTER NO. 2
Phillip 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

20r60404d
ATTACHMENT 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 ‐ 76
DWP 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 discussed during our conference call). We will be 

submitting additional comments by October 30, 2015. 

1) Existing PM10 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 the nature and extent of

the nonattainment problem and the technological 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 control. 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 Total Dust Control Area. A description of

the dust control method for the Channel Area was included in the Subsequent

Environmental Impact Report for the 2008 SIP (SEIR, pp 2-4 – 2-5). The description of

DWP’s strategy to improve dust controls to achieve 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, Subsection 3.A, Line 13, Page 5 

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

o The Force Majeure and Stipulated Penalties sections did not solely relate to

“construction” deadlines.

Enclosure 20160404a Enclosure Page 1 of 76
DWP Comments on Draft BO (10/23, 10/30 and12/7/2015) and District Response  

2

The sentence in the order “The construction deadline set forth in this paragraph is 

subject to the Force Majeure and Stipulated Penalties provisions set forth in Paragraphs 

__ and __” is a direct quote from the stipulated judgment and is correctly stated in the 

draft Board Order. Including the word “construction” 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 extend to the failure to meet 

other requirements of the stipulated judgment. 

3) PM10 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 PM10 control measure described in

Paragraph 12.”

The references to the paragraph numbers are corrected as noted.

4) Contingency PM10 Control Measures, Subsection 8.F, Lines 1 – 5, Page 8

o The last two sentences of this paragraph 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 obtaining 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 diminished by these two sentences.

The 2014 SJ (para. 3.E.) states “The City shall be solely responsible for all CEQA

compliance, and to the extent joint documents are prepared under CEQA and NEPA, for

CEQA/NEPA compliance, and all lease and permit requirements associated with any

Contingency Measure.” Para. 5 G. also states in regard to implementing TwB2, “The

City shall be solely responsible to obtain 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 important to note that the

cited sentences include a proviso for obtaining approval, which was omitted in your

quote, “... provided that the City demonstrates 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 from land owners. A revision to this

paragraph could add this proviso, however, it would be duplicative of the provisions in

the Force Majeure section.

Enclosure 20160404a Enclosure Page 2 of 76
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 the stipulated judgment shownig that the 

scope of the force majeure clause is tied to “the failure to meet dust control measure 

completion deadlines.” 

5) Contingency PM10 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 deadlines for constructing dust controls that accommodate

project circumstances, including but not limited to, the time to complete a Phase

III cultural resources recovery and perform additional environmental work

required under CEQA to approve the new project.”

Para. I.c.v. of the 2013 SA, which is referred 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 since no new order has yet been issued for

controlling these areas.

The 3-year compliance deadline (plus 2 years for 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 relaxation of an existing control measure that EPA would

disapprove, because the City agreed to not challenge 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, therefore we have not relaxed the implementation schedule.

EPA’s anti-backsliding requirement for SIP revisions is dictated under CAA Section

110(l).

6) PM10 Control Measures, Subsection 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) PM10 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) PM10 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) PM10 Control Measures, Subsection 9.C.ii.c, Line 2, Page 11 

Enclosure 20160404a Enclosure Page 3 of 76
DWP 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) PM10 Control Measures, Subsection 9.D.vi, Lines 2 - 4, Page 13 

o The requirement that “[an]y such appeal shall not relieve the City of the duty to 

reflood a TWB2 area within 37 days of a written order from the APCD” contradicts 

Article 5.D of the Stipulated Judgment. Since no such requirement is stated. 

This sentence can be deleted or modified, since 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 order to re-flood, then it would make sense that the City had to 

comply with the original 37-day order. Unless there is an injunction to stop the clock or 

the City wins their appeal, a notice of violation for failure to comply would be based on 

meeting the original 37-day deadline for re-flooding. To clarify this point, the section 

has been modified to clarify that the City may seek such relief from the Court, with the 

addition of the words “unless the City properly seeks and obtains an injunction from the 

Court before the expiration of the 37-day period.” 

9) PM10 Control Measures, Brine Shallow Flooding 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, which 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 Brine BACM in the SIP under para. 11.B of the 

2014 SJ could significantly delay 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 brine shallow flooding determination under the 

stipulated judgment. 

Enclosure 20160404a Enclosure Page 4 of 76
DWP Comments on Draft BO (10/23, 10/30 and12/7/2015) and District Response  

5

10) PM10 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, which 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 delay 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) PM10 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 meet the reflooding requirements if the 

area is greater than 25 percent 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) PM10 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 areas, or 12 months if land leveling needs to 

be done. Since most of the shallow flood areas have already been leveled, this could say 

30 days instead of 90 days. 

13) PM10 Control Measures, Subsection 9.H, Lines 24 - 27, Page 15 

o Should be revised to read as follow: “From July 1 through October 15 of each 

year, the District does not require the City to apply water to Shallow Flooding 

Enclosure 20160404a Enclosure Page 5 of 76
DWP Comments on Draft BO (10/23, 10/30 and12/7/2015) and District Response  

6

areas for dust control purposes. The City shall comply with all other permits 

conditions and requirements.” 

Suggested revision made. 

14) PM10 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 control 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 measure 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) PM10 Control Measures, Subsection 9.N, Lines 4 - 8, Page 17 

o Should be revised to read as follow: “As necessary to protect human health, the 

City shall prevent, avoid and/or abate mosquito, other pest vector and biting 

nuisance insect in the vicinity of the control areas that are actively being 

managed by application of water for dust mitigation 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 Vegetation, 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 Managed 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 species approved by the APCO is saltgrass (Distichlis 

spicata).” 

First suggested revision made. The District made additional revisions to include the plant 

list of 48 species. 

