CHAPTER 5 | COMMENTS AND COORDINATION...CHAPTER 5 | COMMENTS AND COORDINATION ... Assignment MOU, FHWA has assigned and Caltrans has assumed FHWA responsibility for environmental review,

414 | P a g e DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY

Northwest State Route 138 Corridor Improvement Project

CHAPTER 5 | COMMENTS AND COORDINATION

Early and continuing coordination with the general public and public agencies is an essential part of the

environmental process. It helps planners determine the necessary scope of environmental

documentation and the level of analysis required, and to identify potential impacts and avoidance,

minimization, and/or mitigation measures and related environmental requirements. Agency

consultation and public participation for this project have been accomplished through a variety of

formal and informal methods, including: Project Development Team (PDT) meetings, interagency

coordination meetings, community meetings, and public open house meetings. This chapter summarizes

the results of Caltrans’ efforts to fully identify, address, and resolve project-related issues through early

and continuing coordination.

5.1 COORDINATION PLAN

The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

Lead Agency under the provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Federal

Highway Administration (FHWA) and Caltrans Concerning the State of California's Participation in the

Surface Transportation Project Delivery 23 United States Code (USC) 327 NEPA Assignment, which

became effective on October 1, 2012. The MOU was signed pursuant to Title 23 USC 327, which allows

the Secretary of Transportation to assign, and the State of California to assume, responsibility for

FHWA's responsibilities under other Federal environmental laws. As this project is covered by the NEPA

Assignment MOU, FHWA has assigned and Caltrans has assumed FHWA responsibility for environmental

review, consultation, and coordination on this project.

The 2005 Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A legacy for Users (SAFETEALU)

was a transportation funding act that included a number of changes aimed at streamlining the

environmental review process. The 2012 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21)

made further amendments to the environmental review process added by SAFETEA-LU and was codified

at 23 USC 139. The Efficient Environmental Review Process mandated by 23 USC 139 applies to

transportation projects requiring an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), for which the original Notice

of Intent (NOI) was published in the Federal Register after August 10, 2005. Lead agencies are required

to develop a coordination plan to facilitate and document the interaction between lead agencies,

participating and cooperating agencies, and the public.

A Coordination Plan was prepared by Caltrans in March 2014 to describe a communication process with

participating and cooperating agencies. The following provides an overview of the agency coordination

conducted to date. 23 U.S.C. 139 requires Caltrans to notify the Secretary of Transportation of the type

of work proposed, including the general location, length and termini of the project, when the

environmental review process would begin, and any anticipated federal permits and approvals. This

notification was provided via transmittal of the Notice of Intent to the Secretary on November 13, 2013.

Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), cooperating agencies are federal agencies that

either has jurisdiction/ approval authority on part of the project (e.g., issuing a permit) or special

expertise with respect to an environmental issue being evaluated in the EIS (or joint EIS/Environmental

Impact Report [EIR]). Under MAP-21, participating agencies can be federal, state, tribal, regional, or local

agencies that may have an interest in the project. Caltrans sent letters of invitation to 13 agencies to



become a participating agency and 4 agencies to become a cooperating agency on the project.

Subsequently, on February 13, 2014, one additional agency, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA),

was invited to become a cooperating agency but declined. A federal agency is assumed to be a

cooperating agency and participating agency unless it formally declines an invitation or it fits into one of

the following categories: (1) it has no jurisdiction or authority for the project; (2) it has no expertise or

information relevant to the project; or (3) it does not intend to submit comments on the project.

Cooperating Agencies: Federal agencies, other than the Federal Lead Agency, who have jurisdiction by

law or special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved in a proposed project or

project alternative. Cooperating agencies are also participating agencies.

Cooperating Agencies Contact Person/Title Phone/Email

Army Corps of Engineers Crystal Huerta

Veronica Li

(805)585-2143

[email protected]

[email protected]

United States Environmental Protection

Agency

Carolyn Mulvihill

Clifton Meek

Connell Dunning

(415) 947-3554

[email protected]

(415) 972-3370;

[email protected]

(415) 947-4161

[email protected]

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Carol Legard

Federal Highway Liaison

Office of Federal Agency

Programs

(202) 606-8522

[email protected]

United States Fish and Wildlife Service Raymond Vizgirdas

[email protected]

Participating Agencies: Federal, state, regional or local agencies that may have an interest in the

project.

Participating Agencies Contact Person/Title Phone/Email

Los Angeles County Metropolitan

Transportation Authority (Metro)

Isidro Panuco

Project Manager

(213) 922-7984

[email protected]

California Department of Fish and Wildlife Ed Pert Regional Manager

Jamie Jackson

(858) 467-4210 [email protected]




California Highway Patrol Captain Gretchen Jacobs (661) 948-8541

[email protected]

County of Los Angeles, Department of

Regional Planning

Carl Nadela

Community Studies North

Section

(213) 974-6476

[email protected]

County of Los Angeles, Department of Parks

and Recreation

Julie Yom

(213) 351-5127

[email protected]

County of Los Angeles, Department of Public

Works

Daniel Quintana,

Andrew Ngumba

[email protected]

[email protected]

Southern California Association of

Governments

Courtney Aguirre

Regional Planner

(213) 236-1804

[email protected]

City of Lancaster, Planning Department Brian Ludicke Planning Director

Allen Thompson Assistant Utility Services

Manager

Michelle Cantrall


(661) 945-6896

City of Palmdale, Planning Department Susan Koleda

Senior Planner

(661) 267-5200

[email protected]

City of Palmdale, Public Works Department Mike Behen

Transportation/GIS

Manager

Jim Deyo

(661) 267-5337

[email protected]

Natural Resources Conservation Service Hudson Minshew

District Conservationist

(661) 945-2604 ext.110

[email protected]

Antelope Valley Resource Conservation

District

Debra Gillis

Executive Director

(661) 305-3405

[email protected]

Lahontan Regional Water Board Jan Zimmerman (760) 241-7376

[email protected]

State Water Resources Control Board Bob Solecki (916) 341-5483

[email protected]



California High Speed Rail Authority Michelle Boehm

Karl Fielding

(310) 896-5275

[email protected]

* Pursuant to 23 USC 139, all cooperating agencies are also participating agencies.

**A Federal agency invited shall be designated as a participating agency unless the agency declines the invitation by the deadline specified,

and states that the agency (1) has no jurisdiction or authority with respect to the project, (2) has no expertise or information relevant to the

project, and (3) does not intend to submit comments on the project.

Coordination meetings were held at the Caltrans District 7 office in downtown Los Angeles on March 25,

April 1, 2014, December 16, 2014 and June 16, 2015 for those agencies that had accepted the invitation

to be a participating or cooperating agency. The purpose of the meetings were to update the attendees

on the progress of the project; gain input on the project Purpose and Need and range of alternatives;

collaborate on impact assessment and methodologies, socio-economic and environmental impacts and

discuss any issues/concerns related to the project. In addition, the meetings provided an opportunity to

identify the permits and approvals needed for project implementation. The permits and approvals

needed, as well as the status of these permits, is summarized in Section 2.1.6 of this document.

5.2 SCOPING PROCESS

The scoping process started with widespread notice to government agencies via publication of a Notice

of Intent (NOI)/Notice of Preparation (NOP) announcing the start of work on an EIR/EIS. The NOI was

published in the Federal Register on November 13, 2013, in accordance with NEPA. The NOP was filed

with the State Clearinghouse on November 6, 2013, in accordance with the California Environmental

Quality Act (CEQA). The State Clearinghouse posts the NOP on its Web site and distributes it to State

agencies. Comments on the NOI/NOP were received from 7 agencies and included comments on a

variety of environmental issues.

AGENCY COMMENT

Department of Defense - Requests coordination with Edwards Air Force

base.

Environmental Protection Agency - Accept Participating/Cooperating Agency role.