18) BACM Managed Vegetation, Subsection 10.G, Lines 10 – 13, Page 20 

Enclosure 20160404a Enclosure Page 6 of 76
DWP Comments on Draft BO (10/23, 10/30 and12/7/2015) and District Response  

7

o Should be revised to read as follow: “The 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 the dust control measures areas from each 

other and from areas not control 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: “As necessary to protect human health, the 

City shall prevent, avoid and/or abate mosquito, other pest vector and biting 

nuisance insect in the vicinity of the control areas that are actively being 

managed by application of water for dust mitigation 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 Gravel Blanket, Subsection 11.B, Lines 15 – 19, Page 21 

o Should be revised to read as follow: “All gravel shall be durable have resistance 

to leaching and erosion.” The last sentences should be deleted. 

Suggest the same edit as above regarding other requirement for shallow flooding, to 

delete coloration and replace with “comply with all other permits, conditions and 

requirements.” 

21) BACM Gravel Blanket, Subsection 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 operational 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 Control Measures, Section 12, Lines 19 – 28, Page 

22, and Line 1 – 4, Page 23 

o In addition to whether Reduced Efficiency BACM is defined in the Clean Air Act 

and Channel Area was not part of the Total Dust Control Area previously 

ordered, LADWP cannot implement BACM within T1A-1 DCA and Channel Area. 

The District is approving the current conditions in T1A-1 (sand fences, with existing 

vegetation and natural wet areas) and the Channel Area Managed Vegetation with 

Enclosure 20160404a Enclosure Page 7 of 76
DWP Comments on Draft BO (10/23, 10/30 and12/7/2015) and District Response  

8

surface flooding to enhance existing coverage as MDCE BACM control measures as 

currently sufficient for BACM dust control requirements. See also the response to the 

Channel Area being part of the Total Dust Control area in comment #1. 

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

o Force Majeure is misspelled in the headings. Additionally, the reference to 

“construction activities” should be deleted, as the Stipulated Judgment was not 

limited to construction activities. 

Misspelling corrected and reference to construction activities deleted. 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 appropriate to remove it from the new 

order. 

This makes it clear that the District maintains its authority to order the City to implement 

additional controls for emissive areas outside of the Owens Lake bed for air pollution 

caused by the City’s water gathering activities. The District must also require 

compliance with any change in the law. The District intends to comply with each term of 

the Order in requiring controls at the Owens 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). Outline below is LADWP’s additional comments 

regarding the draft Order (some of which were discussed during our conference call). 

______________________________________________________________________

 

25) Section 1.B, “Owens Lake Bed PM10 Control Measure Areas,” Page 4, lines 12 

& 13: 

 

Enclosure 20160404a Enclosure Page 8 of 76
DWP Comments on Draft BO (10/23, 10/30 and12/7/2015) and District Response  

9

o There are practical limits on the amount 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 Vegetation (MV) area and will be the case 

on all future MV areas. 

The December 31, 2017 deadline to achieve fully-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 PM10 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 particular control mode: for example, 

Gravel Blanket, Managed Vegetation, Shallow Flooding, Brine with BACM 

Backup, and Tillage with BACM Backup, among others. Adding to the 

confusion, many other dust control areas on Owens Lake have reduced 

control requirements (e.g., MDCE areas) 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.” The description of each new BACM 

should summarize the appropriate facilities 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 sentence 

Enclosure 20160404a Enclosure Page 9 of 76
DWP 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 deleted, “as set forth in Paragraph 12 for 

those areas.”

29) Section 9, “PM10 Control 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 Flooding 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 shallow flooding can reliably meet the wetness cover 

target as determined using the current satellite imagery method approved 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 criteria 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 decision to a single one of two criteria is 

inconsistent with Attachment E, “Brine with BACM Backup (Brine BACM),” 

Attachment A, “Monitoring and Enforcement Protocol for Owens Lake Brine 

with BACM Backup (Brine BACM).” Attachment A, pages 4-8 lists at least 

five measures that may be used to trigger a re-flood order, including but not 

limited to the following: Induced Particulate Emission Test (IPET), sand flux 

monitoring, dust plume observations, surface integrity observations, and 

aerial photography and remote sensing. 

o Attachment E, “Brine with BACM Backup (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 are the measures that will be used in making a 

decision. The Board Order should be drafted to state that the District will 

endeavor to use multiple lines of evidence in making re-flood decisions.

When available, it is a good idea to use multiple lines of evidence. IPET and sand 

flux measurements are both requirements in the 2014 SJ for TwB2 and are now 

proposed for use to determine if re-flooding is needed for the Brine and Dynamic 

Water Management variations on shallow flood BACM. The IPET and sand flux 

measurements are objective measurement methods that provide certainty that a 

Enclosure 20160404a Enclosure Page 10 of 76
DWP Comments on Draft BO (10/23, 10/30 and12/7/2015) and District Response  

11

threshold has been exceeded. The other lines of evidence mentioned are useful, but at 

this time will need to be refined to develop 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 can 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 warning detection levels IPET can be used to 

detect weak surfaces before they reach a state that would require a re-flood order. 

The sand flux measurement can also show the erodibility of a surface before a reflood order is issued, provided that there are minor wind events that cause erosion 

before a big event occurs. Sand flux measurements 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 Control Measures,” Pages 15: 

o This section states that 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 plumes, (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 the 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 or 

Enclosure 20160404a Enclosure Page 11 of 76
DWP Comments on Draft BO (10/23, 10/30 and12/7/2015) and District Response  

12

partial area in any given year. The statement 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 Control Measures,”, Page 15, lines 10: 

o LADWP should have the option to evaluate these situations before making 

this decision. It is possible that there could be extenuating circumstances. 

LADWP suggests adding: “3. If any DWM 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-considered 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 October 16 - June 30 dust season. If an area is 

found to be emissive multiple times during these 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 significant sand flux (> 5 g/cm2/day) during 

the modified dust periods was used to determine 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 conditions that trigger a re-flood order could 

potentially result in NAAQS exceedances. The 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 Measures,” Page 15, line 19: 

o Add the words “air quality” to the first sentence: “If air quality modeling or 

monitoring data show an exceedance...”

Enclosure 20160404a Enclosure Page 12 of 76
DWP Comments on Draft BO (10/23, 10/30 and12/7/2015) and District Response  

13

Suggested revision made. 

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

o This section states that if air quality modeling or monitoring data shows an 

exceedance of the PM10 standard at the shoreline as a result of excessive 

dry areas, the APCO may require the City to “increase the level of dust 

control efficiency within those Shallow Flood 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 levels (that is, less than 75% wetness cover, or 72% 

wetness cover for Shallow Flood areas after 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 section could be interpreted to mean that the 

APCO reserves the right to increase the required control efficiency to any 

level deemed necessary to reduce exceedances 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 efficiency 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 Control Measures,” Page 16, line 19:

 

o LADWP recommends appending the phrase: “...sufficient to meet the 

requirements of District Rules 400 and 401 (visible emissions and fugitive 

dust), including but not limited to surface roughening, brine application, and 

vegetative cover (for MV and hybrid areas).”

The substantially non-emissive provision applies to portions of shallow flood areas 

that are not required to meet the shallow flood cover requirements, such as berms, 

roadways and other infrastructure used to support shallow flood dust controls (see 

para. 9.J.). Areas controlled with surface roughening, brine, and vegetative cover 

are already covered with detailed performance 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 the requirements of District Rules 400 and 

401 and is approved by the APCO. 

A general inclusion of the suggested dust control methods in this section would create 

a loophole in the control requirements if it results in excluding these areas from the 

Enclosure 20160404a Enclosure Page 13 of 76
DWP Comments on Draft BO (10/23, 10/30 and12/7/2015) and District Response  

14

shallow flood DCA without specific performance requirements to ensure that they are 

non-emissive. 

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

o Although the District and LADWP collaborated on a 2005 Managed 

Vegetation Control Efficiency Study, the study results were not explicitly 

mentioned in reference to the modified BACM requirements in the 2006 

SIP. The MV BACM Study found that 99 percent control efficiency was 

achieved at 22 percent cover, not 50 percent cover as drafted earlier in the 

2003 SIP. The 2015 SIP should reference 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 criteria 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 explain 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 the Managed Vegetation Operations and 

Maintenance Plan, and based on the reference 2004 satellite image for the 

southern MV area. The 2004 satellite image became the reference image 

because it depicted a spatially heterogeneous MV area that, despite localized 

areas of sparse or no vegetation, was “working.” 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 was 

Enclosure 20160404a Enclosure Page 14 of 76
DWP 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 downward, 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 would be were the 2004 image analyzed in 

the same manner as the 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 comment. The automated digital 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 distinguishable 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 District in a separate communication.

This paragraph has been amended to include those additional plant species. 

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

o LADWP suggests removing or modifying 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 are 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 acknowledge the Regional Board and its 

jurisdiction and leave water quality regulation 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 inclusion 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:

 

Enclosure 20160404a Enclosure Page 15 of 76
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 gravel, 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 geotextile fabric was needed under the 4-inch 

gravel blanket. There are no examples of 4-inch 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 should to need arise to apply gravel in 

an area without geotextile fabric. One hypothetical 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 the 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 mechanisms acting to control dust 

emissions, the required control efficiencies, and procedures for evaluating 

compliance. 

As suggested in comment #26, the District will replace the reduced efficiency BACM 

category with MDCE BACM with appropriate 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 BACM control measures that do not meet the 

MDCE performance standards...” How will the District determine whether the 

Channel Area meets the performance requirements for the individual 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, there is no opportunity for LADWP to review the APCO’s 

decision to increase the control efficiency or the amount of time allowed for 

Enclosure 20160404a Enclosure Page 16 of 76
DWP 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 proposal 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 control efficiencies may be required for 

Shallow Flood, managed vegetation and gravel. Language consistent with other 

sections of the Board Order to allow LADWP to provide opportunity to review and 

comment on APCO’s decision has also been incorporated.

43) Section 13, “New BACM, Adjustments 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 collaborate 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 appropriate. New dust control measures 

should be waterless, where feasible. Where not feasible, new dust control 

measures should be water neutral by offsetting 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 unnecessary to repeat this commitment in the 

Board Order.

44) Section 13.E, “New BACM, Adjustments 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 Section 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 following sentence from the SIP: “...Any 

repairs the require dust controls to be out of compliance with the performance 

Enclosure 20160404a Enclosure Page 17 of 76
DWP 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 report 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 contains 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. Requesting a variance is not an obligation for 

DWP or the APCO. The APCO has the discretion to issue NOVs and if that doesn’t 

result in compliance order an abatement hearing. 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 for 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 latter part of this sentence should read “...within the 

OVPA.” The District’s “geographic boundaries” extend well beyond the 

OVPA. 

This provision applies to any activities that may emit air pollution 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. BACMs 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 Agreement. The 2013 SOA, which includes the 

2013 SA, should be added as an appendix to the SIP, as opposed to an attachment to 

the BO. The 2013 SOA contains all the provisions for the cultural resource areas and 

Enclosure 20160404a Enclosure Page 18 of 76
DWP 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 document 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 legend in Exhibit 1 lists 3.7 square 

miles. LADWP recommends that all areas 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 BACM only hybrid dust control 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 mention “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 Attachment 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 Planning Area Additional BACM Contingency 

Measures Determination,” Map 1-Owens Lake Dust ID Monitoring Network: 

Enclosure 20160404a Enclosure Page 19 of 76
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 placed in the Dynamic Water Management 

Areas. 

Suggested updates made to revised map.