- Provided recommendations for water and

wetland resources, biological resources,

construction emissions and environmental justice

issues to address impacts and provide avoidance

and mitigation measures.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife

(CDFW)

- Accepts Participating Agency role but requests

that a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is

signed.

- Wildlife Corridor Study should be conducted.

- The Environmental Document should include

information on listed species impacts.

- Mitigation should be provided for any impacts

to the biological environment.

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) - The proposed project would cross the DWR’s

California Aqueduct East Branch and therefore

Caltrans will be required to obtain an

encroachment permit from DWR.



- Any modifications to DWR’s bridge and access

roads will be reviewed and approved by DWR

prior to construction.

Los Angeles County Fire Department - Any road closures/ detours have the potential to

impact emergency response times and must be

coordinated with Fire Dept.

- Prior to construction, provide 3 sets of detour

plans with planned closures.

- Notify Fire Dept. at least 3 days in advance of

any street closures.

- Disruptions to water service must be

coordinated and alternative water sources must

be provided.

- Statutory responsibilities of the County Fire

Department include: erosion control, watershed

management, rare and endangered species,

vegetation, cultural resources, the County Oak

Tree Ordinance, and fuel modification for very

high fire hazard zones.

Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board - The project is within both the Los Angeles

County and Lahontan Regional Water Quality

Control Board jurisdictions.

- All surface waters are waters of the state and

the project will require coordination with the

Regional Water Quality Control Boards as well as

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for federal

waters.

- Beneficial uses of the water resources should

also be identified in the Environmental

document.

- Wetland impacts should be avoided.

- Post construction stormwater management

should be considered and vegetation clearing

should be kept to a minimum.

- Various permits will be required for the

proposed project (see full letter).

Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) - The appropriate Information Center should be

contacted for a record search.

- Mitigation plans should include provisions for

accidentally uncovered archaeological or cultural

remains.

Letters were sent to federal, State, regional, local government agencies, and the public inviting them to

scoping meetings, held on March 14, 2014 and March 18, 2014.



Public Scoping Meetings

Antelope Acres Community Center

8812 W Ave E-8

Antelope Acres, CA 93536

Saturday, March 15, 2014, 9:30am - 11:30am

Grace Chapel Neenach

25649 W Ave D

Lancaster, CA 93536

Tuesday, March 18, 2014, 6:30pm - 8:30pm

The comments from the scoping meetings focused on the following issues: Water supply, maintaining

the rural setting of the area, right-of-way impacts, safety improvements, bicycle corridor enhancements,

and support for the option that does not displace residents.

5.2.1 Scoping follow-up

OPEN HOUSE MEETINGS

Two Community Open House Meetings were held on May 2 and 4, 2015 to give the public a project

update. For ease of access, one of the meetings was held on the Western side of the Northwest 138

Corridor and the other one at the Eastern side. In addition, one of the meetings was offered on a

Saturday morning (9:30am – 11:30am) and the other during evening hours (6:30pm – 8:30pm) on a

Monday.

Approximately 180 people attended the meetings; 110 on May 2nd and 70 on May 4th. Each of the

meetings featured an open house format allowing the public to receive updates through information

stations and to have their questions answered by technical staff.

Community Open House Meetings Locations

Community Date / Time Location/Address

West Corridor

Communities

Saturday, May 2, 2015

9:30am – 11:30am

Grace Chapel Neenach

25649 W Av D

Lancaster, CA 93536

East Corridor

Communities

Monday, May 4, 2015

6:30pm – 8:30pm

William J. Fox Airfield - Lobby

4555 W Av G

Lancaster, CA 93536

All meeting participants were provided a meeting packet which included a copy of the Alternatives fact

sheet, meeting flyer, and an overview of the web-based interactive map that is publically accessible on

the project website.

A range of informational exhibits were featured to provide general project information and to present

new information on the Northwest 138 Corridor and alignment alternatives. Below is a list of the

exhibits that were provided at the Community Open House Meetings.