51) Attachment D, Subarticle 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 Judgment, 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 Stipulated Judgment and this is reflected in 

Attachment D Section 3. TRANSITIONING FROM ONE BACM TO ANOTHER 

BACM. 

52) Attachment D, ”Procedure for Modifying Best Available Control Measures 

(BACM) for the Owens Valley Planning Area,” Page 1, Para 1: 

o The requirement in Attachment D that the performance standard for a BACM 

be met during transition would effectively preclude further transition to 

habitat/dust control on Owens Lake. This provision conflicts with the 2014 

Stipulated Judgment (Section 8, Revisions 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 Attachment D, which says, “[The City] may 

transition from one approved BACM to another provided that, with the exceptions 

Enclosure 20160404a Enclosure Page 20 of 76
DWP 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 that 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 explained in section 3 of Attachment D and is 

limited to 3.0 square miles at one time. This 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 the area is in compliance at 

all times, e.g. replacing a shallow flood 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 paragraph reads as it does. The City should keep this in mind, 

since the shorter dust control 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 Modifying Best Available Control Measures 

(BACM) for the Owens Valley Planning Area,” Page 8, “Comments on Potential 

New BACM,” Page 8, Item 10, “the appropriate 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 District approval for use of BACM at 

locations to be approved later, and (2) obtain all other required approvals, 

permits, and leases. It isn’t possible to obtain “approvals, permits, and 

leases” without first designing a project, and it wouldn’t be prudent for 

LADWP to design a project and obtain all the required approvals, permits, 

and leases without first knowing whether the District would accept the 

underlying dust control concept. That’s why this section should be rewritten 

to encompass a two-step process. Permits, 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 which the District considers of critical 

importance to BACM research.

Enclosure 20160404a Enclosure Page 21 of 76
DWP Comments on Draft BO (10/23, 10/30 and12/7/2015) and District Response  

22

54) Attachment D, ” Procedure for Modifying 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 new BACM for Owens Lake, the City may 

implement one or more of the new control 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 Attachment 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. Spreading of brine conveyed to the 

site from elsewhere.” and “4. Alteration of topography to facilitate 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 achieve 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 Attachment 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, Section 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 potential of Brine BACM areas. Please 

restore the earlier protocol, or de-emphasize the IPET as a measure of 

surface stability on Brine areas.

Enclosure 20160404a Enclosure Page 22 of 76
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 maintenance or re-flooding) The conditions for 

determining if a re-flood 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 Technical Report: 2015 Owens Lake Dynamic Water 

Management Plan,” Page ES-2, last paragraph:

o LADWP recommends replacing this section with Page 9, Paragraph 4 of 

Appendix D, which also recognizes other agencies’ jurisdictions but in more 

clear and accurate language. 

Text replaced as requested.

59) Attachment F, ” DRAFT Technical Report: 2015 Owens Lake Dynamic Water 

Management Plan,” Page ES-5, Figure ES-1: 

o An earlier District position held that data collected during the current variance 

period would be used by the APCO to evaluate 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 season 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. 

Enclosure 20160404a Enclosure Page 23 of 76
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 areas remained mostly in 

compliance with the 72% wet cover requirement. No additional information could be gained for the 

DWM evaluation regarding late season dust activity in these areas. 

60) Attachment F, “DRAFT Technical 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 reflect the modified provisions. 

The language in the report is clarified.

61) Attachment F, “DRAFT Technical 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 for 

Enclosure 20160404a Enclosure Page 24 of 76
DWP 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 (items 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/cm2/day threshold, then only the area attributed 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 kicked 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 Technical 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/cm2/day.” 

Units corrected. 

______________________________________________________________________ 

PART 3 – Comments from LADWP sent via email message on December 7, 2015 from 

Milad Taghavi. These comments were extracted from a WORD document submitted by 

LADWP. Page and line numbers refer to locations in DWP’s document and may differ 

from those in the latest 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 residential 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, 

Enclosure 20160404a Enclosure Page 25 of 76
DWP Comments on Draft BO (10/23, 10/30 and12/7/2015) and District Response  

26

“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.” 

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 Controls, 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 forth in the 2008 SIP Order and shown 

in Exhibit 2.” 

 

Suggested revision made with small edits. 

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

o Change measure to plural, “measures”

Suggested revision made. 

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

o The City may be ordered to implement BACM Contingency Measures such 

that the total area where 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 areas that are controlled will be required to 

have 99 or 100% control efficiency in order to optimize the emission reductions for 

Enclosure 20160404a Enclosure Page 26 of 76
DWP Comments on Draft BO (10/23, 10/30 and12/7/2015) and District Response  

27

the limited new areas available for dust 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 but 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 components or products of PM).” 

We have made the suggested edit with small 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 whether BACM Contingency Measures are to 

be ordered at least once in every calendar year.” 

Suggested revision made. 

71) Section 8. D, Contingency PM10 Control Measures, Page 7, line 26:

o Suggest text change, “Source areas that cause or contribute to a monitored or 

modeled exceedance of the NAAQS or State Standard may be new source 

areas, or may be emissions from areas with existing dust controls.”

Suggested revision made. 

72) Section 8. D, Contingency PM10 Control Measures, Pages 7 and 8, Comments 

regarding DWP’s choice in Attachment B to BO 080128-01: 

o Attachment “B” to the Board Order 080128-01 (2008 Owens Valley Planning 

Area Supplemental Control Requirements Determination Procedure) states the 

following: 

 Subarticle A.3 – District directs City to implement dust controls, 1st 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 from areas with existing dust controls, 

the City will have the choice of increasing the controls in the existing dust 

control areas or controlling other contributing sources that will result in 

lowering the monitored impact below 150 μg/m3 exceedance threshold, if 

such areas exists.” 

Enclosure 20160404a Enclosure Page 27 of 76
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, 2nd

Paragraph, Pages 11 and 12 of 17: “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 of the 

modeled impact below the 150 μg/m3 exceedance threshold. If the APCO 

identifies the need for additional controls, 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 areas, or may be areas with existing dust 

controls. For emissions from areas with existing dust controls, the City will have the 

choice of increasing the controls in the existing dust control areas or controlling other 

contributing sources that will result in lowering 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 the 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 control in an existing dust control area or to 2) 

control other contributing areas such as new areas is still left to the 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 control and the APCO orders controls in a new area 

as opposed to increasing controls in an existing 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 new area within the 53.4 square 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, otherwise 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 9 

Enclosure 20160404a Enclosure Page 28 of 76
DWP Comments on Draft BO (10/23, 10/30 and12/7/2015) and District Response  

29

o Suggest text change. “The BACM Contingency Measures shall be limited to the 

Owens Lake bed below the regulatory shoreline elevation of 3,600.00 feet above 

mean sea level (amsl) and above the natural 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 Control Measures, Page 8, lines 17-18 

o Suggest text change. “Failure or inability to secure such permissions and 

authorizations shall not relieve the City from 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 subject to the provisions of Paragraph 16 if 

they are applicable.” 

75) Section 9, BACM Shallow 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 effectiveness of sprinkler irrigation for applying 

water to shallow flooding DCAs. 

The City should continue the sprinkler project 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 information on how water 

application using sprinklers can provide wetness covers comparable to the wetness 

accomplished with bubblers and whiplines as measured 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 next Dust Control Workshop. 

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

o Suggested text change, “If for any Shallow Flooding area, the 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 model 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 (Regulatory Shoreline), that area will be 

deemed to be in compliance, if the City demonstrates in writing and the APCO 

reasonably determines in writing that maximum water delivery flows were 

maintained throughout the applicable period. 

Enclosure 20160404a Enclosure Page 29 of 76
DWP Comments on Draft BO (10/23, 10/30 and12/7/2015) and District Response  

30

Suggested revision made, and “for the analysis 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 Shallow Flood BACM Backup, Page 13, line 17: 

o Suggest text change. “Any such appeal shall not relieve the City of the duty to 

reflood a TWB2 area within 37 days of a written order from the 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 BACM, 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, Brine BACM, Page 14, lines 6-20. 

o Comment - This paragraph [9.E.iii] gives the APCO discretion, yet the next 

subsection iv. Appears to take it away. We understand that the District does not 

want to commit to using the tillage roughness 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 Board Order would be needed to use tests 

that the Stipulated Judgment already 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 meet the Shallow Flood BACM requirements for that area 

within 37 days, unless, in its discretion, the APCO determines that re-flooding in 

not necessary, based on other information, including but not limited to the tillage 

roughness, PM10 monitor, or surface armoring tests described in Attachment A, 

Stipulated Judgment Attachment C.” 

Enclosure 20160404a Enclosure Page 30 of 76
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 have the same surface characteristics as the 

tilled surface in TWB2 areas which would make the surface roughness and armoring 

tests inapplicable to Brine BACM areas. Unlike 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 Water Management, Page 15, lines 18-19: 

o Suggest text change to clarify that re-flood orders can apply to a portion of the 

dust control measure area. “The APCO may 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 Particulate 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-flood orders can apply to a portion of the 

dust control measure area. “If any DWM area or portion thereof becomes 

become emissive and is therefore 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 timeframe to increase control in shallow flood 

areas, Page 16, line 10: 

o The comment addresses the 90 day deadline 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 Shoreline as a result of 

excessive dry areas within Shallow Flooding control areas during the dust control 

periods for each year and the APCO determines that existing PM10 control 

measures require a higher level of control 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 City 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.

Enclosure 20160404a Enclosure Page 31 of 76
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 Shallow Flooding control areas during the dust 

control periods for each year and the APCO determines that existing PM10 control 

measures require a higher level of control efficiency, the City 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 City of this determination if more water 

application is needed to overcome evapotranspiration, or within 12 months of a written 

determination if land leveling or the installation of more laterals to the water delivery 

system are needed, and maintain that higher control efficiency until the APCO 

determines that a reduced control 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 deleting the definition in this sentence. 

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

o Suggest text change. “For these areas 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 required 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, Adjustments to Existing BACM and BACM 

Transitions, page 24, lines 24-25. 

o This comment is in regards to the 18 month period for transition in the following 

paragraph, “The City shall only conduct construction of any Transition Area 

project between July 1 of year when on-site work on the project begins, through 

December 31 of the next year when all such work shall be completed and the 

new controls shall be fully installed and operational. 

Enclosure 20160404a Enclosure Page 32 of 76
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 transition areas by starting the work during nondust season or during the commencement of DWM period. 

The City may be missing the free pass for transitioning areas without limitation. 

Attachment D of the proposed Board Order says in the first paragraph, “The City of Los 

Angeles Department of Water and Power (City) may transition from one approved BACM 

to another provided that, with the exceptions addressed below, the performance standard 

of one or the other BACM is met at all times during the transition...” For instance 

graveling a shallow flood area during the non-dust 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 that could be transitioned at one time only 

apply to transition projects where the performance standards of neither BACM can be 

met during the transition period. In this case, the limitations in Section 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 existing 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 December 31 (18 months), helps to ensure that 

the project only allows potential dust emissions during one spring season, which is 

generally the dustiest period of the year. 

To clarify the BACM transition limitations, 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 maximum size of 3.0 square-miles at one time as 

provided for in Attachment D, “2016 Procedure 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 applies 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 enforcement of laws 

by the District or its APCO. 

This change was made. 

88) Section 18.A, Performance Monitoring Plan, Page 28, lines 2 and 6: 

Enclosure 20160404a Enclosure Page 33 of 76
DWP Comments on Draft BO (10/23, 10/30 and12/7/2015) and District Response  

34

o Suggest text change. Delete “DCMs” and replace with “dust control measures.” 