• Purpose and Need

• Environmental Review Process Chart

• Scoping Comments Summary

• Alternatives Map

• Range of Alternatives Overview

• Alternative 1 Freeway/Expressway – Map and cross sections

• Alternative 2 Expressway/Conventional Highway – Map and cross sections

• TSM Alternative – Map and cross section

• Large plot maps for segments of the corridor featuring the alternative alignments and interchanges,

intersections, and access points

• Interactive Map for the Northwest 138 Corridor

o Exhibit Board and iPad stations for access to the web-based interactive map

• Stay Connected – Project contact information

Issues Raised by the Public at the Open House Meetings

The following is a general overview of the issues raised by the public at the Community Open House

Meetings through individual discussions between stakeholders and Northwest 138 Corridor staff:

• Concerns about impacts to private property, including:

• Access to property

• Property values

• Eminent domain

• Environmental impacts

• Noise impacts during and after construction

• Impacts to residents

• Impacts to wildlife

• Access to new transportation facility

• Interchange and intersection operations and design

• Opposition to signalized intersections

• Alternatives

• Support and opposition to alignment options in Antelope Acres area

• Discussion regarding alignments in the Neenach area

• Project Schedule

• Construction timing and phasing

• Timing of Draft environmental documents and next steps

• Employment opportunities

A variety of methods were used in advance of the Community Open House Meetings to encourage

public participation. All forms of noticing provided meeting details (dates, times, locations, and

language needs) as well as contact information for accessing additional project section details.

Notification methods for the Open House meetings included mailing of notices, electronic distribution,

media coverage, and stakeholder coordination.



Postcard notices for the Community Open House Meetings were mailed to approximately 6,105

addresses, including those on the project stakeholder database and other property owners and

residents within a ½ mile buffer along State Route 138 and populated areas beyond this buffer (e.g.

Antelope Acres). See Figure 55 for the zone of distribution. The postcard notice included information for

the two meetings language needs, and other project contact information.

An electronic version of the flyer was distributed via email to 1,111 contacts included in the project

stakeholder database. The notice was sent out twice in advance of the start of the Community Open

House Meetings. The electronic public notice was also shared with local cities, town councils, agencies,

elected officials, and key stakeholder groups for posting on their respective websites, newsletters, social

media, and other communication outlets.

There were a number of articles published prior, during, and after the Community Open House Meetings

Articles Covering the Open House Meetings (Partial List)

Date Publication Article

April 16, 2015 SCVNews.com “May 2, 4: Public Meetings on Highway 138

Corridor Plan”

April 21, 2015 AV Press “MTA & LA County Meetings target

Highway 138”

April 29, 2015 Toll Road News “Public Meetings for SoCal Northwest 138

Corridor Project”

May 1, 2015 The Mountain Enterprise “Upcoming & Ongoing plus Regular Weekly

and Monthly Events”

May 15, 2015 The Mountain Enterprise “Will SR-138 become a six-lane freeway?”

Source: Arellano Associates, 2015.

STAKEHOLDER BRIEFINGS

Following the Public Scoping Meetings in March 2014, representative elected offices, cities,

town/neighborhood councils, stakeholder organizations and local residents have been reached through

additional participation opportunities. The contacts generated through these additional engagement

opportunities were added to the stakeholder database for future notification efforts, including the

noticing for the upcoming Community Open House Meetings.



Summary of Outreach Activities (March 2014 to April 2015)