Suggested revision made. 

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

o Comment - The District provided this helpful 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 activities that may emit air pollution 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. BACMs 

appropriate for these activities have and will continue to be included as 

conditions on District-issued permits to operate.”

Suggested revision made with addition 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 substantial, or 

grammatical. 

o Original text: “Notwithstanding any other provision of this Order, the District shall 

maintain its authority under Health & Safety Code Section 42316 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 water-gathering activities in order to prevent 

the OVPA from failing to attain or maintain the NAAQS or State Standard for 

PM10, if circumstances arise that are not specifically addressed in Paragraphs 1 

through 8 of this Order.” 

o Suggest text change. “Nothing in this Order affects the District’s authority under 

Health & Safety Code Section 42316 to order the City to undertake reasonable 

measures on areas other than the Owens 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 Keeler 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 maintain the NAAQS or State Standard for 

PM10. Section II of the Settlement Agreement and Release dated August 19, 

2013, between the District and the City establishes the parties’ respective 

Enclosure 20160404a Enclosure Page 34 of 76
DWP Comments on Draft BO (10/23, 10/30 and12/7/2015) and District Response  

35

responsibilities regarding the Keeler Dunes and the Swansea and Olancha 

Dunes.” 

This is the same comment as No. 24 above. The intent of the original paragraph has two 

purposes. First, the District must be able to enforce existing 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. Second, the District’s authority to 

require the City to control air pollution extends to other areas, sources 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 Board Order 080128-01 and Stipulated Judgment, 

Page 31, lines 1-4: 

Suggested text change. Board Order #080128-01 shall immediately be in effect 

and shall remain in full force for the duration of any stay or, in the case of 

disapproval, until another Order is issued by this 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 City 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 whatsoever including Health & Safety Code 

Section 42316. 

We have added a clarifying sentence that the Stipulated Judgment shall remain in effect. 

Enclosure 20160404a Enclosure Page 35 of 76
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 3rd 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 federally 

approvable are excluded 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 additional 

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 this 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. 7 

Enclosure 20160404b Enclosure Page 36 of 76
of the Stipulated 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 Shoreline (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 capricious. 

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 

prevent 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, Brine 

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 parameters 

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). This 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 District 

Enclosure 20160404b Enclosure Page 37 of 76
and 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 

previously approved by the US EPA in 2008 (73 FR 12639). It is intended to expedite the 

approval and implementation of new BACMs without going through 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 Stipulated 

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 comment 

#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 the 

Enclosure 20160404b Enclosure Page 38 of 76
Stipulated Judgment. The rule also should be consistent with the commitments 

in the Stipulated Judgment, Attachment C to reconsider 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 reflood 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 areas. If 

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, if 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 TWB2

, Brine Shallow Flooding or 

Dynamic Water Management as alternatives to BACM Shallow Flooding or MDCE 

BACM shallow flooding. to achieve the CE levels specified in Exhibit 2. If TWB2, 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. Deletion 

will not take away any authority that the District already has.

Annual determinations under 433.C. ensures 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 

demonstrated 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 in 

Enclosure 20160404b Enclosure Page 39 of 76
the 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 PM10 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 PM10 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 PM10 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 PM10 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 APCO 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 

entire 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. 

Enclosure 20160404b Enclosure Page 40 of 76
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 03-14-2016

Enclosure 20160404c Enclosure Page 41 of 76
DWP SIP Comments (3-14-2016) Page 2 District Response - March 16, 2016

Document Article Pages Line Comment District Response

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. 

Enclosure 20160404c Enclosure Page 42 of 76
DWP SIP Comments (3-14-2016) Page 3 District Response - March 16, 2016

Document Article Pages Line Comment District Response

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.

Enclosure 20160404c Enclosure Page 43 of 76
DWP SIP Comments (3-14-2016) Page 4 District Response - March 16, 2016

Document Article Pages Line Comment District Response

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."

Enclosure 20160404c Enclosure Page 44 of 76
DWP SIP Comments (3-14-2016) Page 5 District Response - March 16, 2016

Document Article Pages Line Comment District Response

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. 

Enclosure 20160404c Enclosure Page 45 of 76
DWP SIP Comments (3-14-2016) Page 6 District Response - March 16, 2016

Document Article Pages Line Comment District Response

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."

Enclosure 20160404c Enclosure Page 46 of 76
DWP SIP Comments (3-14-2016) Page 7 District Response - March 16, 2016

Document Article Pages Line Comment District Response

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.

Enclosure 20160404c Enclosure Page 47 of 76
DWP SIP Comments (3-14-2016) Page 8 District Response - March 16, 2016

Document Article Pages Line Comment District Response

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.

Enclosure 20160404c Enclosure Page 48 of 76
DWP SIP Comments (3-14-2016) Page 9 District Response - March 16, 2016

Document Article Pages Line Comment District Response

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. 

Enclosure 20160404c Enclosure Page 49 of 76
DWP SIP Comments (3-14-2016) Page 10 District Response - March 16, 2016

Document Article Pages Line Comment District Response

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.

Enclosure 20160404c Enclosure Page 50 of 76
DWP SIP Comments (3-14-2016) Page 11 District Response - March 16, 2016

Document Article Pages Line Comment District Response

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. 

Enclosure 20160404c Enclosure Page 51 of 76
DWP SIP Comments (3-14-2016) Page 12 District Response - March 16, 2016

Document Article Pages Line Comment District Response

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.

Enclosure 20160404c Enclosure Page 52 of 76
DWP SIP Comments (3-14-2016) Page 13 District Response - March 16, 2016

Document Article Pages Line Comment District Response

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. 