No. Meeting Date Category

1. Los Angeles County Air Show (2-day event) March 21-22, 2014 Event

2. AVBOT Transportation Committee May 8, 2014 Stakeholder

Organization

3. Rosamond Municipal Advisory Council May 15, 2014 Stakeholder

Organization

4. High Desert Cyclists May 19, 2014 Stakeholder

Organization

5. Department of Water Resources May 30, 2014 Agency Staff

6. Los Angeles Department of Water and Power

(LADWP) June 3, 2014 Agency Staff

7. NCTC TAC Meeting July 21, 2014 Agency Staff

8. NCTC Board August 27, 2014 Agency Staff

9. Office of Supervisor Antonovich September 11, 2014 Agency Staff

10. Association of Rural Town Councils (ARTC) September 24, 2014 Stakeholder

Organization

11. Los Angeles County Coordination Meeting October 8, 2014 Agency Staff

12. Antelope Acres Town Council (Original) October 15, 2014 Stakeholder

Organization

13. Antelope Acres Town Council (Elected) October 15, 2014 Stakeholder

Organization

14. Fairmont Town Council October 16, 2014 Stakeholder

Organization

15. William R. Barnes, Property Owner October 21, 2014 Stakeholder

16. Oso (Neenach) Town Council October 23, 2014 Stakeholder

Organization

17. Historical Telephone Repeater Station November 5, 2014 Stakeholder

Organization

18. Jeff Zimmerman, Resident November 5, 2014 Stakeholder

19. Three Points / Liebre Mountain Town Council November 8, 2014 Stakeholder

Organization

20. Tejon Ranch December 9, 2014 Stakeholder

Organization

21. AVBOT Business Outlook Conference February 27, 2015 Event

22. Los Angeles County Air Show - (2-day event) March 21-22, 2015 Event

23. Office of Supervisor Antonovich April 7, 2015 Agency Staff

24. Antelope Valley Board of Trade (AVBOT) April 9, 2015 Stakeholder

Organization

Source: Arellano Associates, 2015.



Figure 56 Zone of Distribution



5.3 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION WITH PUBLIC AGENCIES

Numerous early coordination meetings occurred between Caltrans and resource agencies such as

USFWS, CDFW, and USACE. In general, the purpose of these meetings was to provide agency personnel

with the latest project design information, proposed approaches to survey protocol, impact analysis, and

to evaluate potential mitigation measure potential. The input from agencies was also helpful with regard

to all of these topics, especially design criteria, survey protocol, and impact analysis. The consultation is

divided by resource area and shown below.

5.3.1 Cultural Resource Coordination

Agency Form of Coordination Topic Date

Native American

Heritage Commission (NAHC)

NAHC

NAHC

Letter sent to CT from

NAHC

Letter sent by CT to

individuals referred by

NAHC

Follow-up phone calls

Sacred Lands

information

Sacred Lands follow-up

Same as above

April 28, 2014

May 1, 2014

November 3, 2014

5.3.2 Section 4(f) Coordination

Properties subject to the provisions of the requirements of Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of

Transportation Act are publicly owned parks and recreation areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges of

national, State, or local significance, and historic sites of national, State, or local significance. Please see

appendix B for more information relating to Section 4(f) resources. For Section 4(f), the following

agencies were requested for input about the potential Section 4(f) properties in the area:

- The US Forest Service,

- The CA State Parks Department

- CA Department of Water Resources

- Los Angeles County Department of Parks and Recreation

- Los Angeles Department of Water and Power

- The Mountain Recreation and Conservation Authority

- The Desert and Mountain Conservation Authority

- State Parks, Hungry Valley District

- State Parks, Tehachapi District



On July 7, 2014 there was a meeting with Caltrans, the US Forest Service, and Tejon Ranch to discuss the

Pacific Crest Trail. There were also various phone discussions and email correspondence regarding the

designated purpose, land ownership, significance of the resources within their jurisdiction and project

impacts on them. Coordination for historic properties are done under the Section 106 process.

5.3.3 Biological Resource Coordination

Throughout the project planning process early coordination meetings occurred between Caltrans and

resource agencies such as U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, CA Department of Fish and Wildlife, Army Corps

of Engineers, EPA and CA Regional Water Quality Control Boards. In general, the purpose of these

meetings was to provide agency personnel with the latest project design information, proposed

approaches to survey protocol, impact analysis, and to evaluate potential mitigation measures. Below is

a table summarizing the contact with these resource agencies.

Table 123: Biological Resource Agency Coordination Summary

Date Agency Personnel Involved Meeting

Type

Comments

11/6/2013 CDFW, RWQCB Memo Caltrans published the Notice of

Preparation with the State

Clearinghouse (SCH #2013111016).

11/13/2013 USFWS, EPA Memo Caltrans published the Notice of

Intent within the Office Federal

Register.