Enclosure 20160404c Enclosure Page 53 of 76
DWP SIP Comments (3-14-2016) Page 14 District Response - March 16, 2016

Document Article Pages Line Comment District Response

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.

Enclosure 20160404c Enclosure Page 54 of 76
District Response to LADWP SIP Comments (3‐18‐2016) 1

Phillip L. Kiddoo

Air Pollution Control Officer

GREAT BASIN UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

157 Short Street, Bishop, California 93514‐3537

Tel: 760‐872‐8211 E‐mail: pkiddoo@gbuapcd.org

April 4, 2016 

Subject: District Responses to March 18, 2016 City of Los Angeles Department of Water 

and Power (City) Comments 

Comments submitted by the City are followed 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 in a stipulated 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

PM10 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 the

Enclosure 20160404d Enclosure Page 55 of 76
District 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 PM10, PM2.5 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 estimates 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 of 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 deletes the first part of the sentence in its quote: 

“The City shall support and not challenge 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 contained in the 2008 SIP Order as modified by this 

Stipulated Judgment.” Here, the District has revised the 2008 SIP to incorporate the terms of 

the Stipulated Judgment. Under these circumstances, and as directed by the Court’s order, the 

City shall support and not challenge 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: 

Enclosure 20160404d Enclosure Page 56 of 76
District Response to LADWP SIP Comments (3‐18‐2016) 3

The City shall not appeal or contest the 2015 [2016] SIP Order that contain the 

terms of this Stipulated Judgment 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 the terms of that 2015 SIP Order are 

valid and reasonable under [Health and Safety Code] Section 42316. 

Responding to City’s comments regarding Paragraph 3.B, the District retains its authority to 

require additional controls to comply with federal and state law if there is a change in the law, 

or for areas that are not covered by the Stipulated Judgment or other agreements. This was 

detailed in a letter from the District to the LADWP dated March 9, 2016 (see Attachment A). 

Based upon subsequent communications, we understand 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. Paragraph 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 contained in the Stipulated Judgment 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 PM10 control measures or MDCE BACM

PM10 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 Judgment for the

Enclosure 20160404d Enclosure Page 57 of 76
District 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 PM10

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 meeting 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 misinterpreted in regards to its inclusion or 

exclusion in the 53.4 square-mile dust control cap on the lake bed. Paragraph 8.A is 

proposed to be modified by striking MDCE BACM PM10 control measures as follows: 

“To provide the emission reductions necessary 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 PM10 control measures or MDCE BACM PM10 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 where the City shall implement 

BACM PM10 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 the Channel Area under this order would require 

them to control areas beyond the 53.4 square-mile 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 PM10 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 PM10 emissions from the Channel Area by 

Enclosure 20160404d Enclosure Page 58 of 76
District Response to LADWP SIP Comments (3‐18‐2016) 5

implementing and operating BACM, modified-BACM or alternative non-BACM controls 

approved by the District’s Air Pollution Control 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 comment #2, repeating all provisions contained in the Stipulated 

Judgment in the board order is unnecessary, since the Stipulated Judgment is included as 

Board Order Attachment A. 

It is essential that an enforceable board order contain the key provisions clarifying the 

roles of the parties, the expectations for compliance, and any matters that may be 

contested in case of deviations in compliance. In regards to paragraph 5.G. of the 

Stipulated Judgment, the District regularly participates 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 measures 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 allowed

Enclosure 20160404d Enclosure Page 59 of 76
District 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 Clean Air Act, to prevent the deterioration 

of air quality due to dismantling or “backsliding” on control measures that have already 

been implemented before any such stay or disapproval, 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 transitioning to a different control measure at the 

time of any such stay or disapproval without interruption, 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 language in Rule 401.D. which does not mention “in any 

community surrounding Owens Lake.” In practical terms, this exclusion does not 

expand the applicability of the playa dust controls to meet 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 triggered 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 dispersion. Just as provided 

in the 2008 SIP, proposed SIP section 6.4 currently includes 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 areas that cause or contribute to monitored 

violations of the state PM10 standard in any community surrounding Owens Lake.”

Comment #7

Exhibit 2, Dust Control Efficiency Map ‐ The proposed  Exhibit 2 is different from Figure

Enclosure 20160404d Enclosure Page 60 of 76
District 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 controlled 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. Failure to meet the April 1, 

2010 dust control deadline resulted in those areas being required to implement 

BACM with 99% control efficiency. (BO #080128-01, Para. 3) These areas, 

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

2. Gravel BACM with 100% control efficiency 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. The 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 converted from shallow flood to gravel also had 

control efficiencies increased from 99% to 100% in the 2016 SIP.

3. To reduce water use in shallow 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 regarding shallow flood ramping in 99% 

control efficiency areas.) These shallow 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 areas 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 differences in the 2008 and 2016 dust control efficiency 

areas. 

Comment #8

LADWP has been mitigating dust emissions from some of the areas on Owens Lake playa

Enclosure 20160404d Enclosure Page 61 of 76
District 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 required to be made prior to April 1, 2010, so 

the application of the MDCE spreadsheet had a limited 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 Exhibit 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. 

Comment #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.

Enclosure 20160404d Enclosure Page 62 of 76
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 contingency measures ordered under Section 8 

and it requires the submittal of a Remedial Action Plan which includes the written 

application under 8.D. It includes the requested language. 

“Within 60 days of the date that the APCO orders the City to implement the BACM 

Contingency Measures, the City shall prepare and submit for the APCO’s 

consideration and written approval, which approval shall not be unreasonably 

withheld, a Remedial Action 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 implementation shall adequately protect the graveled 

areas from the deposition of wind- and water-borne soil, settling of gravel into lakebed 

sediments or infiltration of sediments from below. All graveled areas will be visually 

monitored by the City at least annually to ensure that the Gravel Blanket 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 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 re-established within four months of written notice 

from the APCO 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. 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. The

Enclosure 20160404d Enclosure Page 63 of 76
District 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 gravel mining and transportation activities 

occurring within the District’s geographic boundaries 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 LADWP (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 "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 Owens Valley Planning Area

(OVPA) are no longer dominated by emissions from the exposed playa. According to Table

S‐2, PM10 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, PM10 emissions in the OVPA were dominated by fugitive dust 

Enclosure 20160404d Enclosure Page 64 of 76
District 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 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." 

Comment #14

Section S.4, Page S‐3, paragraph 3 ‐Please explain the justification for basing the emission

inventory, and therefore the PM10 control strategy, on a near‐ exceedance day rather than

the maximum PM10 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 PM10 attainment control strategy be based on the maximum‐day PM10

concentration day, or some variation of the maximum such as the fourth highest PM10

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 selection and the design-day selection 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 selected for the purpose of evaluating emissions from PM10

sources to determine which source categories had significant emissions and were required 

to have BACM applied in accordance with EPA guidance. 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 during the period from 2009-2014. For a monitor 

site that operated for five years, the sixth highest value is the design concentration used for 

the attainment demonstration. If only two years of data were available, then the third 

highest monitored concentration would be used for the design day at that site. For 

attainment demonstration purposes, the SIP control strategy is acceptable if the model 

shows that after the application of control measures the forecasted design day at each 

monitor location has been reduced to a level 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

PM10 monitors (roughly one‐ third to one‐half of the length of Owens Lake; see 2008 SIP

Enclosure 20160404d Enclosure Page 65 of 76
District 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 off-lake sources in the 2 km buffer accurately 

reflect the understanding of the District staff, which is that our monitoring and modeling 

analysis indicate that except for the Keeler and Olancha Dunes, 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 concentrations than sources located further away. It 

would be a misinterpretation of our explanation 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 dust 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 water

Enclosure 20160404d Enclosure Page 66 of 76
District 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 Owens Lake has been studied by many different 

researchers resulting in an extensive library of scientific papers and reports. 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 the “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 short-term temporary sources created by flash 

flooding events, all of the off-lake 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 geomorphic 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 sand, the age character of the different aged dunes is different 

and distinct. These two set of deposits 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 activity. 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 was deposited in the paleo-dune 

systems associated with shoreline features around the lake bed and not into large mobile dunes 

or sand sheets. These paleo-dune systems are 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 vegetation and dune ridge morphology with the dune ridge orientation 

parallel to subparallel with shoreline features. 

The second period in Owens Lake history covers the last approximately 130 years since 

European-Americans began large-scale water diversions in the Owens Valley. During this 

period the level of Owens Lake did not change naturally but instead the main source of water 

into the lake (the Owens River) was essentially shut off instantaneously causing 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 transported off of the lake bed into the surrounding 

environment. This mass movement of material overwhelmed the existing conditions in many 

areas around the lake shore forming significant active sand deposits. Unlike the preserved 

paleo-dune systems, these younger modern sand deposits form highly mobile broad sand sheets 

Enclosure 20160404d Enclosure Page 67 of 76
District Response to LADWP SIP Comments (3‐18‐2016) 14

and dune deposits covering portions of the surrounding alluvial fans with features that are 

largely perpendicular to the preserved shorelines. 

The significant sand deposits present in the Owens Lake area were deposited by aeolian, fluvial 

and lacustrine processes and not from flooding on the alluvial fans. This is supported by the 

particle size distribution and sorting, sedimentary structures 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 from the Owens River and not from the alluvial fans coming out of 

the Inyo or Coso Mountains. Sedimentary structures 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 shorelands 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 flood 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 floodwaters 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 small pre-existing stable dunes. 

For more information about the geologic history 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 PM10 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 those 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 PM10 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 PM10 monitor data from upwind and downwind of Owens 

Lake shows that PM10 from upwind sources are overwhelmed 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 constructed

Enclosure 20160404d Enclosure Page 68 of 76
District 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 LADWP. (LADWP, 2015b) The information provided in this comment 

is noted, and the District would be glad to work 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 PM10 controlled to determine 

if it is reasonable when compared to the cost effectiveness values for other approved PM10 SIPs. 

Without the suggested changes, the current cost effectiveness value in the SIP is $2,520 per ton 

for lake bed controls, and $219 per ton for the Keeler Dunes project. In comparison, this is 

more than 25 times less than the cost estimate for windblown dust controls in the San Joaquin 

Valley that can range up to $65,000 per ton. Therefore, even doubling the 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 installation

Enclosure 20160404d Enclosure Page 69 of 76
District 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 follow the terms of the 2014 Stipulated Judgment 

including the provisions for Force Majeure and stipulated penalties. No change to the rule. 

Comment #20

Off‐Lake PM10 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 the 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.

Enclosure 20160404d Enclosure Page 70 of 76
District Response to LADWP SIP Comments (3‐18‐2016) 17

Response #20

The District believes that scientific evidence in the form of sand motion and PM10 data support 

the approach to control dust from the off-lake sources by controlling the source of sand and 

material blown into those areas from the lake bed. At this time, there has been no discussion 

about what party, if any, would be liable for implementing dust controls 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 the 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 Stipulated 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 revised as noted in the District’s responses 

in this attachment and enclosures sent with this letter. 

Enclosure 20160404d Enclosure Page 71 of 76
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 that

Attachment A Enclosure 20160404d Enclosure Page 72 of 76
incorporates 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 SIP

Attachment A Enclosure 20160404d Enclosure Page 73 of 76
Order 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,

Attachment A Enclosure 20160404d Enclosure Page 74 of 76
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 District

Attachment A Enclosure 20160404d Enclosure Page 75 of 76
Great 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

Attachment B Enclosure 20160404d Enclosure Page 76 of 76