1/15/2014 CDFW Memo Caltrans received official

comments from CDFW in regard to

the Notice of Preparation.

1/22/2014 CDFW Email Caltrans biologist emailed project

details and potential studies

required.

2/28/2014 USFWS Email Caltrans biologist emailed project

description and proposed studies

to USFWS Ventura Office.

03/25/2014 CDFW, USFWS, RWQCB, EPA

Meeting Caltrans hosted an agency

coordination meeting to discuss

the project details and purpose

and need.

6/30/2014 USFWS Email Official Threatened and

Endangered Species List

downloaded from USFWS website.



7/16/2014 CDFW Email Confirmed study limits and need

for desert tortoise surveys.

7/28/2014 USFWS Email Caltrans biologist received email

correspondence from USFWS staff

assigned to the project, resulting in

moving forward with scheduled

biological surveys.

8/28/2014 CDFW In Person Caltrans biologist met with CDFW

to discuss surveys done up until

that point and the need for future

surveys.

12/16/2014 CDFW, USFWS, RWQCB, EPA

Meeting Caltrans hosted a cooperating/

participating agency meeting with

the regulatory agencies to discuss

project updates.

1/12/2015 CDFW Phone Caltrans biologist discussed with

CDFW the need for pronghorn

spotting surveys.

5/21/2015 CDFW Phone Caltrans biologist discussed survey

results with CDFW.

5/28/2015 USFWS Phone

Conference

Caltrans and USFWS held a

meeting with the Palm Springs

office, more project details were

presented and Ray Bransfield

became the USFWS staff assigned

to the project until further notice.

6/16/2015 CDFW, USACE, EPA

Meeting Agency coordination meeting

hosted by Caltrans to discuss study

findings and status.

3/9/2016 USFWS Email Caltrans biologist provided Ray

Bransfield with survey updates and

preliminary findings.

3/10/2016 USFWS Email Caltrans biologist provided Tara

Callaway, per Ray Bransfield

recommendation, on Bakersfield

cactus survey results to confirm

427 | P a g e

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY


presence/absence of species

adjacent to project limits.

6/1/2016 CDFW Meeting Meeting w/ CDFW personnel Betty

Courtney, Erinn Wilson, and Dan

Blankenship, to welcome Dan

Blankenship to D7 projects. Dan

Blankenship became the CDFW

staff person assigned to the

project until further notice. He

was briefly updated on the

project’s survey results.

7/19/2016

7/19/2016

USFWS

USACE

Email Updated Ray Bransfield on a draft

submittal date of October 2016 for

our letter for written concurrence.

Updated Crystal Huerta, the

USACE staff person assigned to the

project that we will submit for an

approved JD in September

2016. She informed us that she is

expected to be on maternity leave

and that Stephanie Hall will be the

point of contact at that time.

5.3.4 Air Quality Coordination

In December 2014, a PM Conformity Hot-Spot Analysis Project Summary Form (PM Form) was submitted

for review by the interagency consultation. The interagency consultation is comprised of federal (EPA,

FHWA, FTA), state (ARB, Caltrans), regional (AQMDs or APCD, SCAG), and sub-regional (County

Transportation Commissions) agencies and other stakeholders. The project was reviewed and discussed

in the December 2014 monthly meeting. The interagency consultation concurred in the meeting that

the project would not be of air quality concern for PM2.5 and PM10.

Since the December 2014 meeting, the project changed its scope for some alternatives to include,

among other features, acceleration and deceleration lanes to and from SR-138 at the interchange with I-

5. The PM Form was revised to reflect the changed scope and submitted for review and discussion in a

July 2015 monthly meeting. The interagency consultation reviewed and concurred that the project with

changed scope would not be of air quality concern for PM2.5 and PM10.

Documents

CHAPTER 5 | COMMENTS AND COORDINATION...CHAPTER 5 | COMMENTS AND COORDINATION ... Assignment MOU, FHWA has assigned and Caltrans has assumed FHWA responsibility for environmental review,